I’ll say, we had a guy do the scarecrow thing in a neighborhood I lived in when I was under 5yo back in the late 80s. 30 years later, the only actual memories I have of trick or treating at that age are the scarecrow guy and some shitty old guy who gave out popcorn balls. I can still picture scarecrow guy’s house and everything about the set up. Point being, congratulations on creating some core memories for a lot of kids!

Just a guess, but it’s probably a combination of two things. First, if we say a self driving car is going to hit an edge case it can’t resolve once in every, say, 100,000 miles, the number of Tesla’s and other self driving cars on the roads now means more miles driven more frequently which means those edge cases are going to occur more frequently. Second, people are becoming over reliant on self driving - they are (incorrectly ) trusting it more and paying less attention, meaning less chance of human intervention when those edge cases occur. So probably the self driving is overall better, but the number of accidents overall is increasing.

As a listener of Knowledge Fight, and thus Alex Jones Infowars, part of his explanation has something to do with god and the literal devil and (I swear) intergalactic contract law. Something about the globalists can only get away with their depopulation plans if they provide warning first, and thus we all accept the contract or something, so that’s why the globalists leave clues in plain site. Cause they have to, cause intergalactic contract law.

People who meme “the frogs are gay” are truly only scratching the surface of how insane and dangerous that guy and his followers are.

I’m less concerned about trans jokes specifically, but I worry that Jon Stewart of now won’t be able to live up to our memories of him during the W years. Will be be sufficiently progressive for modern left viewers, or is he going to be a Bill Maher “center left” type? Will he be is sharp and cutting as he was, and be able to translate that to a world that is so more polarized and down the rabbit hole with conspiracy theories and all that junk?

Basically I’m afraid this is Michael Jordan coming out of retirement to play for the Washington Wizards.

Maybe my concerns are not well placed, I didn’t catch his newer show because I don’t feel like subscribing to Apple TV, so I don’t know where he’s at nowadays. I’m cautiously optimistic, but I’m fully prepared to be let down.

As others have said, a like of wood and paper form warmth. The important part though is the person kneeling to light that on fire was not shot first, someone else standing nearby was killed. Then two other people running to the victims aid where then shot. When one of those guys trys to crawl away he gets shot again. Then when the IDF troops get there, they don’t seem to give a shit about the pile of wood/paper, they just look at they guy they killed, kick one of the wounded guys on the ground, and then leave without providing any aid.

The IDF’s story is they thought the guy lighting the pile was lighting a moltov cocktail. Bullshit, but even if so, why not shoot that guy doing the lighting instead of just some other random nearby guy? Or how do the guys coming to the first guys aid pose any kind of threat?

What’s really fucked is nothing will come of this. Just another dead Palestinian.

The point your making is at best that journalists aren’t biased in favor of Israel as a country, they are biased in favor of nation-state sanctioned slaughter. When a “terrorist” attacks people in their homes, that is horrific. When a nation-state levels an entire neighborhood, that’s a “counterattack.” The most charitable version of your argument is that these publications don’t just devalue Palestinian lives, they simply devalue all civilian lives when a nation state uses indescriminate force. So long as the people doing the killing are flying a internationally recognized flag and doing that killing in an impersonal way, it is not “tragic” or “horrific” or a “slaughter.” The fact that the human suffering that results is on a far greater scale is of no consequence, if a nation state does it it’s fine. Your argument is arguably far worse.

But that’s not what is happening here. If Russia or China had clustered two million minorities in a small walled area, and then bombed the ever living shit out of them, killing at least 10,000 women and children, displacing 90 percent of the population, cutting off food, water, and power for months at a time, do you think the NYT or WaPo would refrain from calling that a “massacre” or “slaughter” or “horrific”? Of course not, the bad guys killing civilians gets emotionally charged language. The “good guys” killing civilians is just the unavoidable consequence of a “counterattack” after a “horrific slaughter”, proportionality be damned.

This article actually does a great job of quantitfying this bias, I encourage you to actually read it.

In conclusion, take your head out of your ass.

California passed a law banning caste discrimination, but Gov Newsome vetoed it after Indian backlash. Their argument was that by singleing out caste discrimination, your calling attention to an Indian cultural practice that totally doesn’t happen anymore (it does, even in the US), and since your bringing negative attention to and falling out an Indian cultural thing doing so is therefore racist/discriminatory. To me this just sounds like white people being against an anti discrimination law because it makes white people look bad because of their past practice of discrimination, and racism totally doesn’t exist anymore. Like if race or caste discrimination isn’t a problem anymore, then the law does nothing, so what’s the big deal?

It bummed me out that the Indian community in CA was so up in arms about that law, as it not only would have protected people, it would have sent a message to the world, and India in particular, that we’re firmly against caste discrimination. Especially if the Indian-American community was vocally backing it. It could have done some real good. Also, Newsome is a coward for doing what is politically expedient for his presidential ambitions, rather than doing what’s right.

Tin foil hat warning, but it is starting to feel like Israel knows it’s losing US support for the genocide, so is looking to broaden the conflict to force the US to relock arms with them.

Ps. Why doesn’t this source mention that Israel is responsible for this strike, it’s reported all over the place I didn’t even think it was a question. The JP treats it like some rogue weather event that came out of nowhere.

So you accept that people in NY have gun rights, and thus your initial explanation is invalid.

I’m curious, how do you feel about being around drunk people while you are sober? Is the problem the children themselves, or is being around someone who is loud, obnoxious, and self centered (which I think describes both children and drunk people).

I’m general, my main advice would be to look into yourself to see what specifically is bothering you and why. That’s basically what I assume a therapist would do. Maybe it’s something like your own need for attention causes feelings of resentment when someone else is demanding attention. Maybe it’s just the loud noises kids make. If it’s the kids themselves and not their noise and self-centered attitude, maybe the root is something related to kids resurfacing your own childhood memories/trauma. Once you identify the root of the problem, maybe you can start working toward letting whatever it is go, or at least recognizing in the moment that your not angry at the kid, your angry at whatever issue in yourself you’ve identified. Understanding what is going on in your own head might at least keep you from screaming at the kid.

I don’t know anything though, just a stranger spouting off, so please take this with a giant grain of salt. A professional therapist would obviously be better, but I understand from your other responses that might not be practical for you.

Removed by mod

I quoted the IDF spokesperson, who said nothing about crossfire or active combat, just fighting “in the area.” And that’s the IDF, who doesn’t have a great track record with honesty. Your just making shit up trying to find some way to justify indescriminate use of force. Even your made up scenarios, what rules of engagement would allow soilders to fire on unnarmed people just because they were running? If the IDF had any manner of restraint they wouldn’t immediately target people without assessing whether or not they were an actual threat, which these civilians clearly weren’t. They don’t, because there are no consequences for IDF killing civilians, except in this one instance because those civilians happened to be Israeli.

Bullshit.

The army’s chief spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, says Israeli troops found the hostages Friday and erroneously identified them as a threat. He said it was not clear if they had escaped their captors or been abandoned.

They were seen and shot, this was not during active combat or crossfire. They were alone. They were unarmed. They posed no threat to the IDF. And they were targeted and killed because the IDF has no qualms with targeting and killing civilians. They just killed their own civilians this time.

The army’s chief spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, says Israeli troops found the hostages Friday and erroneously identified them as a threat. He said it was not clear if they had escaped their captors or been abandoned.

So, this wasn’t an oopsie with crossfire. This was, IDF found three people and killed them. I think the implication is these three were alone and very likely unarmed. It’s hard to imagine how they could have been perceived as a “threat” by troops. If the hostages has noticed the IDF troops at all, they were probably coming toward them with hands up to be rescued. And the IDF fired on them.

This just goes to show how indescriminate the IDF is. “Perceived as a threat” just means “perceived to be Palestine.” There are no rules of engagement, just this time it bit the IDF in the ass.

Whew that’s a wild statement. I don’t think literally anybody on the planet believes that, and I think saying something like that would make even paid Israeli officials who deal professionally is spouting propoganda blush with shame.

I can only imagine what has gone wrong in your life that you’d be so uniformed about the situation in Gaza, and yet so compelled to shovel the most exaggerated propaganda on the Internet for strangers to downvote. I hope your a paid shill, I truly do. Because if not, then there is likely a lot of trauma behind that screen of yours and I sincerely hope you seek help. Arguing on the Internet isn’t going to fix the pain your dealing with, friend. Log off, take a deep look at yourself and your life, and maybe go find someone to talk to about it. Wishing you luck on your road to recovery from whatever got you to this sad point in your life.

How do execs not understand the Streisand Effect yet? If DeNiro had just made the speech and criticized Trump and the industry, I never would have read past the headline. Good for him for speaking out, but I’m good and over “celebrity bashes Trump” stories. Ah but Apple censors Trump criticism, well now you’ve got my click and my eyeballs. So dumb. Also evil. But mostly just dumb.

Sacrifice your soldiers today for potential enemy soldiers in the future, while you’re at war and under attack by said enemy? Great plan.

My plan is to comply with international humanitarian law. It is a great plan. Its an awesome fucking plan in fact.

You’re suggesting Israel should have to keep open supply lines open for enemy forces.

And here you acknowledge the cage.

Embargoing and cutting off your supplies from a hostile force is pretty standard when it comes to warfare.

2.1 million Palestinians are a hostile force? Also its literally a requirement of international humanitiarian law

IHL provides that civilians under the power of enemy forces must be treated humanely in all circumstances, without any adverse distinction. They must be protected against all forms of violence and degrading treatment, including murder and torture. Moreover, in case of prosecution, they are entitled to a fair trial affording all essential judicial guarantees. The protection of civilians extends to those trying to help them, in particular medical units and humanitarian or relief bodies providing essentials such as food, clothing and medical supplies. The warring parties are required to allow access to such organizations. The Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I specifically require belligerents to facilitate the work of the ICRC. While IHL protects all civilians without discrimination, certain groups are singled out for special mention. Women and children, the aged and sick are highly vulnerable during armed conflict. So too are those who flee their homes and become internally displaced or refugees. IHL prohibits forced displacements by intimidation, violence or starvation.>

Your literally defending war crimes buddy. Maybe take a look in the mirror.

I was specifically referring to the 2021 elections and Israel’s refusal to allow East Jerusalem to vote after Israel annexed the territory. But you probably knew that. Palestinians dislike Hamas, an election likely would have removed them from power, but Israel gave Hamas the bullshit excuse it needed to stay in power. Great job!

Hamas has made it clear they will not surrender or negotiate for a viable peace

I don’t know if you have reading comprehension problems or were specifically ignoring the point, but I was explicitly talking about what comes after Hamas. You have 2.1 million people in a cage for decades. You cut off their food and water for weeks, kill 10,000 people, over half children, and you think even after you kill every Hamas leader and solider that the citizens that left are just going to go back to living in their cage without human rights? This is something the US learned in Afghanistan, you kill one civilian, you create two new terrorists. The same will happen here. Unless, of course, your intention was to lump all Palestinians under the label of “Hamas”, in which case consider your true colors seen!

I suspect for this reason we’re probably going to see a forcible regime change and/or some annexation in Gaza very soon.

I also agree that Israel intends to engage in illegal ethnic cleansing. Glad we’re on the same page about that at least.

Sacrificing significant numbers of your own soldiers to save enemy civilians sounds noble

It sounds consistent with the international laws of war. Everything you listed, especially being politically unpopular, is not a legitimate consideration for the use of military force against civilian populations. Under international law, the party using force must weigh the expected military advantage against the anticipated harm to civilians and civilian objects. If the same objective could be achieved via a means less harmful to civilians, that is the required option. Maybe you don’t give a shit about international law, Israel never has. It is also completely disingenuous to frame loss of IDF soldiers on the battlefield as some “win” for Hamas or a risk to Israel’s security. Hamas is terrorist organization fighting with soviet era junk and homemade rockets going up against a nation-state backed by the US. IDF losses would be in the hundreds at most in the worst conditions.

They certainly aren’t trying to maximize civilian casualties…At very least it’s obvious they want to minimize the blowback from the media

Now that’s just silly. Israel doesn’t care about the media. The Israeli UN ambassadors were wearing gold stars to protest the overwhelming UN resolution calling for a humanitarian cease fire, and Israel got called out by the Holocaust Musuem for the tactic. Israel does not care about media criticism. But you are right, they are not trying to maximize civilian casualties. They are trying to inflict maximum suffering as a means of ethnic cleansing.

See the link in my above post for detailed info and examples of how Hamas intentionally uses human shields and puts their bases in and under hospitals, churches, mosques, etc.,

Your link is nearly 10 years out of date. Also, there’s no “its ok to bomb entire neighborhoods if a enemy combatant has a home in the neighborhood so is therefore using human shields” exception to the international law of war obligation to protect civilians. Not even if you, like Israel, view Palestinians as subhuman and not deserving of basic rights.

These countries are at war with each other,

There are not two countries at war. There is one country, Israel. This is an anti-terrorism operation, by definition.

and someone currently on your side today is better for your national interests than someone who might potentially be on your enemy’s side in the future.

That’s just some cold ass shit. Really all about wining those hearts and minds. At any rate, its a violation of international law so ok.

Would you enthusiastically join them in such an incursion, without air support, to save enemy civilians who are likely to support said enemy?

Ah this old chesnut, how lazy. I could easily ask the same thing to you - would you enthusiastically support your country bombing civilian neighborhood because there might be an enemy combatant in a tunnel underneath the homes? Really waiving the flag after that one?

How about the cutting off food and water for millions of people? That’s a legitimate thing to do, right?

Hamas has a leader in a tunnel under a refugee camp. You can 1) go into the tunnel and kill the Hamas fighters, possibly losing IDF soilders along the way, or 2) you can bomb the fuck out of the civilian houses on top of the tunnel and hope that collapses the tunnel and kills the leader, killing hundreds of civilians. A righteous country, an explicitly religious country who answers to god, would choose to sacrifice it’s soilders over sacrificing innocent lives. Israel instead decided to commit a war crime. And then after being called out by the international community, did the same thing the next day.

Since you like asking questions, maybe you can answer one. Please explain how cutting off food and water for 2.1 million people is a legitimate military tactic and not just the war crime of collective punishment?