news
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today/ . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
view the rest of the comments
It's shifting focus away from the main issue at hand. Yes, in the future, I'll speak accurately about the attacks, but your point is purely academic when we're talking about the material conditions around a bombing.
The problem is that bad faith actors often attempt to discredit one's argument overall when they are not 100% accurate about the facts.
If I were making a formal statement in a professional setting, I'd want to be as accurate as possible, but on a forum post where the issue is one country bombing another, correcting someone on the nature of the bombings' targets isn't adding to the discussion in the same way.
I don't mean to attack you, but read the room.
I'm not offended - I just wonder where your priorities are.
You asked a question and I tried to explain why focusing on correcting details can derail a conversation when the consequences and response would likely be materially similar.
I mean I don't see an Iranian politician looking at the bombing of an enrichment site by the US and finding it much better than bombing a reactor. Do you?
And then you asked what is wrong with telling the truth on an issue, which I answered. I don't think you the person are dismissing the situation, but it's a common media tactic to use any inaccuracy as an excuse to dismiss an otherwise cogent point.
For example when describing war crimes as genocidal in another country, the media might refer to them as not technically being genocide according to international law. They are still war crimes, but if the writer of such an article made a retraction based on such a technicality, readers may doubt there were war crimes at all.
This is a consistent tactic used to pull attention away from important details.
If you're interested in learning more about this, so you can spot in the wild, I can link you to relevant articles and podcasts.
Okay, I have a hypothetical question for you:
If the US Congress moved to stop Trump from escalating conflict in Iran, should the bombing of enrichment sites be considered less of an act of war than bombing reactors?
The US bombed a sovereign nation, does that not constitute an act of war, regardless of the target?
They're being a bit ridiculous to be honest---it's clear you were just clarifying--but people here are (rightfully) a bit short-tempered with people who split hairs about such things. Usually those who do are trying to undermine the main point. But in this case, that doesn't seem like it was your intent.
This was the comment you corrected in regards to concerns about a potential world war. If you believe bombing nuclear sites is less of an escalation than bombing nuclear reactors, that's fine, but focusing on the inaccuracy didn't respond to the original concern and intended point - that killing a general is different from targeting three nuclear sites.
If the comment was corrected to read
Would their original point be any different?
That's why I described your response as splitting hairs. Instead of engaging with their point, you corrected a detail that didn't significantly change their concern about escalation of an international conflict.