IrateAnteater

That's not really relevant here. This is more of a "genie is out of the bottle and now we have to learn how to deal with it situation". The idea and technology of bots and AI training already exists. There's no socioeconomic system that is going to magically make that go away.

Ok, I now need a screensaver that I can tie to a cloudflare instance that visualizes the generated "maze" and a bot's attempts to get out.

It seems like every so often Chapman's makes the news, and every time, it's Chapman's being an all around awesome example that I wish other companies would follow.

I don't disagree with any of that, but the way you phrase it seems to imply that any and all actions taken by the oppressed group are inherently justified. Is that the case, or would you say that there are still limits?

Exactly, and in my opinion, online discussions are not the place for the "unreasonable" tactics. It's not really possible for an individual to be "louder" via text, and it's not just the unreasonable person you are reaching. It's all the people who may happen across the conversation later, and you have no way of knowing just how many of those are people that may still be swayed by reason.

Are you just not capable of viewing a conflict as anything other than absolute good vs absolute evil? Are you a person that believes the ends always justify the means? Who then gets to decide which ends are the most just?

You misunderstand my position. Maybe that's on me for being too vague.

My position can be summed up as "talk softly, carry a big stick." At no point does that necessitate compromising. When dealing with online discussions, it's not just you and the person you are directly speaking to. There's other people reading. Some of those people are the frothing at the mouth right wingers, who you are never going to reach anyway, and so they are irrelevant. On the other hand, some of those people will be the young, some will be the adults who are just become politically aware. These are all people who can be persuaded with logic, and you want on your side. None of that necessitates you compromising your ideals (and not should you).

The same thing applies to when you go out protesting. The point is to get more people on your side, without simply becoming what you are fighting against. So you should be peaceful, you should be respectful, but in the interest of not compromising, you should also be armed.

I think you need to think through the full implications of what it means when I say that all actions have consequences. I don't just mean that in the context of Hamas's actions. It applies to everyone. Hamas's existence is a consequence of actions taken by a whole host of people (there's plenty of blame to go around when it comes to any geopolitical issue in the middle east).

The point I'm trying to get across is that everyone is responsible for their own actions. No one get to use the "look what you made me do" excuse. It's your fault for choosing to do a thing, and it may be someone else's fault for forcing you into that choice. If you want to try to follow the butterfly effect backwards to some original fault to find someone to point at and go "it's all their fault!", good luck to you. There's too many what-ifs. Does any of this happen if the Arab world doesn't go to war with Israel off and on since the 40s? Does the US even think twice about Israel if there wasn't the sunni schiite schism and the Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy wars driving instability in the region? Do we blame it all on the British for drawing arbitrary lines across the map?

Does Greenpeace even have any assets they could be made to pay with if they wanted to?

Honestly, when it comes to these types of conflict, I'm less concerned about the overall morality of the movement, and more concerned with the the individual actions, and even then, I'm generally more concerned with effectiveness, rather than whether or not it was "right". That question tends to get very blurry as time goes on. Look at historical revolutions against monarchies like the French or Russian revolutions. Does the initial "righteousness" of the movement cover for actions that came later?

I'm a believer in being aware of and accepting the consequences of the choices you make, both good and bad. If there are bad consequences to your actions, you have to own the fact that you've either deemed those consequences as acceptable, or else you were unaware that it would happen. Everything is a choice, and all choices have consequences. Judging the right and wrong of it is a quagmire I try not to delve into. I think it's much more useful to keep sight of what choices led to what consequences, and learn from that.

And this is the learning that I'm saying has to happen. Did that kidnapping work? Are their families safe? Did it effect nothing? Or, did it make things worse? What were the consequences of that action? That's what I'm saying we have to not gloss over by making Hamas out to be innocent angels, and Israel the cartoon villains. In 20 years, if some freedom fighter on another continent looks to this conflict for inspiration, should they take away that everything Hamas ever did was a good idea, by the simple virtue that Israel was worse? Or should they actually learn?

Do I kidnap the home invader's kid in response? The world is not as simplistic as you'd apparently like it to be.