ToZanarkand
Some day the dream will end
No bio...
User ID: 2935
Right now is not testing the water, just approaching it. It's not boiling the frog, just touching the knob. Trump and his most ardent supporters are starting to stretch the Overton window to also include "crossing the Rubicon".
But what possibilities are they trying to approach, or to stretch the Overton window to include? Invading Canada/Mexico? Genociding the Jews? And if so, why would they try and reference Nazi imagery, which is probably the aesthetic repulsive to most people in the US? None of it makes any sense.
Even the more vociferous critics of Israel who may stray, in some people's view, into antisemitism would still openly condemn the latter
This means nothing though. Plenty of racists will openly condemn racism, because it's obviously the smart thing to do. Defending someone or yourself against charges of antisemitism by saying they/you condemn anti-semitism is particularly weak, now there's the convenient label of "Anti-Zionist" to hide behind. I think even Hamas are claiming they're not anti-semitic these days.
Go shave your back.
The only good thing to come out of that film.
Odd that someone in the first group would have such a hate-on for white South Africans.
If anything that looks less like a roman salute than Elon's gesture
"Jew" is now a slur in leftists spaces. Jews are denied leadership opportunities or simply leave.
The slur is "Zionist" (to gives them the veneer of plausible deniability)
Well that was uncalled for.
I believe it's Irish?
I wonder if Rockstar North also counts.
Basically, the idea is that male feminists are disproportionately prone to acts of sexual misconduct.
How true is this though? I get that it's the sort of thing that's hard to get numbers on - I don't think police tend to record whether sexual predators describe themselves as feminist or not - but are cases like that of Neil Gaiman common enough that this can reasonably be described as a particular phenomenon?
Might get him thrown out of office though.
It's an interesting possibility. "Standing up to Trump" would probably be pretty popular to the UK electorate, but things that that cause damage to the economy tend not to be. I wonder how that would play out.
"When they send their anti-semites, they're not sending their best."
There are multiple possible explanations here. Regarding the Chagos Islands, the ICJ made a direct ruling requiring the UK to take a specific action. Locking up people for free speech might go against the spirit of some international law or other but unless he was specifically ordered not to I could imagine him feeling less constrained by that. It also wouldn't surprise me if he personally feels the jurisdiction of international law is solely that covering disputes between nation states, and not domestic affairs. He might also feel that as PM, he's in a sense above the law as it relates to domestic issues, but that international law as decided by various global bodies exists on a higher level that the UK must be subservient to. Someone showing authoritarian tendencies when they have power but being a stickler for rules imposed on them by what they feel to be higher bodies isn't displaying a particularly unusual personality type.
Thanks for cross-posting this!
I think that all the talk on DSL/reddit/twitter about Starmer secretly being secretly anti-British, receiving bribes from China or even trying to enchance Britain's mythical "soft power" is missing the point. My impression is that Starmer is a lawcel for whom the idea of not following the ICJ ruling - or whatever it is - is unthinkable at a deep personal level. My read is that from his perspective, the UK isn't paying Mauritius to take a group of strategically valuable islands of their hands; rather the UK will be paying Mauritius to lease land that is now legally indisputably in the possession of Mauritius. In his view, legal declarations are imbued with their own power, regardless of whether they can be enforced or not, and ignoring this one would make the UK a hostile occupying force on the islands.
Will check out, thanks.
DSL?
Has there been a CW post about this that I've missed? Feels like the sort of thing that would get discussed here but I haven't seen any mention of it.
I assume this is exaggerating for effect? The US has way too much going for it in comparison to Brazil, from geography to demographics to the structure of their economy, for something like this to happen in the forseeable future.
Sweden as well, although it's a bit more complicated.
The Danes are smarter,
What's your basis for this? I can't imagine they're that distinct genetically.
However, I never thought I would see a test that so perfectly measures the skills needed to accurately judge political arguments!
Very few of the political matters that most divide people resemble the sorts of questions found in the LSAT. Rather, they're issues of vibes, values and group-preferences. Using examples from the US, I don't see a large number of people changing their views on BLM, the ethics of abortion, or whether the US needs tougher border security based on having been exposed to formal logic and trained to recognise logical fallacies.
In practice, what matters is whether people find arguments persuasive. That can have quite little to do with their validity.
Good post, to which I'd add: Israel is a nuclear state, and that alone makes them worth guarding.
- Prev
- Next
Okay, there was that. But apart from some good memes, what has Mean Girls ever done for us?
More options
Context Copy link