the weird thing is that Israel’s government is being confusing - the ceasefire is meant to be lasting but they have vowed to invade Rafah anyway until Hamas is toppled.
Sounds to me like Netanyahus government wants to trade hostages to appease protesters and voters, and then continue flattening Rafah anyway.
The deal has always been a temporary ceasefire in exchange of hostages.
Yeah, because giving up your only leverage permanently in exchange for what basically amounts to pressing pause on the genocide is SUCH a good deal!
Hamas might be despicable terrorists, but presumably they’re not total idiots!
That’s the worst deal since the Dutch sold New Amsterdam (now New York) to the English for a bunch of nutmeg! Nutmeg was hella expensive back then 😛
Yeah, because giving up your only leverage permanently in exchange for what basically amounts to pressing pause on the genocide is SUCH a good deal!
It’s not very good leverage, considering that Israel is ready to finish up its genocide regardless.
The fact that the Israeli government is acting in bad faith and doesn’t actually care about the hostages doesn’t mean that the Israeli people don’t care.
The fact that people who aren’t genocidal maniacs desperately want the hostages to be freed means that getting them back would be a huge get for the Israeli government, worth many times more than a temporary truce is.
The fact that the Israeli government is acting in bad faith and doesn’t actually care about the hostages doesn’t mean that the Israeli people don’t care.
Okay, but leverage is typically supposed to be against the one you’re negotiating or dealing with, and Hamas is quite clearly up against the Israeli government at this point in time.
The fact that people who aren’t genocidal maniacs desperately want the hostages to be freed means that getting them back would be a huge get for the Israeli government, worth many times more than a temporary truce is.
I don’t see how that follows. The Israeli government is quite clear in its goals - it has killed hostages on its own initiative. It cares only insofar as it would look bad to not negotiate for hostage a release.
A ceasefire is far more important to Hamas than Israel. Israel wants to keep hammering Gaza. If the negotiations fail, then the answer isn’t “Well, now we can use our leverage!”, it’s “Fuck, our only leverage has gotten us literally nothing”.
If the negotiations fail, then the answer isn’t “Well, now we can use our leverage!”, it’s “Fuck, our only leverage has gotten us literally nothing”.
Which is basically what Israel is offering. They’re asking for the political points from getting the hostages back and will invade and/or bomb the shit out of Rafah no matter what.
Or to simplify: giving everything in exchange for basically nothing is a bad deal. Hamas knows it, the Israeli government knows it and the NYT knows it.
The latter two are just gaslighting people about it to pretend that the Israeli government is being anything approaching reasonable.
Which is basically what Israel is offering. They’re asking for the political points from getting the hostages back and will invade and/or bomb the shit out of Rafah no matter what.
They’re offering a 40-day ceasefire, which would be more beneficial to Hamas than to Israel. It’s not inherently ridiculous for Hamas to accept in exchange for the hostages. The issue is that Israel isn’t serious, and will dance around with terms so they can claim Hamas rejected it again.
Or to simplify: giving everything in exchange for basically nothing is a bad deal. Hamas knows it, the Israeli government knows it and the NYT knows it.
But it’s not everything. The hostages are minor at most, and leverage unutilized is as worthless as not having leverage at all. Furthermore, all negotiations are done by the relative positions of the negotiators - if Hamas wants to hold out for a better deal, that’s certainly a valid strategic decision. But it must also be recognized that it is quite probably long odds since Israel is overwhelmingly in the better position at this point in time.
Once Rafah is taken, this whole miserable affair is going to wind up. And almost certainly not in a good way.
Speaking PURELY from a strategic perspective, what do you think the hostages CAN be traded for? What is something that is realistic for the Israeli government to offer other than a temporary ceasefire? Knowing the Israeli government’s current position and goals? Not “What would be MORAL for them to offer”, what, realistically, can Hamas get out of the Israeli government with these hostages that would be more useful than a 40-day ceasefire and the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners?
The latter two are just gaslighting people about it to pretend that the Israeli government is being anything approaching reasonable.
But neither the article nor the headline have the tone you’re talking about.
That’s the worst deal since the Dutch sold New Amsterdam (now New York) to the English for a bunch of nutmeg! Nutmeg was hella expensive back then 😛
I bet the person who got all the nutmeg thought it was a great deal
Yeah, William III, Prince of Orange was fucking STOKED about how much better his Ontbijtkoek became!
I’m just going off what it said in the article
“Those sons of bitches are only doing everything we asked them to in order to confuse us and make us look bad.”
While I want this to end as much as most people, a ceasefire is not the same as a peace agreement. North and South Korea have had a ceasefire since before I was born, but they constantly try to scare the world into thinking it could end at any moment, WW2 ended with a peace treaty, and the Nazi regime was officially removed from power as part of the treaty.
Of course it’s only a matter of time until israel starts violating the ceasefire as they always do.
But at least Netanyahu will go to jail first.
singling out Nettanyahu and saying that he will is not antisemitism.
Saying that all Israelis naturally will is however.
nobody thinks israel is going to break the ceasefire because they’re jewish. they think that because of israel’s well-documented history of repeatedly breaking ceasefires.
If you think that about the current government, yes.
But he explicitly said that Nettanyahu would be arrested. Which would mean a new government.
And if he says that any new israeli government would break it, it is.
I don’t even know how to respond to this, it’s that fucking ridiculous.
Soon simply criticizing a Jewish person will be anti-semitic to people like you.
That isn’t the case and you know it.
If I say “south Africa will always be a corrupt Shithole”, is that not racist?
Saying that they’re all the same in a negative way.
If South Africa has been a corrupt shithole for 10 years, it doesn’t somehow magically become not-a-shithole because the president changes.
The potential for it to become not-a-shithole is there. It is not somehow magically fixed because one person is changed.
I can’t fucking believe I have to explain this shit, Jesus christ you people are the reason no one understands why Biden isn’t responsible for inflation.
Israel’s genocide of Palestinians did not start on Oct. 7th.
Expecting Israel to abide by ceasefire agreements is like expecting the US to abide by treaties with native tribes.
Maybe… But I believe they were talking about the Israeli state, which isn’t just being held hostage by one deranged man.
Maybe not as bad as Netanyahu, but there are plenty of conservative death worshipers waiting in the wings to take his place.
I imagine plenty of progressives too, but I worry not enough
If you believe that Palestine is part of Israel, then how is it anti-semetic?
is that what i believe though?
or did you just make baseless assumptions?
Israel seems like a pretty antisemetic country to me:
Any Jew who immigrates to Israel as an oleh (Jewish immigrant) under the Law of Return automatically becomes an Israeli citizen. In this context, a Jew means a person born to a Jewish mother, or someone who has converted to Judaism and does not adhere to another religion. This right to citizenship extends to any children or grandchildren of a Jew, as well as the spouse of a Jew, or the spouse of a child or grandchild of a Jew. A Jew who voluntarily converts to another religion forfeits their right to claim citizenship under this provision.
Foreigners may naturalize as Israeli citizens after residing in Israel for at least three of the previous five years while holding permanent residency. Candidates must be physically present in the country at the time of application, be able to demonstrate knowledge of the Hebrew language, have the intention of permanently settling in Israel, and renounce any foreign nationalities. Although Arabic was previously an official language and has a special recognized status, there is no similar knowledge stipulation for it as part of the naturalization process. All of these requirements may be partially or completely waived for a candidate if they: served in the Israel Defense Forces or suffered the loss of a child during their military service period, are a minor child of a naturalized parent or Israeli resident, or made extraordinary contributions to Israel. Successful applicants are required to swear an oath of allegiance to the State of Israel.
Dual/multiple citizenship is explicitly allowed for an oleh who becomes Israeli by right of return. This is to encourage the overseas Jewish diaspora to migrate to Israel without forcing them to lose their previous national statuses. By contrast, naturalization candidates are required to renounce their original nationalities to obtain citizenship. Persons opting to naturalize are typically individuals who migrate to Israel for employment or family reasons, or are permanent residents of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
Male spouses under 35 and female spouses under 25 ordinarily resident in the Judea and Samaria Area (administrative division for the West Bank under Israeli law) outside of Israeli settlements are prohibited from obtaining citizenship and residency until reaching the relevant age. The 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law effectively discouraged further marriages between Israeli citizens and Palestinians by adding cumbersome administrative barriers that made legal cohabitation prohibitively difficult for affected couples. About 12,700 Palestinians married to Israeli citizens are prevented from obtaining citizenship under these restrictions. Affected persons are only allowed to remain in Israel on temporary permits, which would lapse on the death of their spouses or if they were to fail to receive regular reapproval by the Israeli government.
either way a ceasefire would stop a lot of immediate deaths, and give both party a lot of time to figure their shit out.
Ben dude doesn’t want to give Palestinians a chance to regroup while he faces his own political discord at home in Israel. I am only looking at this from an outside perspective, I could be wrong. It’s not a bad strategy, Russia be doing it for years now.
Sure, but at least a short period of people not being bombed or killed sounds great.
“Hamas! No!”
“What? What did I do?”
“Sorry, force of habit.”
I wonder if those totally-bias-free media bias checker sites that folks like to use to discount leftwing news sources have reflected on any of NYT’s latest propaganda?
lol nope!
Nothing quite says highly factual democratic socialism (center-left) quite like churning out one sided propaganda for an appartiting, genocidal group of ethnofascists.
Nothing quite says highly factual democratic socialism (center-left) quite like churning out one sided propaganda for an appartiting, genocidal group of ethnofascists.
I mean you’re legitimately more right than you know
Do you think I’m channeling my inner Kissinger?
The terms Hamas had agreed to were not immediately clear, but a senior Israeli official quickly said that the terms were not those that Israel had agreed to.
Looks like the headline matches reality.
You keep spewing totalitarian cacophony, you crazy diamond.
Linkerbaan vs PugJesus. Linkerbaan ratio is 5, PugJesus ratio is 2. Draw is 1. Results at 10pm.
On the serious note: An accessible link would be appreciated.
Wayback machine cuts off early, but this is what it gives:
The announcement by Hamas on Monday that it had accepted terms of a cease-fire added to the uncertainty that began over the weekend, when officials said that the armed group and Israel had reached an impasse after months of talks.
As if to underscore that the fighting would continue, Hamas militants on Sunday launched rockets from Rafah, their last stronghold in Gaza, killing four Israeli soldiers. The following morning, Israel announced a mass evacuation of areas in Rafah, escalating fears that the military would soon begin a long-anticipated invasion of the crowded city.
Hours later, Hamas suddenly announced that its leader, Ismail Haniyeh, had accepted a cease-fire proposal based on a plan proffered by Egypt and Qatar, which have been mediating the negotiations with Israel. The terms Hamas had agreed to were not immediately clear, but a senior Israeli official quickly said that the terms were not those that Israel had agreed to.
While Israel and its main ally, the United States, said they were reviewing the proposal Hamas had agreed to, the public statements by the two sides in the war suggest that they remain far apart on key issues needed to reach a truce. Here is a look at those differences.
Hamas wants a permanent cease-fire. Israel wants a temporary truce. The two sides are stuck on a fundamental question: will this cease-fire be a temporary pause to allow an exchange of hostages for prisoners or a long-term end to the fighting that would leave Hamas in power?
Israel insists on a temporary cease-fire, saying it will keep fighting afterward with the eventual aim of toppling Hamas’s rule in Gaza. Hamas demands a permanent cease-fire and vows to remain in power there.
AP is saying the same thing.
Thank you. It kinda sounds like there is a lack of information on what Hamas agreed to, for which I saw a post saying release of 33 hostages for 40 days of ceasefire. Can’t find it atm tho, the post may have vanished if it weren’t backed up with news.
Al Jazeera: Here are all the details of what Hamas agreed to
Washington Post: Here’s a quick overview of the plan, and details of what Israel doesn’t like about it
BBC: Here’s a quick overview and Israel’s reaction
NYT: OMG who can even say what might be in this proposal. Like the flying dutchman, it is an elusive and mysterious beast, and we need to wait for the light of the full moon to even glimpse its outline. Plus you know, Hamas lies all the time.
Also NYT: the “armed group” (i.e. Hamas)
Also NYT: “As if to underscore that the fighting would continue, Hamas militants on Sunday launched rockets” (motherfucker the Israelis are “militants” and “fighting”, too) … “killing four Israeli soldiers” (oh, so they attacked the soldiers in Gaza attacking them? I see the problem – they should have blown up an Israeli hospital or university; then apparently you’d be fine with it.)
I genuinely can’t continue because I’m getting for real pissed off about it. But I think it’s safe to assume the whole fucking article is written this way. I actually started paying again for a subscription to the NYT because I like journalism, but I think I may cancel it and send them a short note explaining why, like an angry middle-aged white woman storming out of a Starbucks.
NYT: OMG it’s so uncertain
It literally is uncertain. Like, that’s what this development has created for those of us observing.
(motherfucker the Israelis are “militants” and “fighting”, too)
“Militants” is a common usage term in journalism for combatants who are not or may not be formally a part of a state apparatus. Considering large parts of Hamas are ‘off the books’ of the local government in Gaza and a good number of those fighting currently are likely not regular soldiers, it’s not unreasonable to call them militants.
It literally is uncertain. Like, that’s what this development has created for those of us observing.
My point is that what Hamas agreed to isn’t uncertain (at least at this point). IDK, maybe there’s some timestamp issue where NYT published the OP article before it was clear… but as of last night (after the timestamp on the Al Jazeera article laying out everything in detail), the NYT wrote “Hamas’s Offer to Hand Over 33 Hostages Includes Some Who Are Dead”. I still haven’t seen any NYT article that simply lays out what the basic agreement details are; they seem to have wanted, with the “dead hostages” article, to just seize on an I-guess-technically-accurate data point and present it to make Hamas sound duplicitous and deadly, and then call it a day, with their readers still uninformed on the broad factual details of what was happening with the cease-fire talks.
“Militants” is a common usage term in journalism for combatants who are not or may not be formally a part of a state apparatus. Considering large parts of Hamas are ‘off the books’ of the local government in Gaza and a good number of those fighting currently are likely not regular soldiers, it’s not unreasonable to call them militants.
From Wordnik:
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
- adjective Fighting or warring.
- adjective Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause.
- noun A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.
from The Century Dictionary.
- Fighting; warring; engaged in warfare; pertaining to warfare or conflict.
- Having a combative character or tendency; warlike.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- adjective disposed to warfare or hard-line policies
- adjective engaged in war
- noun a militant reformer
- adjective showing a fighting disposition
From Encyclopedia.com:
Militant, in contemporary academic, activist, and journalistic interpretations, refers to an individual (as a noun) or to a party, a struggle or a state (as an adjective), engaged in aggressive forms of social and political resistance.
My point is that by deciding that Hamas people with guns can’t be “soldiers,” but IDF people with guns can, the NYT is giving a subtle stamp of legitimacy to the IDF.
I get what you’re saying – it’s not exactly a typical war. But I would argue that the IDF’s conduct is also equally non-typical for a “normal” armed conflict between capable state actors. It’s misleading to even call it a “war” – it is, very literally, more of a terrorist operation by Israel, blowing up civilian infrastructure and killing innocent people to put pressure on the Gaza state apparatus (such as it even exists) to agree to political terms they otherwise would never accept, to stop the killing.
If we’re calling Hamas “militants” out of pure desire for accuracy, can we start calling people who work for the IDF who blow up universities and snipe doctors “terrorists”? And mount a factual defense of that term, based on their conduct in the “war”? Because I think I could make a pretty good argument for why that term applies to them more accurately than “soldiers” and “war” for what’s happening on the ground right now.
My point is that by deciding that Hamas people with guns can’t be “soldiers,” but IDF people with guns can, the NYT is giving a subtle stamp of legitimacy to the IDF.
Let me put it this way - it was Nazi soldiers which rampaged across Europe during WW2.
Soldier is not a designation of morality or legitimacy. It is a designation of association - namely, association with a state’s military apparatus. Excluding paramilitaries, which are generally (though not always) referred to with other terms.
If we’re calling Hamas “militants” out of pure desire for accuracy, can we start calling people who work for the IDF who blow up universities and snipe doctors “terrorists”? And mount a factual defense of that term, based on their conduct in the “war”? Because I think I could make a pretty good argument for why that term applies to them more accurately than “soldiers” and “war” for what’s happening on the ground right now.
The category of ‘state terrorism’ is contentious, I wouldn’t reasonably expect it to be used in a reputable news source at this point in time (though I would be thrilled if it was used in one). But I agree that the description is absolutely apt.
Thank you. It kinda sounds like there is a lack of information on what Hamas agreed to, for which I saw a post saying release of 33 hostages for 40 days of ceasefire.
Can’t find it atm tho, the post may have vanished if it weren’t backed up with news.Edit: Thanks @mozz@mbin.grits.dev for the link below.
A ceasefire for you is when israel can keep committing Genocide and Hamas doesn’t fight back right?
A ceasefire is when both sides agree to cease firing. The article headline is quite clearly correct, but I know you aren’t interested in facts.
Conveniently ignore that Hamas accepted the ceasefire deal proposed by Egypt and Qatar, which means that both israel and Hamas very well know what is in the deal.
A cease fire is when both sides stop firing. Then you need the word deal to get there. Which Hamas has accepted and israel has not.
Conveniently ignore that Hamas accepted the ceasefire deal proposed by Egypt and Qatar, which means that both israel and Hamas very well know what is in the deal.
And Israel says the deal Hamas agreed to isn’t the deal they agreed to. Did you even read the article? Jesus Christ.
Four downvotes inside of a minute, lmao.
Good job you got there!
Hamas accepts the deal.
Israel rejects the deal.
See that’s what the article title should be. Not “complicates things”.
I accept the deal in which you hand deliver me all of your money.
When should I be expecting you?
(For the record, I’m 100% in favour of Israel immediately stopping all offensive action and immediately withdrawing from Gaza and being forced to immediately let aid in)
But this particular sticking point is kinda nonsense. If both parties aren’t involved in the development of the terms, then it’s just a political stunt to announce you’ve accepted them.
Israel could JUST as easily draft their own terms, and announce they’ve agreed to them.
Which funny enough they did iirc
Israel could JUST as easily draft their own terms, and announce they’ve agreed to them.
Linkerbaan thinks October 7th was legitimate resistance and the most precise irregular operation in modern military history. I guess all those civilians were Secret Zionist Spies. You’re not going to get through to them.
Hamas accepts the deal. Israel’s final response is uncertain - they commented that it was not the deal they agreed to, and it is not simply a matter of “Hamas has agreed, the ceasefire can go into effect”. But neither is it a rejection on the Israeli side. It ‘complicates things’.
Keep trying. You’ll show those big bad Lamestream Media types what for eventually, right?
I have accepted a deal Negotiated by Qatar where @PugJesus gives me all of his money indefinitely, this will go into effect immediately.
Is israel does not accept the ceasefire and invades Rafah after the proposal…
Then israel rejects the deal.
We’re not in a stalemate position. We’re talking about ignoring it and commencing a massively invasion to Genocide thousands of Palestinians
The mental Gymnastics you’re willing to do to defend israels Genocide is absolutely astounding.
The new deal accepted by Hamas was even brokered with massive American involvement:
The officials claimed CIA director Bill Burns and other Biden administration officials who are involved in the negotiations knew about the new proposal but didn’t tell Israel.
Between the lines: Two Israeli officials said Israel is deeply suspicious that the Biden administration gave guarantees to Hamas through the Egyptian and Qatari mediators about its key demand that a hostage deal will lead to the end of the war.
deleted by creator
These snips of headlines with a little response are nearly always misleading.
This adds nothing to the conversation.
You made this comment an hour after someone linked the article…
Ironically, your comment is what’s adding nothing to the conversation
They were talking about op, obviously
When NYT can’t properly pluralize a word that already ends with “s” in a headline…
They failed getting the possessive right not the plural…
It’s actually the correct way to use the possesive. You only use the apostrophe when the noun is plural and ends with “s”
*Hamas’
Well, what does the article say?
That the deal Hamas agreed to is a new version of the deal Israel hadnt yet seen.
So this Tameem is full of shit?
Wtf is a “Tameem”?
A tall meme with a speech impediment? 🤷
This post is a screenshot of a social media post. The username of the OP is Tameem.
I noticed that afterwards, but I still prefer my explanation 😉
It’s certainly a good assumption!😆
The guy making the incorrect comment in the OP.
This must be Biden’s fault somehow!
It’s crazy how suddenly you guys see Hamas as the good guys all of a sudden. I can tell you about all their atrocities and rapes, but I’ll just get hit back with whataboutisms. Even if you point out that there are no good guys in charge in this conflict, people downvote cause they see Hamas as heroes, which is insane.
Can you seriously not understand that people have basic fucking empathy and don’t want children to starve? Families to be seperated by bombs?
Yeah, Hamas is awful. The Palestinian people would likely kill me for expressing my gender in a way that is barely safe in the US. I don’t fucking care, no culture deserves genocide. That should not be considered a controversial statement.
Hamas doesn’t give a single shit about starving children. Their leadership are old rich men living in comfort abroad.
Nobody is arguing against stopping this madness, but you’re white washing history by making Hamas out to be the victim here. Fuck Hamas, they don’t care about Palestinians. Neither do Arabs or Muslims. Nobody despises Palestinians more than other Arabs. You’re being used to Stoke outrage. You’re pushing their propaganda that Hamas was a peaceful organization just minding it’s business
Did I ever say that Hamas was good or ethical? Did I even say that I liked the Palestinian people? You are making the argument that an entire ethnic group should be murdered, abused, humiliated, and then dumped into mass graves because of the actions of a few assholes. That is what you are supporting. Look in the fucking mirror and realize that there is never, ever, under any circumstances, any excuse that you can use to justify what Israel is doing right now. The victims are the Palestinian people who are being fucking massacred.
I said Hamas bad, and you jumped in with whataboutisms and defense. Your actions told me what you were.
When one side has committed such vast amounts of resources towards villainy, comparatively, it tends to make the other guys look better.
Have you even heard of Yasser Arafat or the history of the region? It’s like you kids just tuned in to the latest episode and made your decisions about who the bad and good are. All, EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR of Hamas resources go to rockets to shoot at schools and towards their own goals of ethnic cleansing. But you weren’t being told to be outraged for the last 6 decades, so you didn’t give a fuck till Instagram told you to.
Even if I say there are no good guys in charge in this conflict, I get dowvoted. Because you can’t accept that Hamas is bad, you just can’t.
I don’t use Instagram. I don’t use tiktok. Lemmy and mastodon are all I really use and I’m only on mastodon for the funny stuff. I know very little of the history of the area, and I’m not a history buff. Don’t care to learn. What I know is from the news (which can still impart biases of their own of course). Yes hamas is bad. The Israeli government is just as bad. They are using their military advantage to bomb families and starve children. They are committing genocide and we’re supposed to accept this because some of the people they kill are also bad? Fuck that. The atrocities committed by each side are on different scales. It doesn’t take much character to denounce genocide.
So I gotta ask, I been seeing people throw around the rapes again and it can’t possibly be the debunked nyt stuff right?
You realize this shit has been going on for like 7 decades right? Nyt debunked all of it? No they didn’t
Oh you’re talking about all Hamas’ atrocities and rapes over the last 70 years.
Hamas, the organization founded in ‘87.
The Muslim brotherhood suddenly changes its name in 87 and you all think it’s a whole new thing lol
The Muslim brotherhood exists presently. Right now.
So do Catholics, yet Protestants still exist!
The Protestant reformation famously was a bunch more than Martin Luther “changes [the churchs] name”.
That’s also a pretty bad comparison because both Catholics and Protestants treat each other as something different.
Even non-Christians see a significant difference.
What are you trying to say? Clearly metaphor and simile aren’t working right now…
Iran can’t beat us with bombs so they flipped the youth with very simple pr
Pretty much. These are the same college kids who like to tell me what should be offensive to me as a Latino. They don’t realize that them jumping in to defend me against invisible discrimination, is their own form of white supremacy and colonialist attitude. “this brown person should be offended at that man wearing a sombrero, and only I a young educated white kid can defend him!”
I’ve been saying it for years. Zoomers are dumb. We have statistics to prove it. For years, people have been saying “oh gen z is so accepting, so progressive”. Yeah but that doesn’t matter because they’re stupid and stupid = easily manipulated.
Nah. No dumber than previous generations. Fuck, man, do you remember the internet in the 2000s and 2010s? Millennials and Gen X weren’t any brighter. And the Boomers had lead poisoning.
Idk. Boomers told millenials not to believe everything we see on TV.
Millenials were quick to get skeptical about everything and applied that logic to the internet as well.
However boomers appear to be believing everything they see on social media / news broadcasts.
And Gen Z appears to believe everything they see on TikTok.
Probably smarter than Boomers, but definitely dumber than gen x and millenials
That’s just tankies doing tankie things.
Every fault can be excused, as long as you’re an enemy of the US.
