I mean… I’m not going to say it’s impossible that it’s a fake. Getting some of the Arabic blokes in the office to VA your intelligence transcript seems like the kind of unforced error that could happen when you are scrambling to regain control of the narrative. Though it would be such a stupid mistake that I still wouldn’t think it likely.
But the people who are shouting that this is an ‘obvious fake’ are the same people who only yesterday were telling me that this couldn’t possibly have been a Palestinian missile because it whistled like a JDAM, or that there were no rockets in the Palestinian armoury that could have done this, or that Gazan Ministry of Health death tolls are historically very accurate. Every claim so far that supports the Palestinian narrative has been easily falsified or just outright nonsense. And now I’m being told that this is an obvious fake, and it’s all a big IDF coverup, but this time I can’t make my own judgements because I don’t speak the language. And so I guess I’m supposed to take it on trust that this really is an obvious fake?
Sorry, no. When it comes to this incident, the pro-Palestinian side have been throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks and I’ll be damned if I’m gonna give them a free win. So for now I’m going to wait and see how this shakes out, with a very high prior that this is all just the latest round of BS peddled by pro-Palestinian journos who mistake their shower thoughts for hard-hitting journalistic analysis.
shakenvac
7mo ago
There is almost zero chance that the blue octopus was a dogwhistle. Greta is simply a very cringe person who made the very cringe decision that a frowny plushie would be the perfect accessory to her little bit of always-stupid intersectionality. Gaza is being oppwesed by Iswaew that makes me vewwy angwy ヾ( •`⌓´•)ﾉﾞ
Claims that the plushie is in fact a vital prop for neurodivergent people to communicate their emotions are so goddamn eyerolling that they probably reduced Greta's Cachet more than the incident itself.
But then, since most dogwhistles are bullshit in the first place it is certainly gratifying to see progressives fall into the same traps that they have been setting for the past 20 years. Greta has mostly gotten away with minimal damage, but the Israel/Palestine war has for the first time seen the cancel culture machine turned against progressives in earnest. Losing out on a position at a prestigious law firm is the sort of thing that used to be reserved for right wingers. I haven't quite grokked what it is about this subject that has caused such a reversal. Israel's current status as victims, maybe? Or perhaps right wingers are becoming more savvy with the weapons of wokeism.
is this an association that was just invented yesterday to pile on Greta Thunberg?
Pretty much, though perhaps not invented out of whole cloth. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of the 12-hour tabooing of the previously innocuous though perhaps slightly outdated term 'sexual preference' immediately after Amy Coney Barrett used the phrase.
shakenvac
2mo ago
Yeah, absolutely. I feel pretty bad for the professor. She has basically lost her culture, her identity, her career and her raison d'etre all in one fell swoop. There aren't many crimes for which that would be an appropriate punishment. But at the same time, I'm definitely feeling a 'play idpol games, win idpol prizes' vibe. There's something delicious about being a grievance merchant, and then finding out that you were the grievance all along. I'm eating the popcorn, but I feel bad about it.
prestigious Indian Studies professorships should be reserved only for those who have passed an official blood test.
Unironically brilliant idea. Would have stopped this woman wasting a massive chunk of her life on something she was clearly genetically disqualified from. plus blood testing for jobs would be the ultimate mask off moment for the progressive left.
shakenvac
10mo ago
Overall, I'm drawing a bit of a blank as to why they'd be compromised beyond TDS or groupthink.
Folk who consider themselves my betters want to insulate me from a truth* that they don't think I can handle, and so deceive me 'for my own good.' Many such cases. The authors of that paper must have felt so vindicated when the first Sinophobic hate crimes started occurring. How much worse might that have been, they must have thought, had we not strangled the lab leak hypothesis in the crib.
Many of my normie friends refused to even discuss COVID origins. The lab-leak hypothesis was a thought crime to them; the sort of thing that conspiritards and racist loons spouted, little different to "Jews did 9/11". That's the environment deliberately created by Andersen et al and the rest of team science. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they also knew how to arse cover if and when the charade fell over. The strenuous denials that they 'ackchually never said that the lab leak hypothesis was off the table' are backed up by a lifetime of practice hedging in the small print.
*The truth being, not that COVID was a lab leak, but that there was a good chance that COVID was a lab leak. Far too subtle a point to expect the plebs to understand.
shakenvac
5mo ago
IH needs to cease his policy of silence and be forthcoming (...) where his actual politics stand.
Plagiarism aside, this is a terrible idea. I have never seen this go well for anyone ever. Even a groveling apology/delete videos/promise to do be better rarely works.
Ever since I read FCfromSSC's Quality Contribution it's been stuck in my head. This part in particular seems relevant:
The other side is not looking for dialog. We are not participating in a good-faith conversation.
There is no way for IH to be forthcoming on what he believes without it being used as more evidence that he is a Nazi. IH's crimes are that he is clearly not a leftist and he has used many 4chan memes, including but not limited to Hitler references. For some, that is enough. For everyone else, the best he can do is not give the Stasi any more ammunition.
I don't agree at all with your estimation of the value of an Orca, because you’re mixing two concepts – the intrinsic value of a non-human animal and the value of having a flourishing biosphere which have plenty of magnificent things like Orcas. No way I would sacrifice 10,000 Orcas for one human, but that's less about the inherent moral value of an Orca and more about the fact that they are endangered. In a world where Orca are as common as Cattle I wouldn’t think twice, but we don’t live in that world. If we value ocean wildlife - even if the reason is simply to give more utils to humans in the long term - then an Orca is a precious natural resource, not one to be squandered over something so commonplace as a human.
I’m not sure how many humans I would be willing to sacrifice in order to restore the world’s oceans to the state they were in 500 years ago, but it would be many, many thousands.
shakenvac
7mo ago
The taliban defeated NATO after NATO spent 2 trillion dollars fighting them.
Eh. The Taliban 'defeated' NATO by being a thorn in their side until NATO decided the juice wasnt worth the squeeze and bailed. That would not work for Palestinians. Suppressing an agressive Palestine isn't a side project for Israel, it's existential. You'd better believe that if Afghanistan were in the middle of the Mohave desert and rocketed Phoenix every decade or so the US would still be there.
Israel can no longer control the narrative when so much of the public's view comes from the internet and not pro Israel media organizations.
That might have been true yesterday but a few viral videos of Israelis getting executed and lynched by Palestinians will turn global perception of the Israeli-Palestine conflict around right quick.
shakenvac
6mo ago
mitochondrial disease which is almost definitely terminal.
I would like to hear your justification for the use of the word "almost" in this sentence - so far as I can tell this baby is doomed, and has nothing in her short future but suffering (insofar as she is even capable of feeling suffering at this point) and death.
The Catholics are being pretty Catholic about this and just trying to save the baby.
And the protestants are just being protestant about this and acting under pragmatism rather than dogma.
Look, I'm sure the folks at Bambino Gesu are operating with only the best of intentions, but good intentions don't heal babies with broken genomes. The Vatican would have better odds building a colony on Titan than of saving this child.
Indi is a British citizen. As such the court is bound to act in her interests. Not her parents, hers. It is blatantly obvious to me (and the judge, apparently) that any sentient creature with zero capacity to do anything but suffer is better off in a state of inexistence. Prolonging her life for the sake of, what, her parent's feels? Not justifiable.
shakenvac
7mo ago
Even if it weren't the law, once a refugee is on your soil it's practically impossible to return them anywhere without the consent of another country. If someone shows up on the shores of Sicily with no papers and no other country wants them what can you even do? You can't stick them on a piece of driftwood and kick them back into the ocean.
I remember this documentary! I watched it only once, when it came out, so it must have left an impression.
Honestly this seems like a big nothing to me. Even if you consider that the article wasn't really fair (though it seems reasonably balanced) it's not really reasonable to expect the BBC to have a consistent journalistic line on a specific, previously hypothetical execution method. the UN and especially the EU are just straight up against the death penalty - you can't join the EU if you have it - their opinions are not defined by a 15 year old speculative documentary. Also, the implication that Alabama was in any way shape or form concerned with the opinions of Yurop when they adopted this policy is hilarious.
The 'someone' they interviewed in the documentary wasn't some random from a trailer park - it was Professor Robert Blecker, who was (apparently) an extremely prominent figure in the death penalty debate. seems like the documentary made some effort to find a steelman for the pro-death-penalty side, no? Yes, yes, I know, journalists are the enemy, they love to misrepresent. But nobody forced that (probably very media savvy) professor to go on the air and talk about how humane execution is stupid because murderers should suffer. That "bloodthirsty cruelty is the point." was literally his point.
Edit: based on the timeline found by @sodiummuffin I’m going to take back the next paragraph about Alabama fucking it up. The guy actually did hold his breath for about 2 mins, struggled for about 2 mins, then passed out and died.
And as for the execution itself, it's pretty simple. They just fucked it up. the execution took 25 minutes and apparently the execute-ee was struggling for most of that. the 'holding his breath' excuse doesn't pass the smell test. Unless the guy was an olympic freediver he would have been able to hold his breath for, like, three minutes, then pass out and die. you can't survive in a nitrogen-only atmosphere for 20+ minutes, it's just physically impossible. Probably they didn't secure the mask properly or something and left the guy breathing diluted atmosphere.
Anyway, Alabama: Good idea, poor execution, 5/10 do better next time.
shakenvac
8mo ago
I also find this a very strange comment indeed. I guess 80 seems a long way away when you're 30? I suspect the number of 80 year olds who would turn down a second youth and another 80+ years (and more besides) is near zero, especially if you could bring along your spouse etc. Culture shock is hardly such a terrible condition.
shakenvac
11mo ago
our continual pressure and influence in Ukraine has destroyed the country, probably forever (given fertility rates),
Very possible this will happen, but history will not see America as the one holding the knife, but rather the country that attacked a democracy unprovoked and during the war literally kidnapped tens of thousands of Ukrainian children.
has cost enormous sums of money,
Literally the best bang-for-buck the US Military has ever had. Less than 10% of the annual US DOD budget to thoroughly emasculate the old enemy, weaken China, zero lives lost, massive increase in US soft power for finally being on the right side of a war. Plus the true cost is probably less than half of the sticker price.
has wasted American influence in Ukraine,
What?
has pressured Russia into developing better drone technology,
Oh no we can never stand up to bullies like Russia they might -checks notes- develop better drone technology!! Who cares. Besides at this point I wouldn't trust the Russians to develop a microwave. And, more to the point, neither would the half of the planet that (used to) use Russia as their weapons dealer.
has finalized the alienation of Russia from the West,
It has been obvious to anyone paying attention for the last 20-ish years that Russia was never on any kind of course to peaceful integration with the West. The Russian kleptocracy was just fundamentally incompatible.
has influenced Arab nations into cozying with Russia,
Okay so 1) Arab nations don't give a hoot about Russia their relationship is purely mercenary, and 2) this sentence implies that we don't want Arab nations cozying with Russia which implies that their influence is a negative for the US. So then surely -from a purely realpolitik POV- it is good for the US to diminish them? you can't simultaneously hold that Russia is an irrelevant backwater and also that it is a malign influence on American interests.
What will we gain in five years from it all?
A hundred things. but if you want to put blinkers on and care about literally nothing else than the American rival du jour then invasion of Taiwan looks substantially less likely now than it did at the start of the war.
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
3mo ago
Seriously? Wow, that's comic book levels of contrivance. Like, if it was Mr. Freeze doing something like that then I could buy it.
I guess they were going for some kind of twist? 'haha check it out it was the scientists after all bet u didn't see that coming😏'?
shakenvac
7mo ago
Victory on Palestinian terms? Outbreed the Israelis, keep their grudges alive for as many generations as possible, and wait for a paradigm shift in international relations/Israeli politics/military technology to create an opportunity. It could take 200 years.
shakenvac
7mo ago
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
12d 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
2mo ago
There are genetic variations among different populations, but this doesn't mean the categories of race are not socially constructed.
What word would you like people to use to describe genetic variations among different populations?
shakenvac
5mo ago
This would only work if you outlaw all other luxury brands. why would someone buy a $5k Statelyᵀᴹ watch at 5000% markup when they can buy a $10k Rolex at a 400% markup? Anyone who bought a Stately would just look like a rube - which is the opposite of what they want!
I think the signalling structure isn't wealth → class, but wealth → quality → discernment → class
Israel as a destabilising force is overblown. The Middle East is unstable because of poverty, despotism, the smartphone revolution, the resource curse, and good old fashioned regional rivalry. Today, Few Arabs with real power actually give a fuck about Palestinians, and of those that do, even fewer give enough of a fuck that they are willing to upset the apple cart over it. Normalisation of relations between Israel and its historical antagonists was well underway before 10/7, and will be well underway again in 18 months or so.
Once you get past the racial animus, all that Israel is doing is using military force to deal with an uppity subpopulation, something Arabic states think is totally reasonable.
shakenvac
5mo ago
Also worth mentioning is a political zeitgeist in which the EU has often historically protested American foreign policies (...) but also expected Team America, World Police to show up when war came to their doorstep.
I'm going to push back on this a little. You are right that there is definitely an attitude among some Europeans that the yanks are a bit too keen on war (though plenty of Americans feel the same), but when the rubber hits the road the Europeans have broadly been willing to muck in. Yes Iraq was an exception - though the Brits were there with you - but as you mentioned the 'Iraq war bad' position has broadly been vindicated. Afghanistan, which was only marginally more justified, got buy in from the Europeans. The Libyan intervention was, if anything, French led. I'm not aware of any major dramas surrounding US troops in Europe, most nations are just happy to have them there. As for Israel, European leaders have generally been very supportive in their rhetoric - often to the detriment of their own internal unity with their Muslim populations. You might argue that only America really offers proper material support to Israel, but this is done for very American reasons (Jewish lobby).
shakenvac
7mo ago
Same. Whether or not this specific claim is true, it's certainly plausible.
shakenvac
2mo ago
Is it just because it's reinventing concentration/filtration camps
I think this. I mean, it's hardly even a reinvention - what you are describing is literally a concentration camp as used by the Spanish in Cuba, the British in the Boer War, and a dozen other places. Historically, the only nation that was ever able to pull something like that off without mass starvation was America with their Japanese internment camps. I very much doubt Israel could do anywhere near as well.
One more that i've not seen anyone mention yet: men cheat to fuck, women cheat to upgrade.
When a man finds a mistress, he keeps it as secret for as long as he can. If and when the wife finds out, she files.
When a woman finds a mister, she keeps it a secret only for as long as necessary to set up an exit strategy. When she has one, she files.
Certainly not the only reason but a contributor at least.
More options
Context Copy link