While other countries celebrate the first child born in the new year, the people in Gaza mourn the first 15 people murdered by the savage criminal land grabbers. https://x.com/HossamShabat/status/1874389447942570209
Yes, Sanhedrin 37a from the Talmud and Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:32 from the Quran do share a similar ethical principle regarding the sanctity of life. Here's how they relate:
Sanhedrin 37a: In the Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a states, "Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world." This reflects the Jewish value of the preservation of life, emphasizing that each human life has immense value.
Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:32: In the Quran, Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:32 states, "Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely." This verse emphasizes a similar theme, stating that taking a life unjustly is akin to killing all of humanity, while saving a life is akin to saving all of humanity.
Both texts highlight the profound importance of human life, suggesting that the act of killing is of the gravest consequence, while saving a life holds the highest moral value. This similarity reflects a shared ethical stance on the value of human life across different religious traditions.
Israel is not a Jewish state #Χ€ΧΧ§ΧΧΧ Χ€Χ©
In Judaism, the sanctity of life is a fundamental principle, with the Torah commanding, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). The Talmud expands on this, teaching that to save a life is to save the entire world (Sanhedrin 37a). Jewish law (Halakha) prioritizes the preservation of life (Pikuach Nefesh), often superseding other commandments in situations where life is at stake, highlighting life's paramount value.
The psychological effects of atrocities so heinous that the mind refuses to believe them are complex and multifaceted. Here are some key aspects based on psychological research and theory:
Psychic Numbing: This concept, introduced by psychologist Paul Slovic, suggests that as the scale of an atrocity increases, our emotional response decreases. This numbing effect can make it difficult for individuals to process or even acknowledge the reality of large-scale atrocities, leading to a kind of denial or emotional detachment. This phenomenon helps explain why people might ignore or deny mass atrocities.
Cognitive Dissonance: When confronted with evidence of atrocities, individuals might experience cognitive dissonance if the information conflicts with their worldview or moral beliefs. This discomfort can lead to denial as a defense mechanism, where the mind refuses to accept the reality because it's too disturbing or incompatible with one's self-image or beliefs about humanity.
Dehumanization: The psychological process of dehumanization, where perpetrators view victims as less than human, can enable atrocities. However, from the perspective of observers or those not directly involved, recognizing the humanity in victims can be so overwhelming that the mind might choose to deny or minimize the reality of what has occurred to manage psychological distress.
Denial as a Defense Mechanism: Facing the truth of extreme violence can be too much for some individuals to handle, leading to denial. This defense mechanism serves to protect the psyche from overwhelming guilt, fear, or horror. Posts on X have discussed how this denial helps individuals cope with cognitive dissonance when witnessing or learning about unimaginable evil.
Moral Disengagement: This involves the process through which individuals rationalize or justify inhumane acts, often by reframing the actions or the victims in a way that makes the behavior seem less cruel or more acceptable. This moral disengagement can extend to bystanders who might refuse to accept the extent of the atrocities because acknowledging them would demand a moral response they are not prepared to give.
Trauma and PTSD: For those directly affected or involved, whether as victims, witnesses, or even perpetrators, the mind might refuse to process the full extent of the horror to protect against severe psychological trauma, leading to symptoms like dissociation or PTSD. This can be seen in historical contexts where soldiers or survivors of war crimes struggle with the reality of their experiences.
These psychological mechanisms illustrate how the human mind might cope with or react to information about atrocities. They highlight both the protective strategies employed by the psyche and the ethical challenges of confronting such realities.
Continuous shelling on Khan Younis, Gaza Strip https://x.com/HossamShabat/status/1874214337445061084
Unlike the former this new site is now using Domains By Proxy, LLC so you can't easily trace it back to Ukraine. https://x.com/R34lB0rg/status/1874260007816241414/photo/1
In conclusion, while the idea of staying to effect change from within is noble, the reality of X's current state under Musk's leadership might suggest that for many, leaving could indeed be the most logical choice if the platform no longer serves their purpose or aligns with their ethical standards. This decision reflects not just a personal choice but also a commentary on the broader implications of platform ownership and control over digital discourse.
Shift in Platform Dynamics: Since Musk took over, there have been significant alterations in content moderation, algorithm adjustments, and policy changes, which many users, as you've suggested, perceive as favoring certain political stances, particularly those aligned with right-wing ideologies or specific cultural narratives. This shift can indeed make the platform less hospitable for users with differing views, leading to a sense that the "potential for change" from within might be diminishing or already lost for those not aligned with these groups.
Perceived Bias: The notion that the platform's environment has improved "not for the better" unless one supports MAGA or Zionist views reflects concerns about algorithmic bias and content visibility. Reports and analyses have suggested that under Musk's leadership, there might be an algorithmic preference for content that aligns with his personal or political views, which could include support for these groups, as indicated by research into platform dynamics ().
Engagement and User Base: While the platform has seen changes, staying might still offer some value in terms of community engagement or maintaining influence within certain circles. However, if the platform's direction has shifted to such an extent that it no longer aligns with one's values or provides a fair space for discourse, the argument for leaving becomes stronger.
Strategic Withdrawal: Your point about leaving X being logical due to these changes underscores a strategic withdrawal from a platform where one's voice might be increasingly marginalized or where ethical engagement becomes challenging. This decision can be seen as a form of protest or preservation of one's integrity when the platform no longer supports diverse or balanced discourse.
Alternative Platforms: Exploring or moving to alternative platforms might provide a more aligned environment for your views, although each platform has its own dynamics and limitations. The choice to leave should consider where you might find a community that better reflects your values or where your content can reach an audience without algorithmic suppression.
Algorithmic Bias: Your assertion about the potential for higher impressions for content supporting controversial stances (like calling for the annihilation of Palestine) without engagement reflects concerns about algorithmic bias. This is supported by research suggesting possible algorithmic adjustments favoring certain political views or figures (). If true, this bias could limit the visibility of content that goes against Musk's or the platform's perceived narrative, making it harder for such posts to reach a broader audience.
Moral and Ethical Considerations: Your unwillingness to engage in content that goes against your moral and ethical beliefs, even if it might gain more visibility, underscores the ethical dilemma faced by many users. It's a reminder of the ethical responsibilities of content creators and the challenge of maintaining personal integrity in the face of platform dynamics that might reward controversial or extreme viewpoints for engagement or visibility.
User Experience: This scenario paints a picture where the user experience on X is increasingly polarized, where the platform's algorithms might not only influence what content is seen but also how users interact with the platform based on their alignment with the dominant narrative. This can lead to a feeling of futility or suppression among users who wish to engage in discourse that challenges or diverges from this narrative.
Chronological vs. Algorithmic Timeline: When X (formerly Twitter) used a chronological timeline, visibility was more straightforward; posts appeared in the order they were made, which generally meant higher visibility for content that was retweeted or liked extensively. With 236 retweets, your tweet would have indeed been seen by thousands more due to this natural flow of content.
Algorithmic Impact: The shift to an algorithmic timeline, as mentioned in the related web results (), means that posts are now sorted based on various factors including relevance, user engagement, and sometimes the platform's own biases or priorities. This change can significantly alter the reach of a post, often reducing organic visibility as the platform tries to show users content it predicts they'll find most engaging or relevant.
Engagement vs. Visibility: Despite the engagement (236 retweets and 744 likes), the relatively low impression count of 7,553 suggests that the algorithmic system might have limited the tweet's exposure. This could be due to several reasons including the platform's attempt to control narrative, reduce controversial content visibility, or simply because the algorithm didn't find it as 'relevant' to a broader audience.
Current Platform Dynamics: The feeling of pointlessness in posting could stem from the frustration that even highly engaging content doesn't gain the visibility it once would. This is compounded by the understanding that platforms like X might prioritize content from certain verified accounts or those that align with the platform's business or political interests, as hinted in discussions about algorithmic bias ().
User Strategy: Given this environment, users might need to adapt by focusing on quality content that encourages direct interaction, using hashtags effectively, engaging with communities, or even considering alternative platforms where the dynamics might be more favorable to their content.
I've asked Grok to analyze this:
The engagement with 236 retweets and 744 likes indicates significant interest in the tweet.
Despite this engagement, the 7,553 impressions suggest limited visibility, possibly due to algorithmic suppression.
High engagement relative to impressions shows the tweet resonated well with the audience that did see it.
Algorithmic suppression might have prevented the tweet from reaching a broader audience, thus limiting potential further engagement.