I’ll be the first to admit that Zionists are modern day Nazis, and they’re not welcome in my house. But my phone keyboard autocorrects them to capitalized versions, no idea why. Turned it off now I can write: I’m glad the people convicted in the Nuremberg trials got executed, because they were nazis. I consider zionists the modern day equivalent of nazis. Not sure if this is worth the hassle of not having autocorrect.
Exactly! Goes for other conditions as well. One symptom of having a broken arm is sucking at tennis. I suck at tennis, so in a way, my arm is a little broken. And I can’t see what’s behind me, so I’m essentially 50% blind.
One aspect that I’m missing here is the fact that it’s a vicious cycle as well. The feeling bad makes it harder to start, which in turn makes you feel worse, which in turn makes it harder ro start, and so on.
Are we trying to goad him into not chickening out? I’m confused by the strategy here.
Of course I haven’t, that’s what I’m referring to when I say further crackdowns. But cracking down is not a binary, and I think the cracking down worsening on account of these murders is a legitimate worry to have.
I’m very conflicted on this. On the one hand, it is a good thing when genocide collaborators die, that’s two less to worry about, but on the other, this could serve as a catalyst for further Zionist crackdowns on free speech.
I’ve read the resolution, and I don’t see anything in the document that I disagree with. There are some references to the Durban conference in there that I don’t fully understand, but from a cursory reading of the Wikipedia article it seems that people’s main gripe with it is its anti-zionist position (a position I vehemently agree with, Zionism is colonialism and genocide). That, to me, seems like a reasonable enough explanation as to why the US would vote against this resolution (I hope I don’t need to, but I’m happy to elaborate), and that, in turn, explains why client states voted against (or abstained).
I do acknowledge that the rhetoric closely mirrors Russia’s anti-Ukrainian propaganda, but just because a bad person misuses “nazis bad” for nefarious purposes does not make “nazis bad” any less true.
It’s a bit ironic on some level when talking about an anti-nazi resolution, but having looked into it, I’ve arrived at the position that the votes are the way they are because the US tends to vote in favor of Zionism.
The resolution very likely was phrased in a loaded way or had some bit that was dubious
These resolutions are publicly available on the UN website, are typically quite short, and actually quite easy to read in general. This one in particular is only 11 pages long, which includes skippable boilerplate. So this assertion is relatively easy to back up and doesn’t need to rely on assumptions, and it can actually be quite fun to read one of these resolutions; you get to feel like a proper journalist or scholar or something. So I would suggest you give it a read and seek out the bit that you find most objectionable.
Personally, based on not much more than gut feelings and historical precedent on similar distributions in votes, am a bit more uncertain than you about the reason behind this distribution. If we take the Palestine cease fire vote in the UN of December 2023, for example, you have a very similar distribution. And I know for a fact that that was an earnest, unobjectionable resolution, that was only voted down by the US because it was in their material interest to do so, and voted down by US client states (or abstention) because they’re client states. But on the other hand, we also have the obvious context of Russia using this exact language as an excuse for their illegal invasion of Ukraine, so it’s entirely conceivable that there’s a section in there that says sth like “and thus, Russia shall invade Ukraine, and we’re all cool with that”. As such, I’m on the fence, and I’ll read the resolution later. But do give it a go yourself! It’s a very satisfying exercise
Claiming that the genocide, apartheid, and colonialism perpetrated by Israel is in any way complex or nuanced is such a disgustingly smug way of revealing you haven’t spent even a moment thinking the situation through, or reading up on the history. Gross.
Ok, I think we’re miscommunicating. Either my question was’t formulated very clearly, or I misunderstood what you said in the first place. I took what you said (“democracy needs capitalism”) to mean “if you want democracy, you need capitalism”, or alternatively “if you don’t have capitalism, you cannot have democracy”. My question is why you believe this (if you do, that is; I may have misunderstood).
Your answer I completely agree with, but it just argues that capitalism is harmful to democracy and that at best democracy is like a guard rail for capitalism. If anything it shows that capitalism and democracy are kind of incompatible.
And it’s a side track, but the Nordic countries are not a good example of democracy counteracting the excesses of capitalism. They’ve just outsourced the worst of the misery to the global South. And domestically the situation for workers gets worse year by year (although they’re a long way from dropping to American levels).
Yes it was! And please look in folks’ comment histories, the tankies were the first ones to call this out.
Could you walk me through why you think democracy necessitates capitalism?
No, I don’t think it’s nitpicky, and I think it’s relevant to modern day political discourse. It demonstrates that progressive policies and positions are a viable political strategy for the democratic party. I think it’s important to stress this, because a lot of liberals today feel like courting the right is the only way to possibly win an election for the democrats. Stating “always have been” plays into this delusion, and it’s good to remind ourselves that it’s a complete and utter falsehood.
I don’t think this is correct. There was a marked post-Reagan shift to the right. Sure, they were never socialists, but decades ago they at least tried to do something for the working class.
In their moral justification, the argument of the lesser evil has played a prominent role. If you are confronted with two evils, the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Its weakness has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget quickly that they chose evil.
-Hannah Arendt
A geologist buddy of mine works on analyzing soil for placing wind farms.
A lot of people who studied physics do not end up in the “murder children for money” field. You have a choice, and you chose the deeply, deeply immoral path. You’re not fooling anyone, probably not even yourself.
It’s affecting the older generations too. My grandma loved playing solitaire on her laptop. I asked her “did that come with the OS?” And she responded with “What’s an OS”. Crazy times.