smoothjazz

I do not believe that (although I could see how you would read it like that). I meant your insinuation that the well documented Zionist false flag was the equivalent of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but you admit that Israel did do the false flag.

I posted references down thread. People are free to read the wikipedia articles for themselves.

> A pattern that continued through their controlled demolition of the World Trade Towers, I'm sure.

You say this is a conspiracy theory, then literally admit that Israel did it.

They didn't "flee", there was a coordinated Zionist effort to move them to Israel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Magic_Carpet_(Yemen)

And the anti-Zionist riots were in response to the illegal occupation of Palestinian land:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Aden

None of this was even remotely on the scale of Nakba.

Jewish immigration to Israel is not similar at all to Nakba. It was voluntary, and that's extremely different from having your homeland invaded and ethnically cleansed.

It seems unthinkable that Intel would continue to invest in Israel. They should have never done it in the first place, and building a new fab would be at minimum a major PR disaster.

Who are "my ideological targets"?

"Wokeness" as defined by the people who use it is not a religion (and it's not extreme). It's just pejorative word for diversity used by people who believe in white supremacy.

I put it in quotes because it's the term a certain set of people use (not me). It had a historical meaning to the Black community but that's been usurped by reactionaries.

Why would anyone disagree with “wokeness”? I think that says a lot. Are the ultra-rich who complain about the “woke mind virus” hurt in any way by diversity? No, they are not.

I mean yes, it literally is. How can people make up their mind if they can’t even see it? You’re being very argumentative. If you don’t agree, that’s your decision, you don’t need to come into the thread and promote censorship.

Except they can’t since it’s censored. Are you adding anything to this conversation? Seems like you’re just complaining and being negative.

Well it got flagged and was never allowed to hit the front page so I’d say 12 is pretty good. There’s only one of you saying this.

You clearly don't speak for the people upvoting this post.

That’s a real shame. This is about a meme, I’d think it would be relevant. Even Paul Graham is speaking out against the genocide. It’s weird that we can’t discuss even tech stories about it here.

Edit: well now this post is flagged. This is not healthy for the community.

Looks like it’s already been filtered from the front page. It as more likes than this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39420385

> A person ought to believe they can do great things.

I think there's pressure on us to think this, but I find that the older I get the happier I am moving away from this idea. I've accomplished a lot in my life and at the end of the day it doesn't bring me satisfaction. What brings me satisfaction is being able to sit quietly with peace of mind and be content with just being.

The desire to do "great things" is paired with an existential anxiety that I don't think is healthy. And not to be political, but often "great things" mean accomplishments that don't correctly model externalities like environmental damage and human exploitation.

Whatever they're doing is super benign compared to the propaganda I'm exposed to day in and day out as a US citizen with nearly every media outlet working to influence me either commercially or jingoistically. A single media platform with a different point of view is healthy, especially when it will host content the other platforms censor.

Social networking hasn't influenced my point of view, but it has allowed me to access voices that I've always wanted to hear from, there was just no way to get to them before.

I'm talking about a larger timescale than an individual product or company. Bronze age -> iron age -> industrial revolution -> information age...

There's going to be some noise when you zoom in but I firmly believe that human technology marches forward over time.

Whatever the platform's intent, the end result is that I get to see content that is censored on other platforms. If China's foreign policy goal is to help the Palestinians, then they're aligned with my views.

TikTok has been a very valuable tool for learning about Palestinians during Israel's attack on Gaza and the West Bank. It seems to be the only social network that's not being heavily censored in favor of Israel. I think it's never been more relevant than right now.

You assume that requiring a phone number increases quality instead of decreases it. I see it as a filter to keep thoughtful people off the platform.

This rings true because as someone without a religious background, I definitely feel the opposite: that progress is inevitable and the people who are "in charge" while it progresses are a commodity. I also find the "deification" of leaders (like say Steve Jobs) to be damaging to culture, leading to arrogance, political fighting and empire building.

Trying to have a good life and be good to those around you, while riding on the one-way track of technological progress seems like a better strategy.

Doesn't this go against the comic in the post that claims that it's easy to block what you don't want to see? Also that it's an open network? Why not just let everyone in if the moderation tools are good?

I definitely would never give my phone number to a social network.