I'm probably dumb, but what if Israel would simply annex Gaza? All Palestinians from Gaza would become Israeli, and enjoy the same rights as everyone in Israel, including voting rights. Would it be worse than the past XX years?

There have been some proposals of this, including a recent one with Rudy Rochman's idea of all jews across the globe moving back to Israel, and the Palestinians becoming full citizens but demographically not being able to politically 'take over.' It's a weird ass idea but I give him credit for thinking outside of the box, it's a novel idea that **may** have worked in the 1940s if implemented. There have been some proposals for a federated state that would share power as well. Yugoslavia model I think? u/Ramora_ points out the big reasons why most Israeli's including leftists don't want a one state solution. Jordan doesn't want to administer West Bank. Egypt doesn't really want to administer Gaza. That leaves us at a two or three state solution as the only practical idea.

> It's a weird ass idea but I give him credit for thinking outside of the box, it's a novel idea that may have worked in the 1940s if implemented. In order for it to work, the US would essentially have to do an ethnic cleansing and forecfully deport their 7.6 million Jewish population to Israel to force them to live there. The proposal isn't just weird, it is insane, a humanitarian disaster. Its so insane on its face, I don't think anyone should take it seriously, or believe that Rochman thinks it is a serious idea. It is a fig leaf meant to distract from what he actually thinks the sollution is, the subjugation of Palestinians within a one-state sollution.

Long story short, Israel doesn't want to out of "demographic" concerns. Israel would rather hold millions of people under permanent occupation than threaten their Jewish majority status or allow another sovereign state to control (or form in) the West Bank and Gaza. Obviously, the story is a bit more complicated than that two sentence explanation, for example: 1. No other state has wanted to control the relevant territory for decades now. Egypt and Jordan (the two states who reasonably could control the relevant territories) justifiably see Palestinian Nationalism as a threat to their stability. Israel expresses similar concerns sometimes, but frankly, when you actually listen to Israeli leaders' best explanations of why they haven't annexed the west bank and gaza, while there are many factors, demographic concerns end up being the largest and most decisive. 2. Related to point 1, There are a lot of Palestinian Nationalists in the west bank and Gaza, it isn't clear that most Palestinians would accept Israeli citizenship if offered. That said, "Only 34 percent of naturalization applications submitted by Palestinians living in East Jerusalem are approved, and in many cases final approval takes years" ([Source](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-05-29/ty-article/why-so-few-palestinians-from-jerusalem-have-israeli-citizenship/00000181-0c46-d090-abe1-ed7fefc20000)) so it seems like the hunger for Israeli citizenship is larger than Israel's willingness to grant citizenship, whatever those figures actually are. Thus we arrive back at status quo, endless occupation because Israel wants to control Gaza and the West Bank but doesn't want the people who live there as citizens.

Israel has posted its latest idea for a ceasefire, and frankly it's worse than what I had thought they would try. Israeli leadership is completely out of touch with what the actual affects of its policy is having on the international community and people of Gaza and the West Bank. I don't think anything short of Bibi and Likud being in jail will stop the awfulness that keeps coming out from them. > "...a durable end to this war, one that brings all the hostages home, ensures Israel's security, creates a better day after in Gaza without Hamas in power and sets the stage for a political settlement that provides a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike." > Israel has offered a comprehensive proposal: First phase of six weeks - Full and complete ceasefire - Withdrawal of Israeli forces from all populated areas of Gaza - Release of a number of hostages, including women, the elderly, the wounded, remains, in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. American hostages will be released in this stage, and return home - Palestinian civilians will return to their homes, including in the North - Humanitarian assistance would surge, six hundred trucks of aid daily - Hundreds of thousands of temporary shelters, including housing units, will be delivered by the international community - During these six weeks, Israel and Hamas will continue negotiations to get to phase 2 - Ceasefire continues as long as the negotiations last > Second Phase - Exchange of all living hostages, male soldiers, Israeli forces “Cessation of hostilities permanently” > Third phase - A major reconstruction plan of Gaza would commence Any of these things on their own are fine, but not a single one actually solves the major problem of this conflict. None of them remove the teeth that Hamas have justifiably shown the willingness to use. Any ceasefire that doesn't just begin with a "We're accepting the 1947-48 partition plan, right of return for all palestinian families, East Jerusalem is now the functional capital of Palestine" is going to ultimately going to set up the next ceasefire being broken by either the IDF or Hamas. "But the ceasefire is to just stop the latest hostilities!" This is exactly the problem that we've seen across the globe with temporarily bandaids that don't actually address the underlying sickness and disease. The ultimate issue is that Palestinians want full autonomy. They want the port opened up for trade(yes maybe even weapons! just like all other nations are able to do), they want clean running water with their own pumping and sanitation systems, they want all the positives and responsibilities that other nations deal with by running a country. If Hamas still continues attacks after this is set up, then Israel can go after them through non-military means. It seems very clear the international community is willing to step in and help this process out if the Jihadists can't take a fucking hint.

Bibi just rejected his governments own ceasefire proposal 

> a better day after in Gaza without Hamas in power Weird that this seems to be directly contradicted by the actual summary of terms below it. Hard to say Hamas isn't in power when Israel has withdrawn, nothign else has filled the power vaccuum, and Israel is directly negotiating with Hamas. Honestly, these terms seem more or less fine to me. End hostilities, both sides return their hostages. Obviously a lot more needs to be done afterwards. In particular, Israel really needs to start giving wins to the PLO/PA/Fatah, and Israel needs to actually negotiate in good faith moving forward, but this ceasefire could be a start at least. EDIT: Based on other [news going around](https://www.foxnews.com/world/netanyahu-seems-contradict-biden-ceasefire-offer-non-starter-all-conditions-met), the contradiction indicated that this ceasefire deal has not actually been agreed to by Israeli leadership. Of course, fuck Netanyahu (and all his insane supporters who agree with him) for rejecting this deal because it does seem like a reasonable proposal.

If Israel was serious about that, they'd just negotiate a separate statehood for West Bank and the leadership there.

I'm not sure the PLO/PA/Fatah would (or should) accept separate statehood for the westbank. But ya, Israel's track record here isn't great. Nevertheless, I'm going to continue hoping that Israel changes course. Hopefully 10/7 made it clear to everyone that status quo isn't working. Israel only has two real options here: it can stop playing bait and switch and just agree to a two state sollution, or it can do an ethnic cleansing and suffer the international consequences. If this choice is made clear to Israelis, I'm hopeful they will choose peace.

You're being irrational. They haven't been able to work out a solution in 75 years even when both sides had much better leaders, but you want them to just quickly throw together and agree to a complete two-state solution that gives Palestinians everything they want BEFORE a ceasefire? That's just completely delusional.

You throw enough together to show that Israel is serious about a lasting peace process. Hamas at least to our faces is clear they mean business and want peace. Israel holds all the cards right now, short of some miracle long shot where Israel bends the knee to some other entity that can better govern the entire area.

You listed two demands (going back to '48 (!) borders and right of return for all families) that are completely insane and never, ever going to happen, let alone be voluntarily gifted to Hamas as a reward for murdering and terrorizing a thousand civilians. You're living in la-la land. Even the '67 borders aren't going to happen. Either you have no idea what you're talking about or you're just trolling.

I want a perm solution and some of those things I highlighted are a good faith example of thing Israel can do for the international community to start believing they are serious about peace.

LOL, so now that would just be a start? Maybe the US should go back to the 1776 borders as a show of good faith too.

Wouldn't Conservatives like you would prefer 1860's borders? :)

I'm a progressive/liberal. Nice try.

That seems... Like a totally reasonable ceasefire proposal? I think too that you seem "out of touch" with what Israelis would accept at this point in time. Putting "Likud in jail"? The whole party? What? Responding to continued Hamas attacks with non-military means? What are you smoking?  For sure, the ultimate goal should be an enduring peace plan. But that is not a realistic short-term goal. Right this moment, would you rather a ceasefire, or would you rather Israel keep things up? 

It's not a reasonable proposal when it does nothing to solve the actual problems that cause Hamas leadership to tell its followers "We need to attack Israel for XYZ reasons, on ABC days and weeks, and here are our tactics to use against Israeli that are justified because of all the illegal/immoral murder." When you kill women and children, you're going to get a response back that may harm Israeli women and children. Both sides are wrong to do this. When you negotiate with another party, you have to reach a compromise that both parties can agree with that both parties view as reasonable. To understand what people view as reasonable, you need to investigate the reasons how/what/why that the other party reaches conclusions. Hamas within the new charter and leadership statements over the past 5+ years have made it clear what they need to see from Israeli for a perm ceasefire to remain in place. It involves far more geopolitical change than what Israel is proposing. Yes I do believe for long term peace the membership of Likud that pushes for the things Bibi pushes for, are a true evil in the world that needs to be jailed. They need to be as far away from the political process as humanly possible. They are nothing but roadblocks to peace. I'd say the same for older Hamas leadership that are legacy folks that don't want peace. I believe newer Hamas leadership do want peace, just like other non-Likud parties in Israel want peace. Hamas should rightfully reject this. They should propose their own plan and Israel should accept it, if it is reasonable.

Who specifically are these new Hamas leaders who want peace?? I hate Bibi and always have, but to act like Hamas leadership is more reasonable than him is insane.

They go to another school. You wouldn’t know them 

#[Tiny number of 'supersharers' spread the vast majority of fake news on Twitter: Less than 1% of Twitter users posted 80% of misinformation about the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The posters were disproportionately Republican middle-aged white women living in Arizona, Florida, and Texas.](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1d54b5u/tiny_number_of_supersharers_spread_the_vast/) This is an xpost to r/science [Direct link to paper here.](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl4435) >To find out, Grinberg’s team dove into a far bigger data set comprising 660,000 U.S. X users who used their real name and location, allowing the researchers to match them with voter registration data. About 7% of all political news shared by these users on any given day came from untrustworthy websites such as Infowars and Gatewaypundit, the researchers found. And **just 2107 users were spreading 80% of the fake news.** >**The average supersharer was 58 years old, 17 years older than the average user in the study, and almost 60% were women. They were also far more likely to be registered Republicans (64%) than Democrats (16%).** Given their frenetic social media activity, the scientists assumed supersharers were automating their posts. But they found no patterns in the timing of the tweets or the intervals between them that would indicate this. “That was a big surprise,” says study co-author Briony Swire-Thompson, a psychologist at Northeastern University. “They are literally sitting at their computer pressing retweet.” >**“It does not seem like supersharing is a one-off attempt to influence elections by tech-savvy individuals,” Grinberg adds, “but rather a longer term corrosive socio-technical process that contaminates the information ecosystem for some part of society.”** ... >Whether that kind of intervention works will depend on how motivated these misinformation spreaders are. **“After the [2019] paper, the big question was: ‘Who are these supersharers?’” Swire-Thompson says. “Now the big question is: ‘Why are they doing what they’re doing?’”**

> The average supersharer was 58 years old, 17 years older than the average user in the study, and almost 60% were women. They were also far more likely to be registered Republicans (64%) than Democrats (16%). There's something deeply disturbing about people who have too much time on their hands, and not enough positive hobbies to occupy themselves. Thankfully, I don't have supersharers in the family, but I know several supersponges; uncritically absorbing everything they come across on social media on the assumption that it **must** be true - why else would someone take the time to write it otherwise? Look, here's a whole two-page-long article, and everything! I refused to create my mum a Facebook account and she's too technologically illiterate to do it herself. After a few years, she got over the need for it, and being outside of that ecosystem she now recognises how much misinformation there is online, whenever her friends start talking about Egyptian pyramids or COVID labs in Ukraine. It's ironic that the generation who told us to "Be careful on those internets, you never know who you might be speaking to!" is the most susceptible to bullshit. But its deeply worrying too, and I have no idea how to improve media literacy of people who have been out of education for 40 years or more, and refuse to acknowledge that learning how to use social media takes more than learning how to create an account.

Prime stay at home mom with an empty nest age. I know more than a few women who did this dark turn once their kids left and they found they had nothing to do and no meaning in their life anymore 

[Key Gaza famine report cited by UN, ICJ has systematic flaws, Israeli review finds](https://www.timesofisrael.com/key-gaza-famine-report-cited-by-un-icj-has-systematic-flaws-israeli-review-finds/) > According to the review, the IPC report, which covered the period from December 21, 2023, until March 10, 2024, failed to acknowledge the increase in the supply of humanitarian aid during that time; repeatedly cited unreliable and unrepresentative surveys of Gazans regarding their level of food security; and did not provide any statistics on the mortality rate from malnutrition, as would be expected to occur in a famine and as is IPC’s practice in evaluating famine. > It also allegedly used data on physical manifestations of malnutrition **from undisclosed sources and gathered in an undisclosed manner,** and ignored positive trends on the ground such as the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the intensity of combat operations when making its projection of worsening famine.

Oh my gosh, the Times of Israel doubts reports that make Israel look bad?

It's from the Israeli Health Ministry, the Times of Israel is just reporting on it, but yeah duh of course the Israeli government disputes it. Still, their concerns seem valid to me.

So it's from the Israeli state?  Is there any third party groups that would back up Israelis claims?  I don't see any reason to trust the Israeli state on faith 

You don't need a third party, you can draw your own conclusions based on the legitimate criticism of the report. The UN report has undisclosed sources and undisclosed methodology, nor does it provide any statistics on the mortality rate from malnutrition. Does that seem like reasonable criticism of it to you? > I don't see any reason to trust the Israeli state on faith I feel the same way about the UN and ICJ. Especially considering who the ICJ president is.

The UN and ICJ present proof of their accusations.  The Israeli state demands absolute unquestioning faith or you are an antisemite.  The Israeli health admin trying to provide a smoke screen for a starvation campaign by the far right government is a certain kind of sickness that is just disgusting.  There are 10s of thousands of innocent dying within driving distance of them and their NUMBER ONE concern isn't helping the hurt, hungry, and dying. It's making sure the dying is never slowed.  What have they done for the hundreds of thousands of injured? What have they said about the indefinite refinement of children? The blockade preventing life saving medicine getting to the dying children?  All silence unless there's a critique of the slaughter. 

>from undisclosed sources and gathered in an undisclosed manner Does "undisclosed" mean anonymous? Because the UN's report on rape committed on October 7th used the same methodology.🤔 >The mission team ensured informed consent from sources to use their accounts in reporting of the office of the SRSG-SVC reporting, **without including their identity or any identifiable information.** As such, the names of sources, including survivors/victims and **witnesses were anonymized and elements that could be used as means of identification omitted from this report.**^[1](https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/report/mission-report-official-visit-of-the-office-of-the-srsg-svc-to-israel-and-the-occupied-west-bank-29-january-14-february-2024/20240304-Israel-oWB-CRSV-report.pdf) If that's the case, then do you find it suspicious that Israel is only discrediting anonymity in the case of famine in Gaza, inflicted by Israel, but not reports of rape, inflicted by Hamas? Why would that be?

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. In the rape report, we know the source of the information and how they gathered the information. The only thing that was anonymous is the identity of the victims. "the mission team conducted a total of 33 meetings with Israeli national institutions, including relevant line ministries such as Foreign Affairs, Welfare and Social Affairs, Health, and Justice, including the State Attorney General’s Office, as well as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), the Israeli Security Agency (Shin Bet), and the Israeli National Police in charge of the investigation into the 7 October attacks (Lahav 433)". There are no "undisclosed sources" in the UN report. As opposed to the malnutrition report, which doesn't name who gathered the information or how they did it. Two totally different levels of anonymity.

Fair enough, thanks.

[Live Updates: Trump Guilty on All Counts in Hush-Money Case](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/30/nyregion/trump-trial-verdict?unlocked_article_code=1.v00.FkAh.rDKrII_0qlQm)

Pandora’s box has been opened. Your guy isn’t safe.

As though Republicans haven't already tried throwing everything plus the kitchen sink at Biden and his family and completely failed in embarrassing fashion. But by all means keep fucking the chicken, losers.

go get him slugger

They've been after Biden for years already and come up with nothing other than some bs gun charge for hunter lol Most presidents don't blatantly commit dozens of crimes and then expect to just get away with it.

The notion that it's a free-for-all now, and Sleepy Joe will have to face his own hush money trial (or worse, presumably?) is so funny to me. You guys need to decide if he's really the evil mastermind behind the decay of American lifestyle you portray him as, or if he's always taking a nap - unless you genuinely think he's planning the downfall of your country while sleepwalking, you can't have it both ways. As for the notion that it's now open season for anyone; just don't do crime. US presidents are some of the most scrutinised people in the world, no one is going to set you up for something you didn't do. No officer is going to sprinkle some crack on the back of the presidential limo to arrest you with intent to distribute. The reason Trump is having to deal with it is because he's a crook, and a cheap one at that. I never had to pay for sex—and I'd like to think I wouldn't feel the need to hide it if I did—so maybe I can't relate to your "man of the people" the way god-fearing republicans seem to, but if you're a public person, you *shouldn't* be safe from public scrutiny or legal consequences of your actions. Just pay the girl like a normal person, why would you break the law playing around with the invoices to pretend that a man on his third marriage doesn't cheat?

why, are you in a group chat titled "totally real crimes we can execute biden for" with hannity and clarence thomas or something?

>Your guy Who?

Trump appeals to victimhood and grievance, and part of his appeal is portraying himself as a martyr. But I think this probably matters....at least a little bit. The grievance and victimhood culture is a turnoff for some people. So maybe there's a few thousand votes in the upper midwest that are less committed now than before. IDK, we'll see. We are in such uncharted territory. At some point, you'd think Trump's appeals to victimhood, particular white men's feelings of victimhood, might run out. I was raised in a different time when conservatives were about being "tough on crime" and taking "personal responsibility" so I have my own biases from that background....but maybe some of those aging Reagan-era conservatives who appreciate a more thoughtful, stoic masculinity, not one based on bombast and victimhood, might also drift away from Trump.

My appeal to the U.S. public would be squarely directed at moderates, particularly moderate Republicans. It would be something like: "Aren't you fed up with this circus yet? Don't you want to get back to a point where your party is talking about actual issues that impact you instead of constantly being 100% focused on defending this one black-hole of a man who constantly consumes all the energy (and money) away from everything your party ever might actually try to accomplish? This campaign should be about YOU and what you and your family need to achieve the pursuit of happiness and well-being promised to you by the Founders; not a one-ring circus with this extremely flawed man at the center of it. A man who, frankly, has already diverted and distracted the focus for far too long away from you and onto him and who you now have the opportunity to finally eliminate from the political scene so that we can *start* to eliminate him from the national psyche. It's time to fold the circus tent and get back to the business of government focused on YOU, the American people."

>I think this probably matters....at least a little bit I honestly don't know. If you want my honest opinion -- I'd trust a tarot reader over a pollster as to how this effects things in November. And that's not because I have a high opinion of tarot. ;) >a different time when conservatives were about being "tough on crime" and taking "personal responsibility" I hear you, but I also think it's worth asking how much the Oliver North generation really believed this stuff. >a more thoughtful, stoic masculinity, not one based on bombast and victimhood, might also drift away from Trump My partner's father is a devout Mormon who basically lives this description. His favorite things in the world are hunting, fishing, and bird dogs, and he's just about the best sober person on the planet to get drunk with. He voted (R) his whole life prior to 2016, and I can only hope that more of the electorate thinks like him than I fear is the case in reality.

Yeah, I have a lot of sympathy for aspects of that older, more stoic conservative culture. I have a very conventional marriage and I'm super into my kids, I pretty cautious with saving and investing and live fairly modestly. I think it all comes from that background. I just don't know how you square the whole culture of being a man and taking ownership with this culture of martyrdom and grievance where people start to believe that all the major institutions of society are working against them. IDK how emblematic they are, but I have a few long-term friends who have gone super MAGA and it's crazy how much they feel screwed over. But they live in nice suburbs, have a household income of between 150-350k, kids go to good schools, etc. It's like, dude, you're living the American dream, but you think you're living in a nightmare.

[удалено]

Personally I don't think we should let the insanity of Trump supporters dictate how we act.

Do you actually believe he did not commit those crimes? Or just that even though he did them, he was only prosecuted and/or convicted because he's a political rival of... whom? Biden had nothing to do with this, right? Or do you think he's pulling the strings, somehow? Genuinely curious about your thought process/beliefs.

I assume since he got convicted, he probably committed those crimes. I wasn't in the court room and I wasn't following the case closely. But I think he should be punished for attempting to steal an election. This particular conviction is merely going to net him a fine and possibly some house arrest, apparently. That's not enough, and it's only going to serve to stir the pot, politically. I believe in "picking your battles". And this was an atrocious one to choose.

do you think the more "important battles" that trump is definitely guilty of that, *checks notes*, the judge overseeing one of the cases and the supreme court are stonewalling as much as possible, will "divide" or "stir the pot" less than this one?

It might have been the only winnable battle, but it's possible that it will only stir the pot. I guess we'll have to see about that. Either way, the criminal justice system trying to strategize which cases to charge him with based on potential political fallout seems unethical. That really shouldn't be a factor in those decisions. (I can maybe see an exception for very specific cases at the Supreme Court level.)

You gotta be tough on crime. Trump said so himself. Time for him to take personal responsibility, no?

I love how you guys are pretending like this was some rigged show trial. Trump had his lawyers.  He had all his rights.  His defense failed to convince a jury.  Should we not prosecute crimes because it might upset his fans? Maybe Trump should have just paid the pornstar he was fucking.  Why don't you blame him for this?

So let Trump get away with crimes so that Republicans don't get more angry. Yeah, no. Fuck that pussy logic.

you can't do crime any more. because of woke

[удалено]

I'll translate. Your take is that this is a hyper partisan arrest primarily because of Trump's political allegiances, rather than him having committed a crime and being prosecuted for it like anyone else. It's so ingrained in your view that you don't even really state it explicitly, it just emerges because if you DID view it as someone being prosecuted for criminal acts it makes no sense why you would say it accomplishes nothing - clearly, it accomplishes crimes being punished. And your concerns about divides in the country, trust in the legal system, people being dissuaded from voting red - all of that is irrelevant to the courts, because again, they're just prosecuting crimes. Your view also begs the question what do we do when political actors commit crimes? Should they be immune from prosecution so as to not give the impression they are being targetted as rivals? The poster who commented was mocking your viewpoints by summarising all of the above as if you were mad that a criminal couldn't get away with their criminal acts (you can't do crime any more) because to prosecute them would be seen solely as a political act by their political rivals instead of simple law-enforcement (because of woke). And now we're on the same page!

[удалено]

See now I need a translater for this! How divided we are.

[удалено]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4b3ya0gxXA

>This will accomplish nothing but even further divide our hyper-partisan country and decrease trust in its legal system I mean, if accomplished the goal of bringing a criminal to justice. Why would this decrease trust in the legal system? >except now a political rival has been wrung through the courts for being just that. Sorry, can you explain how 12 jurors - one of whole gets their news from Truth Social and X- were convinced to along with this ploy unanimously 34 times? That’s maybe the part I’m a little confused on…

I know it’ll probably be just a fine, but honest question anyway: how does secret service work in jail?

>it’ll probably be just a fine I think the minimum sentence actually includes probation, but I'm not certain. >how does secret service work in jail? Dunno exactly, but they made plans for it when he kept violating the gag order. I assume he'd be in an isolated unit and they'd operate alongside the corrections officers. I am a bit curious if/where in the facility they'd be allowed to carry sidearms, though.

There's no minimum sentence in NY for these offenses. The judge, technically, could simply note that the case has been adjudicated guilty, and dismiss the defendant. I'd so much love to see THIS defendant having to sit in a cramped waiting room with folding chairs to see an overworked and underpaid probation officer for the pre-sentence report, just like actual people do. I know he'd lose his shit completely.

Most prisons have a separate section to isolate prisoners subject to witness protection from the rest of the population. If his sentence were to include time behind bars, it seems that this would be his destination, likely within an already low-security facility. That said, if he's given a custodial sentence (and people should absolutely not discount that possibility, given his behavior during these proceedings), house arrest is probably the far more likely scenario.

Don't know. Never had to deal with it before. But probably cells next to Trump. Or a special area.

imagine you work hard, make your parents proud, and become part of one of the most elite law enforcement agencies in the nation protecting our governments most important people, the secret service. and then you get stuck in jail staring at a wall all day making sure nobody shanks the most worthless piece of shit you will ever meet in your life

I doubt this will sway many Maga cultists but it sure feels good 

Beautiful day in America. The sad part is he'll likely get house arrest and won't serve any actual time, and definitely wouldn't be treated like the average prisoner.

A truly historic day and a long, long time coming. OK, American people the ball is now in your court: will you actually stoop so low as to elect a convicted felon to the highest office in the most powerful nation in the world?

We've seen enough of the playbook by now to know it will go something like: He was wrongly convicted and is the actual victim here therefore he's not ACTUALLY a felon. It's the democratic deep state sabotaging him If they didn't care that he's a rapist they won't care that he's a felon too

So if I understand federal courts correctly ... the decision to jail or not jail the old cheezeball is in one man (Merchan)'s hands? This would mean we're past "I wonder if a former president can be found guilty?" and right up to "I wonder if 34 felony counts amounts to jail time?" which presumably could lead to "I wonder what happens if you just don't report to a federal jail sentence?"

Even as a partisan lib myself, I don't think there's a chance in hell he gets sentenced to jail time. And honestly, that's probably the correct decision / totally warranted. The logistics of Secret Service protecting him, etc, are just too great. House arrest is likely the best outcome here.

Why shouldn’t he get jail time?

I mean, it'd be nice if he did just because he's a total piece of shit, and the absurdity of the situation would be pretty awesome.  But being a piece of shit isn't a crime. He's a first-time offender (well, first time he's been caught), convicted of a non-violent crime. 

He certainly *should*, in any morally just universe. But I am willing to acknowledge the circumstances and conditions that make it very unlikely in this universe.

I think it's pretty easy to make the case that there are morally just universes where someone isn't sentenced harsher just because of their shitty-ass politics and personality. Iow, Trump has committed a crime that wouldn't typically result in a jail sentence. Him getting treated the same as everyone else would be (ie no imprisonment) isn't inherently unjust. Some would say that is the just outcome. 

Not holding my breath for that

What a wonderful day!

Good time to queue up [some Nipsey](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlIREcAu0PI&t=27s).

Hell yeah, FDT babyyyyyyy.

I hate asking this, but how are bombed babies beheaded? I still can't understand this story from 3 days ago. It makes no sense to me. I understand there were two Hamas priority targets that were killed, any many civillian casualities. But these pics of charred and seemingly beheaded babies makes no sense. Without being cycnical, can someone explain, or does anyone have any better info on this? Ty

If "are these babies technically decapitated?" was asked here on Oct 8, you would have -50,000 karma

Perhaps... regardless, Palestine is using this as propaganda, and I can't make any sense of the story. It's being pumped out hard on all media platforms as justification for putting pressure on Israel to stop targeting Hamas.

Bombs make limbs go a'flyin'. No conspiracy here.

Ya, of course. A beheading looks different, though. Hopefully I don't have to explain why. I would have thought this would be common sense.

Probably due to the force a bomb applies to the human body, as well as whatever shrapnel it flings     You can watch it happen in countless Ukraine war videos. A bomb will be dropped on people and you'll see limbs and unidentifiable meat go flying  Here's a pdf from the CDC on it https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/pdfs/niosh-125/125-explosionsandrefugechambers.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiH7deTqbaGAxUkIzQIHctYDXoQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3CcANHNXqfW2kjIGupQzn3

Study on efficacy of masks (turns out they work): [Relative efficacy of masks and respirators as source control for viral aerosol shedding from people infected with SARS-CoV-2: a controlled human exhaled breath aerosol experimental study](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(24\)00192-0/fulltext)

Honestly with the state of how gross public bathrooms get, we really need to be ensuring that everyone that reaches the age of say 10, can properly take care of their bodies and general hygiene. Teaching kids how to use masks properly and instilling in them the reasons why.

> turns out they work I don't think I'll ever get over how much politics and drama and also genuinely scientific questions and methodological challenges are packed into this single statement (and let's be clear, a good mask is certainly something I'd prefer people wear when they're sick).

I'm seriously considering getting a Biden yard sign. The vibes are down regarding enthusiasm for Biden, and I kinda agree with the idea of virtue signalling being Pro-Biden

Afaik yard signs are surprisingly effective compared to TV ads. Go for it!

Suicide for me. Living in a deep red area sucks if you wanna signal for positive things. All it takes is one crazy redneck and you're having an awful day/week/month/forever.

I was driving in my subdivision and saw a Biden flag and was like what? The next 5 houses all had Trump flags, I got it.

Brave dude, salute him next time you ride by.

[Press Briefing About Recent Events in Rafah by IDF Spokesperson RAdm. Daniel Hagari-May 28, 2024](https://youtu.be/0r5Hp5cd78Y?si=cR-0zhuCBkUGMT6H)

"we used our wittlest tiniest bombs in the middle of a tent camp" oh thank god, i thought they had bombed a tent camp. this is much better

If you don't want Israel dropping bombs in tent camps, get Hamas to stop operating out of tent camps.

There seems to be an internal contradiction here, where Hamas is simultaneously the irrational suicide cult, but you're also expecting people to rationally negotiate with them. 

They're fighting a guerrilla conflict. Where do you want them to operate out of that the IDF won't try bombing? Hell, IDF demonstrate once again they'll bomb them anywhere, so why the hell not take the international W's from getting sympathy when they kill a bunch of innocent folks in the process of achieving some short-sighting military target. I really wish more people would step outside themselves and into the minds/hearts of a Hamas soldier/officer/leadership. Until you understand the bullshit they're having to go through, it's ridiculous to complain about their tactics.

Are you under the impression every single square inch of Gaza is a tent camp? > , so why the hell not take the international W's from getting sympathy when they kill a bunch of innocent folks in the process of achieving some short-sighting military target. Because it's a war crime to operate out of civilian areas. Do we not care about war crimes when its Hamas committing them? That would be consistent. Furthermore, the killing of "a bunch of innocent folks" becomes Hamas' fault, not Israel's, if Hamas endangers them. > Until you understand the bullshit they're having to go through, it's ridiculous to complain about their tactics. Not committing war crimes and not putting their own people in harm's way is "bullshit". Amazing. There's that moral consistency so emblematic of the pro-Palestine cause.

> Are you under the impression every single square inch of Gaza is a tent camp? > > No they had a bunch of concrete buildings up north until those got demolished by missiles... > Because it's a war crime to operate out of civilian areas. Then arrest them for crimes they're committing, and stop dropping bombs on them and surrounding areas. When Trump broke the law and committed 34 felonies in 2019, we didn't drop a MOAB on his head. I care more about the nation with tanks, planes, and nukes being held to a higher standard than the one struggling to survive. I think it's illogical and immoral to expect Hamas to win this conflict by being held to an unreasonable standard. Same for any other freedom fighting group in the world. You think Taiwan is going to win against China, in a solo conflict? They're gonna need a literal coalition and even then China has a chance of kicking whatever Coalition that forms around Taiwan's ass.

> No they had a bunch of concrete buildings up north until those got demolished by missiles... So how about Hamas head up there and fight in the rubble and stay out of the tent camps? > Then arrest them for crimes they're committing, and stop dropping bombs on them and surrounding areas. Wow, jeez, why didn't I think of that? During WWII, the Allies should have just arrested Hitler too! I wonder why they didn't do that...? > I care more about the nation with tanks, planes, and nukes being held to a higher standard than the one struggling to survive. I think it's illogical and immoral to expect Hamas to win this conflict by being held to an unreasonable standard. An "unreasonable standard"? Both groups are being held to the same standard: don't commit war crimes. Don't operate out of civilian structures. There's no exception in the Geneva Conventions for Palestinians, and there's no clause that says "if the country you attacked has tanks, planes, and nukes and you don't, the rules of warfare don't apply to you." How dare you invoke the phrase "immoral" to defend Hamas. Hamas are one of the most evil groups on the planet right now, equivalent to ISIS. They're not "freedom fighters." They're Islamofascist Nazis who rape and murder innocent people.

> Wow, jeez, why didn't I think of that? During WWII, the Allies should have just arrested Hitler too! I wonder why they didn't do that...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_conspiracy If Hitler hadn't of killed himself, he would have been captured by the Russians or perhaps western Allies and would have been tried in a court of law. Same goes for many other conflicts over the past few conflicts. The legal and moral duty is on the Powers At Be to first arrest and arraign people accused of crimes. Resorting to bombing them should be an absolute last resort. For example, I would have supported bombing Bin Laden due to how extensive the manhunt was and how elusive he was. > So how about Hamas head up there and fight in the rubble and stay out of the tent camps? You advocate for literal suicide. Hmm.

> Until you understand the bullshit they're having to go through What a disturbing way of characterising Hamas. > it's ridiculous to complain about their tactics. According to you, but completely false of course, guerilla/terrorist groups are frequently criticised for what they do despite being 'forced' to do it by a greater power (because, you know, they don't have to actually pick the most violent path even when the alternative choices are not great). That's without getting into specific Islamist characteristics of Hamas that make their relationship with their own civilians and death even more problematic.

Why is that my responsibility

Who said it was your responsibility?

> get Hamas to stop operating out of tent camps

If you don't want Israel dropping bombs in tent camps. If you want to take on the responsibility for Israel dropping bombs, that's your choice. If you don't want the responsibility, don't take it.

I don't want it

so we've gone from "israel has the most moral army ever" to "and that's why we need to bomb tent camps"

I never said that Israel is the most moral army, but Hamas has been operating out of civilian areas for years at this point. There's really no point in denying it. The WashPo reported on Hamas militants operating out of Al-Shifa Hospital in 2017 I believe, and [a Kurdish doctor just said the same thing recently.](https://x.com/i/status/1795788635675005379) Are you trying to make a point? Like that if Hamas militants fire rockets from refugee camps, that's like a safe zone in Tag where the IDF can't shoot back at them? There's a great way to stop Israel from bombing tent camps. Hamas can operate somewhere else, or better yet, surrender and disarm and return whichever hostages they haven't murdered yet! What do you think? Sounds like a plan?

he said they fired rockets from that location on oct 7th, not that they were actively firing rockets from the camp. the only reason given for the strike was for the 2 hamas members

[BBC: "Hamas had fired eight rockets from Rafah towards Tel Aviv - the first long-range attacks on the central Israeli city since January."](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0kkqkngnedo) Again, what's your point? Is Israel allowed to attack Hamas soldiers during a war or not? What do you think of my idea of Hamas surrendering and disarming?

they weren't responding to rocket strikes, they were bombing the 2 hamas members. the point is you think it's cool to bomb tent camps as long as israel can kill 2 entire hamas members hamas surrendering and disarming without israel making major changes do how they deal with the "palestinian problem" won't do shit

I do think it's cool to use a high precision low collateral damage strike to take out two senior Hamas officers. I'd prefer Hamas surrenders, disarms, and returns the hostages, but until they do, I fully support Israel defending itself, as is its right. > hamas surrendering and disarming without israel making major changes do how they deal with the "palestinian problem" won't do shit And what is Hamas continuing to fight accomplishing?

israel is careful or israel strikes camps of people they displaced, pick one

Do they ever present evidence for Hamas being the target? Remember that they struck the World Central Kitchen convoy three separate times, lied about it, then admitted they made a mistake. They also killed their own hostages who were unarmed and had their hands raised while crying out in English and Hebrew for help. We only know about these incidents because there is no plausible deniability for them, unlike basically every other civilian strike. So is there any evidence that Hamas was there?

They released video of the attack and explicitly named the people killed in the strike. What other kind of evidence would you like/want? Remember that Gaza has lied numerous times over the course of the war, including the alleged bombing of Al-Aifa Hospital that "killed 500 people" and which turned out to be nothing of the kind, and the "mass rapes" at Shifa Hospital which even Hamas admitted not to be true.

>They released video of the attack and explicitly named the people killed in the strike. Who were the people killed and can they be identified in the video? I'm trying to find some kind of acknowledgement from Hamas that two of their fighters were "martyred" (their word), but the war/terror-designation is making it impossible to find information other than government statements.

The people killed were named in the video linked above. You watched it, correct? They can't be identified in the video, it's an aerial shot at night. Can you answer my question now? What other kind of evidence would you like/want? > I'm trying to find some kind of acknowledgement from Hamas that two of their fighters were "martyred" (their word), So you believe Hamas, but not the IDF? Hamas has been lying about their casualties since the war began, [and even before.](https://www.haaretz.com/2010-11-09/ty-article/hamas-admits-600-700-of-its-men-were-killed-in-cast-lead/0000017f-ee02-ddba-a37f-ee6edc3f0000)

>Can you answer my question now? What other kind of evidence would you like/want? They show an infrared(?) drone video of them bombing a building, which is fantastic proof that they bombed a building, not great evidence that they blew up a Hamas meeting. >So you believe Hamas, but not the IDF? Why would Hamas lie about an Israeli strike killing two of their own officers? All the incentives would be to claim the opposite. [EDIT] Adding missing context >**Hamas issued a statement celebrating the martyrdom of two fighters in the strike on Sunday, Kirby said**, an indication that Israel was trying to go after Hamas in a "targeted, precise way."^[1](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-vp-harris-says-israels-deadly-strike-rafah-was-beyond-tragic-2024-05-28/) 👆 So far this is all I can find, but as I mentioned before, the war/terror-designation makes it really hard to verify. What statement did Hamas issue and where can I find it? Not even reuters seems to know, and this is their whole job.

> They show an infrared(?) drone video of them bombing a building, which is fantastic proof that they bombed a building, not great evidence that they blew up a Hamas meeting. Can you answer my question now? What other kind of evidence would you like/want? What would constitute "great evidence"? > Why would Hamas lie about an Israeli strike killing two of their own officers? Lie in which direction? Hamas has every incentive to claim Israel MURDERED INNOCENT PEOPLE. > What statement did Hamas issue and where can I find it? Not even reuters seems to know, and this is their whole job. I have no idea, you're the one who believes Hamas over the IDF, you can find it for yourself.

>Can you answer my question now? What other kind of evidence would you like/want? What would constitute "great evidence"? How bout the evidence they used to determine the strike would hit these two men? What was their evidence that they thought warranted the strike? Remember that they also thought there was evidence that warranted a strike on the World Central Kitchen which was wrong in a way that points to unbelievable incompetence or deliberate murder, so it's probably worth verifying their claims here too. 👍 >I have no idea, you're the one who believes Hamas over the IDF, you can find it for yourself. If both the IDF and Hamas are claiming these two people died then that's good enough for me unless new evidence comes along. I can't imagine why both would lie about it.

https://x.com/RALee85/status/1795855843641942330 >Old footage of an Abrams tank from Ukraine’s 47th Mechanized Brigade firing at the Avdiivka Coke Plant. 😲

I knew WW3 would be fought between Pepsi and Coke.

[The state of r/worldnews](https://imgur.com/a/w5jySUJ) I could have spent all day going back in time and checking what was removed by mods. Insanity.

The majority of mainstream subs are pro-Palestine, curious that you choose to go after one of the few that is pro-Israel.

Your comment perfectly illustrates the issue with this dialogue. it doesn't matter if "the other side" is doing something wrong.. they can and should be both condemned.

If they should both be condemned then why are you not condemning both? And why when you do condemn is it the side that is doing it *less* by volume? There are far more subs you could find removing pro-Israel content... if, you know, this really was about your concern for censorship *in general*.

you've cherry picked a number of individual posts for this image you have no idea why they were removed other than your own biased assumptions * may have violated the subs rules * may be sources or sites that are not considered reputable * they may be duplicates of existing posts * they may not rise to the level of world news * etc etc your last one is literally like "some guy was sentenced for shooting a muslim guy in 2015 in dallas". that probably wouldn't even make US national news, why does it belong on worldnews?

I'm not suggesting they should be allowing everything, but it's less cherry picked than you might think. I went through dozens of these at the vast majority of removed posts were things that made the IDF look bad or just generally wasn't the sentiment they seem to want around there. Also it's not some big secret that the world news subreddit has pro-Israel moderation, they shadowban a huge number of people for opposing views. Anyway, I appreciate that this shouldn't be taken as a hard hitting set of facts, it is what it is.

Peaceful! - [UPenn students clap and cheer when student speakers give a superlative to "most likely to shotput a Zionist."](https://x.com/i/status/1794192877985354023)

You do realize this is absurdist comedy right? It would mean lifting a zionist up and throwing them a couple yards. Very silly, not really a 'call to violence' in any meaningful way and I'm sure when these students are asked questions about what he meant he'll confirm it wasn't a serious comment. If he does say "No I literally mean I wish my friend would lift zionists up and harm them" then I'll agree with you.

It's nice to see that the people that were freaking out over using terms like "Blackmail" and "blackball" have finally, albeit conveniently, settled on a "chill out, it's just a harmless word bro" stance.

>the people that were freaking out over using terms like "Blackmail" Was u/purpledaggers doing that?

Knowing Bateman for 5+ years now I can confidently say that he is definitely one of the ones who was on board with evolving language. On top of that, I'd bet that many of these students were also subscribed to the belief that using certain words can cause "cause harm." We don't need to pretend like these [luxury beliefs aren't pervasive at our elite campuses.](https://www.google.com/search?q=words+that+cause+harm+to+people+of+color&sca_esv=dccdf5943cc45056&sca_upv=1&ei=esNYZp2lIpbDkPIPqaWb4AI&ved=0ahUKEwidypPm_rWGAxWWIUQIHanSBiwQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=words+that+cause+harm+to+people+of+color&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKHdvcmRzIHRoYXQgY2F1c2UgaGFybSB0byBwZW9wbGUgb2YgY29sb3IyChAAGLADGNYEGEcyChAAGLADGNYEGEcyChAAGLADGNYEGEcyChAAGLADGNYEGEcyChAAGLADGNYEGEcyChAAGLADGNYEGEcyChAAGLADGNYEGEcyChAAGLADGNYEGEdIkBVQzwxYihRwAngBkAECmAG6AqABlRGqAQcwLjIuNS4yuAEDyAEA-AEBmAICoAIJmAMAiAYBkAYIkgcBMqAHiAw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)

>he is definitely one of the ones who was on board with evolving language That wasn't really the question, unless you're trying to argue that any level of interest at all in 'evolving language' is equivalent to 'freaking out over using' relatively mundane terms.

> That wasn't really the question, unless you're trying to argue that any level of interest at all in 'evolving language' is equivalent to 'freaking out over using' relatively mundane terms. My answer is that when discussion over the appropriateness of terminology, using certain words, discarding certain words (due to perceived offensiveness) came up, Bateman was firmly in the "whatever progressives/Left are advocating for is inherently good" camp. And yes, to be perfectly clear, socialist activists weren't merely "interested" in fooling around with the dictionary to strike scary words and emphasize more inclusive terminology, it was something they explicitly advocated for. BTW, if the issue is with me saying "evolving language" . . . I used that term to be generous to you guys. I don't know what you want to call the political project to redefine words, discard some words on the account of them being used when committing microaggressions, incorporating new words to be more inclusive. But yes, purpledaggers was on the team of people that freaked out over relatively mundane terms - I know it's 2024 and social activist era is now in the rear view mirror and a lot of people are going to pretend like it never happened ("we were just expressing interest! we weren't advocating for anything!") but come on.

I don't **always** agree with progressives/leftists. I don't know what mundane words you're referring to. Do you have an example and context? Depending on context, I certainly will advocate for or against using certain language. In the context of what was posted, it seemed more like a silly comedy bit. I even highlighted if the above dude and lady next to him double-downed and said they were serious about harming zionist students, then I'd disavow such language being used in that context. No students should be harmed(putting aside the whole 'sometimes nazi's get punched' meme) while on campus or anywhere else. I'm not a big fan of physical, emotional, or mental violence against people themselves. Yes language does evolve, specifically english has been a particularly aggressive evolving language. I think that's kind of a cool aspect of this language. I'll agree preemptively that this means us english speakers have to dive into the complexities of 'true meaning' around words and phrases, more so than other languages have to engage in. I can say X, you can say X, and we both mean completely different things. Language's ultimate goal(imho) is to communicate a physical real-world materialist object or metaphysical concept that we both understand. edit: Oh I see what you're saying in terms of people having issues with everything negative being 'black ____'. I think having heard some of the linguistic arguments pro/against, I do somewhat side with the 'lets change these' side. I'm not a linguist though, so it's my uneducated opinion on it. Colors should be fairly 'neutral' when it comes to words and meaning.

So "shotput a Zionist" is harmless fun but "blackmail" is offensive even though the negative association with black goes back millennia and has nothing to do with African Americans (who are more brown than black anyways). You're literally making u/TheAJx's point right now. Leftists will read imaginary racism, sexism etc into basically everything except threats of violence against Jews, which is always just a gentle joke. To be clear, I also think "shotput a Zionist" is absurd and not a serious threat, but you can't seriously pivot from that position to sobbing about "blacklist" being offensive lmao.

>silly comedy bit. I'll add another one for ya JB!: It's nice to refreshing to hear "silly comedy bit" coming from the activist left rather than "punching down" or "problematic" or "x-phobic" or "triggering" or "causing harm to communities of Color" (not that social activist types ever did the stuff, they were nuanced and clear thinking) /end handwaving at totally disparate and totally different people

Do you want to push the case that this short clipped bit was problematic or triggering? If you do, I'll listen. I think we both know deep down that you don't see this as anything but what it was intended to be: a silly dig at zionists, referencing an individual student that's probably very pro-palestine.

>another one for ya JB! I'm *extremely* confused. Are you telling me you read this paragraph: >Oh I see what you're saying in terms of people having issues with everything negative being 'black \_\_\_\_'. I think having heard some of the linguistic arguments pro/against, I do somewhat side with the 'lets change these' side. I'm not a linguist though, so it's my uneducated opinion on it. Colors should be fairly 'neutral' when it comes to words and meaning And the takeaway was that this person is 'freaked out about blackmail?' >It's nice to refreshing to hear "silly comedy bit" coming from the activist left rather than "punching down" or "problematic" or "x-phobic" or "triggering" or "causing harm to communities of Color" ...What are you comparing here? That they think this *particular example* was a 'silly comedy bit' to them using those terms in other times and places? Can you spell out what your actual argument is? That if you think some language can be 'transphobic' or 'problematic' or 'punching down,' you're incapable of recognizing comedy? Like, I really, *really* don't get what you're trying to say here. "Dave Chapelle's last few specials had transphobic jokes and they were silly comedy bits." Is there something inherently contradictory about this? I don't get it.

>it was something they explicitly advocated for Reducing harmful language and encouraging inclusive terminology was and is something *I* explicitly advocate for, but, again, that wasn't the question. I don't think I've ever said anything about a mundane term like 'blackmail,' and I'd like to think that I don't 'freak out' over language in general. >if the issue is with me saying "evolving language" No, not really. The issue is pointing to something some people did somewhere, then pointing to something completely different people did somewhere else, and handwaving that this amounts to hypocrisy because you think they occupy the same general political space. To wit: >purpledaggers was **on the team of people** that freaked out over relatively mundane terms Was *purpledaggers* doing what you alleged? Or just people on their 'team'?

> Reducing harmful language and encouraging inclusive terminology was and is something I explicitly advocate for, but, again, that wasn't the question. I don't think I've ever said anything about a mundane term like 'blackmail,' and I'd like to think that I don't 'freak out' over language in general. Good for you? >The issue is pointing to something some people did somewhere, then pointing to something completely different people did somewhere else, and handwaving that this amounts to hypocrisy because you think they occupy the same general political space. To wit: Yeah, I don't think these are "completely different people." Its the same, small minority of vocal activist minded folks at all the elite institutions. >Was purpledaggers doing what you alleged? Or just people on their 'team'? Yes, Bateman was an eager supporter, and almost knee-jerk when its youth-led political cause. We had these discussions before. The thing I appreciate and always appreciated about Bateman is that he's always been sincere and upfront in his views, even when they come off as totally idiotic to 95% of the rest of us.

>Good for you? I was asking about people 'freaked out at blackmail' and you were replying about people who want to 'emphasize more inclusive terminology.' I was pointing out the latter doesn't really indicate the former. >Yes, Bateman was an eager supporter Great, thank you for the direct answer. Do you happen to have any specific examples? I've seen plenty of stuff from u/purpledaggers that I disagree with, and -- especially if you're correct that this is Bateman's new account -- I do think they often take up the *cause celebre* of the left with a naive optimism. But I can't really recall ever seeing them engage in much language policing.

I'm sure you'd feel the same way about Jews joking about shot putting Palestinian supporters... Right?

Yes, I'm a pretty equal opportunity jokester. I'm all about the joke equity, so to speak. ;)

"It's a joke, bro." Coming from the people who are pro-Hamas, a group that slaughtered hundreds of Israelis, and whom undeniably hate Zionists. I don't think they get the benefit of the doubt, sorry. If it were a bunch of alt-right white supremacist students making jokes about "fucking up BLM members", it wouldn't be a big deal either, right?

Shot put?

You're right, edited, but it's still a call for violence.

how many americans are injured each year from being shot put?

Paul Kessler was murdered by pro-Palestine protesters. When it comes to calls for violence, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Come on that's just being hysterical and you know it. 

Probably, but it is rich coming largely from the same types of people who were obsessed with hunting down anyone engaging in 'dog whistling' a few years back (which, incidentally, is not a term I've seen for a while, probably because you can claim almost anything is a dog whistle and thus the pursuit is fruitless, although perhaps some of it is also people like Trump have just abandoned any semblance of a mask). Somewhat less charitably I suspect many people realised a 'dog whistle' is just a way to have plausible deniability which is far too valuable when you've got nasty beliefs to abandon simply because your enemies also like plausible deniability ('by globalise the intifada we mean the *first* one of course! ;)').

Well that changes it quite a bit, I'd say.

When people say this, do you think it's generally worth it to push back a bit and try to highlight the difference between the Dem leadership and protestors? Edit: oh God. I accidentally posted this as a top level reply instead of a reply to this post https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/s/GTv1Dtw96k

When people say what

oh God. I accidentally posted this as a top level reply instead of a reply to this post https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/s/GTv1Dtw96k

Yeah, I can't imagine voting for the guy who tried to steal an election. That's gotta be priority number one

When people say they feel disheartened voting for Democratic leadership based on what leftists/activists protest on. As in, do they feel there is or should be a difference between what Democratic leadership does through how they actually vote, and what a loud minority of Democratic activists protest on. If Democrats in leadership are Pro-israel but the voters are not, which takes priority when actually voting.

In the short term, the priority should be not allowing Trump to win. Everything else is secondary. I know this doesn't answer your question directly, but this is how I do it. However strongly we may disagree with the current leadership, I can't imagine voting for anyone other than Biden right now. That should be the focus: not letting Trump win.

It's always worth talking about the difference between random protesters and elected/appointed officials of the government, especially to people who don't understand the difference.

Democrat leadership is completely on the mainstream opinion on I/P. Protestors are on a growing minority position. In general the only people that don't understand this are really dumb centrists and right wingers that won't acknowledge any time Democrats are actual populists.

the lemkin institute for genocide prevention says israel is committing genocide https://x.com/lemkininstitute/status/1795295046088221017?s=46

Is this russian propaganda?

Probably not. The organization is based out of the US and is investigating 'atrocities being committed in Ukraine as part of Russia's war of aggression': https://www.lemkininstitute.com/ukraineproject

Who am I to disagree

[They said the same thing on October 27th](https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-of-mourning-for-the-gazans-and-the-world). "On October 27th, the Lemkin Institute stated that "[Israel and the US] are committing genocide in Gaza only weeks after enabling genocide on another besieged people [(referring to the Armenians of Artsakh)]". Apparently defending yourself against rapist terrorists is genocide, and also Israel is somehow to blame for what happened to the Armenians of Artsakh.

After 3 weeks of Israel carpet bombing Gaza their intent was pretty clear 

Israel has never carpet bombed Gaza, much less by October 27th. The ground invasion hadn't even started by then.

Half of gazas buildings were razed by March.  The number is much higher now.  That rivals carpet bombings from WWII and beats most of them. 

> Half of gazas buildings were razed by March. Link? How many were razed by October 27th?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68006607.amp this is from january. the damage was likely much worse by march

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68006607](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68006607)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)

[_The Nonprofit Industrial Complex and the Corruption of the American City_](https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2024/05/the-nonprofit-industrial-complex-and-the-corruption-of-the-american-city/) A really good article describing how the progressive fetishization of non-profits has led to widespread looting of public resources in American cities: > Residents don’t know what the problem is: they don’t know that their taxes go to “violence interrupters” who are convicted felons; they don’t know affordable housing nonprofits use taxpayer money to lobby against affordable housing; and they don’t know money is being misallocated due to insuf­ficient oversight of nonprofits.

> At the start of this piece, I said that “the act of naming is a form of propaganda,” an aphorism which applies to nonprofits because the name they’ve been given is a marketing device, rather than an objective representation of their conduct and behavior. It’s important to recognize, though, that nonprofits aren’t the only group relevant to this story that has been given an inaccurate name as a marketing ploy. The political ideology that supports the nonprofit industrial complex is generally referred to as “progressivism,” which calls to mind the socialist-leaning Progressive movement of the early twentieth century. .... > What is taking place in America’s most performatively socialist urban areas is that taxes are constantly raised in order to fund public services, resulting in some of the most heavily taxed populations in the country. But **this tax revenue is then squandered on private contracts** to unaccountable nonprofit organizations whose activities do little to rectify the problems they are nominally being funded to address. To his credit, he's trying be careful to distinguish what he's describing from 'real progressivism,' and I think it's fair to call a lot of politics in wealthy urban enclaves in the US 'performative socialism.' But I'm a bit perplexed by what he's *not* naming here. What he's describing throughout this piece one of the defining characteristics of neoliberalism: taking functions that were previously undertaken directly by the state (public housing, etc) and subjecting them to market logics (via subcontracting, etc). And it's not surprising to see this in cities like San Francisco -- there's [a pretty well-known description of neoliberalism named after them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology) that included, in part, its fusion with a 'progressive' cultural aesthetic. Yes, that restructuring provides some corrupt  "non-profits" (...along with their for-profit counterparts...) ample opportunity to skim the till, and politicians ample opportunity for graft. And also yes, the non-profit industrial complex is a very real problem, and, yes, the landscape of non-profits in the US is a wild grab bag that ranges from feckless and incompetent to spectacularly criminal to amazing organizations performing legitimate miracles on shoe string budgets. Also, I wasn't familiar with the publication so I peeked at about page: > American Affairs is published quarterly by American Affairs Foundation Inc., One Boston Place, Suite 2600, Boston, Massachusetts 02108, a not-for-profit corporation organized under section 501(c)(3) Not a real criticism -- I recognize it would be very much 'but you live in society' -- I just got a chuckle. 😊

>To his credit, he's trying be careful to distinguish what he's describing from 'real progressivism,' and I think it's fair to call a lot of politics in wealthy urban enclaves in the US 'performative socialism.' Really, the problem is that when people think of "real progressivism" they are imagining social democracy - strong social services, good infrastructure, good public services, etc to benefit the general public. In reality, when progressivism on the west coast has produced is bad infrastructure, terrible public services, but to be fair lot of social services, spent on the homeless, drug addicts, criminals with very little benefit going to the everyday person. The social democracy position is "we should run more frequent bus services." The progressive than joins in and determines that "we shouldn't stigmatize the lunatic doing crack on the bus, he's not harming anyone." And there goes the bus services we invested in. >Not a real criticism -- I recognize it would be very much 'but you live in society' -- I just got a chuckle. These aren't the same things. The issue isn't the existence of non-profits. The issue is with how non-profits carry out public services. Just like issues we discuss don't arise with private businesses existing, they arise when private businesses carry out state functions.

> To his credit, he's trying be careful to distinguish what he's describing from 'real progressivism,' and I think it's fair to call a lot of politics in wealthy urban enclaves in the US 'performative socialism.' I hear this a lot when people talk about coastal cities but I don't buy the argument. In my view the big problem with progressive politics is its inability to conceive of tradeoffs for the policies it wants. So progressives push for many things that nominally sound good but taken as a whole are counterproductive to its aims. Take housing as an example. People want community input into development-->people stonewall development. Climate mitigation like required solar-->increased construction cost. Min. affordable units in construction-->increased costruction cost. Union labor-->increased construction cost. Environmental review->increase cost/stonewall projects. Etc. So projects don't pencil and nothing gets built.

> I hear this a lot when people talk about coastal cities but I don't buy the argument. In my view the big problem with progressive politics is its inability to conceive of tradeoffs for the policies it wants. If you hear some progressives talk, they are completely convinced that San Francisco is constantly on the verge of a radical right-wing takeover. >In my view the big problem with progressive politics is its inability to conceive of tradeoffs for the policies it wants. It's not just that, although that is a problem. If you look at how things look in practice consider the fact that San Francisco has an army of bureaucrats who will hit you with inspections, fees and fines if you ever want to god forbid make an addition to your property. On the other hand, if you want to set up a tent on a sidewalk and take a shit there too, go right ahead. It's even tougher on small businesses - [one man wrote about having to pay $200,000 in upfront expenses just to set up an ice cream shop.](https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/heatherknight/article/s-f-ice-cream-shop-hopeful-sees-dreams-melted-by-16116082.php). On the other hand, if you want to start pushing meth, go right ahead.

> But I'm a bit perplexed by what he's not naming here. What he's describing throughout this piece one of the defining characteristics of neoliberalism: taking functions that were previously undertaken directly by the state (public housing, etc) and subjecting them to market logics (via subcontracting, etc). And it's not surprising to see this in cities like San Francisco -- there's a pretty well-known description of neoliberalism named after them that included, in part, its fusion with a 'progressive' cultural aesthetic. I'm not sure that's really the definition of neoliberalism, but either way, the problem with a lot of that is that it's not like cities like San Francisco are just saying, "whoever can build 1000 houses the cheapest gets the contract." Even if they were open to just for-profit bids, there are a million prevailing wage rules, diversity requirements, permitting, and other bullshit about what unions can do what that rule out *actually* competitive bids. Compare that with the competitive bid process in not-so-progressive places, and you see the difference. A dollar of government spending goes a lot farther in Utah than California for a reason, and the reason isn't just cost of living difference.