> America might have still lost, so there's a claim to a Pyrrhic victory.
Might have??
America has spent - at the lowest possible estimate - at least 8 trillion dollars on the "war on terror". Probably more like 20-something. Trillion.
That's enough money to have transitioned to entirely clean energy, housed every homeless American, and solved world hunger. With change.
The DOW is over 50 thousand though, I guess, and the Epstein class are richer than ever.
> for example, the current regime seeming to throw Israel to the wolves in order to cover its own military blunders.
Uh, what?
Israel threw themselves to the wolves, if 'wolves' are what we're calling the consequences of doing ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and genocide.
America have been the single greatest force by far holding the 'wolves' at bay. If they stop because the 'wolves' are threatening their own stability, that's not really "throwing Israel" anywhere.
> children got killed because their school was used as a ground base to fire rockets from.
I don't really know how to talk to people who think killing children - by the tens of thousands - is ever justified, but maybe this will help you: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t-mMt3c3ngQ
More than 14,500 children were killed by Israel in that period.
14,500 / 154 = more than 94 children per resolution. Seems fair.
How many children did "Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Russia, China combined" kill in this period, I hear you whatabout: Highest reasonable estimates are ~5,000–10,000 children.
... So, no. I don't think it's unfair.
Now let's compare how many sanctions have been inflicted on each country above. If you measure by number of sanctioned individuals/entities, a rough ranking would be:
1: Russia.
2: Iran.
3: North Korea.
4: Sudan.
5: China.
6: Israel.
... So if you're trying to hint that the whole world is only against genocide because they're antisemitic, the facts you're referring to don't really seem to back you up. At all.
The Irish president's sister kidnapped and abused.
Assassinating negotiation teams and scientists.
Murders of whole families who dared to speak out to the world.
Running over a teenager with their hands zip-tied behind their backs with Caterpillars®.
The paramedic massacre in Rafah.
The hundreds of journalists. The tens of thousands of children. The doctors raped to death.
The people who never get mentioned in these lists of atrocities, buried in mass graves with their children, hands tied.
The people dying from n-order effects, slowly, painfully, barely noticed or counted.
...
And little/no sanctions from our civilized Western democracies. (Except on the people calling it out, who can't use a credit card or bank any more, or even receive donations.)
We are far worse than useless. The stain is set for all time.
A reminder for any Americans reading this: 98.15% of 2024 voters chose a Presidential candidate that supported the above.
We are here in many ways as a direct result of the last admin, particularly the way they threatened tech companies. This moved tech companies to feel emboldened to go all-in on Trump. Don't think I'm justifying that - it's just what happened, in basically the tech bros own words.
The Dems then proceeded to lose to Trump, despite being extremely well funded themselves. They accomplished this through a spectacular series of "own goals": arming genocide, vetoing ceasefires, forcing deeply unpopular candidates, allowing a certain attempted insurrectionist rapist run out the clock on justice [0], awful elitist messaging on the economy, keeping the Epstein files under wraps, etc.
The red side is worse than the blue side, so the blue side demand immunity from criticism. The red side sets everything on fire, on purpose. The blue side prevents progressives from real change. The cycle rachets and repeats. This has been going on for decades, at the cost of millions of lives and trillions of dollars - but people who point it out get accused of saying both sides are the same.
0 - "That Biden was a placeholder president – a stop gap to streamline an aspiring American autocracy into an entrenched one – was obvious by mid-2021. The first, rather large clue was the lack of urgency toward sedition." - https://sarahkendzior.substack.com/p/behold-a-pale-horse-rac...
> it's clear the author thinks his' is the moral stance
If you don't think your moral stance is the correct one - then why aren't you changing your moral stance? Why do you have one at all?
It's ok to have strong opinions on morality, and it's cool to live by them, and good to talk about them. I don't happen to completely agree with the author, but I can respect a belief in one's own considered opinion, and the right to express it. No one is being harmed by the author's article.
For example, I have a "strong" moral opinion, which makes many people angry to hear: I don't vote for politicians who arm and enable genocide.
In America, that makes me weird, or worse. I still believe I'm right, and I still talk about it. I firmly believe that cutting out anyone who collaborates on genocide and vetoes ceasefires is the only morally correct move, and happy to talk about why I think that's not just justified and rational but also simply your bare minimum duty as a human being.
That doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that other people feel differently, or that I can't understand where they're coming from with some level of empathy. But it also doesn't mean I have to hang around them. I generally choose not to - genocide enablers squick me out.
The author even explicitly acknowledged that other people have different moral views:
> I will not change my morals or ethics to suit someone else, nor do I expect other people to change theirs.
Along with self awareness and reasonable doubt:
> Does that make me unreasonable? Maybe?
On top of which, the whole diatribe is presented as a "random musing", rather than a demand for you to think differently.
Apologies for reading your comment in an antagonistic way, but, I couldn't find a better way to read it. If you're saying that it was just about adding context, okay, but I think there's a way to do that with out painting this a "smaller story" that will be forgotten about "tomorrow or next week".
A guy is dying from cancer and unable to get treated because a $400m company stole his unique $200k life-long Lego collection ... That is a smaller story than America's murderous healthcare system - but until the guy's situation is corrected, no amount of media coverage is too little.
America's media failures also are a critical piece of the picture, but as written your comment reads as if painting this as a forgettable little story about Star Wars lego:
>This headline about star wars lego? Less so.
... I'm glad to hear that wasn't how you meant it.
Sure. Any one person's story will be smaller than the whole picture - is that your whole point? What are you proposing - that we ignore stories like this until we fix healthcare?
Because if that's not what you're saying, why bring it up as if one cancer patient's life and property rights aren't important (even beyond tomorrow and next week)?
> 'yet another person merked by our predatory healthcare system' is a headline that will be relevant again, with new participants, tomorrow, or next week.
And so will corporate theft, and bureaucratic Kafkaesque nightmares, and police corruption, etc. There's no lack of overlapping evil to look at here.
Individual stories are still important and relevant, and ignoring them to look at the bigger picture is like ignoring water to look at the ocean.
If we weren't heavily complicit in rapidly accelerating fascism, as a direct and immediate outcome of those stories and others like them, then I might agree.
But we are, and I don't. Ignoring those stories as deliberate policy so HNers like yourself can remain impervious to the consequences of our actions is dangerously short sighted.
We're far past the point where the company bigwigs should have fixed this. It's not like they don't know.
> The bigger story is an elderly man needing to sell his toys to pay for cancer treatment.
Idk. Straight up corporate theft of $200k, backed up by the cops, is a more visceral story than 'yet another person merked by our predatory healthcare system'.
> We could give all people free cancer treatment, but defense contractors need money.
Yes, and that's important - but there are unique aspects to this story which shouldn't be overshadowed by the higher priority problem for the nation. The immediate problem for this elderly cancer patient isn't going to be solved by Americans suddenly realising that they have people power - but getting his Legos back might save his life.