It’s impressive how much of an opinion on a topic people can have despite not knowing jack shit. But for some reason the onus is always on the rest of us to hold your hand. And if we get into the specifics of something suddenly we’re ‘contrarian’.
Israel is committing genocide for sure but don’t kid yourself in the narrative that hamas is some noble liberation army. It’s clear you’re not equipped to talk about any of this.
Notice how you can only engage at a superficial level with the topic? My money is you can’t even locate Israel on a map at this point. But thanks for having an opinion on the subject. I’m not surprised as this has been the most you can get talking anything related to geopolitics on this platform.
Par for the course. Searching for specifics or facts of a matter is not being a contrarian. It’s called doing due diligence without letting bias cloud your view. We all have narratives we wish to paint. But unfortunately reality is more complicated than yapping online about how Nazzi or not Israel is. That’s the difference between online virtue signaling and someone who is interested in pursuing the truth.
Why, do the details make Israel look good? Is there a reason to shy away from having a meaningful discussion or is it better to hide behind memes and catchphrases
Well, there you have it. The most unproductive statements as usual. If you don’t know the specifics, why comment? Why not discuss the actual policies or the historical details? Why live in the realm of memes and buzzwords? Oh wait… I know why
Wow. What an insightful response. I stand by what I said earlier: You guys have no idea what you’re talking about.
Why was it turned down, Geneva? Care to elaborate?
You are correct. Israel, in the present does not accept the two state solution. Hence why I was talking about the past.
Why was it rejected by PLO when it was on the table?.
Show me where Hamas is open to a two state solution.
What is the meaning of “from the river to the sea”
Because I said it was on the table several times in the past. And they wrote:
Very cool and false
???
What is the benefit from lying? I don’t get it. This is all basic info.
The two-state solution is supported by many countries, and the Palestinian Authority. Israel currently does not support the idea, though it has in the past. The first proposal for separate Jewish and Arab states in the territory was made by the British Peel Commission report in 1937.
It was also on the table at Camp David.
I think we can track down several times two state option was on the table, starting as early as 68
Because people aren’t interested in solutions. They really just want to talk about the genocidal colonialist imperialist western project. And then move on. With little consideration or forethought for either the Palestinians or the Jews - literally anyone living in the region.
Case example: Hasanabi fans cheering Hezbollah rockets hitting areas inside Israel. But because the rockets have incredibly low precision they were frequently hitting Arab quarters in Haifa and elsewhere.
To sum up: whenever you talk to anyone about me or ip first establish how much they actually understand about the conflict before continuing the conversation any further. My experience is that most people online are locked behind memes and virtue signaling while having absolutely no comprehension of what in actually going on there
I like Darktable but found RawTherapee to be more usable. For me Darktable 4 was way too many clicks for what should be a one click - everywhere. But it is very powerful. Just the ui gave me headache
Yea. I agree. There is a nice median and really strong extremes. But those extremes sometimes hog up the convo.
Yea you know what: I stand corrected. Classic liberalism is closely aligned with conservatism in the sense that it is shuttered from regulation. My mind is on the social liberal aspect.
I agree with all of this. However, and I could be wrong, my understanding of classic liberalism is that it was never directly opposed to regulation or social services. My initial understanding is that it’s by necessity tied to free markets and private property.
But if it is then I’m learning something new.
We don’t have to have an argument over it. It’s ok to have a conversation. I’m familiar with the ‘liberals are right wing’ talking point.
I’m just trying to understand what exactly it is that defines ‘right wing’ and how we define ‘liberalism’ . You’re right, it IS a semantic discussion, but clearly the implication is that liberalism is on par with being right wing. So, nonetheless, a semantic relabeling which is not devoid of consequences.
So I’m wondering, at what point do those two overlap (liberalism and right wing politics)? Is it the right to private property? Beyond that, what exactly makes liberalism ‘right wing’?
I think my issue is with the usage of the phrase “right wing” because we need something scathing to label liberals. It doesn’t really contribute anything to the discourse except create layers of exclusion.
Liberalism, broadly, is not interested in supporting or enabling hierarchies. The only thing they share in common with right wing conservatism is the ownership of private property -but that’s it. So lumping them all in the same bucket isn’t doing much for anyone except creating more exclusion at the risk of pushing forward socialist policies. The reality is liberals are probably more likely to favor equality, even if it’s just ideological. Shouldn’t we strive to bring more people on board and build bridges rather than continue this bizarre war of artrition?
I know it’s comfortable to sit and call anything slightly right of ultra socialism as ‘right wing’ but a spectrum exists.
To conflate republican evangelical dominionist Christians with liberals is peak hubris.
There is a saying: ‘when you’re a hammer, every problem is a nail’. When you reduce everything to class warfare you’re not engaging in an effective discourse to reduce harm in the world. You’re just pontificating on the merits of socialism, which yea, we all agree are neat. But so what? You think folding everyone else into a basket gives you credence or helps the discourse in any way?
Marvelous Miss Maisle is solid from om beginning to end. Not a minute, scene or note is wasted. The writers know how to pack every scene with as much energy and storytelling as possible. Just perfect.