Topspin715

There 1.6m million immigrants in total since the 90s, beyond just the USSR, so no, not even close to 50%. You seem to be very ignorant about history and basic facts so not worth continuing this.

About a million Jewish people migrated from the Soviet Union to Israel after the USSR collapsed so not even close to a half. This way of seeing the world is so simplistic. Do you think anybody who legally migrates to the US or Europe is a "colonizer"? Colonialism has existed since ancient times. After WW2, the world more or less agreed to respect territorial boundaries, but we have a legacy of colonialism across the entire planet.

95% of Jews living in Israel today were born after 1948 or were less than 18 years old. Modern Jews are also related to the original inhabitants from the Levant, which makes this conflict even worse as they are fairly close genetic relatives.

Saying that you want to do something isn't bluffing. A bluff requires threatening an action upon which you won't follow through even if they don't meet your demand. Offering a peace initiative isn't a very strong effort to de-escalate. They have to guarantee Israel's security and take an active role in occupying and governing the West Bank and Gaza. It would be much more likely to succeed when accomplished in stages. Basic security for all parties is the most important interest that all state in the region share.

Trump is threatening to do this to create a strong incentive to get the surrounding Arab and Muslim countries to do their part and de-escalate the conflict. For so many years, the Palestinians have been used as pawns, continually being sacrificed in proxy conflicts for all kinds of religion and cultural power struggles. Trump doesn't bluff and he's ruthless but it will push pressure of the Arab states to show how much they care about regional peace. It's sloppy and hostile, but it can be an effective way of forcing their hand. Part of the reason that he's been "successful", is that he will fight to the death for table scraps but he doesn't know to cook very well himself.

He's aware of a lot of problems with our current medical industrial complex. Many of which are real and some of which aren't. The reality is that the conventional "gold standard" of medical research, the double blinded controlled test has serious limitations even before you consider the massive regulatory capture. His views on vaccines are largely incoherent but they are not as safe as people think. We need new ways of thinking about health care policy and research and clinical treatments. I've unfortunately suffered tremendously, due to an injury caused by a pharma giant that they covered up in order to preserve sales. I've done very deep investigations into this kind of thing and while I disagree with a lot of what RFK is saying, the status quo is so rotten and rigid and public dissatisfaction with our institutions is so low (for many good reasons and some bad) that the people elevate kinda unhinged populists to expose weaknesses and faults in the system. It's just the start of the restructuring process.

It's unclear to me. The gesture was very sharp and forceful like a militant salute. He didn't outright deny it or condemn Nazism and then he proceeded to give a speech about how Germans should be proud of their culture and not indulge in multiculturalism to dilute their population and culture. It's dangerous to normalize these kinds of symbols and gestures but at the same time they naturally tend to lose their significance over time too.

The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". This definition is really vague and can be applied to pretty much any war. I don't really want to go down a semantic and academic debate of different genocides but it's clear that this term has been hatefully weaponized against Israel, largely because of the atrocities committed in WW2 against the Jewish people. Assad had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people and the general public hardly cared. I say this as somebody who disagrees with a lot of the things that Israel does, but to call it a genocide is way out of line in my opinion. Words are just words, but they can carry heavy political weight, and to casually weaponize a term like that reveals a lack of seriousness and objectivity in my opinion. As much as I hate this war, I see a ton of anti-semitism basically saying that Israel should just lay down its arms and die. It has a right to defend itself and is surrounded by enemies, I don't know of any similarly precarious geopolitical situation in history. I personally think they've been reckless with targeting but I am no expert and fighting an urban war is probably the hardest terrain on which one can fight.

You can't argue with ideologues with facts. They will ultimately have a different value system than you. To understand it, figure out why these people have become receptive to such an ideology and how they got exposed or socialized to it. There are sociopolitical cycles and conditions that make ideologies come in and out of vogue over time. To understand Trump and why he has risen to power, you can't see him as either purely good or bad. But a lot of people hate him because he is erratic and says ugly and hateful things about people. The Trump coin scheme was unpalatable to me, as somebody who cares about business ethics, but ultimately will probably end up worth much less than it is today, and a lot of other politicians have grifted plenty in much more subtle ways. Confidence in our institutions and elites are decreasing which is what gives rise to populism and anti-semitism and often identity politics.

It's not because I see what other people care about and how they're thinking about things and then I do my own research on why they think that way, what the truth actually is, and deeper historical research on the causes leading up to whatever it is they are freaking out about. The corporate media is largely for "entertainment" purposes and often provides a very narrow and dogmatic view on issues. It tends to ignore a lot of stuff that you'd find on twitter as well. There are legitimate journalists on twitter as well that you can follow to see what they are writing about. My boomer generation parents closely follow cable news still and they barely know what's actually going on.

I get most of my news on twitter these days. Much of what is reported in the mainstream media is not really relevant to anything but at least what you see on X is whatever is capturing the attention of the zeitgeist and you'll see many different perspectives. If it's for the sake of creating art, maybe look into whatever is intellectually or emotionally provocative to you.

Why is politics important to your life? I find that people consume way too much news that doesn't affect them or for things that they can't even do anything about and it's not great for their emotional or mental health.

This is gibberish

Nation states and national identities are mere social constructs that have evolved for the purposes of group survival If Israel is a lie then Palestine is definitely a lie and America is a lie and Russia is a lie etc

The difference between sex and gender lies in their definitions, scope, and usage: Sex Refers to biological and physiological characteristics. Includes chromosomes (XX, XY, or variations), hormones (estrogen, testosterone), and reproductive anatomy (e.g., male, female, intersex). Typically assigned at birth based on observable physical traits. Binary in classification (male/female) but acknowledges intersex as a naturally occurring variation. Gender Refers to social, cultural, and psychological attributes, roles, and expectations associated with being male, female, or another identity. Includes gender identity (how a person feels and identifies) and gender expression (how someone presents their gender through appearance or behavior). More fluid and diverse, encompassing identities such as male, female, nonbinary, genderqueer, etc. Influenced by societal norms, cultural context, and personal experience. Summary Sex = Biological traits. Gender = Social and cultural identity. These terms are often interrelated but not interchangeable, as someone’s gender identity may not align with their assigned sex at birth.

I thought this was a great video. It is sometimes possible to have a macro view and be missing things at the micro level and certain vice versa. It's great to be able to both zoom in and zoom out.

Most people don't see gender as being anything different from sex. Most people think gender is the same thing as sex. It was colloquially used interchangeably for a very long time but now this new concept of gender as a construct is starting to emerge. It's a very complicated biological and philosophical problem but the concept of both sex and gender break down for intersex people. Sex is really a phenotype (bundle of physical and behavioral characteristics) and exists on a spectrum from male to female. I've been wanting to work out a definition for these things but I haven't found anybody who was willing and able to do it.

You probably would have said the same exact thing on October 6th, 2023. This is just a three year period, I couldn't find more recent data.

Does the mere existence of a single person being racist elsewhere justify your racism? When you keep cherry picking single "truths" while ignoring your own, it's the extreme opposite of holistic.

I'm not going to continue this conversation if you refuse to recognize or take responsibility for your own bad behavior unless you are literally a Palestinian because it's simply inexcusable otherwise to harbor so much hatred.

Most actions and attitudes of racism don't come from people who identify as being racist Generalizations and stereotypes of all kinds can be harmful Some groups are more vulnerable than others

Whether or not they care, these kinds of exaggerated generalizations lead to the distrust and persecution of any group and can do real harm. When you actually think about politics from a practical standpoint, there will be many different people with different values and objectives. It's not fair or accurate to look at the opinion of a single fringe actor and say that it characterizes the whole government. It would be like taking a few Palestinians who want to get rid of all Jews, which used to be in their charter, and say that represents all Arabs or Muslims. It's harmful to think and speak that way and it's not true.

What do you mean when you say "they"? When you use ambiguous and generalized words like that, there will always be exceptions. The fact that a single person holds a single viewpoint, does not mean that he represents the views of all Israelis or Jews or Zionists. It's not hard to cherry pick one opinion that looks bad and ascribe it to the whole group. In many cases, that's a source of anti-semitism. But even still, man times, anti-seymitism is just based on pure lies and untruths.

Rabbi Manis Friedman (full name: Menachem Manis HaKohen Friedman; Hebrew: מנחם מניס הכהן פרידמן; born 1946) is a Hassid, rabbi, author, social philosopher and public speaker. He was inspired by the Lubavitcher Rebbe in the 1970s, the former leader of the Lubavitch Hasidic dynasty. He is an ultra-orthodox fundamentalist but not a political zionist like Ben Gvir. Here he argues that it is a moral wrong to negotiate with terrorists for political gain. This is an oversimplification of what is going on here but would be curious to hear anybody's thoughts on this in an abstract sense that doesn't pertain specifically to the current conflict. I don't necessarily agree with him that it is always wrong to "negotiate with terrorists". Who is considered a terrorist and who isn't is a deeply political and not clear cut matter. The majority of Western countries (see in red below) officially recognize Hamas to be a terrorist organization but the majority of the rest of the world does not.

Ben Gvir is the leader of the Otzma Yehudit political party (Hebrew: עָצְמָה יְהוּדִית, lit. 'Jewish Power') which is a far-right, ultra-nationalist, Kahanist, and anti-Arab political party in Israel (from wikipedia). It is the ideological descendant of the outlawed Kach party. His party has 6 out of 120 seats in the Knesset so he is a very small fringe political leader, but it sometimes doesn't take much representation in a democracy to wield a lot of power if you are aggressive and know how to do it. Ben Gvir is a religious Zionist (nationalist) which is maybe the Jewish equivalent of an Islamist. The vast majority of Jews, or people who identify as Jews, do not share his views and beliefs, but he gets a lot of media coverage for being so extreme. He is threatening to resign if the hostage deal goes through, I don't know yet if that's a bluff or an actual threat. Israel's Knesset is a parliamentary system so if enough people vote to dissolve the government, they can do that. Regarding the idea of the hostage exchange, Israel will be releasing 1,000 Palestinians for about 30 Israeli hostages. Some of the Palestinians, I am not sure how many, are being held under administrative detention without due process or formal charges. Some of them are probably legitimate terrorist threats. Yahya Sinwar, the now deceased former leader of Hamas and alleged mastermind of the October 7th attack, was previously released from Israeli prison in a hostage exchange in 2011 in a prisoner exchange where Israel released 1,026 Palestinian prisoners for a single Israel soldier, Gilad Shalit. Yahya Sinawar was sentenced to four life sentences in Israeli prison in 1989 for the murder of two Israeli soldiers and four Palestinians. These decisions are not simple. A near term cease fire agreement is good, but if Israel releases another terrorist mastermind, they might pay for it very badly at some point down the line. I'm trying to be objective about this to stimulate constructive conversation so these are the facts as I see them regarding the recent hostage deal.