this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
236 points (96.5% liked)

MeanwhileOnGrad

1384 readers
9 users here now

"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"

Welcome to MoG!


Meanwhile On Grad


Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!


What is a Tankie?


Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.

(caution of biased source)


Basic Rules:

Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.

Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.

Apologia(Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.

Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.

Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.

Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.

You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This comment was in response to someone expressing regret about joining .ml if I recall correctly

Edit: I'm convinced all this guy does is camp out in front of his computer and wait for an excuse to abuse what itty bitty power he has.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] goat 3 points 2 months ago (13 children)

Please be aware that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, meaning that they don't have a strict militia, and they often disguise themselves as civilians. So long as Hamas continues to hide in civilian infrastructure, legally, the IDF can continue these attacks.

The UN has told Hamas to stop this for decades, but it's fallen on deaf ears and is likely to continue.

Likewise, where is your evidence of the 150k figure? Isn't the figure 38-40k?

[–] Atomic -3 points 2 months ago (12 children)

Estimations of indirect deaths varies of course since they are more difficult.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext

The 150k includes these indirect deaths. Deaths from starvation, trampling, disease and sickness as a result of the war.

[–] goat 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

Not peer-reviewed, not relevant.

Correspondence: Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed.

Don't use anything non-peer-reviewed as evidence. It's disingenuous.

[–] Atomic -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We will not have any evidence until after the war is over and bodies can start being dug up from under the demolished buildings and infrastructure.

If you look at their wording they make it clear it's not "implausible" to believe the current toll including starvation etc is up towards or above 180'000.

[–] goat 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Likewise the toll can be less than what it is currently. Your point has zero evidence, so stop saying that it's 180k. It's disingenuous.

Our only evidence is from the Hamas-run ministry, which says 40k. However, it's unclear whether or not they include their own forces as civilians, or even how accurate it is, considering they regularly make mistakes.

[–] Atomic 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Gaza had an estimated population of about 2 million people.

We know that 35% of the buildings in Gaza is severely damaged or destroyed. Very little aid is reaching their target, hospitals are destroyed.

There is nothing disingenuous about me agreeing with them that it's plausible that an estimated number of deaths as a result from the war is up towards 180 thousand.

[–] goat 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But it's not based on any evidence.

[–] Atomic 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It is based on evidence.

Evidence that very little aid is reaching Gaza. Evidence that clean water is difficult to come by. Evidence that 35% of their builds are severely damaged or destroyed. Evidence from previous wars and how the population were affected by similar conditions.

With those points of data. Qualified people can make estimations of what they think the number of dead might look like.

But there is no evidence to prove the estimation is correct right until after the war is over.

What you want to say, is that there's no proof. Which is correct. There is no proof for the figure. Because again. It's an estimation. There is a war. We can't go dig up the bodies just yet

[–] goat 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You're exactly like an antivaxxer. Ain't nothing going to convince you to stop using bullshit.

Too far gone for sure

"Hey, there's no evidence of that number."

"Oh yeah. Well I'm still going to use it because it makes me feel good."

[–] Atomic 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yikes, you really want to strawman this as hard as you can.

Not sure what you're quoting but it ain't me.

There is evidence to draw the conclusion that an estimate of 180k dead is plausible. Everything from the length of the war, the documented lack of aid reaching the region, the documented destruction of medical facilities to the The documented destruction of habital areas.

I understand fully that there are ~40k deaths reported from within. I think it's entierly plausible that the real number of deaths as an indirect cause of the war are far higher than that. Personally I think it's more than plausible. I think it's likely. But I'll stick with plausible just for you.

[–] goat 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

you are straw-manning though, like actually. You don't have evidence of 180k, absolutely nothing.

[–] Atomic 0 points 2 months ago

No. I'm really not. And as I've explained so many times. There are evidence available to make that conclusion plausible.

The word you are looking for is proof. But you not understanding the difference between evidence and proof is another issue.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)