Crazy how this didn't change even slightly between Biden and Trump. And here I thought they were polar opposites! /s
dx1
joined 9 months ago
The doubletalk before he gets elected is advance warning that his policies won't reflect his pre-office behavior.
I did not really mind the Palestine comments because he basically denies the state of Israel in the way he framed it.
But stated the opposite. His words (maybe slightly paraphrasing) - "Israel has a right to exist as a state with equal rights". That's not denying it. That's defining its "right to exist" within the same terms they themselves use to describe it. The correct, truthful answer is "states don't have a right to exist". We don't have time for clever riddles that play both sides.
It's a manipulative fallacy. Humanity has the total ability to control its destiny within what's physically possible. People presenting two options and demanding a choice of one discount every possibly out of an infinite set of possibilities except those two.
See: horse image
I've done this. One of my favorites was fixing a project where a guy had managed to implement two separate backends without realizing it.
You should work on your skills at interpreting political speech. It's about positioning yourself in terms of sentiments, not making explicit, accurate statements. The fact that he's even engaging in this kind of thing shows you he's false, right off the bat.
The very video about Palestine he got famous for, he was already full of shit in. "Israel has a right to exist... (as a state with equal rights)"? No. It doesn't. States don't have a right to exist and that state is predicated on claiming to have equal rights while being institutionalized apartheid.
This is more of the same. I left NYC, among other reasons, because it's a miniature police state, with the NYPD leading the charge. The fuck is he even going to do as mayor if he's not going to rein them in?
It's my primary but Google unfortunately is often a fallback. And Google is tracking the shit out of us these days. Certain obscure searches don't work well on DDG, sad to say.
MAGA-level conversation.
There's an absolutely ancient meme of someone selling a mirror or TV or something. Circa 2000 ish.
It's not a hobby. It's not subjective. Something is either good or bad, in total (some real number value on that axis, to be specific). The kind of thing you said is literally a cop-out of confronting that. The need to put some "ist"/"ism" label on it just avoids dealing with the question entirely. That's not the definition of pacifism, what I said is the framework to situationally decide whether pacifism or something else is more ethical.
No reason to exclude people, lots of reasons to not give them unilateral vetoes though. Or to not recognize illegitimate states beyond the people they supposedly represent. Hmm.