How is respect in this context any different than tolerance?
I think dismissing people based on their beliefs is essentially saying I should only value the opinions(tolerate) of those who agree with me. Taken to the extreme that could easily lead to anyone with 'bad' beliefs being forcibly reeducated. Sound familiar?
imo there isn't enough content on Lemmy to only whitelist certain communities. I prefer to just block the extra stuff I don't want. All is fine if you take out most the low effort communities. I only have 10 or so communities blocked and it makes a noticeable difference. Much easier than subscribing to a bunch of communities for me.
I realize this is a bit off topic, but do UK's judges still use those fake wigs today? I know that they did in back when the US split off, but I just wondering if they still do or if this is just a relevant stock photo.
expands the definition of “gravely disabled” to include people who are unable to provide themselves basic needs such as food and shelter
So if you can't afford rent in CA, you are gravely disabled.
Sounds like a 'great' idea. All cops have to do is say you misuse drugs or alcohol or get a someone to diagnose you with a mental illness and BAM your no longer free. I see no possible way for this to be abused. /s
What is more scary to me than some people fighting halfway across the world is how quickly people get so worked up over it. There are 14 other conflicts happening throughout the world that are similar in scale but you never hear about them because they are relatively poor countries. Humans have fought each other all throughout our history. Guess what? It still happens. It is quite simply decades of propaganda that causes such an intense reaction to an event like this. People only care about this because the people in charge of their media bubbles want them to care about it.
Yes, Hamas did a bad thing. No one is denying that. But take a step back and look at the context of the past 20 years. Israel has done many bad things to Palestine over the past years. Israel has killed ~10k+ Palestinians in the past 20 years vs the ~1k the Israelis that Palestinians have killed.
It is not surprising that pissed off enough Palestinians to convince them to do something about it. It is only surprising if you are only seeing tiny snippets of the big picture fed to you by one of the parties supporting the conflict.
Yes, I did not fully explain all the context of the situation. I did so intentionally as I was providing a high level overview. Omitting details does not make me wrong.
The conflict I am referring to in the second sentence is Haganah or Irgun's bombing of the british embassy. To go into more detail, the same group of people that were assisting to bring Jews to Israel was also behind an attack on the British Embassy.
My understanding is that after ww2 lots of Jews moved to Israel until they made up a sizable portion of the population of Palestine. There was enough conflict between the 2 races/religions that Britian petitioned the UN to come up with a solution. The solution was breaking Palestine up into Israel and Palestine. There has been on and off conflict between the two groups ever since with Israel being the most successful in the conflict. I would say it's recently been largely a cold conflict with a few little skirmishes between them. Conventions of War only apply if there someone willing to enforce them.
The people and party are two different things. There are 50+ million republicans. It is a mistake to assume that they all support what happened on Jan 6.
Most of them are probably just uninformed or misinformed and therefore support their team. Just because some republicans did actively support Jan 6 doesn't mean they all support it. Mostly, they just chose to ignore headlines because they do not like the cognitive dissonance it causes.
Is the media really trying to blame the wrong perpetrator just like they did for 9/11? I guess people learned nothing from the US's botched response to 9/11.
It's pretty simple really. Not including the recent attack, Israel has killed 10k+ Palestinians since 2000 vs the ~500 Israelis killed in conflict. It is pretty simple to see why a group of Palestinians would do something like this. They are angry at Israelis oppressing them.
With that being said, their desire for revenge is understandable. There is still no reason to murder innocent Israelis.
making the parallel to 9/11 is a mistake, or(more likely) a jingoistic attempt to trick Americans into supporting a rapidly concluding genocide.
Or its just a headline designed to attract attention. I think it is largely an accurate comparison but it is designed to pigeonhole readers into looking at it the same way they view 9/11. I think a lot of people would interpret a 9/11 like event as being a good enough reason to escalate, but I disagree with that because of the result of 9/11. A bunch of senseless suffering for everyone involved except the weapons manufacturers.
I share the same sentiment but I can see why someone might want to not support Youtube in any way because they don't want to support Google's stranglehold on the internet. Unfortunately the correct way to address that problem is sensible regulation. Call me skeptical, but that's not gonna happen anytime soon.
So why should I trust you when you call someone untrustworthy? You keep calling people names and that doesn't exactly lead me to trust you. Trust is in the eye of the beholder and your cussing doesn't exactly lead me to trust your viewpoint.
Objectively Yang and everyone on the list of 20+ notable member are more trustable to the general public than you simply because they are important enough to be mentioned by a Wikipedia entry. There are 14 democrats and 13 republicans listed on the notable member chart.
You don't have to trust everyone in an organization to trust that organization. I would rather support an organization that might be lying over 2 organizations that I know are lying.
Anyway, I understand your viewpoint and can respect it even if I happen to see it differently. Thanks for explaining your view.
Got it. You think anything republican is impure therefore bad. Essentially you think to be good you must not associate with bad people. It is for or against. There is no grey area. You have to meet my purity test of not being a bad person so I can support you.
Sorry, but the world is not black and white. There is a gray area. The reality is that politics to the average person is no different than a rooting for team sport. By advocating for ranked choice voting you seem to be willing to step out of that viewpoint a little, but you still think all republicans are bad.
PS: when you cuss it just lets me know you are dehumanizing the people you are referring to. So I try to somewhat ignore that as I do not support dehumanizing people.
So you are mistrustful of him because you don't think hes qualified to be president. That is a reasonable rationale for distrust.
He doesn’t know what he’s doing
No one always knows what they are doing, that is part of being an imperfect human. That he admits it to some degree just means he is being honest about his skills and abilities and is willing to learn.
Anyway you are entitled to think someone is not qualified for president if you want. However, that does not disqualify that he is at least trying to do exactly what you think should be done.
I have deep, intense skepticism of anything Andrew Yang touches or endorses
Okay, I have deep, intense skepticism of any current politician.
It’s literally bankers and Republicans
No, its not literally bankers and Republicans. All you have to do is look at the Notable member chart to see that. It does have some republicans who have joined which isn't exactly a surprise since they are 33% of the country. As far as bankers, there was no mention of the word banker in the article so not sure where you're getting that.
Why are you cursing about an wikipedia article? Is it because you are angry at it?
Guess I got that mixed up with the house where gaetz was using his power to do something similar. It is all to easy for me as I ignore peoples titles. Maybe I subconsciously replace senator with professional liar. It is interesting that the same sort of rules do apply to the senate even though they technically have democratic leadership. Rules that require everyone to 'fall in line' are the product of a lazy and corrupt ruling class in my opinion.
How is respect in this context any different than tolerance?
I think dismissing people based on their beliefs is essentially saying I should only value the opinions(tolerate) of those who agree with me. Taken to the extreme that could easily lead to anyone with 'bad' beliefs being forcibly reeducated. Sound familiar?