You know what’s better than water when you need water? Nearly everything that isn’t alcohol or literal piss.
I mean it really depends on the person and their current condition. The article you linked kinda has an abstract definition of hydration that doesn’t take into account things normally associated with dehydration.
If you are working hard outside and are mildly dehydrated I wouldn’t recommend slamming down a sugary soda with caffeine. Excessive sugar is diluted in the intestines which can cause further dehydration, and caffeine is a diuretic.
Normally this wouldn’t really matter, but if you’re already dehydrated it can make the situation worse.
Water is great, it may not be the most effective hydrator in the world as it doesn’t have the electrolytes and sugars that something like Gatorade has. However, it’s the best thing for your overall kidney and liver health which is what really matters. Most Americans already have an excess of salt, fat, and sugar in their diets, so even after working outside and sweating your ass off you are probably better off just having some water.
No, it won’t. That’s the point of the misconception. You even get to it later then dismiss. We aren’t taking about overall health. We aren’t talking about the 'betes.
I mean, whenever you are talking about health you always consider total outcomes. The articles you are linking are talking about a very specific type of dehydration.
None of those things will dehydrate you more despite people saying differently. Not soda, not milk, even beer under 2% beer will be better. You will be rehydrated, there WILL be a net gain of water in your body. There is no net loss of water no matter how much people say sugar or caffeine will lower the net gain.
“Beverages with more concentrated sugars, such as fruit juices or colas, are not necessarily as hydrating as their lower-sugar cousins. They may spend a little more time in the stomach and empty more slowly compared to plain water, but once these beverages enter the small intestine their high concentration of sugars gets diluted during a physiological process called osmosis. This process in effect “pulls” water from the body into the small intestine to dilute the sugars these beverages contain. And technically, anything inside the intestine is outside your body. Juice and soda are not only less hydrating, but offer extra sugars and calories that won’t fill us up as much as solid foods, explained Majumdar. If the choice is between soda and water for hydration, go with water every time. After all, our kidneys and liver depend on water to get rid of toxins in our bodies”
From your own article…
If you’re dehydrated, you’re lacking salt. There’s a reason why physically demanding companies provide free drink packets to their crews. They don’t want road crews dying by the side of the road because they slammed water and had no salt on a 100 degree day working next to a machine shooting out molten tar and rock. We aren’t pumping people’s blood full of sterile water. Saline bags are .9% salt for a reason.
Again, you are talking about a specific type of dehydration… hyponatremia is exceedingly rare and is usually a sign of an undiagnosed kidney disease. Your nephrons will usually regulate your thirst in conjunction to the available salts in the body.
Dehydration is not just a lack of salt, it’s an imbalance of salt. Meaning that you can just be low on fluid with too much salt available.
"Unsurprisingly, the ad is sponsored by the milk industry. And while I’d never heard this claim before, the studies behind the idea aren’t particularly new or compelling. "
Finally, the main benefit of water is that it’s neutral. The reason why people don’t tell you to slam a glass of milk or soda if you’re dehydrated is because it can upset your stomach. When concentrated amounts of sugars or fats enter the intestine the dilution process can go overboard and cause diarrhea, which can dangerously dehydrate you further.
Hydration is more complicated than what you are alluding too. Simply stating everything but piss and liquor is better than water is just ridiculous and misleading. In specific scenarios other liquids may provide some advantages, but it’s highly reductive to make that claim so broadly. Especially considering it requires you to separate hydration from kidney health, you know the things that control your thirst in the first place.
Not exactly a good thing… One of the problems with making a lot of noise is drowning out the voices of others on the same side.
Political capital is a thing, utilizing it in a protest that doesn’t really accomplish anything but turning public sentiment against your cause is kinda a dumb way to spend it.
It was as pointless as everything else, that’s why they did it, it’s screaming into the void to get attention.
It’s not just pointless, it’s potentially damaging to the cause. I don’t mind if someone rubs against the grain of public sentiment for a cause, so long as the way they do it actually accomplishes a goal.
Are there though? I’m old enough to remember this has gone on for decades without anyone doing anything of significance and now we’re at the actual edge of global catastrophe and STILL people are like “hmn, those kids should be recycling.”
And how does cornstarching rocks, or defacing art make any kind of difference? Is there any possible outcome that benefits the cause? It seems like the only thing this accomplishes is drowning out any other news about climate change for 2 to 3 weeks.
Bruh, you and so many people have no idea how many lives are going to be lost in the next century while every milquetoast liberal and conservative in the developed world roll their eyes and get pissed at slight annoyances like… checks notes colored corn starch on rocks you will never visit.
Just because someone disagrees with you on how to spend the very limited amount of political capital accumulated for climate change, does not mean they are less informed on the subject than you.
I don’t give a fuck about Stonehenge, but it’s stupid to believe that others do not. It’s also pretty stupid to ignore concepts like blowback and public sentiment.
They HAVE sprayed BP’s factories and lots and machines, they have sabotaged equipment and chained themselves to machines and have caused material harm to companies like BP, but that doesn’t get any fucking coverage because media doesn’t want to encourage “violent activism” for fear of turning away viewers like YOU who are annoyed by such things.
Lol, they arent afraid of turning away viewers, they are worried about turning away advertisers. They are part of the capital class preserving the fossil fuel industry. Of course they don’t want to spread violent activism. They would much rather all climate activists display protest that they can utilize to turn the public against the cause.
Which begs the question, why are these groups providing the media with ineffective protests that turn public opinion against the cause and garter a ton of negative press in the first place?
I say they’re building political capital. They’re creating a fuss.
The people who think of this as a net positive are already supportive of climate change initiatives. So who exactly are they building political capital with?
They’re creating noise, which can then be turned into action.
How? In what situation is there a problem that is more easily solved when people “make a fuss”?
Surely we’ll all be okay as long as people are teaching us to be civil and not… harm the cause.
I never claimed that I wanted people to remain “civil”, you can attack that strawman as you wish.
I don’t mind people engaging in violent disobedience or civil disobedience, every MLK needs a Malcom X. However, I just don’t see the benefit in this particular situation. If you are going to do something that could potentially harm public sentiment you should at least be doing something that materially changes things for the positive.
I’m done, a lot of us are. Good luck.
Get off your high horse, were all dealing with the same problem here. Just because someone differs in opinion on how political capital should be spent, it doesn’t mean your perspective has a monopoly on morality or anything.
Yet here we are, talking about it. “There’s no such thing as ‘Bad Press’”, I guess? Are they right?.. maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?.. also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?.. no, not really.
Right, but we are talking about it knowing the consequences of not enacting changes. In the US fox news is watched by something like 40% of active voters. Meaning a significant portion of voters actively distrust news about climate change, another significant portion do not think about it on a day to day basis.
Giving the news network ammunition like this only further entrenches these audiences in anti climate change reactions.
Seems like something I’ll have to read more about.
Would knowing that this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress that lives in a 33m dollar home affect your opinion?
Why do you think he’s still in school? They can’t start collecting until you finish school. All he has to do is remain in school longer than fasfa remains solvent…so Id say he’s got a chance.
Ehhh, you would think that. However, China currently has more housing than people. I think at the moment the excess housing in the country could home an extra 150m people.
You can knock them for ignoring basic fundamental economic ideas like supply and demand, but it’s not like they have a large homeless population being unsheltered.
I don’t really see how your rebuttal conflicts with what I said? Unless you are claiming that developers were building housing for an eventual urbanization project that’s going to migrate 150m people to cities within the next year or two…
These are still real estate companies we’re talking about. They aren’t wanting to be left holding the bag for years while their investment properties dry rot from prolonged vacancies.
That’s still a bit of a long time for developers to have their money wrapped up in empty apartment complexes. Large buildings like that can start having major issues after months of vacancies, let alone years.
I think it’s still more likely that developers’production exceeded immediate demand than it is for them to have planned for them to be vacant for years.
Either way, it’s still not an economically sound idea. I think if they had planned for this, it wouldn’t have hit the real estate market as hard as it has.
Plus, I think you’re missing a far more essential point: China doesn’t give a fuck if every real estate developer goes bankrupt.
Just because they operate a mixed economy doesn’t mean they can ignore material realities. Investments going unrealized arguably have more negative outcomes for more socialized markets.
Instead, China’s just swooping in and buying up distressed assets to turn into public housing. Homeowners aren’t left holding the bag: developers are.
You can’t wring blood from a stone. Its not like it’s just the developers cash being used to build the housing, there are subsidies and investments from banks, which are owned by the government. So if a project goes under, the best case scenario is that they buy it back to get some return on investment, but that’s still robbing peter to pay peter. It’s just not sustainable, especially if you aren’t making wind on your other plans like urbanization.
It kinda depends on what you consider to be a subsidy, but China has made significant investments into the housing sector to achieve “the hottest real estate market it’s ever seen”.
The biggest of these are in their policy surrounding land management. This allows corporations to skip through some of the most expensive and time consuming aspects of land development. I actually think this is extremely beneficial if utilized correctly, and we in the west should learn to implement it to some degree.
However, if it’s utilized to build way more housing than necessary, then the land development policy isn’t making any returns for their investment. The significant amount of resources, land, and political capital could have been utilized for something they actually need.
The second big one is subsidizing low income housing programs. Yes, they are turning some of this excess housing to more affordable living spaces. However they are doing this by having local governments purchase them with money borrowed from the central bank. It is just robbing Peter to pay Paul, and does not mean the central bank made any return on the money they originally lent to developers.
Which returns us to the largest problem with the market, the central bank lent out too much money to developers, whom utilized that to build an excessive amount of housing. Banks are supposed to evaluate things like roi and supply and demand to make sure borrowers aren’t over leveraged to the point where they cannot realize a return on investment. However, if that risk assessment conflicts with set policy in a planned economy, then there’s a risk that banks will forgo the vetting process to appease policy makers.
Land management. In the same way that changing zoning is not a subsidy, changing land management rules is not a subsidy. It’s government support, agreed, but to call it a subsidy…?
I think I prefaced the statement with it depended on what you consider a subsidy. I admit it isn’t semantic, but I really consider any government assistance to private equity a subsidy. Mainly because it in truth and investment in which the government is hoping for a return.
Subsidizing low income housing. This has been a new policy used to seize distressed assets and make sure they don’t sit… Well, distressed. The central bank is an arm of the government, and the government is achieving it’s goals of housing access. At the end of the day, your claims on profit detract from the actual benefits of public housing.
Right, but this is a reclamation action. It’s not what the original investment was meant for, and surely they aren’t getting the same monetary return they originally hoped for.
I support governments subsidizing affordable housing, this is another thing I think western states need to realize. However, it doesn’t seem like they needed to focus on that much housing at the moment, and it doesn’t seem like that was their original intention.
By your arguments, public transit is robbing Peter to pay nobody, because the government sure as hell doesn’t recover operating costs from fares. That’s never been the point of public infrastructure.
I think the government’s entire existence should evolve around fulfilling their public’s needs, including adequate public transportation. The key word there is need. The Chinese government didn’t need to throw billions of dollars to private equity to build more homes than necessary. They did it because they wanted to maintain their gdp, so they could flaunt their economic vanity alongside the US on the international stage.
Fair enough. I think then it’s important to distinguish between what subsidies are worth tariffing and what subsidies are not. If Germany rezones an area to allow car factories to be built, is that a subsidy worth tariffing?
Eh, I don’t really have a strong opinion on tariffing. Tbh I don’t really have strong opinions about subsidizing private equity, other than they really shouldn’t really exist.
Under “free market” capitalism subsidies nor tariffs should exist by definition. And under socialism or communism, I would much prefer that the state employ the workers to do the work of the state. Subsidizing private equity just moves the people’s money into the pockets of middle men.
I think the current global regression back to an odd stage of mercantilism is the product of the moneyed class in China and the west attempting to goad political leaders into abandoning their economic principles for greater profit margins.
I mean, in this case it’s more that the developers lost money and the government gained assets sold below book value… That’s pretty good return imo. The developers’ investors got fucked, yes, but have you looked at, say, Evergrande’s ownership? Not all Chinese developers are state-owned. In fact, the distressed ones are not.
Right, but the developers are way over leveraged meaning that it’s not really their money but the banks. The banks/government is making the best out of a bad situation, but they are still loosing substantial amounts of capital. One of the reasons this kicked off in the first place was the government trying to get a handle on private equity borrowing more than their company is worth. That’s not really not criticism on the government action, it’s best to pull that bandaid off as soon as possible, but it still hurts. I think it’s mainly the fault of local banks who have probably been either careless or fraudulent in their reporting to the central bank.
Do you know how China imputes rent for their GDP calculations? It’s the construction cost depreciated linearly over the life of the building. Think about that for a second, then come back to me. I can explain it to you, but when I realized what it meant it shook me to the core so maybe it’ll have the same effect on you lol. For reference, the US imputes rent by asking “what would the homeowner have paid if they had to rent.”
Again, this just isn’t something I really care about much. GDP and how it’s calculated is mostly legal fiction, utilized primarily for international bragging rights and as a way to lull investments from foreign capital.
It sounds like China utilizes user cost approach, and the west utilizes the comparison approach. China’s approach makes sense for a more centralized lending apparatus, as it can help prevent the boom and bust cycle so common in western real estate market. But it’s still susceptible to market collapse if you miscalculated building cost or depreciation values, and makes it harder to sustain value in real estate investments unless you are constantly building more and more.
I think in the end it just creates two different types of problems. In the west the comparison approach provides less motivation for developers to build an adequate amount of housing. In China, it creates too much incentive for developers to overdevelop housing to the point where it devalues the very concept of individual investments in housing.
I think a better solution would be to consider affordable housing development to be a natural monopoly that is provided by the government without the input of private capital. But that would be a blow to GDP for both systems, and I think we both know how the capital class of both China and the west would respond to that.
The leader of France’s Republicans party has said he would be open to an alliance with Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally in snap French elections. Such an alliance would break a decades-old taboo....
Well…that and the thinly repressed racism that’s been simmering in Europe for decades has finally boiled over.
Everyone in the US just kinda assumes that we’re an outlier in the racism department, but that’s just because they haven’t ever heard a drunk French man pop off about Algerian or Romani people.
…blasted those who held up Hezbollah and Hamas flags, both considered terrorist organizations by the United States, as well as protesters who carried a banner saying, “Long live October 7th.”...
I mean that’s a straw man argument, op didn’t state any opinion on Hitler their affirmation.
I think another thing to keep in mind is that neoliberal news will amplify any behaviour they see that can be interpreted as antisemitism. We already have several examples of things like this being attributed to protestors when in reality it was a counter protestor or agent provokeruer.
I don’t think any person who actually cares about preventing a genocide is a supporter of the most well know orchestrator of genocide.
That’s literally why you include quotations of the points of the argument you are addressing…
Yes, you can agree with certain aspects of an affirmation without agreeing with the entirety of the body of work, and vice versa.
Also, I don’t particularly trust the mayor of the NYPD to really portray reality free of any biases. It would surprise me if that was ever really said by a real protestor who was there to help the Palestinian cause.
And even if it was, it’s kinda dumb to label the whole protest as antisemitic because of the opinions of one person.
Where? He just pointed out an internal contradiction within a particular statement. Criticizing how someone responds to something is not the same as criticizing that they responded to something.
No where in the article did it state more than one person claimed that Hitler should have wiped out all the Jews…
And even if there were more than one person, that still doesn’t make everyone involved In the protest an antisemite.
Kinda hilarious that you are asking people to adopt a nuanced opinion that separates the actions of Jews from the actions of Israel, despite the state of Israel itself conflating the two. But, you aren’t able to do the same for antisemitic protestors and protestors trying to stop a genocide.
So I’m accusing someone of saying something they never said, but it’s apparently okay when you do it.
I mean you substantiated your position several times, unless I was supposed to interpret “More than one. This sounds more like you didn’t read the article.” as anything other than a tacit agreement with the articles sentiment.
Yeah… He’s definitely been a lot less sane in the last couple decades. In the past he’s been pretty vocal about combating neoliberalism, but lately he’s actions and associations have been pretty center right. I think it’s mainly because he hasn’t really kept up with modern geopolitics, and is prone to adopting the boomer mentality that any amount of socialism/communism is always bad.
If we’re talking about philosophical criticisms, his main body of work is derived from an overly analytical breakdown of linguistical syntax. Which is important to a point, but it garnished a cult like following in political and law students for a long time.
These students didn’t utilize this information as a way to breakdown things like manufactured consent in an understandable way, or to further better linguistic comprehension for the general public. Instead they just added it as another tool to their arsenal of dissembly. A common criticism of Chomsky is that he is one of the reasons modern politics is so reliant on semantic reasoning and logical fallacies.
Imo in debate/philosophy he’s kinda like the guy who invented the machine gun. His original work was supposed to be used to halt the abuse of weaponized language, instead it just became a manual on how to do it better…and at some point I think he just rolled with it for the prestige and money.
A Dutch warship was harassed by Chinese military aircraft in the East China Sea on Friday, the Netherlands said, becoming the latest country to accuse Beijing’s forces of initiating potentially unsafe encounters in international waters....
There is no such thing as international waters. China’s exclusive economic zone is one of 17
I mean this is just definitionally wrong. You can’t acknowledge the existence of exclusive economic zones without also recognizing international and territorial waters.
“The difference between the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone is that the first confers full sovereignty over the waters, whereas the second is merely a “sovereign right” which refers to the coastal state’s rights below the surface of the sea. The surface waters are international waters.[2”
The Dutch and Australians have violated this and are now complaining.
No, the Chinese government is trying to both have their cake and eat it. They are acknowledging the idea of internationally recognized law, but ignoring the aspects they do not want to adhere to.
By definition economic exclusion zones only apply to the resources beneath the surface, the surface itself is international waters. The water people are allowed to protect as if it were sovereign land is only territorial waters, which extend 200 miles from the recognized Continental shelf.
It’s not explicitly defined in UNCLOS whether military activities should be permitted,
Meaning there is no provision against it. Article 87 and 58 are both very broad in their protections to any state operating outside of territorial waters, there is no reason to assume the freedom of movement only applies to commercial vessels.
so the debate on military activities within EEZ is still that, a debate.
Only so much that international law in and of itself is still up for debate. If that’s your argument then the notion of international law is moot, and we will be doomed to regress fully back to might makes right foreign policy.
I also feel as if you are attempting to narrow the argument into a specific corridor that suits the Chinese perspective. Yes there are countries that disagree with the broad protections offered by the current international law, but that’s not the only problem China has been rubbing against in regards to LOSC. They aren’t just attempting to govern military movements in their EEZ, they are attempting to expand it, and police the movement of both military and commercial traffic.
I mean, they basically have a paramilitary fishing fleet that aggressively and violently violates other countries EEZ and territorial waters all the time.
reference, it’s mostly the big ex-colonial maritime trading powers that are in support of this because it makes their trade easier, while those countries who exercise coastal rights and natural resource exploration rights are opposed.
I think the point of LOSC is to deescalate points of contentions in spaces where we all have to operate. The rights of freedom of movement serves China just as much as it does the United States.
Right, but we are talking about China whom are signatories…
Like I said, your issue seems to be raised at the concept of international law. Not the individual international agreement we have been speaking about.
your claim is that if something isn’t explicitly specified, then it’s allowed.
No, my claim is that the law specifies all surface traffic is permitted. You are interpreting all traffic as excluding military traffic.
This is the difference between common law (popular in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, etc.) and civil law (used everywhere else, including most of Europe, South America, China, Russia, etc.)
The difference between civil law and common law is that common law is more based on jurisprudence and interpretation. Civil law is based on codified rules and doctrine. Meaning that in civil law, if you wanted to exclude military traffic, there would be a codified specification to support this interpretation.
If we are evaluating unclos as civil law, then the fact that there isn’t a codified definition of what traffic can go where is even more damning to your argument…
Military action (and, indeed, enforcing sanctions with surveillance using military ships is almost certainly military action) is not a directly permitted operation (it’s neither navigation nor overflight).
"article 90 defines the right to navigation as the right of every State “to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas”.
This is what I’m talking about… There is no distinguishing commercial navigation from military navigation. You are working off of a interpretation in what you have already claimed to be civil law.
If you actually read the articles the only time they specify a difference between commercials or military is in regards to aircraft.
It’s not an operation involved with “operating ships or aircraft”, and it’s not an operation explicitly allowed under UNCLOS by any means.
Lol, the navy doesn’t operate ships or aircraft?
UNCLOS does not specify that all surface traffic is permitted.
Yes it does…so long as it is flying a flag from any state.
Given that, UNCLOS specifies that states should defer to the coastal states rules and regulations.
So long as they do not conflict with rights protected by unclos.
However, UNCLOS only directly gives the coastal state right to intervene in matters regarding living resources and does not explicitly allow intervention for non-resource interests
Which is exactly what my original post explained…
Based on this and our other chat about the housing issues in China, I don’t think you are an idiot or anything. I just don’t think you are being academically honest, and have adopted an “ends justify the means” mentality common on Lemmy.
On the other post, you accused me of being completely wrong, but eventually admitted that they made a miscalculation in policy. Which under the mixed economy of China, is still a miscalculation of supply and demand.
I understand the reasons why people jump to defend any criticism of China on Lemmy, there is definitely people on here that take any opportunities to slander the nation. However, I haven’t made any criticisms that aren’t academically honest interpretations of how they execute their policy. I am also willing to defend the policy that I find admirable, such as I did with the other thread when the poster accused them of pricing people into homelessness.
Every nation deserves criticism of some sort, humans are exceptionally hard to govern. Pretending otherwise and attempting to dissuade any level of criticism of any nation does nothing but make you seem fanatical or disingenuous.
I don’t foresee this conversation really leading anywhere productive, as we have regressed to what I suspect is a purposely semantic dispute. Have a good one.
Again, your claim is that surveillance to enforce sanctions is considered “navigation.”
Any boat traveling on a body of water is considered navigation… You don’t stop navigating when you’re surveiling something.
Surveillance is absolutely an explicit military action. The standard practice has always been to intercept surveiling aircraft where possible (e.g., the entire reason the SR-71 is so fast is because it can avoid being intercepted) in international airspace. The SR-71 never entered Soviet airspace, and yet it was still somewhat reliably intercepted by MiG-31s throughout the Cold War.
There is specific language in unlocs that delineates military and commercial air traffic. To utilize your interpretation we would have to assume that the authors of the articles remembered that military planes exist, but forgot that you can put guns on boats…
“oh I’m putting around on my ship shooting stuff, launching drones, innocent passage woe is me.” A military ship has the legal right to sail innocently - that’s the justification for FONOPs. A military ship does not have the legal right to pursue military action
Lol, you are making up your own terminology. Military action isn’t a described term in the articles. You sure you know the difference between civil and common law? Kinda seems you are heavily relying on interpretation for your argument…
The only thing states are governed while in a EEZ is “refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations” It does not delineate between commercial or “military action”.
This is because there’s a long established history of commercial vehicles being utilized as military/paramilitary forces by governments throughout history.
Surveillance is not a threat or use of force and is done by both military and commercial vessels all the time. If surveillance was considered a threat of force, or a “military action” it would give any government carte blanche seize any vessel collecting or receiving any data in their EEZ.
Again, unless you have an argument that is completely based on semantic dispute, then I think we are done here.
What, exactly, do you think justifies US aggressive intercepts of Russian bombers flying in international airspace near Alaska, then?
First of all, you yourself have already acknowledged that the US isn’t a signatory. Secondly, I never claimed anything the US does is justified or ethical.
As I have already said, I wasn’t arguing that international law are ethical, logical, or even reasonable. My original claim was about how China was acting within the scope of the international agreements they are signatories to.
Your claim that surveillance flights are not considered an action worth intercepting in inside EEZ is disproven by the actions of basically every country on the planet.
I didn’t claim that, as I already said there are specified clauses within unclos that delineate between military and commercial aircraft that limit the freedoms of travel for military aircraft.
Which is why it doesn’t make sense to assume a delineation of “military action” vs navigation at sea. If they really wanted to limit navigation for military vessels they would have specified so, as they did with military aircraft.
Again, I’m not saying this is fair or reasonable. Laws of the Sea were originally developed by nations that could enforce them with a strong navy, mainly to maintain a monopoly of that power. It doesn’t make any sense for these nations to ratify a system of rules that strip those powers away from them. The goal is to maintain the hierarchy of power, making the laws just reasonable enough for other nations to sign, as opposed to fighting a stronger naval power.
should’ve spent them on building universities that would help them better understand the situation and possible ways to deal with it effectively.
First of all… They already had universities. Secondly, how exactly does “better understanding the situation” fix being held in a mass concentration camp?
Palestinians have tried diplomatic solutions in the past, but you can’t force a nation with more hard power than yours to the negotiation table.
The inherent problem with your argument is it doesn’t account for the disparity of both hard and soft power between the two belligerents.
Problem with yours is what I already pointed out. You applaud people for doing terrorism (aka killing themselves).
This is the first time I’ve talked to you?
You refuse their ability to not jump knowingly into a bear trap with their both legs.
So you are blaming the the collective punishment on those receiving the collective punishment?
If Hamas killing women and children is wrong, is Israeli killing several times more not?
Either they didn’t try hard enough or they could find non-diplomatic solutions. Better ones than doing terrorism (aka killing themselves).
Kinda sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about… It takes two willing parties to negotiate. And in these negotiations Israel has always had more power, thus more responsibility to make peace.
If you accept someone saying the only way out of their situation was doing terrorism (aka killing themselves) then you are not a smart human being.
If you think labeling someone a terrorist changes the actual material conditions that causes this war… Then you aren’t a smart human being.
blame people who did unnecessary stupid things that they knew would cause them to suffer even more. They are not smart. If they were smart they wouldn’t do it that way.
A simple yes would suffice. So you think those thousands of women and children were part of the decision to attack Israel?
It’s wrong but they did not start this aggression without reason, and they know they are not suicidal.
Ahh yes, because this conflict is devoid of any historical conflict… Please look up how many Palestinian civilians have been killed by military actions vs Israeli in the last 20 years and come back to me.
Sigh. How else should I put it? Don’t do diplomacy if you think you are smart (hamas clearly aren’t) and already tried everything. Do terrorism. But please do it in a way that would actually benefit your cause. In a way that would not make them start another ground operation. I dunno, maybe try to not take hostages and not stream your murders for once? Or maybe release the hostages and surrender god damn it (it should even be possible to keep your lives by surrendering to a 3rd party instead). That would at least send a message to the world and maybe even save a lot of Palestinians.
Quite the shifting goal post you have there… They’re have already been several attempts by whatever is left over of Hamas to surrender/cease fire. Most Israelis already want a ceasefire, but Netanyahu has already said that the war will not end until all of Hamas is destroyed.
This is because Netanyahu’s administration is way behind in the polls since the attack, because he moves defense forces away from vulnerable border points, allowing the attack to penetrate deep into Israel.
He is still under criminal investigation and very well may go to jail if he loses his next election. While the war goes on he has the ability to halt the vote from taking place due to emergency powers.
I didn’t do that here. They are just idiots.
You’ve called them terrorists the whole time…
You’re either playing the fool or are just foolish, either way I don’t think we have much else to talk about. I don’t like to associate myself with people who defend war crimes like collective punishment.
No, it’s somewhat irrelevant. I’m not saying it’s okay to bomb those people
You’ve already blamed them and called them all terrorists…
What do you expect exactly? That I would say “oh so Israel lost much less people in the October 7 attack than Palestinians in XX years, so it should just do nothing”?
No, I would hope that you would apply the history of the region to gain greater context over the Oct 7th attack, it didn’t occur in a vacuum.
History doesn’t matter when it’s about specific decisions with predictable consequences, and the fact that those could be avoided in the first place.
Again, these people are in a giant concentration camp. It would be like blaming the Warsaw uprising for the destruction of the polish Jews.
How difficult it is to release hostages and surrender? I think just one attempt would suffice. Is it difficult because some of them refuse to agree that this is the simplest and fastest way to try to save Palestinians and show everyone they can work on their mistakes?
Because Israel has already stated they won’t negotiate for the hostage release, they don’t want the hostages. They want a genocide. Have you not been reading the news about this subject like at all?
primary complain is their stupidity. They are people. They can learn. Maybe they will stop being terrorists if they do that, I can’t know. But they surely aren’t helping their fellow Palestinians as is.
You are a fucking idiot. Hamas only had around 10-15k active members in their military, a significant number of those were killed on Oct 7th or in the following counter attacks.
The reason why the Israeli military has overwhelmingly killed primarily women and children is because Hamas is already destroyed. There are a few cells left in hiding, but the organization has no control over the Palestinian population.
You’re nothing but a psuedo intellectual bigot tripping over clumsy arguments to support war criminals. Go kick rocks.
Haha, hey guys! Did you see we have sparkling on tap in the break room? This place is great, isn’t it? Be sure to grab a snack before the morning huddle. Great to be with the team again!
Oh hey GluWu, good to see you back in the office! Whenever you get a chance can you swing by my office? No rush or anything, I just have some questions about your PTO request.
It matters on a geopolitical scale when it comes to logistics and weapons procurement. South Korea has an enormous production capability when it comes to military industries. They currently have the largest output capacity for tanks, and we’re talking about modern technologically advanced tanks, not cold war era relics.
They’ve also been ramping up their supply chains to focus on things like artillery shell production and naval vessel production. However, they currently have a law that prevents them from supplying weapons to nations actively engaged in a war. But, that law has a clause that allows them to ignore the mandate if North Korea is involved in the conflict.
Legally roping North Korea into the conflict could solve a lot of supply problems for the west. If that doesn’t work, the next option would be to sway public opinion enough in South Korea that they change the prior legislation.
I recently got to use a pole drivers powered by a little 2 stroke motor. It took like 5 sec to sink a tpost down 3 feet. It was so easy and quick that it was kinda upsetting, makes using the old pole drivers feel like you’re a monkey banging on rocks.
Man, the way they calculated this statistic is so misleading, and counter intuitive to the claim it’s ridiculous.
The only reason for “real wage growth” is shown as outpacing inflation is because they aren’t counting people who lost their job because of COVID as a loss of income, but as someone exiting the job market.
Basically “wages” increased because the majority of people who lost their jobs were low income earners, leaving more white collar jobs to represent wage earnings.
It’s in the article you linked as a source… Did you not read it?
As the figure shows, average real wages rose sharply at the onset of the pandemic, but that’s because the bottom dropped out of the labor market when millions of lower-wage workers lost their jobs. Average real wages then fell sharply in the pandemic recovery as many of those lower-wage workers returned to work, pulling down the average.
The problem with economic studies is that they are usually made by people trying to argue one point or another, it’s not the same as scientific study where proving or disproving your hypothesis is an academic benefit either way.
It makes it easy to quantify, something unlike “wages out pacing inflation”, you just have to redifine some terms, and then something like thousand of lay offs becomes a net positive instead of a bleak reality.
rest of my sources show very real and very public pushes for measures that could meaningfully address the stagnation if they were passed into law. If effort is what people are clamoring for, there seems to be no shortage of it.
I think that’s a fairly subjective interpretation. Is a bill being written and endorsed by part of the party an indication of “real effort”?
I think the problem a lot of people hold, myself included, is that the democratic party lacks the leadership that turns “real effort” into law.
When republican leadership lays out their political agenda their whips make sure that their members in the Senate and the House (to a lesser extent post Jan 6) toe the line. If you don’t make the party’s position a priority then you lose your committee memberships, or are passed over for funding.
I think the problem is that the DNC leadership’s only qualifier is seniority, so the “progressive” party is being helmed by ancient millionaires who were only really progressive by comparison during the regan era.
They seem to be blaming Democrats for the fact that Republicans exist and are intransigent.
I can see your point, but this also ignores the fact that a lot of powerful Democrats are basically center right on the political compass and have been effectively captured by corporate interests, and have been for decades.
You could argue that their commitment to third way politics has caused the current political situation where conservatives feel confident enough to be this intransigent in the first place. I personally feel that democratic leadership would rather have someone like Trump in the Whitehouse than someone like Bernie Sanders.
I mean, if you’re a Congressional representative in a non-leadership position and you can’t get past the filibuster, I’d argue drafting a bill to address a problem is just about the best you can do. So yes, I’d argue that’s doing a very good job. I don’t hold it against the bill drafter that they have to deal with institutional inertia and a multi-party, bicameral federal bureaucracy.
Right, but the argument is about the democratic party as a whole not the few individuals with no power within the party that are doing a good job.
In that regard, the true question is, do those powerful Democrats represent the center of gravity of the voting population that put them there? Or, more simply, is the average Democratic voter centrist or progressive? If the average Democratic voter is centrist, then we could argue that these leaders are simply representing the will of their constituents.
I don’t think it’s that complicated. With the two party system the main hurdle is just securing the support of the DNC. Once you’re established the choice is the incumbent or a conservative. So I think most elected officials may have represented their constituents level of progressive ideas at the time they were first elected. So in a party where we claim to be progressives, the elected officials are conserving the status quo of when they were first elected 30 years ago.
In short, there are more voters who agree with the moderate wing of the party than who disagree with it.
I get that, but I tend to believe American politics has the propensity to have the cart lead the horse. If the cart spent over a decade screaming at the horse that Democrats are the reasonable party, and reasonable people have to make concessions to conservative to make that progress, no matter how unreasonable those conservatives are…then of course a large portion of the constituents will still hold those beliefs in the long run.
Third way politics was not invented by the democratic constituents, stop the steal was not invented by conservative constituents. The unfortunate reality of America is that most of the people voting are being influenced by the leadership of political parties instead of the political parties being influenced by the constituency.
Which is why the rest of my commentary addressed the party, its leadership structure, and its voters…
Okay, so you are conceding the point about the democratic party making a "real"effort about wages then?
think that’s grossly oversimplifying things, to the point where I’m not even sure it’s worth investing more effort in a response.
Entrenched encumbrancey is a fairly simple well known issue in American voting… I think your just just avoiding the argument.
think the problem with arguing against a metaphor is that it’s grounded in how you, specifically, see the problem. I simply can’t argue against how you see things, nor do I intend to try.
Lol, as opposed to what? Do you sincerely think that what you believe to be the problem is anything other than a belief? I’m just being honest and not trying to make it seem that my views represent the only realistic depiction of American politics.
give human beings way more credit than that, especially in aggregate. The exact same could be said about you being influenced by some kind of outside group
You think the American people collectively came up with the concept of third way politics? It’s been a theory in politics since the 50’s, was popularized in the 80-90s in Australia and in America by Bill Clinton.
I’m sure you’d argue that your beliefs are sincere and informed by evidence and experience. If you’re taking the position that your beliefs are legitimate, but everyone else’s beliefs are influenced by propaganda, then you and I are seeing the world very differently.
I’m not coming up with political theory…of course my beliefs are influenced by others people’s ideas, so are yours. The idea of political discourse is engaging in those ideas with others to better understand them.
not sure this is worth either of our time anymore. Best of luck.
Probably should have known better when you didn’t even bother to read your own sources. Go kick rocks.
Well, this would be fine if you weren’t attacking other people’s interpretations…
Usually when people witness a criticism they want to know the logic behind that criticism.
People mean more than what they literally wrote sometimes. Yet for some reason when we are on forums people pretend that doesn’t exist
I think that’s because the whole point of forums is to express your ideas through the written word. Expecting people in a forum to interpret your argument with nuance when you express none is idiotic.
So the written word doesn’t contain nuance or implications? It’s never open to interpretation?
Man, can you fucking read? The written word contains nuance and implications, but you can’t interpret it from someone’s writing that is devoid of it…
I can’t say I don’t like lord of the rigs, and then expect people to assume my reasoning is nuanced, or that my statement may spur any further implications.
That’s certainly a take. I am not going to be as dick-ish as you though and call you idiotic.
I think we just have interpretations of what I have said. People are allowed to have nuanced opinions. Maybe, idiotic isn’t an implication of being dick-ish to me?
It's basic science (lemmy.world)
Stone Rule (i.imgur.com)
Leave some degrees for the rest of us (sopuli.xyz)
China’s glut of idle property causes headache for the government (www.theguardian.com)
The industry that has traditionally powered about a quarter of GDP has been in a downward spiral that policymakers have struggled to halt...
French conservatives move toward far-right alliance (www.dw.com)
The leader of France’s Republicans party has said he would be open to an alliance with Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally in snap French elections. Such an alliance would break a decades-old taboo....
New York City Mayor Eric Adams condemns ‘pure antisemitism’ outside Oct. 7 memorial (www.washingtonexaminer.com)
…blasted those who held up Hezbollah and Hamas flags, both considered terrorist organizations by the United States, as well as protesters who carried a banner saying, “Long live October 7th.”...
Linguist and activist Noam Chomsky hospitalized in his wife's native country of Brazil after stroke (apnews.com)
Chinese military harassed Dutch warship enforcing UN sanctions on North Korea, Netherlands says (www.cnn.com)
A Dutch warship was harassed by Chinese military aircraft in the East China Sea on Friday, the Netherlands said, becoming the latest country to accuse Beijing’s forces of initiating potentially unsafe encounters in international waters....
Four more Israeli hostages have died in Hamas custody (www.nbcnews.com)
Bandwidth rule (slrpnk.net)
US intelligence officials share evidence that Russia has used North Korean missiles to strike Ukraine (kyivindependent.com)
The U.S. Ministry of Defense’s Intelligence Service reported that Russia has used North Korean ballistic missiles to strike Ukraine....
Gen alpha has no fucking clue (lemmy.world)
The economy is thriving under Biden. So why don’t Americans believe it? (www.dailykos.com)
For the Women Who Accused the Trump Campaign of Harassment, It’s Been More Harassment (www.propublica.org)