It absolutely does, my friend. It’s called the analemma.
It absolutely does, my friend. It’s called the analemma.
It means that Israel should stop committing war crimes. Specifically that Palestinians should be free, and not caged, oppressed and in perpetual fear for their lives in the geographic area which lies between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. The subject of the phrase is Palestinians; Israelis aren’t mentioned, let alone Jews. It’s not about oppression for your group, it’s about freedom for another. This is evidenced by the complete lack of references to Jews or genocide in the phrase itself. It’s very, very basic reading comprehension without any mental gymnastics necessary.
You can’t point out that the meaning of words and phrases changes due to context, and then claim that a phrase is hate speech everywhere because it appears in a hateful context in one place.
As well as the Likud manifesto, you say?
Yes. You need to use radiation, via radiators. It’s a shame I’m getting downvoted on this, because I really do know what I’m talking about on this one. Ammonia in heat pipes wicks the heat away from the thing you want to be cold, towards the radiator, which is usually just a dumb coil, but could be enhanced with a bimetallic thermally decoupled louver if you want to keep it cool in sunlight. Or bury it, since we’re on the moon. From an engineering perspective it’s not that difficult to do, as the variables which affect it are well known and don’t change that much. It is for sure slower than combined conductive/convective cooling, but it’s a known quantity, so you can plan quite effectively.
Heat pipes running to radiators in vacuum is how you do it in space. It’s efficient and scaleable, though it hasn’t ever been done on an industrial scale. Definitely doable though. Considering the temperature on the moon is a balmy -270°C
There is no place in a modern culture for harm-based ideologies like conservatism.
Louder for the people in the back
There are infinite possible ways to implement wealth tax. If you want to avoid your scenario, tax corporations on their profits, reducing the dividend payout to shareholders. For example.
These people have ALL THE MONEY and it needs to be stopped, like yesterday. Find a way.
From your source:
From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate
conflating anti-Israel sentiment with antisemitism “silence(s) diverse voices speaking up for human rights.
It’s certainly not as clear-cut as your first sentence, and I’ll remind you that the only agent currently committing genocide in this conflict is the IDF/Likud (who incidentally have used the same wording, in their 1977 manifesto: “Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”)
So no, I won’t be editing my comment, because I do not acknowledge your falsehood.
Maybe if you had used it constructively instead, by, say, making any coherent point whatsoever? Then we wouldn’t be here would we.
I haven’t once argued in bad faith. You, on the other hand have essentially forbidden any criticism of Israel whatsoever, made no arguments except those where you attack me (hint: this is called an ad hominem fallacy) and continuously hand-waved without actually stooping so low as to tell me where I’m wrong; you just claim that I am but you can’t be bothered to say why/how.
Bonus points for your “I know you are but what am I” on the subject of open-mindedness.
If this is you at your coolest, I guess if you were to actually lose your temper we’d just get an incoherent string of characters as repeatedly you smash your keyboard into your face to make a point.
Is this a joke account?
want to live in peace
Genocides their neighbours
Literally a lie.
Amnesty international.
The UN.
Pretty much every government in the world.
All liars.
My only wish is that Israelis would wake the fuck up and realize that trying to kill all of the Palestinians isn’t a winning strategy. Sure, a lot of them don’t harbor that sentiment, but enough of them do. I do not feel bad about the Nazis or Japanese Imperialists that were killed in WW2, and I don’t feel bad for these idiots that won’t give up Zionism to better their lives. All sides have to agree on peace, and as it stands, Zionists don’t want that.
Ftfy
Bloody hell, yes. I missed that!
I’m not advocating for genocide, but…
Predictably goes on to unambiguously advocate for genocide
Friendly reminder that Palestine is an illegally occupied territory and it’s near impossible to “improve your life” without first freeing yourself from oppression.
“This crap” being a rational take. It seems like you’ve made your mind up, and any contrary viewpoint be damned.
Side note: it’s a bad faith argument to attach everyone to some arbitrary group, fail to define that group, and then attack it.
an attempt for me to state more concrete positions
It is exactly this. You attack “the left” and “liberals” as though they are the same thing (they very much are not) without mentioning anything specific, so it’s hard for me (the left; not a liberal) to defend any position. I suspected a bunch of implied strawman fallacies was hidden behind this hand-waving and frankly I think this is a cowardly way to argue your point. So let’s do the bullet points.
“From the river to the sea” is not a blatant anything. Yes, it has been used by Hamas, but it has also been used by Likud, for basically the opposite meaning. Therefore context must be absolutely appropriate in the understanding of the intent of the words. If a person or group who are in favour of Palestinian sovereignty and/or a single-state solution use the phrase, you can quite fairly assume that they are talking about this issue, rather than calling for the extermination of an ethnic group. It’s dishonest in the extreme to label anyone who calls for Palestinians to be free an antisemite. As for the other phrase you mentioned, it seems like you are saying anyone who mentions an intifada is antisemitic. That seems ridiculous, and possibly you need to give more context.
Israel is an apartheid regime. It is a settler colonial project. It meets these definitions, and either you’re for settler colonialism or you’re against Israel in its current manifestation.
The reason you’ve not heard about other states doing other things is because we are talking about Israel, and the ways in which Arabic people are opressed there. The mistreatment of Jewish people in other places at other times does not pardon or imply permission for the mistreatment of Arabs anywhere.
It’s not about being “progressive coded”. It’s context, again. If a group’s aim is to restore human rights for people, and/or oversee equality then any accusation of racism should be considered with this context. Conversely, an organisation which has historically made horrific racist/homophobic statements should be considered differently in the same scenario. Again, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly which groups and which incidents you are talking about, as you give no examples.
Didn’t they throw it at a protective barrier, though? So zero potential of damaging the art?
Throwing soup at an oil exec is assault on a human being and would be worse, ethically, because human beings have sensory apparatuses and, presumably at least some level of emotion.
If you punched someone in the mouth because they threw soup at a protective plastic barrier in a museum, then it is you who would be the “utter cunt”.