GarbageShootAlt2 @ GarbageShootAlt2 @lemmy.ml

Posts

3

Comments

506

Joined

3 yr. ago

Except for that one part where Israel gives you less than 10 minutes to grab your cat and daughter.

And then also bombs you in the designated safe zones, so really it's nothing alike and minimizing civilian casualties is the correct way to prosecute a war, right?

and very nearly succeeded

How can you say this? Do you think that there's some artifact in the Capitol that grants the power of Legitimate Governance? Do you think a dipshit protest-turned-walking-tour where the cops only saw fit to fire on like one person and only a couple of cops were killed by the rioters is enough to reverse an election in the country that is the global superpower? The country that overthrows governments abroad with much greater violence every few years?

Is it possible that a couple of politicians would have been beaten to death? Yeah, in a somewhat different world, but the rioters did not begin to approach doing anything in the same dimension as a "successful coup". There was no connection between what they did and what a group would need to do to take over the country, and imagining there was even anything in the Capitol that could be used for a bit of leverage (like if some pols got caught), that still wouldn't be a coup and the feds would send SWAT in to blow some brains out.

It's just classic American aggrievement politics, the hogs put on a show for you so now it's "1/6" like it's a new 9/11 combined with the fucking burning of the White House in 1814. It was never going to amount to anything on the magnitude that you're asserting, or even several orders of magnitude below it. There is no conflict in which like 6 people die (multiple from rank stupidity) that can connect even notionally to the outcome of overthrowing the most powerful country in the world!

Well, unless it's like a judicial coup or some other situation where people are exercising their political power directly, to be fair. But it's not like Trump was doing the smarter thing and using executive orders to lay the ground for toppling the government, and even then there are so many barriers he'd need to get over that he didn't even have the cognitive capacity back then to grapple with.

It's a critical element of the financialization of the economy that has lead to it becoming even more irrational and unstable than it was before. Easy example, look up stock buybacks. It's not just that though, it's the entire system of obligation to shareholders to deliver quarterly gains with no concern for employees or even the long-term health of the company.

That's not at all what the quote is and neither is the top level commenter's interpretation, and I think it not being these is pretty obvious if you read No Exit. The point that he was making (and this is putting it crassly because I know jack shit about his Heidegger-based phenomenology) is the presence of other people forces us to be self-conscious, to regard ourselves as the object of someone else's perception and judgement. That's why Sartre goes out of his way to say the room (their jail cell in Hell, effectively) had no reflective surfaces, so that the character's perception of themselves could only come from the people they are stuck with (this doesn't entirely make sense, but I am pretty sure it's what he meant). You can read him talk about some of the premises informing this by checking out his writing on "The Look," like is quoted below this comic.

So it's a slightly obtuse point about intersubjectivity that people have turned into a cutesy way of talking about their own misanthropy. It's probably more emblematic of the meaning of the quote how people in this thread, original commenter especially, are talking about silently judging people for this and that action.

It's been happening a lot longer than that, that's a classic misspelling.

Most of the camps were liberated by the Red Army. I don't see why you feel the need to say "Evil Nazis" unless it is to mock the idea of Nazis being very evil.

The Soviets did actually have a plan to move the Jewish refugees who were refused homes abroad into a designated Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, but the plan fell through for reasons that I don't really understand. Maybe just because the land they chose wasn't good or there was just more momentum behind the project to colonize Palestine (which the USSR supported at a critical juncture before going back to opposing for some reason).

In the modern day, I hate the idea of injecting such a reactionary population of millions into a country that has a more lively left than most (though yes, the left has never controlled the Federation and has its own issues besides) when the Israelis could either carve out a part of Germany for themselves or be put in some of the other reactionary shitholes in Europe like England and Italy, where they probably wouldn't make the politics any worse than they already are.

The highly racial framing you are using is one that even Hamas rejects. Palestine is an Arab country in the sense that it's mostly Arab, it is not Arab in the sense of being an ethnostate like Israel. Likewise, the point of conflict here is not that the Israelis are Jews, but that they are former colonizers, aside from the second-class citizen Arab (etc.) Israelis. Jews do alright in Palestine right now.

Even if it just stopped there, the fact that there would be some hate crimes as blowback from the genocide committed by Israel is a much smaller and more manageable problem than having a rogue state launching hellfire missiles indiscriminately at cities.

But I think there are other factors to consider, first among them being that people of Palestine have the much more important jobs of a) reconstruction and b) the extensive trials that will be required, along with their associated fact-finding missions. There's a lot of shit to do and most of it is for the direct benefit of Palestinians, plus any spite they have can be satisfied by the just convictions of countless Israeli criminals. It's not like they are some racist savages who won't be satisfied until the last Jew has been bled dry, contrary to their hasbara depiction. Overwhelmingly, what they want is to live in peace, because so many of them have spent their whole lives living under violence.

So nothing about this seems like it would be an equivalent problem to leveling one of the most densely populated cities in the world, plus all the other shit that is going on. It is, in function, just a refusal to allow any blowback Israelis caused to actually hit them, no matter how many Arabs get slaughtered in the meantime.

I do agree with the other commenter that it would be good for some NATO-sphere country or countries to set aside land and migrate out those non-criminal Israelis who want to leave, but that's almost certainly not ever going to happen. I acknowledge that it's possible, but the use of Israelis to these states is as a ranks of a militarist state terrorizing its neighbors. What use would Israelis be to the imperial project in Alberta, Canada?

I already found (and in fact am coming from, this is an alt account) some more appropriate instances, but I appreciate your trying to be helpful.

Why in the world would you make this thread? Almost every single day for at least the last month (and still often beforehand) there have been threads where the liberals and the leftists aggressively talk in circles on this issue. The odds of you hearing anything new are incredibly low, and you might as well just go back to .ml's c/news threads for the same material.

I just can't keep having people yell the same nonsense at me over and over. If you're really badly in need of leftist takes, I'll DM you on request, but I don't really want to talk about it publicly anymore except in more convincingly leftist spaces than .ml has been rendered by its federation.

The donors -- the domestic owning class -- were always a self-aligned ingroup, and it's been that way since before the country was founded. The fact that they have gotten complacent in just green-washing and rainbow-washing their marketing instead of allowing actual concessions to be made is not really a change in their ideology so much as their strategy. They still have the same goals that they've always had, it's just that the tiny little check on their power that the left and the working class more broadly represented has been systematically dismantled.

It's not a matter of what the owning class "believes" as though these conditions are a highly subjective thing, because ingroups are not just a quirk of psychology or social perspective, they can be and often are interest groups, people who share a common material interest. The owners are correct that it benefits them broadly to crush the power of labor so they can maximize profits, just like they know it benefits them broadly to do other things like scapegoat minorities, use drug policy as a pretext for mass-incarceration, and so on.

Third parties are never even mentioned in the article. Is all left criticism of Harris "vote-third-party slop"?

What a coincidence!

This is one of those things where we all know what it means but you have deniability if someone calls you out on it. Just say what you mean instead of resorting to dogwhistling.

That polling was mentioned immediately in the article, but it then points to the wealth of issues where the headline is true.

Dissolving Israel doesn't mean kicking every Jewish person out. There are Jewish people in Palestine already, and the point is to make a multiethnic state, not replace one ethnostate with another. Many Israelis would definitely leave for a number of reasons, very much like how a meaningful part of the white population fled South Africa in the wake of Apartheid being defeated, but there are houses where there are no other claimants and, God forbid, the remaining former Israelis can also just buy or rent homes instead of stealing them. There would be a big population shift, but there is absolutely no need to build a 10-million-person-ark.

compromising on social policy (especially immigration . . . )

That compromise has already happened. Harris is currently campaigning on a hardline border policy and touting that she tried to get essentially Trump's 2020 border policy through the legislature.

If the Dems lose, they will move right. If they win, they will move right. Without a strong leftist opposition (not just voice, but opposition), they will keep moving right term after term after term while touting superficial bullshit to try to please people who have a conscience but very little political education.

There was a thread just yesterday about why the Democrats haven't done anything progressive in so long, and people were seriously touting Harris being black like that at all matters in the face of her being a cop, or like it's actual policy and not just the incidental identity of their prospective President. I wrote a whole thing on it before deleting it because I just can't stand to talk to people like that anymore.

Bibi is evil, but he's absolutely a scapegoat for the evil of the Israeli government and even the people, as it is basically never reported in the west how his approval went up after escalating against Lebanon, and he generally is pushed to take more severe (and heinous) action by the bulk of the Israeli people. That's not to say every one of them is a bad person or Bibi is less evil, but every single one who is good is an anti-zionist.

Destroying the state of Israel, contrary to Zionist propaganda, does not mean killing all the Israelis, nor imprisoning them or otherwise punishing them. It means destroying the government apparatus that, from the beginning of its very existence, has been a racial-supremacist settler-colonial entity, and investigating what evidence is turned up in its records and punishing the actual criminals accordingly. Oh, and returning stolen homes where there's anyone still surviving to reclaim them.

What do you suppose is allowing the remaining threads to hold on?

Appropriately apocalyptic for the liberal view on these elections, but the problem, also appropriate for the liberal view on these elections, is that you are taking the Other to be a complete dipshit.

If you're in a situation that isn't the literal end of the world, bluffing has a serious danger associated with it because it informs all circumstances subsequent to the bluff if it gets called. From that point on, people know that your threats are not to be taken seriously, and you have robbed yourself of whatever power you had. You become a "boy who cried wolf" with respect to the actions you will take.

Furthermore, this time in all situations, it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to stake such a widespread plan of action on everyone at all times maintaining a lie. How do you agitate for such a thing? You can't speak of it in the open. How do you vet candidates? Someone might be an asset (and liberals usually believe spaces both online and offline are crawling with assets for other states) or even just someone who thinks you plan is bullshit and will decide to talk about it afterwards. Basically, your plan works in the same realm of imagination where wars would stop if all of the soldiers on both sides just laid down their arms. That is to say, if you could just cast a spell and make people act that way, sure, but that's not how politics works.

Lastly, it's important to remember we are talking about threats, so "If we have nukes, we should just use them!" is a complete non sequitur. That's not a threat, that's just an attack. Incidentally, while there is a good argument to be made that if you get nuked, you should just take the L if you think your barrage might tip the scales into the world ending, such an idea definitionally does not work as the dominant ideology because at that point MAD does not protect your country anymore and there's really no point in you having nukes when you're just surrendering to death anyway. If you're an individual operator of a nuclear silo or something and you refuse to participate in ending the world, good for you, but again that's something that you can't organize with because it's a conspiracy of a similar style to what I outlined before, so you aren't going to succeed in helping very much unless you're on the vanguard and it might be a false positive that an enemy nuke was launched at all (this happened at least once with the USSR, during the Cuban Missile Crisis). In that extremely specific situation where mass action is impossible and only a tiny fraction of a fraction of the population ever gets close to being in the conditions where such an incident has even a slim possibility of occuring: Yes, there it works well.

A threat that you refuse to make good on is the same as doing nothing. I have no interest in telling someone who to vote for, but your proposed strategy is ridiculous.

Words can have different colloquial meanings. There is a really crass meaning of liberal that would identify Marx as a liberal, yes, and this is the most popular one in America, but there's another colloquial meaning (more popular in other anglophone countries, but gaining traction in America) where liberals are basically centrists (in capitalist societies) who might pretend to be progressive but are ultimately moderates to their bones. This came from the proclivities of "Liberal" parties, along with centrists understandably claiming the name of whatever the ruling ideology is, and here it is of course liberalism.

Among leftist circles, "liberal" is sort of an unmarked term for the moderate definition and the Lockean definition both, like how "guys" can refer to both a group of males and a group of mixed gender, despite "gals" only referring specifically to a group of females (I'm using those terms because they apply to children also, not just men/women).

So the comment is saying, in translation: "Democrat aligned people will still blame socialists (etc.) like their Democrat ideological cult wants them to." Does that make sense?

Turns out when something happens a lot, it's more useful to try to view it systemically than to write each person individually off as an "idiot devoid of empathy". "Brainwashing" is a myth, but pretending it's real, who do you think "brainwashed" this guy? Surely not Republicans, they've got their own attitudes and talking points that are unhinged but distinct from this.