161

It just seems crazy to me given the power imbalance. A cynical part of me suspects that things are playing out exactly as some evil strategists hoped they would, which, given all the children dying, is super-depressing.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 91 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This video by a political science professor explains it best: https://youtu.be/zMxHU34IgyY?si=N5oHElN4Xlbiqznh

In short, the only people who truly know are Hamas, and the best the rest of us can do is speculate.

Some possibilities are that Hamas wanted to sabotage normalizing relations between Israel and the rest of the Muslim world, that Hamas wanted to bait Israel into a wildly disproportionate response that would garner themselves sympathy and recruits, that Hamas was bluffing and feigning strength and counting on Israel to think the attack was bait, that Hamas was just acting on bloodlust and wanted to attack regardless of the consequences, or many other possibilities.

Further, we focus a lot on the substative issues, i.e., the grievances and disagreements at hand, but we don't talk about the bargaining frictions nearly enough. There are countless border disputes around the world, and yet they rarely result in war. Why? Because war is costly and most wish to avoid it. War typically happens when there are both substantive issues and bargaining frictions, i.e., things preventing the two sides from negotiating a solution. But us onlookers can't even know for sure what these frictions are, only speculate.

All this is simply the nature of the fog of war, that the true strategies/goals won't be known for a while, if ever. Anyone who tries to tell you with certainty why they did what they did at this stage doesn't actually know with any degree of certainty. Nobody but Hamas actually knows.

I do recommend watching the full video above, as the professor is very engaging, rather amusing, and covers this topic quite thoroughly.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 36 points 1 year ago

All this is simply the nature of the fog of war, that the true strategies/goals won't be known for a while, if ever. Anyone who tries to tell you with certainty why they did what they did at this stage doesn't actually know with any degree of certainty

That's one of the most reasonable responses to this madness I've seen recently.

Far too many people are out there demanding instant information with 100% accuracy and crying conspiracy when they can't get their impossible wish.

[-] krellor@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

I think even worse than the expectation of instant knowledge is the expectation that everyone must pick a side and must do it now. There are dozens of conflicts around the world with atrocities being committed, but this is the only one you consistently get called out for not picking a side.

I think it's healthy for people outside of the conflict to ultimately feel one side has more or less justification, while still acknowledging their faults and mistakes.

[-] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I am woefully ignorant on the politics and history of the region and it's people.

Recognizing this, I cannot lay my support for either side. Somehow, to many this is an incorrect stance and I must have an opinion and pick a side.

It would take considerable time and effort to learn the background and create an informed independent opinion as I do not trust the news to give me an unbiased report of the war. It would be unrealistic to think everyone can do this, and so I think we should normalize people not taking a side.

[-] krellor@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Sometimes "I don't know" is the only correct response yet one so few are willing to give. Kudos.

[-] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago

the expectation that everyone must pick a side

Yeah, I've had some nauseating back and forth with several users who just can't seem to grasp the notion that criticising Israel does not mean you support Hamas.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] e_mc2@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago

My experience is actually quite the opposite. In (real world) discussions I had so far I see that most people just talk about the horrific consequences of this war, with so many innocent casualties on both sides. People are often _not _ picking sides because this is such an old and complex conflict with atrocities perpetrated on both sides. Which imho is the most reasonable thing to do. Yes, what Hamas did on that festival and is it still doing is disgusting, but Israel's response since then is equally disgusting. It's just impossible to condemn one side while excusing the other.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jarfil@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But us onlookers can't even know for sure what these frictions are, only speculate.

I've looked at an interview with an Israeli political sciences professor yesterday, that went something like this:

  • Professor: "...and this is why countries like Israel have the right to defend themselves"
  • Host: "Right. What about the Pales..."
  • Professor: "That's not an issue"
  • Host: "There are civilian..."
  • Professor: "Israeli civilians have been harmed and we need to respond"
  • Host: "Is the response proportion..."
  • Professor: "Respond to destroy the terrorists"
  • Host: "It seems like Gaza population is.."
  • Professor: "Gaza is Israel, there is no population, we need to rid it of terrorists"

As an onlooker, I'd say that is a FREAKING HUGE and obvious "friction", when one side denies the existence of the other.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] zzzz@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Thank you for the video and the thoughtful response!

[-] volvoxvsmarla@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

All this is simply the nature of the fog of war, that the true strategies/goals won't be known for a while, if ever.

This is what we've all been thinking about Russia/Putin's government too. With tons of friends and family in Russia and Ukraine we are still at a loss what exactly the idea/projected outcome/strategy/expectation was to start that war. I hear a lot of armchair experts and amateur war psychologists trying to explain it away like it is obvious but it just isn't. It feels like there are a bunch of clues and pieces of a puzzle mixed in with random puzzle pieces that don't belong to what you are trying to assemble, and it is unclear whether we will ever truly understand it sometime in the future.

[-] PutangInaMo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Interesting watch, got a new subscriber from that one. Much appreciated.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Great video and summary! Love that channel.

[-] dynamojoe@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago

Hostages are variables that Hamas controls and Israel must respect. They can be used as chips to barter with, shields to hide behind, and tools to shame the Israelis in the court of public opinion.

[-] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 16 points 1 year ago

All fair points. They hardly needed to shame Israel in the court of public opinion, though. The hard-right faction who control their government have proven quite adept at shaming themselves with no outside help.

NB: I said Israel the country. Not Israelis the people.

[-] Lauchs@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

The idea behind most terrorism is that a weaker opponent provokes a larger, more powerful one into making a political/strategic mistake.

For example, 9/11 wasn't about knocking down some towers, it was about getting the US entangled in a foreign war with boots on the ground.

For this attack, when Israel invades gaza with armour and soldiers, a LOT of people on both sides will die. Every dead gazan will be a martyr, every dead Israeli solider is, well a dead Israeli. Maybe that retribution becomes too much for the international community, maybe the scenes that will inevitably come from gaza will ignite the Arab world etc.

[-] yiliu@informis.land 22 points 1 year ago

I think this might be giving the attackers too much credit for strategy. Don't discount the simple religious aspect: don't make the mistake of refusing to believe that devout religious people don't actually believe their own religion.

Take ISIS. A whole lot of their actions made almost no sense, from a strategic point of view: picking fights with everybody, massacring civilians instead of letting them flee, destroying ancient artifacts (instead of either preserving or selling them) if you omit the simple explanation of religion. They wanted to trigger the final, apocalyptic battle that would usher in the end of the world. They said exactly that in their social media videos, but we secular atheists (or non-devout believers) just kinda skipped over that detail.

Things aren't as clearly religious in the case of the Palestinians, but probably plays some role. Same with the Israeli Right, and the American Right with their unconditional support for Israel. We shouldn't ignore the impact of religious belief.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I think was essentially a recruitment drive. Provoke Israel to attack, then sign up all the desperate Palestinians with recent losses

[-] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

Israel is killing us slowly and quietly and the world is ignoring it. Maybe if they're provoked into revealing themselves to the world we'll be seen.

[-] zzzz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That's something I hadn't thought of.

[-] krellor@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So the history of Israel and it's neighbors is long and complex. A short summary might be that when Israel was formed none of its neighbors recognized it as a state and invaded. Over the years there has been significant conflict, with wrongs perpetuated on both sides. Eventually Egypt and Jordan officially recognized Israel as a state and began a long period of normalization of relations between the two.

The remaining neighbors, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank are more complicated. Gaza elected Hamas who has sworn to destroy Israel. West Bank and the Palestinian authority has negotiated over the years with Israel, and in my opinion been treated poorly. Syria and Lebanon (with Hezbollah) still refuse to acknowledge Israel as a state and vow to fight it until it's destruction.

Behind all of this is Iran, who funds and coordinates training and resources for the various Arab groups fighting against Israel. The ongoing terrorist activity in the region makes it almost impossible for a true negotiation to occur and a transfer of stewardship of the three districts in the West Bank to full Palestinian governance.

So why does Hamas invade and take hostages? Because they have seen ongoing efforts to normalize relations between Arab countries and Israel, including with Saudi Arabia, and that is exactly what they don't want. Remember, they only exist to destroy Israel. That is their entire governance platform. By provoking Israel to invade, it creates unrest in the region, staining relations between Arab leaders and Israel. Which is what Hamas wants.

The take away should be that religious ethnic states are a humanitarian and diplomatic mess. There are no easy answers or solutions when the platform of one country is that the other country must cease to exist. Likewise, Israel just can't get out of its own way with respect to exacerbating tensions via settlers in the West Bank and occupation of the Golan heights. Though to be fair, the Golan heights were captured, like the West Bank, after the countries who controlled them attacked Israel in the six day war.

So to answer your question, yes, this is all playing out like someone wanted. That someone is Hamas.

[-] squaresinger@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago

You left out a critical part at the beginning though.

Before WW1, the area now known as Israel was inhabited mostly by Arabs with a tiny Jewish minority (there where fewer Jews there than Christians) and controlled by the Ottoman Empire.

During WW1, the Brits promised the Arabs, that they'd get independence if they revolt and kick out the Ottomans. The Arabs held up their end of the deal, and in turn, the Brits, being Brits, turned around and took the area (by now called Mandatory Palestine) under control "until such time as they are able to stand alone".

And then, in 1917, they promised the Jews the same area, after the plan to create Israel in eastern Uganda fell through.

The Jews where settlers that where put there by an occupying force that betrayed their promise to the local population.

How would you react if an occupying force would move millions of settlers into your country / state?

[-] yiliu@informis.land 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The initial plan wasn't to give the entire area to the Jews, it was to give some share of it (20% of the land, is the figure I heard). That area is the only place the Jews could really conceivably lay claim to. And the Arabs (specifically the Sharif of Mecca, not the people of Palestine) got huge swaths of land in exchange for their revolt against the Ottomans: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, etc. The British made a specific exception for coastal areas, and there's debate about whether Palestine was part of that or not.

So...not that simple.

edit: Guys, downvotes for strong opinions are one thing. Debate is fine. I'm happy to reconsider in the face of mistakes. You could recast the same facts from the perspective of the average Palestinian, then or now. But downvotes for paraphrasing Wikipedia? That's the equivalent of plugging your ears and saying "LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] leraje 23 points 1 year ago

This is just my opinion but, given terrorist organisations are militarily usually much poorer/smaller/weaker than the group they stand against, they need help from outside.

One way to possibly achieve that is to do something awful to provoke your opposition into a retaliation so indiscriminate and horrifying that your ideological (if not literal) allies in the surrounding area step in to attack your enemy.

[-] OwlYaYeet@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Which is exactly what's happening. Hezbollah and Iran are threatening to get involved if Israel goes through with the ground invasion

[-] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 1 year ago

Their objective was to provoke this response from Israel. Hostages really force Israel to act immediately.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] sadcoconut@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

I've heard it suggested that they didn't expect to get as far as they did into Israel and they barely expected to get past the border wall. If that's the case they may not have planned what to do when they did and so there may be no grand strategy behind some or all of it.

I guess we'll never know.

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

That would make a lot of sense. Since Israel has blocked numerous other attacks in the past, Hamas likely expected a similar response, not a complete lack of one from their very apparent and out in the open preparations for the attack.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

It's an hypothesis only.

But I think the important matter were the foreign ostages, especially from Europe and USA, because those countries do a lot to recover them, including paying big money.

I wondered why Israel didn't attack the weekend they said they would attack. They gave an ultimatum, but didn't act on it. One possibility is that the USA and Europe wanted to try to recover their ostages first.

[-] PutangInaMo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

When did the US pay big money to a terrorist organization to release hostages?

[-] jarfil@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The US never negotiates with "terrorists", they fund "freedom fighters" to kill the terrorists and maybe recover some of the hostages.

Hamas likely wanted to force a confrontation in order to make it abundantly clear who's paying for which "freedom fighters"... even if everyone knew for a long time, did very little about it, and is likely to do very little more either way.

[-] SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago

Last time it worked, they got over a thousand prisoners for one soldier.

Taking hostages was the one thing about the entire attack that made some logical sense.

The murdering, on the other hand... that guaranteed a violent response, and doing it in the most brutal way possible and then filming it and bragging about it ensured that Palestine lost most sympanties, and Israel basically got a free pass to do whatever they wanted.

I wouldn’t say that Israel is getting a free pass, but they sure as hell have a casus belli now, and they’re getting as much mileage out of it as they possibly can.

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They've killed dozens of journalists and even the family of a journalist. That family was staying in a building that was marked safe by the IDF for exactly these kinds of people. The US didnt let Saudi Arabia live down the bonesaw incident for years, have you heard any ranking politician in the US speak about the press slaughter? To me it seems a lot like a free pass.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

As always, motives vary heavily. I think many people have raised great points, and no doubt many of them are accurate enough.

It's the same for Israel, too, right? I would imagine a two state solution is the only reasonable exit strategy, and Israel could make that happen overnight, but they haven't. Why? Again, motives vary heavily.

[-] corgi@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Israel proposed/accepted/was in favor of two state solution multiple times throughout history. It was Palestinians who rejected it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] unwellsnail@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago

I think they expected to swap the hostages for Palestinian prisoners, since they've done it before.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

Whats your plan to get them to stop exterminating palestinians?

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Palestinian leadership agrees to peace terms they may not like, returns the remaining hostages, and enforces pacification effectively. It's the only viable path to peace I can see.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

The peace terms they dont like is gaza gets exterminated. This was a situation before the Hamas attack, palestinians being killed and their land taken. Israel will accept no peace that includes palestinians existing.

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The peace terms they dont like is gaza gets exterminated. ... Israel will accept no peace that includes palestinians existing.

The alternative is Dahiya Doctrine continues:

the destruction of the civilian infrastructure of regimes deemed to be hostile as a measure calculated to deny combatants the use of that infrastructure and endorses the employment of "disproportionate force" to secure that end.

It's not about extermination/killing, if that were their goal there would be no Palestine. Israel certainly has the means to turn the entire place into rubble immediately if maximizing civilian deaths were their goal as you claim. Although collateral damage certainly happens in Dahiya strikes, they are clearly calculated to provide both carrots and sticks to disincentivize violence and protect themselves, not to kill the most civilians possible.

However, I suspect annexing land from Hamas controlled Gaza probably is their goal at this point. That seems totally reasonable given that:

If the leadership of next town over kept on killing civilians in my town with guerilla attacks, was constantly defeated in conventional conflicts, yet refused to negotiate for viable peace, a reasonable person would want that hostile population moved away from them for safety and security. Is this genocide? I don't think so, because the goal is not to destroy an ethnic group (20% of Israeli citizens with full rights are of Palestinian/Arab descent.) it is to keep a hostile foreign territory from literally killing your people. It is annexation of territory, which is a consequence of war.

Just as there were many innocent civilians in Nazi Germany that suffered because of the regime that was in charge there, so too are Gazans suffering because the government they live under started conflicts they could not hope to win. Just as things got better for Germany when they pacified themselves, so too could they improve for Palestine, but only if concessions are made. Otherwise they will keep losing and things will be made worse and worse until they are left with nothing. I hope they are willing to surrender and negotiate for peace before then, because this is not a war they can win militarily.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

Lots of things to address in your links. The fact that that is no longer the Hamas charter, the current charter recognizes the israeli state territory.

From the link on Israel disengagement

The United Nations, international human rights organizations and many legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel.[5] This is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars.[6] Following the withdrawal, Israel continues to maintain direct control over Gaza's air and maritime space, six of Gaza's seven land crossings, maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, controls the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.

They never actually disengaged, and have killed a lot of palestinians through this humanitarian nightmare theyve enforced.

And that is quite some revision to the 1948 arab israeli war. It was palestinian territory and israel were the invaders, that was the beginning of the killing and exiling of palestinians from their own land. From the modern day fraction of territory palestinians now have, and the massive death toll of palestinians, you can see how that has proceeded over time. Any resistance to this extermination just gets used as justification to continue it.

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It was palestinian territory and israel were the invaders, that was the beginning of the killing and exiling of palestinians from their own land.

Diaspora Jews would be better classified as refugees than invaders before hostilities began. They started out legally purchasing land in Palestine, not killing and exiling people for it.

As for the source of those initial hostilities:

among the first recorded violent incidents between Arabs and the newly immigrated Jews in Palestine was the accidental shooting death of an Arab man in Safed, during a wedding in December 1882, by a Jewish guard of the newly formed Rosh Pinna. In response, about 200 Arabs descended on the Jewish settlement throwing stones and vandalizing property. Another incident happened in Petah Tikva, where in early 1886 the Jewish settlers demanded that their tenants vacate the disputed land and started encroaching on it. On March 28, a Jewish settler crossing this land was attacked and robbed of his horse by Yahudiya Arabs, while the settlers confiscated nine mules found grazing in their fields, though it is not clear which incident came first and which was the retaliation. The Jewish settlers refused to return the mules, a decision viewed as a provocation. The following day, when most of the settlement's men folk were away, fifty or sixty Arab villagers attacked Petach Tikva, vandalizing houses and fields and carrying off much of the livestock. Four Jews were injured and a fifth, an elderly woman with a heart condition, died four days later.
By 1908, thirteen Jews had been killed by Arabs, with four of them killed in what Benny Morris calls "nationalist circumstances", the others in the course of robberies and other crimes. In the next five years twelve Jewish settlement guards were killed by Arabs. Settlers began to speak more and more of Arab "hatred" and "nationalism" lurking behind the increasing depredations, rather than mere "banditry".

An accidental death that could have been resolved legally instead resulted in mob violence by Arab Palestinians against Jews.

In fact, most of the early conflicts between Jews and Arabs in mandatory Palestine were instigated by Arabs.

Then there's the Jaffa riots of 1936, started by the robbery and murder of Jews at a roadblock. This violence spilled out into a general revolt against the British occupation of Mandatory Palestine which convinced the Peel commission and the diaspora Jews in Palestine that a two-state solution was needed, and eventually led to Britain's withdrawal from the area.

They could have lived together in peace but Arab Palestinians started civilian violence, refused to make concessions, and outright rejected this two-state solution. (Look at the map and see how much more land they would have today had they accepted this plan instead of going to war.)

So, in summary, Arab Palestinian Nationalists took a hardline position early on, blamed Jewish immigrants for their problems, instigated violence against them, refused a two-state solution, then went to war with the Zionists, losing spectacularly. While they have successfully portrayed themselves as victims to many on the internet who have more sympathy for the underdog, the realpolitik situation of the conflict they started does not seem winnable. There were many points in this conflict where diplomacy, restraint, and concession would have led to a different outcome.

Once the conflict was started atrocities happened on both sides, (most notably by Irgun on the Zionist side,) but let's not forget how it started, or for that matter who can end it today without more lives lost.

From the modern day fraction of territory palestinians now have, and the massive death toll of palestinians, you can see how that has proceeded over time.

Not well, at this rate their constant belligerence and hostility seems to be leading to them losing everything.

Any resistance to this extermination just gets used as justification to continue it.

Again, if modern Israel wanted extermination, they have had the means to do so for some time. I believe you are misrepresenting their position and their goals.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Refugees should have been taken in by allies, they all went to one place due to Zionism, from the beginning with a goal of claiming their holy land. From your link, most of the land purchased was not from Palestinians, the area was under British mandate. From the beginning Palestinians resisted Jewish immigration, they did not consent to any of this, and all of their fears have proven true with time.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Israel could turn Gaza into a lifeless parking lot in an hour if they actually wanted to. They don't.

I won't pretend that their demands have always been reasonable, but they have made peace proposals that do not demand Palestinians not existing. You're letting your emotions talk way ahead of anything remotely factual.

Israel could also stop the annexation of Palestinian land and the murders of Palestinian civilians, but doesn't

The only reason Israel hasn't wiped out Gaza and the West Bank and taken those areas as part of Israel is that they believe that a full-on intense genocide would be too much for the world to let go. Whether or not that fear is true is something we may find out now in Gaza

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago

I don't think Hamas had a long term goal here. I think Iran had the long term goal and shared intel with them and goaded the on to the attack. That's not to excuse anything or one, but in terms of startegy and blowback, I think Irans the one whos counting on that, and Israel is providing it. So all in all I'd say Iran got what they wanted and we're gonna see what they choose to do next.

[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago

Hamas simply wants as many civilian casualties as possible. Then they'll blame Israel and unfortunately a lot of people will buy into that, see the latest idiocy by Fridays for Future.

[-] small44@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Most death are civilians while Hamas getting stronger every year.

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 year ago

Well if you target Hamas but bomb an innocent family of five killing three, you probably just made two new Hamas members. Especially if the parents didn't survive, they know exactly whos gonna 'take care' of those orphaned kids.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I'm guessing they though they could use hostages to prevent Israel from just bombing everything and everyone in Gaza as revenge and possibly also trade for something. Too bad Israel gave no shit about hostages and are just bombing everyone anyways, hostages or not.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
161 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35610 readers
469 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS