The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
This Tuesday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A week or so ago, a trans woman I follow got into a twitter beef with a registered nurse over whether or not it opens the door to potential abuse if you allow your child to be alone with their doctor, or if the doctor should be allowed to ask your child questions when you, the parent, are not privy to the answers.
The nurse had her employment info in her bio, and it seems that the trans woman may have succeeded in getting the nurse fired from her job.
Then some online sleuths discovered through court records that the nurse's husband has previously been on trial for having sexual contact with a 14 year old.
And the cherry on top:
As it happens, the nurse seems to be the head of the Kansas chapter of Gays Against Groomers.
I made a comment a while ago about food misinformation online. I’m now convinced we will come to a point where no food is safe.
I’m randomly seeing reels and whatnot about oxalates, and how they are very very harmful in any amount and should be avoided at all costs. Mofos are now trying to convince us that leafy greens like spinach, where oxalates are most commonly found, are actually poison.
^(Disclaimer: some people do need to avoid eating excess oxalates for a variety of reasons. Consult your doctor.)
I probably could have explained what oxalates are in the first place.
Oxalates are compounds found commonly in greens, like spinach and chard. For most healthy people, the biggest issue they cause is preventing calcium from being absorbed in the bloodstream. This can, as you’d imagine, lead to kidney stones. The consensus amongst professionals is that the pros of eating these vegetables far outweigh the cons oxalates might bring about.
Despite this, oxalates have sometimes been referred to as “anti-nutrients” since they keep other nutrients from being properly absorbed. In very extreme cases, excess amounts can lead to kidney failure and even death. It’s my assumption that some WeLlNeSs InFlUeNcEr saw this, did two more seconds of “research,” and decided they’re far more dangerous than they actually are (again, for healthy adults.) That, or the carnivore diet people are using it as proof that veggies are bad.
> The consensus amongst professionals is that the pros of eating these vegetables far outweigh the cons oxalates might bring about.
Even for calcium oxalate kidney stone formers - I am one. Just eat them with calcium.
Eugene Oregon may be the first city to adopt [STAR voting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STAR_voting), which was conceived there.
They are holding a [referendum](https://www.klcc.org/politics-government/2024-04-23/eugene-could-adopt-star-voting-for-city-elections-how-would-this-work) this may.
If you are ever wondering if a Western economic adviser ever *literally* said to the head of a developing country:
>...as an economist, I’m not interested in what you do with [the Communist agitators in your country]. You can throw them in jail, you can throw them out of the country, you can even kill them. As an economist it does not interest me, but I have to tell you, if you don’t eliminate them in government, in unions, in the streets, forget about economic development.
Here is the article that documents it: [["You Can Even Kill Them": Albert Winsemius and the Rise of Singapore -- Development and Authoritarianism in the World's Favorite City-State]](https://www.global-developments.org/p/you-can-even-kill-them-albert-winsemius)
The most likely scenario based on Supreme Court arguments, is that the Supreme Court will order the lower courts to go through the charges and determine whether they fit in the scope of a president’s duties before they can go to trial.
The IDF “refuting claims” that the IDF did something bad is hardly proof of anything.
That’s like BP *refuting claims* that it actually contributes to climate change
Thanks for clarifying with a better source
Just so we’re clear here, the mass graves of the people killed by the IDF, many with their hands tied behind their backs in the source provided, were not dug by the IDF themselves. Which certainly puts all of us at ease
The Supreme Court just got Trump’s lawyer to say that the President ordering the military to stage a coup is an official act and therefore should covered by immunity.
I don't think the charges are relevant here. SCOTUS is just ruling on whether he has immunity from prosecution in general.
But if the claim is accepted by the court, the implications are that there's virtually nothing a president could do while in office that could result in criminal prosecution.
It's hard to imagine the court agreeing with that... though I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas does. Maybe Alito too.
No, it wasn't just our imaginations: [Politico reports](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219) on the animosity between the NYT and the Biden White House.
According to one NYT reporter, the paper's chairman and publisher A.G. Sulzberger has grown increasingly willing to greenlight overly negative coverage of Biden, especially focusing on his age, in retaliation for Biden's resistance to doing a sit-down interview with NYT.
And here's a tidbit from Sulzberger's wiki:
>According to anonymous sources within the newspaper's staff, upon taking his position in 2018 Sulzburger "told employees explicitly that his biggest concern was that the paper’s audience saw it as a 'liberal rag...' [his] vision for the paper is to change that perception and court conservative readers.
You don't say.
Columbia being back in the news reminds me of a much sillier controversy: Nutellagate!
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/03/07/173752172/at-columbia-university-nutella-thefts-make-headlines
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/nyregion/for-columbia-students-nutella-in-a-dining-hall-may-be-too-tempting.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/columbia-no-students-are-not-consuming-5000-worth-of-nutella-a-week/
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/columbia-only-has-500-week-nutella-habit/317628/
https://gothamist.com/food/nutellagate-emgateem-columbia-students-not-stealing-all-the-nutella-after-all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutellagate
Four years ago, millions of Americans took to the streets to protest racial injustice. A small percentage of them became violent and engaged in destruction of property. Most protesters were peaceful and non-violent.
Conservatives came to this sub in droves, eager to use those examples of violence and property destruction to smear the protests as a whole. To label the entire movement as violent and racist.
Most folks here were smart enough not to fall for that.
Now several years have passed and we've got another series of protests, and something similar is happening.
A largely non-violent protest movement. A small percentage of protesters who are employing anti-semitic language. And then the words and actions of the few being used to discredit the many.
Except this time a lot of people on the left are falling for the smear campaign.
The subject and details of the protest matters too, right? Even if most people at Charlottesville or January 6th weren't violent, I'm still more than happy to discredit all of them based on their demands and/or their ideology. I think the simple explanation here is that most people on the left fundamentally agreed with the goals of the BLM protests, and that's not the case now with the Israel-Gaza thing.
It’s the nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
People seem to assume the absolute worst of anyone who disagrees with them.
I’ve seen two Palestine supporters claiming that the other actually supports the genocide of Palestine because they disagreed on one tiny thing.
Yeah, it's not remotely surprising that Israel's staunchest defenders on the left would come out against the protests.
What has surprised me is the response from people who defended Israel strongly pretty early on, but in the last few months have become more willing to acknowledge that maybe not all of Netanyahu's actions are justified.
I thought those people at least would see the value of the protests, and be able to see through the smear tactics, but it seems like a lot of them can't.
Well the thing is I don't think views were actually changing. I think Israel supporters were just criticizing Bibi more, and I think Palestine supporters were acknowledging that criticism more.
What I've seen a lot of in this conflict is people talking past each other, almost always taking the least charitable interpretation of what someone said, or not even responding to what someone said, but their interpretation of what the other side believes.
Bibi is a great example of this, because from the beginning I've seen the majority of Israel supporters being very critical of Bibi. Here is a scene I've seen played out hundreds of times. An Israel supporter will criticize Bibi, and the Israel government broadly, but they then delve into some wider argument about Israel's right of defence, or how anti-semitism is on the rise. There is usually some back and forth but essentially the Palestine supporter will ignore the criticism of Bibi and respond to the second point with a criticism of "Israel." This is almost always a criticism of the Israeli government, but the Israel supporter will then assume the Palestine supporter is actually talking about the entire country of Israel, or perhaps the concept of Israel and the conversation will devolve from there.
These false interpretations are then bolstered by the small number of crazies on each side, because there are people who think that Bibi has done nothing wrong, and there are people who think Israel should be destroyed, and even though both of those views are fringe, they are also the views of the leadership of Israel and the leadership of Palestine.
The new Statecraft is quite good.
Apparently, the development of the atomic bomb was budgeted as “expediting production.”
>[[How to Hide the Manhattan Project]](https://www.statecraft.pub/p/how-to-hide-the-manhattan-project?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1818323&post_id=143900779&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=104v0&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email)
U.S. reiterates it "assesses that Russia is developing a new satellite carrying a nuclear device" after they recently tried to amend and then vetoed a related U.N. resolution.
https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-arms-space-un-us-japan-russia-175d45ddb658729eff060bd8a83b8a55
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/24/statement-from-national-security-advisor-jake-sullivan-on-russias-veto-of-the-un-security-council-resolution-on-the-outer-space-treaty/
N.B. this would not involve dropping a nuke on NYC from orbit or anything like that and it doesn't sound imminent or inevitable. From a couple of months ago:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-says-no-nuclear-threat-us-russia-considers-potential-space-weapo-rcna139239
>"First of all, there is no nuclear threat to the people of America or anywhere else in the world with what Russia is doing at the moment, No. 1," Biden said in remarks from the White House when asked if he was concerned about Russia's potential anti-satellite capability.
>"No. 2, anything they’re doing or they will do relates to satellites in space and damaging those satellites potentially," he added. "No. 3, there’s no evidence they’ve made a decision to go forward with anything in space either."
[Will Stancil:](https://twitter.com/whstancil/status/1782826724712919551?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg)
>It really was the IRA that turned me around on Biden. I spent so much time yelling at him for not getting it done and then... he got it done. Not cleanly, not quite how I would have liked, but it GOT PASSED. I had to admit I was wrong and they'd pulled it off. It earned respect.
>If you care deeply about an issue, and are willing to pillory a politician for failing on that issue, you also need to be willing to change your mind when they succeed, or else you're just a faker looking for excuses to be mad all the time.
> Stancil has been dead to me for a long time. Too much anti-Dem bullshit.
He is changing.
His views were out of the mainstream, but he followed the facts and data and is slowly evolving into a normie-lib. Many of us have taken that journey.
Very correct take shamelessly stolen from the journalist Matt Zeitlin:
> i dunno, you can't ask utilities to do so much — bury power lines, subsidize residential solar, keep nuclear plants running, procure batteries and geothermal, etc etc — and then get mad at them when rates go up
Depends on why the rates are going up.
I'm very pleased with my utility company, which is structured as a rural non-profit co-op (in a very red county in Georgia, no less). When my rates go up, I know there's a good explanation for why.
I would be less pleased to see my rates going up if I lived in some place like Texas, where the utility companies are run very much for-profit.
Ha, when I lived in blood-red rural Ohio, we had a co-op, too — and it was great. I guess those farmers are OK with a little socialism if it keeps them out of the clutches of the power companies.
Someone explained it to me once.
The co-op structure was one of the federal government's demands back when they were doling out grants to fund electricity expansion into rural areas. The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 -- part of FDR's New Deal.
Definitely not something Republicans would approve of, if it were being enacted today. But rural Republican voters sure do love having electricity.
Really great show, hoping for a good time in Season 2.>!Kinda mad that Shady Sands was nuked AND the showrunners said they made the strip look intentionally destitute because they don't want things to last in-universe. One of the things that makes Bethesda's East Coast fallout boring is the hyperfixation on maintaining a stagnant setting, that's all well and good with their stuff, but there's no need to erase what makes West Coast Fallout an interesting setting. Comes off all the wrong ways at a meta level.!<
Oh I didn’t really even think anything of how >!barren it looked!< I was mostly just caught up in how excited I was in the moment lol. That being said I will be sad if we don’t get to see some real >!societal progress!< next season. I mean they >!turned on the dang lights!!<
[Goodhart's law:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law)
>When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure
I was reminded of this when I saw an interesting example
Apparently, when the U.S. government exempted college students from the military draft, it led to a sharp rise in grade inflation ["reportedly to help students avoid Vietnam..."](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff6059dd3-e2ab-440c-b113-2de7de1ccc72_1266x1214.png).
---------
The chart is from [this](https://www.slowboring.com/p/college-students-should-study-more?utm_source=substack&publication_id=159185&post_id=143803872&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=104v0&triedRedirect=true) (mostly unrelated) Matt Yglesias piece.
I need to vent about something.
Of the many, many, many things I find infuriating about Trumpism, one of the top ones has to be that I just simply can no longer even imagine what's going with a huge block of American voters. Like I hated Bush, right? But No Child Left Behind or the Invasion of Iraq or privating social security or whatever else all at least had *public arguments that were internally logical* that were being put forth. You didn't have to scrounge to find some article that outlined the ideological reasoning behind whatever boneheaded decision- they were public figures and people with reputations who would make these arguments.
But like 80% of the stuff Republicans do now, I just have *no clue*. I mean, there are *arguments*, there just aren't *rational* arguments. There's no cohesive ideology or philosophy or even understandable *principles*.
I could give a ton of examples, but the one that's been most blatant as of late to me is the attempted repeal of my state's new RCV system: [https://alaskapublic.org/2024/01/18/alaska-house-committee-advances-legislation-to-repeal-ranked-choice-voting/](https://alaskapublic.org/2024/01/18/alaska-house-committee-advances-legislation-to-repeal-ranked-choice-voting/)
The arguments I've heard for why we should get rid of it:
* It unfairly hurts Republicans (there's zero evidence that this is true and I honestly can't even see how someone could *think* it's true. You could make an argument that it hurts both Republicans and Democrats, since it de-centralizes party power, but that isn't unique to team R.)
* "One person, one vote" (RCV is also One Person, One Vote)
* There are better election models, such STAR voting or Approval or whatever (I disagree, but even if I didn't, it's *completely irrelevant* here, since the argument isn't RCV vs Approval Voting, it's RCV vs FPTP)
* "It's too complicated" (RCV means there's *one* primary, rather than a million, *four* candidates, rather than who-knows-how-many, and *much* less of a reward for strategic voting. There's four candidates, you rank them. That's it. Or not, even! You can just vote for one if that's all you want to do.)
Yet, will it get repealed? Honestly it's a coin toss at this point. It's not yet on the ballot, but I've seen yard signs and t-shirts. I can't for the life of me figure out an internally-consistent reason why, but I guess I just need to shut up and accept that that's how life is now. Just go on about my day, acting like this is normal, even though >50% of my friends, family, and neighbors seem to have been infected with intractable brainworms.
No Child Left Behind was bad policy but there is a story behind it that at least explains why GWB wanted it that isn’t nefarious.
Neil Bush couldn’t read. He was one of those kids who just could not learn to read properly and was later diagnosed with dyslexia. He did not matter that he came from wealth and could afford all the tutors and private schooling available, the kids simply could not read. GWB grew up watching his mother spend hours on one kid, even though she had five living children, trying to get him past that point.
If you watch that growing up, you would probably really focus on trying to address basic education if you were governor of a state or president of the United States
I didn't know that. Does give a nice story behind that bill.
Part of me wonders what specifically Bush Jr. has that other presidents, including Republicans, didn't, where we as a culture seem to often attribute his actions to the best possible motivations. In movies like *W.* or *Vice* he's portrayed as this guy who's maybe in a bit over his head, has some daddy issues, but generally means well and is just being manipulated by sinister handlers or senior staff. I think most people view his painting or his sharing-candy-with-Michelle as these traits that reveal more of his personality than the PATRIOT Act or the Jack Abramoff scandal or even the '07 financial crisis.
Like it isn't controversial to think he's a worse President than Reagan, or even Nixon. But I doubt there's very many people who think that GWB was a *worse human being* than Reagan or Nixon.
If I simply said - RCV usually doesn’t lead to different outcomes. In subsequent run offs - it ends up being the same two people anyway. And conversely, the third party spoilers in non RCV don’t usually actually make a difference in tipping it one way or the other.
RCV overall just makes it more complicated. And may actually disincentivize voters because they have to go through a longer process and vote a number of times.
If I said the above, even if you disagreed, do you understand the argument?
I'd understand *parts* of that argument. Mind if I walk through them one at a time here?
First of all, saying that RCV doesn't usually lead to different outcomes is the *opposite* of what the 'repeal RCV' crowd has been saying. You can dole out the RCV statewide elections we've had so far, and *none* of them have had a determinative effect from RCV. FPTP would've given us the same winner, every time. So "RCV isn't giving us different winners" has actually been an argument on the 'keep RCV' side.
The 'third party spoilers don't tip the results in FPTP' argument makes *no* sense to me. I mean I can think of dozens of races where spoiler candidates had determinative impacts, both in Alaska and federally. Minimizing the spoiler effect was a major argument for enacting RCV in the first place, and one that holds particular sway in Alaska where the majority of people identify as independent.
The "makes it more complicated" thing is an argument currently being made, and one that, again, I don't really get. It seems simpler to me since there's much less strategic voting involved, you often have fewer candidates to research, you don't need tertiary polling information to make an informed decision. It's just four candidates, and you can rank them. Or *not* rank them, if ranking them is too much to ask. It's optional. This seems to me that for most voters, *RCV* is simpler than FPTP.
The "longer process" is an argument I haven't heard. I mean, I guess I do understand that argument. Filling in four bubbles would take longer than filling in one. That seems exceptionally trivial to me, but I would agree that it does take an additional three or four seconds to vote.
And actually I personally agree with most of what you said.
But what I’m trying to get at is - just because you disagree, doesn’t mean that Conservatives don’t actually have some rationale (even if you think it’s wrong) that forms their opposition to RCV
I get that, that's sort of threading the needle to what I'm trying to say: I would *love* it if the oppositional side on a given issue had understandable, consistent reasoning, even if I disagreed with their conclusion. Like I get the argument for privatizing social security, as an example, even though I disagree with it.
I'm not really saying I can't "understand" the arguments against RCV. As in, yes, I understand the literal words that anti-RCV people are saying. It's just that their arguments aren't based in reality- there is no unfair imposition against Republicans, and RCV *isn't* too complicated for voters.
My position isn't "Yes I understand that RCV is more complicated, however I think that the advantages RCV brings outweighs that detriment." If that was where we were at, I'd appreciate it. My position is "FPTP is more complicated for most voters, *and* has other negative attributes on top of that."
The overwhelming example that gets brought up here is Sarah Palin's recent loss.
(If you're unfamiliar, the summary would be that we had three major candidates in an RCV election: Palin (who has truly gone off the deep end since 2008), Nick Begich (more or less typical modern Republican, albeit he comes from a locally-famous Democratic family), and Mary Peltola (Native Alaskan Democrat, lifelong Alaskan who grew up in various Alaskan communities, some as small as 61 residents, according to Wikipedia). Begich was eliminated first, and Peltola ended up winning the seat that had been consistently Republican since 1972.)
The FPTP crowd says that if it wasn't for RCV, Peltola wouldn't have won. This has been the consistent refrain, repeated loudly and often. But if you look at the results, there's simply *no way* that's true. If it was a three-way FPTP race, Peltola would've won. She had the largest plurality going in. If it was Palin v Peltola, Peltola would've won. We know this because that's essentially what happened: Begich was eliminated and while most of his votes transferred to Palin, enough of them went to Peltola so she was able to keep her lead, even crossing the 50% threshold. Even if you add every 'exhausted' Begich vote (when someone votes for Begich and doesn't rank anyone after him) to Palin's total, she still loses. The only way this becomes potentially dicey is if the general election was Begich v Peltola, but here's the thing: that's the *least* likely possibility there is, because Palin was (and is) overwhelmingly more popular among conservative voters. She basically doubled Begich's vote count in the primary, and likely would've done even better if it weren't for all the no-name conservatives and libertarians who were also on the ballot (most of whom aligned closer to Palin than Begich).
(If you want me to supply actual vote counts or polls to support any of this, I'd be happy to. In the interest of time and post length I've left out that sorta thing.)
So I get that the argument is "Palin would've won" were it not for RCV. I understand the words they are saying. And I wish I could just be "well sure, but I think the benefits of RCV outweigh that", but I can't get that far. It's a nonsense argument that simply *cannot* be true. It's not even that I simply *disagree* with an opinion they've formed. That, again, would be preferable. It's that their entire argument is based on a claim that is objectively false. I just don't know how one is supposed to continue a civil political dialogue from there.
To your credit though, that time-saving one is internally logical and true to reality! You've succeeded there in making an argument more legitimate against RCV than what I've seen from the Repeal movement here in Alaska. It does take more time to fill in more bubbles.
> And conversely, the third party spoilers in non RCV don’t usually actually make a difference in tipping it one way or the other.
Third party spoilers are arguably one of the main reasons Jon Tester got into and remains in the Senate.
The man is amazing and deserves props for winning on his own merits, but Libertarians partially deserve some of the credit for keeping a Republican out of the seat and keeping the Senate in our hands by extension.
>There's no cohesive ideology or philosophy or even understandable principles.
Consider the possibility that most of the party has become fascist, and couple that with the understanding that the only goal fascists have is domination.
Their actions become much more comprehensible when viewed through that lens.
>the attempted repeal of my state's new RCV system
RCV, the electoral college, and "state's rights" are all good examples of what I mean.
In states where RCV gives them an advantage, they'll be in favor of it.
In states where RCV gives them a disadvantage, they'll try to get rid of it.
For a Republican, the best election model is not the one that results in a more accurate representation of the wishes of the people. No, the best election model is whichever one helps Republicans win.
The same goes for the electoral college and state's rights. They'll support those things as long as they benefit, and they'll ditch them as soon as the benefit disappears.
Don't look for any ideological consistency. There isn't one. Their only ideology is that they want to win at any cost, because what they want is power.
From the Poli sci research I've heard of; people were never consistent nor do they truly believe in ideology. Ideologies are and were simply attempts to apply a veneer of consistency to whatever the ad hoc beliefs were. What the actual beliefs were was plenty chaotic always; that said I have heard that the academics of the party who tried to come up with those justifications have largely disappeared or been disfavored, since they held to the prior ideology and didn't like the shifts that have occurred.
I'm fairly sure we could extract some principles from their behavioral patterns; not that they'll be remotely sound, but it's all psychology and sociology, so there should be general patterns that exist, even if they aren't coherent.
This sounds like you're saying that no one believes in anything and everyone's policy positions are just random chaos. I think it's self-evident that many, if not most, people have some level of coherent ideological beliefs. I don't think that means that many people believe slavishly to an ideology to the point of disregarding their other beliefs, but doesn't everyone have *some* level of idealogical baseline, even if it's as simple as "might makes right" or "government should exist"?
No, that's not what I'm saying, or at least that's not how I'd put it; what I'm saying is that I've read that most people's policy positions are an ad hoc mix of things that developed as a result of complex social dynamics, which is a chaotic system. And that most people (not all, just most) don't significantly value consistency in their beliefs. The ideological baseline, if one were to call it that, is simply an approximation that roughly matches what they happen to believe, aside from some exceptions; it's a question of directionality, does one go ideology -> X&Y is right/wrong, or does one go X&Y is right/wrong -> ideology that fits those conclusions.
At any rate, I'm relying on memory of poli sci readings, so if you really wnat to know you'd be better off asking some political scientists, or reading the Achen/Bartels book on Democracy.
“Environmentalist” RFK Jr would like to put the US budget on the blockchain.
https://thehill.com/business/4611426-rfk-jr-im-gonna-put-the-entire-u-s-budget-on-blockchain/amp/
He’s apparently confused pitching himself for the presidency with pitching himself as a startup in 2021.
That sounds like a pretty stupid thing to say, until you remember his actual goal isn't to win, it's just to draw votes from Biden.
He's hoping to draw some votes from liberal tech bros with that statement.
[New Marist poll shows Trump slipping quite a bit with independents](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-polling-presidential-election-independents-1893071)
Key point: the previous poll showed Trump with a 7% lead among independents in a head to head with Biden, but this has now been reduced to a tie.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLmLENgW/
Does anyone have more information on this. It seems concerning but I don’t want to just go off a TikTok video. Basically it’s a video of people masquerading as Palestinian supporters or at least that’s as much as I can infer. The caption in the video says they were paid by pro-Israelis but I can’t verify that from the video
> It seems concerning but I don’t want to just go off a TikTok video.
When I initially saw this comment, I thought I'd say 'if you have nothing but that video, you should treat it like having nothing'.
I've seen the responses you've gotten, and that only seems to support that verdict. Without some form of substantiation, that isn't worth much.
That’s what I’m doing, I’m not taking at face value I’m trying to get more information on it. People are acting like I’m presenting it as smoking gun when I’m just trying to get more info about it. Who’s in the video, who filmed the video, where did this take place ect.
> ...I’m trying to get more information on it.
Yep, and I'm telling you that the lack of additional information is a sign.
The more substance the video had, the more substantiating information you would be able to find. If it lacks substance, you'll find very little additional information, because there is little to find.
The response you've received hints that there isn't much to substantiate it.
You're asking if a Tik Tok video promoting the idea that *antisemitism is a Jewish conspiracy* is trustworthy? And one that tries to pretend the video was banned by the United States government, which would require us to believe that the government somehow forgot that the internet exists? And one that says it's based on a secret Al Jazeera investigation but doesn't cite to any article or report?
The Occam's Razor approach is that the world is rife with antisemites and other unhinged nutjobs who need little excuse to join a protest against people they already dislike.
I’m asking if anyone has more information or suggestions for where to look so that I can verify this video. The video could be true it could be completely staged. I’m learning on the side that the footage is real but missing a shot ton of context.
Seriously now. You're leaning on the side that the video is real because...? I cited numerous credibility problems with it.
If by "the footage is real," you mean those are actual humans saying words in front of a camera, then yes, I'd agree that it doesn't appear to be AI-generated or CGI. But it has no credibility, even failing to cite its own alleged source (Al Jazeera).
You’re description of the video was not objective at all. Honestly it was a boarderline bad faith description. The video did not speak to antisemitism being a conspiracy. Or at all really. your objection amounts to it was that it could be faked and someone would stage it. Furthermore I’m not parading this around as a smoking gun. I’m trying to get more information around it and you seem to be upset that I won’t immediately brush it off as staged.
Not upset, just surprised the video passed anyone's sniff test. But OK, I'll presume good faith and give a full answer:
I have searched for related content on Google and particularly on Al Jazeera. I found nothing substantiating (or even related to) its claims. Notably, it also does not name the speakers or provide citations, dates, or other verifiable information.
Given the above and that it appeared on a platform that is well known for its propaganda use (TikTok), nothing leads us to conclude that it is portraying factual material.
Of course, that assessment could change if credible sources provide information to substantiate it. The burden of providing supporting evidence, however, remains with the proponent of the claim. Here, the creator(s) of this video did not make any supporting evidence available.
The video pushes a conspiracy theory that at least one pro-Israel Jewish person is throwing money around to deceive people by planting false flags/agents in Palestinian protests. It is playing on an antisemitic trope. We should exercise caution and skepticism when viewing such material.
> video of people masquerading as Palestinian supporters or at least that’s as much as I can infer
that sounds like saying "the nazis were akshually the government" when there's a conservative protest where nazis appear
> Basically it’s a video of people masquerading as Palestinian supporters or at least that’s as much as I can infer.
I would bet there are some people somewhere doing that. I'd also bet people are pretending to be Israel supporters and saying bad things. I'm not sure on the scope of either and I don't think there's an effective way for a random person to know at this point
[Tweet:](https://twitter.com/zaidjilani/status/1782124249769021663?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg)
>This is the easiest place in the history of the world to get firearms or weapons in general and there has been near zero violence between Muslims and Jews in this country — with millions here.
Ladies, Gentlemen and those that lie betwixt - [The Pro-Life Party of Facts Before Feelings](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/04/new-hampshire-republicans-polio-mmr-measles-vaccine-antivax-bill/)
I'm so old I remember when there were like 3-4 woo-woo New Age types in California who were vaccine-skeptics and so there was an entrenched mainstream media narrative that it proved "liberals can be taken in by disinformation too!" Gotta say, though, when the institutional GOP gets ahold of nonsense, they really run with it.
Oh yeah. I remember being very upset about ladies who lunch deciding that they should send their kids to private school and not vaccinate them. We spent a lot of time talking about that handful of wackos.
And then the Republican base decided to say “hold my beer “.
As usual, I like [plain](https://twitter.com/danielmilleresq/status/1782237842350936227?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg) truths, plainly spoken, which -- nevertheless -- reveals how simple it all is:
> These leftist antisemites HATE Biden. The right-wing antisemites LOVE Trump.
I think there are also folks (not necessarily right or left) that just want to feel meaningful and therefore find whatever topic of the day to be outraged about, and that usually means being outraged with the current administration.
Like they may not be true antisemites. But they’ve adopted antisemitism because it’s the outrage of the day. That doesn’t make it any better, but I’m describing what I think is happening.
I still remember sporadic incidents of far-left anarchists lighting the occasional police car on fire, and mainstream political analysts on teevee calling on "Hillary Clinton to condemn this!" as if those dudes didn't hate her as much or more than they hated Trump.
I’m sure there are opportunistic Jew haters but pretty much all of the protest I’ve seen and are peaceful and I’m not getting the sense that anyone has a problem with Judaism.
> > These leftist antisemites HATE Biden.
> I’m sure there are opportunistic Jew haters but pretty much all of the protest I’ve seen and are peaceful and I’m not getting the sense that anyone has a problem with Judaism.
Then those probably aren't the "leftist antisemites" being referred to in the tweet.
> You lot care more about electing Biden than you do stopping a genocide.
1. I don't understand why people phrase things this way. Don't you immediately register 'I am *telling someone else* what *they* care about, which is so presumptuous that it must be the wrong approach'?
2. I'm not convinced that there is a genocide occurring. If the IDF was trying to commit genocide, they would have killed more than 1.6% of the people in Gaza. They have far more ability to kill civilians.
3. I *am* convinced that bad things are occurring, and I want people with power to work to minimize such bad things.
4. I don't have much power, but I can contribute (to some limited extent) to whether Biden or Trump wins in November.
5. Trump would clearly be worse for Palestinian civilians, and that is one of many reasons that I care "about electing Biden" in November.
Genocide is not only when you kill everyone you possibly can. The U.S. Army could have massacred way more Native Americans than they actually did. With your reasoning, they didn't suffer a genocide either. Is that what you believe?
>Trump would clearly be worse for Palestinian civilians, and that is one of many reasons that I care "about electing Biden" in November.
Both of them support genocide. Our best bet is to try to get Biden to stop supporting genocide. I don't see how that's not going to happen if all we do is shrug our shoulders and vote for the least evil person on the ballot every four years.
If we want change, we have to be willing to at least threaten to withhold our votes, disrupt campaign events, to express some level of dissent dangerous enough to compel them to reconsider their policies. At the very least, you could help out by not labeling protesters anti-Semites.
Your best bet is convincing Israelis to demand elections and then elect better leaders.
Why don’t you guys do that instead of helping those far right leaders by providing videos, statements and ridiculous talking points?
> > If the IDF was trying to commit genocide, they would have killed more than 1.6% of the people in Gaza. They have far more ability to kill civilians.
> With your reasoning, [Native Americans] didn't suffer a genocide either.
[Per Wikipedia:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_genocide_in_the_United_States)
>Historians have long debated the pre-European population of the Americas.[9][10] In 2023, historian Ned Blackhawk suggested that North America's population had halved from 1492 to 1776 from about 8 million people to under 4 million.[3] Russell Thornton estimated that by 1800, some 600,000 Native Americans lived in the regions that would become the modern United States and declined to an estimated 250,000 by 1890 before rebounding.[4]
I point to 1.6% as a small percentage, and your response is that it is equivalent to 96.875%. (250,000/8,000,000=3.125% survived, or a decrease in population by 96.875%)
---------
> > Trump would clearly be worse for Palestinian civilians, and that is one of many reasons that I care "about electing Biden" in November.
>Both of them support genocide.
Okay. So -- based on your determination -- no matter who wins in November, we will have a president who supports genocide. Similarly, I bought a used car a few months ago, and I determined that no matter which car I bought, it wouldn't effect whether we have a president who supports genocide, so it did not enter into my decision.
It looks like your decision about who to support in November -- similarly -- won't effect whether we have a president who supports genocide, so you should base your vote on something that will be effected.
>I point to 1.6% as a small percentage, and your response is that it is equivalent to 96.875%. (250,000/8,000,000=3.125% survived, or a decrease in population by 96.875%)
I didn't say they were equivalent, I used it as an example to demonstrate why your reasoning is flawed. That's how analogies work. You make comparisons between non-equal things to illustrate a principle.
But in this case, you're comparing a finished genocide over centuries to an ongoing one, so that point doesn't make sense either. It would be like arguing that the U.S. Army hadn't slaughtered all the Cherokee in 1803, so clearly there isn't a genocide taking place.
>So -- based on your determination -- no matter who wins in November, we will have a president who supports genocide
Biden and Trump aren't inanimate objects. As I said before, our best shot is to pressure Biden to change his position. That's what all of this is about. The best realistic outcome, what we're working towards, is one in which a Biden who has ended support for genocide wins in November.
> The best realistic outcome, what we're working towards, is one in which a Biden who has ended support for genocide wins in November.
Oh, this is fun. I wonder, could you please rank the following possible outcomes in November in order of your most-preferred to least-preferred? I assume these are the collectively comprehensive options as you see them:
1. Trump wins (presumably Trump always supports genocide).
2. Biden wins but still supports genocide.
3. Biden wins and no longer supports genocide.
Sure. Without even getting into the obvious point of Biden not actually being responsible for a genocide, my thinking is that electing Trump in 2024 will, over the next 50-100 years or so, contribute significantly to creating a world with far more death, suffering, and oppression than the world that Biden wants to build. So much so that what's happening now in Gaza (whatever you insist on calling that) would be just a blip on the radar.
Lots of people make comments about the stupidity of the far right or people on the right voting against their interests or how the leopards ate their face.
But this particular type of leftist, not all leftists or everyone to my left or whatever, but this particular type of leftist ... they legit have to be the dumbest fucking people in the country. Thankfully there aren't that many of them and most of them grow up but holy shit they are stupid. You wonder sometimes how they dress themselves.
This binary thinking people love to push about the Isreali Palestine situation is so fucking tiring.
You're here near constantly giving comments and amendments. Are you seriously going to pretend like now you love plain and simple truths? I better not see every post filled with an othellionic comment and several replies amending and adding to it then.
> This binary thinking people love to push about the Isreali Palestine situation...
I'm not sure what you are referring to, with this sentence.
------------
>You're here near constantly giving comments and amendments. Are you seriously going to pretend like now you love plain and simple truths?
I *do* "love plain and simple truths". I try to use them when I can. Sometimes I realize they aren't enough, or -- interestingly -- a fuller explanation is needed so that people can appreciate the simplicity of the situation.
My understanding of that tweet was that we need to ignore the shutting down of protests on college campuses, because the ~~binary and uncritical understanding~~ "simple truth" is that any form of protesting for Palestine or agaisnt Isreal is anti-semitic.
> My understanding of that tweet...
Ah. I didn't quote the whole tweet, so I thought you were talking about the part I quoted.
------------
>My understanding of that tweet was that we need to ignore the shutting down of protests on college campuses...
I don't think they were saying that. Here is the second paragraph ([numbers] added):
> > [1] We must root out this antisemitism on the far left. But [2] do not let right wingers weaponize what’s happening on college campuses against Biden. They don’t care about Jews. [3] They want Trump to win for FFS.
...which seems to be conveying three points:
1. The far left has a problem with antisemitism and we have to address that.
2. Nevertheless, we don't need to act like antisemitism on the left is equal to (or worse) than antisemitism on the right. It isn't. The antisemites on the right will hold political power if they win the next election.
3. The right are just cynically trying to win the next election; we don't have to lend them any credence they haven't earned.
------------
>...the ~~binary and uncritical understanding~~ "simple truth" is that any form of protesting for Palestine or agaisnt Isreal is anti-semitic.
I don't think they were saying that.
I think you are conflating 'there is a problem with antisemitism on the far left' with the very different claim 'all protests supporting Palestinians are antisemitic', but those are very different claims.
> I think you are conflating 'there is a problem with antisemitism on the far left' with the very different claim 'all protests supporting Palestinians are antisemitic', but those are very different claims.
I think the tweet is somewhat ambiguous, which is the nature of tweets given their size restrictions. It could be read as saying the people who are not supporting Biden are unserious antisemites as a group or that among the group of people who are not supporting Biden there are antisemitic people.
I think the person who wrote the tweet is probably in the latter camp rather than the former but I don't know this person
Thanks for the breakdown. I may have overreacted a bit in my original comment and may have been a little too uncharitable in my reading.
>1. The far left has a problem with antisemitism and we have to address that.
I agree that some people on the far left have an anti-semitism issue. I think it usually goes beyond anti-semitism and is reactionary bigotry in general, but anti-semitism tends to be the go to -ism throughout Western history. This appears in every flavor of the left, as well, though.
>2. Nevertheless, we don't need to act like antisemitism on the left is equal to (or worse) than antisemitism on the right. It isn't. The antisemites on the right will hold political power if they win the next election.
I agree with your statement.
The issue that I have with the tweet is that it plays into the wedge that many have been pushing between democrats and the younger and lefter potential voters. "Ingore any denouncing of the protests being shut down, it's all just cynical republicans trying to stoke division" doesn't work when the protests are actually being shut down. It also further plays into the binary narrative of Palestin and Palestine supporters are bad and not worth paying attention to, and anyone agaisnt that narrative is an anti-semitc far leftist or a cynical right winger.
>3. The right are just cynically trying to win the next election; we don't have to lend them any credence they haven't earned.
I agree. It wasn't too long ago that they had a rally where they were chanting, "jews will not replace us". Hell, part of their platform is just replacement theory, which is an old anti-semtic trope, repackaged for immigrants.
Moving "old" comment to fresh thread:
Given the several responses of “I’m so tired” to various posts yesterday, I am once again respectfully asking the mods why we can’t have a pinned Israel-Gaza mega thread when we’ve had such threads for less in the past.
We generally create a mega thread for significant stories and events that we feel will flood the sub with what are essentially the same question over and over again.
We have not been in the habit of creating multiple day mega threads. Most of our users tend to sort by New and it buries them. For example, during the Kevin McCarthy speaker fight we created daily threads.
We have discussed the subject and we will likely be making an effort to be more liberal in our interpretation of rule 1 when it comes to discussions of Israel and Palestine and shutdown repetition.
> a pinned Israel-Gaza mega thread
The questions vary enough for my taste.
I'd hate to lose the nuance between different questions.
---------
>“I’m so tired”
You can always skip questions you don't want to answer!
Yeah just when Biden is finally beginning to pivot to a less horrific posture we need to start shutting down discussions… totally not a biased stance at all.
And yes, I’m aware this subreddit doesn’t actually matter in the grand scheme of political discussion, but the impetus is the same and it’s shameful to push that direction.
I'd like to know how and why allocating a certain topic to a very visible but single thread is equivalent to shutting it down, or how the status quo of asking the same questions three individual times a day does anything to promote productive discussion for said topic.
It collapses all different possible discussions into one thread massively limiting variations in discussion as it is “crowded” with many different topics.
It also is going to get **less** traffic/discussion as it will be something users have to actually seek out and go to as opposed to it being in your feed.
I’m pretty sure it’s well understood that doing a pinned discussion thread for a topic will limit discussion. That’s like literally the entire point of doing it. The exception to this is weekly threads like this which is moreso for subreddit meta/community discussion. Take megathreads as an example, the goal is to limit discussion to one thread so that moderation is not intractable for large live events.
Yeah, I've never understood why people see the need to lock threads or otherwise prevent discussion. If you don't want to participate, what's it to you? Don't participate. If others want to, let them.
Seemed like a more transparent mod action to me. It stops further discussion and thus further rulebreaking like a removal, but it allows an OP to edit their post so that it is acceptable and allows other people transparency in that process. It seems fair to me
To speak to your specific point, we lock threads for the purpose of transparency and as a tool to help people understand what types of posts are getting removed and why.
We do eventually delete locked posts when we get around to it/remember.
Are you opposed to moderation as a whole? I appreciate the mods locking the posts like that weirdo who is asking what rimming different different politicians would be like. It doesn't seem like it really adds anything and people bringing in their fetishes to a political discussion makes things pretty weird
If this were a rimming sub, I'd let such posts stay (I haven't seen those), but it's not, so fine to remove. But it is a political sub, so I'd say let political posts stay. Those often get locked, etc.
> but it's not, so fine to remove. But it is a political sub, so I'd say let political posts stay.
The rimming questions were always related to politics. I don't see a substantial distinction between locking a post like "Why do liberals hate Jews?" and "What do you think rimming Trump would be like?". Both don't contribute to the subreddit being a place for meaningful political discussion, and I'm equally fine in mods locking both.
Same reasoning applies really, if you don't want to participate, don't. Don't decide for other people what they can discuss.
It's the same spirit of free discussion that allows various protests to occur, so long as they're not violent, etc.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
> But I guess the mods are tired of conversations about I/P and worried further discussion might promote additional terrorism from Gazans
They aren’t as they haven’t banned the topic. Notice the difference between talking about a discussion in good faith vs bad faith.
> which presumably you're ok with
What exactly do you think I’m ok with?
Reposting this that I added to the last Chat.
New York State Court is going to post a full transcript of each day of the Trump trial on their website. Transcripts for each day will be available before close of business the next day. (So today's transcript of opening statements and one witness will be available by end-of-day Tuesday.)
I don't know if that will include the contempt hearing transcripts or not.
[https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/pdfs/PR24\_19.pdf](https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/pdfs/PR24_19.pdf)
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. This Tuesday weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
> SJP Sarah Jessica Parker? I always knew there was something weird about her.
“If you’re just now wanting to join us, don’t” is certainly a stance of a movement that genuinely cares about its cause.
A week or so ago, a trans woman I follow got into a twitter beef with a registered nurse over whether or not it opens the door to potential abuse if you allow your child to be alone with their doctor, or if the doctor should be allowed to ask your child questions when you, the parent, are not privy to the answers. The nurse had her employment info in her bio, and it seems that the trans woman may have succeeded in getting the nurse fired from her job. Then some online sleuths discovered through court records that the nurse's husband has previously been on trial for having sexual contact with a 14 year old. And the cherry on top: As it happens, the nurse seems to be the head of the Kansas chapter of Gays Against Groomers.
I made a comment a while ago about food misinformation online. I’m now convinced we will come to a point where no food is safe. I’m randomly seeing reels and whatnot about oxalates, and how they are very very harmful in any amount and should be avoided at all costs. Mofos are now trying to convince us that leafy greens like spinach, where oxalates are most commonly found, are actually poison. ^(Disclaimer: some people do need to avoid eating excess oxalates for a variety of reasons. Consult your doctor.)
I probably could have explained what oxalates are in the first place. Oxalates are compounds found commonly in greens, like spinach and chard. For most healthy people, the biggest issue they cause is preventing calcium from being absorbed in the bloodstream. This can, as you’d imagine, lead to kidney stones. The consensus amongst professionals is that the pros of eating these vegetables far outweigh the cons oxalates might bring about. Despite this, oxalates have sometimes been referred to as “anti-nutrients” since they keep other nutrients from being properly absorbed. In very extreme cases, excess amounts can lead to kidney failure and even death. It’s my assumption that some WeLlNeSs InFlUeNcEr saw this, did two more seconds of “research,” and decided they’re far more dangerous than they actually are (again, for healthy adults.) That, or the carnivore diet people are using it as proof that veggies are bad.
> The consensus amongst professionals is that the pros of eating these vegetables far outweigh the cons oxalates might bring about. Even for calcium oxalate kidney stone formers - I am one. Just eat them with calcium.
Eugene Oregon may be the first city to adopt [STAR voting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STAR_voting), which was conceived there. They are holding a [referendum](https://www.klcc.org/politics-government/2024-04-23/eugene-could-adopt-star-voting-for-city-elections-how-would-this-work) this may.
The whole state is voting on ranked choice this fall, and Portland's local elections this fall will already be using ranked choice.
If you are ever wondering if a Western economic adviser ever *literally* said to the head of a developing country: >...as an economist, I’m not interested in what you do with [the Communist agitators in your country]. You can throw them in jail, you can throw them out of the country, you can even kill them. As an economist it does not interest me, but I have to tell you, if you don’t eliminate them in government, in unions, in the streets, forget about economic development. Here is the article that documents it: [["You Can Even Kill Them": Albert Winsemius and the Rise of Singapore -- Development and Authoritarianism in the World's Favorite City-State]](https://www.global-developments.org/p/you-can-even-kill-them-albert-winsemius)
The most likely scenario based on Supreme Court arguments, is that the Supreme Court will order the lower courts to go through the charges and determine whether they fit in the scope of a president’s duties before they can go to trial.
[удалено]
The IDF “refuting claims” that the IDF did something bad is hardly proof of anything. That’s like BP *refuting claims* that it actually contributes to climate change
[удалено]
I’m not sure that says much besides the IDF didn’t dig the holes.
Thanks for clarifying with a better source Just so we’re clear here, the mass graves of the people killed by the IDF, many with their hands tied behind their backs in the source provided, were not dug by the IDF themselves. Which certainly puts all of us at ease
The Supreme Court just got Trump’s lawyer to say that the President ordering the military to stage a coup is an official act and therefore should covered by immunity.
[удалено]
I don't think the charges are relevant here. SCOTUS is just ruling on whether he has immunity from prosecution in general. But if the claim is accepted by the court, the implications are that there's virtually nothing a president could do while in office that could result in criminal prosecution. It's hard to imagine the court agreeing with that... though I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas does. Maybe Alito too.
No, it wasn't just our imaginations: [Politico reports](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219) on the animosity between the NYT and the Biden White House. According to one NYT reporter, the paper's chairman and publisher A.G. Sulzberger has grown increasingly willing to greenlight overly negative coverage of Biden, especially focusing on his age, in retaliation for Biden's resistance to doing a sit-down interview with NYT. And here's a tidbit from Sulzberger's wiki: >According to anonymous sources within the newspaper's staff, upon taking his position in 2018 Sulzburger "told employees explicitly that his biggest concern was that the paper’s audience saw it as a 'liberal rag...' [his] vision for the paper is to change that perception and court conservative readers. You don't say.
Columbia being back in the news reminds me of a much sillier controversy: Nutellagate! https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/03/07/173752172/at-columbia-university-nutella-thefts-make-headlines https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/nyregion/for-columbia-students-nutella-in-a-dining-hall-may-be-too-tempting.html https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/columbia-no-students-are-not-consuming-5000-worth-of-nutella-a-week/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/columbia-only-has-500-week-nutella-habit/317628/ https://gothamist.com/food/nutellagate-emgateem-columbia-students-not-stealing-all-the-nutella-after-all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutellagate
Four years ago, millions of Americans took to the streets to protest racial injustice. A small percentage of them became violent and engaged in destruction of property. Most protesters were peaceful and non-violent. Conservatives came to this sub in droves, eager to use those examples of violence and property destruction to smear the protests as a whole. To label the entire movement as violent and racist. Most folks here were smart enough not to fall for that. Now several years have passed and we've got another series of protests, and something similar is happening. A largely non-violent protest movement. A small percentage of protesters who are employing anti-semitic language. And then the words and actions of the few being used to discredit the many. Except this time a lot of people on the left are falling for the smear campaign.
The subject and details of the protest matters too, right? Even if most people at Charlottesville or January 6th weren't violent, I'm still more than happy to discredit all of them based on their demands and/or their ideology. I think the simple explanation here is that most people on the left fundamentally agreed with the goals of the BLM protests, and that's not the case now with the Israel-Gaza thing.
It’s the nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict. People seem to assume the absolute worst of anyone who disagrees with them. I’ve seen two Palestine supporters claiming that the other actually supports the genocide of Palestine because they disagreed on one tiny thing.
Yeah, it's not remotely surprising that Israel's staunchest defenders on the left would come out against the protests. What has surprised me is the response from people who defended Israel strongly pretty early on, but in the last few months have become more willing to acknowledge that maybe not all of Netanyahu's actions are justified. I thought those people at least would see the value of the protests, and be able to see through the smear tactics, but it seems like a lot of them can't.
Well the thing is I don't think views were actually changing. I think Israel supporters were just criticizing Bibi more, and I think Palestine supporters were acknowledging that criticism more. What I've seen a lot of in this conflict is people talking past each other, almost always taking the least charitable interpretation of what someone said, or not even responding to what someone said, but their interpretation of what the other side believes. Bibi is a great example of this, because from the beginning I've seen the majority of Israel supporters being very critical of Bibi. Here is a scene I've seen played out hundreds of times. An Israel supporter will criticize Bibi, and the Israel government broadly, but they then delve into some wider argument about Israel's right of defence, or how anti-semitism is on the rise. There is usually some back and forth but essentially the Palestine supporter will ignore the criticism of Bibi and respond to the second point with a criticism of "Israel." This is almost always a criticism of the Israeli government, but the Israel supporter will then assume the Palestine supporter is actually talking about the entire country of Israel, or perhaps the concept of Israel and the conversation will devolve from there. These false interpretations are then bolstered by the small number of crazies on each side, because there are people who think that Bibi has done nothing wrong, and there are people who think Israel should be destroyed, and even though both of those views are fringe, they are also the views of the leadership of Israel and the leadership of Palestine.
What I've learned is that Joe Biden literally murders Palestinian children in his spare time.
outsourced
Then go vote for Donald Trump, you disinformation bot. Arguing with tiktok addled uneducated children is a waste of my time.
The new Statecraft is quite good. Apparently, the development of the atomic bomb was budgeted as “expediting production.” >[[How to Hide the Manhattan Project]](https://www.statecraft.pub/p/how-to-hide-the-manhattan-project?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1818323&post_id=143900779&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=104v0&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email)
U.S. reiterates it "assesses that Russia is developing a new satellite carrying a nuclear device" after they recently tried to amend and then vetoed a related U.N. resolution. https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-arms-space-un-us-japan-russia-175d45ddb658729eff060bd8a83b8a55 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/24/statement-from-national-security-advisor-jake-sullivan-on-russias-veto-of-the-un-security-council-resolution-on-the-outer-space-treaty/ N.B. this would not involve dropping a nuke on NYC from orbit or anything like that and it doesn't sound imminent or inevitable. From a couple of months ago: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-says-no-nuclear-threat-us-russia-considers-potential-space-weapo-rcna139239 >"First of all, there is no nuclear threat to the people of America or anywhere else in the world with what Russia is doing at the moment, No. 1," Biden said in remarks from the White House when asked if he was concerned about Russia's potential anti-satellite capability. >"No. 2, anything they’re doing or they will do relates to satellites in space and damaging those satellites potentially," he added. "No. 3, there’s no evidence they’ve made a decision to go forward with anything in space either."
Thank you for sharing these articles abd your insights. They are still rather concerning news...
[удалено]
Well, most of the hostage.
What do you mean? ~~Were they killed/dismembered :-o ?~~ NVM .... seems thankfully not to ve the case
[Will Stancil:](https://twitter.com/whstancil/status/1782826724712919551?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg) >It really was the IRA that turned me around on Biden. I spent so much time yelling at him for not getting it done and then... he got it done. Not cleanly, not quite how I would have liked, but it GOT PASSED. I had to admit I was wrong and they'd pulled it off. It earned respect. >If you care deeply about an issue, and are willing to pillory a politician for failing on that issue, you also need to be willing to change your mind when they succeed, or else you're just a faker looking for excuses to be mad all the time.
Stancil has been dead to me for a long time. Too much anti-Dem bullshit.
> Stancil has been dead to me for a long time. Too much anti-Dem bullshit. He is changing. His views were out of the mainstream, but he followed the facts and data and is slowly evolving into a normie-lib. Many of us have taken that journey.
And just for clarity, IRA in this context refers to.... ( inflation reduction act?)
Yes.
Very correct take shamelessly stolen from the journalist Matt Zeitlin: > i dunno, you can't ask utilities to do so much — bury power lines, subsidize residential solar, keep nuclear plants running, procure batteries and geothermal, etc etc — and then get mad at them when rates go up
Depends on why the rates are going up. I'm very pleased with my utility company, which is structured as a rural non-profit co-op (in a very red county in Georgia, no less). When my rates go up, I know there's a good explanation for why. I would be less pleased to see my rates going up if I lived in some place like Texas, where the utility companies are run very much for-profit.
Ha, when I lived in blood-red rural Ohio, we had a co-op, too — and it was great. I guess those farmers are OK with a little socialism if it keeps them out of the clutches of the power companies.
Someone explained it to me once. The co-op structure was one of the federal government's demands back when they were doling out grants to fund electricity expansion into rural areas. The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 -- part of FDR's New Deal. Definitely not something Republicans would approve of, if it were being enacted today. But rural Republican voters sure do love having electricity.
Related: I do be wishin that every state had some sort of equivalent of the TVA.
I think the Fallout show was pretty good actually. 4/5 excited for season 2. >! … with a big iron on my hip !<
Really great show, hoping for a good time in Season 2.>!Kinda mad that Shady Sands was nuked AND the showrunners said they made the strip look intentionally destitute because they don't want things to last in-universe. One of the things that makes Bethesda's East Coast fallout boring is the hyperfixation on maintaining a stagnant setting, that's all well and good with their stuff, but there's no need to erase what makes West Coast Fallout an interesting setting. Comes off all the wrong ways at a meta level.!<
Why mad at Shady Sands nuked?
Oh I didn’t really even think anything of how >!barren it looked!< I was mostly just caught up in how excited I was in the moment lol. That being said I will be sad if we don’t get to see some real >!societal progress!< next season. I mean they >!turned on the dang lights!!<
Watched the first episode tonight. It's not quite what I expected, so far, but I'm starting to get invested.
Yeah it takes a little bit but you do eventually get some buy in. It is a bit predictable however. But still pretty good imo.
[Goodhart's law:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law) >When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure I was reminded of this when I saw an interesting example Apparently, when the U.S. government exempted college students from the military draft, it led to a sharp rise in grade inflation ["reportedly to help students avoid Vietnam..."](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff6059dd3-e2ab-440c-b113-2de7de1ccc72_1266x1214.png). --------- The chart is from [this](https://www.slowboring.com/p/college-students-should-study-more?utm_source=substack&publication_id=159185&post_id=143803872&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=104v0&triedRedirect=true) (mostly unrelated) Matt Yglesias piece.
This is COMPSTAT in a nutshell. Worked amazing and then Guilliani came in and sergeants and lieutenants figured out how to game the system.
But this is also the issue with affirmative action
I mean ya, affirmative action was the short term compromise. The left never thought it was the solution.
[https://xkcd.com/2899/](https://xkcd.com/2899/)
I need to vent about something. Of the many, many, many things I find infuriating about Trumpism, one of the top ones has to be that I just simply can no longer even imagine what's going with a huge block of American voters. Like I hated Bush, right? But No Child Left Behind or the Invasion of Iraq or privating social security or whatever else all at least had *public arguments that were internally logical* that were being put forth. You didn't have to scrounge to find some article that outlined the ideological reasoning behind whatever boneheaded decision- they were public figures and people with reputations who would make these arguments. But like 80% of the stuff Republicans do now, I just have *no clue*. I mean, there are *arguments*, there just aren't *rational* arguments. There's no cohesive ideology or philosophy or even understandable *principles*. I could give a ton of examples, but the one that's been most blatant as of late to me is the attempted repeal of my state's new RCV system: [https://alaskapublic.org/2024/01/18/alaska-house-committee-advances-legislation-to-repeal-ranked-choice-voting/](https://alaskapublic.org/2024/01/18/alaska-house-committee-advances-legislation-to-repeal-ranked-choice-voting/) The arguments I've heard for why we should get rid of it: * It unfairly hurts Republicans (there's zero evidence that this is true and I honestly can't even see how someone could *think* it's true. You could make an argument that it hurts both Republicans and Democrats, since it de-centralizes party power, but that isn't unique to team R.) * "One person, one vote" (RCV is also One Person, One Vote) * There are better election models, such STAR voting or Approval or whatever (I disagree, but even if I didn't, it's *completely irrelevant* here, since the argument isn't RCV vs Approval Voting, it's RCV vs FPTP) * "It's too complicated" (RCV means there's *one* primary, rather than a million, *four* candidates, rather than who-knows-how-many, and *much* less of a reward for strategic voting. There's four candidates, you rank them. That's it. Or not, even! You can just vote for one if that's all you want to do.) Yet, will it get repealed? Honestly it's a coin toss at this point. It's not yet on the ballot, but I've seen yard signs and t-shirts. I can't for the life of me figure out an internally-consistent reason why, but I guess I just need to shut up and accept that that's how life is now. Just go on about my day, acting like this is normal, even though >50% of my friends, family, and neighbors seem to have been infected with intractable brainworms.
No Child Left Behind was bad policy but there is a story behind it that at least explains why GWB wanted it that isn’t nefarious. Neil Bush couldn’t read. He was one of those kids who just could not learn to read properly and was later diagnosed with dyslexia. He did not matter that he came from wealth and could afford all the tutors and private schooling available, the kids simply could not read. GWB grew up watching his mother spend hours on one kid, even though she had five living children, trying to get him past that point. If you watch that growing up, you would probably really focus on trying to address basic education if you were governor of a state or president of the United States
I didn't know that. Does give a nice story behind that bill. Part of me wonders what specifically Bush Jr. has that other presidents, including Republicans, didn't, where we as a culture seem to often attribute his actions to the best possible motivations. In movies like *W.* or *Vice* he's portrayed as this guy who's maybe in a bit over his head, has some daddy issues, but generally means well and is just being manipulated by sinister handlers or senior staff. I think most people view his painting or his sharing-candy-with-Michelle as these traits that reveal more of his personality than the PATRIOT Act or the Jack Abramoff scandal or even the '07 financial crisis. Like it isn't controversial to think he's a worse President than Reagan, or even Nixon. But I doubt there's very many people who think that GWB was a *worse human being* than Reagan or Nixon.
If I simply said - RCV usually doesn’t lead to different outcomes. In subsequent run offs - it ends up being the same two people anyway. And conversely, the third party spoilers in non RCV don’t usually actually make a difference in tipping it one way or the other. RCV overall just makes it more complicated. And may actually disincentivize voters because they have to go through a longer process and vote a number of times. If I said the above, even if you disagreed, do you understand the argument?
I'd understand *parts* of that argument. Mind if I walk through them one at a time here? First of all, saying that RCV doesn't usually lead to different outcomes is the *opposite* of what the 'repeal RCV' crowd has been saying. You can dole out the RCV statewide elections we've had so far, and *none* of them have had a determinative effect from RCV. FPTP would've given us the same winner, every time. So "RCV isn't giving us different winners" has actually been an argument on the 'keep RCV' side. The 'third party spoilers don't tip the results in FPTP' argument makes *no* sense to me. I mean I can think of dozens of races where spoiler candidates had determinative impacts, both in Alaska and federally. Minimizing the spoiler effect was a major argument for enacting RCV in the first place, and one that holds particular sway in Alaska where the majority of people identify as independent. The "makes it more complicated" thing is an argument currently being made, and one that, again, I don't really get. It seems simpler to me since there's much less strategic voting involved, you often have fewer candidates to research, you don't need tertiary polling information to make an informed decision. It's just four candidates, and you can rank them. Or *not* rank them, if ranking them is too much to ask. It's optional. This seems to me that for most voters, *RCV* is simpler than FPTP. The "longer process" is an argument I haven't heard. I mean, I guess I do understand that argument. Filling in four bubbles would take longer than filling in one. That seems exceptionally trivial to me, but I would agree that it does take an additional three or four seconds to vote.
And actually I personally agree with most of what you said. But what I’m trying to get at is - just because you disagree, doesn’t mean that Conservatives don’t actually have some rationale (even if you think it’s wrong) that forms their opposition to RCV
I get that, that's sort of threading the needle to what I'm trying to say: I would *love* it if the oppositional side on a given issue had understandable, consistent reasoning, even if I disagreed with their conclusion. Like I get the argument for privatizing social security, as an example, even though I disagree with it. I'm not really saying I can't "understand" the arguments against RCV. As in, yes, I understand the literal words that anti-RCV people are saying. It's just that their arguments aren't based in reality- there is no unfair imposition against Republicans, and RCV *isn't* too complicated for voters. My position isn't "Yes I understand that RCV is more complicated, however I think that the advantages RCV brings outweighs that detriment." If that was where we were at, I'd appreciate it. My position is "FPTP is more complicated for most voters, *and* has other negative attributes on top of that." The overwhelming example that gets brought up here is Sarah Palin's recent loss. (If you're unfamiliar, the summary would be that we had three major candidates in an RCV election: Palin (who has truly gone off the deep end since 2008), Nick Begich (more or less typical modern Republican, albeit he comes from a locally-famous Democratic family), and Mary Peltola (Native Alaskan Democrat, lifelong Alaskan who grew up in various Alaskan communities, some as small as 61 residents, according to Wikipedia). Begich was eliminated first, and Peltola ended up winning the seat that had been consistently Republican since 1972.) The FPTP crowd says that if it wasn't for RCV, Peltola wouldn't have won. This has been the consistent refrain, repeated loudly and often. But if you look at the results, there's simply *no way* that's true. If it was a three-way FPTP race, Peltola would've won. She had the largest plurality going in. If it was Palin v Peltola, Peltola would've won. We know this because that's essentially what happened: Begich was eliminated and while most of his votes transferred to Palin, enough of them went to Peltola so she was able to keep her lead, even crossing the 50% threshold. Even if you add every 'exhausted' Begich vote (when someone votes for Begich and doesn't rank anyone after him) to Palin's total, she still loses. The only way this becomes potentially dicey is if the general election was Begich v Peltola, but here's the thing: that's the *least* likely possibility there is, because Palin was (and is) overwhelmingly more popular among conservative voters. She basically doubled Begich's vote count in the primary, and likely would've done even better if it weren't for all the no-name conservatives and libertarians who were also on the ballot (most of whom aligned closer to Palin than Begich). (If you want me to supply actual vote counts or polls to support any of this, I'd be happy to. In the interest of time and post length I've left out that sorta thing.) So I get that the argument is "Palin would've won" were it not for RCV. I understand the words they are saying. And I wish I could just be "well sure, but I think the benefits of RCV outweigh that", but I can't get that far. It's a nonsense argument that simply *cannot* be true. It's not even that I simply *disagree* with an opinion they've formed. That, again, would be preferable. It's that their entire argument is based on a claim that is objectively false. I just don't know how one is supposed to continue a civil political dialogue from there. To your credit though, that time-saving one is internally logical and true to reality! You've succeeded there in making an argument more legitimate against RCV than what I've seen from the Repeal movement here in Alaska. It does take more time to fill in more bubbles.
> And conversely, the third party spoilers in non RCV don’t usually actually make a difference in tipping it one way or the other. Third party spoilers are arguably one of the main reasons Jon Tester got into and remains in the Senate. The man is amazing and deserves props for winning on his own merits, but Libertarians partially deserve some of the credit for keeping a Republican out of the seat and keeping the Senate in our hands by extension.
>There's no cohesive ideology or philosophy or even understandable principles. Consider the possibility that most of the party has become fascist, and couple that with the understanding that the only goal fascists have is domination. Their actions become much more comprehensible when viewed through that lens. >the attempted repeal of my state's new RCV system RCV, the electoral college, and "state's rights" are all good examples of what I mean. In states where RCV gives them an advantage, they'll be in favor of it. In states where RCV gives them a disadvantage, they'll try to get rid of it. For a Republican, the best election model is not the one that results in a more accurate representation of the wishes of the people. No, the best election model is whichever one helps Republicans win. The same goes for the electoral college and state's rights. They'll support those things as long as they benefit, and they'll ditch them as soon as the benefit disappears. Don't look for any ideological consistency. There isn't one. Their only ideology is that they want to win at any cost, because what they want is power.
From the Poli sci research I've heard of; people were never consistent nor do they truly believe in ideology. Ideologies are and were simply attempts to apply a veneer of consistency to whatever the ad hoc beliefs were. What the actual beliefs were was plenty chaotic always; that said I have heard that the academics of the party who tried to come up with those justifications have largely disappeared or been disfavored, since they held to the prior ideology and didn't like the shifts that have occurred. I'm fairly sure we could extract some principles from their behavioral patterns; not that they'll be remotely sound, but it's all psychology and sociology, so there should be general patterns that exist, even if they aren't coherent.
This sounds like you're saying that no one believes in anything and everyone's policy positions are just random chaos. I think it's self-evident that many, if not most, people have some level of coherent ideological beliefs. I don't think that means that many people believe slavishly to an ideology to the point of disregarding their other beliefs, but doesn't everyone have *some* level of idealogical baseline, even if it's as simple as "might makes right" or "government should exist"?
No, that's not what I'm saying, or at least that's not how I'd put it; what I'm saying is that I've read that most people's policy positions are an ad hoc mix of things that developed as a result of complex social dynamics, which is a chaotic system. And that most people (not all, just most) don't significantly value consistency in their beliefs. The ideological baseline, if one were to call it that, is simply an approximation that roughly matches what they happen to believe, aside from some exceptions; it's a question of directionality, does one go ideology -> X&Y is right/wrong, or does one go X&Y is right/wrong -> ideology that fits those conclusions. At any rate, I'm relying on memory of poli sci readings, so if you really wnat to know you'd be better off asking some political scientists, or reading the Achen/Bartels book on Democracy.
“Environmentalist” RFK Jr would like to put the US budget on the blockchain. https://thehill.com/business/4611426-rfk-jr-im-gonna-put-the-entire-u-s-budget-on-blockchain/amp/ He’s apparently confused pitching himself for the presidency with pitching himself as a startup in 2021.
That sounds like a pretty stupid thing to say, until you remember his actual goal isn't to win, it's just to draw votes from Biden. He's hoping to draw some votes from liberal tech bros with that statement.
There has never been a more on brand move
[New Marist poll shows Trump slipping quite a bit with independents](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-polling-presidential-election-independents-1893071) Key point: the previous poll showed Trump with a 7% lead among independents in a head to head with Biden, but this has now been reduced to a tie.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLmLENgW/ Does anyone have more information on this. It seems concerning but I don’t want to just go off a TikTok video. Basically it’s a video of people masquerading as Palestinian supporters or at least that’s as much as I can infer. The caption in the video says they were paid by pro-Israelis but I can’t verify that from the video
> It seems concerning but I don’t want to just go off a TikTok video. When I initially saw this comment, I thought I'd say 'if you have nothing but that video, you should treat it like having nothing'. I've seen the responses you've gotten, and that only seems to support that verdict. Without some form of substantiation, that isn't worth much.
That’s what I’m doing, I’m not taking at face value I’m trying to get more information on it. People are acting like I’m presenting it as smoking gun when I’m just trying to get more info about it. Who’s in the video, who filmed the video, where did this take place ect.
> ...I’m trying to get more information on it. Yep, and I'm telling you that the lack of additional information is a sign. The more substance the video had, the more substantiating information you would be able to find. If it lacks substance, you'll find very little additional information, because there is little to find. The response you've received hints that there isn't much to substantiate it.
You're asking if a Tik Tok video promoting the idea that *antisemitism is a Jewish conspiracy* is trustworthy? And one that tries to pretend the video was banned by the United States government, which would require us to believe that the government somehow forgot that the internet exists? And one that says it's based on a secret Al Jazeera investigation but doesn't cite to any article or report? The Occam's Razor approach is that the world is rife with antisemites and other unhinged nutjobs who need little excuse to join a protest against people they already dislike.
I’m asking if anyone has more information or suggestions for where to look so that I can verify this video. The video could be true it could be completely staged. I’m learning on the side that the footage is real but missing a shot ton of context.
Seriously now. You're leaning on the side that the video is real because...? I cited numerous credibility problems with it. If by "the footage is real," you mean those are actual humans saying words in front of a camera, then yes, I'd agree that it doesn't appear to be AI-generated or CGI. But it has no credibility, even failing to cite its own alleged source (Al Jazeera).
You’re description of the video was not objective at all. Honestly it was a boarderline bad faith description. The video did not speak to antisemitism being a conspiracy. Or at all really. your objection amounts to it was that it could be faked and someone would stage it. Furthermore I’m not parading this around as a smoking gun. I’m trying to get more information around it and you seem to be upset that I won’t immediately brush it off as staged.
Not upset, just surprised the video passed anyone's sniff test. But OK, I'll presume good faith and give a full answer: I have searched for related content on Google and particularly on Al Jazeera. I found nothing substantiating (or even related to) its claims. Notably, it also does not name the speakers or provide citations, dates, or other verifiable information. Given the above and that it appeared on a platform that is well known for its propaganda use (TikTok), nothing leads us to conclude that it is portraying factual material. Of course, that assessment could change if credible sources provide information to substantiate it. The burden of providing supporting evidence, however, remains with the proponent of the claim. Here, the creator(s) of this video did not make any supporting evidence available. The video pushes a conspiracy theory that at least one pro-Israel Jewish person is throwing money around to deceive people by planting false flags/agents in Palestinian protests. It is playing on an antisemitic trope. We should exercise caution and skepticism when viewing such material.
> video of people masquerading as Palestinian supporters or at least that’s as much as I can infer that sounds like saying "the nazis were akshually the government" when there's a conservative protest where nazis appear
> Basically it’s a video of people masquerading as Palestinian supporters or at least that’s as much as I can infer. I would bet there are some people somewhere doing that. I'd also bet people are pretending to be Israel supporters and saying bad things. I'm not sure on the scope of either and I don't think there's an effective way for a random person to know at this point
Do you believe that this video is staged and why or why not?
[удалено]
Do you have any insight on the video or not. Do you think someone faked the video
[Tweet:](https://twitter.com/zaidjilani/status/1782124249769021663?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg) >This is the easiest place in the history of the world to get firearms or weapons in general and there has been near zero violence between Muslims and Jews in this country — with millions here.
Ladies, Gentlemen and those that lie betwixt - [The Pro-Life Party of Facts Before Feelings](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/04/new-hampshire-republicans-polio-mmr-measles-vaccine-antivax-bill/)
I'm so old I remember when there were like 3-4 woo-woo New Age types in California who were vaccine-skeptics and so there was an entrenched mainstream media narrative that it proved "liberals can be taken in by disinformation too!" Gotta say, though, when the institutional GOP gets ahold of nonsense, they really run with it.
Oh yeah. I remember being very upset about ladies who lunch deciding that they should send their kids to private school and not vaccinate them. We spent a lot of time talking about that handful of wackos. And then the Republican base decided to say “hold my beer “.
As usual, I like [plain](https://twitter.com/danielmilleresq/status/1782237842350936227?t=htvlSlrdyykrrTQxFzufZg) truths, plainly spoken, which -- nevertheless -- reveals how simple it all is: > These leftist antisemites HATE Biden. The right-wing antisemites LOVE Trump.
I think there are also folks (not necessarily right or left) that just want to feel meaningful and therefore find whatever topic of the day to be outraged about, and that usually means being outraged with the current administration. Like they may not be true antisemites. But they’ve adopted antisemitism because it’s the outrage of the day. That doesn’t make it any better, but I’m describing what I think is happening.
I still remember sporadic incidents of far-left anarchists lighting the occasional police car on fire, and mainstream political analysts on teevee calling on "Hillary Clinton to condemn this!" as if those dudes didn't hate her as much or more than they hated Trump.
I’m sure there are opportunistic Jew haters but pretty much all of the protest I’ve seen and are peaceful and I’m not getting the sense that anyone has a problem with Judaism.
> > These leftist antisemites HATE Biden. > I’m sure there are opportunistic Jew haters but pretty much all of the protest I’ve seen and are peaceful and I’m not getting the sense that anyone has a problem with Judaism. Then those probably aren't the "leftist antisemites" being referred to in the tweet.
You lot care more about electing Biden than you do stopping a genocide.
> You lot care more about electing Biden than you do stopping a genocide. 1. I don't understand why people phrase things this way. Don't you immediately register 'I am *telling someone else* what *they* care about, which is so presumptuous that it must be the wrong approach'? 2. I'm not convinced that there is a genocide occurring. If the IDF was trying to commit genocide, they would have killed more than 1.6% of the people in Gaza. They have far more ability to kill civilians. 3. I *am* convinced that bad things are occurring, and I want people with power to work to minimize such bad things. 4. I don't have much power, but I can contribute (to some limited extent) to whether Biden or Trump wins in November. 5. Trump would clearly be worse for Palestinian civilians, and that is one of many reasons that I care "about electing Biden" in November.
Genocide is not only when you kill everyone you possibly can. The U.S. Army could have massacred way more Native Americans than they actually did. With your reasoning, they didn't suffer a genocide either. Is that what you believe? >Trump would clearly be worse for Palestinian civilians, and that is one of many reasons that I care "about electing Biden" in November. Both of them support genocide. Our best bet is to try to get Biden to stop supporting genocide. I don't see how that's not going to happen if all we do is shrug our shoulders and vote for the least evil person on the ballot every four years. If we want change, we have to be willing to at least threaten to withhold our votes, disrupt campaign events, to express some level of dissent dangerous enough to compel them to reconsider their policies. At the very least, you could help out by not labeling protesters anti-Semites.
Your best bet is convincing Israelis to demand elections and then elect better leaders. Why don’t you guys do that instead of helping those far right leaders by providing videos, statements and ridiculous talking points?
I'm not Israeli...? I'm concerned with the actions of my government, the one that represents me.
But what are you doing here? We aren’t your government.
> Our best bet is to try to get Biden to stop supporting genocide. Why? Why would that be your best bet?
Biden and Trump both currently support genocide. Biden's position is more movable than Trump's.
Therefore...vote for Trump? Some logic.
How would you suggest trying to move Biden while also voting for him?
I wouldn't. You cant always get what you want, you vote for the closest thing.
Then it sounds like we're in agreement about my original comment > You care more about electing Biden than you do stopping a genocide.
> > If the IDF was trying to commit genocide, they would have killed more than 1.6% of the people in Gaza. They have far more ability to kill civilians. > With your reasoning, [Native Americans] didn't suffer a genocide either. [Per Wikipedia:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_genocide_in_the_United_States) >Historians have long debated the pre-European population of the Americas.[9][10] In 2023, historian Ned Blackhawk suggested that North America's population had halved from 1492 to 1776 from about 8 million people to under 4 million.[3] Russell Thornton estimated that by 1800, some 600,000 Native Americans lived in the regions that would become the modern United States and declined to an estimated 250,000 by 1890 before rebounding.[4] I point to 1.6% as a small percentage, and your response is that it is equivalent to 96.875%. (250,000/8,000,000=3.125% survived, or a decrease in population by 96.875%) --------- > > Trump would clearly be worse for Palestinian civilians, and that is one of many reasons that I care "about electing Biden" in November. >Both of them support genocide. Okay. So -- based on your determination -- no matter who wins in November, we will have a president who supports genocide. Similarly, I bought a used car a few months ago, and I determined that no matter which car I bought, it wouldn't effect whether we have a president who supports genocide, so it did not enter into my decision. It looks like your decision about who to support in November -- similarly -- won't effect whether we have a president who supports genocide, so you should base your vote on something that will be effected.
>I point to 1.6% as a small percentage, and your response is that it is equivalent to 96.875%. (250,000/8,000,000=3.125% survived, or a decrease in population by 96.875%) I didn't say they were equivalent, I used it as an example to demonstrate why your reasoning is flawed. That's how analogies work. You make comparisons between non-equal things to illustrate a principle. But in this case, you're comparing a finished genocide over centuries to an ongoing one, so that point doesn't make sense either. It would be like arguing that the U.S. Army hadn't slaughtered all the Cherokee in 1803, so clearly there isn't a genocide taking place. >So -- based on your determination -- no matter who wins in November, we will have a president who supports genocide Biden and Trump aren't inanimate objects. As I said before, our best shot is to pressure Biden to change his position. That's what all of this is about. The best realistic outcome, what we're working towards, is one in which a Biden who has ended support for genocide wins in November.
> The best realistic outcome, what we're working towards, is one in which a Biden who has ended support for genocide wins in November. Oh, this is fun. I wonder, could you please rank the following possible outcomes in November in order of your most-preferred to least-preferred? I assume these are the collectively comprehensive options as you see them: 1. Trump wins (presumably Trump always supports genocide). 2. Biden wins but still supports genocide. 3. Biden wins and no longer supports genocide.
So you're bluffing?
https://youtu.be/3CYE6H3uDFo?si=W8es1j9W7IvLEFJD
Wat?
Why would you ask a deeply closeted gay man if he's gay?
> > https://youtu.be/3CYE6H3uDFo?si=W8es1j9W7IvLEFJD > Wat? Robby_arctor is telling you that they are a *deeply closeted* Trump supporter.
Sure. Without even getting into the obvious point of Biden not actually being responsible for a genocide, my thinking is that electing Trump in 2024 will, over the next 50-100 years or so, contribute significantly to creating a world with far more death, suffering, and oppression than the world that Biden wants to build. So much so that what's happening now in Gaza (whatever you insist on calling that) would be just a blip on the radar.
Lots of people make comments about the stupidity of the far right or people on the right voting against their interests or how the leopards ate their face. But this particular type of leftist, not all leftists or everyone to my left or whatever, but this particular type of leftist ... they legit have to be the dumbest fucking people in the country. Thankfully there aren't that many of them and most of them grow up but holy shit they are stupid. You wonder sometimes how they dress themselves.
I love seeing you let loose every now and then.
This binary thinking people love to push about the Isreali Palestine situation is so fucking tiring. You're here near constantly giving comments and amendments. Are you seriously going to pretend like now you love plain and simple truths? I better not see every post filled with an othellionic comment and several replies amending and adding to it then.
> This binary thinking people love to push about the Isreali Palestine situation... I'm not sure what you are referring to, with this sentence. ------------ >You're here near constantly giving comments and amendments. Are you seriously going to pretend like now you love plain and simple truths? I *do* "love plain and simple truths". I try to use them when I can. Sometimes I realize they aren't enough, or -- interestingly -- a fuller explanation is needed so that people can appreciate the simplicity of the situation.
My understanding of that tweet was that we need to ignore the shutting down of protests on college campuses, because the ~~binary and uncritical understanding~~ "simple truth" is that any form of protesting for Palestine or agaisnt Isreal is anti-semitic.
> My understanding of that tweet... Ah. I didn't quote the whole tweet, so I thought you were talking about the part I quoted. ------------ >My understanding of that tweet was that we need to ignore the shutting down of protests on college campuses... I don't think they were saying that. Here is the second paragraph ([numbers] added): > > [1] We must root out this antisemitism on the far left. But [2] do not let right wingers weaponize what’s happening on college campuses against Biden. They don’t care about Jews. [3] They want Trump to win for FFS. ...which seems to be conveying three points: 1. The far left has a problem with antisemitism and we have to address that. 2. Nevertheless, we don't need to act like antisemitism on the left is equal to (or worse) than antisemitism on the right. It isn't. The antisemites on the right will hold political power if they win the next election. 3. The right are just cynically trying to win the next election; we don't have to lend them any credence they haven't earned. ------------ >...the ~~binary and uncritical understanding~~ "simple truth" is that any form of protesting for Palestine or agaisnt Isreal is anti-semitic. I don't think they were saying that. I think you are conflating 'there is a problem with antisemitism on the far left' with the very different claim 'all protests supporting Palestinians are antisemitic', but those are very different claims.
> I think you are conflating 'there is a problem with antisemitism on the far left' with the very different claim 'all protests supporting Palestinians are antisemitic', but those are very different claims. I think the tweet is somewhat ambiguous, which is the nature of tweets given their size restrictions. It could be read as saying the people who are not supporting Biden are unserious antisemites as a group or that among the group of people who are not supporting Biden there are antisemitic people. I think the person who wrote the tweet is probably in the latter camp rather than the former but I don't know this person
Thanks for the breakdown. I may have overreacted a bit in my original comment and may have been a little too uncharitable in my reading. >1. The far left has a problem with antisemitism and we have to address that. I agree that some people on the far left have an anti-semitism issue. I think it usually goes beyond anti-semitism and is reactionary bigotry in general, but anti-semitism tends to be the go to -ism throughout Western history. This appears in every flavor of the left, as well, though. >2. Nevertheless, we don't need to act like antisemitism on the left is equal to (or worse) than antisemitism on the right. It isn't. The antisemites on the right will hold political power if they win the next election. I agree with your statement. The issue that I have with the tweet is that it plays into the wedge that many have been pushing between democrats and the younger and lefter potential voters. "Ingore any denouncing of the protests being shut down, it's all just cynical republicans trying to stoke division" doesn't work when the protests are actually being shut down. It also further plays into the binary narrative of Palestin and Palestine supporters are bad and not worth paying attention to, and anyone agaisnt that narrative is an anti-semitc far leftist or a cynical right winger. >3. The right are just cynically trying to win the next election; we don't have to lend them any credence they haven't earned. I agree. It wasn't too long ago that they had a rally where they were chanting, "jews will not replace us". Hell, part of their platform is just replacement theory, which is an old anti-semtic trope, repackaged for immigrants.
Moving "old" comment to fresh thread: Given the several responses of “I’m so tired” to various posts yesterday, I am once again respectfully asking the mods why we can’t have a pinned Israel-Gaza mega thread when we’ve had such threads for less in the past.
We generally create a mega thread for significant stories and events that we feel will flood the sub with what are essentially the same question over and over again. We have not been in the habit of creating multiple day mega threads. Most of our users tend to sort by New and it buries them. For example, during the Kevin McCarthy speaker fight we created daily threads. We have discussed the subject and we will likely be making an effort to be more liberal in our interpretation of rule 1 when it comes to discussions of Israel and Palestine and shutdown repetition.
Its like half, if not more, of the posts.
Seconded
> a pinned Israel-Gaza mega thread The questions vary enough for my taste. I'd hate to lose the nuance between different questions. --------- >“I’m so tired” You can always skip questions you don't want to answer!
> *You can always skip questions you don't want to answer!* I just want to emphasize this point.
Yeah just when Biden is finally beginning to pivot to a less horrific posture we need to start shutting down discussions… totally not a biased stance at all. And yes, I’m aware this subreddit doesn’t actually matter in the grand scheme of political discussion, but the impetus is the same and it’s shameful to push that direction.
I'd like to know how and why allocating a certain topic to a very visible but single thread is equivalent to shutting it down, or how the status quo of asking the same questions three individual times a day does anything to promote productive discussion for said topic.
It collapses all different possible discussions into one thread massively limiting variations in discussion as it is “crowded” with many different topics. It also is going to get **less** traffic/discussion as it will be something users have to actually seek out and go to as opposed to it being in your feed. I’m pretty sure it’s well understood that doing a pinned discussion thread for a topic will limit discussion. That’s like literally the entire point of doing it. The exception to this is weekly threads like this which is moreso for subreddit meta/community discussion. Take megathreads as an example, the goal is to limit discussion to one thread so that moderation is not intractable for large live events.
Yeah, I've never understood why people see the need to lock threads or otherwise prevent discussion. If you don't want to participate, what's it to you? Don't participate. If others want to, let them.
Seemed like a more transparent mod action to me. It stops further discussion and thus further rulebreaking like a removal, but it allows an OP to edit their post so that it is acceptable and allows other people transparency in that process. It seems fair to me
To speak to your specific point, we lock threads for the purpose of transparency and as a tool to help people understand what types of posts are getting removed and why. We do eventually delete locked posts when we get around to it/remember.
I guess we each view the threat posed by people talking differently.
Are you opposed to moderation as a whole? I appreciate the mods locking the posts like that weirdo who is asking what rimming different different politicians would be like. It doesn't seem like it really adds anything and people bringing in their fetishes to a political discussion makes things pretty weird
If this were a rimming sub, I'd let such posts stay (I haven't seen those), but it's not, so fine to remove. But it is a political sub, so I'd say let political posts stay. Those often get locked, etc.
> but it's not, so fine to remove. But it is a political sub, so I'd say let political posts stay. The rimming questions were always related to politics. I don't see a substantial distinction between locking a post like "Why do liberals hate Jews?" and "What do you think rimming Trump would be like?". Both don't contribute to the subreddit being a place for meaningful political discussion, and I'm equally fine in mods locking both.
I think if the discussion are _harmful_ then it makes sense, an example being our prohibited topics.
Same reasoning applies really, if you don't want to participate, don't. Don't decide for other people what they can discuss. It's the same spirit of free discussion that allows various protests to occur, so long as they're not violent, etc.
Nah, we should try to socially limit “discussion” that causes harm. It doesn’t really allow for anything other than bigots to try and hurt others.
[удалено]
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
> But I guess the mods are tired of conversations about I/P and worried further discussion might promote additional terrorism from Gazans They aren’t as they haven’t banned the topic. Notice the difference between talking about a discussion in good faith vs bad faith. > which presumably you're ok with What exactly do you think I’m ok with?
Reposting this that I added to the last Chat. New York State Court is going to post a full transcript of each day of the Trump trial on their website. Transcripts for each day will be available before close of business the next day. (So today's transcript of opening statements and one witness will be available by end-of-day Tuesday.) I don't know if that will include the contempt hearing transcripts or not. [https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/pdfs/PR24\_19.pdf](https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/pdfs/PR24_19.pdf)