While circumstantial, most of us I feel have enough information to form a conclusion.

I mean, fair enough, but there’s no reason/justification for tearing into the top commenter before at least hearing them out.

Only 7? So, does that mean you have an acceptable number of lynchings?

I mean agree or not (I personally don’t feel like I can make an informed conclusion here) but that’s clearly not what they’re saying. They’re arguing that these could just be suicides rather than lynchings.

I think I’m just about tired of bringing up leopards and faces every time the USS Lincoln comes up, so here’s one last time:

Leopards eating faces moment.

Okay that sounds shady (specifically the Indian medicine bit, everything else is frankly not a big deal), but not in a way that’s relevant to the contents of the video or the top comment. Again, ad hominem is a fallacy for a reason, or in other words: What’s the ulterior motive?

Pure ad hominem, and unsubstantiated ad hominem at that. The man in the video makes an argument and backs it up by evidence (and, you know, his decade of relevant professional experience). There’s straight up zero substance to anything you said (except the reprimand bit, but then you have to explain the contents of that reprimand and why they’re relevant here).

That isn’t what most people would consider a source.

From my long, long experience arguing with people on the internet, the words of a practicing, licensed professional with relevant experience absolutely do count as a source, at least enough to establish a baseline for debate. At this point the burden of (dis)proof is on the accuser to provide evidence that says otherwise.

What was provided is a YouTube video of an entertainer who livestreams.

Most intellectually dishonest thing I’ve read today. You know that the contents of the video are meant to be backed not by the words of “an entertainer who livestreams,” but by his education, over a decade of relevant professional experience and all the statistics and papers he keeps citing in the damn video.

Give me something peer reviewed, not a video of him spouting his platform.

Okay three things here: First, “spouting his platform” of going to therapy but with a disclaimer that might help some people get more out of it? Like, this isn’t exactly a bombshell, nor does he say “screw therapy pay me.” There’s no perverse incentive or anything of the sort here. Second, I’ve never ever seen anyone start off an internet argument with “give me something peer reviewed.” This isn’t an academic paper. If you want something peer reviewed, you’ll have to start off with something peer reviewed first. Third, by that standard all media for non-academics is a no-go, which is not how any internet argument I’ve ever seen went. If that’s the standard you want to set then sure, but you don’t get to enforce it on other people.

Downvotes aren’t an “I disagree button,” y’all. This person makes a well-articulated point with a credible source; if you don’t like it either explain why or move on.

That’s a pretty fucking sexist thing to say.

Complete non-sequitur. Just… what?

Joysticks as eyes isn’t something I wanted to see today.

Not liking her because she’s transgender vs not liking her because she’s a class traitor.

Well he’s attested in literary evidence with uncontested reliability, which makes him about as unverified as Julius Caesar.

Now find me one for the historicity of Harry Potter. “Evolution is just a theory”-ass moment.

Bombing cooperative US allies is, in general, a good thing, but bruh lmao.

And what the fuck do you think they put that Wikipedia link for?

I’m sorry you’re so upset about people correcting misinformation.

PS: There’s one useful thing about telling people that Jesus existed: We don’t have to suffer smug atheists being like “haha Jesus is fake I’m so smart.”

Just in case, the consensus among historians is that Jesus did exist.

Uh… hating Jews? If it was resistance, it’d have been subjected to something resembling a cost-benefit analysis, and the conclusion would’ve been “this won’t help us at all and will actually probably hurt us let’s not do it.” These people aren’t dumb; they can do and have done things that actually hurt Israel (the Intifadas come to mind here), so any amount of thought would’ve led them to the obvious conclusion that bombing school children isn’t likely to be one of those things (and also, you know, that bombing school children is bad and they shouldn’t do it). Now to be clear, I’m not saying these attacks aren’t resistance because they target civilians (counterexample to that heuristic), but that they’re not resistance because if they were they’d pointless and be really fucking dumb. Again these people aren’t dumb, so up to a margin of error they must be antisemitic instead.

You underestimate the dedication of the rich to fucking over everyone else. They’d just rethink their strategy and try again. Not to say it’s hopeless, but that the givesomefucks is being too optimistic about the fate of neoliberalism. Even if progressives become dominant in the blue side of Congress, there’s still value (if you’re evil and actively trying to impoverish people) in maintaining spoilers to deny them a majority.

I’ll admit that I don’t understand the inner workings of the Democratic Party, but I want to say: It’s not that neoliberals control the money because they run/ran the DNC, but that the DNC had money because it was controlled by neoliberals. This money ultimately comes from donors, who give it to neoliberals no matter what post those neoliberals currently hold. To a first approximation, the more progressive the party is, the less money it gets, with the difference going to neoliberals directly. The point being: The neoliberals’ political comes from their rich backers (and the media connections of those rich backers), not from their party posts, so while their power would be diminished by losing control of the party they’d be far from done for.

we acknowledge that the killing of civilians on October 7th and the heightened visibility of the genocide as an overreaction from Israel has helped their cause.

Yes to the latter half, no to the former. Frankly Israel is committing genocide out of principle (and to keep Netanyahu out of jail), not because they’re angry at the civilian deaths specifically. Even a “clean” October 7th would’ve drawn massive outrage from Israel and led to essentially what we’ve seen happen, because to Israelis the very fact of Palestinian resistance is offensive. Besides, in any case a significant fraction of Israeli civilian casualties is likely self-inflicted, so they’d have just pinned those on Hamas (as they did in real-life) and done their genocide anyway. “Commit war crimes if soldiers are taken prisoner” is literally Israeli doctrine, and arguably the current genocide is in large part the application of rhat doctrine on large scale, civilians or no civilians. What Israel absolutely doesn’t have is a “no first war crime” doctrine.

On the other hand, what a “clean” October 7th would’ve done is deny Israel international sympathy and create a real contrast between the genocidal IDF and their enemies, rather than muddying the waters by having both sides commit abhorrent war crimes (one orders of magnitude more than the other, obviously). It’s actually a massive missed opportunity in the PR war.

The only thing I am still waiting for is you naming me Palestinian terror attacks that you consider not being resistance, or in other words, motivated by antisemitism.

I did so already, but sure.