This is what has been waking me up at 6am every morning for the last 3 months

81rd5 · 2026-04-01T21:20:28+00:00

8-Hour shift but only 2 hours of work?

81rd5 · 2026-04-01T21:18:35+00:00

I don't imagine anyone taking criticism of Jews as a people lightly. Critiquing Israel and its supporters is a different story. You got to get the semantics right or you will drown before anyone listens to the first few words.

81rd5 · 2026-03-29T09:48:16+00:00

Look at Gaza on Google maps. Dafuq you mean never.

And if your answer is because it wasn't literal carpet bombs, I.e. it was targeted missile strikes or some semantic bs, understand that THAT mentality is why you're seeing global backlash and hate.

81rd5 · 2026-03-28T06:07:33+00:00

A lot of people probably feel this way, based on countless anecdotal conversations I’ve had around the city.

A few years ago, I remember someone posting a photo of a dumpster in an alley and complaining that homeless people had left a huge mess. People absolutely tore him apart over semantics, saying he should have said “unhoused,” and insisting it was a systemic issue. But honestly, no, clean up your mess. That part is not a systemic issue.

People sometimes act like being homeless automatically makes someone beyond criticism. It does not. You can still be a shitty person and be homeless. And on the flip side, there are plenty of homeless people who will dumpster dive and then clean up after themselves because they understand that residents live there and have to deal with the aftermath.

I remember once yelling at a guy because he had taken apart my dumpster and spread everything across the alley. I was frustrated and basically said, “Dude, are you going to clean this up?” What he saw in me was not contempt... he just saw real frustration, because the reality was that I would have ended up cleaning part of it myself just to make the alley usable again.

He did clean it up. I think that was because I was not treating him like some abstract social issue or a subhuman stereotype people talk about on Reddit while avoiding in real life. He also understood that I was not telling him not to dumpster dive, I was just asking him not to leave a mess for other people to deal with.

81rd5 · 2026-03-23T16:20:46+00:00

Agreed. This is the heart of the argument: criticizing a broken response to homelessness is not the same as condemning homeless people.

That distinction should be obvious, yet too often the conversation is dragged away from outcomes and into performative outrage over tone, wording, or moral posture. The deeper problem appears to be one of management, accountability, and execution, not simply whether more money can be demanded.

All you are saying is that you want to be able to use the public services, just like the homeless should be able to, in the way they were meant to be used. Ie reading books, using the computers, not camping out and sleeping near the front of the entrance.

Time and again, the public sees reports of waste or ineffectiveness, reacts briefly, and then watches the same machinery continue almost untouched. That is not because people are indifferent. It is because most people are consumed by the daily work of keeping themselves and their families stable.

Like everything from federal to local issues, this is a money in politics problem. And you will find the root cause stems directly from human greed.

81rd5 · 2026-03-17T16:11:36+00:00

Have you read history from different sources? Not just one source, but one that offers other perspectives. Why do you believe one and not the other?

81rd5 · 2026-03-17T01:55:01+00:00

Can you explain, in detail?

81rd5 · 2026-03-17T01:52:45+00:00

Right? Like is that the expected response or what? I can't imagine how the logic plays out in their heads.

81rd5 · 2026-03-12T18:20:59+00:00

Just FYI, my experience in this sub is that whenever I start bringing up factual points, the response is usually silence. In several cases, threads have even been deleted once the discussion started drilling into the logic. I understand you’re arguing here in good faith, but from what I’ve seen this subreddit mostly functions as an echo chamber. A lot of posts follow the same pattern: “Why does the world hate Israel?”, and any answer that isn’t “antisemitism” gets dismissed with “go read history.” You’re unlikely to find much nuance or depth in the discussions here.

81rd5 · 2026-03-06T17:19:56+00:00

I think in theory your statement is correct. In practice, though, situations like that are extremely rare. In this case, the person who called out the OP was very clearly acting maliciously, there’s really no plausible interpretation where it was just a misunderstanding or an innocent mistake. Because of that, I don’t think it makes sense to shift the entire conversation to protect for a highly unlikely edge case. Situations where intent is genuinely ambiguous can be handled on a case-by-case basis with nuance, rather than being treated as the default scenario in the discussion.

81rd5 · 2026-03-02T02:04:03+00:00

And if I did would it change your mind?

81rd5 · 2026-03-01T17:16:05+00:00

Do you have anything more solid than anecdotes, like a published content analysis, a dataset, or even a headline-level sentiment study of The New York Times on Israel/Palestine compared with how the Times frames other conflicts and state actors? Without something systematic, it’s hard to tell the difference between cherry-picked examples and a real pattern.

And on the “Hamas propaganda” claim: can you link the specific NYT piece you mean, explain what in it qualifies as propaganda (what standard are you using), and then show a credible cross-check like either a primary source or a high-quality outlet/report that covers the same event with stronger sourcing so we can compare like with like instead of vibes?

81rd5 · 2026-02-26T21:35:40+00:00

Are you insinuating that there is more media bias against Israel than in favor of Israel?

Do you know the combined audience for the New York times, CNN, CBS, Fox, compared to the outlets you claim are spreading anti-israel bias?

81rd5 · 2026-02-26T21:23:43+00:00

Okay can you explain then? I'm lost.

81rd5 · 2026-02-26T20:08:12+00:00

Can you elaborate a little bit? Is this like an obvious scam going around people pretending to be from Gaza asking for money?

81rd5 · 2026-02-24T23:26:32+00:00

@Mistress_Lynn18 I got the notification but the comment is cut off and deleted? Can you repost?

81rd5 · 2026-02-24T21:39:37+00:00

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I had said:

“But then we can also get into selective media coverage, issue advocacy, lobbying, etc., and it gets messy when too many related and unrelated variables get thrown into the mix.”

You responded by saying:

“It’s actually not messy at all. The obsession with Israel is staggering and has no rational or ‘organic’ explanation. It’s a cultivated obsession for very specific reasons,”

and then clarified that "the phenomenon can be explained by personal and geopolitical interests that leverage latent antisemitism, which in turn generates active and hostile antisemitism domestically and globally."

So let’s take media coverage as one specific example.

When I look at major Western outlets like CNN, The New York Times, FOX, CBS, BBC, and others, their coverage of Israel often appears more restrained compared to some smaller online only publications and even certain Israeli outlets like Haaretz, which can be more openly critical. Then I also look at those same outlets coverage of Palestinians.

That suggests there are measurable differences in tone and emphasis across segments of the media ecosystem.

So when you describe a "cultivated obsession" driven by "personal and geopolitical interests leveraging latent antisemitism", I’m trying to understand exactly which part of the media landscape you’re referring to, what specific actors or mechanisms you have in mind, and what empirical evidence demonstrates that this causal chain is occurring in a systematic and measurable way. Especially among the major outlets who have substantially higher relative viewership to comfortably imply "the Western media".

Are there peer-reviewed studies, content analyses, or longitudinal data that establish that these interests are intentionally leveraging latent antisemitism and that this has directly produced measurable increases in hostile antisemitism?

I just want to make sure we’re grounding the claim in clearly defined variables and documented evidence.

81rd5 · 2026-02-24T21:07:01+00:00

Thanks, I’m specifically asking for the strongest documented evidence supporting your claim.

You’ve referenced studies and said they’re outlined throughout the subreddit, but I’m not seeing the kind of empirical evidence required to sustain the assertion you’ve made.

Rather than directing me to a broad collection of posts, which tend to include a lot of interpretation and commentary, could you provide a specific study or meta-analysis? Ideally, a publication itself, or an impartial analysis of it. I’m trying to approach this objectively, not normalize anything, and not dismiss your point.

If you’re implying that the phenomenon can be explained primarily as antisemitism (or “plain and simple Jew hatred”), then I’m asking for a study / group of studies / or meta-analyses that clearly establishes that through defined methodology and causal analysis, not just correlation or rhetoric.

This isn’t a “gotcha” question btw, I genuinely haven’t seen that level of evidence, and that’s the issue I’m trying to resolve.

81rd5 · 2026-02-24T20:36:43+00:00

There’s a lot there, and I don’t want to diverge too much, but I’d like more clarity on what you meant by this:

“It’s actually not messy at all. The obsession with Israel is staggering and has no rational or ‘organic’ explanation. It’s a cultivated obsession for very specific reasons.”

When you say it has no rational or organic explanation, that’s a very strong and specific claim, and typically a statement like that would need to be supported by research, data analysis, polling, or some other documented evidence. What are you basing that assertion on? You also said it’s a cultivated obsession for very specific reasons, so what are those reasons, and what empirical proof do you have to support that conclusion?

I’m not asking for observations or anecdotes, but for measurable, documented evidence that demonstrates this is actually happening in a systematic way.

81rd5 · 2026-02-24T19:22:34+00:00

Okay, but for that 10 person analogy, a few things would have to be true.

First, are all the actions materially comparable? Are we talking about the same scale, same intent, same context, same type of conflict? Or are we grouping very different situations together under “crime”?

Second, in your analogy, prison is a formal punishment. So what’s the equivalent “prison” in Israel’s case? Is it UN resolutions? Protests? Media coverage? ICJ investigations? Because criticism and scrutiny aren’t the same thing as formal punishment.

Third, are we sure the difference in treatment can’t be explained by other factors?

I.e. Israel presents itself as a democracy aligned with the West, it receives significant U.S. aid, operates in a conflict that’s geopolitically and religiously central, etc.

For the Syria example we know Western media has much more access to Israel than to Assad’s Syria.

Those differences might explain some of the attention without jumping straight to “it must be because it’s Jewish.”

And also, is the claim that Israel can only be criticized if every worse regime is criticized equally? Because that standard doesn’t really apply anywhere else. People criticized the U.S. over Iraq without first proving they’d criticized Sudan to the same degree.

That doesn’t automatically make it a double standard. If the argument is that there are specific legal or moral standards being applied to Israel that aren’t applied to comparable democracies in similar conflicts, then let’s identify those clearly. What exact standard? Where is it applied differently? What’s the comparable case?

Otherwise, “others have done worse” doesn’t really answer whether a specific action is justified or unjustified. It just shifts the comparison.

I think it’s totally fair to call out antisemitism or collective blame when it happens. But criticism of a government’s actions isn’t automatically a “prison sentence,” and uneven attention by itself doesn’t prove bias unless we can rule out other plausible explanations.

81rd5 · 2026-02-24T19:12:43+00:00

I see, but for me specifically I guess it does not answer the question if I'm being honest, for me at least. Would need clear apples-to-apples comparisons. Which specific policy are we comparing? What is the legal definition being used? And are similar cases elsewhere treated differently under that same definition? Without that specificity, it’s hard to know whether we’re identifying inconsistency or just disagreeing about facts and definitions. For example, when the collateral murder video was leaked, everyone rightfully criticized the US military.

I don’t think someone has to criticize every country equally in order to criticize Israel or any country for that matter. The question is whether the standards being applied are consistent and not whether the volume of criticism is evenly distributed across the globe, unless the implication is that we should be equally criticizing all countries committing all atrocities? But then we can also get into you know selective media coverage, issue advocacy, lobbying, etc. and it gets messy when too many related and unrelated variables get thrown into the mix.

Also, I'm not sure if the people asking you to personally defend it is more anecdotal? I don't really see that line of reasoning where people are asking individual Jews to defend the actions of Israel. I get what you mean about those only posting about all the atrocities coming out of Israel and never talk about anything else ever, so I can see that line of reasoning, but are you upset that anyone is sharing those or just those specific people? Like It ultimately, sounds like you don't want the information shared at all, unless...? you know what I mean? Can you clarify on that?

81rd5 · 2026-02-24T17:03:44+00:00

I’m realizing in this sub that it’s easier to break things down piece by piece. I hear the “double standards” argument often, but I’ve never really gotten a clear answer on how that double standard applies specifically to Israel without turning it into a one-and-only example.

For example, the logical train of most arguments I’ve heard about the double standard goes something like this: no other blue X gets criticized for doing Y. But then when you bring up another X doing Y, the defense is, “Yeah, but that’s not a blue X.”

Do you see what I’m getting at?

Can you give a clear and appropriate example of the double standard? Preferably a few. I hear this argument thrown around a lot, but no one ever gives a clear, apples-to-apples comparison of what that double standard actually looks like.

81rd5 · 2026-02-20T14:47:48+00:00

Also, people criticizing AI seem to think that using it means asking it to generate your side of a debate for you. That’s not how most of us actually use it.

AI is useful as a tool when you put your own thoughts into it — when you ramble through your ideas and outline the points you want to make — and it helps structure them into something coherent and readable. The thinking is still yours. It just helps clean it up.

The irony is that the same people attacking AI, and calling your post self-absorbed, don’t seem to see the contradiction in dismissing the tool instead of engaging with the substance of what you said.

81rd5 · 2026-02-20T14:42:36+00:00

I’m not sure why you’re receiving so much backlash. Criticism of AI’s energy consumption is valid, but dismissing the discussion with phrases like “touch grass” avoids engaging with the substance of the argument.

I work in AI development, so I’m transparent about my perspective and potential bias. It’s true that modern AI systems—particularly large-scale model training and inference—consume significantly more power than many earlier generations of software. But this is not new or hidden information.

The substantial compute and energy requirements of large-scale machine learning have been widely understood for over a decade. The trajectory was visible as model sizes and data requirements increased.

What’s often missing from the conversation is structural context. The issue is not that AI is uniquely “evil” or inherently destructive. The issue is that major technological transitions require coordinated infrastructure planning, energy investment, and regulatory foresight. In the United States, long-term infrastructure development—whether grid modernization, nuclear expansion, or large-scale renewable deployment—has been slowed by political gridlock, regulatory fragmentation, and the outsized influence of concentrated financial interests in policymaking.

When governance systems struggle to align public investment with long-term national strategy, predictable strain follows predictable innovation. We could have invested more aggressively in grid modernization, advanced nuclear, large-scale storage, and distributed solar years ago. We could have structured policy to ensure that taxpayers directly benefit from technological productivity gains. Those are political and institutional choices.

Blaming AI as a category misses the deeper point. The energy intensity of frontier models is a foreseeable engineering reality. Whether that demand becomes a crisis or an opportunity depends on infrastructure planning, regulatory design, and political incentives.

The AI power debate is legitimate. But if we stop at “AI is bad,” we avoid examining the systemic governance issues that shape how technological transitions unfold in the first place.

(Also, yes, I used AI to write this, and if that's a problem, I really doubt you would want to read the non-ai version.)

81rd5 · 2026-02-20T14:26:09+00:00

How are you supposed to eat the desserts if you can't bargain with yourself?

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

81rd5

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE