this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
111 points (93.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35884 readers
3244 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I saw an article about them attacking Lebanon now. So, where will it stop? Have the Israeli government ever spoken about this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 36 points 5 months ago (60 children)

This may not be a popular response but when did the nazi regime stop? When did China stop with it's cleansing? America and manifest destiny? I could go on... Humanity needs to realize that we are pretty shitty in general and can't be trusted when it comes to hatred, entitlement, and tribalism.

The solution is a neutral third party with sufficient power to stop any country's bullshit through economic and military (actual) peacekeeping... which doesn't exist nor will it ever.

So the short answer is they will stop when the cleansing is complete.

After the deed is done we as 'civilized' nations will lament the tragedy and promise change... until the media cycle washes all those sins down the drain and it will be forgotten until next time.

[–] Surp@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I am in no way saying what's going on is right...anytime massive amounts of life is taken it's horrible. With that being said you realize that there isn't a single country in the entire world that wasn't built on the blood of others? Every civilization that's here now destroyed some other one. People act like they live in some place that asked nicely to have the land they have.

[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Oh, I'm fully aware. Tribalism is the lizard brain going deeeep in the paint. The problem is this: peaceful culture doesn't fight back - aggressive culture exploits this: which one thrives? We have systematically bred for and codified our warlike nature. This is the result. Is it fixable? Many have tried. Our history books are littered with both failed attempts and their distorted remains. All I can say for certain is that the way the majority of countries are structured... isn't it. This is fundamentally why achieving a fix is nearly impossible at scale: tribalism. Even if we are wrong it's our wrong and we don't want to lose it. This is rooted in fear of change which from a survival aspect makes sense... but becomes detrimental at scale.

[–] Surp@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

I agree with what you're saying and it's too bad most people are too stupid to move forward with that mindset because I for one would rather we could all get along but for invisible reasons many people can't..which is in itself quite unintelligent

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

No. Moral. States

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

party with sufficient power to stop any country's bullshit

No. That would not be a solution for anything! That would just be an even bigger threat to humanity.

[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I disagree. It's about execution - creating an environment that is resistant to corrosion. A standing force can absolutely be viewed in that manner - which is why it cannot be a single static standing force.

The UN is the right idea but it needs teeth. And it needs the teeth to be double sided. If boots are on the ground peacekeeping they should be without bias and secondary interest. An attack on a peacekeeper has no guarantee of the creed nor country of origin of that keeper.

Peacekeeping should be like a draft. Every country that participates must provide and maintain a set number of rolling participants. These people will serve and train initially in humanitarian deployments with others.. half way through their 'term' they should be moved to peacekeeping duties. This is idealized but would be good for both building trust amongst peacekeepers and goodwill towards them. This solves the military portion (roughly) - I have a lot of thoughts on this and believe it to be solvable... it just won't be. No country gets to benefit therefore it has no merit.

That covered the military side... when talking about the economic side: the peacekeepers (let's say un for simplicity) carry the ability to (by vote) censure a country and cut it off from direct trade / support. At that time any trade is then routed through the UN and it becomes the middleman. This allows economic pressures to be precisely controlled on an area. Once that country falls in line, by majority vote, operations are restored. Once again this is idealized and has no obviously advantaged party ... so it has no merit and will never occur.

Basically everyone is equally held accountable and equally invested. Of course this means everyone gets a seat at the table and everyone gets one vote. I'm certain we can already see why this has 0 chance of ever happening. Those in power seek to keep it - very few will willingly give some away.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

A nice dream, but only a dream.

Unfortunately man is not perfect enough for it to work. Therefore the outcome can be nothing else than a huge threat for mankind.

[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I said as much multiple times.

The point of that statement was to highlight that it is possible to construct something that does not allow for consolidation and corruption of power... which it did. Your view simply was looking at present day examples which, as you correctly identified, do not work. That doesn't mean nothing can work however ... which is why I disagreed.

It's a fun mental exercise to what if and try to construct something that could work. Can't tear something down without considering what rebuilding it would look like.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

be careful about using the term 'execution' here ;-)

[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

...until morale improves? Dually noted lol.

[–] SurpriZe@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Options for this third party?

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] SurpriZe@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Which ones exactly

load more comments (57 replies)