pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
No bio...
User ID: 464
To make your defense more explicit, are you arguing that now that you’re done with the genocide, it has become immoral? Was it not immoral in the 19th and 18th centuries, only arbitrarily now when it’s convenient for you?
Gvir
LOL. Shortening Ben Gvir to ‘Gvir’ is like shortening ‘McDonald’ to ‘Donald’. You’re betraying a ridiculous lack of familiarity.
You seem confused about the analogy, as well. The analogous act would be that republicans tried to overthrow American democracy on January 6th, and that your former president told you to grab women by the pussy. Does that make more sense now?
Re: NYT, it’s a stand-in for media in general. I couldn’t care less about the NYT specifically.
Gell-Mann amnesia is exactly what’s on display here. Like it or not, this is a perfect example: trusting a media report about a subject he’s less familiar with, despite already knowing how the media falsely represents subjects he’s closely familiar with.
I know he doesn’t understand Israeli politics by the things he says in the post. Again, thinking that 10% of Israelis want to because they vote for the same party they’ve always voted for is as ridiculous as thinking anyone who votes R wants to strip women of rights, and everyone who votes D wants to trans all the kids. It’s not even surface level understanding, it’s cartoonish thinking.
“You’ve been controversial for decades”, said the people living on lands stolen by genociding the natives and importing slaves. Who cares what you think?
Not only is this Gell-Mann amnesia, it's the literal ur example of it. You don't trust the NYT when they imply (never outright say) that MAGA republicans want to destroy American democracy, so why do you trust them with the equivalent reporting on another country? Do you understand Israeli politics well enough to know why ~10% of the Israeli population will vote religious-right regardless of who's leading it? Probably not, and it would take actually living here to get it.
The equivalent is if a European would think that 50% of Americans want to turn the US into literal hands-maid tale. It's a not-even-wrong level understanding.
Americans use traditional SMS messages to text each other, instead of Whatsapp like everyone else. When you text another iPhone from your iPhone, it actually uses a different app called iMessage that doesn’t cost money and the text appears in a blue bubble. If you text an Android user from an iPhone, the text appears in a green bubble and costs money (or consumes a bit of your plan, or whatever).
You've lampshaded that your question isn't that well-defined, but that doesn't absolve you of actually asking a clear question. I don't see you clearly answering this down-thread either, but if you did then it bears repeating in the OP. What actual position do you want to see defended?
Translated directly “בוא תיקח” sounds weird rather than defiant, so I’d go with translating the meaning rather than the words. “בוא נראה אותך” is “let’s see you (try)” works, or maybe “תנסה ותראה” which is “try and see (what happens if you do)”, akin to “fuck around and find out”. You’d have to change it to fit the speaker and subject, though.
Presumably bits continue to grow because you can throw more bits faster these days, compared to 5 years ago. That seems like a field that hasn’t stagnated.
The Revenant had a brutal bear attack, but that’s pretty much the only one I can conjure off the top of my head.
We’re also doing quite well in the homeland, in TFR terms. Looks like a symptom of blending with general western culture. On a scale, you can see that those most influenced by the west are also the ones who don’t have kids.
Initially I was about to say it’s a symptom of being more diasporic, but come to think of it the ultra-orthodox are actually the most diasporic in terms of their thought process, but also have the most kids, so it can’t be that alone.
What does the location of the protest have to do with it? If protesters are marching in the streets, it’s not because they’re making demands of the HOA. They’re speaking to a national audience, which is exactly why we know about it at all.
Neither. It’s a result of less US restrictions on Israeli actions, which generally prioritize safeguarding Arab lives much lower than accomplishing military objectives. E.g. going into Rafah now, is something the US is preventing Israel from doing for such humanitarian reasons.
There have always been some Jews who’d rather not be part of the Jewish community. Some succeed, and we never hear of them as Jews again. Some are carried away by the Gestapo.
Every year, and as it happens it’s on this day specifically, we think of them briefly. From the parable of the four sons:
The wicked one, what does he say? "What is this service to you?!" He says “to you,” but not to him! By thus excluding himself from the community he has denied that which is fundamental. You, therefore, blunt his teeth and say to him: "It is because of this that the L‑rd did for me when I left Egypt"; `for me' - but not for him! If he had been there, he would not have been redeemed!"
Hopefully, they can pull US military aid out of Israel. Israel will have to resort to using more dumb bombs, until local industry catches up with demand. With less leverage on Israel, the Arabs in Gaza will suffer more - and hopefully some will be forced out, though that’s more of a longshot.
Since the American defense lobby likes money, all this probably won’t happen.
Of course it is. HBD proponents should be begging for more Ashkenazi Jews to immigrate.
By "the second part" I referred to "illegal immigration is good so long as it's illegal", as you inferred correctly. I'm just having a hard time imagining the modal pro-immigrant activist saying something like that, and in effect admitting that they're in support of a tiered system of citizens and non-citizens, where the former live the good life and the latter do the dirty work. It sounds like a very Motte-y argument, and I don't encounter those much in the wild.
Thank you, that's a good argument. I can empathize, American bureaucracy really is bad. I assumed it's part of a trade-off, where you get a less organized government on hand, and in return it's also less powerful. Compare to e.g. Israel where the state knows pretty much everything about you, but then it's also very convenient that you don't need to do your own taxes, or a name change after marriage propagates automatically to everywhere.
I disagree with you, but I can understand where you come from. I think that one first sentence gives a pretty good answer for me, so thank you. It does imply open-borders from the worst-off countries, though.
Absolutely. I used Venezuela as an example too, when saying who might want to illegally immigrate to the US even if they couldn't work legally. For more context, my family and I are currently staying in the US with a legal working visa, and we had to go through some hoops to get it (we'll be leaving soon, unfortunately). I can put myself in the shoes of the illegal immigrant very easily.
If I understand correctly, then, the pro-illegal immigration Americans are de-facto pro-open borders, or at least pro-open borders from the third world. I can understand the political hardship of changing federal laws to increase legal immigration, so I assume that un-enforcement is a way to achieve that end while side-stepping national politics. Does the pro-illegal immigration camp also campaign for increased legal immigration from the third world?
Oh, good answer, on both counts. Is the second part something that people actually say out loud, though? Or is it something that they'll think, but then say something else?
Thank you! That's a fair steelman. It does look at sanctuary laws in isolation, though. Am I incorrect in thinking that the same camp that is pro-sanctuary is also against ICE enforcement? We'd call that "holding the rope on both ends", which I can't find a good parallel idiom for in English, but hopefully you get the meaning.
(To be clear, I'm not arguing the point, I really do want to get the strongest possible version of it so I'm trying to find the holes)
Ah, I see. I'm not an expert on nukes, but I'd think you'd need more than that to get them down to 0. Also, if you want to color only within the lines - i.e. not hit Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan etc. - you'd need to add some other, more accurate ordinance, just to get those corners filled out.
That's why Israel would capitulate. If the entire world is pressuring Israel to accept a two-state solutions, with EU peacekeepers to put down any troublemakers on either side to make it happen, there's no reason to humor the notion of Israel nuking Europe.
I have to say, the very idea of lethargic, cowardly Europe trying to occupy Israel is about as unserious as it gets. Europeans don't even have the political will to defend their own back yard in Ukraine, let alone shed blood in the middle east. Besides, how do you suppose "EU peacekeepers [...] put down any troublemakers" such as Hamas, any better than Israel can? As in, technically, how? Your track record in fighting guerillas isn't very good.
You think people vote according to policy positions? Are you new to politics? They vote to the religious-right party because of the type of kippah they wear - knitted. They vote for the party that has an MK that’s a friend of a friend. They vote the same way their dad did. Does that explain it? Is it any different where you’re from?
More options
Context Copy link