No one is saying this is a genocide at the "hands of the Jews". Jews are not a monoculture, and while there are Jewish people involved in this genocide, this is clearly at the hands of the current state of Israel (and more specifically at the hands of the IDF).
Conflicts have rules, and Israel could absolutely have a conflict with Hamas (whom, it should be noted, I do not support) without eradicating the civilian population in Gaza.
There are plenty of military conflicts around the world. And arguably many war crimes committed by all parties. What the IDF is doing in Gaza is uniquely terrible, absolutely targets civilians, and much of the violence and harm perpetrated is wholly unrelated to defeating Hamas.
It has nothing to do with "white guilt" or fetishism. It's not a race thing at all.
It's a "my nation recently and currently systematically exploited people. I would like my nation to try to make those people whole" thing. It happens to be the case that many targets of exploitation were non-white, but the concern is the exploitation not the race of the exploited. We systematically exploited plenty of poor white people too, we should make them whole too.
Redlining in my city "ended" officially in 1968, but in practice it was probably another two decades before it really was removed from standard operation. And in my city, plenty of white people were considered undesirable and redlined. I guarantee you there are people directly impacted by this policy who are still alive, this isn't some far away past long since forgotten by time.
As an example, the city should be considering whether reduced interest rate loans, subsidized housing, rent freezes, or other benefits can be passed on to families directly impacted by redlining policies from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Just because it's been 40 years doesn't mean the city should just give up trying to make people whole.
That's not a generalization. That's a totally separate argument. Making someone whole for the loss of a phone does not require you to provide them housing (which is significantly more valuable than the phone was.) It probably means returning the phone -- and if you gained some money from the use of that phone, perhaps some portion of that as well.
Taking that example back to colonialism, it means probably returning stolen wealth and some portion of capital earned on the back of that stolen wealth.
Generalize this line of thought. "A thief stole an iphone and dropped it on my doorstep. I kept it, despite knowing it was stolen, because I did not ask the thief to steal it for me".
It's very silly on the small scale. It's no less silly on the large scale, you are simply more accustomed to the cultural understanding the colonialism is not something you have any responsibility for.
I've been to plenty of Food Not Bombs events where people are being fed and the prevailing attitude was, "If there are people needing to be fed, let them come and we'll feed them." The same folks were handing out harm reduction supplies.
These same folks went on to figure out the logistics of preparing food. So no, I don't think it's at all axiomatic that the people who disagree with nationalism are necessarily affluent in the slightest. In fact, I've found most solidarity with refugees and anti-nationalist movements in the working class. The overall community of folks I saw ranged across income brackets -- plenty of software engineers, tech folks, trades folks, unemployed folks...
I think that when people say, "They don't really mean it" or "their principles wouldn't stand up if it meant a disruption to their lives", they are not aware of just how much work folks are actively doing every day to live by those principles and invite people in.
You and I have very different experiences with police officers. Police Officers may walk by someone overdosing is hardly a claim that needs any evidence in my experience because it's so widely understood to be true.
Plenty of big thinkers out there think nations and citizenship are outmoded concepts, or they are concepts that provoke needless violence. They find their own nationalities an embarrassment.
You've demonstrated the problem with good ideas, and the vulnerabilities they have quite well. The parent poster said nothing of the sort, but you've:
* inserted a bunch of words into their mouth
* engaged in a gish-gallop
* insulted the person you are replying to
* accused the person you are replying to of lying
All of which are widely deployed techniques used to prevent good ideas from being heard, let alone from being adopted. It was probably unintentional, but it's pretty amazing how quickly you've made a case for why "good ideas" alone aren't sufficient by demonstrating all the ways savvy opponents can shut them down.
No, but they benefitted from the colonialism and fight efforts to return those benefits to the colonized. We're not talking about something that happened thousands of years ago here.
> Do people play video games to look at pretty scenery?
Yes.
> No most people are testing skills in video games
That's not mutually exclusive with playing for scenery.
Games, like all art, have different communities that enjoy them for different reasons. Some people do not want their skills tested at all by a game. Some people want the maximum skill testing. Some want to experience novel fantasy places, some people want to experience real places. Some people want to tell complex weaving narratives, some people want to optimize logistics.
A game like Flower is absolutely a game about looking at pretty scenery and not one about testing skill.
If the fidelity of the video is high enough, you could use SFM to build point clouds from the generated video frames and essentially do photogrammatry on the assets from a genie video.
You don't have to do it in real time, per se. I imagine a world in which the renderer and the world generation are decoupled. For example, you could descriptively articulate what you wanted to achieve and have it generate a world, quietly do some structure from motion (or just generate the models and textures), and those those as assets in a game engine for the actual moment to moment rendering.
You'd have some "please wait in this lobby space while we generate the universe" moments, but those are easy to hide with clever design.
Conflicts have rules, and Israel could absolutely have a conflict with Hamas (whom, it should be noted, I do not support) without eradicating the civilian population in Gaza.
There are plenty of military conflicts around the world. And arguably many war crimes committed by all parties. What the IDF is doing in Gaza is uniquely terrible, absolutely targets civilians, and much of the violence and harm perpetrated is wholly unrelated to defeating Hamas.