It is difficult for me to imagine an action which would make the pro-Palestine movement seem more like a gang of petulant, irascible thugs. (Presciently, in his acceptance speech Hunter observed that "We are living in an age of bullies.")
This is not inherently a bad move. It's worked quite well for Islamists who want to enforce their blasphemy code. This seems to have no impact on the view of Muslims on the left because, perversely, the more specific a form of dysfunction to a group the more that group has to be defended or ignored lest the racists use it. I understand why someone would assume they'd continue to humiliate themselves in the same manner over Palestine.
You can cow people, especially in-group members, with a mix of thuggish tactics and immunity to PR concerns.
What this actually makes me want to do is learn more than the absolute barest skeleton of early Zionism because I was wondering how much of these claims that it's not fun, never going to catch on etc. would seem credible there too, given an early enough cutoff.
If you're Russell Brand, or Andrew Tate or some other famous alleged sex pest facing a day in court for your crimes from a decade ago, what's your ideal non-extradition spot nowadays?
Russia used to be a refuge but maybe the war has made that untenable in people's eyes. So where do you head today instead of hanging around the US claiming The System is trying to take you out?
Tanista
5d ago
This is the entire ISOT genre, going back to Stirling's original Trope Namer Island in the Sea of Time.
I don't agree at all. Obama was still very popular in 2015 (for a lame duck President) and Clinton was the designated successor for his political juggernaut of a coalition.
Given all this, it's pretty notable then that her planned coronation collapsed and she faced a challenge from her left in Sanders - and Sanders was a dark horse; she had to do some work to get Biden out of there first. No one knows what it would have looked like had Joe run then, especially with Sanders also running.
You're not wrong about all of the stuff on paper Hillary had going for her that made her ascension seem certain to Democrats, but the actual public reaction to her was more lukewarm than you'd think just from reading her advantages.
Trump was called worse. Including by GOPers he eventually won over, like Vance.
Tanista
6d ago
One nice thing about the future is that immigrants aren't going to want to move to the West anymore because there won't be any jobs
Climate change refugees, or "refugees". It's not just about money. The West is simply more functional than a lot of the world. People won't stop coming, especially as shocks happen.
And Westerners will be extremely anti immigration since it will mean they have to share their UBI payments. UBI will turn every citizen into a hyper-engaged single issue voter, much like seniors today.
That may happen, but fiscal problems from immigration haven't yet stopped immigration in the US (where it impacted blue municipalities under Biden) or Europe (where many migrant groups famously don't pay for themselves and yet there's no stop yet)
Maybe UBI's simplicity will make what's being paid to foreigners more legible to the average man and cause the backlash (Biden almost certainly suffered from the sense that the border was out of control, as well as inflation). But it's not certain.
Yes, what a waste to lose new converts (who presumably know a volte face would be incredibly embarrassing and so would risk doing so lightly). They'll be much less likely to ever return to church.
Tanista
7d ago
In keeping but not required by adherence to that purpose. The dose makes the poison. It may just be too much.
It's hard to argue that the American system wouldn't have minority protections even with the loss of the filibuster, the question is really about balance. Your argument is really for people who want to abolish the Senate altogether.
I'm not sold on getting rid of it either but a Senate majority doesn't have to be a popular majority, so nothing about this critique follows from the original point. A Senate majority preserves the rights of minor states too, just somewhat less so than an addition 60 vote threshold.
They can argue they need the additional threshold, that it's not enough that Maine neutralizes California, but not really because the US is a republic, not a democracy.
Tanista
7d ago
Yes. Which is why it'd have to be paired with some sort of reduction of federal power. But that seems as impossible to get through as anything else.
Compare to Zuckerberg. He didn't go full right wing due to the wealth tax and now it's failed and future efforts are blocked. He hasn't pissed off everyone in California and the general reaction to The Social Reckoning - which should have marked him out as an enemy like Musk, perhaps worse in a utilitarian sense - is a general "meh".
The point isn't to prevent demagoguery, the goal is to prevent winner take all scenarios, which are a bigger-than-usual danger in a historically even Congress. Normally one party dominates so it's not inherently crippling. It forces compromise in that situation.
As for whether it'd be better for the US to swing massively between policies every 4-8 years, I dunno. It can be argued it would relegitimize Congress but there's an equally simple answer on the other side that says if you can't get a filibuster-proof majority to change something for fifty state (and they're supposed to be states) then maybe you should be less ambitious and try to fix things locally first and that the federalization of all politics is the problem.
You always have a governor and state government for a lot of concerns the UK government takes upon itself.
It's difficult for the Senate to check a same-party President nowadays anyway, due to polarization and direct election. Lowering the threshold of votes makes it even less likely.
Tanista
8d ago
Absurd. Rowling has been for transpeople living their lives so long as it doesn't interfere with women's sex-protected spaces. A more radical opinion between that and extermination exists and it's simply denying them any recognition.
Tanista
8d ago
Somehow the past couple administrations got away with a few
No Hormuz issue.
I’m not crying over any votes losts over ICE. That’s where you needed to spend political capital.
Why did ICE need to be in Minnesota going after Somalis who almost certainly have status and/or citizenship by this point?
Trump made unforced errors with ICE too even as he spent most of his capital there.
Tanista
8d ago
[Ossoff would be the worst thing to ever happen to American Jews, so I can only cope by hoping he loses the primary race]
Interesting. Could you elaborate?
This is true, but something that I think fandom has had a very hard time accepting? Textually, it is extremely obvious in the Potter series that there is absolutely zero relationship between blood status and magical ability. Being pureblood, halfblood, or Muggleborn has nothing to do with your magical talent whatsoever, and the believe that it does is indicated to be irrational bigotry. Most of the most powerful wizards in the series are actually not pureblood (both Dumbledore and Voldemort are half-blood, for instance), after all.
IME fanfics stick to a bunch of shit that has no evidence in Rowling's writing because it offers more customization/allows easy tension (e.g. "magical cores" -- don't exist but writers find it easier to imagine a core being depleted than how HP dueling/magic actually works: concentration and willpower but no actual magical fatigue for most spells).
In this case, what I usually see is that people want an excuse to give aristocrats some flavor (they're pretty bland in canon) and an easy way is some sort of magical bloodline power. It certainly makes sense that the nobles would craft and keep such advantages for themselves in a world where magic is the only form of might you need.
Since he's half-blood and descended from at least one major line, it's also an easy way to boost Harry's power (which is what I saw way more than Hermione being pureblood), notwithstanding how this may violate JKR's greater thematic point. TBF: a lot of these fics were written in between OOTP and the completion of the series where people started speculating about what power Harry could gain that could possibly overcome his massive skill gap with Voldemort.
There is no serious exploration of whether, or how often, non-mages are born into wizarding families, or why.
I think she explained it as there being so much interbreeding that the magical genes/midichlorian equivalent already exist in the Muggle population and bubble up occasionally (same situation with Squibs in the opposite direction)
That's even dumber?!
El Sayed isn't making semiconductors or microchips, he's backing the party of regulation that at least has factions that want to make the US more like Canada or Europe, as they see them
I think, like a lot of people, he just got radicalized. A lot of people got radicalized in the pro-Dem direction by a trans child, he went the other route.
I think he got hit too many times from too many directions with no sense that there'd ever be any let up if these people had their druthers. They were uncompromising on the cultural/trans front and were turning it into a loyalty test and they were moving in a more Lina Khan direction of opposing the rich corporations (and then there was COVID). Rarely do personal and private interests line up so well but, when they do, it's almost irresistible.
Then why were they cowering in fear from the earthquake? Shouldn't they be looking forward to their deaths so they can ascend to eternal bliss?
No matter what Andrew Huberman says about how good it is for me, I can't take a cold shower without flinching.
Tanista
8d ago
The Son of Man was an actual figure within Judaism at the time, that's why Jesus talks about him in the third person. It was only later on that Christian writers decided that Jesus was talking about himself.
This I think has been challenged by scholars who are more focused on Christology like Larry Hurtado , who also reviewed Ehrman's book
Ehrman's field of study is specifically textual criticism, and his opinions on Christology changed over time (from a normal, human Jesus who developed into a God) to come close to Hurtado's "early high Christology" view on other matters but I'm not sure about this one (Hurtado, for his part, seems inclined to downplay precedents for the "Christian mutation" of early devotion to Jesus).
Well, they're not sold on this. A mix of comparisons to South Africa and a general belief (convenient, I suppose, if you're an Arab) that the Israeli state is a mere product of Western support and will disappear like a mirage without it gives them reason to hope a loss of support will be fatal.
In the long run, with a nuclear Iran supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, is it impossible?
More options
Context Copy link