591–600 of 636 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, “the purpose of a system is what it does” implies that the original intent of the creators of a system was for it to become corrupted.
That's one way to read the literal meaning of the words, but it's not what the phrase means as originally intended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a far bigger problem with adults having calls in public places with their phones on speaker... should they be "restrained" as well?
IMO it shouldn't even get that far, to questions of how much we should be allowed to ask of others in the name of basic decency; there's been a massive shift from people being self-regulating and trying to be considerate to others, to the conversation changing to something like, "how dare you even speak to me while I'm blasting tiktok loudly, I'm going to look up the letter of the law and see what the maximum disrupt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I wouldn’t believe everything you read in the BBC or that comes out of Starmer or Blair's mouth." How about instead of attacking credentials we attack the arguments, you know, with evidence? Or, if your best defence is saying "your ideas/evidence come from unsavoury sources (to me)" maybe your positions are more reflective of your own biases than reality.
The poster implied there is an active cover up whereas the case went to court, was prosecuted and became the subject of a judge led enquiry The accusation that immigrant men from Muslim backgrounds are sex offenders is a well worn trope pushed by the far right and people like Farage and Yaxley-Lennon If you actually look at crime statistics in the UK sex offenders, including grooming gangs are overwhelming white men…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of big thinkers out there think nations and citizenship are outmoded concepts, or they are concepts that provoke needless violence. They find their own nationalities an embarrassment.
> Plenty of big thinkers out there think nations and citizenship are outmoded concepts. Big thinkers tend to live in wealthy, leafy areas where they don't have to worry about someone jumping over their fence, or appreciate the need for demarcation of land. Same goes for people who are pro-immigration/pro-drugs/pro-construction - but just don't do it their affluent area.
These same folks went on to figure out the logistics of preparing food. So no, I don't think it's at all axiomatic that the people who disagree with nationalism are necessarily affluent in the slightest. In fact, I've found most solidarity with refugees and anti-nationalist movements in the working class. The overall community of folks I saw ranged across income brackets -- plenty of software engineers, tech folks, trades folks, unemployed folks...
I think that when people say, "They don't really mean it" or "their principles wouldn't stand up if it meant a disruption to their lives", they are not aware of just how much work folks are actively doing every day to live by those principles and invite people in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but they benefitted from the colonialism and fight efforts to return those benefits to the colonized. We're not talking about something that happened thousands of years ago here.
Did they ask to benefit from it? Being nice to everyone and accepting mass immigration aren't the same thing.
It's very silly on the small scale. It's no less silly on the large scale, you are simply more accustomed to the cultural understanding the colonialism is not something you have any responsibility for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did they ask to benefit from it? Being nice to everyone and accepting mass immigration aren't the same thing.
Generalize this line of thought. "A thief stole an iphone and dropped it on my doorstep. I kept it, despite knowing it was stolen, because I did not ask the thief to steal it for me". It's very silly on the small scale. It's no less silly on the large scale, you are simply more accustomed to the cultural understanding the colonialism is not something you have any responsibility for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Even by your own logic, after all, Israeli Jews are just exercising their “right of return” no? No. There are surviving people with a clear right to return they were removed from. Its those people that Israel seeks to outlive by holding them in Gaza. Its happening now. That's not equivalent to some loose claim from a long time ago. >That would not work. You see what Hamas is willing and was able to do on Oct 7th. If…
> No. There are surviving people with a clear right to return they were removed from. There’s very few Palestinians in Gaza alive from that time. Even then, while they may have a desire to return home it’s not something any other people in similar conflicts have gotten. Just as the equivalent numbers of Sephardic Jews who had their properties and homes stolen in Arab nations aren’t going to get them back or get a rig…
Homes can be rebuilt, they can be rebuilt where settlers destroyed them.
>it’s not something any other people in similar conflicts have gotten.
If your perspective is "Might makes right" that's a worse position for a people with the history that the jewish people have, than a position that seeks justice.
Justice, and Israel being seen to be doing justice, would make Jews much much much more secure than chasing refugees into a prison and then failing to return them to their land because "it just doesn't happen".
>Jordan keeps 2.39 million Palestinians trapped in refugee camps as well. Jordan tried allowing them to integrate in the 1970’s and they tried to assassinate the king and take over.
Likewise, pushing the idea that a people can be bad, the most literal genetic fallacy, is also not making jewish people safer.
>Also there is no “government” that could magically do what you’re saying. Governments aren’t magic. They’re created by people.
Theres the Israeli government. If they wanted to be seen as legitimate (instead of simply a tool for the settler movement) they would be seen to be doing justice.
>Israeli people and their government went against their extremists and did the right thing in 2005.
Thats crazy. It wasnt even the minimum required.
>However I rarely or never Israelis Jews say they wanted to kill all Palestinians. Most Israelis actually empathize with them and wished for peace but also want to protect their people. They cared less about houses and more about the lives of their people.
I mean its so easily sourced why bother denying it lmao.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/24/israeli-wedding-pa...
>While I hope for peace in Gaza, I also know generations of ideological indoctrination of extremist Islamic won’t disappear overnight. You should study more on the history of the region, not this shallow westernized version.
I know quite a lot about the history of this region, and everything I learn makes me even more angry with the state of Israel, and the extremists who built it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot to mention those people are holding placards in support of an illegal "terror" group whose objective is to protest the unnecessary human loss of life in Palestine by spray painting British military equipment. Obligatory legal notice that I obviously do not support said group, but historically terrorists would actually need to commit acts that instil a sense terror in people to further their political objec…
> You forgot to mention those people are holding placards in support of an illegal "terror" group whose objective is to protest the unnecessary human loss of life in Palestine by spray painting British military equipment. Yet more false equivalence. You can be for Palestine. You can be for Hamas. You can be against ethnic cleansing. You can be against genocide. These are all different things. And note, this smearing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You forgot to mention those people are holding placards in support of an illegal "terror" group whose objective is to protest the unnecessary human loss of life in Palestine by spray painting British military equipment. Yet more false equivalence. You can be for Palestine. You can be for Hamas. You can be against ethnic cleansing. You can be against genocide. These are all different things. And note, this smearing…
You can be for Hamas?
Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. Last elections too. For quite many, Hamas are freedom fighters defending against invaders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesnt take a lot for people to feel less safe in their environment. So for example violent muggings on the subway may be down, but if the subway is grimy, degraded, and there are young men hanging around, people get antsy. And then selling surveillance etc is an easy push to the voters. I don't think its fair for someone to say, "well, its all scare mongering by the Daily Mail". They certainly have an interest in…
I often think about how much of an effect things like "see it, say it, sort it" and "we do not tolerate abuse to our staff" and "you are being watched, cctv" and "thieves will be prosecuted" and "smartwater in operation" and "cash not left in tills overnight" in otherwise wealthy and low crime areas contributes to a feeling of unsafety and dog-eat-dog world
Criminals might be deterred by knowing that people definitely get arrested in a certain location, because, say, they've seen it themselves, or because they see a presence of law enforcement, or because they innately sense its a high status environment where law enforcement response is to be expected.
A criminal seeing a sign might conclude that the sign is actually telling them that no immediate law enforcement response is likely.
For example, in London, you dont see CCTV signs in the shops along Sloane Street (super high end retail) but you definitely see them in Primark (very ordinary store, like US Kohls).
Wonder if there are any studies on this?