we can send 47 back to his golf course for the rest of his term because he wont be able to accomplish anything.
I mean I was kinda hoping agent 47 would be incredibly busy this term. I can imagine a level set inside the inauguration with the dinner and all that.
I dunno whether or not you've been hit with this before, but if you haven't, it's your lucky day, have a two hour miniature documentary on the bombs specifically, and how they weren't really justified at all. People should probably still be pissed about it. I'd also say that stuff about japan being locked away from the resources it needed, is kind of dubious. I dunno if it passes the smell test, it smells like modern japan post ww2 nation building narrative stuff, to me. Maybe if we include "in the form it was in" to encompass the entirety of their imperial exploits up til that point. We maybe get, at some point, to the further debate about opening japan up as a more isolationist country through the use of force, by the US specifically. None of this is something I'm prepared to talk about in any respectable level of detail.
As for the prevalence of violence and war crimes in the world, I'd say, yeah, pretty undeniable, undeniably common. I don't much like war, many reasons, that is among them. I think that vietnam, and the continued and unerring deviation from what vietnam basically was, all the way until the modern day, where we're funding an apartheid state that's bombing a minority population, is a testament to the character of the united states. Which is not to say it's beyond rationalization, or is done out of pure evil, rather than cold self-interest, but I think that the true and fundamental character of the united states, as illustrated from those foreign escapades, is kind of self-evidently apparent. Trump's only notable characteristic is that he's turning that gun towards the domestic population a little more, or that he's more rhetorically fascistic, or some other difference, but this sort of a behavior is something I fully believe to be within our fundamental character as a nation. As a political system. Elon exists on that continuum.
I'd kind of be willing to wager that we actually hated nazis mostly because they were foreign, more than anything else. I think all that ww2 valorizing history schlock about me and the good old boys from ken-tucky and all over going out and killing all the nazis has totally cooked america's understanding of that war. I dunno, towards the end we did nuke a country, twice, in a totally superfluous and cruel act, and we also concentrated the domestic immigrant population that we were bombing during that war into camps. Everyone brushes over that part, though, and america is truly faultless. These aren't our true characters, being revealed, no, this is just some errant deviation from a much more civilized and reasonable norm! Surely, that must be the case.
Yeah, the people who see this as a significant deviation from the norm aren't exactly incorrect, but I wonder to what degree they really understand the total history and scope of america as it has existed for basically all of it's span. What we've done, in this country.
Who comes out ahead after all of this? Who benefits in the long run? I’m having a hard time finding any winners.
Nobody ever really wins here. In either the short term, or the long term, with or without violence. If the clap back of oct 7th hadn't happened, then the state of affairs would've remained exactly as horrible as they've always been, and probably would've slowly decomposed even further, and the population probably would've just died slower deaths over the course of several years. Certainly in retrospect, that maybe seems better than the alternative, but nobody knows the future, really. It could be just as likely the oct 7th was exactly the kind of pressure that started a chain of events that ultimately leads to the deconstruction of the state of israel. It's completely impossible to know the future, completely, anything else is kind of just armchair speculation.
We have to place oct 7th into context, and to place it into context, we have to have a chain of causality. That eliminates the sort of responsibility that people like to attribute to everything. It doesn't eliminate tactics, or the decision making process, it actually enhances it, if anything, but we do have to look at, say, how the state of affairs in gaza lead to such an attack. Both in how such a sorry state led to such an attack, obviously, and also in how Hamas was funded as their government in part by israel in order to ensure a more violent opposing force that would be more willing to mutually escalate with them, especially when that force is locked in to a specific location and can only really fight on israel's terms, unlike most of israel's other actors, which can fight more on the terms of the international political stage. Obviously still a deck which is heavily stacked against them, but slightly less so.
What I mean by all of this is that israel manufactured the conditions to enact their genocide, and that escalation would've happened either way because they're not able to be bargained with. Under that framework, any tactic the gazans, specifically, could've taken, was pretty much doomed to failure from the start. Or rather, was doomed to not really have a positive outcome in the immediate short term, for them specifically. I'm not saying oct 7th was really a wise decision, right, I'm just saying that we don't really know. Maybe attribute to me analysis paralysis, then, I'm not quite sure, ironically, but I think it's easier to have a hindsight-accurate armchair QB backseat approach to this than to make those decisions of what to do in the moment.
I think a lot of people would cut contact with their family at times like this due to the ways in which these kinds of beliefs often intersect with massive amounts of interpersonal abuse and broadly dysfunctional and unhappy relationships. I think this is most especially true of people who are queer, neurodivergent, disabled, or a member of some other minority, who are easily going to be subject by that abuse from their family more and more, especially as they may be more dependent on them and as they're more noticeably going to see that abuse well up as a result of those narratives. You know, people who get to see the "ugly sides" of their family.
I would say that if you're not actively dependent on your family, and you're not part of an actively hated minority which they will more easily discard, disrespect, and abuse, then that makes it easier to cut them out of your life, but that's also definitely a time at which you will counterintuitively be in the best position to sway them, since you're at your most secure.
So I would say that this is, in some part, a decision which you should probably make in reflection of your current material circumstances, the current state of your life. This also isn't a decision which you need to make right now, really, to cut him out of your life or decide to blow this particular one up. You said he's already married, and that your other two brothers aren't going, so one more probably won't hurt things that much even if you invent an excuse.
I'm like 90% sure if I showed my dad the picture of elon musk hitting the five knuckle shuffle live on stage in 4k 60fps three times in a row, he'd probably flee to the "my heart goes out to you" comment, right before trying to find some sort of talking point he could throw down the hopper in order to justify this shit, which is really to say nothing of the fact that he basically just fundamentally agrees with elon's actions on basically every level if he was to actually sit down and think about it for long enough. There's some people which cannot be helped, because they will repeatedly choose not to be. There isn't exactly a correct answer, here, I think the major thing is that if it goes sideways because of your decisions, you shouldn't beat yourself up or crash out over it, or become overly callous.
This is probably why the tech industry has been hardened against that sort of thing, and is, say, famously hard to unionize.
And… a great example of that is Palestine. For the sake of simplicity, let’s call what Hamas did “attacking a target”. What was the outcome of that? Israel had “justification” to engage in mass ethnic cleansing for over a year.
You put justification in quotes here, and I think you clearly understand why. Netenyanhu propped up hamas as the de facto government specifically in order to ensure a more militant party would give israel the necessary "justification" to attack the people there. So, even their governance, and that attack itself, is traceable to israel's state violence. A minor note, but an important one, I think. And I think one which requires more thought than just like, pointing to that and then saying "See, I told you, violence doesn't work, and is bad, and israel wants it!", because israel's obviously not an overly rational state which is actually functional, either for it's people or for it's goals.
More broadly though, it's not necessary at all for people to have guns, in order for cops to kill them. Cops can invent any number of reasons to kill someone in their day to day. The gun is something you just see in the news media a lot because it's incredibly common in america, and especially common in the hoods where cops go out and kill people in larger numbers. Again, we can see that as an extension of a context, created by the state, which has naturally created violence. Partially through the valuable, and illegal, property, mostly in the form of drugs, which must be protected through extralegal means, i.e. cartels and gangs, but also just naturally as a result of police violence in those places as an extension of that, which is an intentional decision to create by the ruling class. It's a way to create CIA black budgets, it's a way to incarcerate and vilify your political opponents at higher rates, etc. You can't be intolerant to the idea of guns as a blanket case, in that context, because it's a totally different kind of context, and is one which is created by the state.
I would maybe also make the point that a protest is incentive enough against killing people, because it would be widely known and televised as a massacre in the media. You know, just gunning people down in the street, en masse. That line is sort of, becoming less clear over time, as the government seems to be more and more willing to condone that, if not outright do that, but I don't really think that if, say, everyone in the BLM riots was armed, the cops would just start randomly firing into the crowd. They'd be hopelessly outnumbered, for one, so that's a pretty clear reason for the police not to just start sputtering off rounds like a bunch of idiots, but you'd also probably see a protracted national guard response over the course of the next several weeks, which nobody really wants to deal with, both in terms of the media response and just the basic type of shit that would happen.
You also have several extrapolations you can make from just that happening in the first place, even though it never would. Like, the kind of city which could get up to that, in america, would maybe reveal something incredibly uncomfortable to the ruling institutions about that particular city and its political disposition and potentially that could be extrapolated to the entire country. Most places don't get to that point because they reach civil war before that, which is kind of more along the lines of what the preceding commenter is talking about. More along the lines of, say, IRA tactics.
Which is all to say, that this is something which is shaped entirely by the government's intentional responses and the contexts that they create. When they decide to escalate, that should be seen, naturally, as being on them, and not on your average person. I think what the previous commenter is trying to say, with a good faith reading, is that we are probably due, in the next 4 years and perhaps beyond, for an escalation. I don't think that's really a morally great thing, or a good context, but I do think they're potentially right based on how things shake out, and I think that people should probably come to terms with that even as we try to avoid it.
Edit: Also I forgot to note this, but this isn't really a disagreement in core ideals, but just of tactics. Dual power isn't so much a deliberate choice of tactic so much as it should just be a certainty, being that both sides of this debate are mutually beneficial to one another. If you have, or can place, a more reasonable politician in office, either through violence (highly unusual, but does happen occasionally if the dice reroll lands well enough), or through the political system itself, then that reasonable politician is just that, more reasonable. i.e. more likely to accomplish goals which are desirable to any violent guerillas. Likewise, the pressure that violent guerillas exert can be seen as a kind of abstract economic cost constantly being leveraged against unreasonable political powers, in favor of reasonable elements of that political system.
The main point against this, is that the united states is currently so unreasonable, politically, that it's functionally impossible to bargain with in really any way. Any violence, under such a political system, one which refuses any attempt at change, is seen as kind of ultimately meaningless. But I think that's maybe also part of a broader point about how people just generally feel, understandably, incredibly pessimistic about the future, and are sort of retreating back into a kind of survival mode. Especially, I think, because they've been made to feel totally responsible for the weight of the world, when ultimately the decision of the political power to retaliate and do mass violence is, as previously stated, both inevitable, and entirely their own decision, that they must be held responsible for, rather than the people.
I mean, this shit should probably just be banned as spam, right? I don't think it would be acceptable to make posts that are majority bot content under really any other circumstance, and I don't see why this is really any different. In fact, it would've been more effective, and more helpful, to go to, say, google maps, and then just link to where the photo was taken, or maybe go to the wikipedia page for that particular building, or this lakefront, or what have you. That's on top of how we already have contributors who are able to actually say what this is on firsthand knowledge, rendering this redundant on top of potentially being totally inaccurate.
that's always been the case, even when they had that shit printed on the can. it's a matter of the individual retailers doing that. I think there was some system to report them to the company but obviously the arizona tea company doesn't really have any control over the prices that retailers decide to sell their shit for. which is partially why I think the whole thing that they're only supposed to cost a dollar everywhere is kind of lowkey just a marketing ploy.
Eastern propaganda
lol
None of what you say is untrue, but if you don't conform to codified grammar, then you'll get harangued by a bunch of grammar apes that freak out as soon as you misspell something relatively minor, like -esque to -esk. Or you'll even just find yourself getting hit with a bunch of clarifying questions about what your specific spelling actually was. So oftentimes it's actually more fluid, and more clear, to use language that's more codified.