post-clarifier

[post-clarifier]

First, some word definitions

islamism is a "religio-political ideology", which means it's both political and religious. So it is the opposite of the idea of state religion separation.

anti-colonial means being against colonialism. Colonialism, according to Wikipedia, is a practice by which a one group of people, social construct, or nation state controls, directs, or imposes taxes or tribute on other people or areas, often by establishing colonies. In this context the colonial power is Israel. This is a good topic for further research if you don't know a lot about it yet.

militant means someone fighting a war, a soldier, someone in the military, or someone violent.

the post again:

Hamas is an islamist anti-colonial organization. They're also a political party with a military wing (al qassam brigades) which is what people usually are referring to when they talk about ~hamas~.

Hamas won in Palestinan elections and have a degree of popular support and, because they are the ruling political party, they're in charge of civil institutions in gaza, like schools and hospitals etc.

The reporters, by describing things like the gaza health ministry as “hamas run”, which they would never say about another political party, are trying to make people forget or never learn the fact that Hamas is the government that won in elections, not a rogue terrorist cell.

[new definition:

terrorism, according to Britannica, describes violence for the purpose of making the majority or entirety of a population scared for political reasons. The term and definition is controversial.

based on my searching, "cell" in this context refers to a clandestine cell system. That is a military system where a lot of people working together don't know anything about the people they are working with so that they cannot reveal much it they are interrogated or are a mole.

Rouge state, according to Wikipedia, usually refers to states that "break with the international peace", are totalitarian (meaning outlaws opposition), or violate human rights.

So a rogue terrorist cell, the thing Hamas is said not to be, would be an extreme threat to the international peace, treating everyone unjustly (citizens and people in different places), that is very violent and hard to deal with in regular ways. ]

back to the post:

al qassam brigades, the military section of Hamas was not the only part of the resistance that took part in the attack on october 7. There are a bunch of other factions like the islamist PIJ, marxist PFLP and DFLP, and some others. I'm not the most knowledgable on like politics within gaza and exactly how people feel about Hamas, but they're absolutely not a terrorist group.

I think Hamas are much closer to other anti colonial militant organizations like the viet cong and algerian national liberation front. Hamas are also fighting an asymmetrical war using guerrilla strategies like the vietnam, congo and national liberation front.

and western media misrepresents this with all the shit about “hiding weapons by civilians” or whatever. i would recommend looking into the history of guerilla warfare and anti colonial struggle to understand why I'm criticizing media representations of it.

They also make a lot of their rockets from scraps of israeli bombs! i think people should make a better distinction that hamas is a political party with a military wing (al qassam brigades) because then it's more obvious that bombing civilian infrastructure thats allegedly “hamas run” is a war crime.

Also, I heard in Hamas' statements that most of their militants are orphans whose parents were killed by israel and I think that should be noted. I think it's also incorrect to say they have an issue with jews in general and are rabidly antisemitic as if their main aim is to kill jews, the way most media portrays them. They very specifically exist because of the continued occupation of palestine and without that i do not think they would give a shit about jews. They attack settler because theyre settlers, not because theyre jews.

(I'm not gonna copy the links but check those out too)

Summary of what the post is trying to say:

Hamas is the Palestinian government. This is intentionally hidden by western media.

Considering the Palastinian government, Hamas, a terrorist organization is used to justify the war crimes Israel commits against Palestine

There are marxists on Hamas' side

Hamas is full of Palestinians harmed by Israel

The war is between Palestine (an occupied country) and Israel (a settler country), not Islam and Judaism

what are your thoughts about hamas / or do you have marxist oriented or just good not western media biased resources for understanding them?

theyre an islamist anti colonial organization, theyre also a political party with a military wing (al qassam brigades) which is what people usually are referring to when they talk about ~hamas~. they won in elections and have a degree of popular support and, because they are the ruling political party, theyre in charge of civil institutions in gaza, like schools and hospitals etc. when reporters describe things like the gaza health ministry as “hamas run” when they would never say this about another political party, they are purposefully trying to delegitimize it and obscuring the fact that they are the government that won in elections, not a rogue terrorist cell. al qassam brigades was not the only part of the resistance that took part in the attack on october 7, there are a bunch of other factions like the islamist PIJ, marxist PFLP and DFLP, and some others. im not the most knowledgable on like politics within gaza and exactly how people feel about hamas but theyre absolutely not a terrorist group, i think theyre much closer to other anti colonial militant organizations like the viet cong and algerian national liberation front. theyre also fighting an asymmetrical war using guerrilla strategies like the viet cong and nlf, and western media misrepresents this with all the shit about “hiding weapons by civilians” or whatever. i would recommend looking into the history of guerilla warfare and anti colonial struggle to understand why im criticizing media representations of it. they also make a lot of their rockets from scraps of israeli bombs! i think people should make a better distinction that hamas is a political party with a military wing (al qassam brigades) because then its more obvious that bombing civilian infrastructure thats allegedly “hamas run” is a war crime. also i heard in their statements that most of their militants are orphans whos parents were killed by israel and i think that should be noted. i think its also incorrect to say they have an issue with jews in general and are rabidly antisemitic as if their main aim is to kill jews, the way most media portrays them. they very specifically exist because of the continued occupation of palestine and without that i do not think they would give a shit about jews. they attack settler because theyre settlers, not because theyre jews. idk this article was pretty good and has a link to their 2017 charter where they specifically say their struggle is against zionism not jews

heres their charter thats linked in the article but ngl i just recommend reading their statements and material in general. not saying take every single thing at face value but theyre a political party with issues like any other, not evil sadistic terrorists. and why let mainstream media set the terms of your understanding of them

[post-clarifier]

[reformatted]

i've been thinking and i think a lot of celebrity discourse wouldn't be a thing if more people understood how PR works and that these famous people have been carefully curated as products for consumption 99% of the time.

The reason a lot of actors seem so much like their characters is because, a lot of the time, they're deliberately playing that aspect of themselves up to promote the project they're in.

Why do you think so many straight actors starring in gay films have vaguely gay anecdotes prepared for interviews? why do you think leads promoting rom-coms often play up their chemistry in interviews? none of it is accidental.

Pedro Pascal isn't walking around calling himself daddy because he happens to genuinely call himself that. it makes him more marketable. i think a lot of us know that celebrities' public personas are curated, but it doesn't stick because we want to be entertained and to like these people.

The more I interact with PR people as part of my job, and am made aware of the "rules" surrounding celebrity interactions and interviews - the more I've realised just how much of a performance all of it is.

Now I am not saying it's a Bad thing. I think this curation is mostly in place to protect privacy and keep promotion focused on the show/film.

But I don't think it would hurt for more people and fans to remember that almost everything you know and see about celebrities is incredibly curated and tunnel-visioned. That is to make them living breathing promo material for whatever they're in, which is to say that these are the last people who should be looked to as role models for moral and ethical guidance because they aren't *for* that.

i've been thinking and i think a lot of celebrity discourse wouldn't be a thing if more people understood how PR works and that these famous people have been carefully curated as products for consumption 99% of the time. the reason a lot of actors seem so much like their characters is because, a lot of the time, they're deliberately playing that aspect of themselves up to promote the project they're in. why do you think so many straight actors starring in gay films have vaguely gay anecdotes prepared for interviews? why do you think leads promoting rom-coms often play up their chemistry in interviews? none of it is accidental. pedro pascal isn't walking around calling himself daddy because he happens to genuinely call himself that. it makes him more marketable. i think a lot of us know that celebrities' public personas are curated, but it doesn't stick because we want to be entertained and to like these people. the more I interact with PR people as part of my job and am made aware of the "rules" surrounding celebrity interactions and interviews - the more I've realised just how much of a performance all of it is. now i am not saying it's a Bad thing, i think this curation is mostly in place to protect privacy and keep promotion focused on the show/film. but i don't think it would hurt for more people and fans to remember that almost everything you know and see about celebrities is incredibly curated and tunnel-visioned to make them living breathing promo material for whatever they're in, which is to say that these are the last people who should be looked to as role models for moral and ethical guidance because they aren't *for* that.

[post-clarifier]

simpler text:

(The "I" is obviously still referring to OP)

i don't get the whole deadname thing. I've heard of it enough times to think of it as real. but it never applied to me. personally calling me my birth name is a bit like treating the area that used to be yugoslavia as it today. it's not accurate to call me that now and if you do you're a bit dense, but sometimes you need to speak about history with the names it had at the time, and that's all good.

i don't get the whole deadname thing. like i do empirically but it never applied to me. personally my birth name's like. idk, yugoslavia? it's not accurate to call me that now and if you do you're a bit dense, but sometimes you need to speak about history with the names it had at the time, and that's all good.

[post-clarifier]

for easier reading

for a building to be licensed as a medical, dental, psychiatric, or psychological practice it should be a requirement for facilities

to be wheelchair accessible

and have a functional disability-accessible bathroom proportional to the number of patients

It should be a requirement for facilities to be wheelchair accessible and have a functional disability-accessible bathroom proportional to the number of patients for a building to be licensed as a medical, dental, psychiatric, or psychological practice.

[post-clarifier]

Reading comprehension. Constantly people are accused of bad reading comprehension.

it's always said that the reader is at fault. There's no way OP was unclear.

But why make it so difficult?

I'm here, offering up clarification for posts.

I can

add paragraphs to long text blocks

make summaries of posts or paragraphs

make lists of arguments or points made

translate typing quirks

this list may be expanded or shortened depending on what people actually need.

please ask for help if you need it! I'll try my best to help