I didn’t say you were. Though promoting a false narrative about Israel committing a genocide (the casualty numbers are consistent with urban combat in other conflicts) is an indication that you aren’t really questioning the narratives you’re seeing on the internet.

Given that you’re resistant to doing any kind of introspection on whether any of your views might be stemming from antisemitic biases you are more susceptible to antisemitic beliefs than those who are willing to stop and consider things carefully. I mean look at JD Vance making a joke about how him drinking Mountain Dew will probably be considered racist be Democrats. You’re going down that line of thinking. It’s not good to think like JD Vance thinks.

You can avoid these traps by actually considering the possibility that some of the things you see on the internet are racist in intent and designed to make you hate certain ethnicities. Not everything on the internet is that way of course, but there is a lot of content that is. Many times someone is unwittenly sharing something with racist dog whistles without know they’re doing so.

The whole “they’re probably going to say I’m racist for this…” mentality is preemptively dismissing any form of criticism of a position about it potentially being racist. You’re creating a permission structure to be racist because anything that contradicts you is “just them making up lies about me being racist.” Yeah it’s the internet, people do falsely accuse others of being racist, just as people falsely accuse nations of genocide.

The right wing is constantly using rhetorical tactics involving getting the upper hand by making extreme claims. Preemptively declaring any opposition over potential racism in their narrative is automatically disingenuous. Constant appeals to emotion, selectively promoting facts that promote the narrative while ignoring facts that run counter to the narrative. These are the tactics of both the alt right and the pro-Palestinian movement. In fact it’s becoming difficult to categorize the pro-Palestinian movement as anything other than an alt-right movement. Both are convinced that Jews are planning genocides, they just differ on who the Jews want to commit genocide on.

It’s a major talking point in the pro-Palestinian crowd too. Though I feel like that group is shifting towards being alt right for this and many other talking points they have in common.

Eh, they’re small potatoes. I think they need to go after the social media companies for allowing this to happen. You’re never going to get anywhere by trying to go after idiots that are just saying whatever they think will get them promoted in by the algorithm. It’s the companies that make algorithms that can be easily manipulated by bots from a foreign adversary that need to be shamed. And asked some hard questions about what they knew and when they knew it.

Yeah those intelligence estimates about being able to take over Ukraine in a couple of weeks and they’d be greeted as liberated was some top tier spycraft.

Really Putin is kinda shit at the spy stuff. Just that it’s super easy to acquire assets when there’s a lot of people that only care about making money and don’t ask a lot of questions about where it’s coming from.

Restore Iraq after fscking it up. Investigate war crimes and give some justice to their victims after that invasion. I guess the Marshall plan was for white Europeans only (it’s funny BTW, people in ex-USSR in 1991 apparently expected that something like that will be attempted, but USA worked to cement the ex-Soviet elites and to help them neuter actual grassroots movemen

Uh… the US tried to restore Iraq, it didn’t go well. Nation building is hard and the US isn’t particularly good at it. Calling on the US to do more nation building probably isn’t a good idea.

Protect Georgia against Russia.

Currently weakening the Russian military in Ukraine. Do you want to broaden the war?

guess the Marshall plan was for white Europeans only (it’s funny BTW, people in ex-USSR in 1991 apparently expected that something like that will be attempted, but USA worked to cement the ex-Soviet elites and to help them neuter actual grassroots movements instead), but at least fixing things that wouldn’t be broken without USA seemed logical.

Are you saying the Eastern Europeans aren’t white? Or that no money was spent in Afghanistan and Iraq? There’s a difference between rebuilding allies and rebuilding while engaging in combat with a a resistance.

It doesn’t seem to be a lot of thought in this particular “US bad” narrative. There are real criticisms to be made of US foreign policy but you’re missing them all by a longshot. Maybe consider that the US isn’t some nation of supermen that is capable of solving all of the world’s problems but it just doesn’t want to. It’s more accurate to say the US isn’t actually capable of solving many of the problems in the world, and tends to make a lot of messes by misunderstanding other countries and it’s own capabilities.

You know it is possible that both you and they are antisemitic?

A made up political spectrum doesn’t make it impossible for you to fall for the same politics of hate that they’ve fallen for.

Many in the pro-Palestinian movement have lost a sense of good judgment thinking their emotions justify anything they say or do. Others in the movement look the other way when this happens.

Take a good look at this Tucker Carlson drama unfolding. This is how most people see the pro-Palestinian movement right now. Rationalizing antisemitic shit. Does this help Palestinians? Nope. But that movement is going in a bad direction, and it’s starting to be more focused on hating Israel (and Jews in general) than on actually helping Palestinians. A lot of similarities to the MAGA movement, which claims to be about helping the middle class, but in actual practice is more about hating people. Right now the MAGAs are hating on the same people that people in the pro-Palestinian movement hate.

Many in the pro-Palestinian movement today will become the MAGAs of the future. Antisemitism is a hard thing to shake and has a tendency to take over all other thoughts by people infected with it.

I’m pretty sure forests exist where there aren’t salmon. You hate dams, but I hate coal power more than that. And I hate these endless forest fires caused by global warming more than you hate the relatively small area around a dam being affected by the dam.

“Somebody find a better way” doesn’t help. We gotta get past this NIMBYism and learn to accept that it’s not just the guys rolling coal in their F-350s that are going to need to compromise. You need to make compromises too. Global warming can’t just be used as tool to get whatever you want. The guy in the F-350 is gonna have to get an electric car and you’re gonna have to accept there’s going to be a dam in your forest.

Please try to look past the trees in your immediate surroundings to see the entire forest. It’s currently burning. And it’s not because of a dam it’s because there’s too many coal plants and not enough dams. You’re using a device right now that runs on electricity. That electricity comes from somewhere. Where that power is currently coming from is causing this: https://globalnews.ca/news/10574072/bc-wildfire-map-2024-live-today/ Are you really arguing a dam has a bigger environmental impact than this?

Wood wouldn’t be a good option for powering a city, obviously. Neither is coal though.

Global warming isn’t going to be solved by a single solution. Wood makes sense for building materials and for heating in rural areas. It’s not going to be good for producing electricity, but fortunately there’s other technology for that.

Yeah a country has an ethical obligation to protect it’s citizens. Which is why countries issue travel advisories. If you ignore the warnings your country is giving you, that ethical obligation doesn’t apply because it was already fulfilled by the warning.

“Don’t go over there, it’s dangerous!”

“Screw you, I’m not listening to you!”

Problem happens.

“Why did you allow this dangerous thing to happen???”

There’s a separate item for batteries on the list.

You can also store energy from wind and solar in a hydro dam by pumping water.

Energy can also be stored as Hydrogen, that should also be included on the list as an energy storage method.

In some senses the whole planet is storing a huge amount of energy underground.

But yeah I think in the context of this kind of discussion it’s would be a renewable energy source. While it’s probably technically not renewable, but there’s so much of it we’d never run out. I mean if you want to be super-pedantic, solar and wind aren’t renewable either because we don’t have a way to make a new sun when that thing burns out, but it’s like come on.

But probably not a storage solution, because why would you put energy into the Earth’s core? We worried about hell freezing over or something?

Nah it’s friction from rocks banging into each other when the Earth was being formed. The surface of the Earth cooled down, but you dig down deep enough it gets really hot. Hot enough to melt rocks, or as the pros call it… “magma”. Dump some water down there and you get steam and you can drive a turbine with that steam. Though actual geothermal energy implementations are probably a little more complicated than that. But that’s the gist of it.

Wood is a material that’s made from carbon that has been extracted from the atmosphere using an organic process.

You can make buildings and furniture out of wood and you’re sequestering carbon while having a nice place to live and some nice furniture.

You can also burn the wood for heat energy. This releases the carbon into the atmosphere, but the tree that got cut down makes space for a new tree to grow. When that new tree grows it pulls out the carbon that was added by burning the wood. So it’s carbon neutral.

Renewable doesn’t mean it’s instantly replaced. It means there’s a well understood process to replace it. It’s not popular among those that hate the lumber industry, but it’s one of the more environmentally friendly options considering global warming. Consider how trees used for building means using carbon extracted from the air for building things. Even burning wood is carbon neutral, so it’s better than most heating options.

As the image above indicates, hydro is not only an energy source, it can be used for energy storage. Run pumps to pump more water over the dam when you have an excess of power and let the water flow through the turbines when you need power.

So it’s like a giant battery. Except unlike most batteries there’s no toxic chemicals involved.

Given that most renewable energy doesn’t generate consistent energy (it’s not windy every day, it’s not sunny every day, it’s never sunny at night) there will be a huge need for energy storage. While we could spend a lot of money of making giant batteries with toxic materials to solve this, we need to also need to consider the environmental impact of that kind of technology. Also consider the time it would take to make these massive banks of batteries. The materials may be better used in replacing gasoline engines, so it may be awhile before we have the materials needed to make the energy storage needed for renewable energy to work, and that’s only if we want to make giant chemical batteries someday.

Sorry, but given the importance of hydro in a renewable energy grid, I don’t think it’s going away for a very long time. Consider the environmental impact of having forests that burn down every year. Gonna have to make some compromises so that doesn’t continue to happen forever.

That cuts both ways though. Trump lost the last election, and since then there have been a few things happen. How would Jan 6, and all the crimes Trump is convicted or indicted for affect the likeliness of an unlikely vote to go out and vote for him again?

Something no one can know either way. There’s really no reason to bother considering the top line of the polling data. It’s all about looking at polling about the issues people are concerned about and addressing those concerns.

Given we really have no way of knowing what will happen on election day, the only thing to do is to keep convincing people to vote for Harris right up to election day.

Actually the Harris campaign wanted the mics on and it was the Trump campaign that wanted them muted.

He knows his base will still see it, even if they don’t hear everything. That is what he cares about. Messaging the base.

And that’s exactly why. His base is going to vote for him no matter what he does. If he wants to pander to the base, then let him. Harris will look good to moderates that are tired of their racist uncle going on rants during family get-togethers.

As it is, if Trump rants while his mic is muted it makes him look nuts. Sure his base will like it, but how many independent voters is he going to pick up from doing this?

Harris was in debates during the Democratic primary in 2020 (her and Joe Biden got into it over his past voting record) and debated Mike Pence in the VP debate.

Also Trump’s mic will be off when it’s not his turn to speak. So he won’t be able to interrupt her.

They responded to this in the past: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/israel-west-bank-and-gaza-travel-advisory.html

This kind of thing is entirely predictable and US citizens have been warned by the State Department about there being an active conflict happening in the area.

So a US citizen died while ignoring a travel advisory from the US government. US citizenship doesn’t make someone invincible, and it doesn’t mean the US military is going to avenge your death (or whatever fantasy you can come up with) if you’re deliberately ignoring the warnings about an area of the world being dangerous. The obligation of protecting citizens was fulfilled by issuing the warning.

But yeah if you think that we were blameless on 9/11 disregards the history of US foreign politicy.

This is where “But yeah if you think those countries weren’t entirely blameless disregards these country’s support of terrorism”

I won’t though, because unlike you I don’t think there’s any valid rationalization for deliberately targeting civilians. That would just be me lowering myself to the level you lowered yourself to by rationalizing the targeting of civilians.

But you don’t really have any kind of argument against killing civilians because you’ve already suggested that it’s acceptable to do so.

Many many times more. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.

Why don’t you apply this to 9/11 and October 7? What al Qaeda and Hamas did are an “eye for an eye” mentality aren’t they? Why not just do the sensible thing and denounce these “eye for an eye” actions as inexcusable?

And what’s the point of bringing up that some of them may have done compulsory service at some point in their life under a story about Hamas killing six hostages?

There is a context to this, and there is a narrative being promoted that justifies Hamas taking hostages (which is a war crime) and justifies the killing of these unarmed hastages (which is also war crime) because they were at one time IDF (aeven if that were the case, it would also be a war crime to summary execution prisoners of war).

It’s all about building a permission structure to make the war crimes of Hamas acceptable by attempting to classify the hostages as IDF.