There are some issues with the code he's criticizing (createPluralDependentMessageParts is satire), but his infatuation with ternary operators makes his code a mess
Care to explain how a conflict between two national groups that are indigenous to the same land is similar to a racial system of segregation including beaches and restrooms, based on race theory with different racial classifications?
Or are you using a word that describes something different just because it evokes negative emotions?
depends on who you ask, for german jews under the nazis before world war 2, it was almost the only place to go to, and definitely saved them from certain death in places like the netherlands.
not to mention after world war 2 for those who came back from the camps and found their homes taken.
moreover zionism did not start with the balfour declaration, but decades before with mass killings of jews in eastern europe
the western allies certainly could and should have done much pre-war, and arguably in the war (mosquito strikes on the camps, for example). my point was that few can dispute that, as we see today, the whole imposition of israel on its neighbours has been a disaster.
that's only when taking only palestinians into account. When the balfour declaration was signed already 10% of then population was jewish.
Mass killings of jews had already started in eastern europe decades before the holocaust. which was what prompted zionism. This is not a singular event, but a movement that would happen with the british or without them.
And any result of the conflict would cause serious "disaster" for one people or another
Yes, this is actually PIJ, I was referring to the colloquial referral as Hamas to all Palestinian organizations in Gaza. Colloquial use that OP seemed to be using.
Also they do coordinate their fighting and if you read the last link also their propaganda
Times of Israel is the media of a different belligerent in this conflict, why on earth should I trust them to debunk AJ anymore than I should trust AJ to truthfully report on Israel?
The difference is that Times of Israel is privately owned, while Al Jazeera is operated by an authoritarian government. also the information I posted can be found in other places. However, if you think a government that promotes modern slavery is probably a good source for journalism, that's your choice to make.
However, Al Jazeera never corrected the story, just took it down, which is just as OP reported: "We can draw the line when they report proven false information and never apologize for reporting so."
You'd might want to watch some arabic al jazeera. While Al Jazeera English pushes s the progressive post-colonialist narrative in the United States, Al Jazeera Arabic gears the Middle East for a war by pushing a Muslim Brotherhood idea of a Sharia state, Salafism and Jihad.
Both have the same aim, just as Qatar Airways sponsor your flights with oil money so you might fly through Qatar, Al Jazeera pays journalists so they can push Qatar's narratives to Western or Arabic audience. This is highly similar to RT in intent.
Looking from Israel standpoint, it's a news outlet that pushes your enemies propaganda arm videos unfiltered and also uses it to radicalize part of your population
Do you have a link to an article in Arabic where they incite violence?
I've spent a while translating various articles on the Al Jazeera Arabic site from Arabic to English with mistral-7b. Everything seemed to be very fact based, and was emphasising things like civilian deaths, which aligns to what I'd consider public interest.
The Arabic text does consistently use the term شهيد (martyr) to describe Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza, which is the closest thing to biased language I found across multiple articles about Israel and Palestine - but I think that is normal in Arabic for describing even non-combatant casualties and not necessarily reflective of bias given Arabic conventions.
This is obviously a source with a considerable bias, but they link to many concerning examples of Al Jazeera reporting. I personally don’t speak Arabic but anecdotally I’ve heard that the translations are accurate, the bias is manifest in choosing what to translate. This example was especially concerning, exacerbating civilian deaths:
> Al-Jazeera Fabricates Information Designed To Thwart Israel's Instructions To The Gaza Population
>Al-Jazeera broadcast footage of bodies of civilians strewn over a road, presenting them as victims of an Israeli attack against people who had abided by the IDF instructions to evacuate to southern Gaza.[91] Israel in fact had secured safe passage to the south for those civilians who wished to go there, while Hamas exerted pressure on them to remain put in order to use civilians as human shields.[92]
It's normalized enough that even the notoriously secular SDF in Syria uses that term for their own fighters, and not just in Arabic publications, but also in Kurdish ones.
I don't speak Arabic so I can't really judge that; I'm sure there's tons of stuff I'd find distasteful, but being distasteful or even inflammatory (within some limits of reason) should not be outlawed. All I can do is go by articles such as this, which don't really seem to cite the same "firehose of bullshit"-type stuff.
Also note that the Israeli government spends tons of money to push Israeli narratives and viewpoints. That's fine, they're allowed to do that, but we can leverage the same "highly similar to RT in intent" accusations against them. In the end we should judge actions, not intent.
In most of the world outside of the United States, there are laws that relate to the concept of a "defensive democracy". For example the laws that outlaw display of swastikas in Germany are contradictory with freedom of speech but are aimed at denying a democracy being exploited by extreme groups (see ww2).
The discussion here is about the actions of Israel versus Al Jazeera, not a possibility of banning Al Jazeera in the United States or maybe Israeli viewpoints.
Also, I am pretty sure Israeli spendings to push Israeli narratives in the US are minuscule, especially compared to Qatar's.
American citizens are, of course, allowed to have such opinions, but we're not talking about a few citizens here - we're talking about what's considered one of the most influential political lobbyist organizations in US.
AIPAC is nominally funded by "individual donations", but the problem with that it is fairly trivial for a nation-state to fund things in this manner, so it doesn't really tell us anything. And then, of course, there's the question of personal connections: if you have a private person donating huge amounts of money to AIPAC, and they just happen to be heavily involved with the governing political party in Israel, I would consider them an agent of the state of Israel ipso facto even if they don't have such official position (just as I would consider, say, one of Putin's pet oligarchs a Russian agent if they donate money to an American political campaign in their private capacity).
I was not comparing them, and I think this is dishonest to read my comment that way.
I was giving an example of the way democracies around the world restrict free speech in order to defend other rights
This is quite popular in europe and is a result of lesson learned from the nazis
This entire thread started with me saying pretty much the same thing, and using Nazi Germany as an example absolutely implies some form of comparison, especially in a discussion about what specifically Al Jazeera may or may not have done wrong. You can't demand careful language usage from others (in e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40090402https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40088873) and at the same time carelessly throw around stuff yourself.
Well, you can. You're allowed. But at that point I decide to stop engaging. So good day to you.
reply