I will also add that I think in the long run, as we try to figure out how to differentiate between humans and machines, the only real reliably solution I see is to focus on elevating the individual. Having people with long histories validate their reality by living and documenting it.

I don’t upvote something that I’d be ashamed for someone to see I upvote. I might make an exception for pornographic content, but even with that, if it’s pseudononymous in that it’s not attached to my personal public life, I don’t mind if someone can trace through and see what a specific account I use for those purposes has liked and disliked.

There’s a weird element to the war that I never really hear people examine:

Netanyahu want’s Trump to win, and has an enormous amount of power to humiliate and troll Harris and Biden. I really hope the Harris campaign – who seem to honestly be much smarter than most political campaigns in recent memory on either side – is preparing for contingencies like Netanyahu pulling out of the negotiation the day before Harris’ acceptance speech and doing something crazy like attributing Biden’s unconditional support for his decision not to concede.

Anytime Netanyahu wants, he can basically throw a grenade into the US election by thanking Biden and Harris.

I really hope they’re considering their options, because even divorced from basic morality, unconditional support for Israel clearly has major electoral liabilities.

The whole thing feels farcical. How are we struggling to get negotiators to agree to a proposal they originally suggested while they are entirely reliant on us to do the thing that we’re asking them to stop doing?

I feel like one must have a humiliation kink to do Anthony Blinken’s job.

Realistically, you go to work at the place that does the work you like. This person certainly wrote from this voice BEFORE they started working at the NYTimes, and was hired because of it.

have espoused divisive rhetoric and advanced policies to expand Israel’s hold on the territory

It’s funny how obviously you can see the authors drawing on the NYTimes style guide when trying to find an acceptable way to say that Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are violent ultranationalists who support the use of terrorism to ethnically cleanse and annex occupied territory.

“Expand Israel’s hold”? Come. On. They have said over and over that they already believe this territory is theirs by law of might and divine right, and have called over and over for a specific favored ethnic group to drive out the undesirable indigenous population by making them choose between surrendering their land or dying for it.

It’s just maddening to see them talk about genocide and apartheid the way a parent might spell out words when trying not to let their kid know that they ate the last slice of birthday cake.

This is true, but we also need to be realistic about the fact that saying you support an agreement is never an actual guarantee that you’d support it if the other side agreed to sign.

Israel has repeatedly asserted that they supported a deal only to find one more small issue every time Hamas agreed. And it’s important to be clear-eyed that we cannot really assume what Hamas will do if Israel finally agreed. I desperately hope that Sinwar recognizes that a ceasefire under any terms would be in his best interest. But this is a guy with his own vision of what success is, and leading after an assassination of Haneyeh. That’s complicated. It’s very hard to predict what someone in that situation will do.

I hope that what they say is true. I think acting as the more honorable party would be in their interest. But we need to recognize that until Netanyahu is forced to sign on the line, at this point we really don’t know what to expect from Sinwar.

I think it’s somewhat of an academic point. I’ve heard it suggested that the proposal was drafted by the Israeli negotiation team (which I believe is led by the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency). It’s never been entirely clear whether they are on the same page as Netanyahu. It may have been a proposal largely drafted by Biden’s team which he then tried to attribute to Israel as part of a weak pressure campaign, or it may have been a genuinely Isreali proposal in the sense that it was drafted by the negotiators. But the key element is that it despite what Biden or anyone else says, there was no point at which Netanyahu was willing to accept a ceasefire under the terms agreed to by Israeli negotiators.

It may be noteworthy because there is speculation that the army and intelligence services are increasingly dissatisfied following Netanyahu’s orders. But there is no indication as far as I’m aware that they’re prepared to do anything about it.

Yeah. To elaborate on this, I can’t really say where Hamas is on a ceasefire, because they’ve got new leadership. But I can say that Netanyahu and his cabinet have pretty much said that they’ll only agree to a ceasefire on the condition that every member of Hamas turns themselves in the nearest IDF soldier for a summary execution. They’ve firmly rejected Biden’s ceasefire proposal, and then whipped out their dicks and peed on it.

Biden could secure Israel’s cooperation if he wanted to. They are completely dependent on us. But unless the breakthrough that Biden is thinking of is him remember that and then telling Bibi, I don’t see what else changes. Netanyahu has firmly rejected this proposal over and over and over and made no indication that he’s moved at all on this.

Also, if he did there is no real guarantee that Hamas will go along with it. They expressed willingness before… but that was under very different circumstances, under a totally different leader.

Yeah, I think if they can hold it, it makes a lot of sense.

I would add that I imagine that it’s also a pretty strong psychological strike against the morale of Russian soldiers.

Personally, I’m typically outside the mainstream on the war in Ukraine (I’m more skeptical of the unquestioning supply of aid by the US than most people), but I think that strategically, this makes plenty of sense. And as much as I really hate war or loss of life even by the aggressors, I can’t help but wish to see the kind of progress that forces Russia to end this insane, disgusting folly of an invasion as quickly as possible.

A little bit of good news. Nice.

What a tremendous dick

Oh man… this conflict is so, so, SO hard to watch or bear. It’s so hard to process this kind of devastation.

Sometimes I feel kind of numb (like right now), and other times it gives me nightmares. Both are unpleasant. Even though they certainly don’t compare at all to actually living through all this in Gaza.

Why must we divide the tribe? I don’t know how leftist who can’t identify as such plans to exercise collective power. But you do you.

That’s a leftist. You’re a leftist, buddy.

I relate a bit, though. I think it’s cringe when socialists call each other “comrade”.

It’ll be interesting to see how he responds to this. I think an appropriate message would be something like, ‘This is terrible: assassinations only weaken democracy, and so no matter how great the threat Trump poses, his defeat must be electoral.’

To quote Dubya, I don’t think Biden “does nuance”. I doubt he’s equipped. Perhaps this big event will give him an excuse to exist the race and say it’s because of something other than the debate performance.

That’s a great point: I’m not saying that you have to draw them a footbath. Sometimes violence is necessary. But it’s gotta be part of a larger strategy to remove their sources of power. Domestically, direct physical street confrontations and assassinations seem to usually belie a lack of larger strategic goal.

Yeah, on reflection, I agree.

Fair. If you’ve got better terms, let me know. My point is that I think it would be silly to worry that the guy who tried to assassinate a fascist is going to make peaceful, non-violent antifa activists look bad. Using violence to fight fascism is the name of the game, right?

To be clear, I’m not hating on antifa. It’s a strategy, and I don’t like to fight with allies over tactics. But I think it’s silly to be engaged in violent struggle and worry about the bad press of being associated with violent struggle.

You know what? I guess that’s fair.

I guess we’ll likely see.

Was the shooter a crisis actor? Did he fake this because he’s planning to rig the election?