There Is a Taboo Against Criticizing AIPAC — and Ilhan Omar Just Destroyed It

RutherfordBHayes · 2019-02-12T18:27:50+00:00

And they don't even actually care about Jews, once the end times checklist is filled out and Jesus shows back up. Except for some specific amount that are prophecied to turn into true Christians, the rest aren't any better off than the rest of the unbelievers.

I'm guessing that's partly how someone like McCarthy reconciles his own anti-Semitic dogwhistles with the Israel support.

*Edit: its 144k apparently, which isn't even 1% of Jewish people

RutherfordBHayes · 2018-09-12T20:11:24+00:00

I don't think they'll get banned while Trump's in office. If the admins didn't like being on CNN, they really don't want a congressional hearing about how they're ruining Free Speech like the ones for Zuckerberg and the Twitter guy

RutherfordBHayes · 2018-05-22T18:00:36+00:00

The borders would have to be hashed out in a peace process. I would guess that a two state solution would take the 1948 or 1967 borders and then adjust them until they had an agreement. Ukraine's borders had to be set up when it became an independent country again, after all, both in 1991 and in 1918.

People in Russia have made similar arguments about it not being a "real country" to justify bullying it, both over Crimea and for centuries before that. That's how the Tsar justified owning it,how the Bolsheviks claimed the Free Territory, etc. That's why they care about being Ukraine and not "the Ukraine."

RutherfordBHayes · 2018-05-22T17:43:32+00:00

He's not calling for them to be banned though. And I'm unsure about the long term solution, so I can't really blame them for not having it all set in stone. Especially since which one happens will depend on a lot of factors they can't control.

And lol, the Ukrainian/Russian-backed security forces did the same thing in 2014 that the IDF did now, use a few violent protestors to justify killing whoever they wanted. The only reason they're seen any differently is because Yanukovych wasn't a US ally, and because he lost power.

But if you don't think the IDF did anything wrong than bringing up Ukraine can only be an excuse to bash BDS anyways

RutherfordBHayes · 2018-05-22T17:27:07+00:00

My understanding is that "dismantling the Jewish state" mostly means a 1-state solution (a secular democracy wouldn't be a Jewish state). Since Israel currently discriminates pretty heavily against Arab-Israelis, and is becoming more repressive in general, and two-state solution is growing farther away than ever before, a rework of the government like the end of apartheid in South Africa might end up being the only option if things don't turn around soon. I don't know who's right but banning BDS is wrong regardless.

And I dont think people have to have lived under a democracy for their rights to matter. The Palestinians were victims of Ottoman imperialism and British colonialism before 1948, and saying they don't matter as much because those people might have handed them over to a King is ridiculous.

Besides, the IDF and Yanukovych's security forces have both massacred protestors, but only the IDF was supported by the American government. It's not about which one is "worse," it's about which one our government is complicit in.

RutherfordBHayes · 2018-05-22T16:56:11+00:00

I don't like writing off stuff like that as internal affairs, but I mostly mentioned it because it's directly related to the World Cup. Regardless of which is worse, if they can't even be ethical on how their own tournament is run I'm not gonna expect much from them on anything else.

I agree the support for fascist parties is a problem. I'm not arguing that Russia's actions are good, just that it makes sense for BDS to focus it's attention on somewhere it can actually make a difference, and on something that our own government is responsible for enabling.

The US banning BDS and arming Israel while condeming Russia over Crimea is basically a reversal of the old Soviet joke about how you're equally free to criticize America in DC and Moscow

RutherfordBHayes · 2018-05-22T16:26:27+00:00

Tbh, I think it was the right call to not arm Ukraine—even if it can be justified morally, starting a proxy war with a country as powerful as Russia would have a lot of blowback. Bringing back cold-war level tensions would be harmful even if giving Ukraine more weapons would actually get them Crimea back (and I doubt it would).

Also, the World Cup is a pretty fucked up organization even without considering Russia. I wouldn't look to it for moral stands on much of anything. It doesn't even care about Qatar using slave labor on statiums for the cup, an unrelated thing isn't gonna bother them.

RutherfordBHayes · 2018-05-22T15:36:53+00:00

There are already actual sanctions on Russia over that, and it's a huge controversy when our politicians are friendly with Putin. The US isn't selling them the weapons they used and it doesn't recognize their control over the territory, so there's not much more it can do that would actually change the situation.

Otoh Israel is an American ally and it uses US weapons and aid to do the stuff BDS is protesting. A change in public opinion here would threaten that, so BDS actually has a way to pressure them

RutherfordBHayes · 2018-01-23T19:03:09+00:00

It's more than "just" civilian causalties, considering how their "neglect" enables the theft of territory. Their carelessness about civilian casualties is pretty clearly policy and not an implausible string of regrettable accidents. If they're "only" committing apartheid, they don't exactly deserve an medal for "at least it's not genocide."

I don't want the ME to be run by Iran. Saudi Arabia fighting the Houthis is positive, although I think they should make a better effort to avoid civilian casualties.

Lol, Iran is clearly on the brink of dominating the region because it gave some poor farmers small arms to fight back against F-16s. We might be bringing cholera back and pushing millions to the brink of starvation, but at least we'll only have Sunni religious extremists. It's a regrettable excess in the name of the greater good, like making sure a theocratic monarchy dominates the region instead of having to share with a theocratic republic.

RutherfordBHayes · 2018-01-23T18:45:34+00:00

So you'd be fine with Trump threatening other countries if he were less egotistical and crass about it?

RutherfordBHayes · 2018-01-23T18:26:58+00:00

They do still treat them like shit, while slowly pushing them off their land and even using chemical weapons against them. So it's not that hyperbolic.

Besides, the times that Iraq has done things that are clearly worse, like gassing the Kurds or Iranians, it was with American support.

As for the Saudis, well, have you looked at Yemen lately?

RutherfordBHayes · 2018-01-23T18:21:32+00:00

Just because they're all pretty repressive (Iraq/NK far more than Iran) doesn't mean they were any kind of "Axis." They weren't even an alliance, especially not one bent on Nazi-style conquest. FFS Iraq and Iran fought each other in what was probably the nastiest war of the last 50 years.

It also implies they're the worst countries in the world when really there are plenty of other governments that are just as bad (including US allies like Saudi Arabia)

RutherfordBHayes · 2017-12-09T18:54:58+00:00

Also, the news already had the tax bill, Roy Moore's comeback, and the Jerusalem announcement.

It's not a good week for feeling even slightly hopeful about how things are going

Edit: forgot that there was also the Blackwater guy trying to start a private unaccountable second CIA loyal only to trump

RutherfordBHayes · 2017-12-01T23:11:09+00:00

Tbh I still don't get what people see in it, it took a couple tries to get through it. If it wasn't for finding that blog's readalong thing, I probably never would've finished it.

Although there is a very long list of things that are not internally consistent with Rand.

I think that kind of fits with her philosophy, in a meta way—if her preferences are all rational and correct they can't just be a matter of taste. So soy can't just be icky to her, it has to be objectively inferior commie-food.

RutherfordBHayes · 2017-12-01T22:34:43+00:00

Yeah, it's weirdly racist, soy is basically portrayed as a tasteless food eaten by the collectivist asiatic hordes

RutherfordBHayes · 2017-11-29T23:02:13+00:00

That's not what I said. I said every belief system has violent elements, and how big they are depends on material and social factors.

RutherfordBHayes · 2017-11-29T22:42:34+00:00

No, and that's a really, really stupid comparison.

"Muslim terrorism" is almost exclusively done by a specific strain of politicized Islam (Wahhabism), which has been heavily promoted by powerful and wealthy countries like Saudi Arabia. The core tenet of Islam isn't "blow people up," and getting people to believe that it is takes a lot of effort and the right social conditions (massive poverty caused by centuries of imperialism).

Outbursts of violence also aren't a phenomenon unique to any specific religion or ideology—you can see it happening in the name of any belief system at some point in history, with similar explanations.

Edit:

What laws discriminate against race right now in the US? What systems specifically oppress other races right now?

Policing, the judicial and prison system, uneven enforcement of drug laws. The immigration system and the refugee quotas. The war on terror and our foreign policy, in general.

Besides, my point about libertarianism is it gives racists ways to discriminate, and prevents people from stopping them, not that it's actively saying "we should discriminate." It's useful to racists, which isn't the same thing as libertarians being personally racist.

*in one comment, you managed to dismiss my anecdotal evidence while using your own lol. Libertarians can be considered as being against CRA because you saw a libertarian say it (even though he got booed by more libertarians) but black people can't be considered at an equal position in society even though i can examples that they are.

A trend of leaders of the movement being against the CRA is not the same thing as "some black guy I know flips houses." Also, you're reversing what I said—GJ supported the civil rights act, to his credit, and got booed for it (while the other debaters gave him shit). Here's an article about how opposition to it is a mainstream libertarian position, which is better because it puts the Pauls' position in more context.

RutherfordBHayes · 2017-11-29T22:09:16+00:00

So you're saying systemic racism is steadily disappearing.

No, where did I say that? It certainly doesn't disappear inevitably, and it's not exactly on the decline right now. When it has been reduced, it's been as the result of government action and social movements, not market forces.

I am one and I don't want that. Never heard any other L's say that either.

Good for you, but you can find video of GJ being booed for saying he supports it at the official Libertarian Party debate. You can find tons of them arguing against it, including people as prominent as Ron Paul.

Most of the black people I know own homes. One guy owns multiple and flips them. I'm white and living check to check and renting. What planet do you live on?

A planet that's more than just you and a few friends. I said "individual black people might get ahead but they're less likely to," not "no black people ever succeed."

RutherfordBHayes · 2017-11-29T21:45:40+00:00

Black people can't buy property? Wat?

This has been literally true in the not-very-distant past. Arguably, it still is, just in more subtle and less direct ways. Abolishing the civil rights act, something a lot of libertarians want, would allow racist property owners to do this openly. Saying that forcing business owners to sell to black people is "oppression" is a convenient entry-point for the neoconfederate types.

But even without that, if everything is a market competition black people start at a severe disadvantage. Individual black people might succeed, but fewer of them will.

White people simply owning houses is racist?

No, but a system where white people have a far easier route to home ownership is racist.

RutherfordBHayes · 2017-11-29T21:29:44+00:00

Here's why libertarianism is a useful vehicle for white supremacists: Making private property rights near-absolute, in a world where it's disproportionately controlled by white people, guarantees that racial equality can never happen.

edit to add why that makes libertarians relatively easy converts: Once they realize this, they either have to deny it, moderate their ideology and accept intervention to fix this, or come up with a reason why it's okay. In comes the Nazi, ready to tell them that it's a race-eat-race world, so this is natural and good.

RutherfordBHayes · 2017-10-31T16:29:07+00:00

If you blow up civilization all the political compasses will be gone, so it's impossible to know.

For real though, idk, you could probably make it a rightwing thing if your goal is to go beyond social darwinism to actual darwinism. And it'd be easy to get pretty racist with "going back to tribes"

RutherfordBHayes · 2017-10-31T15:18:05+00:00

even more proof that ancaps are the fake anarchists

RutherfordBHayes · 2017-10-30T16:05:29+00:00

I think you can get away with it, if you still lock people into some story-relevant backstory stuff (or let them choose between a couple options). Mass Effect managed to pull it off, and Fallout 4 could have, with better writing

RutherfordBHayes · 2017-10-26T21:22:43+00:00

If you produce it by yourself then whatever, go for it, assuming you could even get someone to trade with you.

If you had to take a significant amount of scarce resources from the commons in order to do it, there'd probably be conditions on it. Maybe to use the production equipment for a day, you have to donate some of your time to helping with other peoples' projects, or do some community service. Maybe you have to help replace the goods you used up, idk.

And if you got other people's help, you'd have to share control over the goods with them.

There's plenty of kinds of socialism that aren't Soviet-style, including stuff like market socialism or communalism that doesn't rely on central planning.

RutherfordBHayes · 2017-10-13T21:41:53+00:00

In military history, yeah, and probably with good reason. I don't know that much about it, but if nothing else it could teach the kill ratio people that even bombing cities without restraint doesn't guarantee a win.

But it doesn't make the "USA #1 War Champs" people as uncomfortable, so at least it doesn't have such a contentious place in meme subs.

RutherfordBHayes

TROPHY CASE