The end goal is near-total eradication of the natives. Similar to native americans in the U.S. Israel is a settler state, much like the U.S was, and actively drove the natives out of their homes. They’re almost done though, we’re seeing some of the final acts of the ethnic cleansing/genocide.
Once there are barely any left, they’ll feign sympathy to garner support, and that’ll be that. Another win for imperialist settler states. Nothing unique or special about it.
I don’t think the person you’re responding to is a Trump supporter. I think they’re critiquing the vast amounts of political energy people put into supporting and justifying a genocidal state and its leaders.
Your entire comment exemplifies this perfectly. There’s obviously a lot of time and effort you’ve put into forming your electoral views, and you obviously spend a good deal of time going around, at the very least online, trying to inform people how to make better decisions inside the electoral sphere.
This is exactly what electoralism tries to drive in people. The expenditure of political capital within acceptable bounds. Before electoralism/liberal democracies, political capital accumulated and was then spent on strikes, riots, or revolutions. Things that are much more effective at driving change per political capital spent.
There are literally millions of people like you in America that could all immediately stop all your expenditure of political capital and it would make actually no material difference. That’s a beautiful thing about electoralism (for those in power), the thing that matters is the differential, not the total expenditure. This is why “swing states” exist.
I’ll put it into concrete terms, imagine the amount of electorally active individuals in America was immediately cut in half. The population remains the same, but exactly half of the current voting population stops voting. Assume all ratios remain the same. There’d be fundamentally no difference in material outcomes.
Now imagine if all current political capital was spent towards strikes, unions, revolution, or really any form of politics outside electoralism. Doubling or halfing this engagement would be massive. Real material outcomes would be different if there were thousands more strikes. What doesn’t matter is if the voting population is 150 million, 90 million, or 10 million. Only the differential matters, and only for determining a fixed binary outcome.
Sadly defunding of the space program has rarely meant funding proper welfare. It’s not really an either or situation, or at least it hasn’t been yet.
Weird thing about this group of fascists is they’re particularly old. Most previous fascist revolutions have been from younger(ish) people, like 25-50, as opposed to the literally geriatric Trump supporters. Unless the fascists figure out how to capture the youth, this is just reactionaries getting loud before they finally die off.
Presidents are above the law while they’re in office. This case is unique because it happened before he was in office. The message that will really be sent is “wait until you’re actually president to do would-be illegal shit”.
Still worth handing him a harsh sentence, just to put the orange fascist fuck behind bars, but there shouldn’t be any misconceptions about some true notion of justice here. Trump is just a moron, and didn’t know how to play the game correctly.
Any chance you have an nvidia card? Nvidia for a long time has been in a worse spot on Linux than AMD, which interestingly is the inverse of Windows. A lot of AMD users complain of driver issues on Windows and swap to Nvidia as a result, and the exact opposite happens on Linux.
Nvidia is getting much better on Linux though, and Wayland+explicit sync is coming down the pipeline. With NVK in a couple years it’s quite possible that nvidia/amd Linux experience will be very similar.
Yes, genocides are emotional. Watching children being blown up is something that should upset you. That’s actually happening in the real world.
Emotion isn’t the only thing that should inform your decisions, but pretending like you shouldn’t be upset at watching kids being blown up, or begging for their parents, or whatever else have you is just foolish.
Yeah fuck people who are against animal abuse and actually live out their principles.
Like you could at least say “preachy vegans”. This is still problematic, because it ignores that everyone is preachy about issues they understand are immoral (we’re all preachy anti-racists, anti-rapists, etc.)
But just saying “vegan” is wild.
I don’t use tiktok, but some people have unusually based tiktok feeds. They can get direct footage from the genocide happening in Gaza, for example. I never get that recommended on YouTube, despite my very obvious socialist leanings, watching pro-Palestine content, etc.
This is the actual reason tiktok is being banned (if they don’t sell) after the election. One of the largest lobbying groups in America, AIPAC, in probably the most well-funded policy categories (pro-Israel policies) backs most of Congress. They’ve determined tiktok has far too much influence on American youth, and has made the Israel/Palestine divide a young/old divide more-so than a left/right divide.
There’s already a strong correlation between political leaning and age, which is problematic for the future of the fascist movement in America, but this issue falls outside the norm. You’ll find a lot of young conservatives calling for an end to the needless killing of civilians. They won’t call it a genocide because admitting Israel is a genocidal apartheid state is too far for them, but they can at least admit killing tens of thousands of children is not the right path here.
That kind of extremism (e.g not greenlighting any amount of culling of “human animals” Israel feels it needs to do) is unacceptable to the pro-Israel lobby, and they’re not used to getting this kind of pushback from the American public.
As someone who has primarily used spaces, I still use the tab key. I sincerely hope most space users understand that your editor can expand your tab key into spaces, and people aren’t genuinely going around spamming their spacebar 2->16 times for various indentation levels.
Agreed on everything, like I said in my first comment. I was fairly confident we were on the same page on everything, less cars is good, less human drivers is good, etc. I hate Musk, you hate Musk, etc.
Also I appreciate the humility, it’s something very few people have, and what you’ve done here is what I hope I’m also able to do when needed.
I’m fully in favor of the USSR/European/Chinese/Japanese/etc. model for public transit (prefer public transportation over cars as much as possible). It vastly outperforms the U.S in every important metric (safety, reliability, cost, etc.)
Also agree that self-driving is a small piece of the overall picture. It’s just I think that’s the only piece Tesla really has a part in playing, most of the improvements need to happen on the government’s end.
you don’t want human drivers, I don’t want cars
I’m the one misinterpreting you, yet when I explicitly advocate for public infrastructure to lessen the amount of cars, I’m somehow in favor of cars? You’re definitely projecting.
not sure how you would have thought I was advocating for privatized public transit
Go back and read your comment. You never said the word public, I did. We were in a conversation about Tesla and its failings, and you randomly brought up “transit”. So either you were making a completely off-topic point about something the government should do, or you were making an on-topic point about something Tesla should do. I read it as an on-topic comment.
the proverbial carrot of “fewer road accidents” is likely to prevent regulators from taking effective steps
Actually stop for a moment, take off your argument hat, and think about what you’re advocating for. The government has had 100 years of non-self driving cars to implement the changes you’ve wanted. They’ve failed, miserably. They’ve actually taken a ton of steps to do exactly the opposite, and have built the largest car-centric society the world has ever seen.
Now that we have something that is statistically reducing the number of accidents on the road (autonomous vehicles, which will only get better, but already statistically outperform humans), you want private companies to revert these safety features in the hopes that the uptick in human deaths will lead to regulation that the U.S hasn’t implemented in the 100 years of sole human driving?
Please tell me you’re just miscommunicating your position again, and that you’re actually not against the development of safety features to reduce human deaths in cars just to encourage the government to do something it hasn’t done in the past 100 years.
You want Tesla to create transit infrastructure? I hard disagree, that should be something the government does, not a private company. Tesla should stay in the business of making cars, and the government should move to make that obsolete in cities with good public infrastructure.
Self-driving has pushed probably 0 people in the world from using public infrastructure to using cars. I’ve never met anyone that has said “yeah, I was using trains daily, but I decided to buy a $50,000 car with a $12,000 software upgrade to have it autonomously drive me”. You honestly think there’s a person that exists that has done this?
Leads to unsafe situations
Absolutely, it’s just human drivers lead to unsafe situations more often. I understand it might not feel that way, but it’s the actual truth, we have massive amounts of data on this, and your feelings don’t outweigh that.
Agreed on everything, just want to make sure it’s clear he’s endangering people’s lives by artificially restricting access to FSD. Supervised automated driving (that is, the car drives often drives itself point to point with no interventions) is statistically safer than the national average.
The fact that access to this is behind a $12,000 paywall (outside of the currently running free trial) is limiting access to a software safety feature. This should be illegal.
They’ve already bombed the vast majority of Gaza and resettled people, and the next step is almost certainly another expansion of the settler state of Israel.
Most of the millions of people that live in Gaza have been resettled into a very small area. Whether Israel decides to nuke them or force them into neighboring countries as refugees is irrelevant to their end goal of settling the territory. The Palestinians are just “rats” that need to be removed.
I’m sure they’d prefer to nuke them and just get rid of their problem once and for all; a final solution of sorts. However they do have limited political capital in this conflict, and nuking the remaining civilians does have the potential to negative impact U.S-Isrsel relations. So there’s a real chance they opt for just pushing the “human animals” out of the territories.