sarsi.bsky.social
444 posts
87 followers
225 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
Are you an idiot or was this an attempt at a joke?
comment in response to
post
You truly are a piece of shit
comment in response to
post
You make a public statement unprompted and then ask right wing assholes to help you fake a video of it instead. Fucking pathetic
comment in response to
post
It's not a nom de guerre because I'm not fighting any wars. It's not my nom de plume either since I don't post enough for any of this to count as writing. Just a silly name for making fun of silly people
comment in response to
post
You will not escape samsara
comment in response to
post
Why did you skip the part where I said that for a normal order it's fine if you don't want to tip and no one is talking shit about you? To skip over a main part of my argument and then insult my intelligence is kind of fucked up
comment in response to
post
I worked at a takeout only spot. If you have a normal order you can just not tip if you don't want to. We're not talking shit about it. If you ordered $300 of food with a bunch of special requests then throw a little extra to the workers, it's not like the business owners are giving us a bonus
comment in response to
post
This doesn't make sense to me. If my friend is playing harmonica and I start tapping a beat on an acoustic guitar then we're making music. Someone entering the room wouldn't say I'm playing the guitar wrong, they'd say we're having fun making music together
comment in response to
post
If it weren't for third parties his daddy would have been re-elected. You're talking about an election that was handed to Bush by the supreme court. Gore's running mate later lost his primary and ran as a third party candidate to keep his Senate seat
comment in response to
post
Abu Ghraib, Iraq war, Afghanistan war. How could you classify those things as a minor annoyance?
comment in response to
post
He didn't start a war based on lies because he was too stupid to know the truth, he didn't start a torture program due to ignorance. He was and is an evil man
comment in response to
post
How do you think we can get those people to vote next time? I feel like lots of people tried the tactic you're using but it didn't work very well
comment in response to
post
Is your goal to hurt people or to win elections?
comment in response to
post
At first I thought you might be worth arguing when but you haven't made any arguments in a while you just keep repeating the same tired bullshit. So fuck off forever, I'm blocking you now
comment in response to
post
You're denying that journalists have been targeted? Fuck off, that's willful ignorance at this point. There is no source that you'll accept for any numbers, you didn't even acknowledge reporting from an Israeli newspaper
comment in response to
post
You've already admitted that they are targeting journalists and that is a war crime. You refuse to condemn explicitly genocidal rhetoric, instead you make excuses for it. Strawmen won't help you win this argument
comment in response to
post
Solid tactic though to call them babies. Just the kind of thing to engage with disaffected voters
comment in response to
post
Do you only support free speech when people are saying how much they like you?
comment in response to
post
Why are you still talking about 400 days? You want to center your argument on specific times in the past but that's not important. Preventing access to humanitarian aid is a war crime. Targeting journalists is a war crime. I don't care if you call it genocide if you'll agree it needs to stop
comment in response to
post
I'm not going to explain to you what a prediction is. The whole point of all this is to stop it *before* the worst happens. We'd all know a lot more about what's happening on the ground if the IDF didn't have a policy of targeting and killing journalists
comment in response to
post
No, fuck off. You were claiming that currently there were zero deaths from starvation. What does it prove to say that at some point in the past after people were predicting that there would be starvation, that no one had starved yet?
Don't bother answering that you aren't arguing in good faith
comment in response to
post
Why would you want older news? You made a specific claim and said it was foundational to your view of the situation as it proved that everyone was lying. Your claim was the lie. You still pretend you don't understand what a prediction is. Maybe you are just stupid but I think you're a lying asshole
comment in response to
post
You made a bold claim. You said the Palestinian Authority reported that there were zero deaths from starvation. That claim was not true, you can't find any support for it and you don't change your mind you quibble over whether it's just kids or elderly as well. You can fuck off now
comment in response to
post
Again, people correctly predicted what actions the IDF would take and what the consequences would be. The fact that it was obvious from the beginning what would happen is not evidence on your side
comment in response to
post
Can you source that for me? I know there's some algorithm stuff involved but when I Google starvation in Gaza I see reports like this one
www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/...
comment in response to
post
Yes, many people predicted the way that this war would be fought and the tactics that would be used from the beginning. The same arguments keep being used because they are persuasive. The evidence is still accumulating but getting harder to gather since journalists have been specifically targeted
comment in response to
post
You absolutely did say it was a settled issue. What else did you mean by saying "it's not complicated" and that people got tired of hearing claims without any evidence? You then slowly backed away to your current position that it is in fact complicated and arguments can be made
comment in response to
post
Sure some people may be using the existence of the case alone as evidence. I think most people are pointing to the arguments made by South Africa in bringing the case as being evidence, or later the fact that the IDF ignored the recommendations of the ICJ
comment in response to
post
In most countries publicly threatening someone is illegal. If I say I'm going to kill someone and drive their family from their home that is a crime. In the USA it would be assault or "criminal threats"
comment in response to
post
Yes, looking at how those decisions are made and how the strikes are executed would also be evidence. I invite anyone who is unsure to look at that evidence.
Genocidal rhetoric is absolutely relevant to a determination of intent, it cannot be dismissed as just tough talk or macho posturing
comment in response to
post
You were trying to mock someone for bringing up the topic as if it were a settled issue. If you're now saying that it's a plausible claim and also saying that you believe war crimes have been committed then I don't have much more to argue
comment in response to
post
A lot of this is politics. How else would you judge intent to commit genocide other than by analysing political speech?
comment in response to
post
ICJ found the claims plausible and then listed things that the Israeli government needed to do, those things have been ignored. Netanyahu endorses Trump's relocation plan. www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-im...
comment in response to
post
There's no reason to give any weight to a claim by the IDF that civilians weren't in danger. You could support Israel's actions and still agree that's not a strong argument.
comment in response to
post
You had said that there was no evidence for the claim that Israel is committing genocide. You said it was amazing that anyone could believe it and linked that article.
The ICJ found the claim plausible and the Wikipedia article details arguments both for and against those claims
comment in response to
post
This and the other quote are two parts that stuck out to me as not supporting your argument
comment in response to
post
'This is the first case where the ICJ has imposed provisional measures aimed at protecting people from genocide. "The severity of risk escalates to the point where the Court decides the only means to protect these rights is to require immediate cessation of hostilities."[132]'
comment in response to
post
Maybe you need to reread that Wikipedia article, it may have been edited since you last looked at it. Doesn't seem like it supports your argument
comment in response to
post
What is gained by voting for all the nominees?
comment in response to
post
What questions does he need answers to?
comment in response to
post
What? You've only met 3 anticapitalists and you want to make statements about what they are all like?
comment in response to
post
This sucks. Fuck you
comment in response to
post
It should be illegal to kill people with cars. Drivers should adjust their behavior to avoid doing so
comment in response to
post
The unspoken premise here is that Trump wouldn't do something that will have easily foreseeable negative consequences
comment in response to
post
Yes, for all her faults it is a massive understatement
comment in response to
post
A literal lightning rod is purposefully built and installed so that lightning strikes it and doesn't damage the surroundings. In what way is that similar?
comment in response to
post
It would have been better if she actually supported trans rights. Which is what her former running mate is doing right now. I voted for them but come on, 'better than the alternative' isn't saying very much at all
comment in response to
post
You've not given any evidence, just a bunch of unsupported assertions that don't even rise to the level of personal anecdote
comment in response to
post
Have you ever looked up literacy rates by country?
comment in response to
post
You apparently can't read a simple graph