Andy @ andrewrgross @slrpnk.net

Posts

41

Comments

1,072

Joined

2 yr. ago

I feel similarly, but I'm not that upset.

It's not really reasonable to expect something to remain constantly great over and over.

Chances must be taken. Some stuff won't work. I think marvel films in the future will excite me, and I'm not that upset in the present when they don't.

Black panther 2 was pretty good, btw, and I'm hoping that Iron Heart might be the pivot we need.

A young, non-rich version of Iron Man sounds like a great recipe for getting back to basics.

I think this article omitted important further context by not describing the target selection approach the IDF was using: they had an AI tool make guesses as to who was part of Hamas, then suggest bombing runs of their homes when they were believed to be inside around meal times or sleeping. They reserved precision weapons for commanders, and used dumb bombs to kill low-ranking suspected combatants.

This approach is inherently designed to create a pretense to carpet bomb neighborhood full of families based on a process with little to know human oversight it discretion.

For details, look up "lavender" and "where's Daddy".

This is so, so fucked up.

It's hard to grieve effectively in the face of so many tragedies. Here is another one.

That is very true. Joey Ayoub of The Fire These Times coined a phrase months ago for describing the mainstreaming of genocidal ideation among the public, which I keep returning to: "The Smotrich-ization of the Israeli public". It's real, and it's terrifying.

Still, my impression is that Israelis are in a weird, weird, weird place:

• They are largely supportive of the war, but most want a ceasefire deal that would bring home the hostages.
• They are largely furious at Netanyahu, though his support has recently started to go back up.
• There has been enormous pro-democracy anti-government protests before the war, then there were demonstrations demanding negotiations for a hostage release that were supposed to be explicitly distinct from anti-government demonstrators, and there are also pro-ceasefire, pro-hostage demonstrations that are explicitly NOT distinct from the pro-democracy anti-government demonstrations.
• Most Israelis don't believe the war has "gone too far", but also many Israelis feel that the war has been mishandled (largely due to the cost on Israeli troops, the economy, and international standing).
• There is support for the IDF, but also fury and blame at the IDF for failing so catastrophically during Oct. 7.
• There is also widespread anger at the far right for insisting on exempting the ultraorthodox from conscription, while troop shortages force middle-age reservists back into service, but there's no clear indication that anyone has any leverage to impose on the far and ULTRA FAR right, who have been essentially governing Israel with smug impunity for months now.
• And, overall, Israelis seem to like Biden a lot.

I apologize that i don't have sources for each of these, these are just a collection of insights I recall reading in the last few months.

Ultimately, I think they're largely out of answers AND being herded aggressively by a well-tuned state propaganda machine, which means that I think their attitudes are in flux. I think they could be led in many directions, and many futures are possible. Right now though, the most successful shepherds are Smotrich and Ben-Givir.

Lastly, there are a few very small Palestinian-Jewish unity groups. These may look irrelevant considering their numbers are so few, but when people ask where we could find leaders capable of negotiating peace (considering most of the Palestinian ones have been killed to prevent any peace process), I think this would be where we'd find them. Despite their numbers, they terrify the far right. They face extreme threats of violence, and I think that reaction belies the threat they pose to Jewish Supremacy.

Yeah, and more importantly, Biden needs to learn the public component of diplomacy.

I read his interview in Time, and it's weird, because it at least gave me some aspect into what he's thinking.

He's old as fuck. He has learned decades of procedures and standard practice in diplomacy, and he does NOT understand that a lot of it happens in the open now. Biden thinks he's playing chess with all the diplomatic messages he sends along backchannels, and he has no idea that this is just an arm wrestling match now. People judge you by what you say and do transparently.

Biden legit thinks he and Bibi are like cousins who grew up together who are having a tough fight, and Bibi is all fucking politics. He'd slit any throat he has to get what he wants, and he will bury Biden in a heartbeat.

Biden should go to Israel, and in a public address announce that the country is turning a corner: it will be safer than ever, and America is going to assist with a long term peace process, which they won't lead but will provide security guarantees for. And don't tell Bibi any of this in advance. And when Bibi reacts, say that Bibi has lost his trust and that of the elected public, and they need to hold new elections before getting any new weapons. Get some 'nads, man!

I wouldn't mind a complete cut-off in weapons, but I also wouldn't mind if they continue to supply rocket defenses or something if its part of a pressure campaign to send Netanyahu packing. I want Israeli prosecutors and the Hague to argue over who gets to lock his ass up first.

Oh, I see. Thank you for the clarification.

I think you could argue this before the passage of the Nation State Law of 2018. But now it's enshrined in law that the state exists to privilege Jews specifically and selectively. That's really putting it all in black and white.

Also I get asked about why I didn't criticize China or Russia or Iran etc, and the reasons are simple:

1. I do
2. my tax dollars didn't support their misdeeds and
3. I'm Jewish, so I have a huge investment in Israel's actions. They insist that I be judged by their actions, so now I have to get involved. Also, I actually like Israel. I'd like it to be a liberal, multi ethnic democracy and not just another Middle Eastern martial theocracy with a Jewish twist.

Hold on a sec: self determination is always within the context of recognizing the right of self determination of other groups and the basic human rights of everyone involved.

Also, Israel already has millions of Palestinian citizens. And all of these people deserve a say in what the resulting arrangement looks like.

A two state solution is one possibility, but there is no strict requirement that it is the only or best way to serve the needs of those involved.

This meme is bad.

1. if you look closely, you'll notice that there's no real joke. Israel and Nazi Germany should date. That's a shit tier joke. It's relying on edginess too hope paper over that there's no real humor.
2. from a political commentary perspective, it's awful. We have a colonial state founded by people who have experienced a collective tragedy that they then allowed to justify displacement of an indigenous population, followed by decades of alliance with Western imperialism and a slide to the hard right, with lots of delusion and gas lightning. And we have an aggrieved former great power looking to expand over neighbors while killing of undesirable immigrants. Yeah, two genocides. But they're materially different in terms of approach, and the groups pictured hate each other. It's like you know there's atrocities, and you know Jews are involved, and that's kind of the end of your insight but you really wanted to make a meme anyway.

Find something interesting to say.

Also, free Gaza, release the hostages, lock up Netanyahu and all the rest, etc etc

That is very, very interesting. I thought you were just being cryptic, but I'm really glad I asked for clarity, because this was super informative. Thank you.

I have good news: It exists! http://retrographer.org/

A lot of them are unrecognizable, but here's an example of a good one: http://retrographer.org/photos/4215

The bad news is that's a bit limited. It was the senior project of a CMU student in 2010. It only exists for Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. If you wanted to make one for another city, though, I think you could contact the creator, ask for the code, and then recruit people to get a ton of photos from another city's historical institutions, and then crowdsource geotagging them (which is what the guy did).

http://retrographer.org/learnMore

Is this based on anything? I don't know if this is meant to be taken literally, or if this is some kind of coded reference.

I feel like that would garner headlines.

I appreciate that this is a little closer to an objective, but it doesn't seem serious or coherent.

For instance, why not fully commit? Why not give Zalinsky full permission to do whatever he wants? Why not let him strike Moscow? Why not threaten Moscow with a direct American attack?

Are we willing to collapse the country or not? Are we committed to doing whatever it takes to ensure a complete victory for Ukraine or not?

People act as though anyone who discusses limits to assistance is a traitor to our ally like we haven't already been placing huge limits on our assistance, and like they themselves aren't all opposed to actually doing the things I think it would take to win.

Why are my limits a traitorous betrayal and Joe Biden's limits courageous support of an ally when it's not clear that there's a meaningful difference in the outcome of the war?

I don't really get how this analogy is useful. I'm not of the opinion that anything Russia is doing is justifiable or just.

Putin's was of aggression is very bad. We agree on that.

This is a good question.

I think I would support their defense more assertively if I was presented with a compelling case of what the options are, and what outcomes each might lead to.

Currently, I feel like I'm only really presented with the demand that we continue to send enough weapons with restrictions that we keep the war going, as a way to weaken Russia geopolitically and to give money to the military industrial complex without a clear plan beyond that, or any sign that a victory is on its way. And then eventually, Biden loses in part because his foreign policy is broadly unpopular, and most likely Trump cuts off all aid and the Russia conquers Ukraine.

I don't see a coherent strategy to improve Ukraine's negotiating position from where it is. Just a lot of jingoism. If there's an actual plan to win, lay it out. Otherwise, it feels like the alternative is just the same outcomes currently on the table (or worse), but after more people are dead.

It's got real Dr.Strangelove vibes.

"Mr. President! We cannot allow a mineshaft gap!"

These fucking clowns. If you assume the absolute worst of them, you'll rarely be surprised.

As far as I can tell, that's de rigeur for these now. It's largely the same on both sides in the other war too.

I think international pressure needs to be brought to bear. I can appreciate that the end of the war will likely require unpopular concessions. But I think humanitarian concerns as well as the need to halt the advance of authoritarian nationalism around the world requires an end to the two big wars.

If we can't find an end, the US should withdraw from both. Our role is prolonging them.

When I see these comments, I wonder if you understand that this isn't effective politicking.

Will this bring you comfort when Trump wins? Explaining why you think Biden should have won?

You can't logic the electoral outcome you want, matter how many links you include. It doesn't matter that Trump is worse. We know. It's not working.

Also: Biden needs a turnout operation. In 2020, it was all the Bernie lefties who actually knocked on doors. Biden supporters write checks, but ultimately you need folks to remind their neighbors to vote, and give people rides. I think most lefties will still turn out and vote for Biden. But they aren't going to pull him across the finish line like they did last time.

Biden has to change course. I think he'll have a very, very, hard time winning if he stays on the current course.

That's fascinating.

Well, I guess these things are complicated.

First, for supporters of Palestinian liberation who are unclear: @chakan2@lemmy.world is correct. Palestinians largely endorse Hamas at this point, and believe that the attack on Oct. 7 was a justified response to their treatment by Israel. I understand that this is inconvenient for those of us who support Palestinian liberation but do not approve of Hamas' tactics, but it's a reality that we need to accept and move forward on. I don't believe that the endorsement of genocide by Palestinian civilians robs them of their right to life any more than I believe the widespread endorsement of genocide within Israeli public life after Oct. 7 robs them of their right to life and dignity as well.

As for your question, the short answer is that people aren't good at crafting a nuanced stance on multi-axis conflicts with no clear Galactic Empire style baddy and a plucky, ethical resistance. Ultimately, many people have concluded that the Israeli government has more blood on their hands and a greater responsibility for Hamas' use of violence than Hamas does. And so they're inclined to view pro-Israeli stances skeptically in a blanket way.

As for the article: I think this is always distraction. I want Hamas and Israel to accept the terms of the current ceasefire, and return the hostages, withdraw from Gaza, and begin a peace process. I want Biden to use leverage to make that happen, and to stop financing and arming the genocide, regardless of what flags people carry in the streets.

If you live in NY, well then this matters. Figure out your communities. But for the rest of this, it's just a smear job on Palestinian rights activism.