shakenvac
2yr ago
The simple counter-argument would be that 'stolen' land remains 'stolen' no matter how much time passes, wheras 'gifted' land (or rather, 'gifted' citizenship) is fair and legitimate.
shakenvac
2yr ago
But there is a difference between moving on with one’s life and representing your country at the most prestigious sporting event in the world, where you are also supposed to set an example.
This is the line that really rustles my jimmies. Either you believe in second chances or you don't. Honestly, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with anyone that held that committing this sort of crime should permanently exile someone from polite society. If you said that justice is Van de Velde spending the rest of his life unloved and unforgiven, working as a barista or some other similarly menial and unimportant job then fair enough. But you don't get to do that while also claiming that he is allowed to 'move on with his life'. This reads like 'yeah I agree with forgiving rapists, as long as I don't have to ever look at them or anything.'
shakenvac
2yr ago
I would be shocked if there weren’t multiple countries, including America, with radar tracking over the area. Missiles aren’t hard to spot on radar and, unless they’re extremely fancy, once you’ve spotted them it’s pretty trivial to work out a point of origin.
But these sort of suspicions are usually unfalsifiable. Even if it could be proven that it was a missile in the Hezbollah arsenal, fired from Lebanon, and backed up by intercepted audio of Two Hezbollah fighters discussing the launch, there would still be people who would say, ‘yeah but so what? An Israeli black ops team could’ve acquired a Hezbollah style missile, smuggled it into a field in Lebanon, fired it off, and faked the audio.’
Saying something sufficiently ambiguous that it could reasonably be interpreted as a veiled threat or a prelude to immediate violence
I mean, in context it clearly wasn't either of those things, and I don't think it was reasonable to interpret it as such. It was a dumb joke about holy water or something. It's not like she said "I've got a suicide vest under my dressing gown haha"
This might just be one of those 'agree to disagree' things.
failing to drive defensively when not doing so has resulted in perfectly safe outcomes 99% of the time
Telling stupid mildly offensive jokes has perfectly safe outcomes 99% of the time
shakenvac
2yr ago
Well, no. If I was walking down the street and a weird guy approached me and said "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus Christ", that absolutely would be a red flag to me, and I would make moves to get away from him as soon as possible.
Oh yeah, absolutely. That person did a foolish thing by acting weird to you on the assumption that you would not flip out and shoot him dead. Massey did something similarly foolish - she said something weird (though not as weird as it would be if said to a random stranger unprompted) to the cops on the assumption that they would not murder her for it. And she paid for that assumption with her life. I think that's similar to not riding defensively - you may be in the right, but it'll be cold comfort to your family when they chisel 'had the right of way' on your gravestone.
shakenvac
2yr ago
Still in the wrong, because there was no reasonable fear of injury, let alone the grievous injury you would need to justify lethal force. There was no way she was going to be able to get any significant amount of scalding water on the cop's unprotected face or upper body from the position and distance she was in.
If a paraplegic octogenarian with a knife is crawling towards me to try and stab me that doesn't justify a shooting. There has to be genuine danger.
shakenvac
2yr ago
Foolish in the sense that a motorcyclist who doesn't anticipate a car cutting him off is foolish, sure.
Foolish in the sense that anyone who doesn't treat an American cop with kid gloves on the possibility that they are a power-tripping halfwit with a nasty temper on a hair trigger is taking their lives in their hands, because the system seems incapable of weeding these people out.
If anyone ever finds themselves in a confrontation with cops, the best advice is: move as little as possible, speak when spoken to, use small words. Treat them like an easily spooked animal.
shakenvac
2yr ago
If people doing kitchen admin puts you in fear of your life, then perhaps you don't have what it takes to be a cop.
I mean, if that really was such a dangerous situation - which is an absurd premise but let's run with it - then they fucked up in the first place by letting her get anywhere near that pot. Neither of them seemed particularly concerned when she walked right past both of them them into the kitchen, having discussed her intention to operate the very dangerous weapon that is a hot pot. Nor did they seem concerned when picked up the pot, or moved around with the pot.
But of course, they weren't really scared of the pot. Why should they be? A tiny woman holding a pot of boiling water ten feet away isn't scary. They're just chatting away, one of them even having a little chuckle with her. Right up until she accidentally offended them.
shakenvac
2yr ago
Indeed, being scalded sucks. Not quite so badly as having a hollow point punch into your skull and explode through your brains, but yeah.
Still, ignoring the fact that they were the ones that escalated the situation, those cops had plenty of other options. Such as:
• Do nothing (she was clearly not in a position to imminently threaten them when the shooting happened)
• Take a step backward
Having read your other comment, I will say that I do not share your faith that those cops were hyper-competent hyper-professional operators that noticed the situation turning ugly in a way we civvies can't comprehend. Especially given that it is crystal clear that it was the police that escalated the situation. They come across to me more like petulant bullies.
I will agree with you that she does reach up to grab the pot in the ~half second before she is shot. I don't think your analysis holds up beyond that. It's possible she reached up to grab the pot to put it on the ground because the cops were screaming about it. Silly thing to do, sure, but people do silly things when high on Adrenalin because people are yelling at them with guns leveled. anyone with a "top 0.1% intuition" would understand that. The awkward 'tossing' motion could be explained by the fact that she was just shot in the head.
But even if we accept - for the sake of argument - that she was fixing to throw the water at the cops with malicious intent, and we ignore the fact that they escalated, it's still a bad shooting. She was kneeling with her headline below the pot. she was a slight woman, it's a big pot. She was not physically in a position to throw the pot or the water with any kind of heft at the cops standing ten feet away. There was an entire kitchen counter in between her and them. Those cops were never in any real, or reasonably imagined, danger of any injury. Let alone a grievous one.
shakenvac
2yr ago
The police are almost always justified in these cases
It's not a bad heuristic, but it shouldn't replace the evidence of your eyes. We have two unedited video recordings of the event. I'm having a hard time conceptualizing what exculpatory evidence would even look like. Perhaps she pulled a gun from her drawers at the last second?
shakenvac
2yr ago
This'll be an easy and rightful murder conviction. Hopefully the shooter will get the max sentence due to their betrayal of public trust. Here's the video with sound. and here is the official unedited version
Massey’s death is certainly not the preferred outcome of the encounter.
Understatement of the century. I suppose it's true, in the same way that me getting stabbed in the eye with a pencil is 'not the preferred outcome of the encounter' when I pass my neighbour in the street.
but the vibe changes when Massey grabs a pot of boiling water
Actually the vibe changes when she says “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus” in what I read to be a jokey tone and at least one of the cops takes mortal offense, and responds "you'd better fucking not or I'll fucking shoot you right in your fucking face"
She does not drop the boiling water but instead continues to hold on to it.
It's really quite difficult to see what she does from the cam footage because the cop's arm (and gun) is in the way. But it looks to me like after apologizing for the (literally) mortal insult she flinches and cowers until she is shot dead.
they should have mentally decided to leave her house if she did something like equip a plausible weapon.
One of a thousand choices that would have been better than spraying her brains all over her kitchen backsplash. two well muscled physically fit men can't handle a tiny woman in her nightie any other way than by shooting her in the head? I doubt she weighed more than 120 lbs.
Oh no, wait. She had a pot of hot water. How terrifying.
and it’s rational to be afraid of a crazy person who has a pot of scalding water in their hands, able to disfigure you for life.
Oh fucking please
shakenvac
2yr ago
Of course, I don't expect Starmer to be to the right of the Conservatives; that doesn't make sense. But, fundamentally, he is a free marketeer. He is pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine, and won't get rid of our nukes. He hasn't pandered to the Muslims over Gaza, nor has he pandered to the LGBTQs over gender ideology. He has also overseen a pretty serious purge to neuter the hard left in Labour, including the previous leader Jeremy Corbyn. That's about as much as I'd dare hope for. I'm not too worried about woke - it doesn't have as much of a toe-hold in the UK as it does in the USA, and common sense is the rule rather than the exception. Race is less of a hot button topic. I think Starmer sees clearly that there are more votes to be lost than gained by courting the ultra-progressives.
Seems more likely they will act sincere, convince you and fail to deliver again.
Well that's a judgement call to be made at the time. It's up to the Conservatives to be convincing and sincere, they certainly cannot count on my vote. how strong/weak is the rhetoric, how detailed are their plans, how unified is the party, how good is the talent, how coherent is the philosophy. And, of course, does Labour even need replacing? If Starmer is somehow able to drag the country into a productivity boom then I might be perfectly happy to keep him no matter what the Tories offer.
shakenvac
2yr ago
I mean, very possible. For me voting Labour was indeed a bit of a throw of the dice. Even ignoring their policies - and there are some good ones in there I think - my suspicion is that they will do better simply becase they have more competence, more ideas, more vigour. Britain's primary problem is stagnation, and a stagnant government doesn't solve that. But if Labour do fail, and the Tories come back in 2029 with a bit of sincerity, a bit of talent, and a goddamn plan this time, well then brilliant. If marginally worse governance is the price the country has to pay for a reinvigorated Conservative party than I think that's a price worth paying. Certainly the Tories were never going to improve until they got a punch in the mouth like they got today.
shakenvac
2yr ago
I voted Labour, begrudgingly, and desperately hope that I will not have to do so again in 2029. My political philosophy is not very well aligned with the Labour party, but Kier Starmer is not Jeremy Corbyn. I am glad that the electorate has rewarded labour for ditching the loony left and putting someone in charge who has achieved more in life than dropping out of a Trade Union Studies course at North London Polytechnic. Your analysis is that this was not Labour’s win, but the Tory’s loss. I don’t entirely agree with that. I, for one, have been sick of the Conservatives since 2017, but I voted tactically to keep Corbyn away from the top job, and my feeling is that many did the same. In FPTP it is not sufficient to have concentrated appeal over a small geographical area – you must appeal broadly and Corbyn didn’t do that. Starmer has very conventional attitudes toward economics, foreign policy, patriotism etc. That was all I needed.
Given that, and how backbiting, ineffectual, and directionless the Tories have been under Sunak, it is hard to make an argument that the country will be worse off under Starmer for 4-5 years.
My primary issue with the Conservatives is that after 14 years in power, they are doing poorly on all the metrics that they as Conservatives should like to be measured on. Low taxes, law and order, an effective miliary, home ownership, robust immigration controls. They have achieved none of these things. Should I vote for a party that claims to want these things, but is unable (or unwilling) to achieve them? Their track record on the economy is poor as well, and from a purely financial point of view, Brexit was the Conservatives delivering a nasty self-inflicted wound. ‘A rising tide lifts all boats’ is a saying that conservatives are fond of. Well, If they can’t raise the tide, maybe we should see if someone else can. God knows I want my boat lifting.
Ultimately, the Conservatives are dead, and they will not resurrect without a substantial change in attitude. They are the party of the geriatrics. The age at which a person is more likely to vote Conservative than Labour is seventy. Seventy! They have pandered greatly - and transparently - to their aged base at the expense of the young. This strategy always had a time limit on it. The generation who remembered Thatcher as a great leader is dying out, and they will need to mint a new one. They need to figure out how they can turn the current generation of young adults from lonely nomads into professional homeowners, with a nuclear family, a well paying job, and something to lose, as these are the people who historically have voted Conservative. They also need to figure out how, after so many broken promises, they can win back the trust of the electorate.
shakenvac
2yr ago
His point with "the media rarely lies" wasn't that the media isn't deceptive. He was using an extremely narrow definition of lie - to deliberately tell a known falsehood as true. I do agree with him that the media rarely does that.
shakenvac
2yr ago
Shit Life Syndrome is real. People live poverty stricken, directionless, crime-ridden lives fueled by crap food, alcohol and drugs, with little positive social interaction. This causes psychic pain, which turn becomes mental health problems and psychosomatic pain. People with shit lives are probably very commonly found living in poorly built buildings infested with mold and fungus.
I'm half convinced that the vast majority of pain that doesn't have an apparent cause is psychosomatic.
You are correct, but I don't blame @sohois one bit for getting that wrong (great post btw)
Polish PM Donald Tusk said that GDP per capita was $35k in Poland and $45k in the UK. He estimated that at current trends the polish figure would overtake the British by 2029.
The British press, being full of credulous fools that wouldn't know journalism if it kicked them in the face, didn't bother to do even rudimentary fact checking, and simply reported the figures as Tusk had given. That factoid was absolutely everywhere. It seems obvious that Tusk was referring to PPP figures, though he never said so, and in fact probably doesn't even know what PPP means. In absolute figures the UK GDP per capita is about $45k but the Polish figure is $18k. No way Poland catches up this decade. Probably not in my lifetime.
shakenvac
2yr ago
once you've started shooting; why did you stop?
Right boys, it's death-or-glory time, and we're all out of glory.
This feels to me like another example of how America does not really seem to have a coherent philosophy when it comes to gun posession and use of force. Like, you are allowed to have a weapon, you are allowed to use it to defend your home, you are allowed to shoot intruders... But the police are also allowed to issue no-knock warrents for a wide variety of crimes, allowed to explode into your home in the middle of the night, and if they see you with a gun/knife/bat/dog chew they are definitely allowed to put 27 rounds into you. If they get the house wrong it's NBD. But yeah bro, you're definitely allowed to use guns to defend yourself.
Similarly here. Foster was allowed to open carry a rifle. He was allowed to walk up to a car on the street. He was allowed to have a hand on his rifle. ... He's allowed to have two hands on his rifle? well maybe, but low ready is out, apparently. Though, the jury thought it was in, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. He's not allowed to point it at anyone, sure. but there's point at, and point at, isn't there. is he allowed to muzzle sweep you? what if it's just your legs? Foster was clearly in a position to 'quick draw' on Perry... is that enough to justify shooting first?
I don't know. Seems like a pretty thin knife edge to balance the lives of two men on.
Is this problem even solvable? It seems to me that it probably isn't. If you give your citizens free access to devices which can kill in a split second it's understandable that the police don't particularly feel like politely knocking at the door of the crack house and giving some PCP-addled junkie the opportunity to fill them full of buckshot. Perhaps, like school shootings, this is simply a price that Americans are willing to pay to ensure they have access to firearms.
shakenvac
2yr ago
I am trying to understand your position, so please let me know if I have got this right:
• Israel is inherently bad/unjust, by the nature of it's creation.
• Because of this, there is nothing that Israel can do that would be good/just, excepting perhaps to dissolve itself.
•Similarly, there is nothing that Palestinians could possibly do to Israel that would be bad/unjust, and no Israeli response to any Palestinian action (excepting perhaps to just take a bloody nose) could be good/just
•You do not implore Israel to stop. I think this is not because you think Israel is justified in any moral sense, (i.e. blood feud) but because you acknowledge that asking Israel to behave justly under your model would be asking the impossible. You simply ask that uninvolved actors act according to the 'Israel is inherently bad' idea
Is this fair? If so, what separates Israel from all previous historical colonisations, or even conquests? Why don't the Turks have to give Istanbul back to the Greeks? Would Aborigines in Australia/Canada/America be justified in waging war against their colonisers? Would their colonisers be justified in defending themselves?
If not, what actions could Israel take, short of dissolving itself or losing its identity as a Jewish state, that would allow it to achieve the status of a state which is allowed to defend itself, in your eyes?
I don't accept "defensive"
A defensive war means you were attacked. It does not mean ‘you were attacked for no good reason’. I’m sure there were plenty of Nazi propagandists who could have developed an excellent reason for their invasion of France: “The Versailles treaty was such an evil, it might as well have been an act of war!”
I perceive an asymmetry between initiating unjustified violence and retaliating to it.
I think you need to flesh out your idea of what exactly constitutes ‘initiating’ and ‘unjustified violence’. I am willing to grant that the initial Zionist colonization of Israel was an injustice to the Palestinians living there, though not a particularly unique injustice historically speaking. I do not see how this gives Palestinians moral carte blanche to assault Israel from now until the end of eternity. At some point they need to accept the facts on the ground. I do not think the Germans would be justified in nuking London in 2024 because in their moral calculus the WW2 bombing of Germany was immoral. I do not think the Turks need to give Istanbul back to the Greeks.
History is a continuum. Nobody ever really ‘started it’
the Israeli retaliation for any Palestinian action is wildly out of proportion
I see this as a category error. America killed half a million Japanese civilians in response to a surprise attack on a military installation which killed 2,500 sailors. Was this wildly out of proportion? The question doesn’t really make sense. There is no version of WW2 where the USA says “right boys, we gave the Japs a good drubbing at Midway, now we’re even stevens.”
Israel is not looking for ‘even stevens’, they are seeking to disarm an enemy which has declared war on them. Any amount of violence is justifiable to achieve such a goal, as long as reasonable efforts are made to direct that violence away from civilian targets.
Why are blood feuds might-makes-right
Because they never end. Both parties think they are in the right, that their escalation is justified. They only finish when one side dominates the other into abandoning their claim.
blood feuds empirically seem like the best social technology that humanity has discovered.
Be careful what you wish for. Gazan culture (in the broadest possible interpretation of the term) is totally unfit to survive. They cannot exist on their own, and are kept alive only by massive infusions of resources provided by a world which has developed 20th century morality and understands the term ‘humanitarian crisis’. No regional power before the 20th century would ever suffer to have such a dangerous neighbor. Rome, for example, would never have tolerated an aggressive barbarian tribe 100 miles from the capital; They would have been annihilated.
To be clear, if Israel subscribed to your morality, then they would grind Gaza to nothing; Scatter the population to the 4 winds and kill any who resist. We would not be talking about 1% dead as if it were a big number. Such a thing is, historically, the norm.
shakenvac
2yr ago
the present ruling population of Israel mostly moved to that territory in the late '40s, and from the start has continued violently expelling the ancestors of present Palestinians from their homes to acquire their land for themselves.
This is true to a point. It is also true that Israel was once far larger than it is today. The Israelis captured huge swathes of land through force of arms in defensive wars, and has mostly returned that land peaceably. The Israelis left the Gazans to their own devices in 2005. The common narrative that Israel is constantly expanding is ahistorical.
If you are continuously denied justice in an existential matter, though, I don't think it's at all an alien viewpoint that you are morally entitled to do whatever you find appropriate to seize justice for yourself, including ineffectual and vile acts of revenge such as murdering the women and children of those who wronged you.
I see this logic - not that I agree with it, but I see it. What I don't see is how your logic is not fully generalizable to the Israelis. They have also been wronged by Palestinian actions. How can it be in your paradigm that Palestinians have the right to invade Israel and kill every Jew they see, but then the Israelis do not have the right to bring indiscriminate death down upon the Palestinians in retaliation? (for the record, I do not believe either of them have the right to do this, nor do I believe that Israel's response has been indiscriminate.)
If you have been driven out of your house and into a corner at gunpoint by the mafia, the mafia boss's kid stands by watching the show and mocking you, and, seeing an opening, you shoot the kid, I will find it hard to fault you for the murder
While I don't think the analogy is particularly fair, I will point out that there is only one moral paradigm in which the shooter in your story is unambiguously justified, and that is blood feud. That is inherently a might-makes-right morality. The shooter will soon find out the hard way that that the Mafia have no more scruples than he when it comes to killing children.
shakenvac
2yr ago
Fair - there was an 'Israel' button but no single 'not Israel' button - the closest to that was Irish singer Bambie Thug who has been at the centre of some very juicy Israel/Palestine drama, tried to get the Israeli team banned and the producers prevented xirself from wearing a pro-Palestinian slogan during her performance, but I guess that was opaque to most viewers.
Armenia
Now, that was a banger!
shakenvac
2yr ago
I was shocked at how well Israel did in the popular vote. Not only was their song kinda boring and mid but politics is a huge part of the televote (and jury vote?) and I thought what with public support for Palestine, Israel would get a super low score in the televote.
Possible explanations:
- I have terrible taste in music, the song was actually a banger, but the juries hated it for reasons.
- Joe public's support for Palestine / antipathy for Israel is hugely overstated and in fact most people are still very sympathetic toward Israel after October 7. I am extremely online.
- People are not necessarily sympathetic to Israel, but are massively sick of constant pro-Palestine protests, and this was pushback.
- people felt sorry for 20-year-old Eden Golan constantly getting booed by the crowd.
- The BDS movement to boycott Eurovision was weirdly effective which trimmed off the pro-Palestinians, and consequently their votes.
- Mossad did it.
Thoughts, anyone?
There was an interesting argument I heard that, because the fall of Constantinople (1453) and the colonisation of the New World (1493, Hispaniola) are near contemporaneous, anyone who thinks that the colonisation/conquest of the Americas is fundamentally illegitimate is basically arguing that 'historical conquest' became 'illegitimate landgrab' sometime in that very specific 40 year window.
More options
Context Copy link