161–170 of 265 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Expansive means large, vast. Not necessarily growing.
Not necessarily. I agree with that. But in American English usage it is distinct from your meaning, which is more aligned with "extensive". The first entry for "expansive" in my usage dictionary is "tending to expand". The main reason to choose the word is to communicate growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we remove the tech from the story If we remove the tech from the dropping of the atomic bombs, what's the big deal? You can't remove the tech; it is intrinsic to the issue.
Sorry, I don't follow. If you remove the tech from dropping of atomic bombs, you still have firebombs, gas attacks, and myriad other weapons that may or may not be considered either war crimes or simply too destructive to allow. You can still extrapolate and / or build analogies from the older models to the new one. Why can't we remove the tech in this context? Is the issue that the tech allows surveillance of public…
People aren't taking umbrage with the cops knowing there is a protest, or attending one, you're right, that would be unreasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Let's say Israel does something that is or might be genocidal. How do people talk about it without being antisemetic.? > It is intended What evidence do you have of the GP's intent? Or of all the other people who say the same?
Your question is answered here in fair depth: https://www.ajc.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2021-10/A%20Guid...
On top of that a few tests we can apply:
- Are Jewish people judged to a different standard than others?
- Is the pattern similar to historical persecution of the Jewish people, specifically in this case we're talking about blood libels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
- Follow the money or literally find the source of the accusation. Is the source clearly antisemitic? Then the accusation is likely antisemitic.
Let's say you are or might be a serial killer. How should I talk about it without offending you? Just asking.
If for example Israel was setting up gas chambers and systemically killing all the Palestinians in the middle east that would be pretty hard to hide. If you have no evidence you're going to go down the road of interpreting the genocide convention to fit your agenda, misrepresenting the ICC ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9MB9t7WlI ), making up things, cherry-picking statements by Israeli officials and ignoring ones that don't suit your agenda. etc. The simplest explanation here that holds water is that we have a war during which we have civilians casualties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is surprising. Why are the police monitoring constitutionally protected activity?
When the police watch you walk down the street they are also monitoring constitutionally protected activity.
But back to my original question, why are the police monitoring constitutionally protected activity?
Here's an interesting thought about how preferential surveillance can lead to repression even when it's public and not itself acted on: 1. Every demographic commits petty crimes and code violations at about the same rate (things like parking violations and music piracy). 2. However, people who are being watched will be caught more often. 3. The end result is that people in the "wrong" crowd on average are punished mo…
> Every demographic commits petty crimes and code violations at about the same rate Do you have data backing this claim? For example, homicides (that are not a subject for reporting bias) don’t follow a uniform distribution, so I would expect other crimes to also be non-uniform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strongly disagree, both with the claim that the protestors don't care about peace elsewhere, and with the claim that Israel's actions are "defensive".
[flagged]
1. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2024/0801/hamas-...
3. https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2025/3/17/palesti...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Protests over issues like Gaza have a high probability of turning violent What is the probability? I'm not saying it never happens, but a 'high probability'? Let's see some data! Maybe there's a bias based on what you see in the news - they naturally cover the violent ones (and then depict them as the entire protest instead of something that happened off to the side that most people didn't even know occurred).
Don’t you have to register protests in the US? So if there registered the police already knows about them, right? And if not they are illegal, no?
It depends where you are and the circumstances. You certainly need a Parade Permit if you will be marching down a city street blocking traffic, e.g, for New York City: https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/services/law-enforcement/permi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the police watch you walk down the street they are also monitoring constitutionally protected activity.
Walking down the street is not a constitutionally protected activity not that the police should monitor it without a statutory reason. Driving also isn’t. If you think different you’ll have to cite different. But assembly and expression are constitutionally protected. But back to my original question, why are the police monitoring constitutionally protected activity?