I think this is largely true. I mean, I also think that the story of Republican obstructionism has really prominent ever since 2010, when Democrats lost their control over the government. I think a lot of people remember when Mitch McConnell gave that infamous PowerPoint presentation in congress saying that the party’s chief priority would be to ensure that Obama was a 1-term president, and the means of achieving it would be to obstruct and deny Democrats anything that could be spun as a legislative victory. I’m not sure what’s really new. Maybe it’s that anyone who had even shred of optimism that Republicans would be willing to compromise has now surrendered that optimism, which is partially what accounts for the Democrats’ move to the left. I think that’s at least part of it. But obviously there are also cultural aspects to polarization too, and part of it is the growing confidence of the left in its worldview and orthodoxies.

I was pretty sure you brought this topic up just so you could accuse me of bad faith. No bad faith, my guy. Don’t even know what bad faith would mean in this context, given that I couldn’t possibly know that you’re writing on your phone (I am too) and that’s why you dropped an operative phrase. Honestly I find a lot of ambiguity in what you’ve been writing.



I’m a little confused about what you’re asking when you say “why then?” But if you’re asking me why it’s antisemitic (or at least why they’re saying it’s antisemitic), I’ll tell you. It’s because of assumptions that make up the anti-Israel worldview. They say that:

1. Jews are not a nation, and therefore they cannot have the national rights to self-determination that nations are entitled to
2. Jews do not have a historic connection to their historic homeland, or, if they did, it is superseded by the rights of other peoples
3. Because Jews are not a real nation, and because they have no historic connection to the land, Zionism as an enterprise is nothing more than an illegitimate form of settler colonialism, which exists only because individuals have moved to a land with the sole intention of dispossessing the indigenous people of that land for their own advantage. Zionism is not, as Jews and Zionists themselves see it, a national liberation movement and a restoration of former sovereignty, but an illegitimate exercise of a foreign people to subjugate its indigenous population.

It’s because those premises (1 and 2), which are totally false and not at all grounded in reality (thus making holding those beliefs ignorant, or a denialist — one should know better), and because they lead to the conclusion that a Jewish state in any part of the historic Jewish homeland would be illegitimate, thus singling out Jews as uniquely undeserving of a homeland, that they are antisemitic.

I’ve said this before, but I’m not so optimistic that these changes will be enduring. Once Trump’s out of office, Democrats will become complacent again. Democrats’ criticism of Trump, I think, is largely opportunistic, and even a little shameless, given all the continuities between Obama’s policies and Trump’s (which is not to say they’re the same). Once our guy (or lady) is in office, if we’ll go back to knee-jerk defenses of the Democratic-run status quo (just like Republicans do now while they’re guy is in office) and people (on both the left and the right) who point out the Democrats’ hypocrisy will be hushed and ridiculed, just as they are now, when you deviate from orthodoxy.

I’d be curious to see if a Democrat winning would exacerbate the coalitional tensions in the party or temporarily conceal them. It seems like currently both are happening in the GOP.

I agree that people are mobilized now. And I think that’s why pro-Bernie people see him as the only real option. He’s not just running for president; he’s trying to run a social movement that will remain mobilized once he’s president. The Democratic base is primarily mobilized now to vote; once we have the presidency, that infrastructure will be dismantled. We’ll begin to care less about politics. A distinguishing feature of Bernie’s candidacy is he wants to keep the infrastructure up and running once he’s president.

By the way, I don’t disagree that the wording of the definition could potentially lead to various forms of abuse. That the definition could be used to crackdown on dissent is a reasonable concern. I think it’s an inherent problem with the government getting involved in prosecuting hate crimes: definitions of what constitutes hate will inevitably be too inclusive for some circumstance and not inclusive enough in others, resulting overreach and wrongful prosecution. Unfortunately, prejudiced views about Israel plays a prominent role in the global rise of antisemitism. It has to be part of the definition. I take issue with some of the wording of the definition too, though.

Like “don’t criticize Israel for things that you don’t criticize other democratic nations for” is good in spirit, but as part of hate crimes laws can only be used for one purpose. Unfortunately I have a feeling that outlawing economic action against Israel is a higher priority for western governments than action against antisemitism.

Definitely possible. It’s too bad. That anti-BDS stuff is generally counter-productive. It’s an unfortunate feature of North American Jewish organizations that in recent decades they’ve defined the interests of US/Canadian Jews as an interest group primarily in terms of Israel, and so they’re poorly equipped to do much else.

This is what I mean.

I’m Scottish, Bavarian, and matrilineal ashkenazi. What’s my homeland? More importantly, do I need a homeland in order to experience self-determination? Is it ok if my clan invades our ancestral Scottish lowlands home and displaces the filthy Englishmen who currently live there? Would it be ok if I called you a racist for criticizing doing that, or if I got your government to pass a law saying it’s racist?

I know it’s not the same thing, and I’m not saying Jewish people don’t have a special connection to Israel or shouldn’t have a right to live in their ancestral homeland if they want. We all should be able to live wherever we want, as far as I’m concerned. I’m just saying that as a modern liberal democracy goes, it doesn’t treat members of other ethnicities fairly (including, as I previously mentioned, Jewish people of African descent).

Hypothetically, I also think Kurdistan is the only option for the Kurdish people to escape genocide. It’s better for the Kurdish people to have a nation state. But I’d also criticize Kurdistan if they instituted similar laws that Israel has. You don’t need to support the destruction of something to recognize it has problematic aspects. And seeing a group of Jewish people (who live in / govern one sovereign nation) as racist doesn’t mean you see all of them that way.

This is a fair point. To be clear i was only talking about Israel’s immigration law, not to Judaism in general. I was not aware that the law considered conversion. So I will stop criticizing Israel for having racist immigration laws, and start criticizing it for just religious discrimination.

Identity’s a complex thing. Someone could say, for instance, that it’s wrong to say that someone is a Lithuanian Jew; it’d be better to say their of Jewish Lithuanian — That is, they’re a Lithuanian national first, and a Jew second (rather than vice versa). Like, people can choose whatever aspects of their complex identity to make salient; that’s why there were Jews in the 19th/20th century who were, for example, German nationalists (and French, etc). They saw their Germanness and their membership in the German nation as more relevant than their Jewishness, and it was what mobilized them politically. People can believe whatever they want about themselves, but there usually needs to be a critical mass of people who agree that they belong to a community before it’s politically and socially salient.

The examples you’ve given are obviously analogous to Israel-Palestine, and intended to make the debates seem arbitrary and silly. But to be a little less silly: would it make sense for someone to be offended to be told, in the midst of Scotland’s efforts to separate from the UK, if someone told a Scot that they aren’t Scottish, they’re British? The only reason why nations exist is because people believe they’re part of a nation, and people who aren’t part of that nation recognize what those who are believe about themselves. I think Hegel was right that the combination of self-identification and recognition is the basis of nationality (and the rights that nations are entitled to, although I don’t think Hegel would say that).



Israel’s not like some super-progressive utopia, and there’s plenty of discrimination and all sorts of other bad stuff that happens there (as is true of every country), but it’s shortcomings are greatly exaggerated. In some respects it’s treatment of minorities is more progressive than the US, in that it recognizes the rights of minorities to preserve their culture and language through education and so on. It also has a weird system that’s a vestige of the Ottoman period, where all issues of religion and personal status are the purview of state-funded religious courts. What this boils down to is that Israel has state-funded Sharia courts, and if your a Muslim you can can only get marry another Muslim, and that marriage happens through the the court. (The country recognizes marriages from abroad, too, which is how people get around the system. Civil marriage doesn’t exist but it’s coming.)

So Israel’s not necessarily a model democracy, but there’s also a lot that’s less outrageous than you might be led to believe, even if imperfect and not entirely equitable.



Good! Ha.

I mean, I certainly think a reasonable person can believe that Israel is fundamentally racist by design, because it’s an “ethno-nationalist” state whose raison d’etre is the parochial interests of its religious-national majority, and because it has policies that are designed to preserve its demographics, which is also problematic too. Like, I totally disagree with that analysis, but it shouldn’t be illegal to say that.

They may get tamped down under a Democratic president, sure. Other than being better at reassuring people, I don't think Democrats will do anything long term to help stability though - antagonisms will still persist. No real corrections in sight.



Yup, that's the threat of a Clinton/Clinton clone presidency. That all of the deranged Russiagate people will believe all order is restored and all antagonisms resolved.

the simple act of creepy joe biden taking the oath of office will return the atmospheric co2 concentration to between 300 and 350 ppm at manua loa

I'll stand and put my hand over my heart, Putin will weep, and Europe will convene to restore America's badge of honor.

So, Trump 2020 then?

We have had elections where it seemed like the country was going to disintegrate from centrifugal forces tearing it apart, and then suddenly... stability was suddenly restored after a period of intense polarization, as if after an apocalyptic battle. The election of 1896. It’s worth looking into.

There are some striking similarities to today — the rise of populism, for one, although the term meant something very different in 1896 than what it means today. But perhaps more importantly, prior to the election, there had been a few decades where, like in the past few decades, neither party was the dominant party, which is pretty atypical in American politics: while the president usually switches parties every eight years or so, the parties typically hold the legislature for the better part of a few decades. The American system works best when at any one time a single party is recognized as the dominant party. It actually does more to incentivize compromise from the minority when that’s the case. You don’t have an incentive to obstruct just to make the other party look bad, so you can win the election next time around, and you do have the incentive to cooperate with the majority, because then at least you might get something out of it.

So yeah, it’s possible that when the big realignment happens, partisan tensions die down quickly. That’s what happened in 1896: it was like someone had been pulling a rubber band tighter and tighter until finally it snapped, and everything relaxed. I don’t think it’s going to happen in 2020, though. It’ll require one of the parties to fundamentally reconstitute the party coalitions. Nobody in the Democratic field has that kind of vision. Trump showed promise that he might, but... nope.

What about the election of 1860

Whataboutism!

So was anyone following this Eddie Gallagher trial? It seems like it basically went like so:

Prosecution: Chief Gallagher is guilty of crimes
Chief Gallagher:No u
chief walks off into sunsent
Prosecution: Damn why didn't we think of that

Also prepare for conspiracy theorists to have renewed platforms with this chuckle**** back in the news:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/08/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-nyc-mansion.html

I saw someone on Twitter point out the irony that QAnon seems totally uninterested that a child sex trafficking ring that implicates a network of international elites was just discovered

Well they've been going on about him specifically for years. Maybe not QAnon but those types in general. But now he is arrested and it's a big deal and I'm actually not seeing as many of the 'see we are right but also what are they trying to distract from' posts now that you mention it

Anyone hear about this Russian submarine story?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/death-at-1000-fathoms-the-fire-aboard-russias-secret-sub/

How ominous. They’re concerned about the US operating secret subs in the Canadian Arctic.

Hey, I have a Navy friend who works as a nuclear engineer on that sub.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190706/17082642527/voting-machine-makers-claim-names-entities-that-own-them-are-trade-secrets.shtml

Paper ballots please? End this voting machine election fraud already? The fraud that's almost certainly happening? Please?

But counting is hard!

opsec the russians are reading

Hi GRU! I can promise you that American subs run on nuclear energy! Please add that to your list of secrets about America!

DELET THIS

[quote=Ars Technica]In other words, the actions of the officers who died fighting a fire from within a sealed compartment prevented an undersea nuclear disaster in the Arctic.[/quote]

Would it really be that much of a disaster? What happens when a nuclear reactor in a sub catches fire, in terms of potential fallout?

I think the threat is more that the limited oxygen space will be used up, the crew will be incapacitated and you'll have a live nuclear reactor with no rudder.

GOR-KA! GOR-KA! GOR-KA!

You see this? This is what happened to Facebook's stock after a $5bn fine was announced. As it turns out, insane privacy violations are worth far more than petty fines like these.

That’s reading a first order effect into an N-order system. The fine has been anticipated for a long time, so the stock market would have already priced it in and the stock rose because the uncertainty went away (indirected N times). It clearly didn’t exceed wall streets expectations though so let’s also not call it an effective punishment.

Which reminds me of a thing I've thought a tiny bit about in the past. Is it odd for a third party to profit via fines for transgressions not against them?

Also, just if anybody didn't know what my "Gorka" chant was about (I actually only know because I happened across a random thing) there was some Rose Garden thing that looked like something out of a reality TV show. I really have no idea who any of the people were but I really hate this thing where we chant peoples names at anything possibly more important than a sporting event. One syllable names like Trump and Cruz are especially bad. I'm sure there were Obama chants but much more memorable and well done was "Yes We Can" chants. "Make America Great Again" doesn't work as a chant and "MAGA" sounds dumb.

Yup. Fair response.

Can you be more specific?

Sure, the government fining someone or something because they did something another person or group. Of course I understand government of the people blah blah blah... I'm not aware of whether or not any government entities have some sort of restitution policy, never heard of it anyway. Of course I suppose the fact that punitive fines have been levied could be used as evidence should somebody choose to take legal action. I don't know, just a brief thought.

Your line of thinking is based on several assumptions, not all with which I disagree, but all of which need to be justified. For starters, that:

- the government was not injured by the misconduct
- the government is a third party to this misconduct / can, as constituted of representatives of both parties, ever meaningfully be a third party
- the government will profit from this fine / that ‘profit’ is even a meaningful concept when it concerns a government
- that fines are intended to be reparation rather than strictly punitive
- that government action to correct criminal acts is better achieved through tort (I think this is what you’re saying?)