The premise of this piece and the way it's written gives me the feeling this applies to neurodivergent people on the autism spectrum, not dummies in general.
> but rather because so many things in our culture and society has been subtly altered to benefit women more and more over several decades to the point that men feel like getting into a relationship, or just investing in a woman at all, is a great way of getting screwed over
I'm a man, and I don't have this experience. Your comment makes me curious — what has changed and in what way to make it more likely that men will be screwed over by women? Is it that women are more likely to reject/leave a man once he has invested, or are you thinking about something else entirely?
Seconding this. Idk how things got so transactional and product-oriented in relationships for a lot of people but I'm really glad I don't think that way, even as a man who waited until 40 to get married.
I think it's such a huge topic that it's really hard to summarize on an online message board, but in very broad terms I think you could say that the feeling I have is that there used to be a social contract between men and women where men were supposed to be A, B, and C, and women were supposed to be X, Y and Z. But now it seems that only men are still expected to be A, B and C - plus maybe D, while women are instead 'free' to be whatever they want. So you still have to be a 'real man', but she doesn't have to be a 'proper woman'.
The weird thing is that I'm not really pro gender roles, I'm much more pro individual freedom, so I hate being the one to make this argument. But I do think that there will always be some differences between men and women, and I think we are hurting ourselves a lot as a society by refusing to acknowledge that.
My only small antidote would be to allow people to have a marriage that could be more explicit if the partners chose to. If they wanted a 'till death do us part' marriage, then that should be allowed.
well, no. You can say that's what you're doing, and so can your future wife, but it's still incredibly easy to back out of if you change your mind, with few legal, economic, or social barriers to doing so.
On the one hand, these barriers can keep people trapped in truly abusive situations, and it is important for such people to be able to escape. But on the other, 'I don't love my husband/wife anymore', is not any great horror, and I'd hazard that most people who are happily married till death have had at least one long period, potentially of multiple years, where they don't feel as though they love their spouse. But they work through it and things improve. There's something about being 'trapped' with someone that motivates people to make things work in a way that they wouldn't if they know there is an out.
I believe the world ha changed and there is no way this would work in our culture anymore. Personally I treat not being divorced as a kind of achievement, but I realized many if not most people don't share my sentiment.
Yeh, I agree. I don't think there's any sort of legal solution to the problem, since the problem is social, not legal. I was just trying to explain what I think the other person was getting at.
Practically every frontend framework uses components. The problem with React is that so many of its abstractions are leaky and forces a lot of accidental complexity on the developer.
One example where it's leaky is when you want to memoize something, and now you need to memoize all its dependencies, recursively, and you end up with a 30 file PR.
I say this as a big fan of React, and I'm hoping the compiler turns out a success.
Well, they're part of the effects abstraction. And they are leaking because you have to manually track them. You are already using the dependency variables inside the hook function. And now you need to duplicate them into an array and keep the array updated as your effect hook changes. This is leaky.
I think it can set your free, but I don't think it's a necessity. I think it's totally possible to move on and process something without forgiving.
There's currently a cultural pressure to forgive, as if that's the only option. That makes things more difficult for those who are not able to forgive. There is no right way to process a wrong.
> They have an interest in this conflict that is not the same as Israel's.
You are quite right, Israel's interest is to kill and displace the Palestinians, crush them as a people. Very few human right groups would have an interest that aligns with that.
Maybe you don't believe them, but if the goal is to determine truth its probably better to start from a place of assuming innocence and change views based on evidence, not the other way around.
You seem to have left out the 17 year blockade of Gaza by Israel, the intentional starvation of the population. The occasional bombings and "targeted" airstrikes... sure they just randomly attacked Israel one day because they felt like it...
That's not the order things occurred. When Israel left Gaza it left it to the Palestinian authority and it wasn't blockaded (there was some partial blockade but it was practically open). The present walls and barriers around Gaza were put in place after the disengagement as a response to specific attacks coming out of Gaza.
The previous restrictions on Gaza were also a result of attacks coming out of Gaza on Israeli civilians.
If the population was starving while Hamas, the government of Gaza, managed to smuggle in RPGs, assault rifles, lathes, trucks, rockets, mortars, sniper rifles, heavy machine guns etc. then clearly the issue is a matter of their priorities, not Israel. Hamas stole concrete to make tunnels, used water pipes to make rockets, was the elected government, and is completely responsible if its population is starving (which I don't think was true anyways). You're also somehow conveniently leaving Egypt out of the picture. Why should Israel feed its enemies (and allow them to work in Israel, and give them water and power). Egypt could have done all that. But Hamas didn't only pick a fight with Israel- they also collaborated with ISIS in Sinai and picked a fight with Egypt.
They "randomly attacked Israel one day" because they are consumed by hate and religious fanaticism. Just listen to what they say. If they chose peace, they'd get peace, Israel has no interest in randomly attacking them.
what is "Israel"? are you referring to the people of Israel? Do you believe that 9 million Israelis have interest of killing and displacing Palestinians and crush them as a people?
and what interest Palestinians have in regard to Israelis from your point of view?
Going by Israeli TV, Telegram channels and polls, unfortunately it really does seem like a large proportion of Israelis think of Palestinians as sub-human bugs to be crushed.
Already we've seen settlers building an "outpost" inside Gaza, while Israeli soldiers watch on. Meanwhile, Israeli civilians block aid to starving children, again while the IDF watch.
> what interest Palestinians have in regard to Israelis from your point of view?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Is it "how to Palestinians feel about Israelis?". If so, I don't know, but I can imagine how I might feel if I'd been dehumanised my entitre life; lived under brutal occupation/blockade my entire life, seen siblings carted off to be tortured in Israeli dungeons, had my father shot in front of me etc. Perhaps Israel should stop stealing land and homes, and stop their institutionalised dehumanisation of Palestinians; many Israelis seem to need de-radicalising.
You specifically asked me for a response about "one side" - I respond, and am accused of bias. I just looked at your post history, and I regret engaging with you, as well, talk about hypocrisy.
I can answer that for you, we expect Israel to abide by the 1993 Oslo Accords which provides for a two state solution agreed upon by both parties. So far Israel has breached that agreement since day one.
In reference to the same poll: "A vast majority of Jewish Israelis believe that the IDF is using an appropriate amount or not enough force" [0]. "Nearly 58 percent of respondents in one poll said they think the IDF is using “too little firepower” in Gaza" [1]
I think most Israelis do not believe peace is possible with the Palestinians. This is a result of the suicide bombing campaign that followed the Oslo peace process.
But I don't think your survey shows what you're saying it shows. I've no doubt that more Israeli Jews want peace than Arabs. Find me a survey that asks this question to both population, do you prefer peace or a war. I have no doubt what the answer would be. You can see this in the public discourse, the Palestinian population supports "resistance" which is war. you won't find much Israeli discourse about initiating violence against the Palestinian population pre Oct 7th. See this: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/new-poll-shows-palestinians...
Palestinians could have peace at any time. On Israeli terms. They can have their freedom, their humans rights. What they can't have is the land they demand, the right of return, and the eviction of the state of Israel.
In terms of Gaza, it's not surprising Israelis are disappointed with the progress in the war. It's been 5 months and Gaza hasn't been completely retaken and Hamas has not been defeated as a military. Again I don't think this actually supports your point of view at all or necessarily paints Israelis in a bad light. If Hamas hadn't attacked on Oct 7th we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since they have Israel is using all its might to destroy them and yes there are severe consequences to the Gazans. Israel is somewhat in the middle in terms of the usage of force in this situation vs. what most of the world considers to be normal. The Russians e.g. would undoubtedly apply a lot more force. Even most of the western world would and has.
> Israel is somewhat in the middle in terms of the usage of force in this situation vs. what most of the world considers to be normal
If we're being honest, I think that perception (such that it may exist) largely depends upon the race of the subject states. Consider the recent bomb blast on Iran, attributed to Israel - if Iran responded in the same manner as Israel did after Oct 7th, our govs would be denouncing them as evil incarnate!
In any case, I really think - really hope - that's not true; surely most civilians don't think forced starvation, massacres of children, torture etc are "OK". If so, there is no hope for humanity.
And bear in mind this is not "just" about Gaza - many more people now know about Israel's illegal and dehumanising actions towards Palestinians, whipping up Islamophobia, and general land-theft and terrorism throughout the region. And we do not understand how this is allowed to happen in our name, supported by our governments.
> Even most of the western world would and has.
In the past, yes. And in times gone by, civilians were kept informed of global events by newspapers and TV news. Now, we are basically seeing a genocide, land-grab and oil-grab unfold right before our very eyes, from the normal, everyday people who are affected - people who now don't seem so different to us, people just like us.
What recent bomb blast on Iran? You're not seriously comparing slaughtering and raping party goers (to say the least), abducting woman, babies and elderly, to a clandestine operation against some infrastructure. Iran says it wants to destroy Israel (and why?) and acts towards it. Israel is allowed to counteract that.
If Israel raided Iran, raped Iranian woman, beheaded random Iranian citizens, abducted Iranian children and elderly, Iran would absolutely be justified to start a war with Israel. Many Iranians are strong supporters of Israel in this conflict by the way. In a war you do anything possible, these days within international law, to defeat your enemy and I'd fully expect Iran to try that under those circumstances.
You're insisting Israel is the bad side here. I'm going to respectfully disagree. There is no comparison between the moral positions of Israel and Hamas.
We're seeing war. The use of the word genocide in the context of this war is propaganda and is eroding the meaning of that word.
EDIT: It's also important to consider that Iran is already waging a proxy war on Israel. A war with no justification.
> that and the fact over 500 Israeli soldiers were killed by Hamas in Gaza so far
Israel are the occupying, attacking force, and have massacred thousands of civilians. You want me to care about war criminals, who routinely broadcast their depraved attrocities on TikTok? Come on now.
Israel is not defending itself. They are actively murdering civilians to the point you can claim it as genocide. [0] Hamas did not killed those civilians it was Israel who killed them.[1] Israel dehumanized Palestinians[2][3]. He is not a Jew hater, you are accusing him of something he is not and trying to deny the reality of the atrocities committed by Israel. As for all Jews, yes, they are all the same. If the Jews didn't have someone at the head of the Jews who was dedicated to building Solomon's temple by committing this atrocity, the Jews wouldn't have the courage to act.
The double standards are pretty breath-taking - Russia's conduct in Ukraine was labelled a genocide, but Israel's conduct is comparatively white-washed.
While the initial cause for war is obviously different, that does not justify war crimes.
I don't think western-brained folks realise how bad this looks to the rest of the world. For example to India, and the amount damage it does to the West's reputation.
> Because the Russian government took Ukrainian children to raise as Russians, something without parallel in I/P.
I cannot find any reference to this as a reasoning for declaring genocide. 6 countries made a declaration, and all allegations centre around rampant killing of civilians. That's the main benchmark.
> Weirdly, quiet a few of the nations making this critique were notably cool on Ukraine..hypocrisy is in the other direction.
Without googling, can you tell how many armed conflicts are going on in Africa right now?
There is horrible civil war in Sudan and nobody in the west cares. Neighbouring countries have inflows of refugees, etc. So you are perfect example of western-brain, expecting everyone in the world to have same priorities as you do.
Meanwhile we can't even hold our own companies to account, they bypass sanctions through Kazakhstan and other ex-USSR states, and none of the executives are in jail.
>I cannot find any reference to this as a reasoning for declaring genocide. 6 countries made a declaration, and all allegations centre around rampant killing of civilians. That's the main benchmark.
I haven't checked the PR statements, but the arrest warrant regarding the children includes the genocide charge[0], that's where the actual legal action centres, not around 'rampant killing'.
It's based on article 2(e) of the genocide convention: "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[1]. Also, Russia is doing it publicly so it's easy to prove.
>Without googling, can you tell how many armed conflicts are going on in Africa right now?
Without googling: I know of Sudan, Congo, the Mali / subsaharan Jihadi mess (they've been sieging Timbuktu for months now?), Somalia (recently also Somaliland area) and Ethiopia (civil war with TPLF reduced, but Oromo still going on). Northern Nigeria always has something bad going on.
Well, let's quiz you then: What country currently has millions of people are risk of starving to death due to war?
I'll give you more clues: it's also one of the largest mass displacements of people due to war in current times, with plenty of rape and ethnic cleansing.
I will of course want to see how many comments you've posted about the topic, and how many HN submissions. Since obviously this war is many times larger than Gaza, so should command a much larger portion of your attention.
That's not whataboutism, the issue at hand is that no one cares about conflicts unless Jews are involved, and I just proved that to you. Whataboutism would be for you to reply to me, I was the one who started the statement.
And you seem incredibly obsessed with this conflict - but no others.
