Archio

>But if you get caught stealing bread, and your response is "My life's screwed", you couldn't afford the risk either.

>If you are in the unfortunate position of not being able to afford bread, eat something less expensive and try to build savings so that some day your children can afford bread.

See how this works when you conveniently dismiss the effects of severe structural problems in society as evidence of poor financial literacy?

>That crowd only seems to care if they can actively oppose Israel or the current administration

Can you think of any motivating reasons for the crowd to focus on Israel specifically? Last I checked, the American government isn't sending billions of dollars of weaponry and political cover to the Iranian government, so that is one massive reason why protesting Israel makes more sense.

>have not made a peep about the thousands of Iranians recently murdered by their regime

I don't protest to signal my moral outrage, I do it to effect change in my elected leaders. It's not my responsibility to devote an equal amount of attention to every injustice — ignoring the cause and effects in that injustice with direct connection to politicians beholden to me — because people like you will find it "disturbing".

That's because most left wing Americans don't support the Iranian regime.

People that ask "where are all the students on campus that were protesting Gaza" do so because taking action on injustice, in a way that demands accountability from their leaders, is an uncomfortable idea. For them, the purpose of taking action is largely to signal moral outrage, and making an aggrieved post on social media is the beginning and end of praxis on an issue. And if that is your mindset, why wouldn't you make an equal amount of posts about Iran as you would for Gaza? Since they are both Things That Are Morally Bad.

What they don't understand is that for people that e.g. protest in person, protesting isn't a quaint, feckless action merely meant to signal one's care about an issue to the right people. Rather, it is an action with a goal to effect specific change of behavior on a particular issue from a specific group of people (usually leaders in power that are beholden to the protesters). If you are American and protesting US military support for Israel based on the conflict in Gaza, there are practical, material, direct cause-and-effect reasons to make that argument towards your elected representatives; the same is simply not true for the Iran situation (which the majority of the US government is already aligned with bombing yet again).

It's just such a strange point of view to interpret lack of action on a particular issue as tacit support.

We (the US) just bombed Iran last summer. We are moving the largest buildup in decades of armament and materiel to Iran's doorstep RIGHT NOW, and it seems extremely likely we are about to bomb them again.

What exactly do you want to happen here? In your view, am I taking the side of the Ayatollahs because bombing isn't enough and we should be nuking Tehran instead?

It's telling that perceived tacit support of an Iranian regime — which America is more hostile to perhaps more than any other nation on the planet — is more disturbing to you than the deaths of 20k+ children in Gaza.

>We accept the risks with humans because those humans accept risk.

It seems very strange to defend a system that is drastically less safe because when an accident happens, at least a human will be "liable". Does a human suffering consequences (paying a fine? losing their license? going to jail?) make an injury/death more acceptable, if it wouldn't have happened with a Waymo driver in the first place?

It's hard to imagine how any driver could have reacted better in this situation.

The argument that questions "would a human be driving 17mph in a school zone" feels absurd to the point of being potentially disingenuous. I've walked and driven through many school zones before, and human drivers routinely drive above 17mph (in some cases, over the typical 20mph or 25mph legal limit). It feels like in deconstructing some of these incidences, critics imagine a hypothetical scenario in which they are driving a car and its their only job to avoid a specific accident that they know will happen in advance, rather than facing the reality of what human drivers are actually like on the road.

>Well you could rally in support of more action, or protest outside an Iranian embassy for example

You're describing methods of protest, but not demands. What specific action do you believe Americans should demanding from their representatives re: Iran, that the US government isn't already doing? We bombed Iran just this past summer, are you saying we should go back for round 2?

>obviously hard to speculate about because it's just the world we live in

The world we live in is the world where the US gives huge financial, material and political support to Israel. Your statement feels akin to saying "Sure there is a gigantic elephant in this room right now, but something tells me there's some unique reason why everyone is complaining about the room being cramped. Especially compared to these other rooms that don’t have a giant elephant inside.”

It's a fair point to say that the counterfactual is hard to draw up.

I will point out the main reason it's hard to come up with, is the fact that American aid, weapons sales, and diplomatic support for Israel has been so constant and unchallenged over the past several decades that we don't have many good examples of what Israel would do without impunity.

Do you sincerely believe that financial sponsorship is the primary impetus causing Americans to voice dissatisfaction in US support for Israel? That is a fascinating perspective.

I appreciate your understanding here.

Another way to put it: the point of protesting generally isn't solely to express being upset with an injustice. It's to get some actor/stakeholder - usually one's government - to DO something about the injustice.

Because of this, it's entirely rational to NOT protest with equal opportunity for every injustice that occurs around the world. Those American campus students aren't just protesting to make noise, they are hoping that their government leaders - that DEPEND on their votes - will cease enabling atrocities.

The American government hates Iran with bipartisan support and has it sanctioned to hell and back, I have no idea what I'd protest American leaders to do here?

I don’t know if you are American, but I am. Sure, I don’t support Iran giving Hamas weapons. The issue is that Iran isn’t my government and they certainly don’t give a fuck about my opinion.

The human tragedy in Gaza is enabled directly by MY representatives and funded with MY tax money and given diplomatic cover for atrocities again and again by MY government. Nothing my country is doing enables what is happening in Iran right now.

The situation is less pronounced with Europeans, but not dissimilar. The EU has sanctions on Iran, unless I’m missing something? And frankly yes, if American support for Israel ceased I think Europeans would complain less because Israel would have to stop a lot of their behavior.

“it's a fair criticism though because of the general vitriol about Hamas and Gaza.”

Ok, you’ve convinced me. I now firmly support reducing billions in American aid to Iran, curtailing Iranian use of American bombs, and diplomatic cover America gives to Iran in the UN. I am now also calling strongly to remove all these state laws we have that ban government business with companies that don’t support Iran!

Do you understand what happened in the opioid crisis, and why people are mad at the Sacklers? They weren’t hapless naive actors that didn’t fully understand “the implications” of the drugs they were selling. The effects of opioid addiction were WELL known when oxycontin was introduced, and Purdue Pharmaceuticals deliberately misrepresented critical information about the drugs they sold and had salespeople lie in a wholesale fashion on a massive scale.

It’s reasonable to have suspicion about companies and regulators in this area, but the opioid crisis is such a different situation in context.

I don’t care a nit about Sanbergs personal life either, but I certainly DO care that she can apparently silence news stories from phone calls.

I feel like the content of the story itself is pretty irrelevant here. Are you saying wealthy people abusing their influence and power to contain news stories is fine, as long as you personally view the stories as “immaterial” or “muckraking for clicks”?

How would you feel about a public figure you dislike silencing negative stories from a news organization? What if supporters of that public figure think the silencing is fine, because you don’t need to read that muckraking trash?

So what? George W. Bush's approval rate was even higher after 9/11, is each American personally responsible for his legacy?

10% of the Chinese populace is still over a hundred million people, am I to judge each of them as people according to the actions of their government (since apparently the two cannot be separated)?

You're missing the point. 70% of Americans voted for the president in the last U.S. election. Regardless of whether or not my candidate won out, I don't view criticism of my government's policy as a personal assault on myself as an American.

Let's say you have a valid, blistering disagreement with an element of American foreign policy. Do I view this as criticism of my government? Yes. Might I disagree? Sure.

What I don't do is claim that criticism of my government's decisions and myself personally cannot be separated (as the original poster argues) or claim that others are "inciting inter-cultural contempt" as the article cites.

This is the thing. I'm not claiming to have an "ideal" version of China, or claiming that I have an understanding of what all Chinese people "really want". It's a country with over a billion people, within which I'm sure there is a vast spectrum of opinions.

I would agree you if you argue it would be condescending to claim for any given issue that while the CCP argues X, people in China disagree and want Y. However, I think it's equally as condescending to claim that the opinions, behaviors, and ideologies of the CCP are fully condoned and endorsed by all of the Chinese people (and THEREFORE, criticism of one is criticism of the other). Conflating a government and its people in this way is specious for any country, but especially problematic for those where public criticism of government is unequivocally risky.

You absolutely can separate the two, and it has nothing to do with colonialism. The reason you can is because in a society where freedom of expression is curtailed, there is (and always will be) a difference between what an authoritarian government declares and the opinions of its people, even if many people agree with the authoritarian government. Only the people that agree will reasonably feel comfortable expressing their opinions.

Where does the idea that "criticism of a government is criticism of its people because a government is made up of its people" logically follow? Is criticism of the American government (which I do regularly) criticism of my own American people? What about North Korea?

I'm on a 15" macbook pro and also only see ads below the fold. Is it difficult to imagine that most users around the planet aren't working with 27" monitors or whatever size it is you have?

Strangely enough, my introduction to this brilliant poem came from Dennis Hopper’s coke fueled rendition of an excerpt in Apocalypse Now. I wonder why Coppola chose If.

Don’t you see that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind? Hey you know what, at least we can both criticize the West’s atrocities and not fear being disappeared by an authoritarian government.

Yeah bro, there were kings and feudal lords and chieftains and emperors (like Rome) all over the rest of the world for thousands of years too. To say that the Chinese are incapable of democracy because being ruled by an autocrat steadily increasing his own power is their "way of life" is frankly insulting to the Chinese.

To clarify, do you live in a city?

Respectfully: you bought your house — not the neighborhood around your house, and everything in it. It's true that it's OK to have mixed densities of housing, but I think it's an unrealistic and ungrounded expectation to buy a single family house in a city and expect your neighborhood around it to never change.

There are areas of the country where you can cheaply move to, outside of cities, that will likely never upzone (or land is so cheap you can buy everything around your house to ensure it never changes).

To comment on psychedelics in such a way betrays your lack of knowledge about how they work both chemically and practically.

I'd like to ask people who were kids in the 80s and 90s if they are aware how many Vietnam soldiers were addicted to heroin upon returning, and what kind of effect that had.

Were they microdosing, or repeatedly consuming full doses of psychedelics? Were "this and that chemical" psychedelics at all, or drugs of unknown type and providence? What is the connection to this discussion, which is about adults microdosing psychedelics?

Has it occurred to you that on an English-speaking board, posters in non-English speaking countries might be more likely to be spouses/expats? Just as the same would be true for Japanese speaking spouses on a Japanese board?

Arguably as well, South Korea is underneath significantly less geopolitical threat than Taiwan.

The question on everyone's mind, why didn't Apple make the spelling the way that it was when Mexico sold California in the mid 1800s?