That looks yummy

This is essentially the Zionist stance.

It started with a view that ‘in order for Jews to escape persecution, an ethnostate for the Jewish faith must be established’. During this time it was still in contention within the movement on where Zion should be established, but it’s also noteable that independant zionist groups were buying land in Palestine for establishing Zion at the same time. This was during the time that Palestinians (and Arabs within the Ottoman empire in general) were helping the British with destabilizing the Ottoman empire under the agreement that these resistance groups would be given their land back from the Ottomans.

Then the Balfour Declaration occurred in 1917 which promised British support in making Palestine a safehaven for Jews, and shortly after the promise of giving Palestinians their land was reevaluated.

As tensions and conflict arose between the well-funded Zionist collective growing in Palestine and the Palestinian forces who wanted the Zionist project out of Palestine, a new tone ended up showing up in Zionist literature. A noteable essay, ‘The Iron Wall’ by Ze’ev Jabotinsky communicates that shift fairly well.

Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.

Essentially Ze’ev concludes in his essay that the Zionist project will fail unless it takes on a fully colonialist design. This was also just after Winston Churchill prohibited Zionists from settling on the East side of the Jordan River in 1923.

These are mostly snippets of the whole history, but it is essentially the trajectory we’ve followed since, from what I’ve read.

I think I see the problem. Tortoise should be where turtle is, turtle should be in that corner.

You cannot function or work towards a meaningful future if you are constantly drained from a lack of happiness. It’s those moments of hope and bliss which drive us forward. To deny yourself those moments is to remove your drive for better times.

It is not a matter of whether it’s morally acceptable - you must be happy at times in order to renew your fighting spirit. To question whether happiness is OK is like questioning whether eating or breathing are OK.

McCarthyism is probably the most succinct answer. The Cold War directly aligned us against the Soviet Union, and a key means of villainizing the USSR and its citizenry was to paint their core governing beliefs as heretical to the American way.

There is also no doubt in my mind that Socialism’s strong connection to Union activity in the US also incentivized Corporate Barons to lobby against Social Politics hard. I have not seen any specifics about that myself, though. Modern lobbying efforts are well-known, though.

Why do they hate the decorative throw rugs?

Cheap ethernet cord sometimes has thin insulation on the inside, and because of that you’re able to see the wire twist through it.

‘Wet’ is in reference to pussy juice I think. That’s the best guess I’ve got. I’ll let Cunningham’s Law do it’s thing here.

If it’s predominantly men it’s ‘creepy’. If it’s predominantly women, it’s ‘wet’.

I’ve heard the explanation being that if it’s mostly guys, your are most likely not going to be seen as one of ‘the creepy guys’, but if you’re one of the few guys at a gym, you’re much more likely to be picked out as creepy.

Still sounds like some kind of sexist thing at face value.

It’s still magic. Even the folks studying the cutting edge eventually have to admit ‘I don’t know post this point.’ We just happen to have an explanation up to that point.

Socialism in political theory is the idea that, at minimum, some systems should be owned by the collective - that’s it. The Road system in the US is largely a socialist project, for reference. USPS was also a socialist project before it was privatized. So is our now mostly defunded education system. Our fucking amazing national park system was also a socialist project to create jobs during the great recession. And the only reason that these things are going downhill is because we’ve defunded them.

Other things socialists want would be federally funded healthcare, a federally maintained train system, college being funded by US taxes, etc.

Yes, stalinism, communism, and Maoism are socialist ideologies. So is social democracy, the Nordic model, and various others.

You’re brainwashed based on your reaction to that word.

No, these points strongly line up with liberalism, and that final point actually diverges from US leftist rhetoric ATM.

Anarchists are pretty often saying ‘learn to use a firearm for your own safety’ right now. As in ‘arm the LGBT’ line of convo.

Marxists are often saying ‘learn to use a firearm, we need them for the revolution’.

Hell, even US people who are strongly aligned with maintaining democracy are now saying ‘get a gun so we can throw this shithead out of office’. I don’t doubt this rhetoric is similar in other countries dealing with soon-to-be dictators.

In the US at least, Gun control is currently much more aligned with liberalism than leftism. It’s gotten that bad.

HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I’VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT FOR YOU. HATE. HATE.

Also the idea is that each bite should have all the ingredients, so the limiting factor really just is “how many different things can we fit into an open mouth’s height?” Which makes it harder. I am for using thinner, higher-quality patties as a solution, but people wouldn’t like that as much as a solution.

Wait until I fill that box with quark-gluon plasma.