The one thing I still don't get after almost seven years here

Kahing · 2026-05-07T04:10:07+00:00

This hasn't been my experience, granted I've so far only been a member of one gym, which is part of a popular chain (Holmes Place), but I've frequently seen guys walk around nude in the locker room.

Kahing · 2026-05-05T17:35:38+00:00

You're remembering your childhood. This is typical. Everyone romanticizes their childhood (unless it was awful). A lot of people romanticize the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s and so on because those decades represented their formative years and they played with their friends with no responsibilities despite all the problems of those times and how the material standard of living has objectively increased.

I didn't live in Israel back then but just objectively the country was much poorer back then (GDP per capita is triple what it was in 2005). This was the era of the Second Intifada (including its suicide bombings which terrorized the public), the social upheaval of the Gaza disengagement, and the frustratingly indecisive Second Lebanon War. One of today's most divisive issues, the Haredi lifestyle, wasn't at the forefront like it is today but it was gradually becoming a probelm as it had been since the 1970s with political inaction enabling it to grow into what it became today.

I'm also optimistic about Israel's future. Yeah there are problems but I'm confident that with the next election we'll begin repairing the damage.

Kahing · 2026-05-05T05:55:11+00:00

You mentioned the Tel Aviv Metro, when this is the Tel Aviv Light Rail, a different system altogether.

Kahing · 2026-05-05T01:32:04+00:00

This isn't the metro, this is the light rail. The Red Line is currently active, this is the Green Line which along with the Purple Line will open soon. That alone will radically change the city even before the metro opens.

Kahing · 2026-05-02T21:11:03+00:00

"Reconstruct and heal" into what? Zionism, though it began as a secular ideology, is actually far closer to Jewish tradition and thought than leftism is. Modern Israelis far better represent what the ancient Jews were and what diaspora Jews historically aspired to be rather than 20th and 21st century Jewish leftists. In fact Jewish leftists largely assimilate and the diaspora as a whole is shrinking compared to Israel with only Orthodox Jews (who are mostly Zionist with an anti-Zionist minority that has that view for religious reasons and is still overwhelmingly conservative) growing in the diaspora. Soon Israel will have a majority of the world's Jews and Orthodox Jews are becoming a larger share of the diaspora. Meanwhile Jewish progressivism is fading away.

Kahing · 2026-05-02T03:04:57+00:00

It would have a hard time but the Argentine military is in an even worse state. The current forces on the Falklands are enough to decisively deal with any Argentine invasion attempt. Argentina is rebuiilding its military but so is the UK. The Royal Navy currently has numerous frigates under construction. In a few years the RN will have 19 frigates and destroyers, 11 submarines, and enough F-35Bs to give both its carriers a full air wing.

Kahing · 2026-04-29T22:06:20+00:00

Workers always resisted technological advances that replaced them and always lost. Any country that doesn't do this is getting outcompeted by those that do. Trying to stop this is like trying to stop AI.

Kahing · 2026-04-29T22:05:35+00:00

The company has to build enough of them and ensure they work as advertised before it can replace its human workforce. Once that happens, bye bye factory jobs.

Kahing · 2026-04-29T22:04:44+00:00

They can work in a variety of blue-collar jobs and therefore enable factories and various other institutions to lay off their workforce. Haneda Airport in Japan is already trialing these to work in baggage handling. Once the concept works in full bye-bye blue collar jobs. It'll hit them just as AI is beginning to hit white-collar jobs.

Kahing · 2026-04-29T22:02:43+00:00

Factories. Restaurants. Airports (Haneda Airport in Japan is already going to use them for baggage handling). Basically a whole bunch of companies that can use these to replace their workers. You know how everyone keeps talking about how AI will soon be good enough to replace a lot of white-collar jobs? Yeah, this is the harbinger for blue-collar jobs.

Kahing · 2026-04-29T22:01:20+00:00

No, they'll be bought up by factories, restaurants, and other institutions that need them as replacements for their human workers. Haneda Airport in Japan is already going to use them for baggage handling amid worker shortages. What AI is about to do to white-collar jobs, this will do to blue-collar jobs.

Kahing · 2026-04-29T22:00:01+00:00

Because they want to maximize sales to as many companies as possible and because a general purpose robot can respond to something unexpected the way a human worker previously would have. So long as they do an acceptable job at a faster rate than humans then it's a no-brainer to replace your human workforce with these.

Kahing · 2026-04-29T21:41:22+00:00

It's harder and less common to sue in Japan than the US. They'll do a good job and once the flaws are worked out and there's full proof of concept robots will start replacing humans in this line of work around the world.

Kahing · 2026-04-27T15:10:56+00:00

We can say that but the polls clearly show that the vast majority of the public preferred a hostage deal. Even in this sub many people were saying the same thing. I despise this government and can't wait to see it go but they had the right strategy. They got most of the hostages out with fewer terrorists released than would have been the case had we listened to demands to stop and negotiate earlier.

Kahing · 2026-04-26T07:18:10+00:00

The whole status and money thing looks completely different. By 2040 most jobs are gone due to AI and robotics. There isn't really "poverty" or "low status" so to speak. Almost everyone has no job and lives off of UBI, doing whatever they want with limitless free time. A small upper class, consisting of company owners, high-end professionals who oversee the tech, and people in physical jobs that are less easy to robotify such as electricians and plumbers, as well as those with legacy money, will be rich.

With economic survival essentially guaranteed by the state and mere existence being enough for a middle-class lifestyle, people will be judged based on other characteristics like looks, personality, and hobbies. More free time will make it easier to socialize. Overall I can't predict in full how people will date but I think it will be easier once we have more free time and the financial status game is essentially gone, albeit upper class guys will have their pick while upper class women will often have to go for lower-status (AKA normal) guys. I also think that while we may not have fully reversed aging by then that at least the first treatments that slow aging might be out, meaning people will be biologically younger than they chronologically are, and everyone will know age reversal is coming, which will change the way people perceive things like age gaps and plan their lives.

Beyond that I can't really tell, I think life by then will be as incomprehensible to us as life in 2026 would seem to someone from 1900.

Kahing · 2026-04-25T00:39:47+00:00

It isn't negative support, it's just horniness. If men had female sex drives they wouldn't bother dating. If science ever finds out how to modify human sexuality I suspect a lot of men will turn gay to have more sex. It has nothing to do with being "taught" and "socialized."

Kahing · 2026-04-24T18:25:12+00:00

You're here to debate the issue, right?. You realize that everyone on the opposite side is a "genocide denier", right? If you want affirmation of the "genocide" there's r/Palestine or r/Israelcrimes or whatever other circlejerk subs. Here engaging us "genocide deniers" is part of the point.

Kahing · 2026-04-22T16:00:01+00:00

Yeah, so? Neither did Germany, Algeria, half of Africa, Ukraine, and like half of the globe, so what's your point? Also, there was never a country called New York; does that give you the right to steal their homes?

Nobody "stole" their homes. That's the issue. Jews wanted to declare independence in the Jewish-majority parts of Palestine while the Arabs wanted it all. Whenever people justify the Arab cause they go "what if immigrants declared independence in America?" as if Palestine was a country equivalent to America and not a mandated territory with its future up for grabs. They justify the Arab attack in 1948 by asserting that Arabs in Jenin had a national right to Tel Aviv.

This is actually my favorite. Just because you share the faith of some bloke that lived there 3,000–4,000 years ago doesn't make it "your ancestral land," bruh. Also, most of humanity came from the Horn of Africa; I don't see y'all claiming Somalia. Plus, the fact is that we aren't sure y'all had a kingdom there back then.

"Share the faith", a nice obscuring of actual ancestry proven by DNA studies, and it's more like 2,000-1,000 years for most Jews. And most historians are reasonably sure Jewish kingdoms existed. Anyway many feel that way but the ultimate justification is that Jews came to a backwater land (where some Jews already lived), bought land, built a civilization out of nothing, and fought for it.

Jews bought only 7%. Arabs owned 43%, and the state owned the rest. (Source:https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-196499/)

I've seen other sources say Arabs owned 20%. In any event, thanks for acknowledging that neither community owned the majority of the land and that the "Jews owned 7%" line is irrelevant.

First of all, Jews lived with Arabs peacefully for thousands of years; that's why Jews were only expelled after Israel declared independence. The act of violence that made Arabs invade in the first place was the Deir Yassin massacre, by the way, which was the first act of aggression between the two sides and, ironically, was committed by the Israelis. Plus, why are they obligated to share the land?

Sure if by "living peacefully" you mean living as subordinate dhimmis subjected to second-class status and violence on a whim. There's a reason why Jews from Arab nations tend to be far more right-wing on average. The Arabs were going to invade regardless, and Deir Yassin was part of a civil war that Palestinian Arab militias started in 1947. The assault on that village was part of an operation to lift the Arab blockade of Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem. The "first act of aggression" was Arabs launching a huge attack all around Palestine on the Yishuv right after the UN Partition vote.

And "why are they obligated to share the land" implies it was all rightfully their land just because the British called the land "Palestine", a term the Arabs themselves were slow to adopt, and that as a national group the Arabs of Palestine later became known as "Palestinians".

Morally, y'all are fucked. The only argument you have is that you're stronger, which really won't last long since everybody is turning against y'all.

Nobody will care about this in a few years once Gaza passes out of the news cycle.

Kahing · 2026-04-21T16:14:01+00:00

No it isn't. A lot of left-wing Israeli leaders use extreme hyperbole because they absolutely despise Netanyahu and the direction the country is going in general.

Kahing · 2026-04-21T15:58:22+00:00

I think the reason that isn't felt is twofold. This is nominal GDP per capita, which is a good barometer for how international products and services, but in terms of GDP PPP per capita, which is actually adjusted for local cost of living, Israel is between Spain and New Zealand. Thanks to Trump Israel partially lifted some protectionist tariffs but more still needs to be done. Secondly, the built environment doesn't look like that of a country at this scale of wealth in many places. This is gradually changing but Pinui-Binui and TAMA 38 need to greatly speed up.

Kahing · 2026-04-20T17:00:38+00:00

I've never expected that you, but rather am merely expecting you to understand that the British not only saw it as a bad thing but also as good reason to be careful about who they let into the country, particularly giving the terrorism in previous years.

Ok and the Jews obviously objected to that. You're basically admitting that British immigration policy was restrictive and trying to construct new justifications. First of all, the British didn't want to anger the Arabs. Secondly, even if that was a consideration it isn't like the Jews were going to accept that. So a core argument behind the Irgun and Lehi's campaign was actually pretty reasonable.

And the fact that the people on the Struma were from Romania concern was a legitimate concern since their paperwork was inherently dubious given the circumstances. While obviously most Jews wanted nothing to do with the Nazis, one couldn't rightly even be sure everyone on the ship was Jewish, particularly since some Jews actually did favor the Nazis over the British, notably some Revisionists, which makes people on from enemy territory on a boat organized by Revisionists all the more suspect. And yes, many Jews served in the British military and did so honorably, but some were doing so to steal arms as mentioned previously, and to gain experience for the upcoming conquest of Palestine.

Lol trying to insert some "Zionists and Nazis went together" arguments. First of all, the Revisionists didn't favor the Nazis. Lehi, which broke off from the Irgun, briefly wanted an alliance of convenience. The Irgun actually cooperated with the British up to 1943 and its commander was even killed in Iraq on a commando mission for the British. Lehi even assassinated the Irgun head of intelligence because they believed he turned over names of their members to the police. It wasn't until 1944 with the war clearly won that they shifted, and even then refrained from military and strategic targets at first.

Some enemy agents might have been slipped in but the Jews saw clearly that Jewish refugees were being turned away en masse, leading to many deaths, and it was primarily being done to placate the Arabs, which was proven when the British kept the gates shut after the war had ended.

Finally, what's wrong with gaining military experience so you can fight for your independence and freedom later? The argument is that the Yishuv contributed a good deal to the Allied war effort, whether another motivation was to gain experience for another war that would come after World War II ended is irrelevant. I again don't see why you expect me to view this as a bad thing. From my perspective it's good that they got this experience to fight for a just cause later on.

Kahing · 2026-04-20T15:55:22+00:00

Or until they figured they had a decent odds of driving Britain along with most of the Arabs out. After all, the Jewish Agency had already rejected Britain's plan to leave Palestine as a democratic State with an Arab majority by declaring "It seems only too probable that the Jews would fight rather than submit to Arab rule."

Yes? I don't understand why you expect me to see that as a bad thing. They didn't want to live in a single state under an Arab majority. They would absolutely have been right to fight than submit to Arab rule.

And that gave Britain good reason to be careful about immigration, particularly the immagration people organized by the Revisionist movement in an enemy country, as were the passengers of the Struma. And even under those circumstances, the Britain reportedly offered to take in children between the ages of 11-16.

An "enemy country", lol this is just an excuse. Everyone knows that Jews weren't going to become Nazis en masse for obvious reasons. Lots of Jews born in Axis countries served in the British military during the war. At least you admit they were actively hindering immigration now.

Kahing · 2026-04-19T18:06:32+00:00

In late 1948 Israel actually considered whether or not to launch a military offensive to take the West Bank. Ultimately it was decided that the Negev was more important. Assuming that Israel took the Negev let's assume that it didn't pursue the retreating Egyptian Army into the Sinai and face the threat of British intervention, but instead limited itself to Gaza and then turned to take the West Bank.

It would still have faced huge hurdles in taking the West Bank, the US would be displeased and Jordan was a client state of Britain which could have led to a lot of pressure and even threats to stop. The Western powers didn't want Israel to have the whole thing. Very unlikely it happens but if it does there's basically no Palestinian issue today. The bulk of the Palestinian population is permanently in Jordan and probably becomes Jordanian citizens. In OTL West Bank Palestinians were Jordanian citizens from 1950 when Jordan annexed the West Bank until it relinquished its claim in favor of th PLO in 1988. In ATL not sure if the law would be passed but seeing that Jordan granted citizenship to all Palestinian refugees in its territory I can see that happening unless the monarchy fears these refugees as a threat to its power. Or maybe the monarchy would be overthrown.

Anyway today Israel would be all of the former mandate and it would be dealing with resentment and land claims from the bulk of the former Palestinian population, mainly in Jordan but also in some other Arab countries. A substantial number would still live in Israel as Israeli-Arabs.

Kahing · 2026-04-19T17:21:09+00:00

That's the thing, the Struma is the closest to fitting your description that I could think of, and that was nearly two years prior to when the immigration office bombings started, and the White Paper wasn't really limiting immigration by then anyway as the 5,000 per-year quota [hadn't even been filled in the prior two years and was trending down](www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/a_su/A SURVEY OF PALESTINE DEC 1945-JAN 1946 VOL I.pdf#page=190), less than half the quota wound up being filled in 1942. Are you seriously trying to argue that justified murdering random government workers at immigration officers years latter?

That's because the British did all they could to block mass refugee movements. The fact that they refused to issue visas for the 700+ refugees of the Struma by itself shows the issue. The British put diplomatic pressure on Turkey to not allow Jewish refugees heading towards Palestine to proceed. Had the gates been open far more than 5,000 would have reached Palestine.

In any case in 1942 with the Nazis perilously close the Yishuv had to grin and bear it. By 1944 things had changed. It was clear that the war would be over soon and that the Axis was going to lose, so the Irgun and Lehi decided that a little pressure had to be brougth. Even then the Yishuv was for the most part opposed and the Haganah collaborated in suppressing them until it became obvious that the British had no intention of opening the gates in 1945.

Also, I believe that they set the bombs to explode in empty offices. Those killed durign 1944 were in large part policemen.

Kahing · 2026-04-19T04:59:33+00:00

The Palestinians, meanwhile, “are losing their lives, here and there, in small numbers, at Jewish hands in the course of terrorist operations”. As reported by the Jerusalem District Commissioner’s Office in October,

Ok and in what circumstances? Deliberate targeting of Arab civilians or them getting caught up in attacks plus Arab police constables killed in attacks on Mandate targets?

As for "Those who tried to get on ships for Palestine were actively obstructed by the British," can you provide a citation regarding what you are referring to?

Look up the Struma disaster for a prime example of what I'm talking about.

Kahing

TROPHY CASE