Hey, I appreciate your response! I totally understand that people want to have their feelings confirmed in such a space, but that’s also why I am critical in it. In this sort of environment the discussion is almost as much emotion and feeling as it is the words actually used. A sort of slang can develop where we can understand what each other means without the words we use being truly accurate. The problem with that is that this environment is also an echo chamber, we put meaning onto things that we want it to mean because it also confirms our beliefs.

This leads to situations where it’s impossible to differentiate between radical statements and reasonable statements. A good example is the chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” When both extremists and normies use the saying it becomes hard to differentiate them. Another example is the Gadsden flag, on it’s own there is nothing wrong with the flag with a deep historical heritage, but when the far right started using it as a symbol any rational centrist or leftist immediately stopped using it for fear of association. Back in school I had a friend who had the flag hanging on their wall, but around 2012 they specifically stated that they had taken it down because it had been co-opted by the far right.

I don’t really like the use of the word colonizer in this context, it just doesn’t fit right with me. The definition technically fits, but colonization to me is more like an invasive species moving in and slowly overwhelming the native population. This is more akin to what we were seeing with settlers moving into the West Bank.

What’s going on in Gaza is more akin to straight up scorched earth takeover and land theft. Hell, calling it an invasion and genocide feels more accurate.

I never said I was ok with what Israel is doing, my argument was on the meaning of words. Leftists in general are really terrible about saying what they mean, because they don’t seem to know the meaning of the words they use.

The cycle seems to go like this:

• make a statement
• realize the statement doesn’t mean what they wanted to say
• double down and try to change the meaning of the words they used

I know I said we need to be clear in our language, but since we were talking about a “regime” from the beginning I didn’t think I had to continuously spell it out throughout the discussion. Yes, we’re talking about whatever regime is being referenced, but again the last guy said it wasn’t Israel.

Regime Noun

a particular government or a system or method of government:

Your comparison between China and Israel is really terrible. If we’re being super duper clear on what a regime is, it’s the system of government. Israel is a parliamentary democracy, all citizens over the age of 18 can vote. Since the regime is democratically elected it’s kinda hard to differentiate the Israeli people from their Regime. China on the other hand is a unitary one-party state, if you’re not in the party and at the right level of the party then you don’t have any voice. It’s a lot easier to separate the people of China from their government.

Well that can’t be what he thinks, I listed that as an option in my original response

Except this guy specifically said he hopes the current Israel is dismantled. At best they could be hoping that Israel changes into a better government, but I don’t think that’s their meaning.

But he clearly said

No where does that say dismantling Israel.

So what entity which has colonized Palestine for 76 years, but isn’t the current Israel does he mean?

EDIT: Words have meaning, if the words you use don’t mean what you mean, then admit that you used the wrong words and be more clear or else people must assume you mean what you say. Coming in after the OP and attributing meaning that they didn’t give doesn’t suddenly change what they said. A reminder, the original post was;

Hopefully this is a step toward dismantling the brutal apartheid regime that has colonised Palestine for 76 years."

that has colonised Palestine for 76 years.

So who are they talking about then?

No one said that, dipshit.

Dismantle verb

To get rid of a system or organization, usually over a period of time:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dismantle

Basically everyone wants either two-states based on 1967 borders or Israel to give Palestinians equal rights and create a single, secular democracy

Except this guy specifically said he hopes the current Israel is dismantled. At best they could be hoping that Israel changes into a better government, but I don’t think that’s their meaning.

Eh, a quick Google search said that Tesla wasn’t profitable for 17 years and survived due to government subsidies and investor funding. After that they’ve been making ~$15 billion per year and sold around 1.3 million cars worldwide per year.

In contrast Toyota sold 10.3 million vehicles and made $61 billion in profit.

As with their 17 years of unprofitable business they are currently more proportionally profitable, but a big portion of that is Musk fanboys and limited supply. If they actually started selling more cars they probably wouldn’t be as proportionally profitable.

Additionally, Tesla is supposedly becoming less profitable due to several factors including not making a new model in 10 years, reports that they fraudulently marketed features (being sneaky with how range is calculated so that the true range is way less than advertised), and Elon’s antics hurting sales. Elon’s antics are a big deal, some people who wanted Teslas before don’t want them anymore because they don’t want to be associated with him (like flying a Gadsden Flag in the mid 2000s vs now).

Elon’s antics don’t stop there, he’s also hurt the investor’s opinion as well. A big reason Tesla’s stock was so high is because people were buying them and not selling them. This caused their price to stay super high, but when Elon bought Twitter he sold a ton of stock. The price was at an all time high over $400 per share, his selling cratered it to ~$115, and is currently around $165. Investors don’t like it when the owner of a company single handedly tanks their investment so the owner can make a bad investment, even more so when the writing on the wall says he’ll sell even more of the stock to fund the bad investment.

Unfortunately Genocide Joe is probably not watching the same news we all are.

This is a weird comment as it implies that Joe Biden has less information about what is going on in Gaza than the average person who watches the news.

January 6th occurred, Trump has been relatively unscathed, and Trump is running again. That’s what has changed since 2019.

If Trump had been fully prosecuted, or had decided not to run Biden likely wouldn’t be running.

The example is the Telluride though? That’s the whole point. Of course any sane person would pick a cheaper car. For that matter why would you ever buy a brand new car?

I definitely agree, but I went with the option which would have the lowest monthly payment. On the other end local rates have a 36 month loan at 6.75%, but that’s $1,800 per month.

I just Googled and the 2024 Telluride has an MSRP of ~$55,000 in my area, used 2023 models are about ~$45,000.

Looking at an auto loan calculator, that’s between $700 and $900 per month with a 96 month 9% auto loan.

Point is, if you can afford the car you’re probably not worrying about the subscription except on principle. If you can afford the car and have principle concerns you’d probably buy a different car.

The demographic you’re referring to is a portion of conservatives that’s hard to specifically categorize, some of them are libertarians that hate government involvement while some are MAGA followers that can’t think for themselves. The portion that dislikes free healthcare because of evil communism is also the group that thought the ACA and Obamacare are different things. When the Republicans tried to kill the ACA a few years ago it had majority support from conservatives until it whiplashed the opposite way, there were interviews on TV where people were complaining about Obamacare and saying that th Republican ACA was a great plan, the interviewer would then tell them they’re the same and they didn’t believe it. This campaign of embarrassing people probably actually saved the ACA.

The real reason Conservatives dislike free healthcare is a misguided belief that the government is inefficient or incapable. In reality Medicare is far more cost efficient than the majority of private insurance. Likewise reports that you have to wait in free healthcare countries really don’t matter because we have to wait for healthcare too, both systems are triage based. If you have a broken leg you might have to wait at the ER, but if you’re having a heart attack you’re going to get immediate care. If you try to schedule a routine dental visit you may have to wait several weeks, but if you had an accident and knocked out all your teeth you’re likely going to the front of the line.

https://youtu.be/sx2scvIFGjE?si=2jGK8Bqwiu7S0GSh

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/one-third-dont-know-obamacare-and-affordable-care-act-are-the-same.html

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/yoyj63/why_are_conservatives_against_universal/

They’re condos, there is no land. The houses are cute, I’ll give you that, but these are glorified apartments. You own the inside walls of the unit you buy, that’s pretty much it.

That’s the second room that you can lease out, 50 Sqft for $1200 per month.

And they use stone (14 pounds) to measure body weight.

It’s not a set number for the US either, we have Family Medical Leave (FMLA). When they say you have sick days it’s referring to paid sick leave by your job. If you’re sick you can be out for sick leave for quite a long time and the jobs can’t do anything against you, they just don’t have to pay you. If you’re so sick that you’re on FMLA for a long time you’ll probably qualify for Short Term Disability which you might also supplement with Short Term disability insurance.

It’s only common for government jobs and isn’t universal there either. Many government jobs in the US receive multiple different types of leave concurrently. So for example you might accrue 12 hrs of vacation leave per month, 8 hrs of sick leave, and have a floating holiday of 8 hrs per year. If you reach a certain cap (say 100 hrs) the vacation leave rolls over into sick leave.

If you quit your job they have to pay out the vacation leave but not sick leave.

The result is that many government employees, with long careers, historically have tons of sick leave they aren’t using (as in several hundred hours). When someone has a life event it’s not uncommon for coworkers to donate some of their leave to the person (think having a baby or a cancer diagnosis).

You can of course take more leave then you have sick days with FMLA, but they will be unpaid (by your job, you may qualify for something like short term disability, idk). Sick leave that you have when you become eligible for pension retirement typically can apply to your retirement (potentially allowing you to retire earlier), but you still have to qualify for retirement first.

If you’re 3 years from retiring and you can’t qualify for early retirement with your leave, then you might have hundreds of hours you’re not going to be able to use.

I took some time in thinking about your response, I want you to know that. That said, “There’s lots of places in the US where cops are paid significantly above median wages for the region as their base pay,” doesn’t mean much in the context of my original statement. My original statement said very much the same in fact. Cops, on paper, get paid above average and have tons of opportunity for overtime. What your response misses is the danger associated and the expectation of overtime.

It’s one thing when you can have unlimited overtime and another when you are expected to take unlimited overtime. There is also a disconnect when that overtime comes with an expectation of being shot and killed. With those expectations it’s no surprise that police are the largest portion of a city government. If you have a group of people that you expect to work long hours, work extra overtime, meet the municipality’s needs, and potentially die in their duty, then they should command a large portion of the budget.

If you don’t want to pay people to do these things then you can’t be upset that they don’t do those things. You get the cops that you pay for. I’ll be the first to say Fuck the Police, but I’ll also be the first to say we get the Police we pay for.

Care to elaborate? I won’t argue that funding for the department isn’t a problem, but at least in my own anecdotal relation of an individual experience that seems to be the problem.