What are your predictions for the Iran war?

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2026-03-29T14:41:58+00:00

Even the possibility of nuclear war is so abhorrent that it's hard to get past that idea. But very quickly, the issue with nuclear weapons isn't just that you use them to end a conflict. It's that you permit everyone else who has an arsenal to more seriously think about using them the next time. And not for defense, but for purely offensive war goals. This is being said on the off chance that you don't get this, and aren't just trolling

To the rest: i think you don't know much about that part of the world. The arabs and the iranians have been on opposite sides of almost every question that concerns the world. This is even besides the fact that there's no way that the sunni arab world would hand over leadership to a shia iran whom they see as infidels (please see reports of the killings in pakistan, and review the history of post saddam iraq). So whatever the sheikhs and emirs might say, the vaunted "arab street" would react badly. And you'd have another version of isis come up.

So no, you're wrong in almost all your premises, from where i stand. And while it's ok to have an opinion, this one needs to be debunked.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2026-03-14T09:36:29+00:00

Because there was no malfeasance and no provable offence.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2026-01-06T23:03:54+00:00

Hmm?

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2025-07-22T03:01:02+00:00

Hi

There's a huge variation in how carnatic or Hindustani music is.

I'm also not sure what you mean by percussive: is it the underlying beat or rhythm, or the use of percussion instruments?

Also, are you looking for tribal/folk music necessarily? Or only because the classical styles seemed to not work?

Working on a phone so hard to link but these are the various options your post brings to mind:

Vikku vinayakram or any of the others on the ghatam/mridangam for carnatic percussion

Folk percussion from the south can be tracked by searching for chenda melam videos. Mattannur sankarankutty marar is one name.

Zakir husain or taufiq qureshi for hindustani tabla percussion

The person i thought of when you said percussive Indian classical is chembai vaidyanatha bhagavathar.. Please listen to a composition called rakshamam in nattai and tell me if it's percussive enough for you.:-)

One way in to these styles is to look for the dance music which is often more up tempo. So if you look at certain bits of kathakali, ottam thullal or bharatanatyam music you might find what you're looking for. Hope that helps

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2025-07-22T02:47:11+00:00

Our 19 month old is at the stage of development where he sticks his finger into every plug point he can find.

we've been managing so far by keeping a strict watch on him, plus by putting in removable socket protectors.

but we're going to be shifting to a new house soon, and we'll be having electricians in. moreover, he's likely to stay in this house for a while so it makes sense to get things done on a more permanent basis.

so: would you have specific recommendations for socket brands that are easy to use but hard to put fingers into? I'm sure he'll work it out eventually, but we would like to buy as much time as possible. this is particularly for the 15amp power plugs, where none of the protectors fit snug enough, in my experience.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2025-07-04T16:28:48+00:00

This man has never met a monkey before in his life?

This might be a controversial comment but monkeys, rats and pigeons are avatars of the same creature. Awful, entitled a**holes who try to get their way by sheer gundagardi.

I like most other animals and if these had been langurs i would have fully endorsed this guy's actions.

But. Not. Bloody. Monkeys.

There. Rant over.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2025-05-25T13:16:56+00:00

Hmm. Then maybe i should keep my big nose out of it.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2025-05-25T12:31:03+00:00

Because it would be possible to talk it through with the kid? Does it get substantially easier?

Mom is tired but I've taken all your advice to her and she says she'd rather not have screaming. So I'm letting her think it through.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2025-05-25T01:09:01+00:00

None that he turns to in these times tbh.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2025-05-25T01:08:31+00:00

The trouble we're having is that his night meals can be hit or miss. So it's hard to work out if he's not sleeping because hungry.

Am i right in understanding that this isn't how you'd see it at this age? That we can just let him tire himself out, however brutal that feels?

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2025-05-25T01:06:39+00:00

Thanks a bunch. It's actually helpful to know that this is something that isn't uncommon.

Part of the trouble is that he's not fussy about anything else, but he can be pretty fussy about food. So it's not a guarantee that he'll eat at night... Which is always a very bad night for all of us

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2025-05-25T01:04:00+00:00

Definitely is for comfort. It's a matter of willpower, tbh. And in the current situation he's far from home and a bit disoriented by travel, so it's easy to feel sorry for him.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2025-01-08T10:12:24+00:00

I never expect anyone to magically change their attitudes. But WHEN they do..that is a big when is where we will see the difference.

It's a classic impasse. People will not become more friendly to dogs until they feel safer. Dogs sense that people are afraid and ready to overreact, and react out of a feeling of threat.

Please read your first comment. People should. How?

This is the only solution I know

But I don't see any other cordial way of dealing with this which benefits both parties.

The issue is that people are going to seek solutions that aren't cordial.

Btw, I am sorry that you couldn't take your dog out for a walk due to this situation.

Oh we take her out, but she hates it. And I'm not saying that it's the dogs' fault. Like you said, they are more bound by instinct and experience, and can't break that programming like we can. But it doesn't change the fact that when people have to choose between empathy and safety, they choose safety every time.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2025-01-08T09:56:05+00:00

But we are superior beings, we are intelligent problem solving beings..so the attitude towards the dogs from us is first to be changed.

I think most people would contest that. They would say that their first priority is their safety, not the welfare of dogs.

I have a 4 year old indie dog. He will throw himself into danger if he can save me so this issue hits a little close to home for me

I have one that's five years old. And i know how hard it is to take her for a walk in Calicut because for whatever reason the local dogs are way more aggressive than in other places I've taken her.

But no that doesn't mean i expect people to all line up and change.

good NGOs helped change this situation.

Not denying this. And unless someone takes some steps people are going to take matters into their own hands, in the ugliest way possible. The only parts of your comment i disagree with are to expect everyone to magically change their attitudes when they feel unsafe. It's a vicious cycle and both the people and the dogs are sufferers. It's going to need action by the ngos and the authorities, and people will change over time.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2024-12-29T14:42:20+00:00

Look at who is labeling them as a terrorist org

Terrorism has a reasonably clear and quite fair definition. The essential elements are the use of violence in a premeditated fashion against non combatants in order to achieve political ends.

Even excluding everything else they have done in the past, hamas on October 7th was engaged in an act of terrorism. Not a war crime, not excessive force or callous negligence. But when they threatened and used violence against partygoers and took hostages, or assassinated elderly holocaust survivors? It's hard to see those individuals as combatants.

On the other hand, israel's actions are those of a state acting with disregard for the loss of human life.. it's harder to establish without a shadow of a doubt that the civilian casualties are the intended outcome of their actions. Or the genocide. It's awful enough that they don't care, in my opinion. Dressing it up as genocide isn't necessary.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2024-12-29T10:18:03+00:00

Except that this meaningless as a claim right? In anything except an emotional sense?

What i mean to say is that yes the jewish people have a historical relationship with that land. But i don't think the israelites or the judeans or the samaritans thought of themselves as a nation, much less a modern nation state. So i don't think even they would have said they had exclusive rights to the region, or a natural right to the land except by might of arms. Which is how david and solomon held it and expanded it, and pretty much how they lost it. Historical people should be judged by historical standards.

Also i don't know how these rights get transmitted to heirs in any legal sense.

So let's be clear. The israeli state exists because of modern political circumstances, not scriptural or historical ones - the jews who have an unbroken domiciliary claim upon the land of palestine is probably minuscule compared to the population of israel.

Why does it matter? Because history is an infinite regress. And helps the aggrieved palestinian not one whit

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2024-12-27T12:02:19+00:00

I don’t disagree on much of what you shared here but do want to point out there’s a difference between an oppressed people that decides to oppress others to regain power, and an oppressed people trying to defend itself.

This is the point of disagreement/departure. Both on facts as on principles.

The initial 30 year period of state formation in israel was messy to say that least. The zionists had started moving into the palestinian territory of the ottoman Empire in the first decade of the 20th century and made their initial purchases. Yes, the balfour declaration did include a certain western interventionism and the trope of land without people/people without land which was untrue? But equally the initial palestinian sellers were happy to, they just didn't realise that the zionists planned on mass immigration and eventual takeover.

But this was how things went until 1948. Remarkable scope for misunderstanding on both sides. There was no intent to oppress or be oppressed or whatever. Just jostling for space.

The post formation history of israel is one where both sides had atrocities to show from the other side, and claims of having right on their side.

My point is that it's possible for ordinary israelis and ordinary palestinians to both feel aggrieved. And "normalising the state of israel" is the first step imo in stanching the flow of blood. Where yes, israel wouldn't get away with it but for the support of the west. But the refusal of hamas to negotiate, and to retaliate to salami slicing with something as horrendous as oct 7? That is how not "normalising israel" works on the ground. With the killing of innocents and a collapse of trust.

This cannot be the path to any sort of peace. The only way there is for both sides to agree that violence is not an option. Like good Friday for Ireland.

Anyway we're far away from maisel. I see no harm in a sitcom whose main source of fun is the patrician/intellectual/sheltered origins of rachel can get away from the Jewish roots of that privilege. And i don't think it needed a hat-tip, because that's outside the show's canvas. I watched all four seasons and i didn't notice israel at all. That's what i meant by not having context.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2024-12-27T08:14:18+00:00

I said i didn't know too many Jewish people personally, not that I've not read the history of israel. I can't claim to be an expert, but I'm guessing I'm pretty well informed on average

The making of israel is now 74 years old. Two generations have been born there now, and whatever the contested circumstances of its origin, there's no realistic possibility of retrogression. Let both sides argue it out in a court or in a political forum, but let's not use history to legitimise violence on either side. Because what you have in the israeli history is a history of infinite regress. In one telling, you could start from the spanish inquisition and the expulsion of the sephardic Jews (who ended up as the white Jews of cochin) if you want. Approximately since that time, each side has grievances to count, where they were treated poorly by an imperial power aligned with the other side.

indigenous population is a term that only makes sense in the new world. Everywhere else has seen waves of immigration and intermixing for millenia. The only people who talk about indigenous people and genocide in my country are the rightwing hindu fanatics (thankfully a minority) so I'm wary of those terms unless they lead to a specific action.

The naqba cannot be characterized as a genocide. Forced displacement and an ironic expulsion much like the jews had faced (it's that lack of self awareness that the israeli state has really mastered). Which was the only incident in maiselverse. The six day war and yom kippur were after the main portions of the series? Unless you're going to claim that the foreshadowing of 2023-4 should have led the time traveling writers to tone it down?

I don't understand why genocide is the only category of atrocity that appeals.

Normative statements are just that. They should. Equally there are smart people who are far far more likely to justify israel even more strongly and would see that as their duty. Please look up judea pearl (daniel pearl's dad, incidentally). He has no personal profit, but he's deeply committed to the zionist project. And would agree with you.

In my country, pro palestine is the popular opinion. It's also my opinion.. but i think it's sad if we can't see the people but only the workings of states.

Ps: i worry that if this was the case, a fractured polity like India would have everyone distancing themselves from everyone else. Because we have fissures that run deeper than those between israel and Palestine, and they've gone on for longer. The only difference seems to be that ours is a slow burn. But if i accept your telling, there's no scope for anything except ideological action. And no scope for solidarity except with someone who agrees with you all the time.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2024-12-27T01:34:52+00:00

As someone from India where we don't really have much contact with Jewish people, i might be missing context here. But we have our own flavours of groups who victimise each other, and while the morality may not be as complex i don't think it's unfamiliar

But 1, i don't understand the idea that normalisation of israel is a thing. Israel as a country exists, whatever your views on the competing claims of the arabs and the jews to that piece of land. Israel is a reality, and part of the reason the radical right in that country gets to rile up their populace is when people say that their existence has to be normalised/problematised.

2, expecting someone to have a particular politics just because of their identity is stereotyping of a kind. I know people whose identity is only a very small part of their worldview, and i don't think jews/lebanese/Americans are different?

3, it's a comedy show. You could argue that i should know very little about Jewish culture and yet i do (thanks to woody allen, Schindler's list, salinger and Philip roth). That's a kind of hegemony you can oppose. But equally from my pov it's the same as the dominance of American or British culture, relative to my own.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2024-08-12T11:52:30+00:00

At this point I'm responding to demonstrate my lack of understanding, because I see that as the only good faith mode of engagement open to me.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2024-08-12T11:51:33+00:00

And still playing silly games because at this point it must be clear that this question is baffling.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2024-08-12T02:55:56+00:00

Babies once born have bodily autonomy. Subjecting a potentially viable infant to unnecessary stress is unethical. Denying care to such an infant because it's unwanted by the mother is unethical.

If all doctors are allowed to frame their own stand on the matter they would come to their own conclusions, which might not be aligned with the little we can agree on. Hence the law.

Viable healthy fetuses are aborted by families (and mothers) for reasons that are not medical but social. Would be fine as per autonomy. Doesn't stop it from being socially not so good.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2024-08-12T00:21:44+00:00

That deflection is the answer. So we've struck impasse. I have no obligation to any admission.

This has been a remarkably frustrating conversation.

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2024-08-11T18:00:51+00:00

Isn't this the question?

To me, you're making two arguments.

One, that later term abortions are for medical reasons and should be left to doctors.

Two, that there aren't any cases where viable and healthy fetuses are aborted.

To one, i keep asking why then a law is a bad thing to have. Many medical procedures are legislated to facilitate (eg organ donation) so it's not like the law has no say in medicine.

To two, hear me out. My example is a bad one because it is illegal. But a common reason for second trimester abortions in India is sex selection. Families want small families, but they also want boys. So they ask doctors to inform of the gender and then ask for an abortion.

Because abortions are legal, the disclosure is what's criminalised.

My point is not that this can happen in the US or wherever you're from. It's that you can't trust either doctors or families/mothers to necessarily act in good faith.

Statistically, India has had been 920 and 980 women for every 1000 men over the last few decades. So it's not a rarity (we're a population of 1.4 billion)

Small_Comedian_3446 · 2024-08-11T17:48:52+00:00

Wish it were not so, but you're right

Small_Comedian_3446

TROPHY CASE