To be fair, while I seriously suspect Trump’s stance towards Gaza will probably be worse than Kamala’s would have been, He isnt exactly in office yet, so his fault in this is at most limited to Israel anticipating that he probably wont do anything when he is. Had Kamala won, what is happening today would likely be largely the same.
The whole “either you hate the Palestinians or you hate the Jews” narrative that pops up whenever Israel does something wrong is part of the problem. The government of Israel uses its demographics as something of a shield from criticism, by stating that it is the Jewish state, and thus that to accuse them of wrongdoing is to be antisemitic. But it is not so; not everyone who is Jewish agrees with or desires what Israel is doing, they cant, no matter how many they might bring on board, because it is an ethnic and religious identity that includes some, like children, who aren’t even able to understand and agree to it. The actions of Israel are not the actions of Jewish people as a whole, and they never will be, because ethnic groups simply do not work that way. If anyone is being antisemitic here, it is the Israeli state itself, for attempting to tie their very real atrocities to Jewish people in order to coerce people into ignoring them. Its like the rhetorical equivalent of a criminal taking a hostage in order to deter arrest.
To be fair, I’m not sure if “just arrest anyone convenient and frame them”, is entirely in the wealthy’s interest here. Making an example is one thing, sure, but if you do that and dont get the guy that actually did it, then you have a guy out there who has proven themselves willing to go out and assassinate CEOs, who may well decide to do it again. If you do have the means to catch that guy, then what motivation is there to not just send him through the court system rather than framing someone else? Less risk of a frame up being discovered and sparking even more resentment if you have at least some genuine evidence, after all.
I think that message was a sort of sarcastic way of getting around a “dont talk about jury nullification” rule, in that saying “we cant talk about x”, while making it very clear what x is, prompts people unfamiliar with x to go look it up
“Murder is murder” is a tautology that doesn’t actually mean anything useful
money is a proxy for resources, is the thing, having someone “own” everything includes owning all the money, at which point you end up with the same issue. Ownership is meaningless without a system to enforce that, because one person cant prevent everyone else from using “their” stuff on their own, and systems require buy in from a large fraction of the population to function, which requires giving enough people a reason to participate. Automation doesnt really solve this, it increases the total amount that can be produced, meaning you can hold a higher fraction of the total because the smaller fraction left can be “enough” to keep the system running, but some tasks exist that require a significant degree of intelligence and thinking to do, meaning you must either have humans do them, or have machines that are smart and self aware enough that them finding ways around restrictive programming becomes an issue.
I dont think Mars has anything to do with some plan by the rich to escape tbh. Early space colonies by nature would be cramped, form-follows function places to live, and the rich tend to like a lot of comforts. It seems to me more likely that they would send other people to colonize mars as a vanity project, or for resource extraction, or just because they personally like the concept and have enough money to push for it to be done, than that very many of them would personally go there. They might suggest that it could be a way to escape climate change or such in order to try to prompt others to buy in, but that notion falls flat on its face when one considers that even if we burned every scrap of coal in the ground, every drop of oil, and then fired off every nuclear weapon, it would still be easier to build a settlement on earth than one on mars. If you have the resources and the technology to build a mars colony, “the planet burning” is no longer much of a threat to your survival anyway.
EDIT: I guess I should clarify that Im not trying to say that I dont think wealth inequality is an issue, I think its one of the biggest issues we have, I just think this narrative I sometimes see of “The rich all have a long term plot to kill everyone and then fly off into space” looks to me like conspiratorial thinking that overestimates the rich and misunderstands their motives, which I feel is a negative thing, because it makes the solution seem less like “replace or transition the system into one that naturally tends to a more equitable distribution of resources” and more like “These specific guys are the villains, kill/imprison them and it’ll fix everything, and also mistrust automation and space development because they further their plans”. The second of those I think would even if successfully implemented, just result in a new generation of rich people naturally arising later on as wealth begets wealth, while neglecting technologies that I feel are vital for increasing the sum total of human prosperity.
Realistically, if a couple rich people ever obtain all the money, they no longer have any, because money only has the trait of being money and not merely some piece of metal or paper or information or whatever else when it is used as a medium of exchange, and if almost nobody actually has any, then exchanging it on a meaningful scale is no longer possible.
Under this scenario, one must imagine that people would eventually start growing food and making things on land that they do not “own” and trading it amongst themselves, until some new thing that people actually have access to becomes money. Even hiring security to prevent that ceases to be possible, because paying that security means giving some of that money to someone else, and even if you do that, if theyre the only people getting paid it, then no economic base exists to support things like grocery stores that accept that money anymore, making those security people gain nothing from accepting it and thus have no incentive to do that work for you anymore. For the rich to stay rich, they must leave at least enough money (and resources) in common circulation for the economic system that maintains their power to continue to have relevance.
If the holy wine (I forget the proper term for it) is supposed to be the blood of Jesus, does that imply that if you concentrate that wine and then run an engine off it, you have a Jesus fueled car?
Does cutting fabric not dull the blades? It seems like a lot of fabrics should be tougher to cut through than paper?
thats not-a-lie (maybe that works better spoken than written)
tbf there are some pretty weird looking creatures in the ocean even now. Like, would the giant deep sea Isopods really look that out of place next to stuff like Anomalocaris? We still have plenty of spiky worm shaped things living on the bottom of the ocean. And for the softer side of animals, would things like siphonophores really look that out of place in a lineup of Cambrian fauna, if placed there and shown to someone who wouldnt have the knowledge to recognize what they actually were?
He’s an old man. Unless anti-aging research unexpectedly advances several orders of magnitude faster than its been doing in the next few years, he’ll be leaving office one way or another.
honestly, I eventually got fed up enough and instance blocked .ml on my account a couple weeks ago, and Ive barely noticed a difference. It was the bulk of lemmy right after it started to get some migration from Reddit, but it isnt nearly as essential these days already
Tbf, being with a violently aggressive person in a tight enclosed space is still risky regardless
I keep my cat food bags inside an old pet carrier; its already designed for a cat to be unable to break through easily, and seeing as they associate it with the vet, they dont really want to go in there.
Ive usually seen “Expat” defined as someone working in another country, but explicitly with the intent to be there temporarily and leave once their time at that job ends, rather than moving there with an intent to stay and join that society. Which, granted, doesnt seem to be what OP is actually talking about in this case.
Its the “c” in the text portion
Pff, car users dont need society to get around, everyone knows road and bridge and fuel infrastructure are natural parts of the word that are just there on their own already! /s