This is a rather significant move on their part. Hamas has a proclivity to quash dissent and the civilians must know what kind of risk this puts them in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Gaza_economic_protests

In July and August 2023, thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip took to the streets to protest chronic power outages, poor economic conditions in the territory, and Hamas’s taxation of stipends to the poor paid by Qatar. The rallies, organized by a grassroots online movement called “Alvirus Alsakher” (The mocking virus), were a rare public display of discontent against the ruling Hamas government. Hamas bars most demonstrations and public displays of discontent.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/03/gaza-hamas-must-end-brutal-crackdown-against-protesters-and-rights-defenders/

Hamas security forces’ violent crackdown against peaceful Palestinian protesters, activists, human rights workers – including an Amnesty International worker – and local journalists must be immediately halted and investigated, said Amnesty International.

Hundreds of protesters have been subjected to beatings, arbitrary arrest and detentions, and torture and other forms of ill-treatment since 14 March, when Palestinians took to the streets across the Gaza Strip to protest against the rising cost of living and deteriorating economic conditions under the Hamas de facto administration.

Thank you for saying this, I was a little taken back by what in my opinion seemed to be comments expressing sympathy for Hezbollah.

Removed by mod

This is turning into harassment.

Edit: I think not engaging is the winning move with this one :)

Removed by mod

I understand I never said what you’re claiming, thanks.

I can cross out things too, but that doesn’t make them true. You could cite where I said those exact things, which would make a much stronger case… Wait, could you?

But do you condemn Hamas?

Yes I did, NATO is not debunked, your sources do not dispute the reports contents. Sorry.

They are not debunked by your sources, nothing you provide proves the NATO article wrong. YouTube is not a source.

Bored, leaving.

I said nothing of the sort. Please cite where I said IDF ok :) yet another attempt to lie about my position.

It’s still a fallacy, no matter how you want to slice it.

Go away.

Kamala is aborting this 78 year old baby on live television.

I mean it’s not like one is the most moral army in the world and the othet is a terrorist organization fighting their oppressors. Wonder which people expect to not shoot or use human shields

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence

Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn’t as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.

…

The “not as bad as” argument is always popular with people who know perfectly well they’re doing something immoral. Being fully aware of this problem, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it, and they do so by pointing to other, usually worse, immorality. It is practically synonymous to the idea of “the lesser of two evils”.

Not responding further. I’m in no way accusing anyone of justifying anything, I’m quoting the appropriate section of the article relevant to the fallacy.

The well sourced information presented in the report has not been disputed. You’re audaciously prescribing intent onto me (?), accusing me of presenting this to defend NATO. I’m presenting corroborating well sourced information relevant to the article posted. Nothing you claim is substantiated, other than our shared agreement on Tasnim News.

This is unfounded opinion, and a means to discredit information critical of Hamas. Going by your chosen definition, AP news presents information and ideas meant to help inform people on a multitude of issues and is thus propaganda. Did you read the next definition Merriam Webster lists? A bit more critical and harder to apply to NATO huh?

Your answers contain a lot of “can be” and vague allegations. Nothing definite, no evidence. Playing along would be doing what I did, not finding an obtuse definition and applying your personal opinion to it. Like, here’s another one:

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Can’t really apply that because the information in the report isn’t misleading right? And it’s not promoting a cause, it’s providing strategies to countries in how to deal with human shield situations. Information, that’s it.

I’m tired of this game. Gonna focus on Harris ripping Trump a new one.

And AP news is clearly guilty of this because… Oh wait I missed the evidence.

No I understand the point, it’s that good news about the economy must be down played because of various unsourced opinion A, B, and C that don’t dispute anything in the article but do still manage to accuse AP news of presenting information with an agenda.

This scrutiny is not applied when the reported information is in line with what the community believes. The article even discusses caveats to the good news:

The data showed that while the typical American household regained its 2019 purchasing power in 2023, it essentially experienced no rise in living standards over that time. That is a sharp difference from the preceding four years, when inflation-adjusted median incomes rose 14% from 2015 through 2019.

But that isn’t enough. The whole article needs to be cast with doubt, not because contrary evidence was presented, but because users feel AP news is shilling.

Ridiculous.

Edit: It’s evident that, once I posted this excerpt, it was clung to like a life raft considering how many times it was spammed, and is somehow self disproving the premise of the article. Kinda sounds like the article wasn’t read completely before first (down playing) opinions were cast. But hey, who reads the article? :)

I was wondering when APnews would be suspect in this sub… turns out it’s when it veers outside the accepted discourse on lemmy… or doesn’t appease them enough.

Status quo, hiding the “real” picture… unreal. All of this while providing absolutely no evidence contrary to anything in the article. Quality discussion.

Apnews…?

I directly quoted the article indicating relevance. Not whataboutism at all.

False, this is reframing my argument again.

Changing my argument for your sake is not civil discussion.