Really? A calculator only puts out what you put in.

A LLM gives you what has been put into it by it’s massive illegally scraped training dataset.

A better question would be is there a point to closed book/non-reference material exams, and in that setting is there a place for LLMs?

Aye, any Israeli who isn’t actively opposing the settlements in the West Bank is unambiguously in the wrong. And I wish that wasn’t a controversial statement.

You’re right in that Rabin’s assassination wasn’t the change in itself (that such Israeli extremists had continued to exist shows that that violent current in Israel had continued and been bubbling away), but it makes a good mark of a turning point and the loss of really any chance for reconciliation in at least our lifetimes.

The Nakba was a tragedy, and Ben has his role in that along with all the other high ups in the various paramilitary forces. The IDF didn’t exist then, though it does trace its routes back to those paramilitary groups.

That Ben G worked to limit their power once the nation was formed is a mark against him being a fascist to me, and he didn’t go as hard on violent struggle as the meaning of life as full fasc-fascism does.

Violent, racist, and did bad things yes (and genocidal to boot!). I don’t think that auto-makes fascist.

As for what was being done pre-Six Day War I’m going to guess pogroms, murders, and forced sterilisation. So I’ll go back up and add genocidal to it. Doesn’t make him fascist though, unless we’re making it a synonym for genocidist.

Give Israel some credit, Ben Gurion wasn’t a fascist, despite his problems - but also you could understand where he was coming from.

It’s really from the 70s on when Israel moved from problematic and apatheidy into the full on genocidal regime we see today.

The watershed moment, not surprisingly, being the assassination of Rabin.

Worse, the IDF was under orders to expand the Hannibal Protocol to civilians the whole time, too.

Hannibal Protocol is the order to kill Israelis rather than allow them to become hostages.

Does seem to be the case, they also seem to have no follow up to researched rebuttals of their talking points.

Edit: although the person I was responding to does seem to be not, if not anti, Marxist-Lenninist. Maybe they’re Dengian or Maoist…

Could be peachy, we won’t know since their self governance and ability to have their own Tibetan characteristic revolution has now been completely quashed.

I linked the other comment for a reason. If Tibetans and people from that culture don’t seem to think it’s a big deal, I’m inclined to agree them rather than trample over them because they’re backwards ignorant savages who don’t understand things.

Obvioisly though, coerced child adopting isn’t a good thing. But it is much down in the other PRC regions and Nepal too, I don’t see why that trend wouldn’t’ve applied to an independent Tibet.

Part of opposing imperialism is to be against it whenever it happens. If you’re only against imperialism when one said does it, your not anti-imperialism, you’re just anti-that other side.

You do know that Wales is one of the most deprived parts of the UK, right?

Sure… It might have a higher standard of living than Sudan, but helping break people out of a capitalist debt trap is a good thing.

Not as good as systemic change, but that’s not going to come from anyone you’ve heard of. So why not take the fact that material conditions have been substantially improved for many?

Since India and the PRC are geopolitical rivals, and India is home to a lot of Tibetan Independence activists actually quite likely to be India I’d think.

This has already been pretty heavily discussed down below.

https://vger.app/inbox/lemmynsfw.com/c/world@lemmy.world/comments/22949064/0.10764805.10764949.10767861.10770960.10780683.10781641

Take aways: don’t be racist and judge and very different cultjre’s interaction through a sexualised, western lens.

Besides, If there’s more, don’t you think that the PRC would have had everyone shouting it from the roof tops by now?
If this is the most damming thing they can show, which according to Tibetans isn’t a big deal, then how likely do you think he is to actually be paedohpilic?

This has already been pretty heavily discussed down below.

https://vger.app/inbox/lemmynsfw.com/c/world@lemmy.world/comments/22949064/0.10764805.10764949.10767861.10770960.10780683.10781641

Take aways: don’t be racist judging by a sexualised western lens. If there’s more, you’d think that the PRC would have had everyone shouting it from the root tops by now right?

As for the corporeal punishment, the most extreme cases had already been legislated against in the decades before 1951.
But even if they hadn’t, which they had, I don’t think you agree that human rights deficiency is justification for invasion and annexation. The Qing Empire’s slow slicing and other forms of corporeal punishment, child sex cases, etc., didn’t justify Imperial Japan, the British, Germans, or whomever’s, imperial expansion.

1. China invaded as part of a Tibetan civil war over the way that Amdo (or maybe Kham, can’t recall which right now) was governed by Lhasa and the Dali Lama. It was hostile to the Lhasa government and partisan on the side of the faction that asked for China’s help to win the war, and promised obedient vassalage in return.

2. The society in pre-PRC conquest of Tibet was similar to Nepal. Yes, it involved indentured labour, but it had already began a process of legislating against many of the worst practices in the decades prior to 1951. Should (or should have) the PRC, or any nation, invade Nepal?

3. Imagine if the US says that Iran, North Korea, or China’s treatment of its citizens is cassus belli and annexes them after an overwhelming show of force (similar to the post WW2 vassalage of South Korea, when the USSR and USA bilaterally agreed to take split control of finally independent Korea).

4. The Bourbon survivors, such as the Duke of Orleans, were literally taken in by other nations in Europe and treated as a government in exile. Can you not see how that’s a logical understandable choice. Claiming the Duke of Orleans was an Austrian stooge for accepting aid from Austro-Hungary would be, I think you’d agree, ridiculous.

Edit bonus point 5:

5. We can’t even get good studies on Tibetan culture or history since the PRC heavily controls who has access, and requires all results to fit Dialectic Materialism with Chinese Characteristics and show unambiguously, and uncomplicatedly, that de-facto independent Tibet was hell on earth; where serfs (not peasants, nor a more complex less easily mapped onto European term people) were slaves and mutilated and/or sexually abused regularly with by evil primitive government that was peacefully liberated by 100,000 soldiers which made everything better for everyone forever.

Ahh yes, a literal state of war is equivalent to an unprovoked invasion.

Wasn’t expecting your dumbest take ever line to be about what you’d written. But thanks for the heads up.

I’m sorry for the harm, the scars, and legacy of fascism that Franco left. The USSR and Germany helping him are more to blame than the UK and France not invading, but I sympathise with wishing something had been done (can’t see them supporting the Communists or Anarchists though, so probably not involvement is due to seeing the Nationalists as the best of the options) . From the way that Franco’s legacy and supporters are, at best merely controversial does make me think that it’d’ve been a very bloody and destructive continuation of the Civil War.

Alas, I think most of the world for most of recorded history has had child sex slaves.

So it’s not really a home run, more just an emotive appeal.

Have you seen the size of the “torture prison” in Lhasa where the atrocities of the Tibetan government were carried out?

Additional: Do we know how weird it was seen in Ü-Tsang, if not greater Tibet?

I think it’s a little racist to remove agency from people who’ve made moves equally validly explained as self-defence and preservation against a hostile invader.

I didn’t realise that human rights violations were justification for invasion and conquest.

Imperialism is wrong no matter who is doing to conquering or being conquered.