That thread was literally the first time I’d ever heard of them doing it. My comment there however was intended to question the legitimacy of using that term in that specific context - where they were reportedly sending civilians to clear buildings before entering themselves - not as some broad denial that it’s ever happened. I didn’t argue against anyone who gave me actual examples of them doing it.

And even if I were skeptical about the IDF using human shields, it would still be a logical error to jump to the conclusion that I’m denying a genocide. I’ve seen the photos of Gaza nearly flattened by Israel’s bombing - those are pretty hard to argue against.

I can’t point to anyone specific who outright refuses to acknowledge Hamas doing the same, but I’ve interacted with plenty of people who straight-up refuse to admit it and instead derail the entire conversation by accusing me of holding views I don’t actually hold.

I’m doubting that the IDF would use human shields because I don’t think Hamas would refrain from engaging them just to protect their own civilians. However, people have provided examples of the IDF actually doing this, and I haven’t argued against that. I don’t fully understand the logic behind it, but I accept that it’s happening and I obviously condemn it.

My doubt stems from the fact that it’s well documented that Hamas has, on multiple occasions, launched rockets from areas near hospitals, schools, mosques, and refugee camps - knowing that this can deter the IDF from striking those locations, at least to some extent. But the willingness to put their own civilian population at risk like that makes me seriously question how much they actually care. They’re also on record saying things like “we love death more than the infidels love life,” and in their worldview, being martyred isn’t a bad outcome - quite the opposite.

So my issue is essentially this: the same people who seem completely unwilling to criticize Hamas for their use of human shields have no problem going after the IDF for it. In this case, even if the criticism is valid, I still see that as quite hypocritical.

Also, I fully acknowledge being a provocateur - and the fierce pushback against what I sounded like I was saying was fully expected on my part.

I would’ve accepted the label “genocide denier” six months ago, but at this point, I no longer do. The longer this conflict goes on, the harder it becomes to defend the IDF. What they’re doing right now counts as genocide by my standards - and nowhere have I claimed otherwise.

(I’m the guy this thread is about)

Six months ago, I would’ve argued against the claim that what Israel is doing here amounts to genocide. But at this point, the stack of evidence is piling up so high that it’s becoming increasingly hard to deny.

I don’t see the hypocrisy you’re accusing me of here, but I’m more than happy to clear up any potential confusion. I’ve interacted with you here before, and I know that - unlike OP - you’re capable of debating in good faith. So if you genuinely see any logical errors in my reasoning or behavior that you think are worth criticizing, I’m open to hearing it.

I’m more than happy to explain my actual views to anyone genuinely interested in hearing what I actually think about the subject - rather than what OP wants you to think I believe. I know my reply was intentionally provocative, but I stand by everything I said. You only need to compare the length of OP’s moderation history to mine to see who’s really acting in bad faith here.

Here’s my responses to that thread for further context.

I’m not sure “human shield” is the correct term here. That implies using the civilian population to deter your enemy from shooting at you - which has been Hamas’ strategy from the beginning. It would make zero sense for the IDF to do that, since it wouldn’t deter anyone.

EDIT: It may be more accurate to categorize this as using a protected person to perform military duties, which is also prohibited under international humanitarian law - but it’s a different category of war crime.

Human shield is defined under Geneva Conventions as “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations”

I’m not here to deny the atrocities committed by the IDF - I’m simply questioning the legitimacy of the term in this specific context, while somewhat provocatively trying to highlight the fact that accusing Israel of using human shields is a bit like accusing Ukraine of killing civilians. While both may be technically true, it still paints a somewhat dishonest picture of the actual reality - which, in this case, is that using human shields is Hamas’ number one tactic, and no intellectually honest person can seriously claim otherwise.

when they tie Palestinians to the front of their vehicles, I think we can say they’re using literal human shields.

That would absolutely count as using them as human shields. However, the example used in the article, in my opinion, doesn’t. What they’re doing is still just as immoral and still a war crime, but I don’t think it qualifies as an example of using someone as a human shield.

This has nothing to do with defending the IDF - don’t be ridiculous.

Am I being pedantic? Yeah. But that still doesn’t change the fact that what I’m saying has nothing to do with defending the IDF. I have no dog in that fight. I’m not rooting for either side in this conflict - I’m only rooting for the civilian population suffering on both sides.

An electric mid-size pickup truck with two seats, a short cabin, and a long bed. No “smart features” whatsoever - no internet connection, no app integration. Just a radio, electric windows, AC, cruise control, heated seats and mirrors, and that’s pretty much it. Ideally, the frame and body panels should be made from materials that don’t rust, and every component should be designed for easy replacement. Also, the parts for newer models should be interchangeable with the old ones.

Basically, a ’90s pickup in spirit - but with a modern design and an electric motor instead of an internal combustion engine.

Or when they don’t watch the 50 minute YouTube video I sent.

Affects all kids from ~ 7 to 90 years of age.

Mostly functional yes, but not compatible with sitting still for 6 hours and doing nothing.

By “wall” I assume this means smartphone. Because if you’re sitting for 6 hours doing nothing but staring at a wall I think there’s something else going on.

EDIT:
I get that the meme is being hyperbolic, but I find it kind of misleading. As someone who likely has ADHD or/and is on the spectrum, the idea of “sitting still and staring at a wall for 6 hours” doesn’t match how ADHD usually works. If I remove distractions, I don’t just freeze - I end up doing something else entirely, like watching YouTube or pacing around. The paralysis is real, but it’s more about being stuck in a loop of avoiding the right task while still seeking stimulation. So the meme’s wording just doesn’t land for me because it confuses task paralysis with total inactivity, which feels more like depression or burnout than ADHD. Maybe I’m just being too literal, but this is why it doesn’t click with me.

Laws restricting speech are a disgrace. Unbelievable that they actually seem to be passing it.

I’m against censorship - right up until the point where someone starts calling for violence and telling people to go die. After that, they’re fair game.

Indecent people forfeit their claim to decency from others.

Looking at your comment history they’re just doing the rest of us a big service.

I don’t think it would’ve cost anything. They charge only for very few specific things.

The term artificial intelligence is broader than many people realize. It doesn’t refer to a single technology or a specific capability, but rather to a category of systems designed to perform tasks that would normally require human intelligence. That includes everything from pattern recognition, language understanding, and problem-solving to more specific applications like recommendation engines or image generation.

When people say something “isn’t real AI,” they’re often working from a very narrow or futuristic definition - usually something like human-level general intelligence or conscious reasoning. But that’s not how the term has been used in computer science or industry. A chess-playing algorithm, a spam filter, and a large language model can all fall under the AI umbrella. The boundaries of AI shift over time: what once seemed like cutting-edge intelligence often becomes mundane as we get used to it.

So rather than being a misleading or purely marketing term, AI is just a broad label we’ve used for decades to describe machines that do things we associate with intelligent behavior. The key is to be specific about which kind of AI we’re talking about - like “machine learning,” “neural networks,” or “generative models” - rather than assuming there’s one single thing that AI is or isn’t.

It almost certainly already has replaced several.

Also, AI is not synonymous with LLM.

What I’m saying is that I don’t criticize others for something I do myself - that would be hypocritical.

I totally have unique passwords for all my hundreds of accounts around the internet.

I can definitely feel this applying to me. The more financially independent I become the more I’m also checking out and focusing on just my own life.