Summary
Trump plans to lift the Biden administration’s freeze on supplying 2,000-pound bombs to Israel and reverse sanctions against Israeli settlers.
Summary
Trump plans to lift the Biden administration’s freeze on supplying 2,000-pound bombs to Israel and reverse sanctions against Israeli settlers.
This is a fine subjective argument you’re making. You keep coming back to this with your opinion on responsibility and not addressing that this is your opinion on a subjective subject (how responsibility is divided between an actor and someone who has supported them). There’s lots of interesting moral philosophy about the subject.
What it isn’t is objective truth. No amount of arguing is going to change that. You might theoretically even change my opinion, but it’s never going to become an objective truth that justifies moderating someone saying “Biden supported genocide” as misinformation.
Again, not subjective. The ICC has charged Israel, not the United States, not Biden.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/11/israel-opt-netanyahu-gallant-and-al-masri-must-face-justice-at-the-icc-for-charges-of-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity/
If the US were to blame for the Genocide, the ICC would have charged Biden right alongside Netanyahu just like they charged Putin over Ukraine, they did not.
But, like I say, it doesn’t really matter as the ICC rulings have no enforcement. Would be nice!
JFC dude. The ICC is not the arbiter of people’s legitimate moral philosophy and you are not a judge at the Hague. You can’t export your moral (or moderation) judgement to the court system.
Philosophy doesn’t enter into it, this is about legal liability and the facts are right behind what I’m telling you. Quoted, cited facts.
I’m not asking you to LIKE it. But you have to accept the reality that only a very small fringe believes Biden is to blame for this.
You have this so backwards it actually makes my head hurt.
It is a shame you are a moderator in this community given your strange sense of when appealing to an authority for truth is acceptable and when it isn’t.
Like… sure the ICJ is necessary and great but who is to say they don’t believe the US and Biden are directly complicit they just know saying the whole truth gives them zero chance of winning? That is a very simple but reasonable hypothetical and I made it to point out the massive blindspot in your understanding of the world.
Biden absolutely is as directly morally culpable as if he had dropped the bombs himself, you don’t get to play games with escaping culpability when you get the job as president…
and just to be clear, fuck Trump
Again, morality and philosophy are subjective. Legally, which is objective, Biden is not responsible.
So we are only allowed to discuss responsibility in the context of a narrow legal definition… on a world news sub?
You are searching for a line between the black and white and you don’t realize you are in a sea of different shades of grey.
The question over whether Biden is responsible is inherently subjective and even if it wasn’t an authorities’ conclusion that Biden is or isn’t responsible for the Palestinian genocide is inherently subjective…and subject to interests that may influence and distort a picture of the truth.
Also, what would happen if the legal definition of responsibility was unethical and unjust and you knew it? Would you still moderate according to those rules even if they violated your core values?
The law is a record of political and human struggle, there is nothing about it that makes it somehow impervious to bias or corruption like (arguably) the study of pure math or logic is.
No, you can discuss anything you want, but you won’t be allowed to assert blatant falsehoods as true.
Same goes when I remove the arguments about Ukranians being Nazis or how they were the real aggressors after Russia invaded them or how the Uyghur genocide is all made up by Western powers to make China look bad.
Bullshit gets removed, repeated, unrepentent bullshit gets a temp ban. Repeated temp bans get longer and longer until the bullshit is excised.
What an example to choose. I.C.C. Won’t Investigate China’s Detention of Muslims
NO, IT ISN’T. The discussion was never about legal liability. You made that excuse! Whether Biden is responsible is a moral question, not a legal one. There’s whole fields of moral philosophy about these things. You can be responsible for simply not stopping a third party from doing something, let alone actively enabling them.
Even if that’s true, that doesn’t matter, and SUBJECTIVELY, I think you’re the one with a weird minority position (no responsibility for arming someone known to be dangerous). The whole point is that neither of these position is an objective truth, because they’re about moral belief. You’ve got an opinion, it could even be the majority opinion, but it’s an OPINION, because the whole question doesn’t have an objective answer.
I really don’t get how you think this is a legal question, or that the ICC would be the ultimate deciding body of what legitimate opinions people can hold about responsibility for immoral acts. It’s a baffling opinion, and I’d love to do this debate back and forth, but the resolution of our moral debate is irrelevant, because the real problem is that you’re moderating based on a subjective belief and for some reason unable to even recognize that moral responsibility is a subjective topic.
It absolutely is, you kept bringing up the subjective vs. objective argument.
The objective truth is the legal rulings from the ICC court cited above.
Your subjective notion of what’s “philosophically true” cannot be objectively proven one way or the other. That’s the very nature of philosophy.
I gave you the citations from Biden stating his reasoning, I gave you the ruling from the ICC. These are all the legal standings surrounding Biden’s support of Israel.
If you want the objective truth, you have it, quoted and sourced. If you choose to reject it, well, I can’t help you with that.
Holy fuck man, go talk to one of your other mods, because you’re not really not addressing this at all.
This was never a legal matter. YOU injected that to justify moderating a moral viewpoint. The original comments are in the modlog. They weren’t making a statement about law. I wasn’t making a statement about law. YOU are the one defining the only legitimate “responsibility” a human can hold being if they are charged with a crime.
Do you think China is not responsible for the genocide of the Uyghurs because the ICC isn’t charging them? Was Netanyahu not responsible for the genocide before the ICC case? Are only Netanyahu and Gallant responsible because they were the only ones charged? “What the court says is the only allowed truth” is such a broken viewpoint for a moderator to hold on a message board.
YES. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT. You moderated a subjective opinion as misinformation and then justified it with your own subjective opinion. Then insisted you were making an objective decision by pretending this was a conversation about the ICC. What the ICC thinks is irrelevant to the whole conversation. You can cite them as much as you want, but it was never the question being discussed. And like really trivially obviously so.
Again, not a moral viewpoint.
Objectively, by any and all legal definition, Israel is responsible for the genocide in Gaza NOT Biden.
Quoted, and cited. You can go on and on about how you “feel” diferently, but you can’t say that and ignore a legal ruling as being subjective.
Unless, and I’m open to the very real possibility at this point, that you don’t ACTUALLY know the definitions of “objective” and “subjective”.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
1: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
The ICC found Israel and Netanyahu responsible for the genocide in Gaza. Factually true. They did not charge Biden. Factually true. Cited above. This is the objective reality of the situation and comments accusing Biden of genocide will continue to be removed as misinformation.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective
3a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
4a(1) : peculiar to a particular individual
(2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
5 : lacking in reality or substance
“I don’t care what the ICC says! I feel different!”
That would be you. We’re done here, it’s like talking to a poorly informed wall.
TALK TO YOUR FELLOW MODERATORS. This is both a massive failure as a moderator and breaking your own civility rules. I’ve been a mod, it’s a hard job, but right now you’re totally failing at the role and need to step back and reevaluate what you’ve been doing.