replying to this one to regain space, but it's in reply to https://cohost.org/NireBryce/post/6003613-d-does-higher-ed-not#comment-8990256c-aea5-4ab0-8419-53dfc7c9b360
"i am not interested in being the one to drag you through this."
In fact, you're also showing weariness to nuance with:
"but you're wearing patience thin..."
That feeling you had when you wrote it..
THAT FEELING RIGHT THERE...
is why textbook and research comprehension is down. You felt it, think back to it. That right there is what we need to work on to improve literacy. Thanks to short-form social media, people's mental capacities are being geared towards sprints, not marathons, but to grasp complex concepts, that endurance for a mental marathon is absolutely neccesarry.
let's put me in context.
me: You're acting like there's two sides here when the primary goal is 0 civilians dead going forward. there's no acceptable number, and yet. I'm on the side of not bombing civilians, but you're... I don't even know. you say "no dead civilians shouldn't have to be said" but you then bring things up that are being used to justify it, as if THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE somehow have anything to do with military responses or attacks or whatever. Or that's how it is read and probably why people react so strongly.
My patience is wearing thin with having people claim their opponents of having a lack of reading comprehension while not bothering to think I might have a point when I point out where the nuance you've been ignoring is, and its obvious you're ignoring it because you keep dismissing it out of hand instead of using your aforementioned-by-you mental endurance to grapple with it, mental endurance you say so many others you've dealt with on this topic lack.
The entire point of my replies is that you've got a blind spot here and keep insisting you don't by bringing up things that... have more nuance than you go into. And then you call them incorrect for highlighting it, or that they have it out for you.
at the end you reiterate what you're saying, which is, I would say, accurately represented in what my quote describes, though because my patience was/is wearing thin, I obviously did not word it with enough sugar around it:
For the record, my stance is that the leaders of Israel and Hamas need to be captured in a non-combat way (more spies, less armies) and tried for warcrimes, democratic elections in Palestine need to be re-instated, and there should be significant funding into Buddhist missionaries into both Israel and Palestine to deescalate the religious fervor that has been perpetuating conflicts and genocides in the region for the last few centuries and then for the UN to confiscate WMDs of both sides and stop weapon shipments to both sides simultaneously, which is very important (to Israel from US, and to Palestine by Iran), and to declare the entire region a world heritage site, and strongly encourage both Israelis and Palestinians to migrate out and depopulate with incentives (but not mandate the move) and for the region to be the world's first mutually protected international trade region with enforced neutrality, ensuring all countries of the world have trade access but are banned from military access to the region. But getting people to that conclusion and its reasons feels neigh impossible.
the reason people don't respect this position of yours is that it's impossible in the timeframe of, without a ceasefire, "the gaza strip having buildings left standing". But people are still dying until one happens.
that's what I mean by you're missing the most critical piece of nuance. You're acting like all the background matters, like there's time to spare. That's why people are saying you're in favor of civ deaths: not directly, but implicitly. The Palestinian civilians aren't hamas, and can't control them, but are the ones dying. And you're making it about the two belligerents and what might happen even with a regional security force between them.
The people you see as against you are seeing it for what it is, pointing out that there's not even nuance but obvious realities they've already considered, and you turn around and say "but I didn't say that" while not considering the side effects of your plans you can't even enact because none of us can touch geopolitical policy.
Ideals are great. They don't match reality, and they certainly won't if you're insisting the nuance you know is the only nuance that's correct, or that places not talking about the other side must mean they don't think about it, instead of it being irrelevant for most places you're bringing it up in. Don't assume people talking with you don't know geopolitics when talking geopolitical issues, it's kinda a bad look. We know there's the risk of retaliation, that's why every proposal involves a security force in the interrim period. I recommend reading about it.
You've painted both of us as opponents the same way you accuse us of, you've failed to take into account the nuance others in the conversation are constantly pointing out. You talk about mental endurance but won't even go re-read the Letter From Birmingham Jail to completion, or even the podcast widr linked, both of which were given to you because we know we cannot explain all of the nuance in a cohost comment thread. But you don't even seem to try with those. You don't even consider you might be wrong, or that you're fighting on a previous level of discourse than they are, since this would be germane in 2021.
This is the sixth hour of me taking the time to try and write thoughtful responses while double-checking my facts. Far more than I'd give anyone else trying to pull this. You don't even realize you're doing it, hopefully, but I'm trying to illustrate why you keep getting the same responses from people. You're acting like you're the arbiter of correctness and nuance, while saying things that you can easily find are more complex than you say and then reacting as if they're aren't reading you at all. That's the thing -- we are. In the full context of things. We can talk history if you want, but you seem uninterested when I bring up examples.
You are bringing up nuance while denying nuance from others pointing out you may be incorrect whether you mean to our not. You're bringing up a lack of reading comprehension that you similarly demonstrate, when I'm responding to your points, having read and, yes, thought about them. Your nuance is often trivially more nuanced than you say, and when people bring that up you say they're lumping you into the side with their opponents.
I'm saying the reasons people do lump you in like that probably has to do with not just your attitude that you are always correct no matter how much nuance anyone else produces, but that to anyone else in the conversation, you are indistinguishable from someone doing this hostilely, and that's with reading comprehension, giving you the benefit of the doubt, and all of that. When you misread me you tell me it's a lack of my reading comprehension. I'm out of patience for having my time wasted for someone who preaches good faith and the need to read things and have the facts straight, but refuses to do it themselves.
There's an old saying:
if you meet an asshole one day, you've probably met an asshole
if you meet an asshole every day, you're probably the asshole
If you want to continue this, you're going to need to like, reflect on any of it before we continue. Since you've brought up reading comprehension, mental endurance, and nuance as things other people don't have but you do (which is often true!) I'm going to have to ask you to use them in your reply, though. to engage with the piece instead of doing mad-libs with whatever you think we're saying, or that we're just saying things to you for the sake of it instead of maybe knowing something.
am I putting my 'all' into these to try and convince you? no, this is a comment thread.
But I am going to keep pointing out that maybe the reason people think you're hostile is because you're indistinguishable from someone doing this to divide and spread misinfo, and (to them) lying to their face when you say your nuance is nuanceful but their additions and corrections aren't.
I'm not even trying to get you to change your mind on the issues. Just to realize that things might be more complex and nuanced than you let on, and that maybe the reason people are reacting to you strongly is you keep (accidentally?) doing this sort of thing where you brickwall them instead of like, thinking about why they're saying the things when you bring up incomplete nuance that you might not realize is incomplete. And that in your... whatever this, you're going against all of the points you tried to make in the first one, about comprehension, about nuance, about people being quick to think and react instead of thinking about it.
