site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 184019 results for

domain:youtube.com

I don’t think I care. Huberman (afaik) has never offered moral advice or implied moral superiority. He’s a neuroscientist who gives professional advice, which is different from a Jordan Peterson or a conservative podcaster who gives moral advice. If he’s lying to women to have sex with them (not a new phenomenon in the history of Man) that’s a personal matter. It’s more effective to just warn women not to dedicate themselves to high status men without assurances, as that is literally what marriage is for. Huberman is 48 by the way, that’s probably the more surprising aspect of the story. Impressed by both his time and testosterone management.

Reprogenetic technology like polygenic embryo screening actually gives more control to the parent and facilitates better-informed reproductive decisions that produce children that live better lives.

Completely unsubstantiated claim.

I've got a good quantity of thoughts on it, in that I've listened to a ton of Huberman stuff, bought supplements from Momentous, etc. and was sent the article by a ton of friends.

-- DeBoer wrote on it. He commented that the article feels five years out of date, in that it presents itself as a hit piece but fails to deliver the goods. At the height of #metoo it might have hurt Huberman's business, and tbh I'm considering downloading some episodes in case content disappears, but post Tara Reid it mostly gets a yawn except among fans and the bitter-end-feminists

-- This is a case where understanding Sexual Market Value and basic economics makes things a lot clearer. I mostly agree with @2rafa (as usual) on the normal ranking of male relationship states, though it needs a 6 or a 4.5 depending on the man: Never getting laid at all. What we're seeing here is largely Hubes in his 40s going from "Kinda lumpy looking Stanford professor" to "moderate internet celebrity" and that changed his dating options. He went from a guy who could get a normie girl at a 4 or a 3 on @2rafa's scale, to a guy who could get multiple internet hotties to work toward a 2 or a 1. I've never experienced anything like Huberman's level of celebrity, but his behavior largely mirrors at a larger scale my brief fuckboi phase at 18-19, when I realized that girls might actually want to sleep with me. There's a mix of suddenly feeling like a kid in a candy store, and a scarcity poverty mindset of feeling like you need to warehouse as many of these girls as you can because surely they're going to reject you any second now, a sort of sexual imposter syndrome where you can't let go of your old assessment of yourself. I've noticed this with a lot of men over my life, when they suddenly get rich or lose the weight or otherwise experience a glow-up. They fuck around, because they have the option to do so, and because it is novel and fun, and because they feel like the opportunity is fleeting.

-- This all clearly relates back to @Walterodim's post in the main thread about the urge to label fitness as fascist. They keep trying to hint darkly at Huberman's pipeline of "optimizers" and their weird habits. Given, I have a meathead tendency to want to know the bench press of everyone complaining about him, I really do think a lot of hatred towards Hubes and his Optimizers is simple jealousy. Fat out of shape slobs want the guys who wake up at 430am, meditate, lift weights, and take a cold shower to be losers for some other reason. Because to accept that Huberman is just doing things better than you are is a deep psychic injury, his actions must be evil for some unseen reason.

-- It's amazing how weaksauce their accusations of Charlatan-ry against Hubes are. Athletic Greens probably isn't as good as they say it is, but it isn't harmful either. And they didn't even touch Momentous in any detail, probably because they couldn't come up with anything. They couldn't point to any of his content that was really harmful. Either they didn't do any research, or he really is that whistle-clean. I do think that Huberman's podcast suffers from needing to put out content, though less so than most fitness influencers, with a constant stream of things you should be doing. Huberman, at least by his own account, actually does follow too many confusing protocols, claiming for example that he saunas regularly but puts an ice pack in his shorts to keep his balls chilly, which is just colossal levels of weird. Any given episode may be great, but trying to do it all at once will end in nonsense for most people.

-- There's this weird strain of thought among some extremely online femcels that a man who talks with emotional competence is actually a crypto-abuser using therapy-talk to manipulate women. I noticed this a lot on podcasts for the current season of The Bachelor, with Joey being regarded skeptically for trying to listen to girls play their Personal Trauma Cards and gas them up about how strong they are, with some women praising him and others engaging in Backlash because he's surely secretly evil. And for the most part I think what we're seeing with both Joey and Hubes is: they were being a good boyfriend, but they didn't pick you and that's upsetting because they were a good boyfriend. I got the feeling from the little we heard from these women that they would have been perfectly happy with Hubes if he had picked them.

-- Everybody, if you don't want shit like this to happen, don't commit and don't expect commitment until you get married, or at the very least are on a glide path to a definite date of marriage. Don't move in with a boy/girl-friend, for Christ's sake don't do IVF without a ring. If you like it than you should have (made him) put a ring on it. I have very limited sympathy for "cheating" in an LTR that seems to have no plans for marriage. You get what you put up with.

(If it was that easy, people probably would not have invented Rust in the first place.)

C++ is bad not only in memory safety, but also has ugly grammar, no modules, slow compilation speed (and ugly binary operator priority).

It’s why a few swastika tattooed prison gang room temp IQ ‘grand dragon’ KKK-LARPers can be pushed to discredit large swathes of the far right with the public

It would be more like the if 'grand dragon' KKK-LARPers that have been used by ADL as a representation of "right-wing extremism" actually ran college campuses and elite institutions.

One of the very first red-pills for me was seeing ADL tout "higher extremism on the Right than the Left" but if you read the white paper, they would actually report things like "this guy murdered a prison guard during an escape, and he has a Swastika tattoo on his mug shot so this counts as right-wing violence." So the strategy was to misrepresent the opposition. But Zionists implementing these speech regulations banning criticisms of themselves and banning Holocaust revisionism are not misrepresenting Zionists, they are actually representing Zionists. It's not a matter of bad apples, it's a matter of them finally gaining ground in banning speech in the US where they have already achieved the same thing throughout Europe.

On a related note, Sweden is slated this month to outlaw Holocaust denial, joining the growing number of European nations. This sort of lawmaking is mostly recent across Europe.

Now if I were a student in Texas I would be liable to be expelled for my conclusions regarding the historicity of the alleged gas chambers, due to the use the "International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance" definition of antisemitism. Meaning Holocaust Revisionism is outlawed on Texas campuses, only formalizing an informal policy. I remember years ago making a post about the IHRA definition of antisemitism and people were skeptical it would be used as a vector for censorship in the United States, for Jews to try to achieve levels of censorship they have in Europe, but here we are.

People tend to overestimate the blowback caused by real censorship. What tends to happen is the outrage dies down, and then the act of censorship really does have a cooling effect that can be hard to measure or understand, and then it becomes "the new normal." It works, the "Streissand effect" is fake.

"just as fast as C++" and safer (debatably true for some workloads today, less true at the time), but it hasn't displaced C or C++ despite major efforts

Well, this was a lie, it's not possible to match speed with dynamic compilation and garbage collection. Sun corp. did benchmark cheating. Rust tried to be a better C

And despite the supposed memory safety, I have actually encountered java.lang.NullPointerException

Well, in this part they didn't lie, it's possible to have exception, but unlike C/C++ it is guaranteed to be caught and safely processed. Some C implementations (at least for MS-DOS0 reversed some space to check for null ptr dereferences, the program at exit checked it and if changed, printed error message.

Only then can you really destroy them by pointing out how ridiculous they are.

But what counts as "ridiculous" in the first place is itself politically determined. I personally think the left acts out in a lot of ways that I would classify as ridiculous, but it plainly hasn't discredited them on a national scale so far. The extent of your pre-established narrative dominance determines whether your particular mode of acting out will be seen as legitimate (BLM riots) or illegitimate (January 6th). So before you goad your opponent into acting out, you have to be in charge of defining what counts as "acting out". I think that's a more fundamental goal.

I'm uncertain if it's even possible for the left to push the pro-Palestine stuff "too far" at this point. I don't know how many centrist swing voters are left in America. Probably still enough to influence the results of national elections, but not enough to uproot the entrenched zeitgeist or really impact the way things are heading overall.

I think my own position regarding the role of genetics in life outcomes is pretty consistent with common biodiversity positions, which typically aren't hard genetic determinism. The effects of both environment and personal choice are sufficiently obvious that I don't see how anyone could sustain a serious claim that everything is genetically determined, environmentally determined, or under complete individual control. Genetic and hereditary characteristics define outer limits of capacity and shape tendencies. Environments define the range of available outcomes. Personal choices and elements of randomness fill in the rest. Using that toy model for most outcomes, including fitness and weight, provides results that are pretty consistent with observed reality.

I don't know how anyone that has ever put meaningful effort into improving at anything could land on hard genetic determinism as the only governor of their outcomes. I have literally zero doubt that if I elected to shift from my primary sport being running to weightlifting that I would lose aerobic fitness and gain muscle mass. I suppose the claim is that the only reason I'm even capable of doing that in the first place is purely deterministic and then we're into some goofy argument about whether free will exists. Suffice it to say I don't buy the claim that decision-making literally doesn't exist.

With regard to the accusation that my positions are shaped by what results in feeling good about myself - yeah, sure, probably, that seems like an unavoidable consequence of being human. Even so, I don't think that desire to feel good about myself has twisted my understanding of the world to anywhere near the degree as the morbidly obese individual that claims they're healthy anyway and that weight can't be controlled.

It's only partly sarcastic, because I am a dumb commoner by comparison with a lot of the posters on here. But I also think that the entire framework around this girl, her chosen values, where she works and the rest of it are all part of the package that ended up with her choosing to live in a moth infestation and finally ended up causing even more suffering by her attempts to be humane or higher thinking or whatever. So this should cause a reconsideration and reevaluation on her part, and I don't know if it did, since I don't see that in the post she made about it.

I certainly don't mean "stop being EA" but she seems to have doubled down on it; not "okay it would have been better if I took steps at the start to kill the larvae as soon as I noticed the first few" but the self-flagellation over "I genocided these moths, I acknowledge my responsibility for their suffering".

Saying 'From the river to the sea' doesn't neccessarily require violence

In the same way that "blood and soil" could just be a call to recognize the efforts of hard-working small farmers. But if its used by protestors in the immediate aftermath of a horrible attack by a group of white supremacists who are known to have used it as their own slogan... at that point, I feel like using it and claiming innocence is ignorance at best.

This comment brought to you courtesy of the seagulls crying outside my window (because it's bin day and the little buggers are smart enough to have figured out that on certain days stuff is left outside that sometimes drops tasty morsels).

If you're used to seeing gulls and crows following the plough when the farmers start ploughing, because they're eating the worms and insects turned up when the soil is ploughed, then this is nature to you. To be brutal, everything is something else's food. To quote Willy Shakes, "We fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots." In that context, insect suffering is meaningless, or at least not morally significant.

But if you're worried about the moral implications of insect suffering vis-à-vis taking action to kill a moth infestation, then you are in fact going against that nature you claim to value or prioritise. You are imposing human values on the natural world. If moths should not be killed because their suffering is morally significant, gulls and crows shouldn't eat insects either, because that is also "meat is murder".

So if we are going to impose human values on such categories, then there is no reason "humans are entitled to eat meat animals" is inferior to "I am a moth genocider" as values systems. Certainly, humans should not be deliberately cruel to animals, but that's not the moral question here.

'You are objectively evil for meat eating' is as artificial and arbitrary as any other imposition of our morals on those who don't share those values. Objective by what metric? Certainly not that of nature. Objective by human systems? Ah, there we come back again to "socially constructed" and "there is no objective moral system of right and wrong" and the likes.

ethnonations with a history of genocide (Kitos War) and who fondly remember their nation previously committing genocide in their Holy Text should be super extra scrutinized for potential genocidal acts

I agree wholeheartedly with most of the points inthis post, but this one in particular seems like a bit of a reach. We routinely criticise woke people for holding white people personally accountable for crimes that their great-great-great-grandparents were maybe involved in. There has to be some kind of statute of limitations.

We ask for a submission statement on frontpage posts. Please go into more detail about the article, we don't need a full on summary, but some context is necessary beyond that from just the headline. It's not a bad post and it's a reputable writer, but you need to make us aware of why it's worth reading before we approve it.

There's a documentary I watched recently regarding Japanese longevity, and one of the people they interview remarks on how the introduction of western diet is having an effect on young Japanese people, making them more obese.

Genetics can play a part, but there's a point where we need to at least consider that there's something whonky going on, here.

I'll do another reply since I think we're still talking past each other a bit.

And yeah, it's a shame our talk is buried so deep nobody is likely to read it :D Still, I found it really fun and useful!

First, let me say I don't take it for granted that objective reality exists - I believe it does, which is a conjecture like anything else, and open to criticism and revision. Objective truth, however, would exist even if there is no objective reality: in that case, the statement "there is no objective reality" would be objectively true, and this is what I would like to believe if it is true. Popperianism (or, as it's less cultishly called, critical rationalism) requires no assumptions that are not in principle open to critical discussion and rejection, which is in this view the main method of rational inquiry.

And, if I haven't made it clear enough, I'm actually a big fan of Bayesiansim. If I weren't a Popperian, I'd be a Bayesian! I'd even say it could add a lot to Popperiansim: although I think the basic Popperian picture of rational inquiry is correct, the formalization of the process of critical analysis that Bayesiansim could add to Popperiansim could definitely be useful (although I'm not smart enough and too confused by the many, many variants of Bayesiansim to attempt such a project myself). Overall though, some variants of Bayesianism, yours I believe included, are right about almost everything important to Popperians, especially the central point: accepting the skeptical and Humean objections to rational justification, while retaining the use of reason and evidence as the method of science. Popperians would add "and objective truth as the aim of science", on which I'm still not quite sure where you stand. The main disagreement, as I see it, is on the role of evidence, which is negative for Popper - evidence can only contradict theories - and positive for Bayesians - evidence can support theories, raising their subjective probabilty.

I think the discussion of whether objective reality exists and whether we can be certain of it is a bit of a sidetrack here - I completely agree with everything you said on it: we can never have direct access to objective reality (Popper would say that all our observations are "theory-laden"), and we cannot be sure that it exists, and I'm not saying I require you to demonstrate that it does to practice Bayesiansim. My main point is that Bayesian calculations are unmoored from objective reality (say nothing about it), unless you smuggle in additional induction-like assumptions that allow you to make inferences from Bayesian calculations to objective truth, in which case you run into Humean objections. And this is where I'm still uncertain of your position. You say:

So I certainly act as if my observations of reality or the advancements of science are evidence that my subjective reality aligns with (hypothetical) objective reality.

But do you think your observations are evidence that your subjective reality aligns with objective reality? If yes, how does this relationship work, and how does it avoid Humean objections? If no, like I said, that'd be for me an unacceptable retreat from talking about what we are actually interested in, namely objective truth, not subjective probabilty. We can agree to disagree on that, that's not a problem, but I'm not totally clear what your position is on this, given that you have said things like the quote above, but also talked being able to convert subjective probabilty into truth. I'd like to understand how you think this works, from a logical standpoint. Or is it perhaps that your position is something analogous to Hume's solution to the problem of induction (which I also disagree with) - namely that we act as if induction is rational although we are irrational in doing so, for we have no other choice? This would be saying that while strictly speaking Bayesian calculations have no direct relationship to objective truth, we act as if it they do. This would be what I gather from the above quote, but you've also talked about probability-to-truth conversion, so I'm still unclear on that point.

Let me attempt an analogy using the map and territory metaphor to describe how I see our positions. It's a spur-of-the-moment thing, so I apologize in advance if it misses the mark, but in that case you explaining how it does so will likely be illuminating for me.

So we are blind men in a maze (the "territory"), and trying to map it out. We are blind because we can never directly see the maze, let alone get a bird's eye view of it. Now many people, the majority even, think that we are not blind and convince themselves that they can see the maze (that we can have justified true beliefs directly about objective reality). You and I agree that this is not possible, that our mapping of the maze is ultimately guesswork. We can't be sure there even is a maze! But we're trying to figure out how to act and what to believe. Now I think the best way to go about mapping the maze is to propose conjectures on the layout of various parts of the maze (i.e. scientific hypotheses), which will always be guesswork, and then test them out: if this map section I've proposed is correct, for instance, we should be able to walk 36 steps in this direction, and then turn left. If I attempt this and run into a wall, then my proposed map section guess isn't right - I gotta reject it (the hypothesis is falsified). Of course, I might have miscounted the steps, a wall may have collapsed, or any number of things might have messed up my experiment - like in the neutrino example, the experiment might be wrong, and falsification is guesswork too. But this is the role played by evidence: attempting to walk the maze, i.e. confronting our hypotheses with reality, and seeing where they clash, albeit blindly and without any justification. If my conjectural map seems to work out, if it passes the test, this says nothing additional about it corresponding to the maze. Evidence is used to contradict our guesses, not support them, in my view. And this is where we start to disagree. You think that every step you take that doesn't contradict your proposed map (all supporting evidence for the hypothesis) raises your subjective probabilty/expected utility/confidence in your proposed map of the labyrinth. To which I say ok, your confidence is increased by Bayesian calculation, but what does that tell us about the labyrinth? To me it seems you are calculating your confidence in the map, but it's the labyrinth we are interested in, and I'm not sure if and how you translate your confidence in the map into claims about the labyrinth. If you do translate your confidence in the map into claims about the labyrinth, I am not clear on how. I just directly make claims about the labyrinth, which are guesses, and my subjective confidence in them is irrelevant - the correspondece of my guesses to the labyrinth is what matters and what I'm trying to guess correctly. If you don't claim anything about the labyrinth at all and are only talking about your confidence in the map, then I think you're missing the mark - it's the labyrinth that we are interested in.

Dissident right loooves hbd but not when believing in it would stop you from feeling good about yourself.

If I've understood your comment correctly, you seem to be making a permissible and even potentially interesting point. But your approach brings a bit too much heat and not enough effort. Less of this, please.

Great, another newcomer with a username meant to kill the dyslexics or keep obsessive compulsive vampires at bay.

Welcome, but for your future reference, please keep such questions to the dedicated threads, this thread is meant for high effort posts with a culture war bent, at least at the top level. It's not a big deal since you're new and might not be aware, but I'd prefer if you deleted your current comment and posted it there, ideally in the Small Questions thread, though I can hardly demand that you don't put it in whatever is newest since I do so myself.

Don't Asians have some gene that makes them less likely to get fat (but more likely to get diabetes and heart disease) as well?

With regard to long-run results, I don't think the data is consistent with that and it doesn't really match my understanding of the biology either. Aging well is heavily governed by muscular fitness, VO2Max, and bone density, which all improve from running. For anecdata, I guess I see more runners aging well than aging poorly.

That said, even for someone whose primary focus is running, low-impact cardio is an amazing supplement. Most amateur runners aren't doing anywhere near enough low-intensity work to maximize the metabolic and fitness gains available from very easy aerobic efforts. Biking, rowing, swimming, even just simply walking all improve both aerobic fitness and fat-burning capacity. Parker Valby has become the fastest college women's 5Ker ever on three runs a week, using tons of cross-training to supplement the low running volume.

Ultimately, I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution. The standard advice for running faster at distance is that more volume is better as long as you don't get hurt, but that last caveat is so broad and totalizing that it makes figuring out individual optima really difficult. I certainly wouldn't worry about negative long-run consequences of volume if I wasn't getting hurt, but if I was constantly getting dinged up, I would rethink that. Likewise, if you're already doing a bunch of interval work supplemented by low-impact cardio, that's certainly a proven effective strategy and if you're not getting hurt, that's great.

The advice to go the other direction and focus on volume first is what I tell someone that doesn't have a program yet and is debating what to do. If you're not already a runner, I think starting on intervals is a bad idea because of the injury risk. If you're having success and you're happy with what you're doing, all's well.

I've seen the Terminator my dude. 40 watts is a ridiculously low power rating for a plasma rifle, because the screenwriters don't know physics.

It was a joke. And grapes do turn into plasma in a microwave, if you thought that was a joke.

https://www.snexplores.org/article/why-microwaving-grapes-makes-plasma-fireballs

I was filling out the ACX survey the other day and I ticked the boxes to indicate "I didn't have the internet growing up." I was in my mid-thirties when I got my first smartphone

Neither did I. My parents were luddites about things like giving their kids phones or internet access, I was probably past 16 when I first got a decent smartphone and a broadband connection. It's too long ago for me to resent them for it, but it was a stupid decision then and remains that way.

So I certainly am not so young that I don't remember a time when television and books were your best bet for entertainment, I happen to remember being rather dissatisfied with that state of affairs, and even more when it was artificially prolonged. I certainly didn't enjoy nature much at that time, but maybe it's all the mosquitoes that sour me on them.

As you correctly state, I think modernity is the best things have ever been, though I can happily acknowledge that people can have different tastes and there are certainly normal people who still pine for the uh, pines, and love being outdoors and on the trail. It just isn't my cup of caffeinated beverage. The majority of people do have that option, like your kids, and find other things more attractive. I understand that can be painful for you, given how dear that experience is to your own heart.

I feel the same about drugs like Ozempic in that their long-term effects are not yet known. One always pays the piper eventually, at least in my experience.

This kind of belief always confuses me. Many people seem to have an adversarial relationship with the universe, as if there's some ironclad law of Equivalent Exchange, and that because a simple pill has had so many positive benefits, there must be a catch somewhere, maybe it causes brain tumors fifty years down the line or something.

Thankfully, that isn't how things work. Semaglutide/Ozempic was known to be safe when it was first approved for diabetes a good while back. Then said diabetics began to lose an incredible amount of weight. Some drugs for diabetes cause weight loss, but not nearly as much, some even cause weight gain. This was so surprising they looked into it further and then were so blown away they decided to apply to the FDA for another trial to treat just obesity alone.

And then, after it was approved for that purpose, doctors noticed it was suddenly curing alcoholism and gambling addictions. It's basically an anti-superstimulus drug to a degree.

It is also extremely safe, the only negative consequence of note is occasional constipation in some people, and loss of muscle with the fat, which is a common issue for any treatment that causes rapid weight loss, be it gastric bypass surgery or fasting. The benefits still outweigh the risk enormously.

Your suspicion is highly unwarranted, all the more because other people with the same kind of suspicion have done their best to find something horribly wrong with it and failed to turn anything up.

The universe is apathetic, not evil. We can occasionally find ourselves a good thing, ozempic seems to be one of them.

I think that leads to one set of rules for private universities and another set for public. IIRC public universities have been considered extensions of the state in other court cases. Do we think the courts are willing to allow that split?

Increasingly I think the key to good politics is, in internet parlance, to make the enemy sperg out. You need them to get really mad, to feel the combination of humiliation, shame and rage that leads to acting out. Only then can you really destroy them by pointing out how ridiculous they are. (On a related note, Zionists doing this is why support for Israel is currently falling in the West.) It’s why a few swastika tattooed prison gang room temp IQ ‘grand dragon’ KKK-LARPers can be pushed to discredit large swathes of the far right with the public, but it’s also why leftists projecting “Glory to the Martyrs of Al-Aqsa” or whatever onto university buildings in American cities can make a bunch of centrist swing voters go ‘man these guys are kinda crazy though’.

Since almost every single leftist in America is strongly anti-Israel, while the vast majority of conservatives, even if they don’t care about or like Jews (as @hydroacetylene says) either support Israel for eschatological reasons or don’t give a shit, this is an effective way of singling out leftists. What every critical race theorist, marxist philosopher and academic ‘decolonize science’ poaster in America has in common right now is a 🇵🇸 flag in their Instagram bio. Even most Jewish leftist (rather than merely lib) academics are strongly anti-zionist, as seen by the various Jews sanctioned by their own universities for statements since 10/7.

Free speech absolutism on campus sailed probably a century or so ago.

I always think it’s funny when people imply that the America of the past had stronger free speech rules. Free speech in the US is less than a century old. A hundred years ago there was extensive state-led regulation of speech, art, lewdness and countless other things we’d consider 1A rights today. New York jailed people for writing leftist manifestos, or professing to be anarchists; California jailed people for flying the communist flag. During the wars the state banned publication of truths the government didn’t like, harassed and threatened journalists far more than it did now, and the idea in 1894 or whatever that the government couldn’t ban certain kinds of speech was seen as ridiculous. Free speech in the US is an invention of the Supreme Court in the twentieth century.

I think ‘from the river to the sea’ shouldn’t be banned at colleges or universities, and I agree that most people who use it don’t intend for it to mean the ethnic cleansing or murder of Israelis. (I also think most people, even at Malema rallies, who shout ‘kill the Boer’ don’t actually want to exterminate Afrikaner farmers, but they do typically quite transparently wish to dispossess them).

Nevertheless, as in that case, ‘from the river to the sea’ effectively means the large-scale murder of Jews, since no Palestinian one-state solution would tolerate a longstanding Jewish presence and because the democratically elected leadership of a free Palestine would almost certainly be an Islamist group that, like Hamas and the Houthis and bolstered by countless extremely anti-Jewish hadiths that have become more prominent in Islamist scholarship over the last forty years (gharqad tree etc), would in practice seek to kill any remaining Jews in Palestine.

You can draw the South Africa comparison, but the simple fact is that South African black people mostly have no personal animus toward whites. There is a politician grift complex and there is plenty of resentment that 30 years after apartheid ended many are still poor etc etc, but the primary racial hostilities in South Africa are between blacks and Indians, between indigenous black peoples (ie. Khoi-San) and Bantus, and between South African citizens and migrants from the Congo and elsewhere in Central Africa who are perceived as pushing down wages for the urban poor. This was substantially true even before 1994, and from the rich to the poor few people in SA actually think that kicking out whites will solve the country’s problem. Even today, polling in SA shows that:

South Africans say creating jobs and fighting corruption are much more important as government priorities than “racism”, or “land reform”.

By contrast, it is clear that the primary policy preference of most Palestinians in the Levant is hostility towards Jewish rule of Israel even at extraordinary cost to themselves, no matter how many bodies pile up. There would be no ‘debate’ on land reform in a one-state Palestine (unlike in SA, where whites still own 55% of prime agricultural land, the majority of valuable private enterprise and so on), everything would be taken. And given that this hostility is also a longstanding part of Islamic religious and cultural values, we can assume without any leaps of logic that the end of Israel as a Jewish state would also guarantee, in short order, the end of any Jewish presence in Palestine. Meanwhile, there are many African countries like Namibia, Botswana and Kenya that retain sizable white communities 50+ years after independence.