yestrusocialist
No bio...
User ID: 2545
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
Suppose that Syria and Iraq allow buses to drive to Israel. The buses get to the fence, which you can see pictures of here:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-gunfire-from-syria-aimed-at-military-drone-operating-along-border/
Now what?
For comparison, Iran has 800 miles of coastline on the Persian Gulf which looks like this:
https://theculturetrip.com/middle-east/iran/articles/the-most-beautiful-beaches-in-iran
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
Yes, the Arabs have done a great job. That's why virtually all the Jews in their countries fled or were expelled, and mostly wound up in Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956%E2%80%931957_exodus_and_expulsions_from_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Syria#Post-1948
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Iranian_Jews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Afghanistan#Anti-Jewish_campaign
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
Realistically, the US/Israel are far better able to mount a logistical operation such as this than Iran is. Taking the $50B-ish of US aid to Ukraine and dividing by 2M Palestinians, that's $25k/person to spend. Can Iran throw $25B at the return trip?
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
Israel can of course do the same thing that African migrants to Europe are doing: ensure that by the time the Palestinians are 11.9 miles from Iran, they are in boats capable of traveling only 30 miles (i.e. not enough to cross the gulf to reach Saudi Arabia).
The Iranians can shoot them out of the sea, let them land on the beach, or even render assistance.
Kind of strange how Europe is incapable of turning back migrants, but sending migrants to Iran is of course impossible.
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
So massive genocide
It is possible that Iran commits genocide against the Palestinians. Quite a move, first steering them towards committing atrocities against Israel, then murder them all when they show up in need of help.
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
Greg Abbott is seeing success with his immigration policy because the people he’s bussing more or less by definition want to go somewhere
I already addressed this point. The Palestinians want to get on the boat and go to Iran because there's food in Iran, and none in Gaza.
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
Multiple trips are not realistic. I'm happy to explain why, but that shouldn't be necessary.
Please, explain.
Good luck with gaining access to Iranian ports.
Wow, so Europe can stop illegal immigrants from taking boats across the Mediterranean simply by refusing a port pass? Why haven't they thought of this?
The destination is rhetorical. Iran can perform the same maneuver at any port of their choosing.
This sounds like a problem for Iran and Saudi Arabia/the UAE/Oman/Pakistan (ports that are reasonably accessible to Iran) to work out amongst themselves. Pretty sure Israel can work out ways to stop a Suez crossing in the reverse direction if they need to.
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
And then what does the world do? Send a strongly-worded letter? Sanction them? Maybe try to stop their nuclear program?
Just like the Palestinians, this isn't really Israel's problem anymore.
When you're relying on Iran to allow you to do things it doesn't want you to do on the basis of them being too squeamish to stop you, you know you've got a bad plan.
I'm not relying on this. Iran can murder all the Palestinians on camera as far as I'm concerned. It's a win for Israel and there's tons of footage of Persians murdering Arabs to broadcast to the Arab world. Arab/Persian conflict is a distraction from Arab/Jew conflict.
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
Moving the Palestinians would change a lot. First of all, they'd mostly be Iran's problem. If they remain prisoners in Iran-operated refugee camps, any human rights issues are the result of Persian rather than Israeli oppression. If they integrate into Iranian society, hopefully they find better things to do than become terrorists. Meanwhile the world loses a current talking point against Israel - maybe 10-20 years ago they did a forced migration, but that's ancient history. Netenyahu, the person with his name/face on the policy, is 74 today and will be dead soon.
Second, they'd be far away. No matter how terrible the Palestinians are, they aren't America's problem due to distance. To attack America they need to either get past airport security, take a boat, or something similar.
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
I already mentioned the most extreme method needed to do this:
Maybe also Gaza is 100% blockaded and no food goes in, giving people an incentive to leave.
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
Against whom? The Palestiniains? Sure. They wanted a war, they got one.
Against Iran? It doesn't seem any more an act of war than Mexico or other nations cooperating with illegal immigration to the US.
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
Or you need 100 boats with 1000 person capacity if each one takes 10 trips. I'm shocked at your suggestion that the Palestinians are a bunch of terrorists, rather than innocent victims of Israeli oppression!
Who is paying for this, and in charge? Israel?
As I see it, Israel + USA.
Someone will have to take responsibility for the Iran destination, and that will prove quite contentious.
USA and Israel can certainly provide tons of Israeli/American flag branded food/water/etc, which Iran can distribute as they see fit.
Someone will have to take responsibility for the Iran destination, and that will prove quite contentious. Iran can reasonably blockade and/or refuse port.
Yes, Iran certainly does have the ability to shoot guns at boats full of Palestinian refugees while the cameras broadcast videos of innocent women and children dying to the world. How is showing Iran to be bloodthirsty killers of Arabs and getting rid of Palestinians not a huge win for Israel?
Iran could commandeer the ships and park them at the Port Authority of NY/NJ.
Getting from the Meditterranean to the Persian Gulf is a far simpler logistical problem than Persian Gulf to America, and Iran is far less capable of logistics than Israel or the US.
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
Here's my proposal for how to solve this, with a plan I am shamelessly stealing from Greg Abbot and Camp of the Saints.
Step 1, just start rounding up Palestinians and putting them on boats. Let them grab their possessions if they want to cooperate. These are nice, safe, clean boats with cameras everywhere to film all the food/medicine/clean water being provided. Maybe also Gaza is 100% blockaded and no food goes in, giving people an incentive to leave.
Step 2: the boats set sail to Iran. Egypt allows them to traverse Suez because...well keep reading.
Step 3: the unarmed boats full of refugees and cameras go directly to shore in Iran. They ignore warnings to stop. They let the Iranians inspect them for weapons. They land, tell everyone to get off, and repeat.
This puts Iran in the unenviable position of either a) having to martyr thousands of unarmed Palestinian refugees on camera or b) live with Palestinians. If Egypt doesn't let them through Suez, then Egypt can have the Palestinians.
What you guys think of this plan?
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
Again, the distinction they make is initiation of violence, which you seem to be trying hard to ignore.
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
I'm confused. You seem to be trying to get from "union labor has allies willing to use violence" to "this is good" without advancing any argument why. Instead, you are just repeating truisms that no one disagrees with as if they make your case.
Your last sentence is an odd non-sequitur since free market types don't object to using violence against others who initiate violence.
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
My mistake, I thought you were attempting to make a statement more substantive than a purely descriptive "workers have lots of power due to threats of violence".
No one disputes that, so I'm not sure why you are devoting so much verbiage to repeating it.
Why vote to pay union dues for no benefit?
I was responding to this. They voted for unionization due to benefits they hoped to achieve for white workers, at the expense of black ones.
As noted in the article, the higher pay for black workers also reflects that Ford was greedy where others were racist.
That's the whole point of unionization - letting some workers get a great gig at the expense of others.
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
And when the bottleneck goes the other way companies can push down wages and so on. It's just swings and roundabouts.
When a union refuses to work unless excess pay is provided, men with guns will harm the employer if they seek alternate arrangements with willing third parties.
When an employer refuses to pay enough to employees, nothing happens if the employee seeks alternative arrangements with willing third parties.
This is not an emergent process. It's explicit coercive action by the government to favor one side over the other.
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
If you read your own link, you'll discover the reason Ford got lower priced workers is because they hired lower priced negros and minimized racial discrimination. As many right wing economists have noted, taste-based discrimination costs money and free markets penalize it.
One reason the (majority white) workers voted for unions was to reduce labor market competition by colored workers. This was a major motivator for many other pro-Union laws such as Davis Bacon and minimum wage.
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1997/summer/american-labor-movement.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act_of_1931
Of course, having on the market a rather large source of cheap labor depresses wages outside of that group, too–the wages of the white worker who has to compete. And when an employer can substitute a colored worker at a lower wage–and there are, as you pointed out, these hundreds of thousands looking for decent work–it affects the whole wage structure of an area, doesn’t it?
- Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, 1957, after many colored workers moved to MA and started competing economically with his constituents
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
There's a 25% import tax on light trucks, which are 69% of the market and consist of basically anything bigger than a Toyota Camry. So as long as the unions steal 24% or less, it's not actually cheaper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
https://www.autoweek.com/news/a1714156/light-trucks-take-record-69-us-market/
This is primarily caused by Obama era fuel efficiency rules, which hold big cars to unrealistic fuel efficiency standards but allow trucks to escape fuel efficiency standards by becoming larger. For obvious reasons unions have opposed attempts to fix these rules.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-are-getting-huge-are-fuel-economy-regulations-to-blame
https://old.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/kdkdx3/normal_truck_vs_american_truck/
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
How does it do that? Hanson quite explicitly narrowed his questions about rape in general to "gentle silent rape":
I presented evidence that most men would rather be raped than cuckolded...[referencing a prior post which is linked] It occurred to me recently that we can more clearly compare cuckoldry to gentle silent rape. Imagine a woman was drugged into unconsciousness and then gently raped, so that she suffered no noticeable physical harm nor any memory of the event, and the rapist tried to keep the event secret. Now drugging someone against their will is a crime, but the added rape would add greatly to the crime in the eyes of today’s law, and the added punishment for this addition would be far more than for cuckoldry.
A few hours later he called out again that gentle silent rape differs quite a lot from standard rape:
Added 11p 1Dec: 95 comments so far, almost all of which ignore my “gentle silent” modifier, and just argue about standard rape.
So no, Hanson is not implying anything of the sort.
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
Did the white conservative protesters actually do anything?
Near as I can tell, the public's vague conception that they did is mostly based the lie - spread by the NYT - that protesters killed Brian Sicknick. That's why the left was so mad when Mitch McConnel released the tapes of Qanon Shaman wandering around peacefully and listening to cops telling him "don't go in there".
yestrusocialist
2yr ago
There are plenty of serious tech investments in India. But sometimes western VC's - such as "Indian ChatGPT competitor on a $10 million" - are simply idiots.
But it's also worth recognizing - as every engineer in India does - the distinction between product and service companies. The vast majority of Indian software employment is at service companies like Infosys. These engineers are paid a lot less and are not very good. If you live in the west they are probably your only interaction with Indian software engineers. The idea of the service companies building a ChatGPT competitor is laughable, but they can certainly help migrate from one HR software provider to another. The price difference between them and a western engineer is where this dumb VC got the idea of ChatGPT for $10M from.
But in reality, OpenAI spent $8M on cloud compute alone in 2017. Indian engineers capable of building Indian ChatGPT might cost 30-40% less in BLR than in SF. So if you want to start Indian OpenAI on a budget, the budget is upwards of $600M compared to OpenAI's initial budget of $1B. That's a discount but not much of one.
There is serious tech investment in India, but it's mostly by western companies or inside big Indian companies (e.g. Ola). Salaries for comparable engineers are higher than in Europe, a bit less than in the US. But there's plenty of important and technically difficult internal projects being executed.
Can you link to this? I certainly haven't seen it. I have seen plenty of frog accounts expressing skepticism of the specific "beheading babies" narrative and basically no criticism of that skepticism. Of course most of the skepticism also comes with "what they filmed themselves doing is enough, kill them all regardless."
That's an important distinction between the current situation and BLM. Cops aren't going house by house, shooting old black ladies and rap music enjoyers, then posting videos of their deaths to their own facebook so their friends and relatives can watch. For the most part, bodycam footage shows Adam Toledo/Makia Bryant/Ricardo Munoz type situations of cops killing a criminal when interrupting a violent crime. So when you post bodycam footage and crime stats, you completely destroy the BLM narrative.
That's why the left attacks you for skepticism - it's all they can do. Making the case based on facts isn't really possible. In contrast, the right mostly attacks you for posting celebratory photos of Palestinian paragliders or saying that Israeli music enjoyers deserved it for being too close to Gaza.
https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/10/Screen-Shot-2023-10-10-at-81118-PM.jpg
More options
Context Copy link