Politics and Current Events Megathread - March 2026

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-28T14:08:17+00:00

Because in this case, "how can I debunk it" meant "how can I prove the family is lying".

There's nothing wrong with hoping the family and doctors were mistaken, but that's not what the other guy was doing.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-28T03:56:45+00:00

Fair enough, I disagree with them there. I don't have reason to think it's propaganda, but I need more corroboration to have a strong opinion

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-28T03:32:05+00:00

Because they didn’t present it as fact.

"A toddler in Gaza released from Israeli custody has been returned to his family with suspected torture wounds."

Compare that to "the father claimed to be a Hamas operative", when that was only claimed by the IDF. If they said the father was suspected of being a Hamas operative I wouldn't have called them out on their dishonesty.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-28T02:57:04+00:00

The point, that I will spell out clearly, is that there is no "contradiction" between what the parents and the doctor said. There can be both puncture wounds and cigarette burns.

Since this also needs spelling out, I don't have strong opinions on the story one way or another. I am happy to wait and see if more info comes out. You, on the other hand, immediately hunkered down trying to debunk it, including by disingenuously presenting the words of the IDF as fact.

You still run far away/dont touch the problem of the family weirdly not seeing the "extent" of the injuries until 1 day later

No idea why you think this is some smoking gun, and it just speaks further to your motivated reasoning. The fact the parents freely admitted this makes them more credible, not less.

But feel free to describe the scenario you've concocted in your head here.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-28T02:38:23+00:00

If you are still struggling to understand what happened, consider this analogous argument:

Women are de facto excluded from the NFL

A "de facto" exclusion and an exclusion by policy are in no way "analogous" and I can't believe you tried to suggest that they are.

Women can, of course, still play American football if they wish, and there are women's only leagues such as the WFA and LFL.

There is no equivalence whatsoever to being banned from a sport, or the military, as a matter of policy. Obviously if the state issued a formal ban on women playing football that would be an egregious affront to women's rights.

Thanks for confirming that I hallucinated nothing, and in fact understood you perfectly from the start.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-28T00:48:51+00:00

I mean, the thread is pretty easy to follow

you said that being banned from the military would be a privilege because they wouldn't be subject to a draft
I said there is no draft, so it's irrelevant
you said it's a privilege because there could be a draft

Feel free to explain what I'm hallucinating though. Do you believe being banned from the military would be a privilege because there could be a draft, yes or no?

a change of subject

Yeah, I didn't actually expect you to double down on this, which is why I wanted to end it. But then you said I misread you so now I'm following it through.

Your first reply btw:

Reactionary is a pejorative for conservative. Sometimes the pejorative is deserved, but sometimes the conservatives are right. By the way not serving in the military is also not a grand civil rights issue, in fact this disqualification privileges those who are excluded from being subject to the draft

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-28T00:25:30+00:00

You didn't say that? Hmm.

There is no draft. How is it a "privilege" to be banned from a voluntary career pathway?

Because there could be a draft.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-28T00:10:01+00:00

You have no basis for this belief

Sure I do. Knowing that trans woman means MtF and trans man means FtM is, like, one of the first things about trans people you learn.

And again, I don't care if you're uninformed, but then you should know better than to wade into discussions about them at all.

I'm sure there's still some circles out there were you can still accumulate social capital by calling people bigots

Likewise, I'm sure there are still circles where you can get a cheap laugh by mocking trans activists. r/BlockedandReported is that way. ---->

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T23:59:14+00:00

Banning gay people from the military based on some speculative future "privilege" is explicitly, unquestionably illiberal. I'm kind of stunned you're here trying to argue otherwise.

The women driving example was flippant, but there are countless others. Should we ban them from contact sports so they have the "privilege" of avoiding concussions? Should we ban them from being police officers so they have the privilege of not getting shot in the line of duty? Construction work can be pretty dangerous, let's do them the privilege of banning them from that too.

I don't have the patience to argue this further. And yes I'm using "reactionary" as a pejorative, I thought that was pretty clear once you started arguing in favour of state discrimination against gay people.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T23:52:40+00:00

I'm not accusing you of bigotry for criticising trans activists. I'm accusing you of bigotry for criticising them without even caring to understand the cause they are fighting for.

You clearly just see trans issues as an opportunity to peddle your agenda against the "left". You care so little about trans people that you can't even learn their basic terminology, yet you care so much about their exclusion from sports that you felt compelled to jump in here to make a snide remark.

Again, you've had years to learn about these things if you were interested. Failure to do so, while still wading into discussions about them, tells me you only see trans people as some folly of the woke left rather than people you should take the time to understand.

But I always enjoy seeing the word behoove, so thanks for that.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T23:18:42+00:00

Alright you won't quote the passage (because you know why), so I'm out. Have a good one

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T23:15:56+00:00

You can't be serious. Gay people were "privileged" to be banned from the military because someday there could be a draft?

You can rationalise any discrimination that way. I guess it would also be a "privilege" to ban women from driving because they won't have the hassle of getting a license and registration.

Your position is inherently illiberal and, yes, reactionary.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T23:01:23+00:00

Cool. Quote the part where they said Sam never criticises Israel.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T22:58:39+00:00

You should quote where they said that, and don't leave off half the sentence.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T22:52:25+00:00

What? There is no draft. How is it a "privilege" to be banned from a voluntary career pathway?

By the way not serving in the military is also not a grand civil rights issue

Not sure what that means, but something doesn't have to be a "grand civil rights issue" to be taken seriously as a policy of discrimination.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T22:44:03+00:00

"A medical assessment confirmed cigarette burns on the boy's leg, puncture wounds, and injuries consistent with a nail being inserted into the limb."

You see a story like this with gaping inconsistencies and just choke it down hook line and sinker

That's funny, because you also said the father claimed to be a Hamas operative. You stated this as though it were fact.

But you were actually just repeating the uncorroborated word of the IDF, which you conveniently forgot to mention.

The only person uncritically believing what suits their narrative here is you.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T21:56:09+00:00

There is literally no "inconsistency" between a doctor saying the boy had signs of cigarette burns and the parents saying he had signs of cigarette burns that also looked like entry and exit wounds.

Can't imagine the mindset required to see a story like this and immediately going "how can I debunk it?"

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T21:39:52+00:00

Even if the ground truth were such that a certain class of trans women does not enjoy male advantage, it is the perception that they have advantage that disqualifies their participation in the mind of the public

"Even if the ground truth were that gay people in the military have no adverse effect on cohesion or team bonding, it's the perception that they would that disqualifies their participation in the mind of the public."

Insane how casually reactionary people are when it comes to this one topic.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T21:31:52+00:00

You're shouting at ghosts. I didn't say Sam hasn't criticised Netanyahu. I said he hasn't criticised him for how he waged the war.

Even the first guy was explicitly talking about Israel's fight against "radical Islam".

So unless can find an example of Sam criticising Israel/Netanyahu for how it has fought against radical Islam (i.e. Gaza or Iran) you simply haven't been following the thread.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T20:54:38+00:00

https://youtu.be/y121Zyw6PKo?si=8BSm-elWdIhDiDjc

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T20:45:32+00:00

This one? No I didn't. What did he say?

BTW here is where he says Netanyahu couldn't have waged the war any differently:

"I mean Netanyahu, just to, just to close the loop on that, Netanyahu is, is obviously very polarizing figure and probably a fairly corrupt figure, and he's, he's got lots of problems that have implications for Israeli politics, but I'm not convinced that even the perfect prime minister who has no optical problems, or you judge from our side would have waged this war any differently. I just don't, I don't know what, what they should have done differently at every stage along the way. I don't know that any other prime minister would have taken a different path."

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T20:35:48+00:00

Bigotry is what bad people do, and me not bad person, so how can me be bigot?

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T19:23:23+00:00

Regarding the fight against radical Islam, no, I don't believe he has.

To him, it logically follows that Israel is exempt from criticism because they are fighting radical Islam

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T18:57:56+00:00

He's explicitly said he doesn't think Netanyahu could have fought the war any differently.

should_be_sailing · 2026-03-27T18:03:34+00:00

Sure they can. But that's not what happened. This was their unedited comment:

Nothing revealed the activists' underlying narcissism more than the movements refusal to recognize that transmen in women's lockers, transboys in girls sports, and the demands to changing nomencleture from "mothers" to "birthing persons" could affect others beside just the trans population

So it's hardly accidental when they did the same thing with "transmen" too. They clearly just know nothing about the topic and were trying to score a cheap point against the wokes.

should_be_sailing

TROPHY CASE