Christians seeing what they want and taking screenshots out of context to so they can be outraged at nothing. It’s all they know how to do.
It very clearly wasn’t meant to be The Last Supper to anyone that actually watched and didn’t rely on a single screenshot posted on social media. They were standing/sitting beside a damned raised dais like a fashion runway. And that ran the entire length of the Seine with people standing and sitting on both sides of the runway. The angle the screenshot they keep posting on social media was only a few seconds long before the camera moved and showed the rest of the setup. It’s clear manipulation to anyone that actually watched the damned ceremony.
Absolutely, anyone who claims it’s a mockery of the Last Supper, clearly didn’t watch the show! Anyway, to me it’s a good sign that the religious assholes are shocked, this means the ceremony didn’t why away from showing diversity and inclusivity. I personally really enjoyed watching this ceremony. I found it very interesting and original. Also the part with Gojira really kicked ass !
I must admit that both my partner and me smirked at the last supper pose when we watched live. It clearly pulled inspiration from that and we’re not even close to being christians
Well then you should probably look up more ancient celebrations that predate Christianity then.
The scene was reminiscent of the Feast of Dionysus. You know … the Blue guy that showed up at the end of the fashion/dance stuff and laid in front of the group in that same scene, that was Dionysus. And the scene is a recreation of the Dutch painting of that festival of the Gods.
Would not be the first time Christianity took a story from another religion and created a fake story to cover allowing people to use their same celebrations and histories. Just make it about the Christian God instead and it’s cool. Just like Jesus’s birthday actually being in the March/April/May timeframe and Christmas replacing things like Festivus, Yule, etc. celebrations.
Absolutely, after seeing the outrage on social media I went and found the video and finally I understood why all the outraged people only used still from the show. If one watched the whole thing this accusation just seems silly. It is a good indicator that whomever is posting it didn’t watch it and is just blindly forwarding what seems outrageous to them.
Nonsense, there’s clearly a long table there, and everyone knows Jesus (the CARPENTER) invented the long table so he could sit with all his disciples. Prior to that, everyone had to dine out in groups of 4 or less.
Yeah it’s a vague question for a poll. One can interpret it in a few ways and I’d count myself part of the four as well. The US progresses as if it’s walking through quicksand, so it’s really unsurprising to me.
I don’t know…
The guy crying while crawling through the hallway with an entire swat team screaming at him and then getting executed was also pretty bad.
The guy shot in the back multiple times while running away from the police officer was just chilling.
All these shooting without consequences are just bizarre.
The hallways one pisses me off to no extent. From the pig who killed him having “Get Fucked” or whatever it was engraved on his rifle, down to the very fact they responded with nothing but conflicting and confusing commands. He was told to crawl towards them but also keep his hands above his head, which is impossible to do, crawling requires hands and knees on the ground, shuffling only requires knees. Then, the clearly intoxicated and unarmed man crying and shuffling towards them has his pants keep falling down, and like any of us would do, instinctively kept pulling them back up. Instead of the pigs telling him to ignore his pants, y’know, to help alleviate some of the stress the poor guy is experiencing, they scream once at him to keep his hands up and then they open fire on him when he instinctively does it again. There’s one of him, and at least half a dozen fully armed and armored pigs, and pulling pants up was soooooooooooooo threatening to these pieces of shit who like to play dress up as soldiers, they riddled him with bullets and he got to bleed out on a carpet in a hotel hallway.
The report was a man brandishing a rifle in a hotel window, and at no point did they guy give any evidence he was packing a rifle or trying to be uncooperative with the pigs. And they killed him, because he didn’t want his pants to fall. Don’t worry though, the pig that killed him was medically retired due to PTSD from the event. I bet the victim sure wishes he could’ve medically retired from PTSD, but that privilege is only for pigs apparently.
But we know people are subject to crowd panic. It’s not an excuse, but definitely part of the reason was they worked themselves into a frenzy until someone let loose. They’re all guilty, but it’s also a human weakness that police need to solve
This one I can’t even see how it happened. There was no crowd, nothing that could be perceived as threatening, no real possibility of any sort of violence, not even a threat of escaping. Most importantly, she was the “victim”, she called for help, how does that turn into her being suspicious? We’re far beyond any possibility of an excuse for that behavior, but I don’t even see how
thats why you have training.and not the kind that convinces you you’re on a deniable black ops mission in Falujah at 4am infiltrating Al Qaeda when actually it’s Just Some Dude.
That is a reason why it is a systemic problem - because crowd panic and situative anticipation is not trained enough.
There is a reason police training in basically all industrial nations takes multiple years. One would expect the US with a dangerous environment to even take longer… instead it is smaller than it is in most developing nations.
These mfs are basically trained to see civilians as a threat. So I’m not surprised that they randomly attack people who are not threats. Psychological conditioning can be very powerful
The report was a man brandishing a rifle in a hotel window,
Whenever this is the trigger for police involvement it always surprises me that the “2nd amendment” people that constantly caress Republicans balls have nothing to say about people being executed for owning weapons.
They’re fine with it because it’s almost always someone from a minority group getting executed as we always hear their bullshit versions of why these people deserved it.
The NRA had nothing to say about Philando Castile getting murdered by the cops for doing exactly what the NRA says you are supposed to do if you’re pulled over by the cops with a gun in the car.
Precovid houses I could afford with a weeks pay. Now it’s the whole pay check. Ridiculous. Wanna fix the birth rate fix this. I’m tired of being born at the wrong time for everything. It’s always some bs.
No, it was ultra cheap in my region. Cheaper than rent. I begged my partner to by a house since it was HALF our rent for a decent 2014 built house with acres of land. But nooo they want to rent for life. Now that I finally convinced them otherwise I can’t afford it. It causes alot of resentment for me.
Sigh SO different goals caused by huge family trauma is the story of our relationship. In this case SO Family never maintained home and it looks like on it’s way to a Horders house. Literally Bathroom has been torn up for 10 years no work done outside demo. I can see literal floor below me in some parts. And if I offer to help one weekend to finish omfg watch that volcano. Its like reality TV with all the emotions. So the idea of having someone else maintain property was a plus in that traumatized mind. I could go on but I know I’ll reach text limit 6x.
i agree is not clear, but i assume this person means 1 week pay vs full month salary to pay for mortgage, since the increased house prices and interest rates, a double whammy
My mortgage payment is $1k at 3.5% interest. That is a 15 year mortgage that I have 5 years left on and the payment includes escrow (taxes and insurance) it was in the $850/$900 range but taxes and insurance have increased.
This is a 4 bedroom/2.5 bath with a 3+ car garage in a small town near a largish college town which is 15 minutes away.
We may be getting an advanced transportation research facility as well.
To be fair my home value has doubled and my taxes and insurance are only going to keep going up. If I sell I’ll be in the same boat as you and probably couldn’t afford to buy something else.
Probably the redness from being white as fuck and old, maybe some yellow skin from being old too, and the warm color of the artificial lighting in the Oval Office (2700K to 3000K)
when Biden looked like he died several years ago during his debate, the democrats realized his makeup was too pale. then they started overdoing it, and giving him the orange glow. this happened even immediately after the debate, look at him at the Stephanopoulos interview.
If it was a quote it would’ve had quotation marks. 100% not being a dick or condescending. Just saying as much as 24hr new networks will skirt the facts, they still would follow the basics of editorial grammar. I think what you quoted is Fox’s title of the message the speech gave.
Israel is not going to stop until all the territory of British Mandate Palestine is theirs, and all non Jews are removed from it, one way or another. As an American, it’s absolutely infuriating that my government is so committed to helping them do it.
Yes and members of the Knesset have proposed stripping them all of citizenship and deporting them. There’s many Jim Crow style laws on the books that discriminate against them, so using them as a prop to show Israel being moral somehow is stupid.
Note that simply receiving aid is grounds for revoking citizenship in the second link, and in the first, the definition of “terror” is almost as vague as “afraid for my life” defenses in police shootings in the US.
Thanks for this, I wasn’t aware of that law. It definitely isn’t acceptable to have laws based on the ethnicity of a particular subset of the population. Yet another reason why I hope to see Likud leadership at the Hague one day.
Yes, that one I was aware of. The rest of the law is sensible enough — not much different than what we see in Quebec, for example — but that clause is unacceptable.
The Law of Return (1950) grants every Jewish person in the world the right to obtain citizenship in Israel; by contrast, Israel denies the Right of Return to the Palestinian refugees.
The Absentees’ Property Law (1950) defines all Palestinians who were expelled or fled in 1947 as absentees and their property as absentee property. The law was used to confiscate millions of dunams of land later used for Jewish settlement.
The Citizenship and Entry Law (2003) bans family unification in Israel between Israeli Arabs and their spouses from the Palestinian Territories, Iran, Syria, Lebanon or Iraq.
The Benefits for Discharged Soldiers Law (2008) allows all institutions of higher education to consider military service –from which Israeli Arabs are exempt for historical and political reasons –when determining applicants’ eligibility for financial assistance.
The Economic Efficiency Law (2009) gives the government sweeping discretion to designate “National Priority Areas” and to allocate vast resources for their development, which it does so in a way that systematically excludes Arab communities.
The Admissions Committees Law (2011) allows hundreds of small towns built on state land to select applicants based on their “social suitability”. The law is used in practice to filter out Israeli Arabs and members of other marginalized groups.
The Nakba Law (2011) strips state funding from any public entity, including educational institutions, that commemorates the Nakba.
The Expulsion Law (2016) allows for the expulsion of Arab Knesset Members by their peers on ideological grounds, based on majority claims that they incite racism or support terror. (This is not used on MKs who support Israeli settler terrorist attacks)
The Kaminitz Law (2017) increases enforcement and penalization of planning and building offenses. The law has a disparate impact on PCI, many of whom are forced to build illegally due to decades of discrimination by the planning and building system.
The Jewish Nation-State Law (2018) guarantees the ethnic-religious character of Israel as exclusively Jewish, denies the right to self-determination of PCI, and entrenches the privileges enjoyed by Jewish citizens, while simultaneously anchoring systemic inequality, discrimination and racism against Israeli Arabs.
He specifically said in this speech that Israel would not resettle Gaza. It’s maybe the first time we’ve seen him directly oppose the radical wing of his government that has advocated for it.
Well, Israel has proven that they are willing to build settlements in areas they are not supposed to, so forgive me if I don’t take him at his word. But, maybe Israel is willing to give up that narrow strip of land, if they can have the rest of Mandatory Palestine. I’d believe that.
He specifically said in this speech that Israel would not resettle Gaza
He was lying. That’s like breathing to fascists anywhere in the world, but especially the ones in Israel. If you like podcasts, I recommend you check out Bad Hasbara for hundreds of clear examples of this.
It’s maybe the first time we’ve seen him directly oppose the radical wing of his government that has advocated for it.
He IS part of that radical wing when it comes to Gaza. What the fuck do you think he means by “total victory”?
I believe it was a politically risky statement for him to make explicitly.
If he alienates his Right Wing, they could dismantle the government and force elections at will. In the past he has used vague statements or diversions to avoid making public statements that could pose political risks to him. No one was demanding an answer on the issue (and he left out plenty of issues that US lawmakers HAVE demanded to know about).
The better question is: Why would he take the risk of saying it at all?
unless black people are owning guns then they’ll be all for gun control
Red states tend to have some of the most free firearms laws in the country. And many of those states, particularly in the south, have large black populations. In fact, many of them have explicitly killed policies that were used to discriminate based on race, namely may-issue permitting laws.
No, When It Was Written they were worried that US Army would be busy and the slave rebellion wouldn’t be able to put down without a local militia. That needs to be remembered every time this argument comes up. The Second Amendment exists because because they were afraid of slave rebellions. Patrick Henry in particular in this case.
The idea that militias were solely for suppressing slave rebellions is patently wrong. If that was the case why would Vermont (a state that never allowed slavery) have had a militia.
The Federalist Papers clearly painted their purpose.
That doesn’t even really matter to the point I was making.
The 2nd amendment is the only one in the bill of rights to explicitly state the reason for it. And organized state militias don’t exist anymore. So it really doesn’t need to either.
Where do you think cops came from? They largely grew out of slave catcher Patrols. State organized groups of armed men, ie exactly what Patrick Henry wanted.
Yes. True. Everything had at least half a dozen reasons for and against, that were all debated exhaustively.
But this specific right, is the only one that actually describes a reason for its existence. And that reason no longer exists. That’s the important part.
6A) …to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
I would argue that the militia still exists it’s just the government isn’t doing it’s duty to regulate the body of the people to be capable of common defense well. And to assume a right protected by the constitution could be outmoded by government inaction is self defeating logic.
Of course they are. It’s the whole military. More specificaly The National Guard. We have permanent professional soldiers who replaced the militia long ago.
The military and national guard aren’t militia, they are armies. A select militia is no militia at all. And professional soldiers can’t replace a militia as it is them who on rare occasion they are tasked with opposing.
At the siege of Boston the Connecticut militia along with the Green Mountain Boys, and the men of Massachusetts showed up to oppose the British regulars. The regulars were professional soldiers. The rest the militia.
Our professional army maybe our ally in liberty today but history has shown that may not always be the case.
A select militia is no militia at all. It defeats to core purpose of a militia. And it isn’t deployable by the President. But it is by Congress (then under Exec leadership). Read the Federalist Papers/Antifederalists Papers. Throw Blackstone and Story in there too.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; -Article 1 Sec 8
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; - Article 2 Sec 2
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Like the background checks and waiting periods already put onto gun purchases. No point in age restricting them to 21 as well until the government declares it to be the new adulthood age.
They aren’t, I was making a point that the well regulated in your context is being met, but shall not be infringed means not denying it to legal adults due to age.
As currently interpreted under law. A militia can be anyone legally able to aquire a firearm under federal law. Therefore, this person can start a one man militia and aquire a firearm.
That’s not how US law works. The Supreme Court wants us to believe we’re all the militia, so that means we can all flounce around with our boom toys and if ten people get shot then it’s just an unavoidable tragedy.
Trying to spin the rulings to something that would be more rational isn’t an honest conversation.
That’s the current ruling, like it or not, if this ruling were to change, it would be easily circumvented and possibly incite major demonstrations and possible congressional action. Like it or not, there are guns in America.
That’s not true. This spate of rulings is extremely recent. In the last decade or so. We went 200 years without them and no major demonstrations, except at the NRA convention when it was captured by the gun lobby and began pushing this rhetoric. Nobody’s marched on D.C. for their gun rights, like they have for civil rights. In fact these rulings are deeply unpopular in polling. And as we’ve seen recently, “SCOTUS said” isn’t a source of authority anymore. Especially not since they straight up lied about colonial era gun laws to make their Bruen ruling or used 14th Century English Church Law to overturn Roe v Wade.
It may be “the current ruling” but that doesn’t make it right.
Most gun rights demonstrations happen at the state level since states have more control over guns permits and limits. Virginia has an entire day every devoted to it I believe. To you it is not the correct ruling, but to gun owners it is. Besides, banning a one person militia or small militias would break the shall not be infringed part of the second amendment, any way you put it, guns are here for Americans.
Show guns or you’re just larping, and it’s not a big deal because shall not be infringed stops it from being a discussion. No need to march on this issue federally, especially since the courts currently are attempting to restore rights to the people.
Any way you cut it, the point was to have an armed citizenry capable of defending the country, and the 2nd was plainly defined in that context, so it makes perfect sense that the minimum requirement for bearing arms is being able to do so effectively: so where’s the training? Where’s the free gun after you prove yourself capable enough to be part of the national defense?
As it turns out, we have all that, it’s called the U.S. Military, an all volunteer force for the defence of the nation. (They don’t let you keep your gun anymore).
Want to do it part time, on an on-call basis? National Guard.
Id love it if we moved to the swiss model of mandatory training for everyone when they’re old enough, issuing them a firearm, and telling them to stay trained just in case, that would be awesome. Instead we have “buy it at Walmart, figure it out”, and zero part of that is run well.
For civilians? Hunter safety, otherwise you’re paying for a private tutor.
I’m all down for more training, so long as it’s free. We should not gatekeep civil liberties behind fees.
Would you be okay with people having to pay $200 for a training class on how to vote before you were allowed to vote? Of course not. The same is true for the right to own a firearm.
Funny because you do have to pay for documents like a birth certificate and ID in order to vote in some places. When I got my ID renewed years ago my original birth certificate from the '80s was somehow no longer valid so I had to buy a new one for $60 from some government records company.
Both the Federalist papers, the militia acts, and current government code confirm that everyone not part of the standing military or national guard as the militia. The militia doesn’t get free guns, they were expected to bring their own privately owned guns and ammunition when called upon. I would not mind free guns though.
Training should be part of the public education system, but gun/hunters safety and shooting sports have been removed because it’s not kosher to expose kids/teens to guns. Due to the prevalence of guns in the US it just makes sense, because treating guns like abstinence only sex ed will have the same shitty results.
The “buy it at Walmart and figure it out” is because you can’t lock rights behind hoops to jump through, so adopting a Swiss model and making fun education/training part of compulsory education is definitely a good minimum.
Almost removed. I was shocked to learn that the dude who just winged trump was not accepted to his school’s fucking rifle team for being a shit shot. I’ll repeat that because someone reading this may be old and remember it like I do, and as shocked as I was that that means his school had anactiverifle team in like 2022. What the dick?! In my area those ended at columbine and I lived in The goddamn South. That was actually the wildest part of the whole thing to me!
Still though I agree with you entirely, I just thought that was wild lol.
I agree. Schools need to teach kids practical skills. Firearms handling and use among them. Other good ones would be how to file taxes, how credit cards/loans work, how to repair basic items around the house, how to cook basic meals, etc. It doesn’t need to dominate schooling, a class or two covering the above in highschool would be plenty. Most of those topics are pretty short, but very important for life.
There are Indeed Walmarts that sell handguns (Alaska). And while there are no Walmarts that will sell a handgun to an 18yo, there are legal ways for an 18yo to both purchase and possess a handgun.
As of when? Jw, all Walmart locations at least in the continental US ceased sales of handguns, “assault rifles,” and the rounds for them (excepting when they are also commonly a rifle rnd, .22lr to be exact), they no longer stock 9mm, .45, .357, 5.56 (still have .223 though lol), etc, after Parkland specifically.
Which is why I specified that my information pertains to the entire continental US at least, as the statement they made after Parkland said all stores. And again I ask, when is the last time you verified that they still had them? Did you see them 10yr ago or did you double check on Tuesday? Do you possibly have outdated info? Can you possibly read what I said instead of just dismissing my question?
In the post I responded to, they said there were “literally no Walmarts.” They didn’t say anything about the continental US. You only said anything about continental when you responded to my clarification, which is why I reminded you that I specifically said Alaska. Additionally, Alaska is part of the “continental” US. Perhaps you meant contiguous?
Walmart began a “no firearms” policy in 2019 after Parkland; shortly thereafter they quickly, quietly, but unevenly reversed those policies in 2020 due to “unrest” around the election–but not in all states.
Firearm policy at Walmart depends somewhat on the state you’re in. Their firearms policy is no longer nationally consistent, though generally your description is accurate for the majority of Walmarts but, again, not all of them.
Nevertheless, as recently as a year ago, handguns were available in Walmart in Anchorage, because my friend and I each bought one when we were visiting friends and going bush hiking/camping and picking up supplies.
I didn’t dismiss your question, I responded to your statement. The post I replied to wasn’t a question. You only posed questions when you responded to my comment. Regardless, relax.
It’s not modern. Or at least 1792 English was a lot more modern than the gun lobby wants people to think. It absolutely included rules and regulations.
Also, which state isn’t a republic? Point it out. Or are you trying to threaten us with twisting language even further to benefit a political party?
It is decidedly not the one used in that context given the history of America under the articles of confederation and the revolution.
I don’t know who “us” is but I decidedly not threatening anyone. My point was that taking law to mean anything but what it meant is lunacy and will simply lead to people misreading it to achieve political goals defying the legislative process. Changes in law should be done via the legislature.
You can deny it all you want. The Etymology is clear. If they wanted to write it as “healthy” or “well oiled” they would have. Instead they used the word that meant to control by rules since the Roman Empire.
They also could have written “limited” but they didn’t. The people at the time widely understood it to refer to a militia attended to, to ensure it efficacious. The regulations they had at the time were there to ensure they were well trained and armed. See the militia acts of 1792 & 1795 or for example or any of the other many acts from the period like 1786 N.H. Laws 409-10, An Act for Forming and . Which provided:
[E]very non-commissioned officer and soldier, both in the alarm list and training band, shall be provided, and have constantly in readiness, a good musket, and a bayonet fitted thereto, with a good scabbard and belt, a worm, priming-wire and brush, a cartridge-box that will hold at least twenty-four rounds, six flints, and a pound of powder, forty leaden balls fitted to his gun, a knap sack, a blanket, and a canteen that will hold one quart.
When they wanted their militias well regulated they meant this.
If you go to the hyperlink above you can search for how regulating militia was used across the states during the founding period. They universally share the same efficacious meaning.
I’m going to trust the etymologists on this one. It’s literally their field of study. You don’t go to a mathematician for chemistry, and you don’t go to a lawyer for history.
ETA- I had an extra moment so I took it for a spin and found this. I’m sure they’re just talking about how freely you can transport explosives…
Entymologist notable studiers of the field of law not lawyers. You do go to lawyers for historical case law because that is the exact thing they’ve studied for their doctorate.
And that isn’t analogous to militia regulation but rather cargo transportation restrictions similar to fire safety laws. Again betraying, that legal knowledge is actually helpful in understanding law. Rather than say a bastardized perversion of etymology used to confirm preexisting notions.
I’m sure they’re just talking about how freely you can transport explosives…
But for your sarcasm this would have been your most salient thought in the thread.
That novel theory fails on so many merits. Such as why would they have felt a need to specify that aspects at the time? Under the proper interpretation it make perfect sense as some states had failed to maintain an effective militia. As another commentor pointed out, the original interpretation of the word survives today:
On matters of law that view had been invalidated before its inception. In the words of early justice Joseph Story:
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
The original meaning is to create rules. Well functioning devices wasn’t associated with it until 1660. Nobody is saying that’s not one of the meanings. But it’s meant to create rules since the literal Roman empire, and as I’ve demonstrated was used that way legally by our founding fathers.
The founding fathers were famously divided on federal power. The 2nd amendment is their compromise. Meant to be read in plain English. It doesn’t need partisan spin. If I cared though I could go find the other side to it but I don’t need to. They made sure of that by putting it in writing and cherry picking stuff isn’t going to change that.
THE power of regulating the militia and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defence, and of watching over the internal peace of the confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defence. - Federalist 29
Oh no, we’ve been down this road before and your cherry picked quotes never mean what you want them to mean. I’m not wasting my time dredging up the papers again.
a militia in the constitution was similar to firefighters - you were expected to come help people and the failure to do so could result in losing your 2nd amendment rights.
The idea that a militia = a consumer is a modern rewrite.
SCOTUS pretty much shit canned the first half on the 2A a long time ago. Can’t remember the case, but they basically said a “well regulated militia” could be anyone.
ETA: as someone else pointed out, the case was DC v Heller.
It honestly feels like we somehow have to take back the (very loaded) word “antisemitism”, as Israel and its supporters seem intent on making it mean “anything the Israeli government disagrees with”.
I’m not an antisemite, and have no hate whatsoever for anyone because of theirs religious beliefs or where they come from. My views are antizionist and antigenocide. Which are strictly political views, not tied to any specific demographic of people.
This has been going on for years though. In the same way that it is not islamophobic to criticize somebody who happens to be Muslim. It is not anti-semitic to criticize somebody who is Jewish. But you try explaining that to Jewish person and you get pushback as if somehow criticizing the military and their government, is the same as criticizing them even though I never even mentioned them.
According to my parents this argument has been going on since the '60s so I don’t think it’s going to get resolved anytime soon.
Zionism is the belief the Jewish people deserve a place to call their own, similar to the belief the Italian people deserve a place to call their own. Antizionism is the belief the Jewish people don’t deserve a place to call their own.
Had someone came up and said the Italian people don’t deserve a place to call their own, would you not call them racist towards Italians?
Why not the same here?
You can be against the actions of the Israeli government (I definitely am), but saying it shouldn’t exist is a whole other ballpark.
Italy is a worse example than that even. It wasn’t unified until 1861 and even then it was a country of two peoples. The North ruled at the expense of the South. (Yes I know there appear to be parallels to another, larger country with an 1861 event. But they are only skin deep.) And after World War 2 the country took care to be a democracy that represented the north and south.
They use Italy as an example like it was always around and unified. But it really wasn’t.
Religion is not the same as nationality, there isn’t a country that is dedicated to Christianity for example. (well, you have the Vatican but you get what I mean, it’s not a nation) It’s a different thing, so you can’t argue that Jews have no home since they too have a nationality from the country they were born in, like everyone does regardless of religion. I’m not arguing against Isreal existing to be clear, just that having a country for a religion isn’t some given right that only Jews don’t have. They mgiht be the only ones to have it depending on how interpret it.
There’s interpretations of zionism. At its core it’s the belief that the religion should also be a nation. But different sides form around the “how” part. While having a country to live in isn’t bad itself, if zionism means driving out others or straight up genocide of others, then it’s fair to bluntly oppose it.
Isreal exists now, but the continued killing and takeover of Palestine is horrible. And these days many bind zionism to the acts and opinions that flourish in Isreal that portray Palestinians as some evil that should be removed. It think opposing an nationalistic view like Zionism is a reasonable action when the country is engaging in invasion.
A point of critique to your critique. There are ethnic jews, cultural jews and religious jews. Most ethnic/cultural jews are not religious jews. See more in my other comment
Just because someone is born in a country doesn’t automatically make them “of that nation” identity-wise first and foremost. Take the romani peoples as another example, they often identify first and foremost as romani, rather than by the country of their birth.
That’s a good clarification, but I do not feel it changes much. A non-Isreal nationality now is still a thing they possess. No one chooses where they are born either way. Their ethnic identity is still there, but I do not think it gives them ground for land after they were dispersed originally. But regardless of that, they got Israel. It’s there now, and removing it also not an option.
It’s rather ironic, Jews are now killing off another ethnicity from the very same lands they themselves were driven out of. Sounds like a revenge story, but it’s just a cruel inversion of the same antisemitism that Jews have suffered at least twice now with their initial dispersion and during the second World War.
Exactly: I am antizionist because Jews getting a place of their own implicitly means that some other group, which currently has that place, must be displaced.
Saying that Jews should have a place of their own is not comparable to saying that Italians should have a place of their own, because being Italian is tied to having hereditary ties to the place that is Italy, whereas being a Jew has no tie to a specific piece of land. It is rather comparable to saying that Christians, Muslims, the Amish, or some other group of people that are dispersed and unified by beliefs not tied to a place should have their own place, and that if such a place does not exist it is legitimate to displace others to establish it.
I firmly believe that Israel should never have been created. As do many Jews (often ultra orthodox ones). However, I recognise the reality on the ground, that the state now exists and that many of those that moved there have now lived there for up to several generations. I do not believe that two wrongs make a right, and as such, I’m not a proponent of dissolving the state of Israel and displacing the Jews that now live there to make room for those displaced following 1948. However, I do believe that the displaced Palestinians should be allowed to return and have equal rights within the now existing state of Israel.
You mix up the religion Judaism with the ethnicity and culture. The jewish cultural and ethnic group is amongst the least religious peoples in the world, as many as 75% according to a study a few years back being atheist or agnostic (myself included).
The various jewish ethnic groups do have genetic ties to a geographic area and have diseases almost entirely unique to that ancestry.
That does however beg the question of whether ancestry is any sort of motivation to lay claim to an area of land in the first place. A question that can be endlessly debated and if accepted at face value opens up endless cans of worms. (How far back? Forever? Can it be lost? What if multiple peoples have claim to an area? etc. etc.)
No I didn’t mix it up, I included the Amish, could have included Romani, and specified that I was talking about geographically dispersed ethnicities in general.
Yes, some Jewish people have ties to what is Israel today, and no it really doesn’t open a can of worms. I was very clear that displacing any group of people is wrong: Hence, the state of Israel should never have been created, but now that it exists, we need to figure out a solution that doesn’t involve displacing any more people.
To answer the “how far back” etc: Quite simply put, everyone today (sans a couple hundred thousand stateless Palestinian refugees, and a few others) have some citizenship and live on some land. Nobody has the right to displace others to claim that they have “more” of a right to that land. Thus: If you have ties to some land, and someone else lives there, you’re shit outta luck unless they want to negotiate with you. If, like the Kurds, your living in the place you have ties to, but don’t have your own state, you have a decent case.
It really isn’t that complicated: Don’t displace/murder people. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Fair, I was confused by your parallell between religious groups (christianity, islam) vs ethnicities (amish or ethnic jews). Now that you clarified, your argument makes more sense to me.
I agree with you - nobody should be displaced from their homes, even in the face of somebody elses “home claim”, since this would eternally perpetuate the same problem.
There is some food for thought that follows from this reasoning also. The foundation/creation/growth of almost every nation/state (I’m sure there is some unique obscure one somewhere who can claim to be the first humans to settle their land) has involved displacing people, and almost every settled people has done so by displacing those who came before. Does this not mean almost every other past creation/perpetuation/growth of a state/nation/settled people was wrong? (Even the kurdish people settled their current territories by force, just a long, long time ago)
It’s true that a lot of peoples (maybe most?) today live in a place which they took by force from someone else, though you don’t have to look far to find areas that are still inhabited by the first people that arrived there. Still, for a fair comparison you need to separate between those that took areas by force either from necessity (e.g. they were displaced themselves) or otherwise before any kind of international regulation existed.
You cannot compare a tribe or small kingdom taking land by force 2000 years ago to a modern state annexing land, just like you cannot compare the sacking of a city 1000 years ago to a modern genocide. The world has changed.
It shouldn’t exist. They had a chance but they fucked around. There’s plenty of nationalities that don’t have sovereign countries. Anthropologists point to roughly 11 nations in the US alone. No government elevating one nation above others should be allowed to continue to exist. Especially where they commit human rights abuses to do so. In fact it’s generally the idea of a single nation country that begets these abuses.
So no. They don’t get a land specifically and only for Jews. They aren’t special.
To further drive the point home, you bring up Italy, but Italy was only recently unified in European history. If you want a Jewish version of Italy then you want a single state solution with equal rights and representation for Palestinians.
I believe Israel should be forced back to 1947 borders and there should be thousands of deportations to The Hague for war crime trials. I’d also like part of Jerusalem to be removed from both Israel and Palestine and turned into a world heritage site administered by UNESCO.
I am anti colonization and don’t think they should have created Israel as a nation state displacing an existing community but that horse has bolted.
Definitely a good point, but not very relevant as the article doesn’t really touch on antisemitism, but more on blanket rejection of Israeli citizens with no regard for what their opinion may be
That’s because Israel got what they wished for when they adopted Herzl’s idea.
Herzl said that Jews will never be accepted as truly American or truly French etc. so they need their own country and form their own distinct nation. Well they got it and found out that form of nationalism is outdated and exposes them to these accusations. Israel claims to speak for all Jews, and thus people draw the false conclusion that Jews worldwide collectively support all Israeli policies even the rightwing and criminal ones. The existence of Israel only worsened the accusations that Jews are a fifth column or secretly more loyal to Israel over their own countries.
It’s actually kinda sad because diaspora Jews are more likely to oppose Netanyahu, and this discrimination is being wielded by Netanyahu to claim they won’t be safe anywhere unless they immigrate to Israel.
The governor and both state legislative houses are blood red. Love how MAGA pins all the blame for their policies and any Dem that’s around no matter how lowly.
I wonder if they’re just pointing out that the victims here are already voting sanely, not trying to assign blame.
Repubs elsewhere in the state, as all Repubs do, treat disasters as something to ignore or cheer, depending on who the victims are. If they were capable of distinguishing between good and bad governance (or capable of empathy at all), they would not be Republicans in the first place.
It’s a concerted effort spanning almost 70 years and I agree, they’re not going away at all.
It’s a long listen but worth checking out How Conservatism Won by Robert Evans. He lays out in a clear concise way “how a consortium of rich failsons got together to fund a network of right wing think tanks and shift American culture in a fun new direction. (note: it was not actually fun at all).”
The rich hated FDRs New Deal and immediately set about to undo all the trade, tax, and housing policies, labor and consumer rights, everything, he’d done. They very much want a return to the gilded age with themselves as the robber barons and gentry. They’ve been very successful and those think tanks are now pipelines used to funnel ideological purists into powerful positions like our current Supreme Court.
I tell people as often as I can, especially my trans and bipoc friends; now is the time. Get a couple guns (a long one and a short one) and learn how to use them. Learn some basic first aid, you really just need to know how to stabilize someone. Start networking with like-minded people in your communities. The police will not protect us, they’ve proven they’ll happily club senior citizens to the ground and shoot any protesters in the face with rubber bullets while escorting a rightwing murderer to safety. We only have soap, ballot, bullet, and jury boxes and obviously the soapbox has limited impact.
Iran was a secular, liberal state until almost 1980 when they (mostly legitimately) elected an Islamist theocracy; it could happen here.
edit: tl;dr the shadowy cabals the rightwing says are behind everything is classic projection again because they’re controlled by shadowy cabals of rich people and they’re winning
It is more effective to educate conservatives on why white supremacy is wrong. Buying a few little pew pews isn’t going to stop them. Maybe buy you some time to slip out the back.
Perhaps demand they craft legislation on media outlets. Have you noticed the History channel plays nothing about history anymore and is all reality tv?
Of course we should try to reach out and educate, the soap box and the ballot box are always the first and second choices; but you sound like someone with nothing to lose. What happens when the attempt at “education” fails? When the attempt to speak civilly is met with red-faced screaming? When you try to use reason and they use an armed mob.
I wonder if anyone just tried educating Hitler about how antisemitism is wrong.
I’m in a deep red state. I have no interest in letting a caravan of MAGAts come into the singular liberal, “crime-infested blue city” within 200 miles to Rittenhouse some “groomers” because their guy gets to be dictator “for a day.”
Their hate is fueled by manufactured propaganda, an outrage machine controlled by billionaires. The media needs to be regulated immediately and some Monopolies need to be broken up. There is no better time than now
Well technically it iant nor can the plan claim affiliation or support for any candidate. But its pretry clear to anyone with a brain that it does align very well with his ideology.
This is important. I notice a big push here in Trump country to distance him from it. Lots of ardent followers posting sharing stuff that suggests Project 2025 is nothing more than a “conservative wish list” that comes out every cycle. Nothing to see here! And that it has nothing to do with official policy. I suppose we’re to ignore the recent egregious decisions handed down by SCOTUS and Trump himself repeatedly saying he’d be a dictator on day 1 -specifically to enact these goals?
The root of the problem is not the hackers, the problem is that there is only one or two source of tickets there is to be hacked: Ticketmaster/AXS. These companies are the real scalpers here.
Biden dropping out right now would all but guarantee that Trump won the Presidency. Anyone calling for him to drop out knows this, and is doing it likely as someone who is horribly misguided, or intentionally to try and sway our elections by a foreign entity.
We’re past the point of registrations across multiple states, the supreme court is controlled by the right, and there is absolutely no way to swap those names out and get the new names on the ballot without pushing it all up the ladder to – you guessed it – An illegitimate supreme court who has shown us they’ll make shit up on the spot to get the result that their owners want.
So people calling for Biden to ‘step down’ - are either doing it because they’re too stupid to realize the reality of things, or they are a foreign agent attempting to sow division and limit voters on the left. Follow those social chains up to who they originate from – I guarantee they originate from people who are intentionally there to sow division in an attempt to sway our elections.
and is doing it likely as someone who is horribly misguided
This is Abigail Disney. She's rich but she's not the brightest crayon in the box politically. Her PhD is in philosophy and her dissertation was about the role of romanticized violence and war in American life. Her lists of philanthropy is what one would expect from a run of the mill rich person level activism. Tossing money at the high level stuff, never diving deeper to the root of the problem.
I'm not dissing the lady, but she absolutely falls into the misguided on this aspect.
I mean I wouldn’t call all people who want Biden to drop out as intentionally being for Trump. Alot of it is fear, panic, and maybe a bit of ignorance of historical trends. By alot of historical metrics, it does increase the chance for Trump winning, I’ll admit that. But I wouldn’t say that it’s guaranteed.
We’re past the point of registrations across multiple states
LOL, no we’re not. Biden hasn’t even been nominated yet. The earliest deadline is Ohio, which is requiring the Democratic party to do a special virtual vote to get on, but that’s still in the future.
Your link is a list of filing deadlines for the primary.
So maybe after being wrong and accusing everyone else of being foreign agents, check your own information sources that are trying to convince you of this.
and is doing it likely as someone who is horribly misguided, or intentionally to try and sway our elections by a foreign entity
And once again we come back to the liberal conspiracy theory of “We’re the only adults in the room, and anyone who disagrees with us is co-opted by foreign powers”. The worst part of it all is the shamelessness of pulling this bullshit when so much people knows you’re talking out of your ass. Fuck off.
When these two debates were announced, I knew it was going to be fucked up, but NO. Oooh he’s got to debate! He’ll show everyone how bad trump is! He needs to do it to help the undecideds!
Fucking insane gibberish of a person who learned NOTHING from 2016. We got away with it in 2020 on the sheer novelty of an adult, a representative of government, telling trump to shut the fuck up. Now that was good tv. But it was a one-off.
And now look at this shit. These fuckheads who can’t wait to elect trump are all up in here going “ooooh noooo Biden’s so bad he’s making us have trump be elected!1!!”
Goddammit. The fucking “Operation gENoSiDE jOe” wasn’t gaining enough traction so THANK FUCK a bunch of Harvard MBA fuckups roundly decided Joe should stand on stage with a demented socopathic rapist who is functionally incapable of telling the truth and, y’know, give folks in the rural areas a little of the ol’, y’know, compare and contrast! What a goddamned brilliant idea. Hey! Let’s do it twice! Yeah! We are soooo smrt.
Son of a fucking bitch, now we have to watch this garbage-truck-off-a-cliff-in-slow-motion for probably the next three months while all the Li’l Che Guevaras pile in every thread like clowns in a decrepit, backfiring bus, farting and defecating the same pointless key phrases over and over.
DNC, you fucked up again because you refuse to understand how media works. Trumps out here kicking in windows and laughing and you guys are faxing press releases to republiQan-run news organizations and hoping their spin isn’t terrible. Christ in a bucket.
They saw Biden was “too unelectable” a year ago? Sure. That’s why they won’t shut up about it. They’re experienced campaign managers. The only reason they weren’t pulling this BS in 2016 is because they were still in middle school. Well, and also because Hillary was polling at 99% the whole time.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.