I really don’t think it makes a difference to re-word it to: “Itamar Ben-Gvir gets one of his social media interns or something to post video where he displays the new execution chamber Israel has built to mass murder Palestinians. [Content Warning: Noose]” The fact of who posted it is of no importance whatsoever. It’s splitting hairs.
Did you look at the post you yourself link to?? Here it is
text of the above
1944 Hitler introducing a “gas chamber”… (Topic forbidden to question/debate)…
Nahhh this is 2026 from a European supremacist representing Israel, a sick society.
This is Ben Gvir introducing execution chamber for Palestinian people, the same owners of the land colonisers stole. Palestinian prisoners used to be tortured and sodomized, now they will be executed as well.
You are asserting that “angelo in china” is a sock puppet of ben-givr. “angelo in china” initiates with what sounds VERY MUCH like holocaust denialism. What is your alternative explanation of “Topic forbidden to question/debate”?? Then describes the video itself as “a European supremacist representing Israel, a sick society”.
People make posts in c/slop all time time with titles like “Trump tweets x” or “Trump posts y to Truth Social.”
Why not post there then instead of mindlessly posting here? People posts all kinds of things in all kinds of places. You wanna post any old bullshit: that’s what reddit is for.
Does it matter, at all, that it’s not actually Donald J Trump physically writing those tweets? Do you want every title to be “Donald Trump, or potentially one of his social media interns or other employees whose job it is to send out messaging for him, posted xyz today.” ?
Please provide 1 example of when people are posting that DJT posted something when it appeared to come from a muller she wrote type account as the original AND ONLY source. As that would be equivalent.
Admit you are wrong. this is a disgrace.
This is why actual sources should be required even in /c/chapotraphouse. We are all (me too! I have done it and posted more regrettable shit than this) susceptible to confirmation bias. Even if something “feels right” or is “spiritually true” it does not negate the need to distinguish if it is actually TRUE.
I honestly do not understand why you are angry. This is a video of Itamar Ben-Gvir. We both agree on that. It was posted. We both agree on that. The only thing we don’t agree on is who originally posted the video.
I assert: It does not matter who originally posted it. Ben-Gvir is looking at the camera, talking to the camera. He intended this video to be released to the public. Therefore, I do not care at all in what way the video was birthed unto the internet. Can you explain to me why the original source of this 10 second clip is important? Do you think it’s AI or something? Personally I do not think it’s AI.
You are asserting that “angelo in china” is a sock puppet of ben-givr.
I never said that. I have no idea who “angelo in china” is. Might be a terrible person, that is entirely possible - many people on Twitter are disgusting.
Admit you are wrong. this is a disgrace.
My comrade in Marx. This website is a posting forum, it is not the Oxford University debate club. It is not a peer-reviewed academic journal. I apologize if my shit-posting is not up to your rigorous academic standards. This website is named after animal meme. C/chapotraphouse is named after a podcast where lazy, entitled New York leftists blabber on about the news.
If it makes you happy, then here: yes I was wrong when I said “Ben-Gvir posts” this video. I was using colloquial language. Like if someone said: LeBron James just released a new Sprite commercial. Did LeBron direct the video? Did he hold the camera? Did he edit it? Did he post it on his account? No, other people did all that. But he is the star of the commercial, so colloquially people say he “posted” it or “released it” even if this is not literally true.
Is it a good use of your time to analytically pick apart every single word someone uses like this? Are you the reincarnation of Ludwig Wittgenstein? I just don’t understand why you’re so worked up over someone not speaking 100% technically correctly about the provenance of a 10-second video.
I am angry because there is enough horror in the world without inventing new horror. This is just you jacking off. reddit or ao3 would be better venues. why present it as news?
It is discrediting to post fake ass shit.
This is a video of Itamar Ben-Gvir. We both agree on that. It was posted. We both agree on that.
Literally I have no reason to think it is real. Nobody has attempted to provide any substantiation to that. Where?
The only thing we don’t agree on is who originally posted the video.
Wrong. You said: “I really don’t have any idea where that person got the video from.” How can we disagree about that? You are just posting whatever la la la la la
a sock puppet of ben-givr.
I never said that. I have no idea
who “angelo in china” is.
Wrong. You said: “one of his social media interns or something to post video”
it is not the Oxford University debate club.
yes sweetie. that is why I think the content should be founded in reality rather than cooked up in the imagination. At Oxford they might say whatever suits. Which does seem to be what happened here.
Is it a good use of your time to analytically pick apart every single word someone uses like this?
I am not “picking” “apart” “every” “word”, I am disputing the basic claim which was: “Today: Itamar Ben-Gvir posts video where he displays the new execution chamber Israel has built to mass murder Palestinians. [Content Warning: Noose]”.
What of that was true, as you were aware at the time of posting? LIST PLEASE. I stipulate to the following:
Ben Givr (likeness of)
[Content Warning: Noose]
above
I honestly do not understand why you are angry. This is a video of Itamar Ben-Gvir. We both agree on that. It was posted. We both agree on that. The only thing we don’t agree on is who originally posted the video.
I assert: It does not matter who originally posted it. Ben-Gvir is looking at the camera, talking to the camera. He intended this video to be released to the public. Therefore, I do not care at all in what way the video was birthed unto the internet. Can you explain to me why the original source of this 10 second clip is important? Do you think it’s AI or something? Personally I do not think it’s AI.
You are asserting that “angelo in china” is a sock puppet of ben-givr.
I never said that. I have no idea who “angelo in china” is. Might be a terrible person, that is entirely possible - many people on Twitter are disgusting.
Admit you are wrong. this is a disgrace.
My comrade in Marx. This website is a posting forum, it is not the Oxford University debate club. It is not a peer-reviewed academic journal. I apologize if my shit-posting is not up to your rigorous academic standards. This website is named after animal meme. C/chapotraphouse is named after a podcast where lazy, entitled New York leftists blabber on about the news.
If it makes you happy, then here: yes I was wrong when I said “Ben-Gvir posts” this video. I was using colloquial language. Like if someone said: LeBron James just released a new Sprite commercial. Did LeBron direct the video? Did he hold the camera? Did he edit it? Did he post it on his account? No, other people did all that. But he is the star of the commercial, so colloquially people say he “posted” it or “released it” even if this is not literally true.
Is it a good use of your time to analytically pick apart every single word someone uses like this? Are you the reincarnation of Ludwig Wittgenstein? I just don’t understand why you’re so worked up over someone not speaking 100% technically correctly about the provenance of a 10-second video.
![Today: Itamar Ben-Gvir posts video where he displays the new execution chamber Israel has built to mass murder Palestinians. [Content Warning: Noose]](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/bde5bf71-02c1-4e2d-8cbe-633a72df54b1.png){kind=link}
@KurtVonnegut@hexbear.net
Did you look at the post you yourself link to?? Here it is
text of the above
You are asserting that “angelo in china” is a sock puppet of ben-givr. “angelo in china” initiates with what sounds VERY MUCH like holocaust denialism. What is your alternative explanation of “Topic forbidden to question/debate”?? Then describes the video itself as “a European supremacist representing Israel, a sick society”.
Why not post there then instead of mindlessly posting here? People posts all kinds of things in all kinds of places. You wanna post any old bullshit: that’s what reddit is for.
Please provide 1 example of when people are posting that DJT posted something when it appeared to come from a muller she wrote type account as the original AND ONLY source. As that would be equivalent.
Admit you are wrong. this is a disgrace.
This is why actual sources should be required even in /c/chapotraphouse. We are all (me too! I have done it and posted more regrettable shit than this) susceptible to confirmation bias. Even if something “feels right” or is “spiritually true” it does not negate the need to distinguish if it is actually TRUE.
I honestly do not understand why you are angry. This is a video of Itamar Ben-Gvir. We both agree on that. It was posted. We both agree on that. The only thing we don’t agree on is who originally posted the video.
I assert: It does not matter who originally posted it. Ben-Gvir is looking at the camera, talking to the camera. He intended this video to be released to the public. Therefore, I do not care at all in what way the video was birthed unto the internet. Can you explain to me why the original source of this 10 second clip is important? Do you think it’s AI or something? Personally I do not think it’s AI.
I never said that. I have no idea who “angelo in china” is. Might be a terrible person, that is entirely possible - many people on Twitter are disgusting.
My comrade in Marx. This website is a posting forum, it is not the Oxford University debate club. It is not a peer-reviewed academic journal. I apologize if my shit-posting is not up to your rigorous academic standards. This website is named after animal meme. C/chapotraphouse is named after a podcast where lazy, entitled New York leftists blabber on about the news.
If it makes you happy, then here: yes I was wrong when I said “Ben-Gvir posts” this video. I was using colloquial language. Like if someone said: LeBron James just released a new Sprite commercial. Did LeBron direct the video? Did he hold the camera? Did he edit it? Did he post it on his account? No, other people did all that. But he is the star of the commercial, so colloquially people say he “posted” it or “released it” even if this is not literally true.
Is it a good use of your time to analytically pick apart every single word someone uses like this? Are you the reincarnation of Ludwig Wittgenstein? I just don’t understand why you’re so worked up over someone not speaking 100% technically correctly about the provenance of a 10-second video.
thank you for replying comrade. not easy.
I am angry because there is enough horror in the world without inventing new horror. This is just you jacking off. reddit or ao3 would be better venues. why present it as news?
It is discrediting to post fake ass shit.
Literally I have no reason to think it is real. Nobody has attempted to provide any substantiation to that. Where?
Wrong. You said: “I really don’t have any idea where that person got the video from.” How can we disagree about that? You are just posting whatever la la la la la
who “angelo in china” is.
Wrong. You said: “one of his social media interns or something to post video”
yes sweetie. that is why I think the content should be founded in reality rather than cooked up in the imagination. At Oxford they might say whatever suits. Which does seem to be what happened here.
I am not “picking” “apart” “every” “word”, I am disputing the basic claim which was: “Today: Itamar Ben-Gvir posts video where he displays the new execution chamber Israel has built to mass murder Palestinians. [Content Warning: Noose]”.
What of that was true, as you were aware at the time of posting? LIST PLEASE. I stipulate to the following:
above
I honestly do not understand why you are angry. This is a video of Itamar Ben-Gvir. We both agree on that. It was posted. We both agree on that. The only thing we don’t agree on is who originally posted the video.
I assert: It does not matter who originally posted it. Ben-Gvir is looking at the camera, talking to the camera. He intended this video to be released to the public. Therefore, I do not care at all in what way the video was birthed unto the internet. Can you explain to me why the original source of this 10 second clip is important? Do you think it’s AI or something? Personally I do not think it’s AI.
I never said that. I have no idea who “angelo in china” is. Might be a terrible person, that is entirely possible - many people on Twitter are disgusting.
My comrade in Marx. This website is a posting forum, it is not the Oxford University debate club. It is not a peer-reviewed academic journal. I apologize if my shit-posting is not up to your rigorous academic standards. This website is named after animal meme. C/chapotraphouse is named after a podcast where lazy, entitled New York leftists blabber on about the news.
If it makes you happy, then here: yes I was wrong when I said “Ben-Gvir posts” this video. I was using colloquial language. Like if someone said: LeBron James just released a new Sprite commercial. Did LeBron direct the video? Did he hold the camera? Did he edit it? Did he post it on his account? No, other people did all that. But he is the star of the commercial, so colloquially people say he “posted” it or “released it” even if this is not literally true.
Is it a good use of your time to analytically pick apart every single word someone uses like this? Are you the reincarnation of Ludwig Wittgenstein? I just don’t understand why you’re so worked up over someone not speaking 100% technically correctly about the provenance of a 10-second video.