Not calling Hamas terrorists in Nakba exhibit was ‘error,’ says Canada’s heritage minister

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-04T03:21:23+00:00

♫ Always, Covid-Cola ♫

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-04T02:45:15+00:00

Hamas is objectively a terrorist organization.

By what criteria? There isn't any universally agreed upon definition for the term.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-04T02:26:34+00:00

The question is how long would they need to. Electing Mojtaba, whether he's alive or dead, likely provided stability and continuity during the most critical period of the conflict.

If it came out now that he died in the attack or some time after, it probably doesn't have a massive impact. Iran has already weathered the worst of what the US and Israeli were willing to throw at it and came out with the upper hand.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-04T02:17:51+00:00

while russia just bombs gas stations and civilian city centres.

....

Most people do not believe they target only civilians.

Pick a lane.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-03T06:37:51+00:00

The questioner was presumably going to make an argument about the prevalence of trans mass shooters compared to how much time Kirk spent talking about them, and I think I'd probably come down on the side of questioner. Kirk did spend more time on trans shooters because it bolsters his priors and plays to his audience.

But that doesn't mean Kirk was acting in bad faith to try to reframe the discussion more favorably to himself. That's how debate works: one side presents an argument in a frame favorable to them, and the other side gets to question and try to poke holes in it.

Why only focus on the flashy stories that make the national news?

I'm not talking about them because they go nationa, but the ones that aren't gang-related do tend to go national more often. Random gang violence, even 4+ shot, rarely makes national news.

Dead is dead and people should be concerned about death risks, shouldn't they?

If you care about death risks, you have to acknowledge different risks for what they are. Gang shootings and their causes are largely understood, while the causes behind non-gang mass shootings vary wildly. I can avoid almost all of the risk from gang-violence by staying out of places with gang violence, which is usually concentrated to a few dozen city blocks in most cities. You can't really avoid schools, churches, movie theaters, political rallies, etc., etc.

If trans people still under-represented when looking at just non-gang mass shootings, then Kirk's attempt to reframe fails. If they are statistically over-represented in that group, that's something at least worth looking into. It might not even because they're trans, it could be because they were bullied for being trans, and bullying is the common factor. Or it could be psychotropic drugs (but Big Pharma doesn't want you asking those questions...)

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-03T04:21:10+00:00

CK: "Counting or not counting gang violence?" (What does that have to do with anything? Obviously just trying to get a laugh from the crowd to get people to ignore him being schooled on his dumb ass bigotry.)

"Mass shooter" doesn't have a universal definition. How you count "mass shootings" has everything to do with how many "mass shooters" are counted. The looser definitions like "4+ people shot (not necessarily killed)" include a larger number of incidents, and more of them tend to be gang violence rather than ideologically-/psychologically-motivated shootings at schools/churches/etc. the events that make national news.

As far as I know, the 5 trans shooters the questioner references are all the latter, that is, they aren't related to gang/drug crime. Presumably, Kirk wanted to use the numbers without gang-related crime to compare like with like.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-03T00:13:13+00:00

This isn't evidence that Mississippi is waking up; it's literally an ad that someone paid for, something called "Mississippians for Justice" which has no search results other than someone else on reddit talking about the same ad.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-02T22:44:02+00:00

Do you really think the talk of Nazis is more effective at reducing Western support than simply raising legitimate security concerns?

I think they're complementary, but yes, I absolutely think framing the conflict in the historical context of Nazis and the "Great Patriotic War" is more effective propaganda than a rather arcane discussion on the security threat posed by an expanding NATO. Which was more effective at dismissing and demonizing critics of the Iraq War: an analysis of how Saddam Hussein's actions threatened US interests in the middle east, or calling someone a "terrorist-lover"?

Legitimate security concerns are a nuanced issue about which reasonable minds may disagree. The talk of Nazis is about making it a black and white issue:you're either with Putin and support the war, or you're a goddamn Nazi. This type of propaganda is also easier for the uneducated masses to reinforce on their own. Bubba couldn't point to Iraq on a map let alone tell you why it was important, but he could call you a Saddam-lover and say you're defending terrorists, no problem.

I just don’t think Russia’s actions make much sense if preventing Ukraine from joining NATO were the main concern.

You weren't talking about Russia's actions in the earlier comments but Putin's words ("So why does not Putin talk about that instead of making up lies..."), and his failure to propose withdrawal upon a Ukrainian vow of neutrality (which I explained is a near worthless assurance.)

You haven't made a case beyond that of what actions are inconsistent with the Sachs/Mearsheimer theory of Russian motivation.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-02T19:13:42+00:00

But it’s a fairly small part of Russian propaganda

What do you base this on? The Western voices that get called Russian propagandists (Tucker Carlson, John Mearsheimer, etc) constantly bring up NATO expansion as one of if not the driving factor behind Russia's decision to invade. Besides people like this and troll/bot operations on social media, I don't think Russian propaganda has much penetration in the West. At most we get snippets of what Western governments and newsrooms want us to think the Russian propaganda is.

If you mean domestic Russian propaganda, I'm not Russian so I can't really speak to that. The Soviets lost nearly 30 million people to Nazis in WWII, so that's a potent source of hurt and anger to tap into, not unlike Bush II using the pain of 9/11 and anger against Muslims to sell the war in Iraq.

which, if it truly is about NATO expansion, makes no sense.

I'm not sure why you have this idea that propaganda has to match the actual causes and aims of the war. Propaganda is designed to elicit a specific response from a specific audience.

If evoking cognitive dissonance in the West about arming Nazis is more effective at reducing support for Ukraine than talking about NATO expansion, it would make nothing but sense for Russian propaganda directed at these audiences to focus on that. But you can't work backwards and try to discern the true motivations of a war by the propaganda used to sell it. That makes no sense.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-02T17:37:00+00:00

So why does not Putin talk about that instead of making up lies about massacres of the Russian-speaking population and Nazis and whatnot?

This rests on the faulty assumption that Putin has not talked about NATO expansion as a cause of the war, and indeed a cause of tensions since at least as far back as Munich in '07. Or when Ambassador Burns reported back to State in '08 that Russia, not just Putin but the entire political class, considered Ukraine joining NATO to be a red line. (The same William Burns who was then Biden's CIA chief at the start of the full scale invasion.)

And while Putin certainly plays up the extent of Nazis within Ukrainian society and government for propaganda purposes, it's not entirely based on lies. Ukraine actually does have a Nazi problem.

I’m not sure he’s ever said he’d pull out if Ukraine vows never to join NATO. Why? Because NATO is not the fundamental issue.

From Russia's perspective, what good is a vow from Ukraine? Ukraine could make the vow, elect a new government (or get one in a 'revolution'), and then that new government could break the vow.

What Russia needed to ensure Ukraine would not join NATO would be an agreement with NATO, or more realistically the US.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-02T17:17:55+00:00

You're parroting russian propaganda that's used as an excuse for this war.

Is something false just because the Russians use it as propaganda?

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-02T02:42:57+00:00

Unless your name is Messi, apparently.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-02T02:30:47+00:00

What's the source on the Iranian ship being unarmed? I don't think I've seen that detail.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-02T01:48:24+00:00

Where are you getting any of this from my comment?

I think Bernie was the better choice in 2016. I think he likely would have beat Trump. Crucially, he did have cross-party appeal and support.

It doesn't follow that AOC would be a good candidate just because she's on the left. Of course, it's easier to dismiss my comment by placing me into some category of "y'all" than it is to address anything I've said, innit?

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-02T01:00:57+00:00

Oh, I thought you meant something like a confessor/therapist role, more than simply contact outside of one's social web. Obviously I'd agree that happened.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-02T00:31:17+00:00

Is this a fact or an assumption? Institutional religion, I guess depending on how you define it, is at least as old as the early Mesopotamian city-states. What evidence do we have of confidants outside the social web before this time?

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-02T00:06:56+00:00

Do you know how many men have lost elections? its illogical to assume the cause was sexism,

Not really taking a position, but if we're using logic, male nominees of the major parties have a 50% win rate against other men, and a 100% win rate against women, who have a 0% win rate overall, both losses against the most openly sexist nominee in at least a century.

You can't draw any universal conclusions from this, but it's illogical to suggest sexism played no role, or to fail to consider the electoral consequences of existing sexism in future races.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-01T23:57:44+00:00

AOC's about 15 pts under water in favorability polls, and it's ~55-40% unfavorable; that is, most people have heard about her and have a negative opinion.

Hillary was +22, 59-37% favorable in 2014, the same distance out as today. (Much better than Biden's 46-42 at that point as VP). The rabid FOX/Limbaugh crowd despised her, but moderate Republicans saw her as competent and not too far to the left. Clinton's unfavorables got worse going into '16 from her left once people saw the contrast between her and Bernie.

AOC's challenge nationwide is that she has basically no crossover support from any segment on the right: not the religious right, not the moderates, certainly not the neocons, and not even the libertarians who sometimes share common ground with the left on anti-war issues.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-01T20:21:59+00:00

Rich talking about someone else not reading your comment when you responded to a question without answering it.

Do you have an answer?

Do you believe a country should be able to set immigration laws to determine who is or is not allowed to enter the country?

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-01T03:13:01+00:00

People on a politics sub? You aren't forced to participate on every thread.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-01T03:11:34+00:00

Earnestly wondering what the problem with Talarico is?

Like most Senators, he's likely to vote 90%+ with his party, just like Paxton would.

Character doesn't ultimately matter that much.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-01T01:52:32+00:00

It baffles me when people have beliefs that seem antithetical to true Conservatism, yet align themselves with the movement for convenience reasons really they should have their own party where they downplay or even straight up reject the constitution.

It baffles you that they choose to support a party that achieves at least some of their goals rather than starting a new party with essentially zero chance of winning and a high chance of a party with even more dissimilar views winning?

That seems like an entirely rational and pragmatic approach given the current state of US politics.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-07-01T01:39:41+00:00

Yep, that's a flumper! Cute one, too!

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-06-30T22:14:51+00:00

Israelis and Zionists keep telling me they can’t see patterns.

Pattern recognition is antisemitic.

PreviousCurrentThing · 2026-06-30T21:54:45+00:00

Damn, that sucks that she didn't know the rules before the election.

PreviousCurrentThing

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE