ZanarkandAbesFan
No bio...
User ID: 2935
"Jew" is now a slur in leftists spaces. Jews are denied leadership opportunities or simply leave.
The slur is "Zionist" (more plausible deniability)
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
Well that was uncalled for.
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
I believe it's Irish?
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
I wonder if Rockstar North also counts.
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
Basically, the idea is that male feminists are disproportionately prone to acts of sexual misconduct.
How true is this though? I get that it's the sort of thing that's hard to get numbers on - I don't think police tend to record whether sexual predators describe themselves as feminist or not - but are cases like that of Neil Gaiman common enough that this can reasonably be described as a particular phenomenon?
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
Might get him thrown out of office though.
It's an interesting possibility. "Standing up to Trump" would probably be pretty popular to the UK electorate, but things that that cause damage to the economy tend not to be. I wonder how that would play out.
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
"When they send their anti-semites, they're not sending their best."
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
There are multiple possible explanations here. Regarding the Chagos Islands, the ICJ made a direct ruling requiring the UK to take a specific action. Locking up people for free speech might go against the spirit of some international law or other but unless he was specifically ordered not to I could imagine him feeling less constrained by that. It also wouldn't surprise me if he personally feels the jurisdiction of international law is solely that covering disputes between nation states, and not domestic affairs. He might also feel that as PM, he's in a sense above the law as it relates to domestic issues, but that international law as decided by various global bodies exists on a higher level that the UK must be subservient to. Someone showing authoritarian tendencies when they have power but being a stickler for rules imposed on them by what they feel to be higher bodies isn't displaying a particularly unusual personality type.
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
Thanks for cross-posting this!
I think that all the talk on DSL/reddit/twitter about Starmer secretly being secretly anti-British, receiving bribes from China or even trying to enchance Britain's mythical "soft power" is missing the point. My impression is that Starmer is a lawcel for whom the idea of not following the ICJ ruling - or whatever it is - is unthinkable at a deep personal level. My read is that from his perspective, the UK isn't paying Mauritius to take a group of strategically valuable islands of their hands; rather the UK will be paying Mauritius to lease land that is now legally indisputably in the possession of Mauritius. In his view, legal declarations are imbued with their own power, regardless of whether they can be enforced or not, and ignoring this one would make the UK a hostile occupying force on the islands.
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
Will check out, thanks.
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
DSL?
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
Has there been a CW post about this that I've missed? Feels like the sort of thing that would get discussed here but I haven't seen any mention of it.
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
I assume this is exaggerating for effect? The US has way too much going for it in comparison to Brazil, from geography to demographics to the structure of their economy, for something like this to happen in the forseeable future.
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
Sweden as well, although it's a bit more complicated.
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
The Danes are smarter,
What's your basis for this? I can't imagine they're that distinct genetically.
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
However, I never thought I would see a test that so perfectly measures the skills needed to accurately judge political arguments!
Very few of the political matters that most divide people resemble the sorts of questions found in the LSAT. Rather, they're issues of vibes, values and group-preferences. Using examples from the US, I don't see a large number of people changing their views on BLM, the ethics of abortion, or whether the US needs tougher border security based on having been exposed to formal logic and trained to recognise logical fallacies.
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
In practice, what matters is whether people find arguments persuasive. That can have quite little to do with their validity.
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
and gives you the option to put it in his butt in the second one.
Did they at least give the player a "No homo" dialogue option?
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
Securing Israeli interests is one of the foundational
One of the foundational values of the US is pursuing the interests of a nation that didn't exist until 172 years after the declaration of independence?
ZanarkandAbesFan
3mo ago
The Rules-Based International Liberal Order, to the extent that it exists, would not collapse if a state decided to strip citizenship from its members.
Ethnic cleansing is good
I don't think I'd go that far, but the Israel-Palestine issue is at the point that it's probably a good thing if "Ethnic cleansing" stops being a thought terminating cliche. By moving this possibility into the Overton window (still the extreme part of it), Palestinians might start having to reckon with the real possibility that continually starting pointless wars might soon get them punished in a way they seem to care about.
The most valuable support Israel gets is in the form of being allowed to buy US weapons. This could be counted as a form of military support, as not all nations get this privilege, but this isn't coming at US expense (quite the opposite). The US could stop providing monetary aid and Israel would still be the dominant military power in the region by some distance as long as the US didn't embargo them.
and the "greatest ally" talk.
I think they've moderated that to "greatest ally in the ME"? That's the only version I see.
Put it this way: if you run over a gaggle of schoolchildren because you’re late for an important meeting and braking would slow you down, you didn’t set out to kill them, you merely accepted it as the price for something more important.
This would more closely mirror the reality of the Israel-Palestine situation if the driver needed to be somewhere as a matter of life and death (disarming a missile aimed at their house/rescuing a kidnapped relative/make up your own), there was only a single route there, they'd loudly announced beforehand they would be taking this road, and yet Hamas members were hiding behind blind corners throwing children in front of the car as it approached.
In practice, how much badness people put on such death varies wildly depending on their sympathies with the overall goal.
This is true of anything.
Gaza, nuking Japan, bombing Dresden all have their sympathisers and their critics but they were deliberate killings.
Why are the civilian deaths in Gaza closer to the bombing of Dresden in your view than the rest of the civilian deaths caused by the Allied powers in WW2? And returning to your first point:
you didn’t set out to kill them, you merely accepted it as the price for something more important.
The implication of which seems to be some version of "this is close to as bad as intending to kill them" (otherwise I'm not sure what point you were making), why would accepting the deaths of German civilians in WW2 be meaningfully less deliberate than the bombing of Dresden? What would even morally distinguish the Allied and Axis forces?
The plan to "Let them fight" keeps getting abandoned by demanding Israel stop fighting as soon as they get too close to winning
If anything that looks less like a roman salute than Elon's gesture
More options
Context Copy link