@Gdanning's banner p

Gdanning


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 13:41:38 UTC

				

User ID: 570

Gdanning


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 13:41:38 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 570

Yes, obviously. That is not the point. The point is that that sort of anecdotal data has almost no value. Among other things, a pro- Hamas event held a month ago would have gotten no news coverage. And even actual data that includes only the post-attack incidents obviously cannot tell us anything about how attitudes have changed since before the attack. It is no different from someone claiming that, because there were x incidents of anti-black racism in 2022, that therefore nothing has changed since 1960. It is literally impossible to make a claim when half the data is missing.

And that doesn't even include the issue I mentioned of controlling for the effect of Israeli air raids.

Yes, that is my point. That is the best "evidence" that we have, and as you note, it is worthless.

Such as? Again, be specific please.

I already mentioned the response to the Munich Olympics incident.

More importantly, what do you think would have happened, that it would be in some way advantageous to Israel?

Well, for one thing, this would have been more likely to come to fruition. As would various other arrangements between Israel and local governments which are not particularly enamored of Iran and its proxies. There are a lot of potential advantages to not giving your enemies credible grounds for accusing you of war crimes.

How about engaging substantively, rather using perjoratives like "shill"?

No, they're not. The US has an interest in preserving the economic stability that would be threatened by a broader conflict in the Middle East which is independent of any interest in protecting Israel per se. Not to mention that, if the claims commonly repeated on here about the terrible effects of higher gas prices on the well-being of US citizens are true, preventing a wider conflict serves the interests of those citizens.

What's interesting to me here is that the brutality of the terrorism, and the filming of it, seems to have resulted in increased support for Hamas in the West, rather than less

You are making a causal claim here, but in order to determine whether it is actually true, you need to have:

  1. Actual data, not just anecdotes re support for Hamas (not Palestine) before the attack
  2. Actual data, not just anecdotes re support for Hamas (not Palestine) after the attack
  3. The ability to control for the effect of the subsequent and ongoing air raids by Israel on Gaza

I am guessing that you don't have any of those.

The carrier battle group is not there as "a token of solidarity." It is there to dissuade other actors in the region from expanding the conflict, by reinforcing the idea that Israel remains formidable, in part because it has powerful friends who are willing to act.

the people involved in deciding whether to invade are unlikely to decide that it is in Israels best long term interests not to do so.

I think it is rather that they might take actions despite believing that it is in Israels best long term interests not to do so. Or, more likely, without making a sufficient effort to determine whether it is in Israels best long term interests not to do so.

Please show me where I said that Israel should not respond. As I explicitly said, there are options other than not responding and responding in a manner which will inevitably kill large numbers of civilians.

The Munich strategy was to send covert assassination teams, so why not? And, there is nothing to prevent Israel from pursuing non-military options, especially with backing from the US, EU, and local enemies of Iran. The leaders of Qatar might find it to be in their interests to arrest Hamas's leader, for example.

And, you are completely ignoring the key issue, which is that a different response might well be in the long-term best interests of Israel. It would certainly make Saudi recognition more likely, that's for sure.

Who said anything about no retribution? As I explicitly said, there is a third choice, other than 1) No retribution; and 2) retribution which inevitability kills large numbers of civilians. Which was the purpose of mentioning the response to the Munich Olympics, which was obvious a case of retribution.

It would, nevertheless, probably have been in Israel's long-term best interests to have "[left] the depravity and hatred of the Hamas project for the world to behold." Of course, it would not have been in the short-term interests of the current Israeli administration to do so, so it was not going to happen.

Nor is the only choice either 1) ignoring the attack or 2) responding in a manner which will inevitably kill large numbers of civilians. See, eg, Israel's response to the Munich Olympics attack.

No, I wouldn't think so.

Isn’t it rather that Israeli Arabs are permitted to serve, but are exempt from conscription, with some exceptions? That is what this IDF webpage says.

he was removed because many felt that he had not kept to the terms of that compromise

Eight Republicans voted to remove him. Out of 214. Not "many."

I don't see where OP says that, but besides, ingroup bias is essentially universal, but outgroup hostility is much less so

Racism is just the expression of an ingroup bias for one's ethnic group,

Except, of course, that classically it isn't; rather, it the expression of outgroup bias against particular groups. And, a particular outgroup bias at that: the belief that said outgroup is inferior, or polluting, or both. Laws requiring the segregation of water fountains was not simply an expression of ingroup bias. Nor were laws requiring segregation of cemeteries, nor were laws that excluded members of certain groups from state institutions of higher education, nor laws that, when those higher ed exclusions were held unconstitutional, "required [students who were members of a certain race] to sit apart at a designated desk in an anteroom adjoining the classroom; to sit at a designated desk on the mezzanine floor of the library, but not to use the desks in the regular reading room; and to sit at a designated table and to eat at a different time from the other students in the school cafeteria.".

We have freedom of association on racial grounds. For example, I am free to invite only people of race X to my birthday party, or to invite everyone other than members of race X. What you are asking is why businesses should not be free to engage in racial discrimination, which is a different question.

The Census Bureau considered Hispanic to be an ethnicity, not a race. Hence, one can be white and Hispanic (Ted Cruz) as well as black and Hispanic (eg many Cuban-American baseball players).

Hence, the Census Bureau reports that California is currently almost 71% "white alone" but only 34% "white alone, not Hispanic or Latino."

This says that California was only 76% non-Hispanic white in 1970. It is wrong?

I honestly have a negative feeling towards both of them since I'm pretty sure they would abuse me if I lived in there country and they probably despise my race/religion/way of life.

I don't know about Palestine, but that is a very odd thing to say about Israel.

Yes, but you were referring to the state's understanding of "insurrection." If I said, "he might think an $400 fine for robbery is a sign his opponents have no faith in themselves and their case," and you pointed out that he was charged with shoplifting a can of tuna, not robbery, it would hardly be a convincing response for me to say, "well, I refer to all types of larceny as robbery." What does my personal definition, of which the authorities have no knowledge, have to do with how strong the authorities think their case is?

you are appealing to a consensus that does not exist.

No, I am correcting OP's incorrect statement of the law.

Defense that it is entirely at the court's discretion to honor. What stops the judge from saying "Nah, Fuck you, we're going to charge you with contempt anyway"?

A higher court is what stops him. "Discretion" does not mean, "I can do whatever I want." Judges are reversed for abuse of discretion every day:

"`The discretion of a trial judge is not a whimsical, uncontrolled power, but a legal discretion, which is subject to the limitations of legal principles governing the subject of its action, and to reversal on appeal where no reasonable basis for the action is shown. [Citation.]'" (Westside Community for Independent Living, Inc. v. Obledo (1988) 33 Cal.3d 348, 355 [188 Cal. Rptr. 873, 657 P.2d 365], citing to 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 244.) The scope of discretion always resides in the particular law being applied, i.e., in the "legal principles governing the subject of [the] action...." Action that transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law is outside the scope of discretion and we call such action an "abuse" of discretion. (See Hurtado, supra, 167 Cal. App.3d at p. 1022.)

City of Sacramento v. Drew, 207 Cal. App. 3d 1287 (1989)

Sorry I thought he was talking about George Floyd. I'll delete the comment. Though on a side note, the SPLC has been a joke, if not a scam, going on 30 years. Their views cant be used as representative of anything, let alone what the ADL supposedly would say.

You can now be jailed for up to eighteen months for refusing to comply with an impossible order.

No, you can't. "'A party's inability to comply with a judicial order constitutes a defense to a charge of civil contempt.' Affordable Media, 179 F.3d at 1239." Berland v. The Conclave, LLC, SD Cal Case No. 20-cv-00922-H-WVG (2022) (Order Denying Petitioner's Motion for Order to Show Cause Re Contempt). Which should be obvious, given that the statute you link to explicitly says that refusal to comply must be "without just cause."