without language level support, it makes code look like a mess.
Imagine, 3 level nesting calls where each calls another 3 methods, we are talking about 28 functions each with couple of variables, of course you can still clean them up, but imagine how clean code will look if you don't have to.
Just like garbage collection, you can free up memory yourself, but someone forgot something and we have either memory leak or security issues.
There are two main reasons why this approach isn't sufficient at a technical level, which are brought up by comments on the original proposal: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/21865
1) You are almost certainly going to be passing that key material to some other functions, and those functions may allocate and copy your data around; while core crypto operations could probably be identified and given special protection in their own right, this still creates a hole for "helper" functions that sit in the middle
2) The compiler can always keep some data in registers, and most Go code can be interrupted at any time, with the registers of the running goroutine copied to somewhere in memory temporarily; this is beyond your control and cannot be patched up after the fact by you even once control returns to your goroutine
So, even with your approach, (2) is a pretty serious and fundamental issue, and (1) is a pretty serious but mostly ergonomic issue. The two APIs also illustrate a basic difference in posture: secret.Do wipes everything except what you intentionally preserve beyond its scope, while scramble wipes only what you think it is important to wipe.
While in my case i had a program in which i created an instance of such a secret , "used it" and than scrambled the variable it never left so it worked.
Tho i didn't think of (2) which is especially problematic.
Prolly still would scramble on places its viable to implement, trying to reduce the surface even if i cannot fully remove it.
As I understand it, this is too brittle. I think this is trivially defeated if someone adds an append to your code:
func do_another_important_thing(key []byte) []byte {
newKey := append(key, 0x0, 0x1) // this might make a copy!
return newKey
}
key := make([]byte, 32)
defer scramble(&key)
do_another_important_thing(key)
// do all the secret stuff
Because of the copy that append might do, you now have 2 copies of the key in data, but you only scramble one. There are many functions that might make a copy of the data given that you don't manually manage memory in Go. And if you are writing an open source library that might have dozens of authors, it's better for the language to provide a guarantee, rather than hope that a developer that probably isn't born yet will remember not to call an "insecure" function.
This proposal is worse because all the valuable regions of code will be clearly annotated for static analysis, either explicitly via a library/function call, or heuristically using the same boilerplate or fences.
Makes sense basically creating an easy to point out pattern for static analysis to find everything security related.
As another response pointed out, its also possible that said secret data is still in the register, which no matter what we do to the curr value could exist.
> Makes sense basically creating an easy to point out pattern for static analysis to find everything security related.
This is essentially already the case whenever you use encryption, because there are tell-tale signs you can detect (e.g., RSA S-Box). But this will make it even easier and also tip you off to critical sections that are sensitive yet don't involve encryption (e.g., secure strings).
yes, you now have to deal in pointers, but that's not too ugly, and everything is stored in secretStash so can iterate over all the types it supports and thrash them to make them unusable, even without the gc running.
I'm now wondering with a bit of unsafe, reflection and generics magic one could make it work with any struct as well (use reflection to instantiate a generic type and use unsafe to just overwrite the bytes)
Same for MCP - there is always a chance an agent will mess up the tool use.
This kind of LLM’s non-determinism is something you have to live with. And it’s the reason why I personally think the whole agents thing is way over-hyped - who need systems that only work 2 times out of 3, lol.
But it does have a verifiable output, no more or less than HTML+CSS. Not sure what you mean by "input" -- it's not a function that takes in parameters if that's what you're getting at, but not every app does.
Django is awesome, but I wish there was an easy way to use modern web frameworks with it.
A lot of times it's either through Nextjs/Nuxtjs + Django as an API or complex bundling process which requires a file where you register bundle versions/manifests then another build process which embeds them into template
Django is a modern web framework. It simply doesn't follow the hype around JS SPAs. However, if you really want to, you can of course still render static content + serve a JS framework like Vue to the client, and then have dynamic widgets rendered on the client side.
If you want to build an SPA anyway, then Django is not the right framework to start with though.
Probably one, whose basic idea is to make an SPA. Django has all the tools for making a multi page website/application, which you are then not using. There is probably a framework that is based on the idea of making an SPA and that doesn't include the other stuff.
For example, there is a nice component library, shadcn, of course you can somehow embed it into the project, but to use it productively, you must have a bundler, which is outside of Django ecosystem.
Also, if you take a look at AI generated content, a lot of them are optimized for outputting JS for frontend, try embedding it in Django project, its non-trivial
That's just for the HTML content though. What if you want to add some non-trivial Javascript or generated CSS? Or maybe you want to integrate a frontend tool like Storybook[0] even if your HTML is rendered server-side? Maybe add some tests for your frontend code? There is much more between raw hand-rolled HTML/CSS/JS and a full-blown SPA.
At my day job we use Django with HTMX and Alpine, but we also generate the custom CSS from Pico[1] and use JinjaX[2] to define server-side components which we then render in Storybook. We use Vue as our bundler to compile the JS and CSS as well as to run Storybook. The project has to live in both the Python ecosystem and the Node.js ecosystem.
Even with just HTMX and Alpine you might want to compile a custom version of those with certain plugins, or you might want to load them as libraries in your own scripts.
Yes the API process is very complex and then you have to have a team with proficiency in two parallel sets of web technologies -- python vs javascript. That said, the fact that you can go that route means that Django can be a good pick for early-stage projects where you don't need a frontend framework, because there's the optionality to add it later if your project really requires it.
Why is it my earlier comment with so many upvotes got [flagged] ?
Is it because I mentioned the entity name?
Here is the comment:
"It’s ironic how the West has long championed democracy, demanded freedom of speech, and called for human rights from everyone.
Only to suddenly adopt authoritarian, anti-free speech, anti-human rights, and anti-protest stances the moment free speech began to critique Israel.
Dunno for sure, but I'd suggest that mentioning Israel when it's the UK doing it, it might possibly look a bit like shoe-horning in a capital-A-Agenda.
The UK doesn't really have much of a good history on the topic of listening to political dissent from within. The Sex Pistols comes to mind, and the Winter of Discontent, and the anti-Iraq-war march, and the Troubles, and police kettling a few decades back, and a bike safety protest a friend attended where a lot of people who couldn't hear a police order got arrested for not following that order, and there's a former partner of mine could give you a whole bunch of stories about protests you've probably never even heard of.
IMO, the UK's led by aristocrats who only mostly deign to play the game of democracy, but the leadership doesn't really seem to think naturally in those terms and is a lot more comfortable at white tie events.
Because there are huge protests in the UK at the moment for Palestine, which led them to "proscribe" the group Palestine Action. Then everyone (correctly) freaked out about civil liberties, and you can now see videos of grannies being arrested by the UK police for having an "i support Palestine Action" sign multiple times a week.
The fact that peaceful protesters against the Gaza genocide got labeled as terrorists should be sufficient evidence that the UK government still very much shares their bed with Israel.
Palestine Action were proscribed for a level of violence ("property damage" against the RAF, vandalised aircraft, which makes it sound worse than it is because it was spray paint in the engines) that had previously been considered acceptable.
But "peaceful"? A protest on 6 August 2024 resulted in a charge of grievous bodily harm after an activist allegedly struck a police officer with a sledgehammer, and a protest on 16 March 2025 resulted in three activists being charged with one count each of assault by beating.
I get why they're doing this, but if I'm going to call the Jan 6 thing in Washington DC "attempted coup" (which I do), I have to also say this is not "peaceful".
Don't get me wrong, I have been surprised by witnessing a thrown punch even in a very nerdy upper-middle-to-just-posh Cambridge pub (seen exactly once over the course of about 9 years), but even that wasn't at the level alleged (IDK if found guilty) in the referenced case.
There are people murdered in pubs. People are raped at festivals. those are awful, similar with striking someone with a sledgehammer. Should we shut down all pubs, or all festivals? No. All protests? Also no. Even all protests about one particular group? No.
Wasn't that after that specific protest group broke into a military base and damaged military aircraft? Pretty sure that gets your group labeled no matter what 'banner' you do that sort of damage under.
Religious conflict is old enough to gone through every kind of modern and non-modern ideology, including freedom of speech and humans rights. Why would the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which has been ongoing since late 19th century, be a major driver in west ideology?
It is not a suddenly adaptation of authoritarian, anti-free speech, anti-human rights. Die Gedanken sind frei demonstrates that people been fighting for freedom of speech since the middle ages.
I can give you many reasons, but I am afraid my comment will be flagged.
Some of them:
* Israel is losing support across the world, because now it can't control the narrative, before it was able, people thought journalism exist, now we see it doesn't, and we are witnessing 2 different narratives in the media vs social networks
* EU and US politicians took money from relevant lobby entities (or as we should call it: bribe)
Israel is losing support because Iran is so good at controlling the narrative. Basically all reporting from Gaza is effectively terrorist controlled. Simple test: every single example shown of someone starving was actually of a medical nature. Since they couldn't find an actual starving person to point a camera at why do you think any existed?
Because it was mentioned here that Israel needed to behave like the US in occupied Germany, I look up the numbers and while Israel was starving Palestinians Israel was providing more calories per person than the USA did for Germany.
BTW, the United Nations, which said it had food for the Palestinian to bring the calorie number up, is feeding the Sudan refugees 1/3 of the calories the USA provided to Germans after WW2, and much less than Israel supplied Gaza. But no one cares about the people the UN is starving (remember, the UN had extra calories and foods it begged to get into Gaza). No protests. No fundraisers.
Western elites are absolutely obsessed with Israel. You can see it by the way how every value goes out the window when they and/or Zionism is being criticized. Hysterical overreaction every time.
You mention the rogue genocidal state in a negative comment in any platform under the "free world" control and you get cancelled for balsphemy right away.
War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is power.
> Only to suddenly adopt authoritarian, anti-free speech, anti-human rights, and anti-protest stances the moment free speech began to critique Israel.
It's not sudden. The West's hate speech laws have been coming for ages. Anyone silly enough to put that much enforcement over speech into play cannot now complain that it's being used against people they like.
This US-centric take blatantly fails to address all of the problems, the right-wing ideologies, which have easily had a much greater impact on the rise of fascism across the world.
And to be clear, US liberalism is largely supportive of right-wing ideology, the US Democratic party would be considered a right-wing party in many other countries. So it's both parties who are to blame here, but the underlying authoritarian fascist current is decidedly right-wing politics
This was nothing to do with the US. I was actually thinking about the UK's laws when I wrote it.
I'm trying to talk ideas; your post is riddled with just identifying which team is the goodies and the baddies. I don't think there's much common ground to be had between discussing ideas vs tribalism.
Yes, you were thinking of the UK's laws, but from the perspective of the US Constitution. There's an implicit tribalism in your own post where you assume without contest that the US' definition of free speech is the only one that can possibly have merit.
Just occurred to me, before the free internet both dissemination of opinions and access was restricted. Now we have unprecedented access, and there are obvious strains and regression. Makes you wonder what we missed from the times before the internet.
To be sure, this legislation sounds draconian: “This expansive framing blurs the line between political dissent and subversive threat. Intent becomes a political judgement, inferred from beliefs, causes and associations rather than conduct.”
It was coming anyway, and it could have been any event that triggered it. The right event at the right time?
But as others here mention, the powers that be are unhappy that the population isn't siding with their position. The government is fine with dissent against Russia because they are "the enemy" in the narrative.
Not to say there hasn’t been creeping authoritarianism, growing mass surveillance, etc. for the last few decades, but it has seemed that this one issue has stood out as utterly unique, especially in the UK in that there was basically bipartisan accord from those in power across all the mainstream political views, and the only “allowed” position from them was uncritical support for that country’s Government and their military actions.
At the same time, there seemed to be a much larger group of people in the normal population who disagreed with those in power than most other issues (when at least some representatives in a major party might roughly align with the people)
Attack is a strong word for throwing a can of paint.
After the 2024 riots there were mass arrests and prosecution, but only talk about reviewing groups as to whether they should be proscribed.
Why does a member throwing a can of paint get you classed as a terrorist organisation, while organising riots that involve throwing molotov's and causing serious injury not?
Besides, why not prosecute them for their actions, why proscribe the organisation as a terrorist one, while at the same time ignoring groups who commit much more violent offenses (such as the one given) and concentrate on prosecuting "personal responsibility"?
Given that the Palestine Action is a proscribed terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act, and its co-founder said just one day after the Oct 7 massacre: “When we hear the resistance, the Al-Aqsa flood [Hamas' name for the massacre] we must turn that flood into a tsunami of the whole world.”
It's stretching all the way back to 2020. It isn't something new. It isn't just the government you need to be most worried about silencing you now, as other institutions wield equally great power.
I agree with the sentiment, I’d probably phrase it slightly more politely as “people who use this always seem to believe they are the ‘strong men’ and other are the weak”
And those that hate the quote are the “strong men”? Given the many complaints about it, instead of trying to read between the lines about history being proved time and time again to be cyclical, I wouldn’t be so sure.
The responses, ranging from political partisanship, ad hominem, to being offended by the choice of words, are certainly a sign of the times.
It's a protofascist phrase, part of the problems we have is people adopting this worldview, that life has to be hard in order to create "good men". It's used to defend rightwing social darwinism.
If anything, history goes the other way around. Fascism ("strong men") comes from good times, as a reaction. They create authoritarianism and discrimination ("bad times"), which slowly liberalizes and equalizes (gives rise to "weak men"). This makes situation better until another fascist takeover.
How exactly did you get to the conclusion that fascism needs "strong men"? The current US regime has nothing but the weakest, most fearful men clutching to power. You really think that Trump's call to execute senator Kelly comes from a position of strength? Your current bad times came from a few decades of weak men letting their fear and hatred (and greed) guide their vote -- strong men had very little to do with it.
Anyway, the quoted saying is not about any specific ideology, that's just your own projection. Here's the cycle reformulated without any specific ideology:
Hard times create strong men: hardship breeds discipline
Strong men create good times: discipline breeds prosperity
Good times create weak men: prosperity breeds complacency
weak men create hard times: complacency leads to hardship
"How exactly did you get to the conclusion that fascism needs "strong men"?"
Fascists (and protofascist advocates of social darwinism) do think that! Whether they actually are or not "strong men" (what does it even mean?) is immaterial to that saying.
I disagree with the saying. Even your formulation. Hardship doesn't breed discipline, and prosperity doesn't lead to complacency. There are many disciplined people who have good and prosperous life, and also, why is being disciplined more important than good life? It's authoritarian and backwards.
For example, being homeless (hardship) doesn't make one disciplined. Most likely, it will make one into an alcoholic.
Hardship is horrible and we should universally reject it.
If this obnoxious and seemingly ubiquitous platitude were actually true, then torture would be a moral duty. Enforced poverty would be a moral duty. Governments would be obligated to regularly arrange mass starvations for their citizens.
I don't believe it. Personally, I think spiritual weakness and religious corruption are more likely culprits -- and not necessarily the type of spirituality or religion that you might be thinking of.
Either way, "good times" is a dangerous place to put the blame. It relieves us of responsibility for our own catastrophes (it was the good times' fault), and it makes us suspicious of prosperity and happiness.
Good times are not evil. We don't need to shun them, provided we keep strengthening the better angels of our nature.
As strongly as many of us are on a particular side, the latest battleground for and against material support for overseas belligerent fascism is just a lightning rod for a deeper struggle.
While most of the individual members of the state are just rallying around the flag, the core ideological group inside the state has the belief that the public must never be allowed to dictate the choice of geopolitical ingroup and outgroup. The repression they are enacting isn't about lsreaI per se, it's about the principle of the thing.
Graham Linehan is an example of nothing other than how to tank your marriage, friendships, and any semblance of a professional career over a misguided moral crusade.
He was a well-known and liked figure in Ireland off the back of Father Ted, Black Books and the IT Crowd. He was a huge blogger and early presence on Twitter, with both him and his wife being public feminists and supporters.
He was also - and this is the important bit - a public advocate and supporter for the pro-choice position in our abortion referendum, which gave him some sense of intellectual and moral security in his heartfelt positions, as well as a huge fanbase.
Unfortunately some of his previous advocacies evolved into TERFs, and he with them. This then became a mono-crusade under the guise of standing up for the women in his life and women in general. Slowly but surely his fanbase, his professional connections, and society at large fell out of step with him.
As his antics became more extreme and problematic in their optics, his friends, his family, and his Wife begged him year after year to stop sabotaging his own existence before eventually having to leave him.
He's dug down so far at this point that he's being courted by Joe Rogan, which is probably the saddest bit of this entire story.
The interviewer is clearly sympathetic to Mr Linehan and their personal views are not opposed.
But nonetheless they end up thinking "I tried to understand why I couldn’t get through, why the piece I’d wanted to write for years would be a failure" - because the guy is an obsessive, unwell crank, that's all. It is a sad story.
The UK Supreme Court ruling went out of its way to say that it wasn't vindicating any such position, saying:
It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”). (Para 2)
and
The court also concluded that a biological sex interpretation would not have the effect of disadvantaging or removing protections from trans people. This is because, in addition to protection based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, they would also be protected from discrimination based on being perceived as or associated with a sex which differed from their biological sex (paras 249-261).
Unfortunately, it was taken as vindication of the anti-trans position by all public commentators regardless of the commentators themselves were pro or anti.
That's because the Supreme Court's job is statutory interpretation, not making political statements. But given that it's such a politically divisive topic, I think it's clear they felt the need to remind readers of the FWS judgment that it's about the former and not the latter, and that it should be considered in this framing.
That it also happens to be a major and very welcome win for women's rights is orthogonal to the intentions of the UKSC.
It started before that. The powers that be in western European countries can no longer deliver prosperity or security to their citizens, so must instead use force and repression to cling on to power.
Many European countries got rich without colonization (e.g the Baltic States before WW2, or Austria-Hungary).
Moreover, economic studies show that the profitability was discutable - in the case of France it was a net loss due to the massive infrastructure costs and the subsidies for non-competitive industries.
In 1096AD, while the Mayans were plunging daggers into their sacrifices' chests, England was busy opening Oxford University. What sort of fool would think that somehow all the engineering and scientific advance that would allow England to reach around the world and establish an empire could possibly have been caused by that empire?
Indeed, but historical nuance bears remembering here. The UK has been authoritarian for much of its history: the monarchy; sentencing to prison thousands of miles away to be slave labor for colony building for stealing a loaf of bread.
Even while Europe is "Pan Western" it's still heavily differentiated. As [REDACTED TO PREVENT REFLEXT DOWNVOTES] says, "US is the central pillar of Western civilization." This is true in the sense that it embodies values closest to the Western ideal.
This is one of those conversations that in 2025 entering will get you on a GB border control blacklist, so I'm going to shut up now.
Critiquing Israel as well as any political or religious entity or set of beliefs should be allowed, or there will be problems. This is basically the Paradox of Tolerance coupled with the fact that intolerance itself seems to be a viral meme if left unchecked.
I still can't believe the UK has arrested people based on their social media posts. Why are people standing for that, over there? (I'm a US citizen.) Meanwhile, one could make direct quotes from the Quran or Hadith and you'd likely remain unchallenged because religion gets a free pass from reasonable critique for some illogical reason. Appeasement will eventually lead to fear...
In almost no cases has someone supported a terrorist group or advocated for violence. They're literally just taking lists provided by Israeli extremists and deporting them.
> In almost no cases has someone supported a terrorist group or advocated for violence.
"We support liberations by any means necessary including armed violence"... "Violence is the only path forward" - Mahmoud Khalil
Do you live in the united states? People commonly state "all resistance is justified", demand a third intifada, demand Jewish people be driven out of their own homeland, or feature flags/flyers for Hamas/Hezbollah/PIJ at pro Palestinian marches.
> It’s ironic how the West has long championed democracy, demanded freedom of speech, and called for human rights from everyone.
What's really remarkable is how completely the illusion that this is what they were doing lasted in those countries. Some authority somewhere is cursing letting plebs on the Internet for destroying this.
Ask a latin american and see if they think that's what has been going on.
Honestly, if you are able to, get out while you still can. For too long we’ve been on this slippery path and no government has any incentive to step off it.
People speak as though Farage would be any different but fail to acknowledge that he is as much a grifter as any of the others running, if not more so.
Maybe the Greens would provide some change but, at this point, they’re no more than a protest vote which is why I personally stopped my membership.
The fact that consecutive governments all used phrases like ‘all pulling our weight’ in reference to the cost of living crisis while taking pay rises for themselves should say it all but, sadly, people are too busy chasing headlines and internet points to extrapolate and assess a situation logically.
The UK and its allies will very much be on the wrong side of history should humanity live to see the next century through.
And go where? The US is in pretty bad shape and sinking. Europe can be a bit better or much worse depending on your background. Is there any solid alternative?
You’re right in that there is no one place which will solve all of one’s problems. There is an entire continent across the channel which will at least permit you to easily travel through, and settle in, a decent number of countries with very little effort.
While it’s not a silver bullet by any means, being able to freely move between, and experience, multiple cultures outweighs the melancholy we have back in Blighty.
We, in the UK, are constantly told how great we have it in terms of healthcare and welfare. The reality is the opposite. Our healthcare is barely fit for purpose. Our welfare system fails to help those who need it the most.
The one thing I have noticed more than anything else during my travels is that we, in the UK, have resigned our ourselves to a mentality of hopeless acceptance of the status quo. We tend to shrug it off with reductive statements such as ‘well, X has Y problem’ as if that justifies the swathe of issues which should not be present in a country which has tried to position itself on the world stage as a vestibule for decency and morality over the past century.
Nowhere is _perfect_, but many places are _better_.
In Ireland opposition to the ongoing Genocide in Palestine is a wholly secular and humanitarian concern, divorced entirely from any correlation with race, religion, ethos or creed - despite agitators attempts to label it to the contrary. We are, however, unique in Western Europe in this regard - but it is not a mono-culture and the reasons are very contextual.
While Germany is not an advocate of genocide in any sense, it is a major arms exporter to Israel and has also barely been re-admitted into the human race as a result of their egregious human rights violations and war crimes in the previous century. This over-erring on the side of caution for their previous victims can thus be explained, if not excused.
The UK, however, have distinguished themselves instead by trying to prosecute Irish Rappers for Terrorism, and proscribing Palestine Action a terrorist organisation - putting it alongside Al Qaeda and ISIS, and making support of the group a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison. It seems that to protect democracy under the current newspeak you have to arrest Placard wielding Pensioners.
British police have made over 1,300 arrests using terrorism legislation at Palestine Action protests this summer — five times more than the total number of arrests for terrorism-related activity in the U.K. in all of 2024. From a retired British colonel to a Catholic priest, half of the 532 people arrested in the Parliament Square protest alone were 60 or older.
Those participating in anything akin to the Coal Miner's Strikes of the 80s under Thatcher would no doubt find themselves charged with 'domestic terrorism' and put on no-fly lists alongside other societally chilling measures. In short, this is to distract from the economic black-hole they find themselves in post-Brexit, with incitement to hatred spurred on by paid agitators like Tommy Robinson who is in turn backed by Elon Musk/Russia, or Nathan Gill the former MEP who was jailed for accepting around £40,000 in bribes from a Russian-linked individual to support pro-Russian politicians.
France has its own particularly xenophobic issues - but they are focused on Islamic migration from North Africa as a follow-on from France's appalling history of Colonial abuse in the region. Thus the French far-right, typified historically by their anti-semitism, end up as uneasy bedfellows and proxy Zionists by virtue of Marine Le Pen's stance since kicking her father out of their far-right party over his persistent refutation of the Holocaust.
Our colonial legacy in Ireland, as the oppressed, however, grants us a special insight and advocacy for those in analogous circumstances - be it historically re: refusing to handle goods from Apartheid South Africa, or contemporarily with our Occupied Territories Bill (or whatever watered down version passes American MNC muster).
You mean the Ireland that wanted to redefine "genocide" so they could call the war genocide? Thus the government that knew it was not genocide.
Sorry, but war in urban areas is extremely ugly. That does not make it genocide.
As for apartheid South Africa--look at the reality. Their revolution was jumping from the frying pan to the fire. Just because the new oppressors were of the same skin color doesn't make them not oppressors.
In December 2024 Amnesty International denounced it as a Genocide, leading to Israel’s foreign ministry defaming the London-based group as a “deplorable and fanatical organisation”.
Two prominent Israeli Humanitarian Organisations - B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel - identified it as Genocide in July 2025. Dr Guy Shalev, executive director of PHRI, said: "Silence in the face of genocide is not an option. We want to stress: confronting genocide is not only the responsibility of legal and political institutions. Confronting it demands urgent action from the global health community."
In September 2025, the world's leading association of genocide scholars, which includes a number of Holocaust experts (IAGS), has declared that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and that Israel's conduct meets the legal definition as laid out in the UN convention on genocide.
In September 2025, the independent international commission of inquiry set up by the UN also concluded that “genocide is occurring in Gaza”. Legal analysis accused Israel of committing genocide in four out of five categories as defined by 1948 convention and cited ‘Direct evidence of genocidal intent’, saying that its offensive there has been waged “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.
This Xennial cannot help but notice the zeitgeist mirrors the emotional abstract of the Reagan 80s.
See Roger and Me, Michael Moore's first film. Economic downturn, workers facing uncertainty as the already opulent thrive.
Coincidentally GenXers that would have come of age at the time are middle managers and decision makers in corporate land.
CEO that jacked up Epipen prices. Insurance CEO that got got. Musk and Thiel. The original emo Smashing Pumpkins generation that grew up in a cocaine fueled era of news full of desperation and despair. Easy for them to tolerate and accept then as their brains nursed on it.
This seems unlikely as support for conspiracy theories about Israel (eg the genocide hoax) are common in the UK including among the ruling classes, e.g. the police and the BBC.
The people being visited by police for creating content that other people say they find offensive are generally anti-immigration or anti gender ideology rather than anti-Israel.
I just asked AI what the thousands of arrests for social media posts so far are for and it didn't say anti-semetic content. It said it's largely targeted at anti-immigrant, gender-critical, and being mean to politicians comments. Israel is the "woke right" line these days though, and something the "woke left" and "woke right" can both agree on hating.
Please stop doing this. If someone wants to read LLM-generated hooey of some variety, they can submit a prompt somewhere and read the resulting text themselves.
Well I could do a web search and read all the thousands of articles about social media censorship in Britian and write an essay on it with grammar errors, or I could go on here and blame Israel like the OP, because that's just what I'm feeling today and I saw a bunch of stuff while TikTok doomscrolling yesterday that made me believe that. You'd say the articles I quoted that didn't say Israel were not from reliable sources, and absolutely nobody's mind would be changed. I'll trust AI to be more objective about doing the research. However, I did write the comment myself. I mean I would go back and edit it and put in random no-no words for AI, just to prove that, but I'd get flagged.
Imagine, 3 level nesting calls where each calls another 3 methods, we are talking about 28 functions each with couple of variables, of course you can still clean them up, but imagine how clean code will look if you don't have to.
Just like garbage collection, you can free up memory yourself, but someone forgot something and we have either memory leak or security issues.
reply