This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

SilentStorms, in Macron Blames Video Games For Riots, Calls On Parents To Help

Maybe if the police stopped playing so many violent video games, they would stop shooting kids.


Truth is they didn’t need this kid to be killed to riot and burn school, town hall, shop, …

It happened every weekend during «  gilet jaune » manifestation.

doctortofu, in Macron Blames Video Games For Riots, Calls On Parents To Help
doctortofu avatar

I'm old enough to remember the peaceful times before video games - there were no wars, no protests, and people were all nice to each other. And then, Pong was released and everything changed...


"It started with small incidents. Kids tossing rocks at passing cars and trying to bounce the rocks off them.

Then Pacman came out, and they started running around the supermarkets gobbling up the fruit and bumping all the people. That got annoying quick, but it still wasn't that bad.

...then Street Fighter came out. Dear God what a year that was"

postscarce, in Aspartame sweetener used in Diet Coke a possible carcinogen, WHO’s cancer research agency to say - sources

The IARC ruling [...] is intended to assess whether something is a potential hazard or not [... and] does not take into account how much of a product a person can safely consume.

From the article. ^^^

This is something people frequently overlook. A substance may be a "possible carcinogen" and also completely benign at levels any sane person would consume.

Bananas also contain carcinogenic material, but eating bananas is still very much a healthy thing to do. There's a reason banana equivalent dose is a concept, and "the dose makes the poison" is a common refrain in toxicology.

genoxidedev1 avatar

Yes this is the type of "research" my mother would show me when I was younger to get me to stop drinking soft drinks like coke or energy drinks.

ope avatar

Gary Taubes talks about this in his slew of books about sugar, the historical studies that caused the craze about artificial sweeteners being linked to cancer in the 80's all were done with massive doses in rats so large that a human being physically could not consume an equivalent dose. I still think it's worth considering that there is some mechanism at play between these things and cancer, but like you say, the volume is a very important variable.


Yeah, when it comes to researches on this kind of topics it is best to take it with a grain of salt until there are more studies and the majority of them agree. It's very prone to error. On top of p-value not being that meaningful a concept as some believe, there's nothing to indicate the result isn't statistically manipulated to give certain results by means like p-hacking.

52fighters avatar

To add to this, this agency only looks at hazard and not risk, giving us almost meaningless information about how we should regulate different substances we commonly come into contact. The agency exists mostly to feed bogus lawsuits to law firms. You can read more about this here.

WheeGeetheCat, in Zuck Says the Elon Cage Match Isn't Happening avatar

You heard the men. If we want a billionaire cage match we’re going to have to get off our asses and lock them in the cage ourselves.


One bright spot about living in the post-apocalyptic hellscape we're trending towards is that there's a pretty good chance that your local warlord will decide that capturing former billionaires and making them fight to the death is a fun way to bring everyone together.

livus avatar

"You know the law. Two men enter, one man leaves!"

BJHanssen, in Sweden charges Greta Thunberg for blockading oil port avatar

The purpose and function of the police and the courts is the protection of capital from the people. Some cases illustrate this more clearly than others. This is one of them.


Turns out that in their demands on Sweden to change the way they apply the law when it comes to PKK demonstations, what Turkey is doing wrong is making it a quid pro quo for approving NATO membership rather than just helping the Swedish upper classes get richer.

Clearly freedom of speech CAN be traded in Sweden, as long as its for cold hard cash.


I could demonstrate to you That every single bank robbery That in every single case practically The cost of the police was more than The actual money that the robbers took from the bank Does that mean, 'Oh, you see There’s really no economic interest involved, then They’re not protecting the banks The police are just doing this ‘cause they’re on a A power trip or they’re macho, or they’re control freaks That’s why they do it’ No, of course, it’s an economic… Of course, they’re defending the banks Of course, because if they didn’t stop that bank robbery Regardless of the cost, this could jeopardize The entire banking system You see, there are people who believe That the function of the police Is to fight crime, and that’s not true The function of the police is social control And protection of property…


Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army. You know what I mean?


Let’s make some bacon.

Silverseren, (edited ) in Award ceremony suspended after writer compares Gaza to Nazi-era Jewish ghettos

The hypocrisy of the Heinrich Böll Foundation (and the German government in general) is incredible.

Here you have a Jewish person who is a journalist and a renowned political thinker who was being given the award for being someone who "reports on power games and totalitarian tendencies as well as civil disobedience and the love of freedom".

They 100% have the position, right, and accuracy to be comparing the state of Gaza currently to the WWII ghettos.

Edit: Something else to note. The Foundation made this statement ""But Masha Gessen's views should not be honored with a prize intended to commemorate the Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt".

And I can't help but laugh. Do they not know Arendt's past stance on Israel? She was literally one of the first world-renowned Jewish anti-Zionists.

She literally compared the Likud party to the Nazis!

forty2, avatar

I literally just finished reading this piece, and it provides so much context to this ridiculousness


1948, too. Lived context.


This is the real, actual cancel culture, and usual suspects are silent, as expected.


Hannah Arendt would be punished as antisemite in today Germany. What a cesspool that country is becoming once again.


That is incredible


What’s an extreme ideology without revisionist history?


Do they not know Arendt’s past stance on Israel?

Partly jewish, German citizen here. I’ll answer this for you. No, they don’t. They never worked out their own history. It’s all just teathre.


Someone had commented that, in today’s Germany, she would not have received the award which is named after her own name.

krayj, (edited ) in Eating meat creates four times more greenhouse gases than being vegan, landmark study finds

This crucially important caveat they snuck in there:

“Prof Scarborough said: “Cherry-picking data on high-impact, plant-based food or low-impact meat can obscure the clear relationship between animal-based foods and the environment.”

…which is an interesting way of saying that lines get blurry depending on the type of meat diet people had and/or the quantity vs the type of plant-based diet people had.

Takeaway from the article shouldn’t be meat=bad and vegan=good - the takeaway should be that meat can be an environmentally responsible part of a reasonable diet if done right and that it’s also possible for vegan diets to be more environmentally irresponsible.


Yeah I barely eat beef anymore, mostly chicken. I don't want to give up on eating animals, especially since I'm trying to get into shape right now and it would be hard to eat healthy and get enough protein to build up muscle mass.


I keep half a dozen of my own chickens in my backyard…which means about half my daily protein intake comes from eggs (which is a great source, btw). And my chickens free-range in my backyard and largely take care of and feed themselves (supplemented with chicken feed but they get most of their daily intake from the bugs/plants in the yard). I still do eat meat almost daily, but the quantities are a lot less than what I was doing a decade ago, and beef is less than a once-a-week thing for me. Like you, I’m trying to get back in shape and watching macronutrients (like protein) very carefully and trying to hit certain daily minimum numbers.


The best-treated slaves are still slaves at the end of the day.


Do whatever you want but just so you know Arnold Schwarzenegger is a vegetarian now. It’s much less difficult than people think to get enough protein to bulk up without meat unless you’re doing hardcore body building. Beans and rice is a high protein dinner. Peanut butter is amazing for bulking.


I know and if everything goes as planned soon my dietary needs will change that this is a thing I will greatly reconsider. As of now I still have some fat reserves so I try to avoid too many carbs or fat. My theory is that I'm still capable to gain muscles while maintaining a small deficit as I have enough reserves to feed my muscles before my body decides it'd rather burn protein for energy. At the end of summer I'll go back to focus on weight loss until I'm forced to bulk because I won't be as much outside for weather and daylight reasons. I'll rethink my relationship with animal products at those points.


80% vegan. He still eats fish, eggs and chicken.…


80% plant-based diet. Veganism is an ethical stance, not a trendy diet.


Agreed. Almost Vegan isn’t Vegan but it’s something.


The real takeaway should be that the Independent is complete garbage

thehatfox, avatar

Yes, I think it’s vital to avoid thinking in absolutes over carbon footprints if we are to make real progress. We can argue endlessly over the “necessity” of consuming meat, but that becomes a distraction. Many things are not “necessary”, but most people are not realistically going to live in caves wearing carbon neutral hair shirts.

We need to continue increasing transparency on the impact of different animal products, so consumers can make informed choices. While also accepting they may not always be perfect.


The only way to stop people from eating meat is to make a vegan food that tastes better than a bacon cheeseburger.

Semi-Hemi-Demigod avatar

They haven't gotten the cheese yet but impossible whoppers are a damn good burger and lately they've been cheaper than regular ones

HubertManne avatar

yes. when you look at charts and such. Someone who exclusively ate meat for some reason who moved to chicken would have a greater impact than someone who exclusively ate chicken and went vegan. Sheep did not show up so well either so im guessing ruminants in general are not going to be so hot. Anyway I would encourage folk to keep it in mind and do what they can. I realize go vegan results in many. Well eff it all then but man just avoiding beef is big impact.

Nepenthe avatar

Do you remember a source for that info? Or at least suggestions? I'm interested to read into it, but I'm not really sure what to even google for that

jennwiththesea, avatar
Nepenthe avatar

This and the article seem like a great breakdown, thank you very much. I would have guessed chocolate would be somewhere in the middle, and I've never really thought about cheese in this context at all. I was surprised to see both of them so high up there.

This would suggest my sweet tooth is my biggest problem, at least, since beef is too expensive to be a common occurrence anyway


Someone who exclusively ate meat for some reason who moved to chicken would have a greater impact than someone who exclusively ate chicken and went vegan.

But that first person could have an even bigger environmental impact by becoming Vegan instead of only eating chicken.


You’d have a bigger impact by convincing 30% of the population to only have chicken, vs convincing 15% to go vegan.


Sure, and if we could only do one, we should choose accordingly. We can do both, simultanously. Exactly like how we don’t have to choose between eating less meat and driving less cars.


Or an even bigger impact by having fewer children.

CantSt0pPoppin, avatar

This is true, however, not realistic in some parts of the world. For instance, in the United States, Republicans have waged a war on bodily autonomy, which includes the Roe v. Wade ruling and states creating departments to hunt down citizens who go out of state to have abortions. There are also countries where sex education is not prohibited. So, take these things into consideration while thinking about potential solutions. That being said, you are right, and you can do something about it by voting, if you are able to, wherever you live.

HubertManne avatar

yes but if you actually convince someone who eats just chicken to go vegan it will have less of an effect if you actually convince a big red meat eater to limit to chicken.


Watch as I solve this trolley problem with the Ole dual track drifting solution. They should all go vegan. You should, too.

HubertManne avatar

you convinced me. don't try something because its just not good enough. stay the course. good convincing.


Thank you for helping me to convince everyone else just how pathetic you sound.


I ate a double cheeseburger for dinner and it was better than any vegetable I’ve ever eaten.

CantSt0pPoppin, avatar

Did you peel the lettuce off and slather some extra bacon on it lol? It’s not like you have to go out and eat moss off a tree. It’s more about just taking maybe one day a week to consider vegetarian options. That’s all it takes to help out. No one is saying don’t eat anything that casts a shadow.


I eat a ton of vegetables man. I can cook delicious vegetables are extremely low on calories, so that’s an easy win.

I just literally did that night and I thought it was a funny moment

CantSt0pPoppin, avatar

I use to eat nothing but meat, it was really gross. I would go months without eating veggies or fruits. I started slowly trying impossible burgers then I started eating more veggies and now I can’t stop. I worked in food for so many years and cooked all kinds of meat now the smell makes me sick. I have to force my self to eat meat because of some health conditions however I eat much less and feel better than I once did. I guess its about balance and finding out what works for you but sometimes you get into a rut and don’t think too much about what you are doing to your body until its too late!

CantSt0pPoppin, avatar

Name calling derails conversations faster than drifting trains. Put yourself in their shoes and maybe just agree to disagree.


So nice to read a sensible comment in a sea of crazy talk.


That’s both absolutely true and a massive distraction from the point. An environmentally friendly diet that includes meat is going to involve sustainable hunting not factory farming. In comparison an environmentally friendly vegan diet is staples of meat replacements and not trying to get fancy with it. It’s shit like beans instead of meat, tofu and tempeh when you feel fancy. It means rejecting substitutes that are too environmentally costly such as agave nectar as a sweetener (you should probably use beet or cane based sweetener instead).

So in short eat vegan like a poor vegan not like a rich person who thinks veganism is trendy


If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.


Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.

Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

Skyler, in Australia's 'retirement age' just became 67. So why are the French so upset about working until 64?
Skyler avatar

Is this a legitimate question? Seriously?

It's funny that we never see headlines like "The rich already have lots of money. So why are they so upset about proposed tax increases?"


“Why are the rich so upset about paying a living wage?”

ivanafterall avatar

Switzerland's wealth tax is only 0.3 - 0.5 percent. So why are U.S. billionaires so upset over 0.0 percent?

Hairyblue, (edited ) in ‘A dangerous step backwards’: outrage at supreme court’s LGBTQ+ rights ruling
Hairyblue avatar

Republicans, the right, and a lot of religious people want the LGBTQ community back in the closet.

Stop voting for Repuplicans, they don't believe in our democracy or rights for workers, minorities, women, or the LGBTQ community.


There's no obligation to do business with anyone in free market economy. The verdict is obvious - coercion isn't acceptable solution as it infringes on fundamental freedom of citizens


There is nothing coercive about an LGBTQ+ person wanting a cake.

samwise avatar

This is such a bad take it’s painful.


Takes like this are so bad that there should be a counter to the 'boost' option for them.


Sounds like someone upset that segregation got overturned in the 60's.

EnglishMobster avatar

How do you feel about doing business with people that have a different skin color, perchance?

FaceDeer avatar

The basic principle is reasonable, but it leads directly to allowing businesses to go back to a "no blacks" policy. So it's one of those basic principles that just doesn't work in the real world in its pure form and needs to bend for the sake of a functional society.


The alternative is that business can refuse anyone except black people. Which is racism as well.

FaceDeer avatar

No, the alternative is to not put racial conditions on your customers. I have no idea how you interpreted my position to be "well we've got to be racist against someone!"


but it leads directly to allowing businesses to go back to a "no blacks" policy.

If you read the ruling they make it clear that this remains illegal.

ProdSlash avatar

Right up until the next court case brought by a restaurant owned by a member of the Christian Identity church.

FfaerieOxide avatar

Discrimination against protected classes isn't a fundamental freedom.

People who would propagate anti-queer hate in society should be coerced because fuck them.


Yeah it's the tolerance paradox where if you tolerate everything you tolerate nothing.

FfaerieOxide avatar

No paradox. Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a moral precept.


The “tolerance paradox” is a handy tool with which to justify violence by those on both sides. If I’m just fighting intolerance, then my actions are justified. It’s a common rally cry used by authoritarians to stamp out diversity and democracy. To really hammer the point home, the Nazis were the first to employ it. By blaming their issues on the “intolerance” of foreign states, they justified a global war. It is obviously the inspiration for Popper’s 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Russia is currently using this fallacy to justify the war in Ukraine, claiming that the West is “intolerant” of Russia, and they need to defend themselves against this intolerance.

FfaerieOxide avatar

Nazis are bad.

People determining who they are and what consensual relationships they want to enter without being oppressed for it is good.

Hope this cleared things up for you.

Hairyblue avatar

I think any business who will refuse to serve the LGBTQ community should be forced to put up a sign on their door of business that says "No LGBTQ allowed". Put this on their websites and commercials too.

That way the Public knows what to expect. They are open to the public so we have a right to know.

luthis, in Vegan influencer Zhanna Samsonova 'dies of starvation' after decade of only eating raw fruit and vegetables

Saw this story. Title should be ‘Idiot dies of starvation after not consuming vital nutrients.’

I’ve been vegan for years, I respect vegans who take their diet seriously, but this woman didn’t. She took ideology seriously.

You can’t just eat anything and expect to be ok.


Yikes, pretty mean to call her an idiot. Seems like a high probability she was suffering from an eating disorder and/or other mental health issues. Most people don’t starve themselves to death out of stupidity.

TipRing avatar

It looks like her diet didn't contain any protein at all. It's honestly shocking she made it 10 years.

Entropywins avatar

Not to brag but I pretty much eat anything and get by...


The title should be “Influencer dies after contracting cholera-like disease and refusing medical help.”

neuromancer, avatar


  • Loading...
  • CaptainAniki,


  • Loading...
  • brakebreaker101,



    Veganism isn’t a diet. Veganism is an ideology that excludes animal exploitation from human life. Veganism is about animal rights, not diet or even food. People who are vegan eat a plant based diet because that aligns with the ideology. There are many plant based diets, some of which are not adequate like eating nothing but fruit, but the diets are not vegan.

    vlad76, avatar

    The term you’re looking for is “mental illness”.


    veganism (noun): the practice of eating only food not derived from animals and typically of avoiding the use of other animal products.


    Oh wow you pulled out a dictionary instead of being intellectually curious and learning from what people who are actually vegan believe. Good job


    Trusting a dictonary over a random stranger on the internet, lol. What a fool.

    He probalby also thinks the earth is round!


    Your opinions aren’t facts.

    originalucifer, avatar

    yeah, its not the fall from the building that kills you, its the impact. totally unrelated.


    This might be the stupidest comment ive seen on this website.


    yeah, its not the fall from the building that kills you, its the impact. totally unrelated.

    It is the impact that kills you. That is proven by the fact that people fall from buildings and don’t die.

    And the person never statet that it is unrelated. The opposite really.

    You are not that sharp aren’t you? Otherwise why aren’t you able to understand this tiny bit of text correctly?

    neuromancer, avatar


  • Loading...
  • czech,
    czech avatar

    that was made worse by her restrictive diet.

    Would it have killed her if:

    One friend told "Ms Samsonova's idle starvation was causing her to melt before our eyes, but she believed everything was fine.

    Seems similar to dying in a car crash because you didn't wear seat-belt. By not taking basic precautions her body wasn't prepared to survive something that many others can. To be fair- the survival rate for untreated cholera is only around 40% I just don't think her starting point of "slow starvation" was doing her any favors.

    brothershamus avatar

    Are you suggesting a Murdoch-owned press might have printed something misleading?!?!

    rockSlayer, in France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone, spy on people

    Phones should be turned off or left at home anyways when protesting. Here are my 10 commandments for engaging in protests:

    1: never bring your wallet/ID. If you need to buy things, bring cash

    2: either shut off your phone or leave it with your wallet. Recording police violence can be useful, in that case get the aclu app, a burner phone with the app, or an action camera

    3: never speak to police under any circumstance

    4: you can beat the charge but you can’t beat the ride

    5: bring water, it’s more useful than for just drinking

    6: bring hats, sunglasses, etc to avoid being identified by the state if it gets violent

    7: wear good running shoes

    8: know your rights, both federal and local, and when to use them

    9: take out any contact lenses in case police use tear gas

    10: stay aware of your surroundings; listen to picket line enforcers/community organizers

    tal avatar

    either shut off your phone or leave it with your wallet

    I think that the issue here is that it only takes one person carrying a vulnerable phone with a microphone to allow monitoring a given group. Your phone may be off, but...


    That’s true, but it’s better for the vulnerable phone to not be yours


    what does 4 mean?

    zeppo, avatar

    Even if you’re innocent or the charge is BS, you still have to go through the process of being arrested, transported, booked, held in jail and posting bail.


    Even if you are in the right and court will release you...that could be in 3 or 4 days time after you have spent time under arrest and had the "ride" to holding cell.


    The ride is the trip to jail.

    Beating the charge means you are found not guilty in court.


    You can always be found not guilty in court, but if the police want to take you in, it’s better to just go willingly


    You should definitely have a phone. Anyone who can afford one of those cheap phones where you just pay for minutes should have one. Get one that can take pictures/videos (I think most of them do nowadays?).

    If you see police doing something illegal, the more cameras around the better. The ability to immediately upload that evidence to someone else or a safe cloud service is also important so they can’t delete it and you can’t lose it by the taking the device.

    Touching_Grass, (edited )

    Protests in modern times should change. Protests should turn city blocks into crazy multiday parties that are able to evade police and attract more and more people the longer it goes on.

    Bring hot tubs and beer. Have bands playing good music. Offer free massages to people who can’t protest but are walking home from work and are kind of on the fence until you get your greasy protest hands on them and give em a beer and a little pat pat

    If you stop a modern man, hand them a beer with back massage, that man will likely die for you. Good luck to any cops trying to shut you down when you got the 11th floor of the wall street stick market coming to your rally


    Are you planning on protesting anytime soon? When and where. Youve sold it to me.


    never bring your ... ID

    IRC illegal in France and plenty of other EU countries. That alone will cause you issues, even if they can't pin anything else on you.

    never speak to police under any circumstance

    Miranda rights aren't universal. For example, in the UK authorities may draw adverse inferences based on silence.


    I mean, in several states within the US it’s illegal to protest without a permit. It’s better to act with your safety in mind than it is to obey oppressive laws.


    Hahaha. Citizen, you may only express discontent we approve of you expressing.


    No, you don’t need to have an ID:…/F11601


    Yep but they can keep you or bring you un, because you cant make a proof of your identity. Its not entirely wrong

    Mr_Figtree avatar

    These are all fine in the US, but in other countries not carrying proof of identity can get you into some trouble, as can refusing to talk to the police. Know your local laws.


    Fair enough, good points. That’s why it all about knowing your laws! Either way though, getting a charge for “obstruction of justice” is better than incriminating yourself.


    It is what people say about Germany but my teacher says that she didn’t have an id card for 10 years and only got one because of tour to a place organised by her university required to show id card to be put in their touring list. As far as her experience goes, no authority ever put her in trouble for not carrying an ID.

    The same way that the police never put me in trouble for mu id card not having my address.

    About not talking to the police, it is actually a right you have in Germany despite popular gossip saying otherwise.

    The problem of not talking to the police is that the police can create reasons to put you in troubles for not doing so, as the police have the privilege of authority, power and legal/public trust.

    But when questioned by the police, if it is worth, you have the right to have e lawer to answer it for you or to guide you on your answer according to laws.

    derin, avatar

    Again, depends on the country and the laws. Growing up in Turkey, the first question my parents would ask me when I was heading out would be: “Do you have your ID on you?”

    Getting caught without ID meant the police had any excuse they needed to bring you in and do whatever they wanted with you. While under normal conditions that isn’t a problem, you never know when things are about to go awry and lead you into an altercation from which you can’t return.

    E.g. a misunderstanding between you and a cop in a dark alley, matching the description of a perp they’re looking for while looking suspicious, saying something you shouldn’t while in a place you shouldn’t be, etc.

    Keep your ID on you, avoid loud/aggressive crowds, and don’t talk to cops if you don’t have to. Wise advice for those living in tumultuous regions of the world.


    I’d say it’s likely the same in Germany. Just depends on the circumstances.


    If you’re protesting, just expect to be arrested. Police already have reasons to want to arrest you, so talking to police only really gives them material to prosecute you when you are taken into custody. Talking to them may reduce their temptation to arrest you, but it certainly increases the chances they can charge you.

    Don’t talk to the police, full stop. Doesn’t matter if you’re completely innocent, DONT TALK TO THEM. This is good advice generally but essential if you are protesting.

    kokesh, in Australia's 'retirement age' just became 67. So why are the French so upset about working until 64? avatar

    You work work work and when you finally can enjoy your life, you’re old. Brilliant system.


    With your permission…

    You work work work to barely afford necessities like shelter and food and when you finally can enjoy your life, you’re old. Brilliant system.


    You work work work to barely afford necessities like shelter and food and when you finally can enjoy your life, you’re old and still can't afford shit. Brilliant system.


    They’re so right, if only I had worked more 🥴


    My mum has just been diagnosed with terminal cancer aged 61. I know people lose their parents much earlier, but I am furious that she worked so hard her entire life just to die before she reached retirement.


    My condolences. Hugs. I hope she's not in pain D:

    ivanafterall avatar

    You load sixteen tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. St. Peter, don't you call me, 'cuz I can't go. I owe my soul to the company store.

    artisanrox, in Macron Blames Video Games For Riots, Calls On Parents To Help
    artisanrox avatar

    He's spouting USA Republican party talking points now, yikes. This guy really jumped the shark this year.


    Can't agree more. Macron has shown bad political stances around Russia issues, with this debunked gaming thing he's officially delusional.


    Oh please. We've had the "Killerspiel-Debatte" around 2007 in Germany already.

    Rentlar, (edited ) in WATCH: Hamas blocks IDF fuel delivery to Gaza's Shifa Hospital

    The “evidence” of edit: stealing fuel provided by IDF is some phone conversation where someone says Hamas will take the hospital’s fuel reserves.

    The official can be heard in the recorded call saying that Hamas has fuel reserves of over half a million liters under the hospital and that if further fuel was brought into the Strip, Hamas would take it as well.

    Then the evidence of blocking fuel is again a representative speaking on what Abu Rish says…

    “Abu Rish doesn’t want this amount [of fuel]. We are trying to convince him.”

    Such claims about Hamas are certainly plausible, but I call into question their authenticity, because it’s possible these calls are fabrications by the IDF if they aren’t independently verified. The information war occuring alongside the actual war makes it difficult for me to read through Hamas and IDF bullshit.

    Edit: clarified my point a little. Yes they can say they delivered fuel to the hospital with a video that’s fine. It’s the “they’re stealing it” part I’m not entirely convinced.


    There's literally pictures of the fuel tho?


    My mistake, the part I’m calling into question is the “Hamas is stealing the fuel”, I didn’t word my comment properly.


    The evidence is they fucking filmed themselves dropping the fuel off.

    mlg, avatar

    No geotag, just some nvd footage. Could also be easily fabricated or repurposed footage.

    When the hospital did run out of fuel earlier, they did confirm thay Israel hadn’t responded to any requests then, so it’s possible something did change since that time, but it’s also equally likely nothing new actually developed.

    HeartyBeast avatar

    To be honest, I'd probably wait for proper verification of the footage by someone like the BBC. And if I were running an information war campaign, I would absolutely fill those cans with water and film myself delivering them. The footage isn't great evidence.

    FuglyDuck, avatar

    Or step back, turn the cameras off, and then get the fuel again.

    All the video shows is that it was there at a time and place. It doesn’t show what happened after the fact,


    There’s no footage to verify here, the evidence is just an audio recording. The only way to get verification is to find out who is the health officiaal on that line and contact them.

    HeartyBeast avatar

    The linked story has footage, no?


    It’s just soldier carrying fuel. The issue here isn’t that IDF lie about fuel delivery, the issue is israel say Hamas blocking the delivery while Hamas deny it, and only sound clip are provided which is super easy to fake. So calling the health official on the end of the line will provide insight about the issue.


    Not to mention it was just 300 liters, the hospital uses from 8 to 12 thousand liters a day.

    Speaking to Al Jazeera, Abu Salmiya said: “Israeli officials reached out to me twice about providing the hospital with fuel: once to offer 2,000 litres [440 gallons] and then another to offer 300 litres [66 gallons]. Keep in mind the hospital needs from 8,000 [1,760 gallons] to 12,000 litres [2,640 gallons] per day.


    I mean, if you knew it would probably be stolen would you send it lots or enough to see what happens?

    If accurate, a small delivery was the right choice


    Someone already replied to that person showing them the math and

    Grain of salt on whether Israel actually did it or not. But if they did, that is actually a good amount. It keeps the essentials of the hospital going for 1-5 days (depends how it is broken down, how many ICU beds are full, etc). But it isn’t enough fuel to make them a target for Hamas.

    Also: Storing fuel is hard. You COULD leave the fuel tanker in the parking lot but considering that is likely to catch a stray bullet/artillery shell…

    And, from the shitty perspective: it keeps said hospitals on a tight leash. Because they can last maybe one day before they have to acquiesce to whatever the IDF wants in exchange for the humanitarian aid.


    If there is one thing this conflict has taught us, it is the power of state funded media.

    Al Jazeera have been putting in work. They are historically one of the best “view points” for the never ending hell in the middle east, but it is also worth remembering that they are funded by Qatar and were pretty much the first to accuse the IDF of the hospital bombing a few weeks back (that they most likely didn’t do… as opposed to the ones last week that they probably did…).

    The BBC demonstrated during King Chuck’s coronation that they are 100% willing to toe the party line. So take it with a grain of salt

    What we should be keeping an eye out for are the trustworthy OSINT outlets

    HeartyBeast avatar

    The BBC demonstrated during King Chuck’s coronation that they are 100% willing to toe the party line

    The BBC is imperfect - but BBC Verify does excellent work analysing and verifying disputed footage - I'm impressed with their work.

    I'm not sure what you think the "party line" is in this case - the BBC has been covering the current action in Gaza robustly with their foreign correspondents. How they covered the investiture of the head of state, doesn't really tell you mucgh about their coverage of Israel-Palestine.


    They are good until they aren’t. Up until a month or two ago, I would have gone to bat for Al Jazeera as the closest thing you can get to an “unbiased” source on the never ending invasions of the Middle East. But right from the start of this round of Israel vs Palestine, they have very strongly been showing their side as state funded media. I still think they are incredibly valuable, but now as an alternate source to try to make sense of this mess rather than as a “reliable” source, if that makes sense.

    And the BBC has already demonstrated how quickly they will bend the knee to whatever the British government wants, “when it matters”.

    Am I saying you should assume they are liars? No. But I would lean more toward the outlets that aren’t state affiliated for something so intrinsically tied to global politics and relations.

    HeartyBeast avatar

    And the BBC has already demonstrated how quickly they will bend the knee to whatever the British government wants, “when it matters”.

    Can you give an example of an investigative story where they have 'bended their knee?' are you talking about the coverage of the coronation? Overall 62% of the UK population still support the idea of Monarchy


    Overall 62% of the UK population still support the idea of Monarchy

    So they should appease the userbase rather than tell the truth? how the fuck is that an argument?

    HeartyBeast avatar

    It’s not an argument. I was asking for an example where the BBC had ‘bended the knee’ to the UK government, and was suggesting that the coverage of the Coronation was a bad example.


    It REALLY isn’t worth arguing with the Royalist crowd.

    Like, I’ll dick around with a tankie or a CCP shill. But the Royalists are just rabid in a way that isn’t even fun. Probably a side effect of having one of the most detested Brits of the past few decades (and that is saying A LOT) as a King and having him now defend and protect the Royal Nonce at every step.

    HeartyBeast avatar

    It’s certainly worth talking about the merits of the monarchy, but that’s not the issue here. I was asking about the extent to which the BBC’s monarchy coverage had anything to do with its ability to verify footage coming from the IDF. In my opinion they are unrelated.


    Dropping off enough fuel to run the hospital for half an hour? Who cares? It was a PR stunt that would have made no difference. 300 liters is a pittance, an insult, a photo op, a lie to make suckers who can’t conceptualize volume think they made an effort to help. 300 liters is less than 80 gallons. This would be enough diesel to run a generator for one RV at full capacity for about 3 days, not a hospital with a ton of lights and computers, a ventilation system and a bunch of kids on life support. They sent enough fuel for one family to go glamping for a weekend.


    Don’t run all the lights and computers? Only the barebones essentials. There is math somewhere else in the thread, you should go read it. Some is better than nothing especially in terms of life support.


    There is math somewhere else in the thread, you should go read it

    wow, someone did the math, all is settled. Hurrah! We did it, we solved the case on the internet.


    If you’re talking about the hospital bed math, then that comment can be completely ignored. It’s some random dude on the internet who googled how much electricity an ICU bed uses, and how much electricity some generator they found generates per hour per unit of fuel. That’s literally it.

    Hospitals are complex systems that require a ton of power to run. Others who have experience in operations have said it would power minimum operations for about 30m.

    If Israel wanted to demonstrate that the donated fuel was stolen, they could have had footage of people hopping out of a truck and loading up the fuel. If it just disappeared into the hospital and they think it was just added to the reserves they think are under the hospital, then their “proof” isn’t worth anything in this case.


    They could have given nothing, 30 min of power is better than no power. . Seriously I don’t like how Israel treats the Palestinians but being angry they offered some fuel is pretty fucking stupid. Also don’t you find it strange Hamas isn’t using their smuggling routes for the people in any way? Iran and other support them but they can’t get fuel into hospitals? Shit, they brag about having tunnels everywhere use one to help people.


    Look, if you have 50 starving families and you give them a Subway foot long roast beef sandwich, you shouldn’t be patting yourself on the back because it’s better than nothing and some dude on the internet asks Google and finds out that they get 8 calories each, which is enough for 30 seconds of metabolic activity, which is better than nothing.

    And I am not addressing the morality of Hamas operational decisions or the veracity of their claims in any way. I suspect that the majority of their resources are occupied (no pun intended) with combat operations and are unavailable for civilian resupply efforts.

    But the immorality of Hamas’ operations (if it is such) is not a justification for immorality on Israel’s part, except insofar as it has an operational impact on Israeli forces. Israel cannot say they are capable of supplying basic aid (or allowing the international community to do so) but the fact that Hamas is choosing not to themselves give up their food and fuel reserves justifies prevention of supply. I don’t know of any moral framework that would permit that.

    You initiate an operation that you know will significantly disrupt civilian infrastructure including critical supplies. You know that the enemy organization you’re supposed to be concentrating your efforts against will be hoarding supplies to continue operations during lockdown. Therefore you know, before the first plane takes off, that you either need to take responsibility to maintain or create a supply line, or you’re doing what Israel is currently being accused of doing, which is starving out the civilian population indiscriminately. You can’t simply say “Someone else should do it” and have a morally defensible position, especially if your actions brought those conditions about.


    Yes, donating one sandwich is still better than nothing . The fuck are you on? I don’t feel like responding to the rest.


    A billionaire donating a single sandwich for millions is “better than nothing” but if that’s good enough for you in a massive humanitarian crisis you’re a self obsessed loser who cares more about making themselves feel good than actually doing something meaningfully useful.

    I bet you flip quarters at homeless people and skip home thinking you did something today.


    I never called it a good thing just better than nothing. Keep exaggerating to make it seem worse. Fuck just judge this situation based on what it is, instead of making dumb comparisons.


    Phoney phone calls are a part of Israeli propaganda machine’s modus operandi. That and just straight up lying. Free Palestine, F*** Zionism.


    Its you who is straight up lyong brah

    FoundTheVegan, in Emotional outburst on live TV from Gaza over death of reporter encapsulates collective grief
    FoundTheVegan avatar

    It's easy to take an enlightened centerist approach here saying things like "both sides do awful things" and "everyone should stop". And while to a point that this is true, there has a history of revenge repesials going back devades. But that really ignores the vast power imblance between Israel and the strip.

    From basic utilities to free movement on roads to kicking Palestinians out of their homes in favor of Israeli settlers. It's a small easy thing to relax in your chair and say everyone is wrong, but this conflict can end when Isreal stops their oppression. Not providing clean water and bombing medical infrastructure is genocide all by itself. Gaza is an open air prison where movement is restricted. It's high minded arrogant nonsense to say Gaza should focus on their own country when Isreal is literally bombing their water wells.

    elouboub avatar

    Both sides do awful things. Everyone should stop.

    But let's be honest here, the area didn't belong to the zionists for a really long time. The international community forced Palestinians off of their land and for a good 70 years Palestinians they have suffered. Zionists should not have been given the means to invade the Palestinians.

    Eikichi, avatar



    this conflict can end when Isreal stops their oppression

    It can end when hamas surrenders.

    Not providing clean water and bombing medical infrastructure is genocide all by itself.

    It wasn’t a problem before October 7th. Maybe hamas should’ve done something about preventing such a situation, to build water purification facilities etc. Also maybe not build war infrastructure under medical infrastructure.

    It’s high minded arrogant nonsense to say Gaza should focus on their own country when Isreal is literally bombing their water wells.

    It’s low minded arrogant nonsense to say that Israel should not react to attacks of terrorists who vowed to not stop attacks until they destroy Israel with it’s 9 million population.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • tacticalgear
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • cubers
  • tester
  • osvaldo12
  • InstantRegret
  • DreamBathrooms
  • kavyap
  • everett
  • ethstaker
  • HellsKitchen
  • Durango
  • Leos
  • mdbf
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • khanakhh
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cisconetworking
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • relationshipadvice
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines