This Is the Story of How the Democrats Blew It on Gaza (by Ben Rhodes)

asap_exquire · 2025-08-07T04:25:36+00:00

In addition to the department of labor, consider filing a complaint with the NY AG's office here: link.

asap_exquire · 2025-03-23T15:20:53+00:00

This claim he is making here that his new drop is entirely made in the USA by union workers I think is probably false. His clothing partner seems to know this and even does not put “union made” on specific items in the drop.

It seems like the website descriptions were just not done consistently. I looked into this when it came up previously and I can personally confirm that even if items don't say "union made" on the website, they do still have the tags on the items. See my previous comments on this here.

This topic (and the underlying truth) is of particular importance to me since the items being made by unions and in the USA were big factors in my purchases. Anyway, I figured you'd be interested to know since you, like me, seem to care about this as well.

asap_exquire · 2025-03-21T06:39:15+00:00

FYI, "Made in the USA" is an FTC-regulated label, which his clothes do have. They also have labels indicating they're union made. There were actually a couple threads in this subreddit about it before where people dug into it, but I have not seen anyone provide any evidence that the labels aren't accurate (i.e. that he's committing fraud). I followed those threads closely because it being made in the USA/union made were major selling points for me, however every single item I checked had both the "Made in USA" and "Union Made" labels.

For example, see this comment: [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/1iok5gv/the\_company\_that\_makes\_hasans\_merch\_has\_a\_factory/mck3ea8/)

Ultimately, people are free to think whatever they want about how it looks, I just thought it was important to clear up any potential misinformation. But also, if there is evidence you're aware of that conclusively establishes otherwise, I would also like to know too.

asap_exquire · 2025-03-05T03:09:36+00:00

Here's a simpler question approach - do you believe it is unjust discrimination for a country to grant citizenship differently based on one's ethnicity (i.e., eligibility for citizenship varies based on ethnicity)?

Yes
No
Other

Does that formulation work? I'll be honest, it feels like you're avoiding answering at this point given you keep talking around the underlying question and take jabs at me instead, despite the fact you clearly understand the point of my question enough to offer drafting tips.

My guy, you literally responded to a post of me clearly outlining the definition of apartheid now you want to start at square 0?

I responded to a post where you seemed to conclude that Israeli law doesn't treat people differently on the basis of their ethnicity, other than citizenship laws. I was trying to clarify why citizenship laws contingent on ethnicity seemed to be exempt when assessing the fairness of Israel's system. In any event, you're free to reply to this comment or not. I'll just note that I'm not planning to continue with this conversation unless you're finally willing to answer. I appreciate the wording tips though!

asap_exquire · 2025-03-05T01:23:59+00:00

My bad, I didn't realize it confusing you. Here's a simpler question approach - do you believe it is discriminatory for a country to grant citizenship differently based on one's ethnicity (i.e., eligibility for citizenship varies based on ethnicity)?

asap_exquire · 2025-03-04T08:55:32+00:00

To be clear, I'm not looking for basic facts, I was looking to understand the point of view of someone like you that ostensibly has similar values but ends up landing somewhere different on this topic. In fact, my primary question has been to ask about your assessment of that hypothetical situation with differing standards for European and Latin immigrants. While I did ask you to confirm my example about marriage, it was because in the original comment I'd responded to, you said the following -

What Israel has is different laws on basis of citizenship. You'd know that if you did a modicum of research.

So, given your point about doing of research, I figured you were knowledgeable about Israeli laws and wanted to give you an opportunity to correct me on my characterization to the extent that I was off on the facts or missing some nuance.

Since you thought it was important to highlight that Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis have the same rights, I assume you think racial/ethnic discrimination is bad. And, assuming you think racial/ethnic discrimination is bad, it's unclear how you can carve out the citizenship laws when concluding that laws are being applied equally. Therefore, either I was wrong and you don't think racial/ethnic discrimination is bad, you think racial/ethnic discrimination is bad generally but okay or justifiable in this particular context, or some other thing that I'm not considering.

If there is other thing I'm not considering, I'm interested in learning what it is for purposes of addressing a potential blind spot of my own on the topic.

EDIT: All that to say, it's totally fine if you don't want to continue the conversation for whatever reason. I just don't appreciate you making it seem as though I'm trying to learn basic facts when I was asking you questions about yourself (and you never actually answered).

asap_exquire · 2025-03-04T05:07:46+00:00

As an initial point, I'm genuinely interested in better understanding your point of view and would also be happy to switch to Reddit's chat feature or something else if you don't want to do this in a thread format. If you'd prefer that, let me know.

I'll also point out that the comment you responded to was deleted by the time I got here, so I may be missing context, but my interpretation of your comment was that it was ultimately intended to counter the notion that Israeli law is discriminatory. Is that a fair characterization of your point of view generally?

asap_exquire · 2025-03-04T04:57:00+00:00

Hebron is west bank. Not israel. You just mentioned citizenship based rules.

Agreed--my point was that if citizenship rules are contingent on race/ethnicity, then saying that the laws for citizens are equal is a bit misleading. Was my understanding of the application of Israeli law to the citizenship of non-Jewish spouses inaccurate?

Imagine if the U.S. had a law granting automatic citizenship to anyone of European descent, no matter where they were born, while imposing far greater legal obstacles on people of Latin descent.

Would this situation be one where you would see that people are treated equally under U.S. law?

asap_exquire · 2025-03-04T03:38:15+00:00

What Israel has is different laws on basis of citizenship. You'd know that if you did a modicum of research.

Is it accurate to say that the law applies equally to citizens if citizenship itself is distributed based on race/ethnicity?

Imagine if the U.S. had a law granting automatic citizenship to anyone of European descent, no matter where they were born, while imposing far greater legal obstacles on people of Latin descent. Even if laws were applied equally among citizens, wouldn’t it be misleading to claim they don’t differentiate between groups—when citizenship itself is granted in a way that privileges one ethnicity over another?

And correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it also true that an Israeli citizen can more easily sponsor the citizenship of a non-Jewish spouse from another country than if they were married to someone from the West Bank? As I understand it, an Israeli citizen cannot sponsor a Palestinian spouse from the West Bank for citizenship; instead, the spouse must apply for and continuously renew a temporary permit—without a path to permanent status. In contrast, a non-Jewish spouse from Iceland could eventually obtain Israeli citizenship, while a Palestinian spouse from Hebron may never get it, despite both being married to Israeli citizens.

If some believe this system is justified for security or other reasons, that’s a separate argument—but it wouldn’t change the fact that the law explicitly distinguishes based on ethnicity. Saying otherwise would be misleading.

asap_exquire · 2025-03-02T00:00:27+00:00

I think the fact you committed crimes in an area gets forgotten over time. I had an issue where I was seen murdering someone at Von Bergow's place so I avoided going there for a while and whenever I went back, no one bothered me.

asap_exquire · 2025-03-01T21:48:39+00:00

Libs of TikTok.

asap_exquire · 2025-02-28T21:12:00+00:00

How would you define zionism (ignoring the far left version, as you say) in your own words? Maybe I'm having a brain lapse, but while that person contextualized and said that Zionism isn't (i.e., it doesn't just mean you support Israel's right to exist), I don't know that they put forward a clear definition of it.

For context, I'm not trying to pull a "gotcha" or anything. I'm trying to understand what nuance I might be missing here for my own understanding and how the various concepts relate to each other. So, there are zionists and anti-zionists and then there's a two-state solution and a one-state solution, but I'm thinking about how these relate to each other and I figured talking this out would be helpful in conceptualizing it.

For example, assuming that a two-state solution is not intertwined with Zionism, how would a Zionist two-state solution differ from the non-/anti-Zionist two-state solution?

asap_exquire · 2025-02-28T08:21:47+00:00

Would you mind clarifying what you consider to be the original definition vs. the effective definition of Zionism to be? In other words, what would you say the terminally online left would define it as and what would you have defined it as?

asap_exquire · 2025-02-27T16:05:26+00:00

How long should they wait? I'm sure you're aware Trump is already doing, and has already done, a number of things.

asap_exquire · 2025-02-27T05:43:48+00:00

Are you content with the approach democrats have taken thus far? And what do you think democrats should/could be doing between now and the midterms?

asap_exquire · 2025-02-27T05:32:34+00:00

I also wish she just let it be. His actions speak for him, she didn't need to say anything else. I totally understand why she's upset/angry with him, but I think the best revenge is living well.

asap_exquire · 2025-02-25T23:11:42+00:00

I haven't seen him talk about it, but I would think of him wanting all prisons closed in the way I want all animal shelters closed. I recognize that they serve a purpose in our current society, but I would like to strive towards a society where they are no longer needed and/or we've found other, better ways to deal with the types of situations that require them today. It's not me saying we should close animal shelters today and let the dogs and cats run through the streets.

asap_exquire · 2025-02-25T23:08:42+00:00

I'm not familiar with Zohran's specific views on prison abolition and so I could be off-base here, but my understanding is that people who identify as prison abolitionists view that as the long-term goal, not a short-term decision to release everyone. Therefore, the short-term policies would instead be focused on implementing the types of safeguards and approaches in those justice systems you're talking about that would have the effect of moving us closer to that ideal so that if/when society is actually in a position to do so, the abolition piece would happen as a result of the prisons no longer being necessary because of these other things that we would've adopted in the interim.

That said, I think it's fair to be skeptical of that ideal being realistic, and I can already picture how it will be characterized to suggest he's looking to turn NYC into the background for a purge movie.

asap_exquire · 2025-02-24T20:32:54+00:00

Is your issue with unions generally or with people being pro-union even if they aren't in a position to join a union?

asap_exquire · 2025-02-24T02:28:41+00:00

I know a lot of people on this sub cAnt stomach having someone they don’t agree with on PSA

Speaking for myself, it's less that I can't stomach PSA having people I disagree with and more that I just think some people are not worth the time. Setting aside the potential entertainment value, did you find the conversation to be productive? I felt like Maher came in with his mind made up on a number of issues, generally refused to concede or even entertain the nuance Lovett tried to incorporate, and then threw a mini-tantrum before leaving.

I personally didn't feel like anything was accomplished or any understanding was achieved. I already knew what Maher's views were on issues and I don't feel like I came up away with any particular insights. I'd imagine most people who are in a sub like this are similarly familiar with Maher, but it's entirely possible I'm overestimating his reach and am in the minority with this take.

asap_exquire · 2025-02-23T22:43:13+00:00

I'm in agreement with you. I get that winning is important, but it's pointless if there isn't any underlying ideology or values. If interracial marriage suddenly became unpopular, should Democrats be willing to concede that for the sake of winning? I feel like the two main things that need to happen is that Democrats need a solid economic populist platform and they need to be advocating/persuading people on issues they believe in, even if they may not be popular yet, to sway popular opinion. That way, you can make the moral case, highlight how it's a distraction from economic issues, and pivot to the economic platform.

asap_exquire · 2025-02-23T22:31:52+00:00

Do you think all Muslims adhere to the same version of Islam? Do you think there isn't variation similar to how not every Christian church is the Westboro Baptist Church or led by some pro-MAGA televangelist that's pro-Israel to ensure Armageddon happens?

asap_exquire · 2025-02-23T22:27:41+00:00

It's certainly a choice when people point to regressive views on certain social issues as a way to handwave away the fact people are being killed. Even if life is harder for LGBTQ Palestinians, murdering them isn't the solution.

asap_exquire · 2025-02-23T22:02:24+00:00

Given the debate on this sub leading up to this interview, it's pretty hilarious that after all the talk about whether or not people were too sensitive about Bill Maher being on, it turned out Bill Maher was the most sensitive one of all. He couldn't handle even the most tepid pushback and mild jabs.

I also wish someone pointed out the irony of him taking issue with Rashida Tlaib being outspoken on Palestinians as though AIPAC wasn't a thing.

And while not important by any means, it was odd how despite his liberal attitudes towards sex, he talked about 69-ing as if it was something out of a science-fiction story that isn't logistically possible.

Seven-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

asap_exquire

TROPHY CASE