domain:aporiamagazine.com
ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '24
12hr ago
You have people like Daryl Cooper and Tucker Carlson who may not be full-on sieg heiling but look an awful lot like they think the Nazis were directionally correct about maintaining national purity.
Is this just your uncharitable interpretation of them saying things like "hey maybe we don't need a million immigrants from poor countries who have very different cultures than ours and who don't share our values" or do they actually talk about racial or "national purity?" People seem to get their panties in a bunch because these two guys don't genuflect to the WW2 mythos that has been handed down to the American public through Hollywood and high school history class, but I'm not convinced that saying something like "actually WW2 was more complicated that just Good Guys vs Bad Guys" is in any way remotely near "full-on sieg heiling."
falling-star
12hr ago
My startup may or may not be falling apart. We've been completely out of money for a bit, and the last fund raise process is almost over with minimal results. We're only waiting to hear back from a few more funds. Darkly funny this all happened right after we signed multiple contracts worth tens of millions. Maybe healthcare just is a cursed industry.
I have an idea for another business. I'm pretty much out of money though. I guess some sort of part time or short term job is in order.
Been losing a lot of progress at the gym while dealing with this. I'm doing my best to damage control the decline.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
12hr ago
I would say the quoted text is a bad reason to be against gay marriage. You can just let gays get married and then not trans the kids. He is saying it's bad to allow [fine thing] because its in the same direction as [worse thing]. What am I missing?
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
13hr ago
Maybe we could start a left-wing group chat called "The Young Turks", named in honor of the group behind the Armenian genocide. Nah, that'd be too obviously bait.
/s
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
13hr ago
This is a problem for all countries that aren't China right now - but I think most of those countries will survive.
You're right here, but that's like saying a minor infection isn't worth worrying about while leaving out the context that the sufferer is immunocompromised. If Luxembourg and Monaco lose access to the rare earths market, they're not really going to care - but they don't exist in an incredibly dangerous environment where they are surrounded by hostile powers. If Israel loses their military edge they will be in an extremely bad position, extremely quickly. While they do have nuclear weapons, using them would be suicide - not only do they want to claim the land of the people around them (and irradiated wasteland is worthless territory), using nuclear weapons so close to their own country would cause so much damage to themselves via fallout that it could render the entire country uninhabitable... to say nothing of the political consequences associated with being the first non-USA country to use nuclear weapons offensively.
This isn't really a consideration at play if the US is no longer Israel's patron, is it?
You're actually correct here - the only way I can salvage this argument is to determine exactly how amicable the split is. If the zoomer nazis take power and decide to demand a refund from Israel for all the money that was sent by bribed politicians in the past the economic situation is going to be even worse, but they might be able to do business with China in that case.
You can make of that what you will but "France can't/won't sell people military hardware" doesn't seem correct.
We're talking about a time several years into the future at the very least, and the trendline for French military manufacturing (and a great many other statistics) isn't terribly inspiring. They might make a few deals, but the ability of the French to manufacture materiel is so anemic in comparison to the Iran axis that I don't think it'll make much of a difference.
Russia has relatively good relations with Israel (and notably Israel has declined to assist Ukraine) and a history of cooperating with Israel on military technology.
If Israel did in fact lend assistance to Ukraine that assistance would be returned in triple with assistance to Iran and Hezbollah. That's a matter of self interest... not to mention the fact that NATO resources are being diverted away from Ukraine TO Israel - actually lending that assistance would be a bad joke.
Russia also doesn't have much qualms about selling to both sides of a conflict, I don't think, and have (allegedly) agreed not to sell arms to Iran due to agreements with Israel in the past, so I'm skeptical that the Russian relationship with Iran would actually prevent them from selling arms to Israel.
I can find it plausible that Russia didn't sell arms to Iran in the past, but now?
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-delivers-mig-29-jets-iran-air-force-10479982
Russia and Iran are collaborating in depth and their relationship is significantly stronger now than it was in the past - and China's helping them out too. If Russia did actually go on to assist Israel, they'd be able to decide who wins and who loses by simply turning off one side's equipment remotely... and I don't think they'd support Israel over Iran. Either way, even if Russia does decide to completely ignore their broader goals and arm both sides, Israel merely having the same level of technological sophistication as their far larger and more resource-rich enemies is not a particularly good situation for Israel. Israel currently requires a technical edge over their opponents due to their much smaller size, population and resource base - being put on the same or even lower level than their chief opponents would put them in an extremely dangerous position.
Why? I don't think American Jews are sending support to Israel because the US government suggests it.
No, they're sending support to Israel because the US government allows it - and in the hypothetical future where the US has abandoned Israel, I don't think the government will allow wealthy citizens to simply send all their money to a hostile foreign power.
Why do you think this is necessary
Because the US is doing it right now. If Egypt would do those things without being paid, why are they being paid? I sometimes do extra work for my employer when I get a call after hours, but I'm not going to do shit if they tell me that I'm no longer getting paid.
Why hasn't Iran done this, then? It sounds to me like Iran could have destroyed Israel already without needing to develop nuclear weapons. This would probably have been a better idea than letting Israel bomb them nonstop for days. What's stopping them?
Iran hasn't done this because they can perceive that the situation only gets better for them over time. If they blew up Israel right now the US would attack them, and while they could probably survive a conventional attack it'd cause immense amounts of damage and wipe out the global economy. If they wait, the US will continue to decline in influence and power while their own situation gets better and better. Their military manufacturing is substantially lower cost and more distributed than Israel and the US, and when you include the lead-up time to the west spinning up their manufacturing sectors again they are likely going to maintain that lead for another ten years or so - and ten years of stockpiling arms is going to lead to a very big disparity in forces.
Could Iran destroy Israel today? Probably not, and even if every other nation in the Middle East joined in it would be a pyrrhic victory at best - Israel may get destroyed, but they have publicly stated their intent to just murder everyone around them in nuclear fire on the way out (look up the Samson option if you're unaware of this).
As for letting them bomb them nonstop for days...did they? I was under the impression that Iran actually did manage to strike back, but I have no idea how effective it actually was given the censorship of the damage reports from Israeli media. I've read enough analyses about the situation that I think Iran probably landed a significant blow, on top of severely depleting interceptor stocks - but I don't think this is really worth litigating because the fog of war is still too thick.
I would note that the Houthis are in Yemen. Yemen and Iran are both too far away from the Mediterranean to close shipping lanes there with the ease that they can close shipping lanes through Suez. What mechanism do you propose for shutting down shipping? Missile strikes on port facilities, maybe?
I used the houthis as an example - I think that Iran would be able to find or manufacture a dissident group close enough to be able to harass shipping with drones and missile strikes. Iran would be capable of destroying port facilities with missile strikes, but at that point you're already in all-out war.
How are the neighboring nations going to charge fees on goods imported via the Mediterranean traveling through international waters?
I was referring to hypothetical land routes under the assumption that shipping was ruled out. Having only a single viable means of resupplying or trading with the outside world renders you extremely vulnerable when you're in a dangerous security situation.
It sounds to me in your telling like losing the United States as a patron would be irritating and expensive - does it really follow that Israel will cease to exist as a state?
Absolutely - currently, Israel is already facing steep and significant pressure. One of their major ports has gone bankrupt, they're facing renewed boycott and sanction efforts, major Israeli leaders are wanted for arrest in ways that mean they're unable to travel to large parts of the world and the nation is now broadly hated all over the world (except in India apparently).
If Israel wasn't facing any significant problems, had a healthy and sustainable economy, a strong military with no reliance on foreign or imported technology, access to a wide variety of trade routes and good relations with all of their neighbours, losing the US as patron would indeed just be expensive and annoying as the flow of free cash gets cut off. But none of that is true for Israel, and they don't have a viable replacement for what they'd lose in that situation. Having your crutches taken away from you isn't a problem if you're capable of walking on your own two feet - but it is a big problem if you aren't.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
13hr ago
With logic like that, I should have voted against gay marriage so that they wouldn't try to trans the kids next!
Err, aren't you making his point for him?
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
13hr ago
Where does endless escalation lead and tit for tat reprisals?
It's amazing how this point is brought up when someone defected thinking the other side could do nothing, and then realized they were wrong.
I think peace requires you to put aside the different river instinct and recognize it is similar enough
It really isn't, and we aren't going to have peace anyway. If one side gets to do all sorts of shit and get away with it, and then not only excuse all of it but have the other side punished for doing something which vaguely rhymes, we've still got nothing but who/whom for a standard.
sockpuppet2
13hr ago
Again, Scott links to his review of Mussolini's book in the post, using that as his reference for fascism, as an ideology.
sockpuppet2
13hr ago
How often are terrorist attacks designed to discriminate between victims based on self-proclaimed ideology? Isn't the terrifying aspect of terrorism that attacks are largely indiscriminate?
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
13hr ago
I think cjet has the right of it below. The stupid thing these people did was not follow the golden rule of the internet - don't say anything you don't want held against you.
Also question: Is Wayne Hope a nazi? What about Francis Greenslade? Or what about Shaun Micallef, it's his show. Did that clip in anyway make you think any of them might be a nazi? Or did the context tell you they weren't serious, even though Wayne explicitly states that Nazis really are a superior race?
I reflected a bit on this. Generally among conservatives and here on The Motte there are two types of responses, both I dislike.
-
“The left started this with Charlie Kirk/Jay Jones so this is fine.” All I can say is that this way lies ruin. Where does endless escalation lead and tit for tat reprisals? Are we expecting some kind of come-to-Jesus mutual disarmament moment or just escalation until Civil War? If we are hoping for mutual disarmament, how does that happen? Why can’t this be that? Doesn’t someone have to move first?
-
“This is different from Charlie Kirk/Jay Jones, that was not okay but this is because reasons.” Here my reaction is to say that you never step in the same river twice. Even though I share the intuition that this is a nothingburger while Kirk was a big deal I have to recognize it is always possible to conjure self-serving reasons why “this time it’s different.” I think peace requires you to put aside the different river instinct and recognize it is similar enough
aqouta
13hr ago
On that note, given that the primary justification for the creation of Israel was the holocaust, we may as well shut the entire enterprise down
It's pretty surprising that the justification for the creation of Israel came decades after many jews had already moved to that region for a national project.
Gaashk
13hr ago
This is part of why I strongly prefer handcrafts to puzzles. I've been enjoying learning to make wire wrapped tumbled stones. My husband is tumbling them, and I am wrapping them.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
13hr ago
Sometimes the politicians order lunch too. Or proclaim today National Northern Hemispheric Penguin Day or some other such thing. But a lot of it is about deciding what acts will now call for state violence against the actor, or arguing about how to divide the spoils from the protection racket.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
13hr ago
I believe you'll find the threshold is "just the other side of whatever is on offer".
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
13hr ago
Now that we've established that this is not about celebration of evils like the Holocaust, we can talk about what is really going on here.
There is nothing wrong with pushing the overton window. You make the implication that Holocaust jokes are made so that one day we can genocide Jews again, but that's silly. With logic like that, I should have voted against gay marriage so that they wouldn't try to trans the kids next!
Yes, telling jokes are a way to wage the culture war. Since it is quite literally who/whom the entire topic is rather boring to talk about.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
13hr ago
The kind of guy who mentions the Holocaust every day, in a "joking" manner is not joking. He celebrates the Holocaust. I suspect this groupchat does not have a Holocaust reference every day. I wrote this sentence before I read the Politico article in full.
The writer says 2900 pages of chats, and Giunta says 28,000 chats. The article says 251 epithets. These guys were not slinging epithets left and right. It is highly unlikely they are making Holocaust jokes every day, or else the Journalists would have said how many holocaust jokes.
Damned right I am minimizing this. They are joking. Nobody is trying to Holocaust the Jews. I bet these guys don't even support Hamas lol.
07mk
14hr ago
I think you have a very sad and hateful view of humor if you believe that someone joking about how Jews are dishonest and gas chambers is something that reflects badly on them.
ThenElection
14hr ago
I think nobody suggested that the they should be investigated for conspiracy to commit murder wrt the gas chamber chat. Everyone understands that they were not seriously suggesting that.
Calling for gas chambers. Expressing love for Hitler. Endorsing rape. Using racist slurs. This is not a ‘joke.’
Totally fair politics, for what it's worth, but Newsom is at least pretending to think they were being earnest.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
14hr ago
Kirk is not a saint and it's fine to joke about his death. I'm not sure I've seen many jokes though. I've seen a lot of "he had it coming" and a lot of glee. Those are not jokes because they are being serious.
That posters in this thread are comparing to Jay Jones is ironic and illustrative: he outright said he was being serious! I suppose his irony has more layers than even 4channers, eh? The only joke Jones told was the "2 bullets" joke, but everything else he said was serious.
Wearing an SS-armband would be a celebration of the Holocaust, which is not a joke.
Skeletor
14hr ago
Well, the flip side of this is that with the righty reaction to the lefty reaction to the Kirk assassination, the Right has also thoroughly burned its "it's just banter" card. If the two competing party programmes in the US actually start being perceived as "install a modern version of Hitler" vs. "shoot all Charlie Kirks", which one do you figure will have majority support?
Fuck 'em anyway. Anyone who still wants to go soothe ISIS's concerns about blasphemy at this point will have to do it without me.
Jiro
14hr ago
If the quotes are not very far from what he said in public, the leaks should be a non-story because they would amount to "Thiel says a slightly different version of the same thing he's said a dozen times in public already".
They can't be both shocking revelations and just more of the same old thing.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
14hr ago
Your phrasing is very telling. Whatever I did. Because I really do get the distinct impression that whatever Israel does, people will be condemning it.
Actually, you appear to have misinterpreted me - I said "Whatever I did" because I honestly don't know what actions I would take in that scenario. I already know enough about myself to know that I'd kill my commanding officer or myself if I was asked to administer a genocide/ethnic cleansing, and the difference between me as I am now and the person who would actually carry out those orders is large enough that I have a lot of trouble figuring out how this hypothetical me would actually do it.
And you're technically wrong - there are plenty of things Israel could do that wouldn't be condemned. If they dropped the arms and extended a sincere offer of peace and co-existence, the majority of that condemnation would vanish overnight. But at the same time, given the incentives and attitudes in place in the Israeli government, I don't think they're going to change course in any appreciable way. Of course whatever Israel does will be condemned - the specific acts they're taking to implement their ethnic cleansing plan are immaterial when what is being condemned are the goals they're trying to achieve in the first place.
The gigantic protest movements against the country in question had begun in earnest less than a week after October 7th, well before Israel even had the opportunity to commit any war crimes.
Are you going to sit here and claim that Israel has never committed any war crimes prior to October 7th? I've been a committed antizionist since I had to do a study on the Arab-Israeli conflict for high-school. If you're unaware of Israel's earlier actions, please let me know - we have a lot of material to cover if you really want to understand why all these people have been protesting against Israel!
Call me crazy, but it kind of seems like at least a significant proportion of these protests have nothing to do with how Israel's military conducts itself, and more to do with the fact that Israel exists at all.
I'd rather not call you crazy, but as someone who has been to many of these protests that's really not the case. Many of the protestors point at specific actions and deeds - Hind Rajab being the most prominent for the shocking inhumanity on display. It also isn't necessarily the Israeli military either, because it isn't just the military that's involved in what's happening. There are a fair few people who protest against the fact that Israel exists at all, but those are usually the ultra orthodox jews who believe that the creation of the Israeli state is in violation of the Torah.
Jiro
14hr ago
The reason is that historically, most religiously motivated violence committed by Christians were preceded by such accusations.
The word "historically" is doing a lot of work here. If it happened ten years ago, you might have a point. But Christian violence against accused antichrists has been pretty much nonexistent for 80 years. (This is not so for violent jihads, of course.)
"the poorfags, the mentalfags, the Frenchfags, the cripplefags, the collegefags"
More options
Context Copy link