@FirmWeird's banner p

FirmWeird

Randomly Generated Reddit Username

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 23:38:51 UTC

				

User ID: 757

FirmWeird

Randomly Generated Reddit Username

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 23:38:51 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 757

That's the original conspiracy theory claim - the FBI lying to cover up something else (most likely that the person planting the pipe bomb was working for intelligence).

I can understand not wanting to doubt the sterling moral character of the US intelligence agencies, but this explanation is actually less realistic than the conspiracy approach. The FBI failing to follow a lead on a person who was potentially trying to blow up the president/vice president) because of a miscommunication with a telecom company is a level of incompetence that beggars belief. This is the sort of excuse that would get someone fired from their job at a supermarket or furniture store, and yet there was no corrective action for an investigation into someone attempting to blow up the president during the inauguration? Every single one of the points you raised could have been corrected within a few minutes by someone who actually wanted to investigate the situation, and yet nothing of the sort has happened - this is substantially less realistic than the idea that the FBI is malicious.

Who? Remember that whoever planted the pipe bombs had the ability to scramble and corrupt cellphone data after it was given to the FBI, and use magical powers to prevent the FBI from investigating further or getting the uncorrupted data from the telecom company by just asking them again. If you want to blame a foreign adversary, the US is completely owned and compromised.

I would appreciate hearing anyone’s thoughts on this.

As a conspiracy theorist, my belief is that this is Trump/his team discovering real, serious attempts on his life coming from within the government. The deep state likes to plan these things out in advance (to this date there is no non-conspiracy explanation for the January 6 pipe bomb affair), and suddenly shifting the location is going to throw a wrench into their plans.

Wait, would they be self-governing, or share a government with the Israelis? I think youve gone back and forth.

Democracy with full franchise. They'd be sharing a government with the Israelis, but both them and the Israelis would be voting for it. I just don't think a two-state solution is viable.

In the real world, it would take a kind of denazification on steroids, and whoever does it would be branded much worse than Israel is now.

I believe that if there was a serious, good-faith effort to bring the people together and achieve peace it could be done. Would it be easy and simple? Of course not - but I think it would lead to a much better outcome than the current state of affairs, or where that state of affairs is leading.

The explanation that I've heard is that Jewish culture in the shtetl selected heavily for verbal IQ as demonstrated by analysis, research and commentary on Jewish holy texts. If you wanted to have lots of kids the easiest way to do that was to be a distinguished rabbi and scholar - which is why the Ashkenazim are specifically advantaged with regards to verbal IQ, but less gifted in terms of spatial IQ. There's also a decent case to be made (though I'm not sure where the current research is on this) that the higher rates of certain mental/developmental disorders among Ashkenazim are the result of this process as well - potentially with a similar mechanism to sickle-cell, where you have an allele that confers a reproductive advantage when heterozygous but negative outcomes when homozygous.

But he still basically enforced the consensus while privately knowing it was wrong, until the political conflict underpinning Culture War took a significant turn.

I was under the impression that he did this on purpose and essentially told people who could read between the lines explicitly in "Kolmogorov Complicity And The Parable Of Lightning". You're totally right about what he was doing and he was always a HBD enjoyer, but he was very clearly pursuing a specific strategy to try and do as much as possible without getting the eye of sauron turned on him and his community. I think he was right to do so as well - the "cause" of HBD wouldn't really be served by Scott Alexander self immolating and tainting the reputations of a lot of other people who believed essentially the same thing, as opposed to what he actually did in continuing to allow his community to exist.

I'm sure that if you asked the jews of Auschwitz how they felt about Germans they would say and attempt to do many of the same things - is that evidence that the Jewish people are evil murderers full of hatred who need to be exterminated? It isn't terribly surprising that the man holding his son's lifeless, headless corpse won't talk positively about the people who murdered him.

Its the same as Women and Children. Given the footage of fi refights, it seems that Gaza has speedrun progressivism by allowing gender conversions for its fighters, and even age conversion for its grown men to suddenly be 'children'.

Hind Rajab's death was reported on CNN as "the death of a Palestinian woman" despite her being five years old. In the mainstream media at least the opposite of this was true, but I'm very willing to believe that it was the case on social media.

I mean both sides were playing the media game. Palestine did it much better.

To my knowledge, most of the "playing the media game" Palestinians did was sharing clips of what Israel had actually done to them on tiktok and other non-western social media. Have you seen the clip of the man carrying his child's headless body? Visuals like that are extremely confronting, even if the Israelis insist that the four year old was an enemy combatant. It wasn't some Palestinian marketing masterstroke that made Hind Rajab a household name, but the brutality and cruelty involved in her death and foiled rescue attempt.

I don't think the fact that the Palestinians released some of the hostages because those hostages were kind to the Palestinian community before being abducted is a particularly strong argument for the idea that the Palestinians are evil monsters who just want to kill all jews for no reason.

Palestine as is, and as was ca 1970, can not self-govern in a way that keeps the terrorism in check.

My belief is that the violence springs from the grievances of the Palestinian people, and that this single-state solution would address the majority of those grievances from which the terrorism springs. I don't believe that the Palestinians are inherently violent and evil subhumans incapable of existing in polite society. The Irish and the English were fighting for a long time, but now that the Irish grievances are being addressed peacefully the terrorism has stopped. I see no reason why this can't happen in Israel/Palestine.

My evidence for this is that such populations in adjacent states populated by persons similar to Islamic Palestinians have also been ethnically cleansed or genocided over the last century.

Have you looked at the history of the region before Israel? Palestinian jews were more than capable of living in peace with Palestinian arabs, and even in the earliest stages of the conflict the Palestinian movements called those jews their brothers.

In other words, we have centuries of evidence that polities consisting of Arab Muslims are evil,

When you start talking about how entire populations are just inherently evil you have departed from reality and polite society both. You can adopt this position on the motte, but you're forever in the same category as the Nazis and the white nationalists. If you want to support ethnic cleansing and genocide, you're free to - but good luck advocating this murderous and hateful belief to the rest of the world.

OTOH Israel's response to the provocations of its neighbors has been historically judicious,

I could say the same about Rome's judicious responses to the provocations of the rebellious hebrews. The Romans treated them so incredibly well, even to the point of building roads and aqueducts for them - but those ungrateful Jews just kept violently attacking them for no legitimate reason. Maybe the Jews were just inherently evil and full of hatred for Italians - after all, there were centuries of evidence proving that the Jews just kept on attacking the Romans unprovoked! If the Romans wanted, there would be zero jews living in Judea - but they were just too nice, too generous and too concerned with the casualties of their enemies. What moral titans!

This statement becomes a lot less pithy when you factor in the actual history of the region. I may as well talk about how Israel brutally and evilly attacked Palestine for no reason on October 8 - you can make either side look good by arbitrarily choosing the moment at which you start counting the trading of blows.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying re: Egypt, but I don't know how that's relevant to the situation at hand. Palestine would be self-governing, with no need for Egypt to do anything. That said, who knows what Egypt would be like in that world - without the US interfering to help out Israel, the counterfactual Egypt is likely very different to our one.

Yes, and that means they met one part of the definition - but not the rest. If there's historical evidence of an actual attempt to ethnically cleanse the south and replace them with yankees, it would be news to me.

Do you hold yourself to this standard on baseless conjecture?

The alternative world proposed above is so incredibly different from our own that I don't believe we can really draw an accurate picture of what happens in it. In the world being described there's no nakba and no system of apartheid. The Palestinians aren't just violent for no reason, they have a clear set of grievances with Israel and the USA that are extremely comprehensible, and those grievances simply do not exist in this hypothetical. The proposed world is so different from our own that I don't think it's really possible to draw meaningful conclusions from it - there's a very decent chance that 9/11 and the various US wars in the middle east also don't happen.

The Gazans, who voted in the Kill all Jews Party, will just get along in Israel if they have representation?

I believe that if you remove the causes of their grievances they will no longer be as disposed to violence. If you look back in history, there was a population of Palestinian jews who lived in the area without violence - there's actually direct historical evidence of Jewish and Arabic Palestinians living together in peace. Peaceful co-existence is possible, and a far more desirable state than what we have now.

Israel: a nuclear armed state, with 5th generation jet fighters, top tier intelligence agencies.

I do not believe Israel should be a nuclear-armed state. I'm more than happy for a united, single-state Palestine/Israel to have the Mossad shut down and their nuclear weapons disarmed in the same way South Africa's were.

Even if Israel for the last 50 years had engaged in solely defensive actions, accepted mass bombings as a thing that happens, and never did any counterstrikes, the Arab Palestinians would still try to genocide them.

How exactly do you know this? Do you have access to some kind of magical or scientific device that lets you understand people so well that you can definitively state how they would act in an alternative reality that's extremely different to our own? I personally don't think that the jews are such awful people that living near them for fifty years with no problems or violence would make people want to exterminate them. That said, you've left a few things out - would there still be an apartheid state? Would there still be settlements on Palestinian land? What exactly do you mean by "solely defensive actions"?

And the Palestinians released some of the hostages with no conditions, so they're not trying to kill every ethnic Israeli they get their hands on. Absolutes make for poor arguments.

I don't believe that would be the case if there was a legitimate, good-faith effort to bring the two populations together and live in peace. It'd be a complicated process that required a lot of time and effort, as well as participation from the international community - you would of course have to have protections against retributive genocide. It wouldn't be easy or free of complications, but I think it'd be much better than the current apartheid situation.

But why would Israel take that deal?

To save the lives of the hostages. They've given up and lost far more than they would have if they simply accepted the first deal that was offered to them - this is a worse outcome from any perspective other than "we need to wipe out the Palestinians for more lebensraum", and even that's debatable. Look at the big list of negative consequences from my earlier post and remember that none of this would happen if Israel just took the first deal.

But in the real world, that never works. To fail to defend yourself only invites contempt and more aggression, which applies as much in international politics as it does on the school play yard. If Israel did what you said, they would inevitably lose their country. And I would say they deserved it. Nothing is so contemptible as a person who doesn't defend their rights.

Actually, in the real world, when you ethnically cleanse undesirable populations for having the wrong religion you engender disgust and hatred in the majority of the rest of the world. Germany would have been better off if they simply gave the Jews the ability to vote and lived together with them - but they took your suggested course of action instead, and now Nazi Germany has been consigned to the dustbin of history. We're already seeing Israeli war criminals fleeing to Argentina to escape prosecution, but it is an open question as to whether or not history finishes the rhyme.

My personal belief is that Israel should adopt a single-state solution with full democracy and franchise for everyone within the borders of Israel and Palestine. As for number 1... yes, I would prefer if they negotiated a return of the hostages. It might seem like a bit of a weak response if you hatched out of an egg on October 6th and have no prior knowledge of the region, but Israel has done far more and far worse to the Palestinians in the past. It would have been better to bury the hatchet and sue for peace on October 6th, but... well, 2 is accurate. I don't think there's any real arguments against this claim given that it is the official position of many members of the Israeli government. Not only do they want to do this, they have sunk multiple deals to return the hostages in order to keep the violence and ethnic cleansing going.

The propaganda networks are in place, and the Palestinians have learned to play PR rope a dope by making sure that anything Israel does is seen as genocide.

They don't actually need to "play PR rope a dope" - what Israel is doing is nakedly and obviously an attempt at ethnic cleansing and genocide, to the point that high-ranking officials admit it and are currently wailing and moaning that they won't be able to continue the genocide due to the hostages being returned. When Israel starts talking about concentration camps and preparing settlers for the parts of Gaza they flattened and bulldozed, people don't need Yahya Sinwar whispering in their ears that something is wrong in order for them to correctly and accurately label something an attempted genocide. The majority of the civilised world can just look at the footage and evidence of what's happening in Gaza and call it what it is, and they would still have been able to do so even if all the Palestinian journalists had been killed.

  • -10

It was a bad war, but what other choice did Israel have?

Other choice? Accept the deal and do a prisoner exchange in return for the hostages. No war, no ICC prosecutions, no IDF members committing suicide due to the depravity of their actions, Israelis would be able to travel/holiday without worrying about getting convicted for crimes against humanity/genocide, no Hezbollah rocket campaign destroying their economy, no Houthi rocket campaign making their ports go bankrupt...

Israel refused to take the hostages back multiple times because they preferred to go in and wipe out Gaza in order to try and ethnically cleanse and then settle the territory. Itamar Ben Gvir said multiple times that he had made sure to sink any deal involving the hostages being returned, and there's a decent chance that Smotrich resigns from government because getting the hostages back isn't worth not being able to murder more Palestinians and steal their territory.

It seems like that's largely owed to the fact that any amount of striking buildings that house Hamas and also (by Hamas' design) house the helpless is going to look like massacring the helpless.

No, it is due to Israel going out and massacring the helpless. Last I checked, all that horseshit about the Hamas terror hospital was debunked - and Israel then went on to blow up all the other hospitals in Gaza to boot. They specifically blew up multiple people whose only goal was to distribute food or first aid, they killed journalists, they killed aid workers - there's far too much evidence of deliberate genocidal intent (including direct statements by Israeli government leaders!) for these arguments to hold water.