omw_68
8hr ago
I mean, is he campaigning on "Israel should not exist"?
There was essentially no campaigning at all. Kamala Harris chose other issues to use against Trump.
You can play the game where you replace the outgroup's policy position with what you think they actually believe/what you think will be an inevitable consequence if they get their way/what you think gets listeners to take the threat of it as seriously as you do, but then the correct comparison is not to the mere motte of the reference position ("transing children under any circumstances") but the result of playing exactly the same game with it.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. What questions would you ask in a poll to determine if there was genuine, widespread, and long-lasting anti Israel sentiment in the United States to the same extent that there is genuine, widespread, and long-lasting sentiment in the United States against transing of children?
Here's a excerpt from a post from a couple weeks back here:
Coincidentally, the latest Pew Polls show Favorable/Unfavorable for Israel (the state) at 37% favorable and 60% unfavorable. Slightly higher for "the Israeli people" and much lower for "the Israeli Government." So Israel is slightly less popular than "transing kids."
I don't know if this is true, and if it is, I don't know the exact questions that were asked. But it seems to me that if it's true, it's almost certainly not an apples-to-apples comparison.
So, how do you figure the number of Americans who are categorically against Israel existing compares to the number of Americans who are categorically against trans children existing (in the classic culture-warry "denying our right to exist" sense)?
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "against trans children existing." Does it mean that no child would be allowed to get sex change surgery/sex-change hormones etc?
omw_68
8hr ago
Sure, let's have US cut Israeli military aid to 0 and have Israel give the US a few hundred hectares of Israeli land, plus qualified immunity for its soldiers raping Israeli girls when out on the town. You'll champion this with your fellow countrymen, right?
I'm not sure what you mean by "fellow countrymen" here. But to answer your question (1) I am against US military aid to Israel; and (2) I am against there being a US military base in Israel.
That being said, I would absolutely support switching from the current system to a military base if it would mean that anti-Israel types in the US would stop with their whining. Which they won't, because the problem for them is not that Israel gets US military aid; the problem for them is that Israel exists at all.
omw_68
8hr ago
you can't cut money for my pet cause until you've proven to my satisfaction that you care about saving money more than you care about hurting my cause
To be clear, I'm against US military aid to Israel so I wouldn't call it a "pet cause"
So I would put it slightly differently:
You can't cut money for a particular cause, and honestly claim it's for budgetary reasons, when the circumstances indicate that your motivations are otherwise.
omw_68
8hr ago
Except here the sums are colossal as opposed to the amounts going to trans your kids.
At a guess, how many federal programs spend amounts which are "colossal" in comparison to the "colossal" $3.8 billion given to Israel? Given that the annual federal budget is $7.4 trillion -- 2000 times that amount -- I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it's a pretty large number. Agreed?
omw_68
22hr ago
Are you suggesting that removing Israel from the Middle East would suffice to bring peace to the region, and that the various governments and power groups in the area would not engage in armed struggle with each other?
I am pretty sure that a big part of the reason there is so much anti-Israel (and anti-Jewish) sentiment in the reason is that there are a lot of Arab groups which absolutely hate each other and the anti-Israel stuff is a way of trying to achieve some degree of unity.
omw_68
23hr ago
"suspect your motivations"
This is how you ended up with woke mindreading and prior to that, runaway prog accusations of "dog-whistling"
I'm not sure what you mean by "woke mindreading," but in any event, when someone proposes a change to public policy, it's entirely reasonable (in my opinion) to consider the motivations behind the proposal. And if it seems that the proposal is not being made in good faith, to take that into account in deciding whether to support or oppose that proposal.
Do you disagree?
omw_68
1d ago
Of course it was an attack on her support of gender ideology. Her views were insane and should be criticized. And she lost in part for having insane views.
Of course I agree with this 100%. My only point is that there were one or more Republican partisans who (presumably for strategic partisan reasons) went on the news and implied that the ad was really about budgetary priorities. Similar to the way in which one or more posters here are apparently trying to imply that the campaign ad here is really about budgetary priorities and isn't just "hating on Israel" as you put it.
omw_68
1d ago
Why do supporters of this [] nation always engage in petty whataboutism instead of saying "Well, I'd rather we end all foreign aid but we can start with Israel"?
I think the answer is that these efforts are motivated primarily by Jew-hatred rather than the desire to save money.
In any event, one can flip the question around: If you just want to save money, and you aren't motivated by Jew-hatred, why not demonstrate your good faith by campaigning to end US spending on a few other things? I mean, certainly people have good reason to suspect your motivations.
omw_68
1d ago
Based on the official government numbers at ForeignAssistance.gov, about half (more under Trump I, less under Biden) of the total US aid spend (excluding extraordinary support to Ukraine since the start of the Russian invasion) was either aid to Israel or aid to Egypt and Jordan which is basically Danegeld paid on behalf of Israel. I don't know how this changes as a result of Trump's cuts to USAID, but I suspect the proportion is even higher now.
Except wartime Ukraine, Israel is by far the largest single recipient of US aid, despite its small population and first-world standard of living.
So "stop funding Israel" and "end foreign aid" are kind of the same cause, just spun to appeal to different audiences.
Well here's a thought experiment:
Suppose that the US stopped military funding to Israel but instead put a military presence there as there is with South Korea; Bahrain; Germany; Saudi Arabia; the UK; and so on. Would people who object to US spending on Israel withdraw their objections? I strongly doubt it, which suggests "The US spends a large percentage of military aid on Israel" isn't the real objection.
omw_68
1d ago
So it isn’t actually an argument about austerity or even foreign aide—it’s just hating on Israel. That is, it’s an isolated demand for rigor.
Yeah, when Trump made his ad attacking Kamala Harris for supporting government funded sex-change operations, no reasonable person tried to claim that it was mainly about budgeting and economic issues. It was obviously an attack on her support for gender ideology.
I realize that partisan hacks on the Republican side of things argued that the ad was really about "priorities," but come on.
omw_68
1d ago
If the Palestinians were wiped out the Israelis would instantly be in a conflict with their next weakest neighbor (currently Syria)
I don't know if it would be Syria, but you can bet that if the Palestinian Arabs disappeared, the anti-Israel types would find some group to use to go after Israel. Because clearly anti-Israel types don't care in the slightest about Palestinian Arabs themselves.
omw_68
1d ago
Support for Israel among normies is around 65-35 at this point, on the level of "trans the kids", "open the borders" or "raise my taxes"
We debated these issues a week or two ago here and, assuming your poll numbers are accurate, it's a misleading comparison.
So for example, a large percentage of Americans are categorically against transing of children under any circumstances. The same cannot be said about Americans who are categorically against Israel existing.
And of course the proof is in the pudding. Donald Trump campaigned against Kamala Harris aggressively and successfully based on her support for gender ideology. Nobody bothered campaigning against Donald Trump based on his support for Israel.
omw_68
1d ago
Palestinians are not served by being led by Hamas and other terrorist groups who vainly start another infatada every decade, causing Israel to flatten everything standing in Palestine. At this point, I’d be doing what the settlers are doing— take over “Palestine” making it clear that if you continue to fuck around, you will continue to find out.
The enforced stalemate just kills more people, most of them Palestinians
That may very well be, but you need to keep in mind that nobody sincerely cares about Palestinian Arabs, they are just a useful tool in the war against Israel. Most of the supposed "pro-Palestinian" people I have met are completely unaware just how poorly Palestinian Arabs are treated in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. And only vaguely aware of how poorly they are treated by their own supposed leadership.
omw_68
1d ago
The bad part is the risk that you fail to strike while the iron was hot, the window closes, and there is no second or third date.
I definitely agree with this if you have a pick-up artist mentality and are looking to up your notch count. If you are going for a long term serious relationship with a decent woman, I think this is less of an issue.
But generally speaking, I concede it's true that women expect a man to push the sexual boundaries a little bit and that it can undermine the relationship if the man is too standoffish.
omw_68
1d ago
FWIW I think Liberia is racist
Without your providing a clear consistent definition of "racist," this statement is meaningless. What's also interesting is that you didn't say anything about the political parties or political factions within Liberia. With Israel, there are people ready to argue, in effect, that essentially every Jewish political party in Israel is automatically tainted with the alleged racism of the country as a whole.
no one cares mostly because no one in their right mind actually wants to live there.
One way to test that argument is to look at places which (1) have discriminatory immigration policy or otherwise are racist by some definition; and (2) are places which attract potential immigrants. And see if anyone cares.
When people talk about factional disputes in Poland, are they careful to label each faction as "racist"? When there when people talk about factional disputes between Hamas and Fatah, are they careful to label each faction as "racist"? For that matter, how often is Poland accused of racism on the international stage?
It seems pretty likely to me that when people accuse Israel (or its political factions) of being "racist" that's not the true objection. Especially given the unwillingness to provide a clear definition of "racist"
In any event, the criterion "no one in their right mind actually wants to live there" seems like a gerrymander criterion to me.
omw_68
2d ago
it's not an ethnic thing- it's about technically having citizenship via jus sanguinis to begin with.
It's been observed multiple times in this thread that facially neutral policies can still be discriminatory.
But as usual, I'm just looking for clarity and consistency.
By the way, here is an excerpt from the Constitution of Liberia:
In order to preserve, foster and maintain the positive Liberian culture, values and character, only persons who are Negroes or of Negro descent shall qualify by birth or by naturalization to be citizens of Liberia.
Ok, and I'm not exactly being deafened by the chorus of "Racism!" accusations against various political parties or factions or whatever in Liberia.
Of course, without a definition of "racism" it's hard to say for sure if Liberia (and its various parties/factions/whatever) are racist.
That being said, I'm pretty confident that a lot of social justice types would insist that Liberia is NOT racist. Because their definition of racism incorporates another strategically ambiguous word: "Power"
omw_68
2d ago
By the way, here is an excerpt from the Constitution of Liberia:
In order to preserve, foster and maintain the positive Liberian culture, values and character, only persons who are Negroes or of Negro descent shall qualify by birth or by naturalization to be citizens of Liberia.
Ok, and I'm not exactly being deafened by the chorus of "Racism!" accusations against various political parties or factions or whatever in Liberia.
Of course, without a definition of "racism" it's hard to say for sure if Liberia (and its various parties/factions/whatever) are racist.
That being said, I'm pretty confident that a lot of social justice types would insist that Liberia is NOT racist. Because their definition of racism incorporates another strategically ambiguous word: "Power"
In other words, it's who/whom all the way down.
omw_68
2d ago
News of obviously false rape claims appear in national media about as frequently as mass shootings do. The perpetrators are from the same social class, look the same, and are just as unpunishable.
Yeah, I think this issue comes up a lot in arguments over terrorism. People who are against responding to terrorism often make the "body count argument." They argue that far fewer people get killed by terrorists than by other common causes of death, and therefore a vigorous response is inappropriate. A similar argument could be made about lynching.
The weakness in this argument -- in my opinion -- is that terrorism does more than kill people. It also inflicts terror. With terrorism, that's pretty much the point, thus the name. That's why terrorists kill people in flashy attention-grabbing ways. The same could be argued about lynching.
(Another thing to keep in mind is that as the saying goes, terrorism is the froth on a very nasty brew. In other words, for every terrorist there hundreds or even thousands of people who publicly or privately support the terrorist; want more things like that to happen; and would support much broader activities along similar lines.)
Turning back to the issue of false accusations, a typical scenario is that a woman makes an accusation of sexual misconduct against a man; there's a huge kerfuffle over it; people leap to conclusions and trash the guy publicly; even if the accusation is proven completely false there are little or no consequences to the false accuser. And even if the accusation is sketchy from the very beginning, people are ready to crucify the guy.
The net effect is no different from an act of terrorism. It inflicts terror and serves as a stark reminder to men that the systems is biased against them.
omw_68
2d ago
I said that nothing in the laws of physics stops that from happening. And no amount of law enforcement will change that.
Sure, but law enforcement brings the incidence and risk down to a level such that people are not terrorized when it happens.
Here's a thought experiment: Suppose that in NYC, it were suddenly legal to bash someone's head in and kill them on the street if (1) the person was from race X; and (2) it was between the hours of 9pm and 5am. As a result, once or twice a year there are well publicized killings which fit these constraints and the killer, of course, got away with it.
Ok, suppose someone from Race X says that he never goes out in NYC between the hours of 9pm and 5am. Would you say that it's an unreasonable and neurotic thing to do? After all, if there are only 1 or 2 killings a year, and millions of people of Race X in the city, the odds are negligible that anything will happen. Would you tell the person that even if the law were restored, it wouldn't change the laws of physics, that even under the old legal regime there was nothing preventing anyone from bashing his head in anyway?
I think the answer to the question is "no." Because seeing someone who could have been you seriously harmed with impunity inflicts terror.
omw_68
2d ago
It’s just paranoia + skill issue.
I don't think "paranoia" is a good word to use here. Because some low probability events have the effect of inflicting terror on the population, or on targeted subgroups. In terms of numbers, relatively few people were lynched in the American South in the late 19th and early 20th century; relatively few people get killed in terrorist attacks in the West; etc. And yet these issues are taken seriously, in large part because they inflict terror.
So too with false accusations of rape, sexual assault, and sexual misconduct.
As far as "skill" goes, I agree to a certain extent, except that there's really no telling what the rules will be in 10 or 20 years or whether those changes will be applied retroactively.
omw_68
2d ago
Nothing stops a random person you pass on the street from just abruptly jumping you and bashing your head on the curb
Actually something does usually stop it -- the law. If there were no law against it, you can bet it would happen a lot more often.
And I think that fundamentally, this is the issue. Rather than stopping this kind of assault (false accusations) the law, in practice, condones such behavior.
omw_68
2d ago
How, precisely, can a man mitigate the risk of any given woman he slept with accusing him of rape at a later date?
It's actually worse than that. If a man is a juicy enough target, e.g. a conservative Supreme Court nominee, people will believe accusations where the man and the woman were in the same city, regardless of whether they were intimate.
In any event, it sucks that women have to face a risk of harassment or assault if they are out alone after dark. Societally imposing an additional and unfair risk on men doesn't make the situation any better. And the fact that women face their own unique risks doesn't justify imposing unjust rules and norms on men.
omw_68
2d ago
I just saw a thread on twitter where a man was derided because he said he want on something like 30 dates and they all went the same way: he took the girl out for dinner, they went for a walk, and he waited for them to initiate physical contact because he didn't want to be #metoo'd. Only 2 did (which is higher than I'd expect). You can claim this is merely paranoia on his part, but that requires putting your head in the sand.
I would say it depends on the specifics. The critical question is what will happen if the woman for whatever reason decides to point the finger at him. Is he a celebrity? Is he a student dating a woman at the same school? Is he much older than the woman he is out on a date with?
If the answer is "no" to all three questions, then there's not much the woman can do in the way of finger-pointing. If she makes accusations on social media then it's unlikely anyone will pay attention; there's no man-hating school administration to go to; and the police are unlikely to care. Even so, such a man would be well advised to make sure the first date takes place entirely in public places and to avoid going back to his place (or her place) with the woman.
In any event, I don't think there's anything so bad with waiting until the second or third date to have physical contact with the other person. And waiting even longer before you are alone together.
omw_68
2d ago
Being afraid of being #metoo'd about a kiss is complete wimp behavior, sorry. When it comes to sex, sure. Kissing is just cowardice.
I would say that if you are either (1) a male celebrity; (2) a male college student on a date with a woman from the same college; or (3) a man who is on a date with a much younger woman, it's prudent to be very cautious about this. Because all the woman has to do is say the word, and society (and/or the school administration) will come down on you big time.
If you are in one of those situations, I think it's reasonable to avoid any physical contact at all on the first date and avoid being alone with the woman in a non-public place until at least the third date.
I'm not sure I understand you here, but as best I can tell, the claim being made, in essence, was that Israel is wildly unpopular among Americans, about at the level of transing children, among other things:
In your view, have I understood the claim correctly? And if you agree that I have understood the claim correctly, would you agree with me that it is a misleading interpretation of poll results?
And again my question:
What questions would you ask in a poll to determine if there was genuine, widespread, and long-lasting anti Israel sentiment in the United States to the same extent that there is genuine, widespread, and long-lasting sentiment in the United States against transing of children?
No, I was not arguing that. My position is simply that interpreting certain poll results to conclude that Israel is as unpopular as transing of children and such is misleading. I have no idea whether this particular candidate's position on Israel will help him or hurt him in terms of his chances of getting elected. I think that was reasonably clear from my post, but to the extent it was not, I apologize for not having been clearer.
More options
Context Copy link