FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
No bio...
User ID: 757
I actually agree with you that a lot of people are concerned about the impacts of these apps and tech companies - I try to minimise their impact on my own life and my (as of yet hypothetical) children will never be given unsupervised access to this kind of tech. But the problem is that as someone who lives in one of those nations(Australia), I can see the actual impact and effects of the legislation - which is to do absolutely nothing to stop the pernicious effects of social media, while at the same time forcing anyone who wishes to comment or provide input to the online conversation to provide their face and/or government ID.
I do agree that there should be regulation targeting these apps and that ultimately it would be a good thing for that to happen - the problem is just that the implementation has consistently done nothing of the sort and only really makes sense if viewed from a conspiratorial lens. While it is possible that the government is just incompetent, I don't really trust that they would make mistakes that coincidentally give them the identity of anyone making comments that they don't like on social media, and especially after explicitly saying that they wanted to end anonymous online comments - which Anthony Albanese has actually done.
all the Americans
I'm not an American.
Here was me thinking GDPR, massive pain in the backside though it is, was to prevent data scraping and turning customers into commodities by selling every single jot and tittle of information you hand over to these companies.
Nope, it's because bald eagle screech as it flies overhead, Marine Corps march by, Star Spangled Banner flies proudly in the wind as 'America the Beautiful' is sung by the Tabernacle Choir we hate all the good things!
Did you even read my post? Your comments here have nothing to do with what I actually wrote, which was about controlling communication and speech. European elites, especially in the UK, have a deep vested interest in the restriction of speech and the control of their society through it. Are you aware of the D-notice system that's in use by the UK government, where the government can simply order media organisations not to report on certain subjects? More pertinent to the thread at hand, are you aware of Ofcom and their attempts to censor American websites to try and censor information that the UK government doesn't like?
No, the obvious answer is the true one here. Europe and the UK really really hate that the fundamental, society-altering technology that all of their citizens are using >5hrs a day is completely out of their control, as is the AI that they are hoping will become the new basis of their economy. And they are fundamentally incapable of conceiving that the answer might be less regulation rather than more.
This is in no way the obvious answer. The actual reason Europe and the UK hate the US tech companies, especially recently, is that the first amendment allows for freedom of speech which European governments absolutely cannot abide - exposure of the scandals of the elite and what they are doing is anathema to the corrupt and honestly evil governments that they have in place (see the recent disclosures about Peter Mandelson). Less regulation would in no way achieve their goals of censoring speech and keeping their population ignorant, which is why they are simply trying to use their existing powers to shut down foreign sources of uncensored communication services.
The closest American example is when America legislated the sale of TikTok (did that ever go through?).
Yes, it did, and users are now abandoning the platform in droves due to the removal of pro-Palestinian content, the mandatory amplification of Trump/Zionist content and censorship which means private messages containing the word "Epstein" cannot be sent.
The events to which I am referring involve land which was the territory of the United Kingdom/France/Portugal/&c. becoming not the territory of those nations.
The obvious implication was that India was India, just subject to the British Empire. I think that there can be an exception made for the case of removing the colonial holdings of former empires - it is extremely rare for a rule to not have valid exceptions. I think the Israel/Palestine situation falls into that category.
I doubt they would; there are many Palestinians who want the Jews either dead or living as second-class citizens, and are willing to pursue that by violence, and few who are willing to stop them.
This is inextricable from the current circumstances. During the holocaust, many jews and gypsies wanted to initiate violence upon the Germans, and there were few who are willing to stop them. This is why I also mentioned muscular denazification efforts - if you want to have peaceful co-existence, the people who murdered children and then waited for the ambulance to arrive so they could murder the medical workers need to face justice. If I stole your home and locked you in the basement, would you be willing to accept a peaceful resolution where you remain locked in the basement and I retain all of your stuff without any compensation?
That argument could also support the claim that, by supporting the (Arabs') claiming of territory (the blue areas on this map) via acts like the Kfar Etzion massacre, one is also condoning the killing of non-combatants.
Retaliatory violence is to be expected when peaceful avenues for redress of grievances are rendered impotent - Israel is by the admission of several high-ranking Israelis an imposition upon Palestinian territory. When you unwind the chain of violence backwards, you end up with the Irgun, Haganah, Stern Gang and Lehi using violent terrorism to achieve statehood. Defending their actions and the state of Israel means defending this violence and there's no real way out of it.
The NATO expansion doesn't signify; the decision of the Czech Republic/Poland/the Baltic states/&c. to pursue NATO membership was
As I said, I'm not particularly interested in litigating this conflict here (these posts are getting long enough already). If you want to start up another thread about the Russia/Ukraine conflict, feel free to do so and even tag me in it.
I'm not referring to Ghislaine Maxwell, I'm referring to someone with a thirty-year-old conviction for DUI, or a fist-fight, or shoplifting,
Usually, countries with reasonable immigration policies take matters like these into account. Are you proposing that the hypothetical Jewish state in America would be unwilling to take these people in?
And it is reasonable to want the people responsible held accountable. It is not reasonable to want a future Anne Frank held responsible, multiplied by six million.
Yes, which is why I have made the proposals I have - either a single-state solution with intense denazification efforts, or a Jewish state located in America (where presumably the nazis would be able to stay in accordance with American tradition, like operation Paperclip).
And if Germans had been subjected to what Jews have been subjected to over the past two millennia, that might be, if not on the same plane, at least in the same airport.
Honestly, based on what I'm seeing come out of Israel it is entirely understandable why they've been treated this way. If this is what the Jews do when they have statehood, the Romans were right to take it away from them.
Germany wasn't 'wiped from the map' even after doing far worse than even the most extreme accusations of Israeli conduct.
Nazi Germany was. How many members of Hitler's government continued to stay in power in Germany after the war ended?
Where? Where else should a Jewish-majority state be established, and what will become of the people currently living there?
As I said, America. The American government clearly loves Israel, to the point that they're willing to give Israel another 6.5 billion while cutting a similar amount in aid to needy families. I'm sure there are some sections of inhospitable and unpopulated desert owned by the US government that they'd be willing to hand over - they've given far more than that land was worth in financial assistance already.
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 9/EFTA01245114.pdf
Epstein wasn't a tax-dodge bro, he was an underage sex slave and blackmail supplier "bro". The reason he didn't need to spend any effort or time securing his work (see all the "had fun raping kids - jeff, sent from my ipad" emails) was because he knew that if he ever got picked up by the security organisations he'd just make a call to their boss and have the case called off - see Acosta giving him a sweetheart deal because he "belonged to intelligence".
The Epstein lead died when he did, because he wasn't stupid enough to actually write down the truly incriminating details.
This is just incorrect - there's at least one former ambassador from Mexico who is getting burned by the revelation that he fathered a child with an 11 year old girl in Mexico. But moreover, it wasn't stupidity that lead to him writing down the truly incriminating details. He most likely believed that his connections would allow him to escape any kind of serious punishment, and when he received a sweetheart deal due to "belonging to intelligence" he was proven correct. Even then, there are actually things that he considered too sensitive to put into an email - see the one where he's asked if he has anyone with influence over Assad. I don't even think it counts as stupidity - why bother protecting yourself from the intelligence agencies reading your email when you can just call up the people in charge of those intelligence agencies and ask them to get you out of trouble?
Was Ghislaine actually a reddit mod?
Several /u/Maxwellhill posts were included as evidence against her by the FBI. Not quite confirmation, but as close as we can get barring an actual confession in my opinion.
We would also have to reject the independence of India and most of Africa.
I don't think that those situations are really comparable. An existing nation changing their head of state doesn't seem to me like it would set a precedent applicable here.
I'm referring to the ideology commonly referred to its opponents as 'wokeness',
I am explicitly against wokeness and social justice politics - I think they were a bad move on the part of the left and made it less effective. My personal conspiracy theory is that it was imposed by bad actors to defang the OWS protests, but I have no evidence for it and it is explicitly just wishful thinking that I hope is true rather than any actually justified belief.
Your acknowledgement that the Palestinians as much as the Israelis need to learn to co-exist with people who aren't them would be quite rare in many universities.
Not in my experience. A lot of people realise that there is a portion of the Israeli population who genuinely have nowhere else to go, despite the vast portions of the Israeli population that can just go back to Poland or France or whatever. Once you throw in real, muscular denazification efforts (i.e. prosecutions for anyone connected to war crimes, like whoever gave the order to bulldoze piles of civilian bodies to that soldier who killed himself) and efforts to achieve justice, I'm sure the Palestinians would welcome the remainder.
I do not condone the killing of non-combatants, even if they are on the same side that started it. However, the Arab forces were not innocent in that regard.
The village itself had actually made a peace deal - who cares what the "arab forces" had done in this specific context? By supporting the claiming of territory via acts like that massacre, you are actually condoning the killing of non-combatants. By supporting Israel's current genocidal efforts, you are supporting and condoning the killing of non-combatants like Hind Rajab or Mohammed Bhar.
Vladimir Putin, with the little green men
I disagree - if you ignore the role that NATO expansion and the treatment of Russian-speakers after the Maidan you're not really painting an accurate picture of what happened. But that argument has been litigated elsewhere if you really want to get into it.
on 22nd Tishrei 5784 (7th October 2023).
Incorrect - Israel had been bombing, blowing up and illegally settling Palestinian territory for quite some time beforehand.
But is that certain to remain the case? If it changes, and the Jews are no longer safe in America, where will they go then? What about those with less-than-immaculate pasts, or those who are likely to be unable to support themselves?
"Less than immaculate pasts" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I honestly don't care that Ghislaine Maxwell or her compatriots aren't going to have a homeland of their own - prison or the bottom of the sea seems like a perfectly fine place for those like her with "non-immaculate pasts".
That is why the existence of a Jewish-majority state is seen as non-negotiable by so many.
Then what a shame that this is what they have decided to do with their state - the existence of a German-majority state is seen as non-negotiable by a lot of Germans, but that doesn't mean Nazi Germany should have been allowed to mass-murder Jewish civilians. Maybe after Israel is wiped from the map they can try again somewhere else, and avoid practicing apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
Then they launched the “we are Charlie Kirk” trend, where the emotional memory of name was blotted out as well;
Wasn't "We are Charlie Kirk" just a piece of AI slop music cynically created to make money from uncritical audiences that then got made fun of due to how incredibly schlocky it was? I think it is far more likely that the song was the result of the market trying to extract money from conservatives than a deliberate conspiracy to destroy his memory.
Hello! My apologies for vanishing but I had some urgent real-life problems (and a vacation) appear. I'm happy to continue this conversation, but I'd rather check in and make sure you still want to continue after this pause first.
In all seriousness, stuff like this is good evidence against larger-scale conspiracy theories.
Not really. Joe Biden performed the top job while completely mentally checked out and unable to function for years and the actions of the government ground on regardless. The people who are actually "conspiring" are usually not the ones who run for President or any other role where they're subject to the will of the people.
Undoing all previous land seizures would involve untangling a colossal rats'-nest of claims and counter-claims, many of which left few if any records; thus we drew a line in the sand at 1945: going forward, no nation would be allowed to take land from another by force of arms.
This is actually where I think the line should be drawn as well - which is one of the reasons why I reject the 1947 borders.
So your proposal would involve both sides receiving remedial 'things they should have learned in kindergarten' lessons?
Yes, absolutely. I'm not sure what your dark intimations about some mysterious ideology are - this is the Motte, we can speak freely here!
Because they didn't start the war.
The Deir Yassin massacre was noteworthy in large part because the village in question had signed a non-aggression pact with the zionist forces (Israel didn't exist yet so they can't really be called Israelis) - and they were ethnically cleansed, paraded about, raped and murdered so that the zionists could take their land via aggression.
If someone gains territory in a war that they started, that incentivises further aggression. If someone loses territory in a war that they started, however....
Then you actually incentivise coming up with a pretext to further legitimise these conflicts or otherwise obscure the identity of who started them, which is a precedent wide open for abuse. Who started the war in Ukraine? Who started the US occupation of Afghanistan? Moreover, who started the current conflict in Gaza that Israel is using to claim territory? Where, exactly, do you draw the line? These are questions complicated enough that there is no real way to answer them consistently in a manner that actually disincentivises war for territory.
Unfortunately, it also leaves the Jewish people, with their long history of persecutions and expulsions,
I mean, seeing how they treat the Palestinians I'm not terribly surprised that they have this long history of persecution and expulsion. But there is actually an answer to this - they should be moved to America, a country which seemingly absolutely loves them and without whose support the existence of modern day Israel would not be possible.
Both of which are outside of pre-1967 Israeli territory;
Yes, and Israel acquired that territory via force of arms. If Israel can do it, why not Russia? If Israel can do it, why can't China do the same to Taiwan?
and as many of the Palestinian Arabs object to Jews existing as equals,
Of Hamas, right? (Padme, her face concerned!)
Of course! But you'd also have to launch mass prosecutions for anyone in the Israeli government who supported the illegal settlements or the military action in Gaza. You'd also have to take every single Israeli who supported the ethnic cleansing of Gaza or otherwise held racist views towards the Palestinians and put them through some re-education, but if there's real accountability and progress I'm confident you could have peace between the two populations.
Do you know of any organisations condemning Israeli actions in Gaza/the West Bank/the Golan Heights who also explicitly reject Palestinian claims on pre-1967 Israeli territory?
I don't care about pre-1967 Israeli territory - why do you think that the perpetrators of the Deir Yassin massacre should be rewarded? I was under the impression that you're opposed to taking territory through violence!
I would prefer that no clay be taken by force of arms; however, if that option is unavailable, and one side or the other must gain from the conflict, I would prefer that the side gaining territory be the side that was minding its own damn business.
But we have a chance to simply undo the entire problem! A single state solution definitively repudiates the idea that claiming territory via force of arms is acceptable. Anything else sends the message that it is perfectly fine, and leaves you unable to condemn anything Russia, China or even North Korea decides it wants to do.
I am referring to both the Golan Heights and the continued expansion of the Yellow line. As for me personally I favour a single-state solution with full democracy, along with some denazification efforts/war-crime prosecutions.
But either way, there's zero credibility in condemnations of wars of aggression for lebensraum that mysteriously pass over Israel, because that makes it clear that it isn't wars of aggression that you're objecting to but some secret other motive. "Wars of aggression are fine for me but not for thee" is not a particularly compelling message that will convince anyone to support your cause.
If wars of territorial aggression become normalised,
If you don't want that, I'll be happy to see you at the anti-Israel protest marches!
No our enemies do not hate us "because we're too cool", they hate us for geopolitical reasons that are completely outside the average American's control. Which just begs the question, why should the average American care what the haters think?
There's actually an extremely good reason for why the average American should care - the same actions that the US' enemies hate the US for are hurting average Americans as well. How much benefit did the average American see from the war in Vietnam? How much benefit did the average American get from the 20 year long occupation in Afghanistan? This is to say nothing of the vast sums of blood and treasure wasted in the Middle East to preserve Israel, a country which has sucked up vast sums of US taxpayer money while domestic infrastructure falls apart. The average American has seen almost no benefits whatsoever from the majority of the US empire's actions overseas, and in many cases they've been actively hurt by them. Sure, they got some cheaper fruit from the CIA's shenanigans in Latin America, but when you factor in the other consequences from destabilising and wrecking all those nations in service of the United Fruit Company I honestly don't know if the juice was worth the squeeze.
Problem with this argument is that Israel was blasting away at Iran's launchers pretty well.
Were they? The entire point of my argument is that we don't actually know this, and can't unless you have access to classified information from inside the Israeli government. How many Iranian missiles/drones made it through the iron dome? What are the remaining numbers of Iranian missiles vs Israeli interceptors? Israel banned people from posting photos of missile impact sites, and it isn't like we can trust reports from Iran about what was going on either. All we can do is make guesses on the basis of the evidence we do have, and that's what I based my evaluation on. That said, if you do have access to a comprehensive damage report from within the Israeli or Iranian government, please do post it here!
This is an extremely difficult question to answer. My personal position is that this was done because US and Israeli interceptor missile stocks were being depleted at far too rapid a pace, and I believe that this is the best explanation for the evidence we have access to. But I don't think it is possible to really make a firm determination on this either way, because the evidence needed to make a definitive statement is classified and/or not available to the public. Given recent reports (of unknown veracity) that Israel promised Russia they wouldn't attack Iran, I find this claim at least plausible - but not enough that I can give an actual answer I would bet money on.
I agree with that phrasing in general, but "supports" is providing a lot of ambiguity here. From the reports I've seen, the Mossad are both supplying weapons and actively participating in the protests ("walking alongside"). While I'm not going to claim that the protests simply wouldn't happen at all in the absence of Mossad involvement, I think supplying weaponry, communication equipment and warm bodies is a significant contribution to the protests. "Supports" could easily be interpreted as an entirely non-material contribution, when that really isn't the case.
Ah, yes, another one of those elaborate Jewish deceptions.
No? There's absolutely nothing elaborate about these "Jewish deceptions" (not the phrasing I'd use personally) at all. I could have whipped together the diagrams and "evidence" provided to the UN on this topic in MS paint with a five minute deadline, and even the Obama whitehouse made a version of it to make fun of Netanyahu. They've just been lying consistently on this topic because it is obviously in their national interest to have the US go in and take out one of their regional enemies without them having to do it themselves.
If you're surprised by CBS news making claims like this are you unaware of their recent(well, a few months ago) purchase and change in leadership? Bari Weiss explicitly attacked the journalistic standards unit at the broadcaster, presumably because the reporting she wants them to focus on and perform would not meet those standards - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bari-weiss-cbs-news-standards-and-practices-b2862631.html
Ah yes, your inability to reason clearly about a fairly straightforward incentive structure is better explained by the Iranians being fooled by the crafty Jews.
You're being fairly uncharitable here. Mike Pompeo and the Jerusalem post have both made claims that the Mossad is involved in the protests, with Mike specifically wishing the Mossad agents marching alongside the protesters a happy new year and the Mossad explicitly sending a message in Farsi talking about how they were with the protesters and supporting them.
First of all, even if we just take Libya as the example it serves to make my point by itself. When you compare what Libya was before the fall of Gaddafi to the open-air slave markets that replaced him, I can't imagine that any reasonable person would want that for their country (or even any countries near them).
But the point I was trying to make was that the regimes in those countries did fall and get knocked out by American intervention (or assistance in the case of Syria), which is what is being proposed for Iran. In no case did the American intervention result in a positive change for the countries involved - and everyone else in the region can see exactly what happened.
- Prev
- Next

And the paramilitary organisations that ended up becoming Israel were trying to kill Palestinians before Israel even existed.
Who cares? There are plenty of ethnicities who do not have a sovereign state of their own, and the Jews lasted for quite a while without one. I don't think it'd be that bad if they went wandering for another thousand years, given what they've done with the state that they actually got.
Most people in the world interpreted Never Again to mean that there would never be a targeted campaign of extermination on the basis of ethnicity ever again, not that the Jews would have a free pass to commit a holocaust themselves in order to secure more lebensraum.
Ask the Americans - I only raised that proposal as an alternative to my actual position, so I don't have particularly strong feelings on this topic. But that said... given the actions of Israel itself, I don't think they can be trusted to have a sovereign state of their own (have fun defending the actions of Ehud Barak) - they'd need a caretaker government for quite some time until things settled down. Personally I don't think they should have any kind of nuclear power at all, but I don't think anyone should have nuclear power (see my comments in other threads - it isn't a viable energy source, and I don't believe they should become a nuclear power besides). No problems with them setting up a nice big solar/wind farm though!
No, my actual proposal is that they simply become members of a restored Palestine with full franchise. I'm not an ethnic supremacist, and I don't support ethnic supremacism for jews either - they can live in a multicultural and multi-ethnic society like the rest of the world. Otherwise, they can get the same treatment that nazis and ethnic cleansers of any other ethnicity receive - and given that most of the jews I meet in person(at anti-zionist protests) don't fall into this category I'm not going to be persuaded that this is arguing for their ethnic cleansing.
More options
Context Copy link