.Notes: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Anti-Islam. Voice of Europe also has a poor track record with fact checkers.
Overall, this site is Questionable due to extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories and poor sourcing. A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence.
Sure sounds like a source I want to line the litterbox with.
As far as I can tell they just translated a Defence Arabia article and cross-referenced it with publicly available information on US deliveries to Ukraine. In another comment, I cited the original article (in Arabic) that they appear to draw from.
I don't care. I'm tired of people submitting bullshit sources and then coming up with a reason as to why it's okay to listen to them just this one time. It drives attention and revenue to those sources, encourages their bad behavior, and normalizes the source as 'sometimes okay' in people's minds, eventually leading people to be less critical and and more susceptible to the bullshit the source wants to spread. Which is EXACTLY how propaganda outlets work.
The comment you’re responding to explicitly stated why they don’t want to engage with this content. To try answering your question though, I’m going to guess it’s because Morocco has been buying US arms for a lot longer than Ukraine has. In the title, “has received” is incredibly misleading, it makes it seem like the US is giving tanks to Morocco, but they’re buying them.
I don’t care how they feel about the source. I think we’re all grown-ups here and are capable of seeing through any propaganda the source may have added to the facts. I’m here to discuss the factual content of the article, which is rather interesting. I haven’t been following the drama of northwestern Africa’s territorial disputes.
Don’t guess, because you’re just wrong. 1st sentence. “The received tanks were immediately deployed to the southern part of the country, specifically to the disputed Western Sahara region.” Some other commentors added more relevant info, so nice of them.
“has received” is indeed misleading, if you’re in high school. No one receives weapons for free, not even Ukraine or Israel. Obviously Morocco paid for them.
While it’s true that Voice of Europe is baseless propaganda with no credibility, the same is true of mediabiasfactcheck.com, so in this case they’re correct, but purely by accident.
Well, no, because it’s also extremely biased in how it assigns factual reporting scores, and by extension, overall credibility scores. Not to mention they equivocate “bias” (on a scale zeroed at USA neoconservatism) with credibility.
Why do you say that media bias fact check is baseless propaganda?
edit: One of the most left leaning but highly factual news sites I go to is Fair.org. This site is almost always against the major mainstream media consensus, but backs up its claims with lots of high quality reasoning and evidence. MBFC rate it left-center and high factual reporting.
It gives Jacobin, probably one of the biggest left leaning news sites in the US, a left leaning and high factual reporting score. Jacobin calls themselves left leaning, of course. For anyone who knows history, it’s right in their name. So what’s the problem there?
Meanwhile, it gives all the major right wing news sites poor ratings. Fox News, Breitbart, Epoch times, etc. get an extreme right and Mixed factual reporting score.
So I understand why you would besmirch MBFC if you’re some rightwinger. But, from the left, I don’t understand. Reality has a left leaning bias.
I love that some of these idiots used their work email addresses. I wonder if Full Care landscaping out of Louisville, Kentucky cares that their VP of Operations is a neo-nazi?
Dude, Arlosoroff was killed over this. To present this as if “the” founders of Israel were in agreement with this is disingenuous. This caused factions to completely go at each others throats.
The agreement was controversial […] in the Zionist movement.[23] As historian Edwin Black put it, “The Transfer Agreement tore the Jewish world apart, turning leader against leader, threatening rebellion and even assassination.”[24]
The Zionist Congress voted narrowly in favor and in a time when the US turned boats full of Jewish People back to Europe and Britain was restricting Jewish immigration into Mandatory Palestine, I think this is understandable, because this presented one of the very few ways to legally leave Europe and salvage some of your funds.
And calling the Zionists, that opened ways for Jews to flee a radically worsening Germany, allies of the Nazis is nothing but a big fat lie.
You are admitting that they were allies while calling me a liar. Interesting debate tactic.
You are excusing the agreement with Nazi Germany. That agreement helped legitimize the Nazi government to the western world. It also broke the international anti-Nazi boycott.
He thinks it's controversial to not let migrants (men, women and children) drown and die, and has no problem promoting a party which is full of nazi sympathizers.
He's a sociopath, a racist and a fascist.
And those likely aren't even his worst characteristics, given the stories of sexual assault, links to Epstein, and the fact his father married his own daughter.
I don’t think I want to let him off the hook with a metal disorder.
I won’t accept that he’s a sociopath until there’s an official diagnosis. Sociopaths deserve empathy and need treatment. Musk is just a reprehensible asshole.
(By the way @Hyperreality, I’m not arguing with you. I’m taking the word “sociopath” more literally than you intended. I know what you mean, and agree.)
How is that? Is the AfD a Nazi party? Maybe you should let the Government of Germany know, since Nazi Parties are explicitly illegal there. Or maybe you should stop throwing around terms like “nazi” to mean “things you don’t like” unless you have something specifically actionable, that would get the party banned in Germany?
There actually are motions underway in pursuit of a party ban on those grounds, yes. It hasn’t been determined yet if their statements and objectives qualify, but there is widespread belief they do.
That’s certainly a unique perspective, lol. The most fundamental element of political success in Germany is to promise to keep everything as is, and maybe the current social issue voters care about. German voters are more than anything else afraid of actual change.
For the most part it is a bunch of centrist parties forming centrist coalitions with varying flavors of ideological coloring, doing not much but maintaining the status quo. Now that the economic system is increasingly failing for anyone but the rich that’s not working out for them anymore because they have been blurring together more and more over the last decades, and anyone unhappy couldn’t really find someone to vote for.
This now has given growth to the far right afd, which is still the same hyper capitalist bullshit but with a strong reactionary flavor, appealing to many conservatives and generally economically left behind people, as is happening everywhere else.
They are far right wing, and the AFD state division of Thüringen is considered extremist and is under surveillance of the Verfassungsschutz (domestic intelligence services). They have a lot of proven Nazis in their ranks and the party leadership does absolutely nothing against it.
So IMHO it’s safe to use the blanket term Nazis for the AFD, although they of course don’t see themselves as such.
In Italy, the Fratelli d’Italia (FdI) party is perfectly legitimate despite the constitution banning the PNF party from being created again. Despite FdI having roots in the MSI (Italian social movement), having a fascist symbol in their logo and some of the politicians participating in far right manifestations and declared Mussolini was a good leader, it’s complicated to define what fascist, neofascist and post-fascist is. They have traits of fascism but also not, e.g. this time they are allied with US and not against them.
We had many years of a Nazi partin Germany called NPD they were finally banned a few years ago, but obviously another party filled that spot. The AFD was far right wing but not extremist and got fast more votes than the NPD ever got. After internal fights they went more far right after they thrown out their founder. Now they are even more extreme right and you can consider them a Nazi party. Banning the party is currently under consideration.
They have a ton of Nazis in their party. Not even joking, you can call some of their top ranking members Nazis. And that has been decided by court order. It’s not slander because the courts agree that the term is fitting for some of those people. And honestly in my eyes the one that runs with Nazis is a Nazi.
He endorses a demonstrably bigoted right-authoritarian party - specifically for its attitudes toward minorities and foreign nationals. Their policy on immigration is “don’t.” Their stated goals involve mass deportation. They explicitly claim “the concept of multicultural society has failed” and “Islam does not belong in Germany.” Naturally they’re also big mad about women being equal and gay people existing. They were always extreme nationalists, and then a couple years ago their old leadership split off because their own party was starting to scare them, and as a direct result these German-nationalist Christian-supremacist anti-minority nutjobs got even more blatant.
They’re Nazis. He endorses Nazis. He is loudly and openly throwing in his lot, with Nazis.
No deep opinion required. It’s a fact. He did not admit to being a Nazi.
Feel free to step back and consider the impact you have when blatantly lying about what someone else said. Especially when it comes to one of the most horrific organizations in human history.
Especially when it comes to one of the most horrific organizations in human history.
Yeah, wouldn’t it be fucking awful if a modern political party stood for the same things as that organization? What kind of asshole would promote those bigots?
Every single study on UBI finds that it is a good idea that benefits both the recipients and society as a whole, but because it contradicts the dominant ideology it can’t be allowed to happen.
If people have UBI, you can get away with paying less though. That's how walmart does it; just encourage your workers to get welfare so they stay alive enough to work more
And that’s honestly my proposal for it. Basically, create something like UBI (my preference is NIT) that ensures everyone is over the poverty level, eliminate minimum wage, and have benefits phase out for some reasonable definition of “living wage” (say, 2x the poverty level, maybe 3x).
Working would never make you worse off, and people wouldn’t feel obligated to take crappy jobs if the pay isn’t there.
We could also eliminate many other forms of welfare at the same time and just increase benefits accordingly.
Agreed, I certainly wouldn’t touch Medicare or Medicaid. I’d also probably leave unemployment insurance as is, and this would kick in afterward.
But I think it could replace Social Security, food assistance, housing assistance, etc. And I think we could fund it by lifting the income cap on Social Security, but I’d need to run the numbers to be sure.
I'd say some disability benefits as well. Simply getting by can be more expensive when you can't do basic tasks yourself, even if you have the best universal health care possible.
Which we all know would happen IMMEDIATELY in lockstep with any widespread rollout of UBI, and any complaint would be met with half the country screeching “FREE MARKET REEEEEE”
Rent Control can only have one outcome. Decreased amount of available new or renovated rentals which coupled with an ever increasing demand for housing, creates some of the housing shortages we see in larger cities today.
UBI can be an effective way to fight poverty, and would be an even more effective way to combat poverty if we implemented a Negative Income tax whereby all welfare programs are rolled into the funding.
And how did that work out for the estimated 15-55 million people that died of starvation as a result of the "equitable distribution of land ownership"?
What a childish response. So the famine didn’t occur because it’s documented on Wikipedia?
The reasons for the famine are well understood and documented. I don’t think defending Mao is the way to go in regards to our modern housing crisis.
The housing market issue is also well understood and documented. We know companies and investors have been buying more and more houses, driving up prices. We know wages have not kept pace with rising housing costs. We know the gap between rich and poor has been widening year after year. Why the fuck are we derailing the conversation?
First off, I’m not denying the famine happened, aim just denying Wikipedia’s framing. The death counts are exaggerated and many were connected to devastation caused by the Civil War.
Second off, I am not advocating we do mid 20th century agriculture practices and kill the sparrows after doing land reform.
Rent Control can only have one outcome. Decreased amount of available new or renovated rentals which coupled with an ever increasing demand for housing, creates some of the housing shortages we see in larger cities today.
Only if you assume that private landlords are the only way to supply housing.
I agree with not measuring net worth but how are you planning on measuring individual societal value? That just sounds ripe for discrimination and elitism.
Exactly. If organisations (private, public and other) had to maximise for social betterment, they would release annual reports measuring it. There might even be entire industries dedicated to auditing measurements of social betterment.
But no, we're stuck using a system of 'value' based on the prestige of owning shiny rocks and control of the areas where those shiny rocks are found. And finding new uses for things and people that aren't the desired shiny rocks so that you may demand and acquire more shiny rocks as others in the same time duration.
If a majority of countries can successfully ditch the gold standard and allow fiat currency - as they did a century ago, that means the world is also able to redefine what fiat currencies measure. There's nothing actually stopping us from requiring social and environmental impact to be included in the calculation of financial valuations, except the people who have a vested interest in keeping the current equations.
Tbf, it's difficult to break programming. If your whole life you're raised in a society that measures your worth by your "hard work", then accepting that you don't need work to be happy is difficult for most. Most will continue voting against their own interests until there's a watershed moment. My bet is on unemployment hitting >30% due to AI.
If 30% of the population has to be on social security and can't be hired anymore, it would surprise me if nothing changed. Unless of course they blamed immigrants and minorities. They always serve as good scape goats.
The problem is the definition of “work”. There’s lots of things a person can do that both require a lot of effort and produce real benefit to society that are difficult or impossible to make money from, and therefore they aren’t “work”. Raising children being the most obvious example.
Indeed, work is defined by most people as "employment", but there's a lot of different work out there that is beneficial to the person and society as a whole, that isn't remunerated.
I’ve yet to see a study at a scale large enough to impact the local economy. Will the results hold when everyone gets monthly cash payments, or will rent go through the roof and that’s about it?
Kind of a weird argument, isn’t it? If we did the opposite instead, it’s not as if you’d expect rents to fall – on the contrary, rent would go up in response to the added financial burden on landlords. Setting that hypothetical aside, wouldn’t a generalized inflation of rents be an acceptable tradeoff for reducing homelessness and untethering the 50+% of young adults who still live with their parents to move and work in more economically efficient environments?
While I actually consider multi-generational housing a good thing, let’s ignore that since the reason people aren’t moving out is financial and not social.
The question is whether UBI is the best way to solve that problem (and others) and I have yet to see data that can be reasonably said to actually be universal for a region. The closest thing I know of is Alaska, and their oil payments are too small and their economy too remote to say much about larger payments in a larger economy.
To me, because money has a social and psychological value to it, what works on an individual level has no guarantee to transfer to a societal level. I would be very interested to see UBI practiced on an entire economic zone, but good luck getting anyone to volunteer.
So what if there were 100 or more small scale experiments in 50 different countries, in similar conditions. I won't be playing with the money of the entire nation|state|county|city to possibly lose it and not get elected again!
I want vaccines to be tested on 30% of the population to see if it works.
We should be putting this prototype hardware in the hands of 40% of the population to see if there are any side effects before deciding whether to legalise it.
We will do a double blind test on 50% of the population with these new safety regulations to see if there's an impact on incidences. The study would be invalid otherwise.
Models and small scale experiments are for wimps. I, the ruler of the democratic country, declare an experiment shall be run at national scale! The economy of region X with will not be comparable to that of the rest of 90% of country!
Uh, the key issue is that it’s very unclear whether the results will hold at scale, since you’re suggesting a modification to society. There’s no (or very little) social component to the effectiveness of a vaccine or a new tool. Money is fundamentally a social construct and so what works in isolation or very small groups might not work the same way at large scale.
If a country with a population of around a million (or even as small as 100k) enacted UBI I would take those results to be representative of a societal change. So far I’ve only seen studies where a few people embedded in a larger society are given money, and that’s not the same thing.
You have to remember that industrialized countries already have a systems where people get money for “nothing,” but those quotes do a lot of psychological heavy lifting. Disability, unemployment, retirement, food stamps, etc. The difference being that it’s not universal and each payout is either “earned,” temporary, or a pity case. As such, the psychology behind that money just isn’t the same.
I’m interested in UBI, I just want to see results that can actually be reasonably transferred to a population the size of my country (350 million) before I make hard statements about its effects.
If a country with a population of around a million (or even as small as 100k) enacted UBI I would take those results to be representative of a societal change.
I honestly doubt you would. The typical arguments of:
it's not comparable to a country of 350M, they're barely as big as $cityWithOver1Million
their society is very different from ours
their implementation is different from what we could ever manage
the circumstances were different
would come around.
You're making exemplary conservative arguments to stalemate progress by creating a chicken and egg problem.
Won't accept results of change in a small environment because they aren't representative of change in large environment
Demand results of change in a large environment before applying them to large environment
Won't apply changes to large environment because results of change in large environment don't exist
You just made up a bunch of arguments I would never make. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I can’t help it if my current stance is an argument made by people who have no interest in UBI at all. Fuck, I want UBI to work as advertised, it would be a very simple and easy solution to a lot of problems (though it obviously wouldn’t be a 100% solve for all of them).
If we can get a small economic zone that’s in control of its own currency to run UBI, those results would be likely to transfer to any other larger economy. Really the only requirement is that the country must be in control of its own monetary and fiscal policy and the program must actually be universal.
That’s about it. Why would anyone work for $20k/yr when they could get $12k for free? They wouldn’t. So those jobs would bump to $30k+, and a domino affect would occur. Nothing would be achieved other than the devaluing of the American dollar, which would lead to a loss of jobs, increased poverty, and guess what else - increased homelessness.
There was a UBI experiment in canada that was a huge success and of course the tories axed it as soon as they had the chance. Conservatives need to [extremely long bleep] … [yeah still bleeping] … … [still going] … [leeeeep] -yeah i’m going to have to redact this in post.
This is the only experiment that comes up from Googling Manitoba UBI, and it doesn’t seem to match what you say. A study of about 2k people, definitely not the whole population, and this article lists quite a number of positive statements about it.
It was 2500 families and encompassed about 10000 pretty much the whole town in some way and was over 4 years. The place was picked because at that time it was bit remote and somewhat isolated on that external forces would have minimal effect. It was determined the cost economically was far higher than the returns. Productivity did fall which was huge in that if this was instituted over a whole country and the result is less productivity, there is absolutely zero way to pay for it. The main take from the initial 4 year study was productively fell less than predicted but it certainly made live easier for the people getting it.
This was likely the biggest study ever done and the most controlled IMO. It did improve people’s health who recieved this money but that was at the expense of the rest of the country paying for it basically all thing being equal, they would get less health care.
Ubi also is payment to everyone. In these examples it is just payment to low or no income people. That is not ubi but simply welfare. Something that is not a bad thing to provide if there is excessive resources to do so.
In the end the project ran for four years, concluding in 1979, but the data collection lasted for only two years and virtually no analysis was done by project staff. New governments at both federal and provincial levels reflected the changing intellectual and economic climate. Neither the Progressive Conservative government of Joe Clark in Ottawa nor Sterling Lyon’s Tories in Manitoba were interested in continuing the GAI experiments. The fate of the original data—boxes and boxes of paper files on families containing questionnaires related to all aspects of social and economic functioning—was unclear. They were stored in an unpublicized location by the Department of National Health and Welfare. In the end, only the Winnipeg sample, and only the labour market aspects of that sample, was ever made available. The Dauphin data, collected at great expense and some controversy from participants in the first large scale social experiment ever conducted in Canada, were never examined.
This study involved using one small town, Dauphin, as a a test for what happens when everyone in the population qualifies for the basic income. The study ran out of money long before the researchers originally thought it would, and the majority of the data wasn’t analyzed until relatively recently.
The general result found in all the experiments was that secondary earners tended to take some part of the increased family income in the form of more time for household production, particularly staying home with newborns. Effectively, married women used the GAI to finance longer maternity leaves. Tertiary earners, largely adolescent males, reduced their hours of work dramatically, but the largest decreases occurred because they began to enter the workforce later. This delay in taking a first job at an older age suggests that some of these adolescent males might be spending more years in school. The biggest effects, that is, could be seen as either an economic cost in the form of work disincentives or an economic benefit in the form of human capital accumulation.
New mothers and teenagers weren’t required to spend as much time working
Money flowed to Dauphin families from MINCOME between 1974 and 1978. During the experiment, Dauphin students in grade 11 seemed more likely to continue to grade 12 than their rural or urban counterparts, while both before and after the experiment they were less likely than their urban counterparts and not significantly more or less likely than their rural counterparts to complete highschool. Grade 11 enrolments as a percentage of the previous year grade 10 enrolments show a similar pattern.
Highschool graduation rates went up
Overall, the measured impact was larger than one might have expected when only about a third of families qualified for support at any one time and many of the supplements would have been small. …At the very least, the suggestive finding that hospitalization rates among Dauphin subjects fell by 8.5 percent relative to the comparison group is worth examining more closely in an era characterized by concern about the increasing burden of health care costs. In 1978, Canada spent $7.5 billion on hospital costs; in 2010 it was estimated to have spent $55 billion—8.5 percent of which adds up to more than $4.6 billion. While we recognize that one must be careful in generalizing potential health system savings, particularly because we use hospitals differently today than we did in 1978, the potential saving in hospital costs associated with a GAI seems worthy of consideration.
And hospitalization rates went down. There were other effects, like small businesses opening during the period of MINCOME and shutting down after, a possible decline in women under 25 having children, but none of this was evaluated for whether it was worth the money or not.
None of those benefits came close to the cost of the program. They ran it for 4 years and the budget yes ran out of money. Could have ran forever because the rest of the country was paying for it but once initiated productively decreased. Likely would have even decreased further but people knew the free money would eventually end.
How do you pay for a program when the local area taxes don’t cover it particularly when the tax income actually decreases once instituted?
None of those benefits came close to the cost of the program
How do you measure the cost-to-benefit of longer maternity leave? Or higher high school graduation rates? Not everything the government does needs to directly make a profit. Just look at roads for an obvious example of that.
once initiated productively decreased. Likely would have even decreased further but people knew the free money would eventually end.
There was only about a 13% decrease in hours worked for the entire family on average, and most of that was women going back to work after a pregnancy later and teenagers not working (probably so they could keep going to school).
How do you pay for a program when the local area taxes don’t cover it particularly when the tax income actually decreases once instituted?
They actually likely did this due to SEO. Google was allegedly in the process of removing tweets from the search index because they weren’t accessible. This happens automatically for most sites.
I guarantee you whoever pushed this to prod knew exactly what was going to happen, but the super genius(🤮) in charge is always right and must never be questioned.
So much this. The leader on top is the one who instills the corporate culture. In this case, the engineers have no say in the matter. They need to do what they’re told.
Does anyone else think a lot about the incredible irony of western freedom-loving democracies being fine and dandy with the fact that nearly 100% of workplaces are top-down dictatorships? Even when you’re “given” freedom to act independently, it’s always predicated upon your decisions and actions aligning with the wishes of your superiors. The second that isn’t the case, you get your marching orders, and you can either comply or fuck off.
It would be one thing if employment were “optional” to some degree, or there were always more jobs than people to do them, but so many people are one missed paycheck or medical emergency away from homelessness, you basically have no choice but to grin and bear it.
There are solutions to level the playing field like unions or European works councils en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council . but it’s still top down in the end. Always seemed strange to me, perhaps it’s the way to get things done…
My upper manager always goes on about “empowerment” being part of the new direction for the business, but wouldn’t you know, we still get drawn and quartered for the smallest errors.
It would be one thing if employment were “optional” to some degree, or there were always more jobs than people to do them, but so many people are one missed paycheck or medical emergency away from homelessness, you basically have no choice but to grin and bear it.
Well, it is “optional” to some degree. I know plenty of people across Europe who are doing oke enough on basic support. It’s not an amazing living but it’s not like you are out on the streets. And a medical emergency will not cripple you with debt.
At least far as actually freedom-loving democracies go (as in, free to abort, free to express your identity, free to protest, …).
He was firing people before who told him something wasn't going to work, so it wouldn't surprise me if everyone who knew this would fail stayed silent in fear for their jobs.
How does Pinterest get around this then? They pollute image searches like crazy, and require you to login to see anything. At least they did, I blocked them from searches so maybe it’s different now.
it 100% did, google removed over half the twitter links on its index due to dead links/login requirements, which if kept like that would basically kill all Twitter traffic since most traffic comes from search engines
Ever heard of 12ft.io ? It allows you to bypass alot of pay walls by basically pretending to be a search engine trying to index a website. For SEO reasons a lot of pay walled sites allow search engines to access the whole article to index. 12ft.io leverages this to show you whole articles behind paywalls. This is something you could also achieve by spoofing the User-Agent. It would probably work for things like Pinterest without an account as well, but that’s something I have never tried (since I have no interest in the cancer that is Pinterest).
The original intent was good. You make something, you can legally ensure people can’t just copy your work and slap their name on it for profit. People could make creative works without fear of someone else ripping it away from them.
Then Disney just kept bribing politicians to extend it to a ridiculous degree so they wouldn’t lose Mickey to public domain until they moved his likeness into their trademark, which lives as long as it’s being used actively.
And then you have DMCA, where everyone is guilty until innocent and that whole can of worms, and DRM which is technically illegal to circumvent no matter how much time or what reason. Corporatization and the Internet turned that relatively simple and good ideas into an utter mess.
that original intent never mattered. no one's gonna make mickey mouse shorts and people be like "oh that must be their character, not Disney's". Mickey became famous and profitable from Disney's amazing animation and enjoyable writing. Without copyright, that's still the case. Queen and David Bowie didnt fall from financial or celebrity grace because Vanilla Ice copied them, because being copied doesnt detract from you. Again, all it did was enable the rich to profit from more things they didnt make. Get rid of all of it.
I think a short copyright period is fair enough to stop corporations putting out word for word copies of your book a week after you publish it. But it doesn’t need to be more than 5-10 years, the current death+70 that the USA has pushed on the world is obscene.
I think you severely underestimate the greed of corporations. If there was no copyright whatsoever there would nothing to stop, for example, amazon not publishing the new novel by a middling author and instead selling their own version where they take all the profit.
Stolen before its ever been published? I think yall are getting tripped up with thinking corporations can see the future and can steal something that will become successful but has not yet been discovered by any readers. If its successful enough to be stolen, its already successful.
It’s not the popular authors that would be getting ripped off, it’d be the small ones. Corps would have people scouting books en masse, find one worth taking without a reputation to back themselves up, then present their own version and crush any momentum you might gain against their millions of dollars in marketing.
The small ones already dont make money from their work. If theyre undiscovered, they dont have any fans to buy their book. If they are discovered, they have fan support.
It’s just too expensive to save the planet. I’m glad that our governments were making the tough Choices, to continue burning coal and other fossil fuels because the economy just couldn’t handle the burden of not growing by another 5% every year.
That’s a fair complaint for developed countries, but I feel like it’s less fair for developing countries where each point of GDP growth has a tangible effect on poverty rates, education, health, economic mobility, and overall wellbeing. Hell, an increase in economic resources will probably even offset the decrease in crop yield from climate change. For countries that are still developing, these things improve the lives of citizens more than the impact of climate change would hurt them.
Living in a developed country, we have a disproportionate responsibility for both reducing our own emissions and developing the technology and infrastructure to reduce emissions for everyone else. We should have led the charge towards ever cheaper solar and ever cheaper wind. We should have given the world clean and cheap technologies they can use to fuel their industrialization to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. We haven’t, but looking towards the future there’s still a lot we can do.
Remember that you can influence global emissions far more than by bringing your personal emissions down to zero.
I already do, but that’s completely missing the point.
Donating isn’t enough to solve the issue, and, moreover, it puts all of the onus on the good-willed people, which is just super convenient for you, isn’t it?
No, everyone needs to contribute to a better future. Such economic individualism is what caused these problems in the first place.
Also worth remembering that governments are subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. What should happen is that this industry should be nationalized and the profits should be used to build out clean energy infrastructure.
The oil industry is on its death bed so I’m not against what you’re saying, but we’re currently subsidizing the green energy sector (a good thing) with nothing in return (a bad thing).
We should look to how Norway avoided Dutch Disease and taxed the hell out of private oil extraction. They subsidise the discovery (the risky part) and then slap a very heavy tax on the oil those companies then extract and sell, all the while having a national oil company they have to compete with it (crucial to keep oil expertise within the government).
Norway already taxes private wind energy and hydropower, because they know the oil industry will be dethroned by the green energy industry soon and don’t want to simply subsidize their profits. Norway also owns wind energy both domestically and in other countries (hilariously, they own more UK wind energy than the UK government itself does), and massive amounts of their domestic hydropower.
None of the countries historically responsible for the most CO2 emissions is growing at anywhere near 5%. If anything, we’re burning our only home for 1% year on year.
Had the misfortune of listening to State Department and White House policy ghouls talk to a class recently. They don’t believe moving to less fossil fuels quickly is viable because we’d become “dangerously dependent on Chinese minerals for batteries and solar cells” ignoring the fact that the entire globe is “dangerously dependent” on a liveable climate
And Bobby knew this shit like 20 years ago. It regularly gets into the low 100s in July and August in that region. It's not so terribly bad since it's dry heat, especially when there is wind. Arizona isn't even the highest risk area. The biggest issue in the US wet-bulb temps in the southeast.
The biggest issue in the US is wet-bulb temps in the southeast.
For people that aren’t aware, wetbulb temps essentially measure how well you can cool yourself down by sweating. Humid air means sweating is less effective since it can’t evaporate.
A wetbulb temp of 95°F (35°C) will kill someone in less than a workday if they’re not given proper breaks.
Yeah, any wetbulb above 30°C (86 °F) is potentially fatal without lots of rest breaks and water and shade and such. 35°C is unsurvivable - and not something that happens naturally on Earth.
If you are discussing the affects of temperature on humans, you should use a human centric temperature scale, so I’d say that is already the appropriate unit.
Americans when faced with a Celsius measurement in the EU: “Oh, 32°C, that’s about 90 degrees.”
EU people when faced with Fahrenheit in an arricle about a place in the US: “Reeeeee, why isn’t this in my own comfortable units that I like‽‽”
Look, guys, we need an entire generation to finally die before we can fix a lot of things here in the US. We’ve got larger problems than imperial or metric units right now. We’re working on it, amd your petulant whining about units makes you look silly to a country of people who are used to converting between the two.
On the plus side Phoenix is going to be an absolute boon to future archaeologists. It's in the middle of a desert, which is great for preserving stuff, and when it depopulates nobody's going to move back in and wreck stuff up by living there.
Dubai's probably going to be another good one, though it's on a coast so that could cause other types of degradation.
Except that Donetsk is not a legally recognized country. And Khodakovsky is a militant who has been responsible for destabilizing and destroying his own country by starting a civil war.
The regime was very much committing crimes against the ethnic Russian population before they rose up. People don’t just rise and go to fight to the death for fun.
Whataboutism is when your blatant hypocrisy and lack of logical, moral and ideological backbone is pointed out. Whataboutism is when it is made clear you do not actually hold the values you claim to hold.
Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood. Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.
Almost every time I see it it’s used to mean, “Don’t you dare talk shit about my country, try that in a small town you liberal commie [slur]” but for the type of person who is just as nationalistic, but doesn’t want to admit it.
I suppose it hinges on democratic legitimacy. Taiwan obviously is supported (as a de facto state entity) by more or less the whole population. Is the same true for the D/LPRs? Do we think a majority wanted to then join Russia, and that the referendums were free and fair (especially given the ‘results’ in the Kherson and Kharkhiv regions which did not support Russia).
I don’t know the answer to that question, but that is what hinges on whether one supports the existence of the D/LPRs as independent entities. Whether they are truly the reflection of their people’s right to self-determination and whether they, as pseudo-states, actually have democratic legitimacy.
Maybe the Ukrainians should negotiate and recognize the Donbas as no longer their territory somce the people living there have have democratically expressed that they want to leave. Then this can be over. Of course they could only negotiate if the US/NATO allows it, which is why this war keeps going on
They do when the democratically elected government is overthrown in a coup and the far right replacements start passing laws targeted at making people of your ethnic background illegal. Especially when the shelling starts, you do.
no no no ,… if they have the right Friends , or if they fight against the convinent enemy , it is absolutly possible … its always just geopolitics in the end …,
Edit: found someone who finally linked some actual evidence I can observe so I may remove all of this text I crossed out and recant my entire statement depending on how convincing it is.
Edit 2: The War in Donbas, 2014…
Sounds like Ukraine went Tankie Mode to put down separatists, except instead of using literal tanks to do it, they sloppily shelled with artillery at great range. Poroshenko was in charge at the time. It was almost ten years ago but I remember just barely well enough that I still hate his fucking guts even to this day.
Finger pointing abounds as far as who exactly is responsible for all the “Russian Volunteers” who “Appeared” “of their own free will”. Truth is, even if someone else may choose to blame Russia about it, my own ethical consistency doesn’t let me, because even though there are some certain and concrete differences, I am ok with people who aren’t Ukrainian traveling to Ukraine and volunteering to submit themselves under the command of the Ukrainian military. I understand this is going to piss off both sides. It would be hypocritical to be against one side sending outsiders to fight in Ukraine while making excuses to permit the other side sending outsiders to fight in Ukraine.
The fact remains that Poroshenko’s administration handled this extremely fucking poorly to say the least and that handling included the slaughter of over THREE THOUSAND CIVILIANS. Even IF the actions of the Ukrainian leadership did not directly result in some proportion of those civilian casualties, it still happened on their turf and under their watch.
This is part of why Poroshenko lost to Zelenskyy in 2019. During 2018, Zelenskyy stated in interviews that he wanted to negotiate with Russia to bring peace to the rebellion in the Donbas region instead of blasting it to hell like Poroshenko was. Too little too late. Oh well.
It would have been nice if a neutral party could have swept in, disabled all combat capability from either faction in Donbas, overseen a vote without any guns held to anyone’s heads, with full public observability by the entire world - except there are no neutral parties. Everybody is on a side.
Maybe no single nation should be in charge of Crimea and Donbas. Not even Ukraine.
Sadly, I don’t think it’s likely that the world will come together to oust all armed personnel, whether insurgent or loyalist, from these regions, using UN Peacekeeper forces, until shit calms down enough for the civilians who live there to self-determine their future without being coerced. Except it’s highly arguable that this will fucking count as coercion TOO. -_-
Anyway,
My stance is still that Russia should have stayed the fuck home, and should go back there, and if they JUST did that, then no one else would have to die in the Donbas region.
… Unless the separatists breached the ceasefires AGAIN.
AND AGAIN
AND AGAIN AND AGAIN
AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND…
you say this shit as if anyone enjoys the fact that people who live there are embroiled in a war.
This only became the case when Russia invaded.
Nobody who purports the position that Ukraine was enacting genocide ever shows evidence of ethnic cleansing happening in the Donbas region prior to the Russian invasion. Of course, evidence of it happening after the Russian invasion is everywhere: all the civilians Russia executed in the street, visible from satellite images even before areas are taken back by the rightful sovereignty of Ukraine to whence it belonged prior to the invasion. By Russia.
All people ever tell me is “trust me bro” or try to assert that absence of evidence is evidence of a coverup, which are, notably, the same techniques american conservative fascist GOP-Simps use when trying to convince others that trans people are pedophiles and rapists.
> my source: this propagandistic youtube video
my. how credible.
People will stop dying in Donbas when Russian invaders stop killing the Ukrainians who live there.
OK for real though I am looking forward to reading up on Operation Aerodynamic.
Just because I’m not ok with the CIA sending operatives to foment rebellions, astroturf political movements, rig elections, and overthrow sovereign states does not have any influence on the fact that they definitely fucking do that shit.
The fact that they definitely do it, though, does not make it ok for anyone else to do it either.
Russia’s used the “turnabout is fair play” card in ‘encouraging’ ‘veterans’ to ‘volunteer’ ‘assisting’ ‘separatist insurgents’ in Donbas. Although I hate to see it, and wish they hadn’t done it, the rationale behind why they expected to get away with it is clear. Even right now, lots of non-Ukrainians are volunteering (with or without airquotes) to aid the Ukrainian military.
Some might tell me “that’s not the same thing!!!” while others will tell me “that’s LITERALLY the same thing!!!” and however one wishes to characterize it, it’s definitely happening and it’s going to keep happening because the utility of it is too high. Russia’s gonna keep doing it. America’s gonna keep doing it. Proxy war.
Now I can face the fact that the actual reason that I want Russia to lose is the same reason I want the American republican party to be extinguished AND the democrat party to be blown out afterward: conservative traditionalist fascistic authoritarian theocracies deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth and swept into the dustbin of history where they fucking belong. European influence has historically weakened these death cult brain-viruses. Europe being far more left-leaning and socialist than America may ever be in my life time makes them the preferable alternative to Russia’s literal jailing and execution of LGBT people. Encoded into their very fucking law books.
Russia’s used the “turnabout is fair play” card in ‘encouraging’ ‘veterans’ to ‘volunteer’ ‘assisting’ ‘separatist insurgents’ in Donbas
Okay so you claim that the Revolution that the left part of the Map does is Legit , and “wholisitc Peoples will” (even through its leads to Civil War ) … the REACTION of the Part of the Country that just lost THEIR FUCKING PRESIDENT AND THE RIGHT TO SPEAK THEIR OWN LANGUAGE , is just a Russian Operation ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Maidan : "Fuck yeah TV told me ! "
"Slavyiansk , Odessa , Kramatosrk , Donestk , Luhansk , Mariupol , kherson , Kharkov , Dneperpetrosk , Crimea etc. all rebellling in Reaction ? " , “well thats just a russian operation , i can not forgive them !!!”
okay imagine Canada has a Quebecian President , he then gets unconstituionally removed by Canadian Faschist in the non french speaking Capital , the New Goverment that spend all their time proclaiming their Hate for Quebecians and forbides the french Language , and you try to go around telling me that the
"Seperatist movement gathering in Quebec is some perfidious French operation … nothing natural about it … they Love beeing bombed & hated , you have fallen for French Missinformation Sweety "
Sorry the first reply was to “Fronting” , your on a good way , the Maidan spell sits deep , it also sat deep in me once. True Power is True Power , and if you ever heard of “Softpower” … this is it …
That you currently belive that the “Maidan” is the great and Glorious Peoples Will" & “The Donbass revolution is is perfidious Russian lies” and against the will of the People" is US Softpower …
if you ever heard about the Concept ,SOFTPOWER it is the ability of the US State to make you Hate somebody.
conservative traditionalist fascistic authoritarian theocracies deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth and swept into the dustbin of history where they fucking belong.
While I’m happy to see you’ve come back on some of your previous points, your edit is pretty fuckin heinous to say the least.
To say ukraine went ‘full tankie’ while the people you’d happily refer to as tankies gave you sources and insight just makes you come across as disengenous. The word tankie has no meaning and you use it to just denounce stuff you don’t agree with.
Also, to say it’ll be the people of Donbas who’ll break peace treaties after ten years of living in a war zone without any evidence that that’ll happen, even with evidence pointing to the contrary, is just fuckin vile.
The identity of an individual who points me to external evidence has no influence on the validity of said external evidence, and the evidence must be weighed on its own merit; to believe otherwise is ad hominem. It’s true that Ukraine attempted to suppress their rebellion with extremely sloppy application of brutal force and that’s tankie activity no matter who is doing it to whom.
Furthermore, as far as whatever violent tendencies may be exhibited by people who have been living in a war zone for ten years, you could be right. Or it could be that they weren’t the ones who violated ceasefire repeatedly back then in the first place and wouldn’t be the ones to violate such a ceasefire in such a hypothetical future - since the Russians in the PRESENT have demonstrate a pattern of repeatedly violating ceasefires and MAY sabotage it in the future while trying to frame these people (which is what “might” have been happening in actuality ten years ago)
Yes, how vile an implication it is, that Russia will attempt to hold these people hostage and use them as human shields, all over again, as if we would never see it coming.
When was the last time Joe Biden killed several thousand American rebels on American soil using the United States military?
He’s unironicly a war criminal just like the last umpteen American presidents, even if we were JUST looking at his complicity in the shit America does; and the ONLY thing that makes me sad about the Trump trials is that it’s only happening to ONE president we’ve had and not every living president.
But he still hasn’t crushed an American rebellion by slaughtering thousands of Americans with artillery on American soil.
Gotta be specific with crimes.
Or are you telling me you DON’T think what Petro Poroshenko did to his own civilians was a tankie job?
I could give you an honest answer or I could acknowledge how you’re widely broadcasting total disinterest and outright contempt for the subject, and subsequently block you because it’s clear you’re not interested in any discussion in good faith and my feed MIGHT actually be better off without you in it. Can you give me any reason why I should invest the time and energy into the former instead of the latter?
I really WAS looking forward to blocking you. AND you didn’t give me a good reason not to. BUT,
the more I think about it, the more I find myself liking your question and feel myself WANTING to explore it.
At first, I asked myself if I could say “yeah, actually” but clearly THAT would be untrue - and not just for the reason that battle tanks weren’t even invented yet at the time, but because even though lots of people hurl the word “tankie” around as a blanket insult with no real meaning, I’m instead actually honestly trying to mean something specific - It’s not JUST killing your own people because they oppose you politically (using the figurative “you” here, not the literal you). It’s the amount of intentional civilian casualties.
When people take up arms for a cause, they’re self-selecting into the combat role, after all. Executing a planned, organized attack upon a government’s assets is not a civilian behavior. It’s either the behavior of an enemy (to said government) soldier or the behavior of a criminal. It’s not innocent. The rebels in the American civil war were certainly not innocent bystanders.
What characterizes it would have to be the intentional and systematic slaughter of non-combatant civilians who were not engaging in battlefield maneuvers.
While this DID apparently happen in the American civil war, contributing to the civilian death toll of some 50,000 people, it was largely the actions of general Sherman, who unilaterally chose, regardless of actual orders, to burn entire cities.
I can’t speak for you, obviously, but if a group exhibits all the behavioral phenomenon we presently associate with, say fascism, EVEN IF the actions and events concerned occurred before fascism was ever recognized or named, illuminating these behavioral facets by CALLING it “fascism” still possess communicative utility. Maybe meet half way and call it proto-fascism.
Likewise, if one were to call Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman’s actions during the American Civil War “proto-tankie”, I’d be hard pressed to honestly disagree with them.
When it comes to the defining incidents of the term, though - the Prague Spring - the “rebellion” didn’t declare war, they merely elected someone the Soviets didn’t like, and for that, 165,000 troops and just over 4,600 tanks were dispatched and nearly ALL the resulting casualties were civilians, even with the elected leader of the time telling the civilians NOT to resist for the sake of their safety. Thankfully the number of civilian casualties were relatively few, with less than a hundred murdered and only just over 250 severely wounded.
The other oft-cited incident, the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, actually featured armed insurgency and makes no distinctions clear enough regarding how many of the ~3,000 Hungarian casualties exactly were armed, organized, and mobilized, so I for one hold it in less critical a light than what Sherman did in the American Civil War.
When it comes to what Petro Poroshenko did in Ukraine, he actually admitted on video that he intended to make civilians suffer and fear for their lives, to make children cower in basements, in order to coerce compliance from them. Them, meaning, people who didn’t even declare any intention to pick a fight with his administration in the first place! Punishing them for the “crime” of merely living in the same municipal area as alleged insurgents.
If you don’t want to call it “tankie”, fine.
But this IS a pattern of politically motivated state sponsored brutality that DOES recur throughout history and whatever you DO choose to call it deserves to be named, shamed, and blamed for giving Russia any justification whatsoever to “protect civilians” in the Donbas region by invading Ukraine.
In short, Lincoln wasn’t a tankie, but Sherman may have been a proto-tankie.
Slava Ukraini, Crimea is Ukraine, and if you don’t like it you can taste nuclear fire. HOOYAH AMERICA. The SSBN force stands ready to set condition 1SQ for strategic launch! Fuck the FSB, fuck Putin, and fuck anyone who supports them. KILL THE BEAR. Churchill should’ve followed through with Operation Unthinkable when he had the chance.
I dunno, I think we should respect the voice and choice of the people, this being a democracy and all. If people vote for something we have to respect it, like it or not, this isn’t some authoritarian nightmare state were we supress democratic parties we disagree with and repress minorities like Roma or jews, right?
If your boss says you must return to the office, after 3 years of WFH. At best, it shows that they do not value or respect you, and are just making an arbitrary decision in a bid to sell more stocks.
At worst, there might be some insidious reason to make employees physically available. Maybe they are getting a kickback somehow, or selling data that they can only get when you are there, or maybe they are just horny and want to seduce you sexually.
A remote worker is often happier, more productive, and cost less to employ even if they are paid the same as an on-site worker. Offices do not have to provide parking, seating, HVAC, power, wifi, and will even have less physical security vectors.
If some people prefer to go into an office, then it should be optional. Not a hybrid model where they force you to come a certain number of days a week.
At the end of the day unless you are on some kind of probation or evaluation period WFH should be the default when ever possible.
Control is another thing. I can’t tell you the amount of execs I’ve heard say “they’re losing control of their company” or “I don’t feel I have the same control over my people”. It’s crazy that they think that. What do they think the past 3 years have been when they’ve gotten record profits “oh, but our profits would be even better if we had people back in the office”. Sadly no amount of data will override the entrepreneurial “it could always be more” what if that they throw out.
I’m working in IT and as my last team lead hasn’t had any technical knowledge in my area, and he didn’t had to for his job, he wouldn’t even be able to control what I’m doing, …
He couldn’t control whether you’re doing your work properly, but he can control that you "pretend* to be controlled by him.
It’s never about making you a better worker, it’s just about the illusion of control.
Think about it, when was the last time you had an interaction with your superior that actually had anything to do with your actual job? It’s all just a huge charade.
Yeah, but there will also come a tone when the technical lead is being managed by someone with less technical experience than them.
At that point, it is less about telling them what to do and more about making sure they stay productive on tasks and projects that are important to the company.
The last part is important because a lot of the work management does at that level is supposed to be catching all the shit from other departments and setting goals, which does not look like technical work.
Any executive who has “lost control” of their business by allowing their employees to work from home is no more than the ring master of a runaway circus that they never actually controlled to begin with.
I’ve had the unfortunate displeasure of working for at least one company that made a full time job of keeping their employees under their thumb and I can say this much: the more you micromanage your workforce, the better your workforce becomes at professional time wasting. By that I mean finding creative ways to look very busy while achieving nothing of benefit to the organization.
But then again, much of the corporate world runs on incompetence so poor business decisions based on some executives feelings, rather than statistics, aren’t exactly rare.
The executives are nervous everyone will realize how overpaid and absolutely fucking useless they are. Every good workplace I’ve ever had, was absolutely nothing to do with the VPs/C levels. The best work places those people are barely involved in most of the day to day.
Control sounds insidious, but there are a lot of ways in which being physically present plays into your psychology and manipulates you into working harder/later/ect. Thinking back to the last time I was in an office, usually when someone was fired/they announced layoffs, the anxiety in the space was palpable. You ended up working later voluntarily just because you were afraid of not being seen at your desk and they’d fire you next.
WFH allows me to be more rational with my employer. They can’t scare me into working harder, and I’m not at all attached to the “office culture” if it suits me better to leave. I think a lot of the “soft power” of the employer-employee relationship comes from physical proximity, which is why you have middle managers not involved with the bottom line profitability rooting for BTO.
Can confirm. I quit my last job because they told us to come back to the office. In 2020, when COVID was still in full swing. And being remote was our company’s entire business model.
I’m on my second probationary period entirely WFH, you shouldn’t be required to work in the office unless the job physically requires it. Return to office is very often a big power grab by shitty management that don’t know how to measure outcomes properly and instead prefer to micromanage. It is one of the biggest red flags.
On another thread, a guy literally tried to defend this by saying “kids constantly get left-wing indocrination.” Are right wing nuts actually unaware how unbalanced the US right and left are in terms of extremism? They can’t really believe what they’re saying, right?
When asked which flavour of potato chips they enjoyed, they replied that they enjoyed damaging peoples' lives the most. When informed that wasn't actually a flavour of potato chip, they screamed and started punching the camera.
Now here's Dave with the sports.
I’m not sure what other options are available at this point though.
Hamas is extremist to the point where they would be doing a genocide as well if they were in the position to do so.
People say separate the Hamas from the people, but that’s really hard when the members of Hamas are of the people and have the support of a good percentage of them.
If Israel invades on foot and Hamas is threatened they can simply fade back into the population and wait to try again. And the general population will support them in doing so.
The creation of the state of Israel was a mistake and the rise of Hamas is the direct result of decades of apartheid practiced against the Palestinians by the Israeli state.
… But as the issue stands today, I can’t blame Israel in taking extreme action to end the conflict that’s dragged on for nearly a century now.
There is no reasonable path to peace. A two state solution would end with the states at war anyway as both states have extreamists who want to genocide the other in government positions.
And there is no where that would accept the Gaza population as refugees even if you could get them to leave.
Well one option is they could get off the fucking land they stole and stop doing a genocide. Not sure why that option slipped your mind. Libs always trying to find hard solutions to simple problems.
considering a lot of them have second citizenships elsewhere…how about those places?
and before you get to “but there are nazis all over europe/etc, the jews need to be safeguarded!” i’m 100% with you. killing every nazi the world over is the correct solution here, not wiping out an innocent peoples.
How about they move.out of the areas that Israel agrees are Palestine and into the areas they’re less blatantly stealing for a start. Your interjection is nonsensical when Israelis are, right now, seizing more and more from the Palestinians. Why is this "Where do they go? 😞 " question relevant only now and only one way? No one asked that question when the Palestinians were displaced, and now they’re just supposed to deal with that because it would suck for the colonizers to have to move back to where they came from? There are multigenerational refugees from Palestine, people whose parents and grandparents were also stateless refugees, and we’re supposed to feel bad for settlers? Fuck off.
Why is this only a relevant question now when it wasn’t before and only with regards to hypothetical Israelis and not actual Palestinians being actually displaced right now? Why should we care more about the rights of Israelis to not have to move than the rights of Palestinians who have been rendered stateless refugees for generations or put into concentration camps?
I.e. why do you assign worth to Israeli rights but not to Palestinian rights? Why does Israel get to steal Palestinian homes and declare “no backsies”?
I wonder, seen your username, are you by any chance living in North America? If you do, would you consider emigrating to give the land back to the Native Americans who the colonists stole it from (with a little jazzy genocide) ? Or do you consider the situation to be completely different?
I don’t give a shit tbh. The state of Israel is a rogue state that shouldn’t be recognized by anybody and should never have existed. The settlers can either become refugees or rely on the mercy of Palestinians.
Look at South Africa. One state for everyone, equal rights, equal votes. That thought will be so repellent to many that they would rather leave, and good riddance to them.
Not that I as some western internet rando have some unique insight into how things can/should be resolved, just the opposite: some of this is so obvious that even a distant and privileged dummy like me can see it
It was Western powers that "gave" land that didn't belong to them, and where other people already lived (and, of course, continue to support Israel). The Israeli government is not the only responsible party here.
It was the UN dividing the land between 1/3 jews and 2/3 muslims who were living there. It got voted 33-13 with most muslim countries voting against and 10 countries including Britain abstaining.
Hamas is extremist to the point where they would be doing a genocide as well if they were in the position to do so.
“the people being genocided would do the exact same thing if they come into power!” is just soft genocide denial. it’s colonizers telling on themselves, because that’s their solution to an unwanted indigenous populace.
People say separate the Hamas from the people, but that’s really hard when the members of Hamas are of the people and have the support of a good percentage of them.
israel was instrumental in destroying all non-hamas groups. their extremism is intentional, as it gives israel an excuse to continue doing genocide.
… But as the issue stands today, I can’t blame Israel in taking extreme action to end the conflict that’s dragged on for nearly a century now.
you…can’t blame the genocidal settler state for continuing to do a genocide in response to…people resisting the genocide they have been doing for 70 years?? are you fucking drunk?
Irs not complicated. You are directly stating that the Israelis have to do genocide because its unrealistic that they don’t, and then asking us to think of the poor innocent israelis who may have to not live in a stolen home if they stop doing genocide.
Israeli settlers have, for years now, been slowly encroaching into territory officially recognized as Palestinian lands. These people absolutely have the choice to move back out of those areas and into lands officially recognized as belonging to Israelis. On the other hand, very few people can "just move, lol" and I wouldn't be surprised if Israel specifically chose settlers that would be burdened economically if they attempted to leave.
To be clear, Israel has continuously acted in bad faith against Palestinians and, along with its allies, destroyed the peaceful (or, at least, less militant) groups that sought to unite the Palestinians. This is absolutely a problem of their own making and I would be surprised if there was a peaceful path forward with the current political climate in the region.
This is where it gets tricky and a lot of nuance is lost, I think. There reaches a certain point where it stops being zero-sum because two or more parties can each have an entirely independent and valid claim.
In your example, if you pass the money to your children, they reach 40 years old, spending the money they believe is theirs, and then suddenly they're told they owe $2M they don't have for something they didn't do, that's not fair on them. Have they benefitted from the $2M? Absolutely. Is it fair that they benefitted while the person/people you stole it from suffered? Absolutely not. But your children didn't do anything to deserve punishment.
Now I'm generally fairly anti-Israel, and have been for years, so don't take this as me being an apologist for colonisers. But for someone who has lived all their life in Israel - whose great-grandparents were colonisers - Israel is home and they feel they have just as much right to it as the people it was stolen from 80 years ago. The longer these conflicts go on, the more difficult it is to come up with a fair solution on a human level.
Israel is definitely in the wrong, though. It's very clearly not fair from a Palestinian perspective. But no matter how you try to divide up the land now, there will be innocent people who suffer for it. There's no easy solution to it, unfortunately. It's more complex than just "give it back".
Decolonization is a bloody and violent process. Once you colonize a place and the people that live there, the only ways that it will end is the near-complete extermination of the colonized peoples by the colonizers, or decolonization. There can never be a lasting, peaceful status quo, as the interests of the colonized and the colonizers are inexorably opposed. The colonizer wants more of what is and was the colonized’s. The colonized want to keep their homes, and to not be subject to the colonizers. Both will use violence to achieve their ends.
The question of “how can peace be achieved in Palestine” is not “how can the current conflict be resolved,” but instead “should Palestinians be subject to ethnic cleansing, including violently and directly as occurred during the Nakba, or should Palestinians govern Palestine?”
Hamas is extremist to the point where they would be doing a genocide as well if they were in the position to do so.
The exact same nonsense was said about the end of apartheid in South Africa. That the extremist communist party and ANC would genocide white people. It never happened. This is literally a talking point from ex apartheid South African president PW Botha he said the same nonsense:
“I am not prepared to lead white South Africans and other minority groups on a road to abdication and suicide,”
I don’t think most people in South Africa desire that or even want that. White people are a tiny minority in South Africa, 7% of the population, if the majority of the country wanted white people gone, it would’ve happened already. People just wanted apartheid to end and historic inequalities to be dealt with. The first already happened, the second is happening at a snails pace, if it’s even happening at all in some cases.
white folks who have had their brains rewired to justify the genocidal histories of their peoples always think genocide is the default, against all fucking evidence
This is also because the apartheid government caved under not only international but more important domestic pressure as they were perfectly aware that there would be civil war and mass bloodshed if they had not given in to reforms and the end of apartheid. It’s not clear what would have happened otherwise if, for instance, they had doubled down or intensified the apartheid system with even more extensive fascistic slave-labour in the 80s. As South Africa had an economic model that was descended from the settler-colonial plantation system, as seen, and utilized extensive unpaid (effectively slave) labor, it’s not unimaginable that if they’re pushed the system deeper then there would have been far more retaliatory bloodshed.
well also being apartheid, settler colonial states, that relied on US support and technical military dominance over neighbours, and that developed nuclear weapons on their own
Hi comrade. Not coming at you personally or aggressively but I feel I do have to come back pretty hard on this take.
The same words can be used in different contexts with different implications, and in the one case they can be correct, in another they can be wrong. The difference which makes your analogy not hold is that the ANC is not Hamas, and pretending otherwise is either confused or disingenuous. They are extremely different organizations. The ANC was a broad-tent organization that included conservatives, nationalists, reactionaries, and revolutionary socialists, notably communists (especially in the armed wing). The armed wing did carry out military operations obvs, but they did not have as a common or explicit policy the indiscriminate torture of unarmed children or torture. They never carried out actions like Hamas has done. Not least because they were sufficiently progressive to recognize that this would politically idiotic, given that the anti-apartheid cause was perceived as depending on foreign pressure on apartheid SA. It seems clear to me that the same applies to the Palestinian case, thought the problem if ofc that the situation is so fucked that the main organization capable and willing of waging armed resistance would not only be terrible for a Palestinian left’s growth in the long-run but could also lead to a regional destabilization which would be harmful for the left in the region more broadly and would likely only benefit Islamists. The actual idea situation would be another leftist-led Intifada, but this has been prevented by Israel, but is also not in the interest of either Hamas or the PA, as it would undermine their authority and power they possess thanks to Israel in Gaza and the West Bank respectively.
By contrast, Hamas are very different. The is evidence for Hamas being the way they are has been there since their inception. They are Islamists. They are extremely fascistic in their politics. They explicitly equate Jews and Israel frequently in their media and they are otherwise clear in their genocidal anti-semitism. Murdering children in their homes is not national-liberation. I’d also add that Hamas are not identical to Palestinians and their actions are not immediately identical with, though they are unfortunately the main military vehicle currently available for, the struggle for Palestinian liberation. Not only that, but Hamas have consistently proven throughout their existence that they do not desire full Palestinian liberation, otherwise they would not have run affairs in Gaza (to the extent they are able in an Israeli open-air concentration-camp) the way they have. This is in no way surprising, given that the interests of Islamists are no less inimical to those of actual working class and liberation movements than fascists and ultra-nationalists, though the latter might also find themselves in the inferior position in asymmetrical warfare with an imperialist power and at the military head of the movement against said imperialism.
Quite frankly, it is an insult to the South African liberation movement to equate them with Hamas, as opposed to the genuinely progressive aspects of the Palestinian liberation movement.
I do think it is important to note these profoundly reactionary aspects of Hamas, otherwise we end up with a blinkered, confused view of what is happening, which is not simply reducible to Hamas being or leading a progressive revolution in Gaza. That in no way changes the fact that the mass of Palestinians who are taking part in these operations are attempting to combat Israeli apartheid and genocide and defend themselves. They evidently feel they have no other choice. But neither does the latter point make Hamas a progressive organization who should be explicitly supported as the solution to Palestinians’ oppression.
The right and need of Palestinians to depend themselves does not, however, in any way imply that every organization that happens to be the means they can do it through now is ideal, good, progressive, or that that will benefit them in the long run. Palestinian Marxists and other groups have found themselves in a situation where they feel they have no option or choice other than to form a front with Hamas in this. The deeper reasons and processes that led to that decision are not entirely clear from outside. We can unequivocally support Palestinian liberation and their self-defense while recognizing that Hamas is otherwise reactionary and therefore will not be the ideal vehicle Also, frankly, I’m never going to support an organization that tortures gay people and throws their Marxist opponents off of rooftops. Unfortunately I’m a pessimist on the front of how the political situation will develop in the long-term as I think the situation’s possible developments are going to be catastrophic in any case, given the genocidal nature of the Israeli apartheid state, how profoundly reactionary Hamas are, and that the material conditions do not allow for the strength of a Communist movement. That would require more ideal conditions which are not to be found in Gaza, and I also don’t think will be brought closer by this current round of war. Israel does of course have ultimate responsibility for this as the genocidal apartheid occupying power, but reaction can bread reaction.
Not all national liberation movements are equal. Not all methods are politically or morally equal. People on this site seem to be able to make this realization in several other cases, such as with ostensibly ‘communist’ groups like the Khmer Rouge and Sendero Luminoso, yet unable to consistently make the same obvious realization in the case of groups in the middle east who’s interests are opposed to those of Western imperialism. There’s a deep and hysterical need among a lot of the western left, not only including but above all among those who are not Marxists but ultras of various types, to unequivocally identify Hamas with the Palestinian people and the cause of Palestinian Liberation with anything that Hamas does, which is a really bizarre and honestly perverse (especially in its reduction of Palestinians to Hamas) form of metaphysical argument by semantic shift of the meaning of the words being used, to make something appear to imply something which it actually does not.
The slightest glance at the history of the relationship of the USSR to national liberation movements makes clear that serious and intelligent socialists of the past who have actually held political power and had geopolitical relevance were perfectly aware that not all national liberation groups are politically equal. Their support was never unconditional, because they were not ultra edgelords on the internet. They were a serious geopolitical power with a specific socialist ideology, and their support was therefore conditional on there being a minimum of progressive aspects to the movements they supported. Of course, this did lead to cases of of questionable or debatable support (such as the Guomingdang or the Derg), and the case is even worse when we consider the CPC’s foreign policy. But that these were mistakes (if they were) is made clear by how they contradicted with the socialist principles which were explicitly underlying them in the minds of socialists politicians who determined foreign policy.
ANC would have looked a lot more like Hamas if the apartheid included putting every black person in a concentration camp for 70 years and randomly bombing them.
Who are you to judge humans that have been subjected to such a nightmare? To claim their fight is somehow tainted? This will end the moment Israel decides to take their boot off the neck of 2 million human beings.
Tbh, I’m not really sure what point you are making here (not trying to rude, so please feel free to clarify what the argument it).
Nowhere have I claimed that the Palestinian cause is tainted. Because I do not equate or identify the Palestinian movement with Hamas, and to do so is an external perspective.
You are correct that Israel bears ultimate responsibility for this. Yes the most important thing is that they stop the occupation. That’s not what this is about. Nor is it a judgment on the Palestinians or other Palestinian groups for feeling that they should, or have no choice but to, join a common front with Hamas. This is about perspective so that people don’t suddenly make the, frankly, stupid move of suddenly speaking of Hamas as if they are simply a progressive force. This is about recognizing that Hamas, precisely in virtue of who and what they are, will not be the ultimate force of Palestinian Liberation, and that in fact their interests are antithetical to it. The other groups also despise Hamas, and it’s important to ask why (not that they are necessarily great themselves). Because make no mistake, it is far from a given that these groups, let alone Palestinians in the West Bank or who are Arab Israeli citizens, are necessarily happy with this. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem also to be making the slip between ‘Hamas’ and ‘Palestinians’, when they are very far from the same thing. Do you think that every single Palestinian in Gaza is happy when they hear that Hamas has launched a new attack? It’s not that simple, even when, as we’ve seen, right now we see there is a display of general support among key groups, though again groups like the PA are also corrupt and do not speak for all Palestinians. But this is also as much a matter of maintaining legitimacy, because Hamas is dominant in Gaza and because now that Israel is launching a brutal attack and that it looks like they could be launching larger scale genocidal actions, especially once their military is more fully mobilized and they launch a ground operation into Gaza, there is naturally going to be a rallying against Israel, and that is justified, morally and politically.
Hamas were aware that that would happen. Hamas are perfectly aware that when they launch these kinds of attacks (made possible and caused ofc by Israel in the grand scheme of things), and Israel then attacks Gaza, this galvanizes support for them. Hamas are a product of Israel in more way than one. Also, and again, and I can’t stress this enough, as Islamists their political interests are not in the construction of a broad, radical, working-class movement which would launch another Intifada and force international powers to force Israel to a negotiating table to allow for a Palestinian state, as even if such a state were to be ruled by a national bourgeoisie, that would be preferable for the construction of Palestinian socialism to what they have now. Personally, i too would like a single, secular, state, but I also feel this is pie-in-the-sky idealism. Israel will never accept that, and neither will their imperialist backers. Nor will they accept a two state solution, as we know from their decades of sabotage of such an option. This is where my pessimism comes in, as the heydays of the secular Palestinian left of the 60s and 70s is gone, Israel is becoming more fascist by the day, and the main vehicle for armed opposition to Israel is Hamas. So I don’t see how this doesn’t even catastrophically. I don’t really see an opening for the left, except perhaps if a Palestinian left finds an opportunity to take prestige from Hamas, though the strength of religiosity makes this difficult, as does Hamas’ Islamism.
I feel like this is a point to try again to dispel some illusions some people are clearly in when they compare Hamas to groups like the ANC, the Vietcong. If anything they are like the FLN in Algeria. Now the FLN were completely fucked, vicious, ruthless and deeply reactionary, but they at least were attempting to construct a national bourgeois state with Islamist characteristics. I don’t think Hamas are even trying to do that honestly. And even if they were, they are not the ANC or the Vietcong, who were genuinely progressive movements of national liberation.
And again, it’s amazing to me that self-described communists are able to make the obvious realization that if ostensibly ‘communist’ groups like Sendero Luminoso or the Khmer Rouge, even when fighting anti-imperialist struggles (complicated in the case of the Khmer Rouge as they were supported clandestinely by the US for geopolitical Cold War reasons) or at least struggling to overthrow their national bourgeoisie, engage in widespread. Or to give another example: just because I support (or would have supported) unequivocally the Soviet struggle against Nazi Germany, would never in a trillion years say that the mass-sexual violence which occurred during the Soviet invasion of Nazi Germany was justified. That would be beyond depraved honestly, even though I understand that the men who did it had seen their country and families obliterated in the most depraved ways themselves. But revenge is not the basis of politics. That doesn’t mean it’s not always justified or permissible (like concentration camp survivors killing their guards), but I really don’t see how this is equivalent to killing children or unarmed workers intentionally.
Of course this situation is the result of where Palestinians have been pushed by Israel over the last 80 years. And yes. Intellectually I understand that. But that just a description. It’s not immediately a justification of anything. Nor does it establish by itself what the progressive form of political organization. For that the material conditions and the nature of the possible groups - such as Hamas - then has to be considered. I’m sure that if I saw my child die in front of my eyes due to an Israeli bomb, which I’m blessed enough to not have experienced, then I would want to do some pretty terrible shit to these people. Israeli guards and soldiers, when torturing Palestinians, have been known to joke that they’re like the Gestapo. It’s no surprise that this breeds desire for extremely violent retaliation. But jumping from that to what I’ve seen some people saying, namely ‘anything goes, the babies/kids have it coming’ or that that is politically or morally justified is a completely illogical leap no matter which way you spin it. And frankly that should be obvious. That is not a guide to thinking about what kind of political organization in Palestine is going to lead to Palestinian Liberation. In any case, I’m pretty sure that it’s not Hamas.
By-the-bye, the South African government did engage in militaristic repressions of its population, massacres, forced displacements, ethnic cleansing, torture, rape, terror, slavery. There was armed resistance, but the form this took was very different to Hamas. It was based on progressive movements, whereas Hamas is not.
Also, this is not a question about violence as such. Violence is necessary for the revolution. I wish it wasn’t but it is. When a Palestinian kills an Israeli soldier attacking their home, my heart cheers for them. But that’s not the same thing as an Islamist militant taking someone’s children hostage and raping and murdering the women. Hamas would cut our heads off in a heartbeat. And this is not an idle point that’s somehow irrelevant in some grand geopolitical third-worldist strategy. They are Islamists. They do not care about our revolution and their success, even Thinking the political math is that simple is naive. If it weren’t, then groups like the Khmer Rouge would have been justified. This is not an idle or moralistic point because not all forms of organization or methods are politically equal. Not least because the moral qualities they have does affect how politically effective they are going to be. The indiscriminate killing of unarmed women and children is not going to serve the cause of Palestinian Liberation. Now on the one hand I admit there’s a sense of comeuppance to the blowback Israel is seeing, such as at the attacked rave. The rave, with plenty of well-off Israelis who live off the fruits of apartheid, rolling on ecstasy next to an open-air prison camp - from which, apparently, the rave’s music could actually be heard - is obviously completely depraved. But this is cruel emotion of mine. Not a guide to politics or ethics.
Really? Your stance is “decolonization sounds complicated, let’s just let Israel genocide millions of people”? As other posters have said, send any dual citizens back to their country of origin, remove settlers from Palestinian land, end the siege of gaza, take down the wall and machine guns, prosecute IDF war criminals, and dissolve the criminal entity that is Israel. Will it be bloodless and free of violence? Of course not, I’m not naive, but the genocide of Palestinians will be much more bloody than any decolonization process
i most certainly can. the instigator of violence always has the option to not continue and to make reparations. israelis are only targets for violence so long as they make life intolerable for palestinians.
And there is no where that would accept the Gaza population as refugees even if you could get them to leave.
So what’s left?
Did you just end your lengthy support of Israeli genocide with "No one wants them anyway, so what else is there but to kill them?" Because it sure sounded like that.
After the self inflicted Reddit apocalypse hit, /r/all was suddenly full of shit subs, among which all the "am I ugly" attention whore ones and several Indian ones.
And I have to say, those subs do not give me a particularly positive view of the Indian people.
Yeah that may be true, but this is an old subreddit with basically news articles about BJP (ruling party lead by Modi) spokespersons saying dumb things in public.
worldnews
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.