And what Hamas is trying to accomplish is also genocide - but this is all besides the point. The larger question is this: what would it take for you to believe even a fraction of what the Israeli military claims?

Can it be true that the IDF is indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians as well as telling the truth?

Would you claim that Hamas is justified in their killing of civilians if the Israeli military also kills civilians?

Even further: what happens if all foreign governments stop sending aid to Israel and Lebanon/Hamas/etc. attack Israeli citizens with the intent of purging them? Would you suddenly support the IDF in it’s struggle to protect Israeli citizens from these groups who have already made it clear that their primary purpose is the genocide of the Jews in the Levant?

Regardless of anyone’s feelings on the IDF, it is incumbent on all of us to take the claims of Hamas and Israel with a massive grain of salt - you may not believe in the credibility of the IDF but you certainly cannot dismiss the engrained antisemitism of Hamas and others in the region and believe them at face value.

Which is more likely for underground tunnels that don’t hold many people and are kitted for permanent subterranean living:

1. a safe place for a terrorist organization’s leadership and inner circle to plan attacks with the easy ability to traverse the city unknown
2. temporary bomb shelters for the population of Gaza

At what point will people, who bend over backwards to defend a designated terrorist organization who exclusively target civilians, admit that the conflict is more complicated than “Israel bad” - when Hamas revives indiscriminate bus bombings of Israelis (or do they pine for the 90s/2000s again)? Netanhanyu needs to go, but Hamas doesn’t even try to distinguish between military targets and civilians - all Israelis are military targets (genocide). The victims in this conflict are Palestinian and Israeli civilians and this needs to not be forgotten in their haze of Israeli bloodlust.

Blood libel is anti-Semitic.

Just because you don’t understand these code phrases or dog whistles doesn’t mean anti-Semitism doesn’t exist.

The Wikipedia quote is misleading - some European countries used zero/null but it was agreed that the prevailing usage should be the letter O.

Wiki source 12

Apparently, it was originally C and changed later, too.

So genocide is ok as long as enough time passes from the event? It’s such an obvious dog whistle when those opposed to the current genocide are magically unopposed to the genocide perpetrated against a certain group of people “before 1930”. It’s not ok to perform acts of genocide against the Palestinian civilians today nor is it ok for the historical Jewish populations to have had acts of genocide perpetrated against them.

Outspoken libertarians aren’t going to be bullied in college - outspoken anything in college generally leads to people ignoring you. College students that think they’re being bullied most likely attribute normal behavior to bullying - just like incels treat normal human interactions as impediments to getting laid.

It’s vav across many, if not most, Jewish ethnicities (not sure why you’d single out ashkenazi Jews) as well as predominantly a ‘v’ sound in almost all cases. I googled it and found that waw is accurate if we were talking about semitic origins of the letter, not its modern usage in Hebrew.

Adonai, Elohim, and El Shaddai. All 3 names are used in the Torah and all 3 are plural. We were taught that the God of Israel was one of many gods, but that the ancient Israelites were specifically chosen by this god. This god liked to war with the chosen people of other gods and the Torah is full of those tales. Basically, I’m not talking about kaballah but the authors of the Torah using multiple words for the name of God, some of which being plural.

In Hebrew, there are many names for God - some of which are plural (a remnant from when Judaism was polytheistic).

It’s also vav, not waw. The sound is a v.

Hard to forget a decade of Hebrew school.

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) and the 10th Amendment clearly state that the federal government has more, read: supreme, power over the states. You may be misremembering that the phrase “nor prohibited by it to the States” exists in the amendment. Basically, a federal law today will immediately and automatically nullify a 200 year old state law - precedence nor time of the state law will survive a Supreme Court review even if all 9 Justices are Federalist Society lackeys.

I enjoyed Star Trek 25th Anniversary and the first Starfleet Command with the latter being my favorite.

He also knows Bubbles? Small world!

The privacy policy at startup links to a very comprehensive version. I think someone may have posted it above.

Except these warrants aren’t granted for “any reason” and I’m fairly sure you know that as well. Like I implied in my comment, the government is not some monolithic entity where all government employees conspire to deprive you, John Q. Public, of all of your rights.

My claim is only that no matter how well implemented a program may be, certain individuals will still claim corruption where none statistically exists. The whole point of our society is to implement laws, execute those laws, evaluate if those laws are having a positive affect on mitigating the problem it’s meant to solve, and change the law to address shortcomings or unnecessary bits.

Of course we should all be skeptical of the process, but arguing against change because we don’t feel like the results are going to be what we like is irrational. Past behavior is important to keep in mind but let’s not exaggerate and wax hyperbolic. It’s simple: If our elected officials aren’t implementing and reevaluating laws based on evidence/results, then it is our responsibility to remove those officials from power. If the roadblock to removing those in power are your fellow citizens, it’s your responsibility to help gain consensus in your community.

Tearing down, or dismissing, the system is not reasonable; that’s partly how in US politics we’ve become so polarized. People don’t have patience anymore for conversation or debate; they want immediate and immaculate change with 100% certainty and that’s unrealistic. Change is gradual and is never going to get it right out of the gate.

So come on, if you’re French, engage with your community and your elected officials to ensure that this law is implemented (or retracted) as honest as possible and stay engaged. Opinions without reasonable action is how fascism takes hold. I’m not sure how this law will turn out but I’m willing to be surprised that it gets implemented honestly. And if you’re not French, well, then I’m pretty sure yours and my opinions on how that citizenry chooses to govern is none of our business (outside of gross universal human rights violations and this is nowhere near the same galaxy).

When people hold conspiracy theories about the government being some monolithic engine of evil, or people who don’t believe government should exist because “muh freedoms”, any time an arm of the government is used as a check they just don’t care. It doesn’t matter that their beliefs have no basis in reality - they will dismiss any evidence contrary to their beliefs because it’s dangerous to their worldview. It wouldn’t matter if 1,000,000 warrants are denied for every 1 warrant approved - the one approval is all the evidence needed to claim tyranny.

How appropriate, you fight like a cow!

In the English speaking world, it is a slur regardless of whether or not you use it as slang for a cigarette. Do you really believe that using a word is more important than making sure others don’t feel marginalized? Emotional intelligence is partly about empathy and using that to recognize harmful behavior. A sign of maturity and positive personal growth is realizing that your behavior causes others to feel unwelcome and correcting that behavior. It’s fortuitous that, in a thread about signs of poor education, we are having this discussion. Criticisms are learning experiences, not made with malice; malice is purposefully saying something harmful and celebrating it. Will your life truly be ruined by substituting that word so you don’t accidentally hurt someone?

If you knew saying that word could cause pain in others, why would you say it and further celebrate it? OP may not have meant their question this way, but your comment is how I identify people with poor emotional intelligence.