aski3252

If you care about age verification then steer clear of Red Hat associated distros like Fedora.

Fedora has age verification?

"Outrage after Israel releases video abusing of flotilla activists taken hostage on international waters" would be a good start.

But that's the thing. The outrage is seems to be less about the detention and abuse, but more about the public humiliation and mockery..

The narrative is something like "It's justified they were detained, a little bit of force is to be expected, and it probably wasn't as bad since the activists lie in order to make Israel look bad".

But when you have the security minister posting a video where he is gleefully and proudly mocking detainees, that's going too far. It robs the situation of any plausible deniability and forces the origin countries of the activists to express public outrage.

You can bet your ass that if the video was not posted, the expressed outrage of the various countries would be minimal in comparison.

the headlines would look completely differently if it was an adversary of the US doing the same things.

Once again, I'm familiar with the concept of media bias.. I still think the headline is perfectly readonable.

This isn't some fringe thing the Israeli minister did on his own. It's national policy under full responsibility of all of Israel.

The article is about a video posted on twitter by Ben-Gvir. Of course he isn't doing it on his own for personal fun, of course he is doing it on behalf of Israel, but the headline is still pretty reasonable.

But since you agree, please, I beg you to enlighten me. What should the headline be?

France has quite literally used this logic put all the blame on one single person (who doesn't care about France anyway) and take absolutely no real action against Israel. This is not an accident, this is intentional.

Not just France, virtually every western country and Israel itself is doing that. That's literally what the article you posted is reporting on:

Poland's foreign minister called for Ben-Gvir to be banned from entering the country.

The U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, said Ben-Gvir had "betrayed (the) dignity of his nation".

Netanyahu said Ben-Gvir's conduct was "not in line with Israel's values and norms".

No Israel bound and tortured the activists. This wasn't a single minister.

Bellow there are two seperate events. They are related in some ways, but they are still 2 separate events happening at different points in time:

1. Israel bound and tortured the activists.
2. A minister posts a video of himself where he mocks the activists in point 1.

Because they are two seperate events happening at different times, journalists will write seperate articles with separate headlines.

The one in your post was about event number 2. But there are other articles about event number 1:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/freed-gaza-flotilla-activists-allege-israeli-abuse-including-rape-2026-05-22/

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-aid-flotilla-says-israeli-forces-intercepted-41-vessels-10-still-sailing-2026-05-19/

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/israels-treatment-gaza-flotilla-members-is-abominable-canada-pm-carney-says-2026-05-20/

Previous flotilla coverage has been hyper positive of Israel.

Western media tends to have a pro-Israel bias. Most people here are aware of this. The issue is you are doing an incredibly bad job at getting that point across to the point of absurdity..

"Outrage grows after Chinese minister mocks Uyghurs"?

If a Chinese minister posted a video of himself mocking Uyghurs and that video generated outrage, that headline would be pretty reasonable, no?

The specific news story referenced in this post is about minister Ben-Gvir posting a video where he mocks the detainees. The article says "Minister mocks detainees". Please tell me what the ideal headline should be, I'm very curious.

firstly China would be held responsible. Not one single Chinese minister. Second it would contain the word torture and/or worse.

Ok, and you think that makes for a better headline?

Title's are basically all that matters in the news because nobody reads articles.

Well I guess no wonder people have terrible reading comprehension..

I'll give Reuters some props

I still don't get what reuters has done wrong..

Your post implies that reuters is downplaying or ignoring the abuse and that they are calling the abuse "mocking". That's not the case. The article is about a minister mocking the protesters for getting abused.

In other words, the article's title is absolutely correct.

>Same, but I’m leaning towards the idea that us having numbers alone isn’t enough in this situation if we don’t show why numbers matter. It’s why I’m critical of leaders. Our masses are upset, angry, reactive. We need leaders who can channel and guide the strength of numbers and turn it into something useful

That’s what I mean when I say we need organisation. Leaders sure, but an overreliance on leaders is dangerous too. What we mainly need is organisation and discipline.

>Losing faith in their leader is not the same as losing faith in the ideology.

I completely agree, but it’s a potential opening. As long as they still have faith, it’s virtually impossible to reach anyone. When they are losing faith, it provides an opportunity to spread that doubt to not just a leader, but to other aspects of their worldview. It won’t work with everyone, it takes time and won’t work over night and it maybe won’t work in very aspect, but it’s a start.

>Massie and MTG are perfect examples of this.

We have to make a big distinction between leaders/politicans/progapandists and voters. Leaders/politicians/propagandists always have a political and/or financial incentive to hold their line. They might change leaders if it is beneficial to them, they might even switch sides when it is beneficial for them, but one has to assume it's purely opportunistic.

With voters, it CAN be different. But again, getting people to change their ideology/philosophy/core worldview isn’t easy and doesn’t happen automatically, which is why the “Fuck them, it’s not my job to educate them, they have to change their mind by their own, else I won’t have any contact with them“ attitude is a big mistake in my view because that practically guarantees them voting.

>We should be accepting of whatever help we can get, even if it’s some an-cap that only sides with us 10% of the time.

I don’t even think we should just accept them in our rank or work with them necessarily, I’m saying we need to have some kind of exchange with them in order to oppose their view. I don’t think you disagree with me, but so many online leftists seem to have the opinion that we should simply ignore them or tell them to fuck of until they somehow become radical leftists by themselves. That’s pretty much my main point.

>Alligator Alcatraz and El Salvador are not Dachau or Auschwitz. I agree that we’re not at the level of industrialized genocide like the Nazis were, but we’re deeper than should be allowed.

While I do understand the Nazi Germany comparisons to some degree, I’m not sure how useful they are. Conentration Camps were not unique to Nazi Germany or invented by them. And while Trump and the Trump Regime has some things in common with Nazi Germany and fascism, there are important differences. After the nazis seized power, they had near absolute power very soon. Opposition parties and/or opposition groups were outlawed and members imprisoned on a large scale. Very soon, any effective resistence from within was virtually impossible.

That’s not the case in the US and Trump still has a long way to go until they get there. People’s rights and liberties are definitely under attack, but they do still exist in some form and that must be exploited as long as you still can. Trump has no absolute power, he cannot simply arrest every member of the DSA, etc. Again, there is definitely a tendency towards autocracy, but it’s not done in the same way as in Nazi Germany, so tactics are not the same.

My suggestion is that this is not a situation where voting in better candidates

I'm not talking about voting, I'm talking about building organised mass movements who eventually can excercise leverage to achieve goals.

Maybe I'm too old school, but I still believe that the only way to achieve the radical change is by organised mass movements.

And you can forget about that if you are not even willing to get into contact with people who are losing faith in their right wing leader, but who might not have abandoned all their right wing believes. That's the perfect time to engage and further challenge their views, otherwise nothing will change and they will fall for the next right winger.

I think the solution is doing what we did against this kind of bigotry in 1861 and 1941

It's not 1941, it's not even 1933 yet, although very close to it. And until then, you shouldn't have a working class civil war, but organize..

“Fuck ‘em” isn’t a dismissal of their beliefs, it’s a dismissal of their right to exist.

I'm not sure what your point is or rather I think I'm misunderstanding. Are you suggesting leftists should start to assasinate all trump voters? If yes, that's very silly and not something that will happen. And if it would happen, it would be devestating for the left and only benefit the right. Violence is their game, our game is numbers and leverage.

But yeah, I think we are talking past eachother.

basically all cardio machines at the gym are going to be boring as all hell, going outside and doing activities is a lot more fun

Or, alternatively, use the stationary nature of indoor machines to make it less boring. I typically read. Or maybe watch a show or movie.

Outside is great too of course, but bad weather can be hard to overcome depending on where you live.

Until that attitude changes, fuck ‘em.

What I don't understand is how you expect that attitude to change. Bigottry isn't some kind of inate human characteristic, it is a tool/weapon used to divide us and stop us from reaching our goals.

I get that it's nice to imagine people just snapping out of it an realizing all their mistakes, but in the vast majority of cases, this won't happen by sheer magic..

Bigotry is thaught by your environment. And environment won't change without great effort. The right is putting in great effort to change people's environment so they don't get exposed to ideas which are dangerous to them. What is your suggestion, to just let them and give up? You think leftists and organizers of the past did that?

When I say "you", I mean you Americans and online lefties in general, not you personally.. I'm not suggesting you pit yourself in danger, but the only chance of turning around and somehow saving us from global disaster is to build mass movements along class lines.

And I'm not saying bigotry isn't an issue, quite the opposite. But a prerequisite to combat bigottry and organising in general is contact and engagement, and we are so far away from even that. So many people are desperately searching for solution, and the only people giving them some kind of explanation is the right..

There is so much work to do and so little time, and frankly, having likeminded people talking about working class solidarity and rising up against the ruling class while doing jack shit except for ranting online and somehow expect change to happen by sheer magic is very demoralizing..

So if you don't feel you are up to it or feel like you are putting yourself in danger, it does not apply to you. But we as the global left cannot afford to dismiss everyone who might still have bigotted views. And moments of disillusion with their right wing idols are perfect opportunities to work on their bigotry.

It's the only thing combatibg bigotry, it always takes effort and time.