Oh, come on…

From the link: “Video game available on Steam allows players to simulate being a Hamas teroist who k*lls Jews in the Old City of Jerusalem while shouting ‘Allahu Akbar,’” the account posted. In November, Nijm released an update called the “Operation al-Aqsa Flood Update,” which alludes to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel by having Palestinian fighters paragliding into an Israeli military base.”

Fair enough. Have a good one.

No. You have given an opposite example.

I said “Would you be against […] a game glorifying the IDF as it fights against Hamas terrorists in Gaza?” (and I would link to that if I could figure out how to do that…).

The main part of your message is just you saying “Israel are Nazis!!!”, which is besides the point.

Panzer Corps probably glorifies Nazis as well.

Great. as I said earlier - I’m willing to put $1000 that this game doesn’t glorify Nazis, and $100 more that it actively makes it clear to the player that while the game is played from the Nazi perspective, the game isn’t intended to glorify Nazis. Would you be willing to take that bet?

Bliutzkrieg Poland: Heroes of the third reich” has a very explicit context. The third reich specifically refers to nazi Germany.

Sorry, but if you think “panzer corps” doesn’t specifically refers to Nazi Germany, that’s on you. The first line from Wikipedia reads: A panzer corps (German: Panzerkorps) was an armoured corps type in Nazi Germany’s Wehrmacht during World War II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_corps

You just said you’d be okay with glorification of “theoretical” Nazis, but not if they hadn’t committed multiple war crimes, countless atrocities, murdering and incarcerating people based on mental health, ethnicity and sexual orientation. No, the thing you’re most with is that they didn’t have a good enough reason to invade Poland.

I lost interest in talking to you.

I’ve already given that example earlier…

What other comment?

Okay, let’s put that another way:

Do you agree that “Knights of al-Aqsa” probably glorifies Hamas?

Do you agree that “Panzer Corps” probably does not glorify the Nazis?

If you answered “yes” to both questions, do you understand the difference between both games?

If the Nazis had legitimate grievances against the Polish? Maybe.

Who decides what’s “legitimate”?

Parts of Poland belonged to the second Reich, but were taken away by force in the aftermath of WWI. From the Nazi perspective, they had every right to claim them back.

Edit: Wait, what just happened? Did you actually say saying you’d be okay with a game glorifying the Nazi invasion to Poland if they “had legitimate grievances against the Polish”? WTF?

Your premise is flawed in that it assumes everything a Palestinian resistance fighter does is terrorism that can’t ve glorified.

My premise assumes that every Hamas fighter that crossed into Israel on Oct. 7th is a terrorist. The “resistance fighters” that attacked military bases are the same people who raped party goers, burned to death civilians in their homes and kidnapped men, women, children and the elderly to be used as a bargaining chip and human shields.

Would I be for a ban of Fatah fighters attacking IDF bases? Maybe, maybe not. I probably wouldn’t argue over it with strangers on the internet, for what that’s worth.

Would you object to an Irish-made game that allows you to play as the IRA and car bomb the British?

Depends. is it called “Knights of the IRA” or glorify the IRA in any way? Then I would support the ban. Because the they were a terrorist movement that targeted civilians. Why would you even ask that? Are you seriously okay with glorifying terrorists if you happen to agree with their goals?

I’m willing to put $1000 that this game doesn’t glorify Nazis, and $100 more that it actively makes it clear to the player that while the game is played from the Nazi perspective, the game isn’t intended to glorify Nazis.

I said “glorifying the Nazi invasion”, not “play as a German soldier in World War 2”. These are two very different things. Why the hell do I even have to explain this?

The game is called “Fursan al-Aqsa: The Knights of the Al-Aqsa Mosque”. How about a game called “Bliutzkrieg Poland: Heroes of the third reich”? In what store can I buy that one?

Telegraph and wire transfers were a thing 100 years ago, you could say “Everyone have a telegraph at home. Private communication, for example orders to your bank to wire money, uses codes/cyphers that can be decoded if the third party was smart enough”.

You’d have to go back before the discovery of electricity, and even then you could make an analogy with lighthouses (which isn’t really a stretch, as fiber optic cables can be described as point-to-point light houses), and most people at most periods are probably familiar with the idea of talking in codes.

Technology isn’t really that hard to explain. Social change is much harder. Try explaining to someone from 1920 that the US had a black president and nothing catastrophical happened, or that all professions today are open to women and you’d have a much harder time.

Let’s flip the question around.

Would you be against a video game glorifying the Nazi invasion to Poland if it didn’t show Nazis killing civilians?

How about a game glorifying the IDF as it fights against Hama’s terrorists in Gaza?

For the same reason western European countries have roads connecting them to Russia.

Huh?

The smartphone improvements hit a rubber wall a few years ago (disregarding folding screens, that compose a small market share, improvement rate slowed down drastically), and the industry is doing fine. It’s not growing like it use to, but that just means people are keeping their smartphones for longer periods of time, not that people stopped using them.

Even if AI were to completely freeze right now, people will continue using it.

Why are people reacting like AI is going to get dropped?

No matter what you say, you won’t convince us to accept genocide when it’s happening to Palestinians or anyone else.

Oh, OK, thanks, that was genuinely helpful. If I understood correctly, you think I’m trying to convince you that “Israel = good”, so you mentally add “and that’s why Israel is in the right” after what I said, and are replying to that instead of what I actually said. I’m absolutely not trying to convince anyone Israel is in the right here, or that they aren’t committing genocide. Not saying I agree or disagree with you on the subject, just saying that’s not what I’m talking about. This started out as me pointing out that the reason people are saying Hamas are using civilians as human shields is because that’s what’s they’re doing. Now I’m trying to understand why people focus so much on Gaza and are giving Hamas a free pass for what’s going on there.

I fail to see the comparison with these other conflicts

It wasn’t a comparison. I took the criteria you gave (number of casualties) and applied it to other situations. Which seemed to be productive because now you’ve given me new criteria. The only one that’s unique is western support. I get that - as (probably?) a citizen of a western country, you don’t want your tax money financing genocide. But that’s more a criticism against your government, and, more importantly to my interest in the conversation, it doesn’t explain the visceral hate people seem to have towards Israel in particular.

Sudanese civil war is terrible with over 60,000 deaths so far, we just want Gaza to not top that

That’s what I’m asking - why do you “just want Gaza to not top that” and don’t seem to care that much about what’s going on Sudan? (I’m talking about the discourse among the, and I’m hoping I’m using the correct term, progressive left).

The problem is there can’t be an accurate count because Israel won’t let independent investigators in

According to your own source, there can’t be an accurate account because “Collecting data is becoming increasingly difficult for the Gaza Health Ministry due to the destruction of much of the infrastructure.”

Well people say Israel is in the right because they had people killed.

And those people would be wrong. That doesn’t contradict anything I said.

Actually, 44,000 is about right for the IDF estimations.

Anyway, you’re saying it’s a numbers game? Let’s say Israel were to round up 1,199 random Gazans and shoot them in the street, people would be saying “Well, Israel killed less people, so Hamas should stop their aggression”?

If Israel killed 1200 and then Hamas returned by killing 44,000, we’d be focusing on Hamas

Sorry, but I doubt that. Right now there are at least two other major conflicts, each with more casualties (the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Sudanese civil war), yet the interest in Lemmy and like minded places is like that meme with the drowning kid and the skeleton (inb4 someone accuses me of “antisemitism” - I’m pointing out that Israel is singled out, not accusing anyone of anything).

My gut reaction is to say - I don’t know, if murder isn’t okay, how come I only see people here criticizing Israel and not Hamas or Hezbollah?

When people assign blame only on one side, they’re encouraging the other side to do more bad things. This applies to both the “Free Palestine!!!” and “Antisemitism!!!” camps.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the reason people are saying that Hamas are using Palestinians as human shields isn’t a Hasbarah plot to dehumanize Palestinians, but because Hamas are using Palestinians as human shields. Could you explain why this seems to be controversial? Do people not agree that Hamas are using human shields, or do they think that pointing any criticism at anyone Palestinian is “pro-Israeli”?

It’s considered acceptable language by mainstream culture because it’s a legitimate interpretation of reality.

It’s not reasonable to say Jews are literally rats. It is a reasonable to say civilian Gazans are used as a shield by Hamas. What is dehumanizing, sometime literally, is using people as shields.