>> Young people, people of color, queer folks, activists, and organizers use Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook every day.
> What if you’re not a young person, a person of color, queer, an activists, nor an organizer?
People who aren't young, of color, queer, activists, or organizers, use Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook every day, too. There's no good reason for an organization to have a presence on every social media platform under the sun, but there is one for limiting the overhead you have to do (and also for minimizing social media usage in general).
This is part of a broader, financialization-related push across the entire economy to convert one-time-purchase revenue into steady, predictable, ratchet-able recurring revenue.
As an added bonus for them, they can sell laptops with less storage (= fewer chips in this tight market) with the expectation that the customer will store everything in the cloud, with plenty of overage fees.
I dunno, I read through their good faith post, and I judge it to be pretty convincing.
Sorry you don't feel the same way, but I guess no matter what someone says, there will always be at least 1 individual in the world who disagrees with it or simply doesn't like it.
"losing by default" on elmu's "X" is actually totally okay
> If we turn our back on the voting population
I don't see how refusing to patronize 1 nazi is "turning your back on the voting population". Especially when the voting population doesn't like nazis. It's more like embracing the voting population.
But if far right parties are gaining votes - then some voting population is giving votes to them. Or are you saying that far right parties are not Nazis?
Which votes are those again? In the USA, which we're talking about here.
If refusing to patronize 1 nazi means the far right gets more voters, we would expect to see that in USA election results over the last year or so.
Fortunately, this hypothesis is not borne out in the data. In fact, I'd say your purported correlation is inverted, but I suspect there is a deeper, correlated variable: "doesn't like nazis" -> ( "doesn't vote for nazis", "doesn't patronize nazis" ).
I don't think supporters of the current US president would be horrified. They already support his anti-christian behavior, and seem more interested in being part of that group than they are in the religion itself.
More likely he would just assert that the Pope isn't actually the Pope, and thus any excommunications are void, and his supporters would roll with it. Some of them already believe this. Any words, true or false, which make them feel better to believe. That's religion, right? He is their true religion.
Sometimes you want someone to do something, but you don't have authority to order them around, and you are bad at persuasion and dealmaking, so you don't get what you want.
If you're not ok with walking away at that point, maybe put a better offer on the table?
I fail to see a better offer. Support for those trying to kill jews is not something I can accept. I don't like any option for dealing with it, but walking away is still evil.
I can't speak for you, but for me, as a jew, killing innocent people just to get what you want is bad, even if they aren't jewish. Support for genocidal wars of conquest (like russia's and israel's) isn't something I can accept.
Additionally: supporting the killing of innocents, war crimes, genocide, etc, just because the perpetrators are jewish, is eviler still. Israel's actions make all jews (like myself) look bad, and puts us at risk around the world.
Maybe try diplomacy instead? And no, diplomacy doesn't mean "take our offer with no changes or we will kill you all". It means recognizing that israel isn't better than other countries, it means treating others as equals, it means you don't get to boss around co-equal countries, and it means giving first if you want to receive.
Getting collectively bombed tends to have a unifying effect. If anything, bombing a populace would decrease the risk of an uprising that supports the bombers.
How would you feel if your city was being bombed by a hostile foreign nation, including a school full of kids? Magnanimous toward the attackers?
Your post makes a lot of bold claims (lack of support post-attacks, current missile production numbers, large portion of internal security folks killed). From where did you get that info?
> I'm not sure that we are worse than a few weeks ago
By every measure I can find, we are worse off: everything costs more, I am at greater risk of attack at home and abroad; the theocracy in Iran has moved to consolidate power similarly to the theocracy in israel; more Iranians support the regime since they're all being attacked together; the global standing and trust of the USA is further diminished; allies have been shunned and insulted; war crimes are now OK according to the USA; billions have been wasted; stocks of interceptor missiles and other weapons are dangerously depleted; the USA and israel look like losers on the world stage now. Oh yeah, and a bunch of innocent people (including lots of children) were killed in the bombing. And that's all right now, no "wait and see".
Are there any measures which indicate we're better off? Even if we assume the ones you listed were true, they are outweighed by all the damage listed above, and aren't particularly valuable to the USA, which generally did not suffer from random Iranian missile strikes or invading Iranian internal security forces prior to this war.
Israel is mostly secular and is by no means governed by Halakha; it’s not any more of a theocracy than the US is. Netanyahu is not religious at all, and though some members of his coalition are, they’re not the majority partners.
This isn’t a pro-Israel comment (I’m generally not a fan of Israel), it’s just factual. When Israel describes itself as “the Jewish state” it understands “Jewish” as referring to something that could variously be described as a culture, ethnicity or “nation”, not to the religion of Judaism.
Is that your whole takeaway after reading my post?
'yes we are worse off in every measure you listed, but I personally disagree with your use of this negative adjective to describe israel in one of the bullet points about how much worse off we are and also this isn't a pro-israel comment and my opinions are facts'?
I agree with most of your comment; I'm certainly not in favor of the war and think it was both morally dubious as well as a strategic disaster for the US. I'm just saying that Israel isn't a theocracy, which is true.
Also, there were no opinions in my comment; indeed, there were only facts.
> What if you’re not a young person, a person of color, queer, an activists, nor an organizer?
People who aren't young, of color, queer, activists, or organizers, use Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook every day, too. There's no good reason for an organization to have a presence on every social media platform under the sun, but there is one for limiting the overhead you have to do (and also for minimizing social media usage in general).
reply