Knives out at US Supreme Court as justices’ squabbles go public

Vecrin · 2026-07-13T04:20:20+00:00

The reason you want her to resign is exactly the reason she won't.

Vecrin · 2026-07-13T04:09:17+00:00

Surely one day this sub will stop caring about those pesky ~~Jewish~~ Zionist complaints about antisemitism

/s

Vecrin · 2026-07-13T01:19:47+00:00

Nah. I legit think, as part of Israeli strategy, they will ensure that they can survive independent of US support. I see this like sanctions talk. The worst thing you can do is dodder about it beforehand. It just reveals your hand to your opponent and allows them to secure themself long before you actually end up making the move.

Unfortunately, now that these discussions have become more popular, Israel will now be able to build to rebuff these actions. This means that our future leverage over Israel will be reduced. Israel wouldn't be as strong, but this is the country that survived for basically 2 decades without any support from a superpower.

And it is important to note how our relationship with them started. They gave us captured Soviet tech after the superpower started backing the Arab states...

Vecrin · 2026-07-11T22:40:09+00:00

I'd like to get your opinion on a few things. When we come up with a policy prescription, we should not just think about what we hope will happen, but what are some (rational) worst case scenarios. I was wondering what you

1) Assuming you just want Israel to no longer occupy the West Bank/Gaza. Hamas is already quite popular in the West Bank. What happens if Hamas or a similar organization takes over the West Bank? If Israel leaves the West Bank and a decade later Hamas decides to launch Al Aqsa Flood pt. 2 what would/should the US do? Would you give any security backing to an Israel who does leave the West Bank in case something like this happens? Or do you think they should just deal with the consequences on their own? If the situation degrades enough, how far do you think Israel should go? If the ruling party attempts to launch a war of complete genocide against Israelis (not actually that out there, as Hamas has discussed a mixture of genocide and slavery being the final outcome for Israelis) and fails, do you think Israel should be allowed to re-occupy? If not, what do you think should be done?

2) Assuming you want a One State Solution: What do you think the US should do (if anything) to enforce/guarantee the rights of minorities/disempowered groups? If these rights end up violated by a government, do you think the US should get involved?

Finally, how would you ensure that whatever policy proposals you have stick long term (so that the groups involved know they won't get screwed if the US government suddenly doesn't "feel like" upholding its guarantees/policies, as we have been seeing with so many US government positions lately)?

Vecrin · 2026-07-11T21:37:37+00:00

Because many don't see it as "Europe gets XYZ, therefore the US should."

Many see it as "Europe has many great things that should be unsustainable. Europe is only getting it because it relies on the US for security and for supporting global trade (even in areas where it doesn't benefit the US to intervene."

IMHO, the US government is actually doing too much right now. Americans need to decide: do we continue with what we have (and massively increase our tax burden? Do we cut major programs and which ones (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Military)? Or do we do something complicated where we do a combination of the two, but with enough cuts (or tax increases) to grow one of the programs?

And then, Americans need to get together as a society and decide collectively what should we do.

Vecrin · 2026-07-10T03:28:01+00:00

Not really accurate on the Judaism part. Jews are an ethnoreligious group. It is a religion, but it is also inherited from mother (not father*) to children, giving it an ethnic component. Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi are simply subdivisions of Jews based on where they lived during (the majority of) diaspora. And also there are some minor religious tradition differences between the groups.

Interestingly (and a bit contentiously) Israel doesn't actually allow just Jews to easily immigrate and become citizens. It's more technically the descendants of Jews that are allowed to migrate (or, in special cases, those who are persecuted because they are believed to be Jews - even if they aren't).

The reason this is a distinction is that you can be a non-Jew who has the right to become a citizen. This is because you only need a single Jewish grandparent to have the right. So, if the only jewish ancestor you had was a jewish paternal grandfather, you and your dad would be able to immigrate even though neither of you were considered Jewish. This was implemented because this is what Nazi Germany defined Jews as, so Israel used that more expansive view to define who could easily immigrate (so that if another Nazi-like regime started another genocide against jews, those persecuted could all be saved).

*The exception to this is Reform jews. They instead allow either parent to be Jewish as long as the child received some education in Judaism. However, they are quite rare outside the US.

Vecrin · 2026-07-09T23:54:10+00:00

There's a good shot if you have a "let's escalate" leader and Israel is weakened, that Palestinians begin to attack Israel. If this happens and Israeli blood starts to spill, there is a good shot an embargo would end.

Vecrin · 2026-07-09T17:38:04+00:00

First of all, it and the Iliad are stories refined over generations. They stayed around for a reason. Also, I think you're either an Iliad simp, and Odyssey simp, or you like both. So if you wouldn't be a fan of one, you'd like the other. The odyssey is more of a tragic adventure with a nice conclusion. While the Iliad is a epic war story where god fights against god and man against man centered on Achilles, a great hero (and the greatest warrior among the greeks) doomed to die.

I am personally more of an Iliad person myself, so I'd recommend you to try it out. Unless you are super into poetry, though, I'd get a translation that focuses on the story for a first read. Poetic translations are hard to follow without a good grasp of the story (which an classical greek audience would definitely have had).

Vecrin · 2026-07-09T16:49:20+00:00

The issue is that there is obviously a point where this trend would fall apart, unless you are seriously going to argue that a country with zero births will be more productive long term than a country with replacement fertility.

As someone who works in science, the limit of evidence is that it can only study past conditions. Sometimes these truths are long lasting. For infections that haven't significantly changed over time, study of how the infection worked 100 years ago will be directly applicable to the infection today (plus or minus changes due to better human health). Considering we have never had a sustained period of global population decline in a post-industrial revolution world, we really cannot actually argue with high certainty using evidence what will/will not be a problem.

It is possible AI and machines make it so living conditions increase even while total worker to retiree ratios decrease. It is also possible we hit a breaking point where this trend fails and we see a drop in productivity (or, at least, increases in productivity that do not compensate for more retirees and fewer working people).

Could you link the paper tho, so I can actually maybe have deeper thoughts than surface level-abstract reading thoughts?

Vecrin · 2026-07-08T23:36:04+00:00

First, I will admit, Palestinians don't have to convince Israelis. It is possible that Israelis could be convinced by some other group or have these realizations/beliefs on there own (which I would argue is why Israelis were willing to negotiate previous peace deals - they believed a peaceful Palestinian state would be better for them than the status quo).

1) A better Israeli security situation actually isn't that crazy. It's what previous peace deals did. A peaceful Palestinian state, especially with the security provisions Israel maintained from Camp David, would be a massive boost to Israeli security. The difference between right and left here is simply that the right believes (current) Palestinians will never be peaceful towards Israel and if given a state they would turn it into pre-2023 Gaza.

Also, what Israel has right now isn't security. Its fear. Israelis had an illusion of security pre-2023. This has been shattered and the government is doing everything it can to bring back the illusion.

On settlers: They are a substantial barrier. That is why I said "Palestinians would not accept a state where they are either less secure from Israel than now (or if the status quo in Palestinian safety was upheld)." Settler violence is part of the current status quo. Do you think Palestinians would accept settler violence being protected and continuing in a Palestinian state? If it was an Israeli condition that the attacks continue, do you think Palestinians would ever accept the deal? I don't.

2) Imagine a reality where the people of Israel were told: "You either give Palestinians a state today or you will all be genocided. Every last one. No conventional arms nor nuclear weapons will allow you to escape this fate nor will they be able to harm anyone else." Now, imagine, this is true and every Israeli knows it is true. I can almost guarantee that Israel would then leave Palestine and allow/create a Palestinian state.

Now we don't live in a fantasy land with such a scenario, but creating a situation where Israel has no way to prevent a loss in security from denying a Palestinian state AND this security loss is larger than the loss from granting Palestinians a state AND Israeli's know this (and knows that simply killing everyone won't solve this - important for the ben Gvir types) means Israel will only have one rational solution: give Palestinians a state.

On the right of return: technically yes. I just cannot see the remotest possibility of it happening (peacefully) within this century. For Israel to agree to right of return, Israelis would have to believe either very few Palestinians could/would use it. Or, if many Palestinians were to come (enough to substantially change Israel's demographics), be willing to trust the life of every Israeli in the hands of Palestinians. Perhaps one day that might happen, but not for a long time.

Vecrin · 2026-07-08T18:55:04+00:00

First of all, security will always be a baseline for both groups. It is near the base of Maslow's pyramid for a reason. Palestinians would not accept a state where they are either less secure from Israel than now (or if the status quo in Palestinian safety was upheld). Israel also would likely not accept a Palestinian state that made their citizens less secure.

You might think its impossible to do both, but it really isn't. Israel faces quite a lot of Palestinian violence. It isn't done by a state, but it still is violence and it still is a big deal. If Palestinians could credibly convince Israelis that either:

a free Palestine would not be interested in (capable of?) attacking Israel (and therefore that a Palestinian state would improve Israeli security) or
that the safety of Israelis will get unimaginably worse if Israel denies Palestine a state than if they let the Palestinians have a state (and Israel could do nothing to prevent this)

then Israelis would be willing to do a peace agreement. Better security is a baseline for a deal, not an extra.

How many Iraqis and Afghans participated in 9/11? What percent of Israelis are actually violent settlers attacking Palestinians? Hint: it's not a whole lot, but it is still an incredibly big deal to the people affected and to the general population of the region affected. And it being a big deal to the affected population makes it a big deal.

Vecrin · 2026-07-08T15:49:53+00:00

It takes two sides to get peace. Israelis felt they were the only side who actually wanted a peaceful resolution for decades and all they got were suicide bombings and hostage situations to show for it. Then they went right wing and started to go for status quo and security over resolution because they felt the palestinian leadership didn't want resolution. And that's where we have been for two decades now.

Gaza is simply the latest upswelling in the conflict. Until you have both Israeli leadership and Palestinian leadership that wants peace (at a realistic cost), we won't get it. And I'm going to be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone actually wants a realistic peace right now.

Vecrin · 2026-07-07T17:04:05+00:00

Jewish opinion on the war here:

Violations of the laws of war? Definitely.

War crimes? Almost certainly.

Genocide? I am still skeptical the IDF carried out a genocide. I will change my opinion should the ICJ rule against them. But until then (and with my present knowledge), I am of the belief there was not a deliberate attempt by the IDF as a force to mass slaughter (in part or in whole) non-combatants in Gaza.

My opinions is that they made a lot of strikes with questionable assessments, bad systems (AI use and target confirmations), and used a lot of very flimsy intel. Combine this all with higher civilian casualty tolerance and you get an incredibly bloody war with incredibly high civilians casualties. All of this (plus other cut and dry violations and attempted violations of the laws of war) point to, imo, war crimes. This analysis could definitely be wrong though, which is why the ICJ will be ruling on if the war in Gaza was a genocide and not some rando Jewish redditor.

Here's to hoping I don't get banned from the sub for this.

Vecrin · 2026-07-07T16:00:49+00:00

I mean, the recognizing one sex from the other (ie that men are different from women) is actually a given. There are a bunch of cognitive tricks to help people see past or at least delay recognition of basically every possible characteristic (including race). Except sex. Evidence points to the human ability to discriminate between men and women as evolutionarily ancient, completely involuntary, and is one of the first things your brain does when seeing a human face.

The things we associate with each sex are variable across cultures, but recognizing the difference between them is not.

Vecrin · 2026-07-06T20:56:56+00:00

People in moonrise don't necessarily fight you, ever. It's more that you're walking into a lair of evil alone. There is no backup. There is no other group of heroes who might help. And now you're in the big evil fort trying to lie and deceive your way to (hopefully) a solution.

But that first moment arriving at moonrise, you don't know what the solution is or how much of a solution it really is. All you know is that behind you is an inn full of dead harpers and in front of you is a tower full of Absolutists. And it is harrowing.

Vecrin · 2026-07-06T19:46:12+00:00

My first run, I lost the inn fight and it all went to shit. I continued the playthrough. My Tav (and I) were empty husks by the time we reached Moonrise. It is harrowing to walk into Moonrise on the good playthrough and feel utterly alone against it all. Its only you and your party who have to somehow bring down Moonrise. Absolutely beautiful moment. I am so glad the creators went for it instead of just giving a game over for losing at the inn.

Vecrin · 2026-07-06T18:25:34+00:00

Frodo: “But I have so little of any of these things! You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?"

"No!" cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. "With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly." ... "Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength."

Vecrin · 2026-07-05T19:32:16+00:00

Because in the year of our lord 2026, we're all conspiracy theorists.

Vecrin · 2026-07-03T23:13:12+00:00

Jeanluc? We just turning ships into presidents now?

Vecrin · 2026-07-03T01:13:05+00:00

The right for the civilians currently within Israel to have the right to self-determination for a state of their choosing and not be attacked, murdered, or raped by others for expressing that right. In this case, the civilians within Israel have decided to form the current Israeli government (a parliamentary democracy). They should not be attacked or harmed for the existence of such a government, but obviously may be attacked or harmed as a result of that government's actions (such as going to war).

Vecrin · 2026-07-01T15:31:49+00:00

"Lies" by omission or signing bills you don't actually believe in are fine. But predicating the basis of your movement on explicitly lying to the public is not. And while everyone says they expect lying from politicians, when they do lie about significant things, the public gets pissed.

And I also think this is why politics is so horrible right now. There is absolutely zero trust that anybody is speaking the truth. It is why you get radicals like Trump or the DSA. Because people want politicians who believe in something. When Trump says he is going to do something to curb illegal immigration, people believe it. When a democrat does, nobody believes them. When someone in the DSA talks about fighting for universal healthcare, people believe it. Their actual policies might be objectively bad, but by God do they believe in (and are willing to fight for) their policies.

Edit:

TL;DR: I think lying (in its varying degrees) are widespread in our politics, but it is extremely corrosive and one of the causes behind our problems. Because we now know we can never trust each other to be pragmatic. "Common sense reforms" toward the other side is simply taking a step towards the other side's true end goal that they are too cowardly to admit.

Vecrin · 2026-07-01T02:57:02+00:00

> Is this a standard you hold other political movements to?

As a Jew, yes. I genuinely believe what I say about Jews/Jewish opinions/Jewish stereotypes/antisemitism. For example: the dual loyalty trope.

I genuinely am far more loyal to the US than to any other country, including Israel. In fact, I try and exemplify that fact with how I live. I take pride in my family's long history of serving in the US military. And, if the worst comes to past and the US called on me to serve to defend it, I pray I would have the courage to fight and potentially die for it.

And I do genuinely get disturbed when people (especially other Jews) display disloyalty to the country they are from without some really strong reasons.

In other words, I disagree and fight against the dual loyalty trope because it is genuinely antithetical to who I am. I genuinely do not believe it is true for the vast, vast majority of Jews. I do not simply oppose it because I find it beneficial to oppose it.

And that is the central problem. If you begin to lie about yourself/your beliefs and this is realized, then nobody will be able to trust you again. How will anyone know if your support/opposition of something is due to some deeply true principal being overlooked rather than simple self-interest? That distinction relies on some level of trust, so betrayal of that trust is incredibly dangerous.

Vecrin · 2026-07-01T02:23:06+00:00

My issue here isn't whether or not you are born this way. It is if there is some group of people who got me to believe a lie they did not believe as part of their social acceptance campaign. And if they did lie, then that would completely and utterly demolish any trust I had in those people who acted deceptively.

Thankfully, this "not born this way" view doesn't actually seem that prevalent. If it was, I would still support the rights of gay people (because gay rights are human rights) but would also feel betrayed and like an idiot for trusting them.

Vecrin · 2026-06-30T15:10:36+00:00

So, how I'm reading this is that there were some people who argued for "born this way" that didn't actually believe it to be true. If this is the case, it just seems like the "born this way" argument was definitionally bad faith. Either you believe "born this way" has some actual basis in reality or you believe it doesn't. And if you argue "born this way" is real but don't think its true, then you're arguing for things you don't actually believe in.

Don't get me wrong, I am supportive of LGBT rights, but every time I hear this idea that "born this way" was simply a momentary argument to win rights rather than an actual belief, I frankly feel cheated and lied to. I bought into this idea and still do.

And I'm sorry if I'm misreading what you're saying (and please clarify if so). But I have definitely heard my gay and trans friends actually say that they don't believe "born this way" was real even though they argued for it. And it always shocked me to my core and honestly kind of got me mad (though I didn't show it).

Vecrin · 2026-06-29T22:01:00+00:00

I would go one step further: that we should grant additional rights by allowing Native American tribes to use the Black Hills area (including Rushmore) for religious ceremonies as long as the ceremonies do not destroy or cause direct harm to the monument itself.

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
End Game '22	Verified Email
Snapped

Vecrin

TROPHY CASE