Offsprings facing judgement for their parents is fucked up. They didn't choose their parents. As for getting the Palestinians justice after their genocide: realisticaly we can only try to make the right wing Israelis see them as equal humans after a few generations or support Israel's left so they push them out. To do that we have to keep telling the Palestinians story.
As for the real history beeing erased: as I currently see it the support for Israels actions is dwindling in the western countries. So I don't think the narrative beeing replaced is realistic. There also is too much evidence for what happened. Israel isn't all powerful.
My favourite journalism outlet is Jung & naiv. They are German but purely YouTube based and donation funded. They do very long interviews with relevant political figures from the chancellor to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.
Another german creator who made a full blown fiction series with CGI and of a quality that is equal to traditional production companies is Julien Bams 'Songs aus der Bohne'.
Yeah but they got to do something. They are the reason the police isn't moving in. So if I were in their place I'd either coordinate with the police so they could move in or try to take the situation in my own hands or stop protesting all together because it allows people to do looting under my umbrella. That makes me responsible. If the looting happened anywhere else the cops would have done something about it long ago. So like go to a protest tomorrow that isn't right next to a store that you must have taken notice of by now is being looted.
I am specifically talking about the guy in a wheelchair and at least 5 other people I've recognised that were in the midst of the protest before. Those are clearly protesters not criminals that randomly showed up or just tagged along.
They are of course only a small portion of the protesters. However no one calling the cops on them or hindering them makes them complicit.
I'd assume if we lived on a world where UV or infrared wavelengths were the most intense we'd evolve eyes to work around the problems that our eyes have. There probably is an upper and lower limit to the wavelengths that animals on earth have adapted to and there probably also is some physical limit (imagine wavelengths of 1 kilometer).
However the ability to see in the wavelength that is most intense is a big advantage since everything that does photosynthesis is probably that colour and being able to see those tasty morsels would be an advantage.edit: actually plants reject the wavelengths that are most intense since they are too intense for photosynthesis edit: I have no idea how phosythesis would work on a planet wit a different wavelength distribution.
Edit: thanks for the info though. I didn't know that
In general objects that appear to us as white either emit a mix of waves with different wavelengths in such a way that we perceive the total of it as roughly equally blue, red and green or reflect all the light that hits them diffusely. So white will always be white since it just means cone triggering equilibrium. Even if your primary colours change.
Fo light emitters it's a bit complicated and partly depends on if our cone cells which are responsible for colour reception would have evolved differently.
With our current sun and atmosphere they have evolved to perceive a range of wavelengths that are the most abundant/intense and don't have a drop in intensity in the middle. Here is a graph showing solar and terrestrial wavelength intensities compared to wavelengths we have evolved to see.
So to find out if the range of wavelengths we are able to see would be different if our star were a red dwarf we would need to take the emission spectrum of the star you'd want to replace our star with(the orange part), then remove from that the percentages of each wavelength that our atmosphere absorbs to get the terrestrial wavelength intensities (the dark blue part).
Then you could probaly look at that graph and take a chunk out of the Y-axis that covers the highest intensity wavelengths (cause plants would probably have that colour and we'd want to see those) while not getting too long and also trying to avoid lower intensity dips in wavelength. Then you've got your visible colour range. If that range is the same as our current one then white always stays white.
However for light emmiting objets depending on if the visible colour range we now perceive is different, our cone cells would also now be triggered at different wavelengths meaning that some stuff that emits roughly an equal amount on each wavelength our cone receptors can perceive which we before saw as white, we would now perceive as colourfull. However all of the natural white light emitters in nature are perceived as such because they are blasting out light on the whole wavelength spectrum basically. So even if our cone cells shifted they'd still be triggered equally and the object would still appear white.
As for the objects that reflect the light diffusely, it would depend on whether they actually absorb some wavelengths that just were outside of our visible wavelength range before. If they do then we would now perceive them as having a colour and if they still diffusely reflect all the wavelengths of now visible light they'd still be white.
Edit: fixed the implications for white perception
Edit2:actually answered the questions, structure
Yareckt @ Yareckt @lemmynsfw.com Posts 5Comments 148Joined 2 yr. ago 
My lord! O why haven't I been blessed by this video before?