I mean it makes perfect sense if the hypocrisy is self serving in all parts. Usually being a hypocrite is a shameful state of being, that’s why they have to insulate themselves with those like them.

I agree that Isreal getting attacked was needed to begin the land grab and to maintain power of the political party, and to attempt to justify murder. I also agree that one reason the US is allied to Isreal its for a for hold in the region for us to project power. But that is about it. I don’t hold that America needs this partnership, to such a degree to overlook genocide.

I did not know it was so many, but i know they were specifically targeted.

I guess i should answer your real question, what would it take before the US should go to war with Israel? I am hesitant, they are possibly a nuclear armed power, and a war would cost even more innocent lives. But if i had to choose i would have already effectively done so.

That sounds like an abusive relationship to me, regarding Israel. But if we could not stop Israel from committing genocide no matter what, then i would have us not enable it. If they have the resources available to commit genocide without our help, then they don’t need our help covering their defense, economy, nor political sway either.

Would actively sending our money and troops to Palestine to attack Israel be the correct play? It’s not so cut and dry as the Ukraine/ Russia war. But that money could go tword humanitarian efforts in Palestine, i am not so much concerned about the Palestinian government as i am the Palestinian people.

Possibly, at that point it would be based on trust that the administration would not continue genocide actions. If Israel changed the ruling party and immediately stopped their genocide then that would be the fastest means to return. I have issues with the land grab into Palestine for the same reason i side with Ukraine. But genocide gives me more than just issues.

I knew this would come up, which is why i specified this. Might as well as cut the head off the “every country has committed genocide at some point” argument. Not every country is actively committing genocide, Israel is. America is their chef supplier of power. America is actively Shielding them from the consequences of committing genocide.

So we should stop backing a country that is actively committing genocide full stop. No money, no weapons, no blocking sanctions, no threatening countries and organizations trying to help the victims. This is the literal bare minimum, as we should be sanctioning them, we should be guaranteeing humanitarian aid to Palestinians.

When is it not an active genocide? When the genocide stops.

Over an active genocide? I would immediately end a friendship with a country and as many times as it takes to not be responsible for enabling a genocide. Allies don’t let allies commit genocide, everyone knows that. Besides it takes more than a president to do a genocide.

Sounds a lot like sunken cost fallacy. We might be better off making other allies.

Because he is the spiritual leader that is the representative of Tibetan people. Can’t ignore him if we still care about the people he represents.

It would be nice if the game speed and physics interaction were not tied to a inconsistent variable such as frame rate. And it seems that the more they pile on the gambryo engine the less receptive to modding it gets. But i can also accept that the cracks in the games that grow over time may not be the engine, but Bethesda prioritizing MVP centric development over hammering out the problems. Modders are carrying an auful lot of load to even get the games running.

Like printed meat or a plant that grows meat adjacent flesh?

You know, when i played cyberpunk i noticed they had pizza with authentic pepperoni beetles. I stopped my cyber terrorism to think about that. I was first taken aback about how it truly is a dystopian story. But now that i think about it… would i really care? I unironically like impossible burgers, not because it tastes just like beef, but it’s got that characteristics of a good burger, just a more exotic animal like kangaroo burgers. After the novelty of knowing its bug meat, i could see not thinking differently about it at all. More sustainable, cheaper, healthier, less animal cruelty, and good taste?

Now i know the current bug meat claims are a lie, but honestly… bring on the bugs!

You mean 5 surely? Human shields was like weeks ago

I mean, Biden did intervene on the rail strike, and with bipartisan support force a contract upon the workers. So i don’t think democrats are pro union when it’s time to put up or shut up. It’s important to note that this and genocide is a both sides issue. The main difference is democrats are less right wing. But still not left wing

The problem is that there is not much choice, how many news outlets are there? I can’t keep tabs on just the ones in the US. And i can’t read a bunch of unrelated articles just to start forming an opinion of the source. So it makes sense that you instead have a selected party do that for you. But they will have their own bias. I assume republicans will have their own version of politifact due to their views being against reality. But you are right that these systems can’t be trusted either, but the devil you know is better then the devil you don’t

They seem to release these games as some sort of tech demo show showcasing what they see is the future of games. One has the set peice structure of game design, two was the physics engine, and Alex was VR. So other then the continuation of the time line, half life Alex pretty much was half life three. Also they know the hype/meme train has been building for so long that nothing will be good enough. Like Duke nukem.

Not potentially, the market MUST be disruputed. If the market is not disrupted, the same goods are being bought, if the same goods are being bought then the same trash is created. Upsetting the market is the whole point.

Putting an indulgence tax on plastic may help stop the poor from contributing to the pollution problem, but unless the cost is prohibitively expensive for the majority it’s not going to work. Also you are not factoring that the use of the plastic can be how it’s regulated. I do not envision it being outright banned from all applications. Just all the single use applications. And i would also posit that some single use applications could be changed to a reusable use without reforging the container. It is being done else where and soon we won’t have a choice but to comply anyway. We are just talking about how dystopian that time will be at this point.

That and an indulgence tax does not solve the problem. The intention is not to get more money from taxes, or to lower the pores access to normal goods, it’s decentivise its use. And by definition the amount you would have to tax to achieve this has to be so much that it destabilizes the market. Thats the point.

That and an indulgence tax does not solve the problem. The intention is not to get more money from taxes, or to lower the pores access to normal goods, it’s decentivise its use. And by definition the amount you would have to tax to achieve this has to be so much that it destabilizes the market. Thats the point.

So, you want to regulate the use of plastic via an indulgence tax. But instead of charging the corporation, you want to add an additional tax to every single individual transaction? Or do you want to tax the corporation once and have the cost of the product go up. The end result is the same, except one is more efficient.