The Collapse Of American Judgment

from the false-equivalencies dept

Western allies are abandoning American leadership while we stand by, morally bankrupt and intellectually spent, watching children starve in Gaza with weapons we provided to a corrupt authoritarian we’re too cowardly to constrain. Meanwhile, the same brilliant minds who assured us Trump was a master negotiator who’d never actually implement his policies are already preparing their next round of false equivalencies.

The progression is as predictable as it is pathetic. These are the people who convinced themselves that a man who bankrupted casinos—businesses literally designed to print money—would somehow master the complexities of global economics. Who looked at his fraud convictions, his scam university, his shuttered charity, and saw business acumen. Who insisted his tariff threats were just “negotiating tactics” and that “adults in the room” would contain his worst impulses.

They were wrong about everything. Catastrophically, obviously wrong. Trump is implementing exactly the policies he promised, wreaking exactly the havoc any sentient observer could have predicted. He’s using Air Force One to hawk his golf courses while conducting trade wars that are already cratering American competitiveness. He’s hawking cryptocurrency from the Oval Office while our allies move to recognize Palestinian statehood without us.

But rather than acknowledge their staggering failure of judgment, these same voices are already preparing their next dodge. If democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani becomes New York’s mayor, they’ll suddenly discover they can’t tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans. A young progressive who wants to tax rich people will become morally equivalent to a president who tried to overturn an election.

This is the epistemic closure in action—the same intellectual cowardice that led them to normalize Trump’s corruption because the alternative was admitting they’d been played by a obvious con man. Now they’ll normalize whatever comes next rather than confront the reality that their worldview produces nothing but disasters.

Let me be clear: I’m no socialist. The twentieth century showed us that centralized economic planning leads to misery. But regulated markets aren’t socialism. Progressive taxation isn’t Marxism. And a young mayor who believes in public services isn’t equivalent to a corrupt president who sells access for meme coins.

The refusal to make these basic distinctions isn’t sophistication—it’s moral and intellectual bankruptcy. It’s the same false equivalence that treats Netanyahu’s documented corruption as equivalent to criticism of his policies, that equates starving children with geopolitical complexity, that transforms every clear moral choice into an impossible both-sides dilemma.

Meanwhile, our allies watch in horror as America becomes the unreliable partner, the unstable democracy, the country that can’t maintain consistent policies from one administration to the next. Britain threatens to recognize Palestinian statehood. European leaders distance themselves from our erratic leadership. We’re becoming what we once opposed: the rogue state that can’t be trusted.

How do we lecture other countries about democracy when we elect someone who tried to overturn an election? How do we lead on human rights when we enable war crimes? How do we promote international law when we ignore it whenever convenient?

The answer is simple: we can’t. And our enemies are taking notes.

The price of American epistemic collapse isn’t just domestic chaos—it’s the collapse of the international order we spent decades building. When the world’s supposed moral leader becomes a corrupt autocracy run by grifters and defended by intellectual cowards, the whole system breaks down.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And the people who told you Trump would moderate, who assured you his corruption was competence, who promised his authoritarianism was strategy, were wrong about everything.

Don’t let them gaslight you about what comes next.

Remember what’s real.

Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Collapse Of American Judgment”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
95 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
David says:

"I am no socialist"

Let me be clear: I’m no socialist. The twentieth century showed us that centralized economic planning leads to misery.

Wow, have you no clue what socialism is about. Centrally planned econonies were a hallmark of communist countries, often based on naïve pseudoscience that happens to have become the hallmark of Trump, RFKj and some other Conservative-in-name-only hucksters.

Socialism, in contrast, is about providing those with security who are not in control of the means of production. Economically this tends to indeed be the antithesis of the U.S. “starve the poor to bloat the rich” approach that tries replacing a progressive taxation scheme (given an endrun around by the ultrarich anyway) with consumption taxes (such as tariffs) that hit those hardest who cannot afford it. Socialism also tends to communalize education, turning it into a generally available resource rather than a luxury.

Universal healthcare (now terminally sabotaged) also tends to be a tenet of socialism as seen in numerous first-world countries (whether under government calling itself socialist or not) excluding the U.S. Eastern bloc socialism/communism is quite a different piece of system (arguably as much of a misnomer as the “Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave”) than the same moniker as various Western governments apply to themselves.

Why the U.S. would rather adapt the language of Russia and China than of its allies is less mysterious now that the U.S. is adopting their policies and views about individual freedom and human rights.

ed2718 (profile) says:

Re:

Centralized economic can work very well. Consider Wal-Mart. They don’t just let every store order whatever they want, they have a huge central office that handles ordering and logistics for the whole company. That gives them the scale to give horrible deals to vendors and the ability to spend a lot more money deciding what the optimal product mix is. They even have options so stores can stock some regionally appropriate things, albeit with central supervision.

Even the Soviet Union had a well designed central planning system that sure looked like it would work well. They had a small problem when they discovered that they couldn’t actually build the networked computers they needed to make it work, but other than that it was a great plan.

The big trouble with central planning is that it takes a lot of technology to make it work. We’ve only had this technology for a short time. It came too late to help the Soviet Union, but China seems to be doing pretty well with it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

We see this stupid ‘but Walmart!’ argument from Soviet Apologists. They neglect the sheer goddamn megalomania as a difference. There are miles of difference between “we can get this more efficiently through central purchasing through the market” and “actually what we need is EVERYTHING to be under our control”. The latter is the bastard child of megalomania and an obsessive sense of order.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Centralized economic can work very well. Consider Wal-Mart.

I suppose it’s reasonable enough to call what they do “central planning”, but it seems quite different from a country’s government doing that across their entire economy. When Wal-Mart’s planning “fails” me, I walk across the street to some competitor—without even really considering it a failure or thinking much about it at all.

If they make too many mistakes, they might go out of business like countless competitors before them, and for most of us that’d be a minor inconvenience. Whereas when central planning failed in the Soviet Union, millions of people died. We’ve yet to see any country implement that type of planning very well; China’s mixed market economy is quite different (like, the government did make Shenzen a “special economic zone”, but most of the innovation found there is “organic”—not based on government-suggested ideas).

Teka says:

Re:

Socialism and Communism were used as bogeymen, ending up tied together so much that MAGA spits out insane statements like calling middle-of-the-road progressives “socialist commie nazi marxists” without a trace of irony. This was a very successful play by the very capitalists and leaders in the west that saw the varied and many uprisings of populations unhappy at being ground down slowly by crushing poverty and suffering in the factories and mills and etc. They decided they didn’t want to be dragged out into the dark one snowy evening to be hacked to pieces in the icey street.

So it became US (good, noble, white, performatively christian) versus THEM (evil yellow bastards and scheming ruskies who are all godless atheist devils) and the actions of brutal revolutionary regimes, who are rarely much interested in all those promises they shouted in the bars and at the hangings, were used to blacken the almost entirely unrelated socioeconomic reforms that were written in the X-year plans but got permenantly rain delayed on account of it being more fun to be authoritarian dictators and lieutenants of same inztead.

tl:dr: repeating the much attacked idea that socialism has never been proven a failure because it’s never really been tried, etc.

Heart of Dawn (profile) says:

And there is plenty of blame to go around. I know leftists who wouldn’t vote for Harris because she didn’t condemn the genocide in Gaza, despite the admonition that Trump would be (and has proven to be) so much worse.

It’s one thing to be steadfast ideologically, but you have to work with the tools that you have within the current state of reality to make that happen. Progress isn’t instant, automatic, or inevitable. It takes time, effort, and working with others even when you don’t agree with them on everything.

And this will always be the case. Fascism is as easy as blaming some out group for all the problems. Combating it takes looking at the issues raised, seeing what the real issue is, and working in a the ways to can to address them- from community actions to getting politicians to step up and take part.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Progress isn’t instant, automatic, or inevitable. It takes time, effort, and working with others even when you don’t agree with them on everything.

And that’s going to be doubly true when this era of American fascism ends, no matter when that happens. (That said: Republicans and MAGA adherents can be ignored if they want to “reach across the aisle”. You can’t expect solutions from the people who want the problems.)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

“And the people who told you Trump would moderate, who assured you his corruption was competence, who promised his authoritarianism was strategy, were wrong about everything.”

Those of us who observed that he was born into an organized crime family and was trained from birth to be a sociopath were right.

Those of us who noted that his intellect was severely deficient and that his only education was in mob tactics were right.

Those of us who said that he was utterly devoid of any conscience or responsibility, and that his only concern in any situation would always be himself were right.

Those of us who warned that he would kill us all if he felt that it somehow advantaged him or boosted his ego were right.

We are watching, in slow motion, the torture and murder of a 250-year-old nation of 300 million people, the execution of democracy, and the extinction of justice.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

And it’s all because Jeri Ryan took on the role of Seven of Nine.

…what, you think I’m insane? Okay, I’ll connect the dominoes for you.

Star Trek: Voyager needed a ratings boost, so in 1997, they added the character Seven of Nine and cast Jeri Ryan in the role. Her frequent separations from her then-husband Jack Ryan led to them divorcing in 1999. In 2004, Jack Ryan became the Republican nominee for an open Senate seat in Illinois, but during his campaign, details about his sex life came to light thanks to the details of his divorce proceedings becoming public knowledge, and none of it made him look good. Ryan dropped out of the race and the GOP couldn’t find a good enough replacement before the election; the victory in that race went to Barack Obama, who used that win to catapult himself onto the national stage, and he eventually won the presidency in 2008. During Obama’s first campaign, Donald Trump gave rise to “birtherism”⁠—the unproven and ridiculous-ass theory (driven mostly by racism) that Obama wasn’t born on the island of Hawaii, which would make Obama ineligible for the presidency. In 2011, Obama (among others) mocked Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which incensed Trump to no end. Once Obama won his second term, Trump became more determined to get back at the Black man who mocked him⁠—and in 2015, he announced his candidacy for the presidency. Between his keen ability to manipulate idiots into thinking he’s the best thing since sliced bread, the GOP’s inability to keep its base from giving in to the baser instincts (e.g., glorifying TRASH thinking/rhetoric) thanks to the GOP voting base being TRASH-holes who were still angry about Obama winning the presidency, and the Democrats being…well, the Democrats, Trump was able to eke out an electoral victory and win the presidency. His first term was a bunch of bullshit with no real focus other than “make Trump happy”, and that was mostly because Trump really wasn’t prepared to win the election. (I still believe he would’ve preferred to lose because he could’ve made far more money off his grievances with the election and such.) Trump lost in 2020 based mostly on his response to COVID, but also because people were fed up with his bullshit. He won again in 2024 because the Democrats, being…well, the Democrats, found a way to shoot themselves in the foot over and over and over while Trump turned anger over the COVID response (that he partially oversaw!) into anger towards Democrats and “the woke” (🙄) for whatever imagined grievances that Republicans felt needed to be addressed. Now we live under the thumb of a narcissistic bigot who is also a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, and the willing puppet of Vladimir Putin.

And it’s all because Jeri Ryan took on the role of Seven of Nine.

Ain’t that some shit?

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Wow, so ironic that a person trying to attack someone else for the words they use doesn’t understand the concept that word usage and meaning can change over time. Nobody serious thinks Stephen is being ableist by using that word. If you have to dig up Victorian laws to find fault, you should keep digging and not come back.

The first sentence of your goddamn citation: “An idiot, in modern use, is a stupid or foolish person.”

You are an idiot, in modern use.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

That “you’re not really woke!” bullshit ain’t gonna work on me, son.

I would ask that you not force words down my throat that didn’t first come from it, to use your own wording, hypocrite. I attacked one thing you said for the hypocrisy of it, which you immediately doubled down on (so typical when defending bigotry), I never attacked you on any basis at all, and I certainly never came close to implying what you claim I did.

Try that right wing bullshit somewhere else.

Every accusation a confession.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I attacked one thing you said for the hypocrisy of it, which you immediately doubled down on (so typical when defending bigotry)

You attacked Stephen on an intentional misunderstanding over an obsolete meaning that Stephen obviously didn’t intend. There’s no hypocrisy except that you’re pretending you get to police other peoples words when no serious person considers it a slur.

Words usage changes meaning over time. Gay used to mean happy then it was a slur and now its claimed by the gay community. Get over it.

Every accusation a confession.

Exactly. You made the first accusation. You made the first confession. You’re an idiot, again, in the modern sense.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

TIL: Pointing out the obvious is making an accusation.

If you have to link to an article that both proves your argument wrong in the first sentence, but also relies on an obsolete meaning of a word most people do not associate with it, you’re not pointing out the obvious. You’re fishing for a reason to attack someone over something benign.

Also, since we’re going to be pedantic, the sky isn’t actually blue. It just looks that way (sometimes) because of how our eyes perceive scattered light wavelengths.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

I didn’t link to anything in my comment, actually.

If you’re purporting to not be the AC who claimed Stephen is a bigot for using the word idiot, then why are you acting personally insulted? This isn’t the first time you’ve jumped in front of a comment that wasn’t aimed at you…unless you are, as suspected, the AC because you like to pretend there’s a false consensus of random comments who magically find the longest threads to obsess over the comments of regular, non-anonymous commenters.

You’re making a false accusation as an excuse to attack multiple commenters for being right, like a Republican.

There you go, using the same terminology as the anonymous coward you purport not to be. How odd…

Also, to counter your overweening pedantry, there’s no such color as magenta, but that doesn’t stop printers using it in magazines, etc.

I didn’t say anything about the color magenta so there’s nothing to counter on that topic. Also, CMYK printing using liquid ink is different than light wavelength scattering.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

If you’re purporting to not be the AC who claimed Stephen is a bigot for using the word idiot, then why are you acting personally insulted?

I wasn’t aware that pointing out the facts of a matter is acting personally insulted. Can you tell me where the insult was in your false claim other than that? No? Then why would I be insulted at all?

There you go, using the same terminology as the anonymous coward you purport not to be. How odd…

Except I didn’t use the same terminology as anyone else, but how like a Rebuglican to attack others by doubling down on a bullshit argument.

I didn’t say anything about the color magenta so there’s nothing to counter on that topic.

Thanks for the admission you lack reading comprehension, I guess.

Also, CMYK printing using liquid ink is different than light wavelength scattering.

Ignorant is no way to go through life, son.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

So now we have the accusation that I’m also Mamba. I’ve been accused of being Stephen recently. Is everyone else all the same person too? We live in a world of potentially two people? Maybe I’m also you and we are all just me. If that’s the case, I have a very boring imagination. I wouldn’t hallucinate you on purpose.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

No, no, you’re the walrus. The AC is Paul. Mamba is the glass onion.

Why would Mamba respond to himself and accuse himself of being a MAGA troll in the manner than you and your AC alter ego like to accuse regular commenters? You’re the common denominator in all of this. It’s like you think just continuing to deny you’re obsessed and trolling will keep people from having basic pattern recognition abilities. Ironically, telling people their own eyes are lying is a very Trumpist thing to do.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Why would Mamba respond to himself and accuse himself of being a MAGA troll…

To make it look like someone else is doing it in classic frame-up style. Did you ever think of that one? No, because you can’t admit to such beavior.

…in the manner than you and your AC alter ego like to accuse regular commenters?

I am David, not Koby or Stephen T. Stone, so I don’t have an AC alter. I’m not the one with online dissociative identity disorder.

Arijirija says:

Re: Re:

I’m still bemused at why nobody has yet clicked to the fact that Trump was born in LaLaLand – his LaLaLand birth certificate reads “YESTERDAY” in the Date of Birth entry -, dumped in an orphanage at birth – his parents disowned him at birth, and he was dumped into the Trump family’s “tender” care when they toured the LaLaLand orphanages to laugh at the orphans and Donald filched a wad of notes out of Fred Trump’s back pocket and tried to bribe him with it – and he was smuggled into New York as a pile of used sanitary napkins – which accounted for the stench. Since we can be certain that for Trump and his ilk, every accusation is a confession, this alone explains Trump’s birtherism.
Why hasn’t some enterprising comedian posed as a journalist to ask The Donald about the truth of this?

Anonymous Coward says:

Some news host was beating on zelenksy for not wearing a suit.

They think better of a guy that would blow their child into pieces then they do of someone who is didn’t wear the proper attire and kneel before their master.

If you are a “working class american” and you care more about looks than life then wtf is wrong with you.

Who Cares (profile) says:

Re:

Those are power games.
Zelensky came to Washington hat in hand to ask for alms. Trumps people told him to come in a suit seeing that Trump earlier commented to them on Zelensky not wearing one (this would have earned him brownie points with Trump and thus would have made it more likely that Trump would listen to his pleas). Zelensky decided that he had enough power that he could ignore that and still get what he wanted.

David says:

Re:

It is more like what they were wishing for than voting for. The difference being that voting, as an actual act, is stronger affected by shame.

I’d argue that when there is a difference, you’d rather give people what they voted for than what they wished for. Because shame is there for a reason.

Of course, the current administration is on a crusade for shamelessness, preferring to get rid of what distinguishes civilized persons from beasts.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

The Ham-Ass terrorist pigs will be slaughtered to the last swine. If you don’t like that, get your Palestinian terrorist collaborators to return the Israeli prisoners and leave Gaza.

The West has forgotten what wars are about and how to win them. They sob in pity for Palestinian terrorists who attacked their neighbor. They sob in pity for the Japanese who got righteous retribution for Pearl Harbor and their atrocities in Asia.

Trump is a buffoon, but he has the right idea about leadership. Leaders are elected by people who want them to do things, not to be paralyzed by process and compromise. I will vote against Mamdani and anyone who endorses him, but he too has the right idea in offering bold proposals, no matter how terrible.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

The Nazis murdered Jewish children because⁠—and this explanation is on the record as part of the Nuremberg trials⁠—they believed those children, if allowed to grow up, would become threats to the Third Reich.

Yes or no: Do you believe⁠—as the Nazis did in re: Jewish children⁠—that Palestinian children must be murdered by Israel, either through military violence or mass starvation, because allowing those children to live means all of them would inevitably become a threat to the Israeli government?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

No. Non-combatant Palestinians are killed because they are in the way when Palestinian terrorists are targeted. Providing food and shelter to non-combatant Palestinians also interferes with killing Palestinian terrorists. As long as Ham-Ass terrorist pigs believe that they have something to gain by continuing to fight, they and the non-combatants around them will continue to die.

If Palestinians insist on continuing to fight, exiling them from where they live now into places farther away from Israel is also a good option. Gaza into Sinai. West Bank into Jordan.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Non-combatant Palestinians are killed because they are in the way when Palestinian terrorists are targeted.

Yes or no: Can you prove that every time the Israeli military killed Palestinian children, said military (and its government handlers) had absolute proof that members of Hamas were using those children as human shields?

Providing food and shelter to non-combatant Palestinians also interferes with killing Palestinian terrorists.

“It’s fine to starve kids if it makes killing Hamas easier!” That’s you. That’s you right now.

Fucking Christian Zionists, I swear. You fuckers would nuke Gaza if you weren’t so hung up on getting all the Jews back to Israel for your Rapture mythology bullshit.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

The stupidity flows from the woke like a river; it’s no wonder the West no longer has any idea how to win wars. No – war is not a game, there are no rules, no referees, and no penalties. There will be plenty of mistakes, accidents, and even deliberate targeting of non-combatants, sometimes ordered and sometimes just because soldiers act like that, because that’s what happens in war. The goal of war is to kill the enemy with as little risk and damage to yourself as you can manage. Concern for the welfare of enemy non-combatants should be last on the list of things to worry about. It is absolutely fine to starve Palestinian kids if it makes killing Palestinian terrorists easier. The Palestinian terrorists have the choice to stop fighting. If they think it’s worth having their kids starve in order to continue their fight, then Israel will agree.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

It is absolutely fine to starve Palestinian kids if it makes killing Palestinian terrorists easier.

I’d say you’ve lost your sense of humanity, but that would imply you had one to lose. The fact that you’re okay with a government murdering children only because of the accident of their birth proves as much.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

The children aren’t dying because of an accident of birth. The children are dying because their parents invited Palestinian terrorists to use their home as a base for attacking Israel. People who attack Israel die. People around people who attack Israel stand a good chance of dying too. Don’t attack Israel. If you already made the mistake of attacking Israel, don’t make the further mistake of chasing sunk costs. Just stop.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

The children aren’t dying because of an accident of birth. The children are dying because their parents invited Palestinian terrorists to use their home as a base for attacking Israel.

Then they’re dying because of the accident of their birth⁠—which is to say, they’re dying because of where they were born. If they’d been born in basically any other place in the world, they wouldn’t be dying at the hands of the Israeli government. But since they were born in Gaza and you believe in placing the blame for Hamas on every Palestinian (including children too young to even know about Hamas or the history of the Israeli government’s treatment of Gaza/Palestinians), you’re effectively saying that the only reason Palestinian children in Gaza are dying is the accident of their birth.

You are literally trying to justify the intentional murder of children. Like, you couldn’t sound more like a death cultist or a school shooter’s manifesto if you actually tried. Seriously: Do the image of dead Palestinian children sexually gratify you, or are you really just so devoid of humanity that you’re willing to justify atrocities with “maybe those kids shouldn’t have been born if they didn’t want to die”?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

The Bible is a book of mythology, but it contains some practical wisdom. It understands consequences: Exodus 34:7 “Yet not remitting all punishment, but visiting the iniquity of parents upon children and children’s children, upon the third and fourth generations”. https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.34.7?lang=bi&aliyot=0

It is the responsibility of parents to act in ways that protect their children. That includes not inviting Palestinian terrorists to use their home as a base for attacking Israel. When parents make bad choices, such as not vaccinating, children die. If you don’t like that, convince the parents to make better choices, because you will not be able to protect the children from the consequences of the bad ones, whether you like that or not, no matter how much you screech “Nazi!”

Rocky (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Ah, always fun when people quote the bible while not having a clue what it actually means so they can use it as a bad argument for something

So let me explain this to someone as stupid as you. Exodus 34:7 is about the generational sin inherited from the first sin where Adam broke god’s commandment, it isn’t about if their parent’s sinned or not.

A dog has a better moral compass than you will ever have on a good day.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Actually, the children are dying because Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t understand that Israel’s rights end where the rights of other nations begin and he’s expanding his country at the expense of the rights of the Palestinian people to live in areas outside of the Israeli borders internationally agreed in 1948. If anyone needs to stop, it’s bigots like Netanyahu and yourself.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Concern for the welfare of enemy non-combatants should be last on the list of things to worry about. It is absolutely fine to starve Palestinian kids if it makes killing Palestinian terrorists easier.

These are called war crimes. You are advocating for genocide. This makes you a bad person. You probably aren’t hurt by that observation because if you had a conscience, you wouldn’t have worked yourself into this completely immoral justification for genocide in the first place.

Also, get fucked and not in a pleasant way.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Non-combatant Palestinians are killed because they are in the way when Palestinian terrorists are targeted.

This is the language of abusers. “You made me kill innocent people because you wouldn’t let me kill you easily.” The decisions to deny access to food and aid and to innocent people seeking food and to shoot journalists and to shoot aid workers and to shoot medical personnel are all conscious decisions that bear moral responsibility. Full fucking stop.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

The moral responsibility lies with the people who invited Palestinian terrorists to use their homes as a base for attacking Israel. Some Palestinians may be non-combatants, but none of them are innocent. After they attack Israel, they don’t get to claim “innocence” to protect their Palestinian terrorist collaborators from retaliation, nor themselves from the fallout from that retaliation. Or rather, they can claim that all they want, but it will do them no good. The only thing that will help them is returning the Israeli prisoners and having their Ham-Ass terrorist pigs surrender or leave.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Some Palestinians may be non-combatants, but none of them are innocent.

We’re talking about children. You’re saying that shit like children were the ones who “invited” Hamas into Gaza.

My God, you really do receive sexual gratification from the images of dead or dying Palestinian children. You’re a worse person than Jeffrey Epstein.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

The moral responsibility lies with the people who invited Palestinian terrorists to use their homes as a base for attacking Israel.

Sure, just like you blamed your wife for making you angry. It was her fault since she forced you to hit her! You had no choice.

Some Palestinians may be non-combatants, but none of them are innocent.

Children are innocent, as Stephen mentioned. But also, you don’t have enough information to draw the conclusion that every single adult in Palestine supports Hamas or that every single adult in Palestine supported October 7th. Some people just live there and have no influence over the actions of others.

There hasn’t been an election since 2006, so you don’t have any data to show how many Palestinians have voted to support Hamas for the last 19 years.

After they attack Israel,

Wait, who? The non-combatants are now combatants? Or you’re suggesting that when Person A commits a violent act, the dude standing next to him is guilty by association due to his proximity? So if anyone you’ve ever met committed murder, we could jail you for life, right?

they don’t get to claim “innocence” to protect their Palestinian terrorist collaborators from retaliation, nor themselves from the fallout from that retaliation.

Odd that you would assign that motive as if you know these people. Talk to a lot of them, do you? Do you walk around the neighborhood and shake hands in Gaza City? Or you’re just a keyboard cowboy regurgitating conservative echo chamber talking points and have no actual knowledge of what you’re talking about…

The only thing that will help them is returning the Israeli prisoners and having their Ham-Ass terrorist pigs surrender or leave.

Do you have any proof that Palestinian children have attacked Israel or held prisoners?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Or you’re suggesting that when Person A commits a violent act, the dude standing next to him is guilty by association due to his proximity?

Worse, he’s suggesting that when a bank is violently robbed, all of the hostages are also guilty simply because they were in the bank when the robbery went down (FYI, guilt by association is a thing under US law).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I sympathized with the Palestinians for decades; I wanted to this conflict brought to a peaceful resolution, I wanted to see them living someplace without the constant threat of annihilation.

I don’t any more. They brought this on themselves by repeatedly rejecting peace and compromise (e.g. Arafat in Camp David in 2000) and by electing terrorists to run their government (2006). That made the October 7, 2023 attack inevitable, because of course that’s what terrorists do.

Let me note two things, one about that attack and one in general. First: there is no way that a lot of Palestinians didn’t know about that attack. It took years of planning, communication, logistics, supplies, transportation, weapons, ammunition, etc. and all of that happened right in the middle of densely populated areas. They may not have known exactly what was going to happen or when, but they must have known that something was up. And on that very day, when the vehicles rolled out, they must have known that something big was going down. And yet not one of them warned the Israelis. Even a single phone call an hour ahead of time could have saved a lot of lives…and yet not one of them had the decency, the humanity — and the sense of self-preservation — to make that call. And so it happened as it did, and Hamas got what it wanted: (1) the deaths of a lot of Israelis (2) hostages (3) massive retaliation against the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are now reaping what they’ve sown, and they’re going to be exterminated. Not what I wanted, not what I hoped for, but it’s what they chose.

Second: keep in mind that there are several countries in the region who could resettle all the Palestinians, build every one of them a home, and give them a modest basic income for life — without even breaking a sweat. There is enormous wealth in the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc. and they could make it happen in short order…if they wanted to. But they haven’t. And they won’t. For all their posturing about the Palestinians, they don’t actually want to help them: they just want to use them as proxies in a political and military war against Israel.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

When parents make bad choices, their children often suffer. If parents choose not to educate their children, they grow up illiterate. If parents choose not to get their children vaccinated, they may not grow up at all. And so on.

Is this fair? No. But it’s how the world works, and anyone who’s a parent should know this. They should try to choose wisely not only for their own sake, but for the sake of their children.

The Palestinians chose to hand control of their government over to known terrorists. Moreover: terrorists who have no regard for Palestinian lives (or Israeli lives or any lives). That was an extremely poor choice, with extremely bad consequences.

And all the moralizing and appeals to humanity and everything else are very nice and righteous and all that but they don’t matter. The facts on the ground are the Hamas attacked civilian targets in October 2023, specifically going after children and families. What did you think Israel would do? Issue a sternly-worded statement? Open peace negotiations? Shoot a couple of Hamas members and call it even?

That’s not any of this works. When you poke the bear, you should expect to get mauled.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Let me say this to you one more time:

You are trying to justify the murder of children.

Israel had every right to strike back against Hamas after what happened in October 2023; anyone who says otherwise is a fool. But what has happened since then has gone far beyond attempting to destroy Hamas. It has become a years-long genocidal ethnic cleansing of Gaza that includes military violence and an intentional man-made campaign of mass starvation. Thousands of children⁠—children who didn’t have anything to do with the Hamas attack, children who are/were too young to even know about Hamas or the history of Israel’s treatment of Gazan Palestinians⁠—have been maimed, starved, and killed as a result of the Israeli government’s decision to murder tens of thousands of Palestinians. And you can do this whole “human shields” bit all you want, but I’m not going to buy into it wholesale because that would require me to believe that Israel would stop all of its mistreatment of Gazan Palestinians even if Hamas unilaterally surrendered.

You’ve made it all but clear that you’re more than happy to watch Palestinian children die because of who they are and where they were born. You’ve not once denied that you find the sight of their bloodied, maimed, and/or emaciated bodies to be a sexually gratifying sight for you. I don’t know whether you’re an Israeli agent who’s getting paid to do this shit or a Christian Zionist who cares about clearing out Gaza only because it means there’s a slightly better chance of getting Jews to move back to Israel⁠—and I don’t much fucking care either way.

You are trying to justify the murder of children, and I’m not going to join you in doing that. Nothing you say to me⁠—no Bible verse, no whataboutism, no appeal to emotion in re: terrorism⁠—will convince me to condone the murder of children. If I were to do that, I’d be no better than a school shooter, the leader of a suicide cult whose members include children, or the Oklahoma City bombers. If you want to be as horrific and heartless as they are, you can do that alone. I want no part of it and I won’t be part of it.

Seriously: How the fuck do you think anyone is supposed to think you’re a decent person when you openly profess how much you want children to die, possibly for your own sexual gratification?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

When parents make bad choices, their children often suffer.

When my neighbor attacks me, I don’t get to kill their child, legally or morally. Your justification is abhorrent. If you run over some kid, would you agree your family should get killed in retaliation? Or maybe justice dictates that consequences are restricted to those actually responsible for inhuman acts…?

Is this fair? No. But it’s how the world works, and anyone who’s a parent should know this.

It isn’t actually how the world works. This is how you’re advocating for it to work. There are plenty of examples of this not being the case in other places in the world.

The Palestinians chose to hand control of their government over to known terrorists.

Among the survivors in Palestine who haven’t been murdered, there are adults who weren’t born when the last election was held, much less the children who have been killed. The Palestinians didn’t choose this.

And all the moralizing and appeals to humanity and everything else are very nice and righteous and all that but they don’t matter.

…to you.

The facts on the ground are the Hamas attacked civilian targets in October 2023, specifically going after children and families. What did you think Israel would do? Issue a sternly-worded statement? Open peace negotiations? Shoot a couple of Hamas members and call it even? That’s not any of this works. When you poke the bear, you should expect to get mauled.

Note that you’re claiming that Israel is akin to a mindless animal with no capability for reasoning or moral thought. That kind of insult would get you attacked by the Trump Administration for being anti-Semitic.

After the Holocaust, we held trials. We provided due process. We executed people who we could prove were actual monsters. We exonerated people who weren’t.

It is specifically important to provide due process and measured response because otherwise you’re agreeing to allow anyone to be murdered without any justification other than the claims of a self-righteous person who claims to have been harmed. Sometimes that person is being truthful, but you won’t always know without evidence and judgment. There’s a difference between justice and revenge.

Do you think you should be murdered by an angry mob because someone spreads a rumor that you’re a rapist or a child molester? Do you think your friends and family should suffer the same fate just because they live near you? After all, “it’s how the world works.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

When parents make bad choices, their children often suffer.

The Palestinians chose to hand control of their government over to known terrorists.

On that basis, it’s okay for the Palestinians living in the West Bank to deliberately fire at the children of so-called Israeli “settlers” when defending their homes. How do you like them apples?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

You say “is it OK” as if there were some rule-making body that decides such things. It is up to the Palestinians to decide whether to attack, and no amount of saying whether or not it is OK for them to do that will make a difference. And if they do, they will be killed, and Israel will also not care whether you think it’s OK.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Two things.

  1. How many of the Palestinian children who’ve died since October 2023 due to the actions of the Israeli government made a decision to attack Israel prior to the deliberate and knowing choice by the Israel government to kill those children through violence and starvation?
  2. How do you know, with the certainty of God, that those children made that choice and therefore “justified” their own deaths?
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

There is no “justified”. Israel does not care what you think. Palestinians made the choice to invite Palestinian terrorists to use their home as a base to attack Israel. Israel is going to kill every last one of those terrorists, and people around them will certainly die in that retaliation. They will die in bombings and shootings and starvation. If they do not want to die, it is up to them to get their Palestinian terrorist collaborators to return the Israeli prisoners and surrender or leave.

You still think this is a game with rules and referees and that you can decide that Israel should stop fighting because you think they’re being unfair. That’s not going to happen. Maybe you woke morons should stop telling Palestinians they have a “right to use violence”, bleating in your keffiyehs safely at home while encouraging them to commit suicide.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

There is no “justified”.

Correct, Israel is in no way justified in its attacks on non-combatants or its starvation of children.

Maybe you woke morons should stop telling Palestinians they have a “right to use violence”…

Nobody’s claimed any such thing, what we have said is that Gazans have a right to defend themselves. You know, the same right Israel is relying on to justify its sectarian violence against innocent children?

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

And if they do, they will be killed, and Israel will also not care whether you think it’s OK.

You continue to describe Israel as if they are some kind of animal that can’t help but react with infinite, indiscriminate violence to any provocation and that any such reaction is completely morally justified simply because you subscribe to a law-of-the-jungle might-makes-right genocide apologetics.

“The Nazis were justified in murdering Jewish children because the Jewish parents made the choice of being born in Germany or any territory that the Germans invaded.”

  • You, circa 1945
Rocky (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I sympathized with the Palestinians for decades; I wanted to this conflict brought to a peaceful resolution, I wanted to see them living someplace without the constant threat of annihilation.

No, you didn’t.

They brought this on themselves by repeatedly rejecting peace and compromise (e.g. Arafat in Camp David in 2000) and by electing terrorists to run their government (2006). That made the October 7, 2023 attack inevitable, because of course that’s what terrorists do.

A majority of Palestinians didn’t support Hamas, funny how that doesn’t really matter for some because it’s just easier to label everyone of them as “they”.

The Palestinians are now reaping what they’ve sown, and they’re going to be exterminated. Not what I wanted, not what I hoped for, but it’s what they chose.

No, you wanted this.

Second: keep in mind that there are several countries in the region who could resettle all the Palestinians, build every one of them a home, and give them a modest basic income for life — without even breaking a sweat.

So lets see, steal almost all of the land from the Palestinians, force them to live on a “reservation”, keep stealing land from them because, you know, “lebensraum”. And your suggestion is to resettle them against their wishes in other countries on their dime? Talk about living in a distorted reality.

For all their posturing about the Palestinians, they don’t actually want to help them: they just want to use them as proxies in a political and military war against Israel.

Guess who secretly supported Hamas so they could get into power? Israel. All because they wanted to stop the formation of an actual independent Palestinian state since that would mean it would be much more difficult to keep stealing land.

Bloof (profile) says:

Re:

Imagine living with a neighbour who has completely walled off your house to be part of their garden, controls your access to power, water and food itself. Imagine this neighbour tells the neighbourhood they will respect your property but takes a room for their use whenever they please and forces the occupants into smaller and smaller rooms. Imagine they started abducting any adult who got upset by this ‘arrangement’ or finding flimsy excuses to come in and murder children and blame them for living there. Imagine a neighbour who can just decide to inflict famine because… Just because.

If Hollywood nade a movie with this premise, they’d call it horror. If Russia did it, they’d call it a war crime, but since it’s sn American client state it’s self defense.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, that's on me

The progression is as predictable as it is pathetic. These are the people who convinced themselves that a man who bankrupted casinos—businesses literally designed to print money—would somehow master the complexities of global economics. Who looked at his fraud convictions, his scam university, his shuttered charity, and saw business acumen. Who insisted his tariff threats were just “negotiating tactics” and that “adults in the room” would contain his worst impulses.

If someone has a history of using a loaded gun as a ‘negotiating tactic’ it doesn’t matter if you think someone else will ‘restrain’ them, they’ve shown that they should never be granted the opportunity to pull the trigger to begin with even if you don’t think they’ll ever be allowed to do so.

With his history both personal and professional expecting Trump to be a bad president would be entirely reasonable the first time around, but after that first go, the failed insurrection and public boasts about being a ‘dictator on day one’ nothing less than full blown reality denial is what it would take to expect him to be better and more restrained if given power again.

Stephen says:

It’s quite simple

Trump is enacting all the policies his base voted for. All the lunacy, racism and insanity is what your majority of voters who could be bothered wanted

That says something about what the USA has allowed itself to curdle into over the decades

It’s not Trump that’s the problem which keeps other nations up at night. It’s the fact that USA voters are happy to see these policies enacted

The USA is an untrustworthy ally because of it’s voters. What happens next presidential election? Sanity?

Great, but what happens the election after?

You guys have to sort your society and your political parties out or you’ll never be trusted in the global sense by other nations again

Ninja (profile) says:

It’s interesting how people treat socialism as something that should be avoided because it doesn’t work when capitalism is simply destroying everything to concentrate money and resources in the hands of very few. And then proceed to say that regulating businesses is very different and moral. It is moral but it isn’t very different because unless you regulate private businesses VERY strictly or provide a decent state-owned alternative that maintains a minimum standard then things go to hell quite fast (see most US businesses that need huge investments such as telecoms, electric systems and the likes). And then you have the insane amount of wasted resources that could be saved by proper… planning. Maybe we would be better with more socialism with some tweaking to the amount of planning. Infinite growth certainly can’t be sustained.

Flash Darkling says:

You are only partly right

Trump is only a symptom of the problem. His handlers — the Heritage foundation or the billionaires — are the people in control.
The problem is that the US population has become obsessed with money and the things that they can buy. The US cultural model is to get as much as you can then keep everyone else from getting it.
One political party exemplifies this attitude. The other seeks to make life better for everyone overall.

Cathay (profile) says:

There's substantial continuity with the George W Bush administration

The Trump administrations have been far cruder and more loutish, but Bush Jr and Trump have both wanted to take everything for the US aristocracy (viz: the wealthy), and been happy for plenty of people to die if it means Americans vote for them. Note that there are lots of US votes in killing foreigners.

The Cold War seems kind of civilised in retrospect, compared to the era of endless wars that’s on the way.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...