kava
@kava@lemmy.world
- Comment on Seriously, what the f*** is keeping Donald Trump in this presidential race? 1 month ago:
Did everyone just collectively agree to forget 2016? The polls were all favoring Clinton by a dramatic margin. CNN famously had a headline where they predicted Clinton had a 99% chance to win off of the polls.
And what ended up happening? 538 (before bought and neutered by ABC) gave the odds 65-35 or so, in Clinton’s favor. Trump ended up winning that 35%. This year, according to polls, Trump’s odds are better than in 2016. Kamala has the upper hand, but
A) lots of things can change suddenly before the election (like the Hilary emails thing)
B) polls are not the ultimate arbiter of who will win an election- actual real votes are
C) Trump more than likely has some “extracurricular plans” in store, much like Jan 6th, that has a chance of working.
Tldr: don’t get drunk on positive news. Keep a level head and you’ll see this election is still very close to a coin flip
- Comment on Why does the USA have so few legal protections for ordinary people, and how can we change that? 2 months ago:
There are laws against excessive fees like this. In my home state of Florida, a landlord cannot charge more than 20% the rent in late fees.
And trust me, Florida is not known for its consumer protections. So chances are your state has a similar law which is probably better.
So if I were you I would look up the law and not pay.
Assuming of course you are telling the full truth- your full rent payment was late for a short period of time.
- Comment on why isn't anyone calling for Trump to drop out. 3 months ago:
We can discuss what people should do all day. I’m talking about what people will do. Biden is losing this election. People are talking more about whether he is even capable of the job and nothing about the good things he can do for the country. His own party is rebelling against him, with Dems from swing states calling for his resignation.
Biden’s toast, and the DNC with him. It’s unfortunate but it is what it is.
- Comment on why isn't anyone calling for Trump to drop out. 3 months ago:
Speaking confidence has nothing to do with lying or telling the truth. Go back 20 years ago and look at a Biden speech and compare it to today. Hell, go back 4 years ago to the last Biden v Trump debates.
Biden isn’t half the capable public speaker he was before. He mumbles and gets lost. He sounds unsure.
Trump doesn’t care if what he’s saying truth or not, he just says things with the conviction of a conman.
- Comment on why isn't anyone calling for Trump to drop out. 3 months ago:
You have to look at it from the GOP perspective. Trump is the most popular candidate, he managed to accomplish big ticket items in his administration, and he is more “mentally there” than Biden.
Just look at debate. Trump spoke quickly and confidently. Biden mumbles and forgets what he’s talking about, stands there with mouth open staring, etc.
There’s a reason in 2020 debates, polls showed most people thought Biden won the 2 debates. But in the last one, overwhelming % of people thought Trump won debates- even democratic voters.
- Comment on why isn't anyone calling for Trump to drop out. 3 months ago:
I think you misunderstand who is asking Biden to drop out and why.
Dems are interested in who is the DNC candidate and Republicans are interested in the GOP candidate.
Republicans as a whole are OK with Trump. He’s not incredibly popular, but he has some achievements under his belt and has a relatively small but very loyal core group of voters. The average Republican believes that a) Trump has good chances of winning election and b) will likely move forward conservative policy objectives.
Therefore, why would they want him to drop out?
If we look on the other side at Biden. A growing group of people believe that he is not 100% mentally there because of his age. Because of this, not only does he a) have lower chances of winning the election but also b) is he really competent enough to be president? Sure, there’s a sort of shadow administration behind him but people still put value in having a strong and mentally quick head of state.
Beyond that, there’s also a small group of progressive voters who are unhappy with Biden’s policies. He simply isn’t a very effective leader and is one of the most unpopular presidents in US history. He’s even more unpopular than Trump, who was also a deeply unpopular president.
So, people want Biden to resign because they believe other people would not only a better chance of winning election, but would be more effective leaders in terms of advancing DNC policy objectives.
- Comment on The justices of the supreme court ruled that Trump was immune and effectively above the law while being president. What is now stopping Biden from bringing a gun to the next debate? 3 months ago:
If your argument is: the Supreme Court is compromised and will intentionally ignore the constitution and the laws to protect Trump- then what difference does this ruling make?
Why did the courts not hand the election to him? He sued in many courts over the 2020 election drama. Fake votes, rigged election, etc. He lost every court case.
I think people assume the 9 justices are politically motivated but they in general hold a deep respect for the laws and the constitution. Every single decision is documented and you can read their opinions. Everything has legal reasoning, nothing happens just because
For example the Roe v Wade one. I don’t think they should have repealed it for practical purposes- but the ruling legally makes sense. The courts are not legislators. Congress should be the one passing legislation to give right to abortion, not the courts.
Why did Congress not pass anything since 1974? There were many Democratic majorities since 1974.
I wouldn’t have repealed just because of the damage it caused, but I understand the legal argument.
So to summarize: they follow the law. Not necessarily what is best for the country
everything could be viewed as official in the right lens
No, isn’t true. Insider trading? Not official. Is a crime and can be prosecuted.
And note that it is “presumptive immunity” not absolute immunity. Therefore even official actions can be criminally prosecuted on a case by case basis. It’s just that because it’s presumptive, there’s a higher threshold of evidence the state would need to prosecute.
If president had immunity, why Nixon
Nixon did not act in an official capacity. He was guilty of obstruction of justice, breaking into office, etc. These things he did not do in an official capacity.
I think a better example would be the Iran Contra affair. I think that’s a very legitimate concern. If I order the CIA to do something - is it official? What if it’s something clearly against the laws and/or against interests of the USA? Here I think there is a valid concern although that doesn’t mean the ruling is the end of democracy like people are making it out to be
It’s OK to do insurrection
He can still be held criminally liable for the insurrection. He will argue he was acting officially, it will go to a lower court, then bubble up to the USSC and they will rule.
I think it’s fairly obvious it was not official
OK to use official employee
Yeah I think this is wrong and a valid concern. Although keep in mind: they already had this presumptive immunity. The difference is now the law is clearer and there’s a process to remove this immunity whereas before it wasn’t there
denying people who actually understand the law, like professors, etc
You can find just as many legal experts who agree with the majority opinion. It was 6-3 in the Supreme Court.
But again- appeal to authority doesn’t work. You make arguments, like you did in this comment. I respect you more than almost anyone else because you took the time to read and give reasoning
I don’t believe what someone says just because they’re an expert. I listen, but I look at the reasoning. Look up “Nobel disease” . Experts sometimes say some wild things
our Congress is deadlocked
Yes they are a mess and we’re headed towards fascism. Not because of this ruling though
- Comment on The justices of the supreme court ruled that Trump was immune and effectively above the law while being president. What is now stopping Biden from bringing a gun to the next debate? 3 months ago:
Pt2: had to split in two because of length. See other comment first
_______continued…
my response to this is: if there is immunity, but not for criminal prosecution, what does the immunity apply to?
moving forward, the dissenter discusses the “framework for prosecution of unofficial acts”
Quick on the heels of announcing this astonishingly broad official-acts immunity, the majority assures us that a former President can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts.” Ante, at 15. Of course he can. No one has questioned the ability to prosecute a former President for unofficial acts Even Trump did not claim immunity for such acts and, as the majority acknowledges, such an immunity would be impossible
essentially saying, yes. unofficial immunity would be absurd.
It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is “‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,’” he is taking official action
they are arguing that the statement is too broad. that it would be effectively impossible to distinguish an item from “official” to “unofficial”
so their problem is not that there doesn’t exist a method to prosecute a president for criminal actions, but that the proposed framework is not going to be effective in doing so
to conclude: i’ve read a couple dissenters and i’ve read a couple of the majority. i personally don’t think this ruling is as important as everyone is making it out to be
why?
-
the president already has these powers, except it has been in a gray legal area up until now. it is essentially writing down active policy. the president had presumed immunity for official acts before this
-
it creates a framework to determine whether or not a president is acting in his official capacity. this power gets thrown to the courts.
what this does is it gives the legislative branch a check against the president. i support more checks against the president because i think the executive is too powerful in general
now, i understand the viewpoint that should the courts want to, they could rule everything the president does as “official” and therefore the president is effectively immune should the court politically be aligned with the president.
however, i would repond that is the courts are politically aligned, they would have inevitably ruled in the same manner should this case have come up 10 yearse from now.
this case, while important in the sense that it officially reinforces this precedence, it doesn’t functionally change anything going forward
now that i’ve written out my reasoning, if you disagree with any specific points, feel free. i’m not an expert i’m a layman with a mild interest in constitutional law. i’m more than happy to admit i’m wrong. i’m not a conservative so please believe me i’m not partisanly motivated to see one side or another here. i’m going off of my own independent interpretation
-
- Comment on The justices of the supreme court ruled that Trump was immune and effectively above the law while being president. What is now stopping Biden from bringing a gun to the next debate? 3 months ago:
Pt1:appeal to authority means nothing to me, and it shouldn’t to you, because experts and authorities can be wrong just like anyone else. i care about the merits of the argument, as everyone should
and for that, we need to critically think and analyze reasoning on its own merits.
so let’s actually read the court opinion, which you can easily find on the supreme court website if you’re actually curious.
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts
so essentially - that’s exactly what i said. president has immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. what is the court’s reasoning?
Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”
It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power.
So, the court’s opinion is that when a President is within his constitutionally defined powers he cannot be held criminally liable. Otherwise, for example, virtually every president for the last few decades could be held criminally liable for some crime. I brought up the examples of the classified document mishandling previously, but there are many more should you go looking.
Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the President’s immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Framers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers
So, not everything a president does falls within this immunity bubble. How do we decide what is official and what isn’t? Well, first we look at the seperation of powers outlined in the constitution. You know, the stuff you were taught in elementary school. 3 branches of government. What is within the scope of the executive branch, president has authority over.
The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472 They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” Appreciating the “unique risks” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.”
Essentially, the argument is: the President should not be afraid to act because of fear of criminal prosecution. For example, if something like killing a political leader of an enemy state is deemed critical to national security - he has the ability to choose this course of action without fear of being charged for murder. If we did not allow for this, the president’s office would be weaker. The opinion shares many court cases and items of the constitution that reinforces this authority the president is granted.
At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
So he can actually be prosecuted for specific acts if the proseuction can show that it doesn’t impede on the use of his constitutionally appointed powers.
As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct.
Again, like my previous comment - unofficial acts do not hold immunity. Items outside of his legal presidential powers are not protected.
The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view.”
So, how do we determine what is “official” versus “unofficial”? Well, the courts decide. However, as the Supreme Court is intended by the constitution to be a “final destination” the process must start at the lower courts and work its way up to the Supreme Court.
So essentially, the decision states a) president has immunity for official acts, b) does not have immunity for unofficial acts, and c) it presents a framework and process for determining the difference between the two
the decision was ruled 6-3
so what did the dissenters say? well here’s justice Sotomayor
Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President
They are saying that the argument that the president neesd to act “bold and unhestitatingly” as specified by the constitution is not enough reason to warrant immunity.
the next couple pages, which i won’t quote here for brevity, outlines the crimes that Trump committed circa Jan 6th. None of this has anything to do with the argument above, but has more to do with how Trump blatantly broke the law during this event and lists several examples
The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution.
self explanatory, we’re going back to the topic at hand
The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.”
i disagree with the statement “completely insulate presidents from criminal liability”. as we showed before, there is a framework for prosecuting presidents should they act in a manner outside of their constitutionally protected powers. the next statement, of course, is just a rehashing of the decision. president has immunity for his “core presidential powers”
a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution.
this is patently false. if they act in an unofficial manner, they do not get immunity. the courts have the power to determine acts “unofficial” and prosecute him
The Constitution’s text contains no provision for immunity from criminal prosecution for former Presidents
well, this is up for debate and interpretation. it’s been widely recognized that presidents have immunity for official acts. this has been the accepted situation for very long time. if you want to read about the history of this precedence: …findlaw.com/…/article-ii--presidential-immunity-…
that article from way before this court case, goes over both the constitutional basis for the precedence as well as supreme court cases that reinforced the precedence
so while the constitution does not explicitly state that the president has immunity, it can be implied that these powers arise from both the powers and responsibilities vested to the office of president
the dissenting judge says as much in the next statement
Of course, “the silence of the Constitution on this score is not dispositive.”
essentially saying - the lack of explicit mention does not by itself necessarily mean the opinion of the court is incorrect.
they then make the argument, which i will summarize for brevity, that a) the framers of the constitution provided for limited immunity for legislators and b) state constitutions at this time period had immunitities
therefore, the framers would have been aware of this and would have explicitly mentioned this if they intended this. therefore, they argue it was not intended by the framers of the constitution
my statement is - this is a valid argument. perhaps the framers not only did not intend for immunity, they left it explicitly unmentioned because they did intend for the president to have immunity.
however i believe this statement alone is not enough to justify a dissent with the opinion. mainly because there’s a lot of things that framers intended or didn’t intend that we have modified since. i don’t think i have to elaborate here.
then the dissenter goes on
Aware of its lack of textual support, the majority points out that this Court has “recognized Presidential immunities and privileges ‘rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.’” Ante, at 10 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 749). That is true, as far as it goes.
essentially saying - yes, the majority points out the established precedence that the Supreme Court has on this topic, and they are correct in using that as an argument
Nothing in our history, however, supports the majority’s entirely novel immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.
however, nothing in the precedence applies explicitly to criminal prosecution. essentially saying - the precedence holds for presidential immunities but not from criminal prosecution.
- Comment on The justices of the supreme court ruled that Trump was immune and effectively above the law while being president. What is now stopping Biden from bringing a gun to the next debate? 3 months ago:
Acts done in an official manner are immune. So for example if the president orders assassination of political leader of another country (what Trump did with Iran’s Suleinami (I’m probably butchering name)). Protects president from prosecution for murder or whatever if there is evidence it was done in the interest of the state.
Another example is something Biden / Trump and even Hilary are guilty of. The misuse or mishandling of classified materials. Since they are acting in an official manner, it isn’t a crime like it would be if a normal citizen mishandled the documents.
Acts done in an “unofficial manner” are not immune. So let’s say a Mr President does some insider trading while president to enrich himself personally. That presumably would still be illegal and he could be charged.
So who decides what is official and what isn’t? The courts. Lower courts make a determination and presumably it would go up to the SC if necessary.
It’s an interesting question. For example- Reagan’s Iran-Contra episode. Where his administration was smuggling cocaine in order to get money to covertly supply weapons to Iran. Would that be official or unofficial?
I think people need to realize the president has had broad powers to do a lot of dubious things for decades. This doesn’t necessarily increase or decrease his power, but creates a potential pathway to either prosecute or acquit him. Whereas before, it always stayed in the legal gray zone (in Reagan’s Iran Contra)
- Comment on Should I permanently leave Israel? 5 months ago:
I think Israel in its current state is beyond saving
I think the fundamental issue with Isreal is that it was started as an ethnostate with the national religion explicitly endorsing their own population as “special” and “chosen by God”.
That ideology would never be compatible with a modern cosmopolitan liberal democratic society. All races and religions and people should be of equal worth. Any ideology that views itself as somehow special would always degenerate to apartheid and brutality.
Add in the fact that Jews are some of the smartest and most industrious people on the planet and you have a very dangerous country. You mix willingness and capacity and you get action- what we are seeing in Gaza today, and really what we’ve been seeing for decades.
I guess that is a long winded way to say, I agree. Israel in its current manifestation cannot be saved. It would require a total deconstruction of their ideology and to be frank, that probably isn’t happening anytime soon.
Maybe after WW3.
- Comment on What is a good eli5 analogy for GenAI not "knowing" what they say? 5 months ago:
It’s all just fancy statistics. It turns words into numbers. Then it finds patterns in those numbers. When you enter a prompt, it finds numbers that are similar and spits out an answer.
You can get into vectors and back propagation and blah blah blah but essentially it’s a math formula. We call it AI but it’s not fundamentally different than solving 2x + 4 = 10 for x.
- Comment on American wanting to move abroad, what's the best bet for an registered nurse? 5 months ago:
Couple of things
There was a 62% voter turnout in the 2020 election. 46.8% of voters voted for Trump.
0.62 x 0.468 = .290
So actually, 29% of people voted for Trump.
If we do the same calculation for AfD in 2021. 76.6% voter turnout in Germany and AfD got 10.4% of votes.
0.766 x 0.104 = 0.799
So the difference looks like 29% to 8% US to Germany.
But you have to remember the US and Germany are different political systems. There are only two parties in the US, so each of the big parties (DNC, GOP) have many different factions. Moderate Republicans would be an entirely different party from Trumpian “MAGA” Republicans if the US had a party system like Germany.
They functionally ally together in order to form a government, much like different parties will do in parliamentary systems in Europe.
So if we for example take the center-right Christian conservative party and add that to AfD, which in my opinion more closely resembles the GOP, we get the following numbers.
76.6% voter turnout. AfD got 10.4% of votes. CDU got 24.1% of votes.
0.766 x (0.104 + 0.241) = .264
So we’re actually looking at a ratio more like 29% US to 26% Germany. Fundamentally not that different.
And last thing I’d like to add. Shifts in the political Overton window like we’re seeing right now happens at an exponential rate. It’s why Germany in the early 1900s went from a liberal democratic society to full blown Fascist dictatorship fairly quickly.
I think the process has started in the US first, but the movement is shifting to other countries too. US news is emphasized because of the importance of the US as a superpower, but this process of the hard shift to the right is happening in many countries.
We see it not only in certain parties gaining ground like Fratelli d’Italia, Sweden Democrats, Rassemblement National, Alternative für Deutschland, etc - but the rhetoric changing. Anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric that would be rare a decade or two ago is seeing a large increase.
I view the US as the leader of the Zietgiest right now, much like Germany was the leader of the Zietgiest during WW2. It’s leading the pack, but we’re all headed towards the same destination.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 months ago:
It’s because our media is manipulated. When Saudi Arabia commits war crimes, it’s more or less ignored. When Russia does it, it’s plastered all over the media. China suppresses protests, it’s an authoritarian hellhole. When we do it, it’s law and order. In China the great firewall is censorship, here when we ban TikTok it’s justified.
I suggest everyone read Chomsky’s manufacturing consent. It goes over many historical examples like above
- Comment on American wanting to move abroad, what's the best bet for an registered nurse? 5 months ago:
There are right wing populists in virtually every democracy these days. It’s not an issue unique to the US. I think it’s a byproduct of our times. Economic uncertainty + geopolitical tensions and war = hard shift to the right.
- Comment on [Serious] Why do so many people seem to hate veganism? 5 months ago:
I looked through out of curiosity and I believe you can say with a bit of a stretch that I hit about 3.
I’m never going to go vegan. I was raised in a part of South America with a very strong cattle / meat culture. I don’t want to live without nice steaks every week.
If that means some animal has to live in what’s essentially slavery then it’s the price I’m willing to pay.
Just like we’re both willing to live with poor 3rd worlders mining lithium and cobalt for us in abysmal conditions so that we can communicate on our fancy electronic devices.
The system is a pyramid. Is it our fault we were born near the top? Reminds me of the part in the Bible, the rich man comes up to Jesus and asks him what he should do.
Jesus says “sell all of your belongings, give the money to charity, and follow me”. What’d the rich man do? He cried.
The point is that people wanna be good and ethical but don’t actually want to give up quality of life. It’s not just veganism, it’s for everything. Capitalist/imperialist exploitation, climate change, etc.
Try to lead by example, sell your stuff and follow Jesus.
- Comment on [Serious] Why do so many people seem to hate veganism? 5 months ago:
Veganism is more or less a 1st world phenomenon. Most humans, especially in the past, did not have the luxury to choose what they could eat. They ate what they could get and if they got access to meat and animal products they ate it because it has high nutritional and caloric value. Even the vegetarian Indians who don’t eat meat foe religious purposes still have eggs, milk, etc.
It feels disconnected with the human struggle.
In addition, it’s sort of meaningless in the grand scheme of things. OK. You don’t eat meat to protect domesticated cows. In reality, those cows would not exist in the first place. So really, you’re advocating to eliminate the species of domesticated cattle.
In addition, our modern society requires massive amounts of energy which is often generated by fossil fuels. Even if a society uses 100% solar, they’re importing products from countries like China that burn coal.
So you’re pumping out carbon emissions that will inevitably result in mass extinctions anyway. It seems like a meaningless protest against the inevitable. You say let’s exterminate the cows to save them from suffering on one hand and with the other drive to work talking on your iPhone with the A/C turned up- contributing to the destruction of infinitely more animals.
The only real way to stop is for everyone to give up every modern luxury and live in a log cabin in the woods. And for the vast majority of the population to die off.
It just feels like pissing into the void but doing so with moral superiority.
Having said all that, I empathize with many vegans. But those are some thoughts on why people may look down on vegans.
- Comment on If a universal basic income started today with the stipulation that you had to put 40 hrs/wk towards making the world a better place or solving societal problems, how would you spend your time? 6 months ago:
The problem is you can’t really define what is “good for society”. Maybe I think weird abstract art is good for society, whereas most people think it’s a waste of time.
Who gets to decide?
That’s an extreme example, but there are many such types of cases. Is a cash advance place “good for society”? It scams poor people but also provides them a line of credit that banks will not.
What about used car dealerships that sell overpriced cars at high interest? Is that “good”? Poor people get scammed but it gets them a car they otherwise would not be able to get a higher end dealership.
As for what I would do? Probably just contribute to open source projects or something.
- Comment on Just banned from Worldnews for defending Israel against Hamas terrorism 8 months ago:
Almost everything you said is a propaganda and barely have any truth in them
Everything I said can be sourced.
Two different court system is there because Muslims don’t want to be in the same legislation as “kuffars”
Palestinians are subject to martial law. Has nothing to do with “kuffars”.
in military court, children as young as 12 years old can be handed prison sentences, which is unlawful under the Israeli civil legal system. … all military court hearings are held in Hebrew, which many Palestinian defendants cannot understand. The judges, prosecutors, stenographers, and translators are all uniformed members of the military.
There are roads only Jews can use? That’s a myth
Israeli authorities have restricted or prohibited Palestinian travel on 41 roads and sections of roads throughout the West Bank. These roads are open to Israelis, including settlers, allowing them to travel freely on more than 400 miles of roads from which Palestinians are barred.
Source? US Gov state.gov/…/israel-golan-heights-west-bank-and-ga…
Palestinian randomly stabs Israelis, including women and children
Israelis kill 20x the number of Palestinians. Settlers commit acts of violence all the time. Would that justify treating them worse than blacks in the 1960s?
Gaza has NOT been under blockade
Israel has directly controlled Gaza’s airspace, their entire coastline, and controlled their land borders. This is the textbook definition of a blockade.
Israel blocked or limited specific types of items from going into Gaza - including construction materials. A non-exhaustive list of items
Amnesty International and other organizations reported that cement, glass, steel, bitumen, wood, paint, doors, plastic pipes, metal pipes, metal reinforcement rods, aggregate, generators, high voltage cables and wooden telegraph poles were "high priority reconstruction materials currently with no or highly limited entry into Gaza through official crossings.
It’s totally normal that Israel controls entry and exit in Gaza. Why is that a problem? I cannot enter US or EU without visa
The difference is you can actually apply for a visa to leave. Palestinians cannot leave. They cannot go to West Bank to visit family. In fact, the Israeli Supreme Court actually ruled explicitly that Palestinians living in Gaza cannot visit the other half of Palestine. It’s their country - but they can’t go there. www.gisha.org/…/Disengagement_Danger_6feb_06.pdf
Israel killed Palestinians and Palestinians killed Israelis.
The difference is exactly what you said - one side has all the power. This is a one-sided fight. It’s always been a one-sided fight. Which is why the Palestinians resort to terrorism. They have no other options, they are slowly being suffocated.
Israel is an apartheid far-right regime. You cannot deny this. Every single point you made has been addressed. I know I’m wasting my time with you, but maybe someone else.
- Comment on Just banned from Worldnews for defending Israel against Hamas terrorism 8 months ago:
Can you copy paste the exchange that got you banned? I never believe people who complain about bans - they never show the full story. Usually it’s justified, although not always.
Anyhow, I will ask you a few questions.
How many Palestinians can Israel kill before it’s not self defense anymore?
Is apartheid acceptable to you? West Bank has two different court systems- one for Israelis and another for Palestinians. An Israeli teenager might get probation for the same crime that a Palestinian teenager will get 9 months.
There are roads that only Jews can use. Palestinians can get arrested without reasonable cause and be held without a trial indefinitely.
Is that OK for you?
Gaza has been under blockade for decades now. Do you think that’s ok? That a Palestinian can’t just leave?
Did you know in order to leave Gaza before Oct 7th, a Palestinian needed to apply for a special id with the government of Israel? And they needed a valid reason. And the only reason Israel would ever accept is commercial.
So for example if you wanted to visit your family member in the West Bank, you would get refused.
Do you think it’s OK for Israel to have killed tens of thousands of Palestinians before Oct 7th?
If you look at the statistics, for every 1 Israeli killed there were 20 dead Palestinians.
I think any rational person who has the capacity for independent thought and has a shred of empathy for other humans will inevitably oppose Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.
- Comment on Why has the world gone to shit? 9 months ago:
I think of it like the Stanford Prison Experiment. As a human, we are meant to play roles in a hierarchical structure.
So if I put you in a role, certain parts of your personality are going to come out subconsciously. You become the right person to fit the role.
Pretty much like you said- if you are given wild amounts of money you start to justify it and become someone else.
- Comment on What is an average person living in the US supposed to do about corporations raising prices? 9 months ago:
I think it’s an interesting thing. My parents had me at a much younger age, with much less money, in a country with a much more chaotic economic situation.
We had a peak of 10% inflation in my state (Florida) in the last couple of years. The year I was born, my country was going through 2,000% inflation.
Yet my parents provided regardless and here I am, just fine with my little brother doing just fine as well.
So I think ultimately if me and my girlfriend really went for it, we would make it work. But she wants to have a mortgage, be able to pay for nannies and daycare and whatnot. We’re just not there yet.
I agree with you that the economic situation needs to improve. It’s like the powers that be are actively trying to suppress the population growth.
- Comment on What is an average person living in the US supposed to do about corporations raising prices? 9 months ago:
If I were a Martin Luther King Jr or something maybe I could lead a mass movement. Unfortunately I’m just a notch above mediocre.
I think this discussion is actually an interesting one though, and they’ve been talking about it since biblical times. There’s a part of the New Testament where Jesus is preaching and a rich man comes up to him.
“Jesus, I want to follow you. What do I need to do?”
Jesus says
Sell all of your possessions, give all the money to charity and then follow me.
Essentially, disconnect entirely from the system and give up all your luxuries. The rich man cried. “It is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than a camel to fit through the eye of a needle”
We like to think we are poor but even just living in the bottom quartile in a Western country we are part of the richest people in the world. Are you willing to give up running water, electricity, electronics, a car, eating meat, etc? I’m not. I’m not going to heaven, but I’m also not losing sleep over it.
- Comment on What is an average person living in the US supposed to do about corporations raising prices? 9 months ago:
i don’t think the system is fair or ethical. if it were up to me, it would be different.
but the system isn’t fair or ethical and i am forced to live in it, so i’m going to live in it in such a way that puts me in a better position.
yes, the majority of the population gets fucked. if you are asking for my advice though, i’d say position yourself in a way where you are not that majority
if you have a politician i could vote for that would actually change things or some sort of organization i could support then i would support them
- Comment on What is an average person living in the US supposed to do about corporations raising prices? 9 months ago:
Make more money. Your income should be going up over time in line with inflation. This is easier if you don’t work a dead-end job and are willing to change jobs every once in a while.
Basically if you work in a retail or food service job, your main priority in life should be to get out of that industry and into something else. Even something as simple as working in a warehouse or construction will get you a lot more $$$ with much more leverage for raises and forward-moving promotions.
Me and my girlfriend both work full time and we are able to more or less easily afford rent and food. It helps to have two incomes. Although I will say, it’s sad that she got pregnant with twins and we ultimately decided we couldn’t keep them because of the financial situation. I wanted them but she didn’t feel like we were financially stable enough.
So yeah, people gotta learn to live like it’s a third world country. It’s not the 1950s anymore where everyone can work whatever job and make ends meet.
- Comment on Is Fiction Literature Powerful? (The Same Way Non-fiction Is?) 1 year ago:
Fiction I think is much more important than non-fiction. It explores the human condition and the nature of reality. It’s been shown that people who read fiction more are more empathetic. The reason is clear - reading puts you in the mind of another. It allows you to visualize their perspective.
This is not only good generally because empathy makes the world a better place, it’s even good in a machiavellian sense because the better you understand humans the better you can manipulate them.
There’s a quote by Twain I believe where he says something like “Fiction is much more real than non-fiction. Reality doesn’t have to make sense, but fiction does”
- Comment on How can I become a better conversationalist? 1 year ago:
Conversations are more about listening than talking. I suggest reading “How to Win Friends and Influence People” for a more in depth overview. Essentially, become genuinely interested in the person you are talking to.
Try to understand them. Try to figure out what is important to them and ask questions with these interests in mind. By being interested and asking questions that the other person wants to answer, they will do a majority of the talking and will feel like you are a great conversationalist.
Of course, sometimes this is easier said than done… and it must be done genuinely. You must be genuinely interested. There are subconscious cues you communicate when you are interested in someone, and everybody loves being the focus of someone else’s deep and genuine attention.
Once you’ve done this and built up rapport, then you can give personal anecdotes or get to your sales pitch or what have you.
Some other general tips are - speak slowly! Don’t go overboard obviously but slower is more confident and puts people at ease. Say the other person’s name when appropriate. Everybody loves the sound of their own name. Compliment people on things you genuinely appreciate. Nobody likes flattery but everyone likes being appreciated.
- Comment on Martin Scorsese urges filmmakers to fight comic book movie culture: ‘We’ve got to save cinema’ 1 year ago:
I was curious so I looked them up. Their wiki doesn’t have much info, but it did mention they grew up in Adelaide Australia. I looked up median home price there and you seem to be right, it’s one of the richest parts of the country.
Regardless, from a quick cursory glance it seems they’ve been making videos since they were 11 years old. It was through their popular YouTube channel that they made certain connections. They for example managed to be a part of the filming of the Babadook, another great Australian horror movie.
So while yes, their wealth certainly helped I think YouTube becoming a conduit into more “legitimate” video form is something that I think will likely happen more and more
- Comment on [deleted] 1 year ago:
Yeah I think you’re right and it’s sort of the result of a long game of telephone. Soy is a complete protein but it’s a lower quality protein. For example whey protein, which comes from milk and therefore an animal product, is much easier for your body to process and use.
Studies have shown that while both are complete proteins, whey’s amino acid profile for example is superior for muscle growth. A few of the amino acids in soy your body can’t really use that well.
This simple fact slowly becomes “soy is dangerous” as one person tells another and shares a link on Facebook and so on.
People really need to learn to just search up research articles and read a few studies. It’s not that hard to do and it’s generally the most reliable way to learn about something.
- Comment on Martin Scorsese urges filmmakers to fight comic book movie culture: ‘We’ve got to save cinema’ 1 year ago:
I think movies and music have developed differently with rise of technology. The barrier to entry for making music and having it become popular has dramatically changed. You could in theory make a short song, have it go viral on the short videos (Tiktok, IG Reels, YT Shorts, etc) and you can in theory become a household name.
You don’t need a big company mediating that. Anyone with a shitty laptop and some free time can take a go at this.
Movies? Not so much. A movie requires millions of dollars and then requires big companies to handle distribution, advertisement, production, etc.
This difference creates a sort of competition in the music industry, keeping the record companies in check whereas that simply doesn’t exist in the movie industry. They are different animals. If independent movie makers could easily make successful movies without big companies, then I think it would be different.
Having said all that, Talk To Me was made by a couple of YouTubers and that is having a lot of success and honestly is a great movie. So maybe it’s changing in the movie industry too