this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
177 points (91.2% liked)

News

23287 readers
4304 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Archive (including paywall bypass): https://archive.is/KeCzT

The Israeli Defense Forces on Sunday accused a prominent journalist– who in recent months has reported regularly for Al Jazeera from Gaza – of moonlighting as a senior Hamas commander.

The Israeli Defense Forces have published photos they say were discovered on a laptop in Gaza that show Al Jazeera journalist Mohamed Washah engaged in Hamas terrorist activities.

Neither Al Jazeera nor the Qatari government have responded to the Sun’s request for comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The claim is "Hamas doesn't admit when its soldiers are killed because that would defeat their martyrdom and human shield strategy to gain western sympathy."

It's a negative.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That is a lie. I pasted your claim. I will paste it again:

According to Hamas though, the number of its dead soldiers is like three.

If you can't back up this claim, fine. I guess it also a lie.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, expecting evidence for a specific claim is totally sealioning.

I'm sorry that you don't like it that the person made a claim that neither of you can back up. That's not my fault.

Again- this was the claim I asked to be backed up.

According to Hamas though, the number of its dead soldiers is like three.

You have not proved they have said that and neither have they. That article is from November 26th of last year. It is also not saying that Hamas is claiming that the total number of Hamas soldiers that were killed was four. Just four in that specific instance. And you either knew that when you pasted the article and didn't expect me to read it or you didn't read it yourself. Either way, you're being highly dishonest.

But sure, be that dishonest and accuse me of sealioning as well. Why not? Easier than just admitting that the claim is false, right?

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The claims are simple:

1 - Hamas has not released any statistics about the total number of Hamas fighters killed.

2 - Hamas has acknowledged a small number of specific, individual deaths

Claiming that either of these statements are false - now that you have been presented with evidence of both - is precisely sealioning. Claiming that someone is being dishonest - in presenting evidence that does not fit a pedantic standard beyond the scope of the discussion - is precisely sealioning. For example, suggesting a source that reads "Abu Anas al-Ghandour and three others had been killed" as being semantically incompatible with "number of its dead soldiers is like three" is sealioning.

If you would like to present any evidence of counterclaims, that is perfectly fine. Perhaps Hamas has published losses of soldiers in the time since these articles have been published. I and the rest of the world would certainly like to see those numbers.

However, continued requests for further evidence or insistence that the evidence does not say what it says, or pedantic claims that deliberately misinterpret a statement will only be evidence of bad faith.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Neither of those claims were the ones I was challenging. I have pasted the claim I was challenging that was false.

Now you're gaslighting me as if I hadn't pasted it twice.

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

while i tend to be on your side about this, i hate that link you gave for sealioning. it smacks of twitterati circlejerking. it's the kind of thing that shocked me when i joined mastodon: being called a "reply guy" for participating in a public conversation. casting doubt on unevidenced claims is an essential part of intellectually honest conversation.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The original source is a comic that demonstrates it fairly well, although the current definition is a bit broader. I look out for:

  • persistent questioning that diverges from the core of a discussion
  • focusing on pedantic claims
  • demanding ever-increasing evidence
  • placing an undue burden of proof on an individual or their claims ("undue" is the key word)
  • demanding evidence of a person's opinion
  • following someone from one conversation to another (thank goodness that rarely happens on Lemmy! On other platforms it can be terrible)
  • (of course) the illusion of civility and willingness to listen
[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 0 points 9 months ago

i have often been accused of trolling, and while i do like to argue with strangers on the internet, i don't really think of myself as a troll (most of the time). i think i'm just intellectually honest, and demand others i share space with practice intellectual honesty.

i will say that i have found that just avoiding interrogatives is a great help in my "crusade". i will do everything i can to avoid answering direct questions as they are ALL TOO OFTEN bad faith, and i extend the same courtesy, almost never asking anything of my interlocutors.

but i feel that the entire topic of trolling is overblown and possible entirely fictional. it seems like a thought-terminating cliche or an ad hominem meant to not-deal with the substance of what is being discussed and attack the speaker.

i caught a 2-day ban for discussing whether people are owed genuine discussion about bad ideas under the accusation that i was trolling.

i'm starting to ramble and have already resisted the temptation to start over twice, so i'll leave this just reiterating that