Young men are struggling badly, and almost no one seems to take it seriously. A lot of them want to man up - but the message they get from much of the media is to man down. I saw a Reddit thread asking who young boys could look up to as a role model, and the top answer was Aragorn. You literally have to turn to fictional characters to find someone broadly seen as decent.

They gravitate toward people like Andrew Tate (and Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Jocko Willink, David Goggins, etc.) because those are some of the only public voices telling them it’s okay to be a man - and to embrace masculine traits - without apology.

You’re moving the goalposts again.

This discussion isn’t about killing children - it’s about war crimes, specifically Hamas targeting Israeli civilians with indiscriminate rocket fire. That alone meets the definition under international law, and I’ve already explained why. You haven’t addressed it - you’ve just dodged, reframed, and shifted the subject every time.

At this point, it’s clear you’re not engaging with what I’m saying. You’re cycling through bad faith tactics - redefining terms, demanding irrelevant proof, personal attacks and pretending I haven’t answered you. If you can’t acknowledge even the most blatant example of a war crime, then you're not here to discuss - you're here to deny.

You're the one who asked for an example of a war crime, and when I gave one, you shifted the goalposts. Criticizing Hamas doesn't mean I'm pro-Israel. I can just as easily point to Israeli war crimes like shooting civilians and aid workers. Instead of engaging with the example I gave, you're dodging the substance and resorting to personal attacks and false binaries.

Last of Us. Fallout I didn't even bother with. I probably would've bailed on Breaking Bad as well if it wasn't for everyone around me telling that it'll get good eventually (it didn't)

What do you actually get out of being rude to strangers online for no reason? We’ve never even interacted before. You just show up in a space that’s meant to be about good vibes, and your first instinct is to insult someone - not just for being wrong, but even more for admitting it.

It's Silky Big Boy

We started with a simple question: has Hamas committed war crimes? I answered with one of the most straightforward examples - targeting civilians inside Israel with unguided rockets. Instead of engaging with that, you’ve dodged into historical grievances, vague accusations, and tried to redefine civilians out of existence. That’s not a discussion - it’s deflection.

Even if you believe Israel was illegitimately founded, that has zero bearing on whether it's lawful to intentionally attack civilians. Nothing in international law, Marxism, or basic ethics permits that. Squatting on someone’s land doesn’t make it legal to kill their children.

If your position requires denying the civilian status of an entire population and justifying war crimes as resistance, then you’re not debating in good faith - you’re rationalizing atrocities.

The more we are aware of the responsibility that falls on the party of the revolutionary class, the more resolutely must we oppose terrorism.

Lenin, 1906

You’re moving the goalposts. I was clearly talking about civilians inside Israel’s 1948 borders - people Hamas has indiscriminately targeted for years, including with rockets and the October 7th massacre. Shifting the focus to “settlers” is a red herring.

Even then, the claim that settlers aren’t civilians is legally false. Under international law, civilians are anyone not directly participating in hostilities. That includes settlers, however one feels about the legality of the settlements. Civilian protections don’t vanish based on where someone lives.

Targeting civilians - whether in Tel Aviv or an outpost - is a war crime. The right to resist doesn’t override the laws of war. Trying to justify indiscriminate violence by redefining who counts as a civilian isn’t just wrong - it’s morally bankrupt.

Wait till they find out about all the papers with scientific terms made up by humans

Saying "AI is dumb" is like saying "plants taste bad"

You're probably talking about our current Large Language Models.

You're misrepresenting international law pretty severely here. The UN Charter does support the right of peoples to self-determination, and yes, that principle has been reaffirmed in various General Assembly resolutions, especially in the context of decolonization and occupation. But nowhere in the Charter - or in any binding international legal document - does it say it's lawful to target civilians, including settlers, with indiscriminate weapons.

That claim usually stems from a misreading of UN General Assembly resolutions which acknowledged the right of occupied peoples to resist. But even those non-binding resolutions do not override the Geneva Conventions, which are binding and universally recognized. The Geneva Conventions make it crystal clear that civilians are protected from attack at all times, regardless of their location, nationality, or political status.

Launching unguided rockets into civilian areas is a textbook example of an indiscriminate attack, and it's a war crime under international humanitarian law. The right to resist occupation doesn’t mean you get to ignore the rules of war.

Choosing to filter out political content from your social media feed isn’t necessarily about denial or apathy. For many people, it's a conscious decision to preserve their mental clarity and avoid being constantly pulled into emotionally charged, tribal, or manipulative discourse. Being well-informed doesn’t require immersing yourself in an endless stream of outrage, nor does stepping back from that mean you’re turning a blind eye to anything.

There’s a difference between ignoring reality and choosing how and when to engage with it. Most of what passes for political content online isn’t a sober presentation of facts or ideas - it’s performance, manufactured outrage, and algorithm-driven noise. If someone wants to stay sane and focus on things they can actually influence in their immediate life, I don’t see that as sticking their head in the sand. I see it as setting healhy boundaries in an environment that’s often designed to provoke rather than inform.

People aren’t morally obligated to be constantly exposed to negativity just to prove they care. In fact, thoughtful action tends to come from those who can step back from the noise and think clearly, not from those who are perpetually consumed by it.

I agree. I’m getting pretty tired of your condescending tone. I’ve looked past your false accusation about me supposedly downvoting you, ignored the rude “explain or GTFO” remark, and even politely asked you to clarify what you were asking so I could give you a more helpful answer - but you just keep going with the same behavior.

You have a nice day.

It’s about as effective as talking about it on social media all day, every day. The people making real change are out in the real world doing concrete things - not just posting about it online. Shaming people for not wanting to be miserable 24/7 because of the constant firehose of bad news isn’t just unproductive - it’s counterproductive.

programming.dev##article.comment-node:has(div.comment-content:has(p:has-text(/Musk/i)))

Put that into your adblocker custom filters (assuming you're using a browser)

I just told you. I'm speaking of the human brain.

Wetware is a term drawn from the computer-related idea of hardware or software, but applied to biological life forms.

The prefix "wet" is a reference to the water found in living creatures. Wetware is used to describe the elements equivalent to hardware and software found in a person, especially the central nervous system (CNS) and the human mind.

Source

Paul Bloom has written an entire book arguing Against Empathy

I'm not sure I entirely agree with his thesis but it's not a completely outrageous idea. I often wish I could tone down my level of empathy as well.

I don't understand what you're asking.

I'm refering to the meat computer i.e. human brain.

You could be a brain in a vat - what you experience in that case would effectively be a simulation running on wetware instead of silica. But that still wouldn’t change the fact that what you’re experiencing is happening right now from your subjective point of view. Even if this were just a pre-recorded memory from someone else, it still feels like the present moment to you.

Everything you perceive could be smoke and mirrors, completely fake - but the one thing that remains undeniably true is that it feels like something, not nothing. Even a psychedelic trip, as bizarre or unreal as it may seem, is still just another appearance in consciousness. And for that to happen, your biological body needs to be alive. If you're dead, there’s nothing left that could have - or host - that experience.