I’ve had some heated exchanges with pug in the past but this is the first time I can say for sure he’s moderated me, and for something extraordinarily tame.

If only that actually mattered.

I was addressing someone saying that ‘rapes of jewish women were widespread’, which to my ears is an unfounded characterization of a report which went to great lengths not to say anything half as definitive. If anyone in that thread was guilty of apologia or revisionism, it sure as fuck wasn’t me.

But you’re right, this isn’t the place to argue about it. Do what you want.

Yea, seems likely

That bucket guy said ‘rape of Jews on October 7th was widespread’, and the ‘widespread’ part fucking got to me.

Not that it’s a huge difference but I couldn’t stand that guy running around citing that UN report that said it found ‘reasonable grounds to believe sexual violence occurred’, which is a fucking far cry from ‘rape was widespread’

But, if I were to be charitable, i could see a mod coming in cold to that conversation just assuming the worst. But im pretty sure it was pug, if the ‘sort by mod’ function is accurate.

Wasn’t gonna bother until after I saw this, but looks like PJ gave me a ban for clarifying UN reporting on sexual assault.

Didn’t think I was posting anything spicy but you never know the crowd.

reasonable grounds to believe

If this is where you’ve sourced your claim then I should probably insist that you amend your original wording to something more appropriate. “There are reasonable grounds to believe there was sexual violence on october 7th”, instead of “Rape was widespread”

The only reason why someone might take your comment as ‘siding with Israel’ is that it’s careless, at-best. Most people will not be that generous. If you actually care about that representation, then you should be more careful.

You will not be seeing me start a drama thread about this.

That is the exact same report I just linked to you.

I’m not baiting you, but I would like you to substantiate your claim that I’m increasingly suspecting is willfully incorrect.

edit: it’s fine if you simply misspoke. If there’s something more definitive than I’m seeing that’s fine too, I just want the record to be set straight

Rape of Israeli women by people invading on October 7th was widespread

Can you specifically cite this? Specifically, I don’t see anything in the report that is as definitive as “was widespread”. The actual words I see in their report is:

there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred

edit: here’s a link to the actual report

From the official report, this is based on patterns that are described as ‘partially or fully naked victims’, but they specifically say that they cannot verify specific instances beyond this type of “circumstantial” evidence or eyewitness testimony. They even say:

It must be noted that witnesses and sources with whom the mission team engaged adopted over time an increasingly cautious and circumspect approach regarding past accounts, including in some cases retracting statements made previously. Some also stated to the mission team that they no longer felt confident in their recollections of other assertions that had appeared in the media.

Considering that these reports are often cited as justification for various war crimes and acts of genocide, it’s extremely important to be precise with language and delineate what is definitively known vs what is assumed.

As far as I’m aware, the most the UN has been able to say definitively is that there are ‘reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred’, but that they were unable to establish the prevalence, overall magnitude, scope, or specific attribution. That’s a pretty far cry from ‘UN-verified sexual assault’

They’ve been harping on Israel to let them do a full investigation but they’ve repeatedly stonewalled them.

Yea, this seems pretty dumb as far as disagreements go. The article that felix linked has this to say about the Israeli report:

Prosecutors, the report argues, should not have to rely on the kind of evidence typically associated with prosecutions—witness or victim testimony, forensic reports and the like—but instead should be able to rely on “circumstantial evidence” and general deductions. And in order to find a pattern of systemic sexual violence, it should be sufficient to identify individual cases of such violence and read into them a systemic nature. Completing the circle, those individual cases need not hold up to the standards of typical prosecutions.

Even the link felix posted was acknowledging the credible reports of individual cases of sexual violence - I have to assume that the ‘lies’ they were referring to were specific to the allegations of ‘systemic’ sexual violence. Seems like pug was reading something else into the comment entirely and got upset by their own projection.

Good job i guess?

Yea, your opinion of tankies has come across just fine, it’s just curious to me that sentiment is so frequently communicated with conservative cultural references

This is the second time this week someone has inadvertentlu appropriated a bit on conservative culture in an effort to lionoze ‘tankies’

Lmao, yea I think they’re kind of playing a game with language here.

After doing some reading of various explanations, what they mean when they say they aren’t using electrons for computation is basically that the ‘thing’ they’re measuring that dictates the ‘state’ of the transistor is a quasi-particle… but that particle is only observed through the altered behavior of electrons (i guess in the case of the majorana particle, it appears as two electrons gathered together in synchrony?)

So the chip is still using electrons in its computation in the same say as a traditional transistor - you are still sending electrons into a circuit, and the ‘state’ of the bit is determined by the output signal. It’s just that, in this case, they’re looking for specific behavior of the electrons that indicate the presence and state of this ‘qbit’

That is just my layman’s understanding of it

Microsoft isn’t using electrons for the compute in this new chip; it’s using the Majorana particle that theoretical physicist Ettore Majorana described in 1937.

Ok now i’m gonna need an explain-like-i’m-not-a-quantum-scientist on what a ‘topological transistor’ is, and what it uses instead of electrons for its compute (and, like, what is the significance?)

This one surprised me, too.

I had a nasty habit of waiting until the evening to do my papers in college, because that was when it was acceptable to have some wine or whiskey while I wrote. But it was amazing just how much easier it was to stay on task after having a drink, and during finals - or after college when i was on deadline - i would alternate between liters of coffee in the morning and several drinks in the evening.

Now that I’m medicated both coffee and alcohol are just occasional indulgences… well, alcohol is at least. But I didn’t expect it to help curb my impulsive consumption habits like it has- it’s been a game-changer.

No, .world is not anything like a ‘main page’. It’s just the largest “instance”.

Lemmy isn’t even really a site, it’s more like what email is - a data exchange protocol.

You see mostly .world content because you share that domain, and they’ve “blocked” a lot of other domains.

You can make an account at any-other instance and see a lot of other content. Lemmy.world has “blocked” (defederated) with a lot of instances, so you’re not seeing everything.

Sync is just an app that lets you view your account content (similar to how gmail the app lets you view your email content).

I didn’t say it was reasonable, I was only answering the question as to why they were angry with France.

I think what the west deserves for funding a genocidal fascist is entirely up for debate, but that they deserve something is pretty well justified, IMHO

I think it has more to do with Macron and his bedding of right-wing fascists to avoid a left-wing government coalition

That, and their funding of religious ethnostate terrorists…

Edit: i don’t get it, is it something I said?

Edit 2: OK, I was wrong about the specific context of the comment, but I’ll take partial credit for guessing it had to do with the war in Gaza

This isn’t really true, even with being extremely vague.

Liberalism, as described by Locke, was primarily concerned with individual liberty (as mentioned), but included in those liberties was the right to private property. In fact, he was among the first to describe it as a ‘natural law’.

US liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the social liberties, and neo-liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the personal property.

Leftist politics, being primarily oriented along a materialist axis, is concerned with both social and economic liberation and identifies systems of oppression in both governance and capital owners. Referring to ‘liberals’ as ‘leftist’ ignores the central ideological focus of leftist politics to begin with.