GarbageShootAlt2

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.