fenderbluesjr

While you may(or not) be right about rise in antisemitism, there also seems to be a lot more videos surfacing of stuff that doesn't reflect well on Israel. I consider myself pretty unbiased in this, I have absolutely no opinions about ethnicity etc and have often come to defense of Israel in some discussions but I can honestly say that my own view has soured a little bit. The killing(and denial) of that journalist, and that video of a funeral procession spring to mind. Starting to remind me of Northern Irish loyalists(who happen to revere Israel), which imo is a pretty ugly movement. Nothing about this is inherent to the people or country but (I think) like loyalism, comes from a degree of insecurity that can manifest as truculence

Step away from the computer and you will no longer be 'constantly assaulted' by tech companies

If I assert that many people like Justin Bieber and show you many tweets saying as much, do you infer that it was the tweets that made me form this opinion?

I think a large part of why certain regions get get credit for things is because they are better at marketing themselves. Assuming what you say is true about Indias achievements, I would think that they should at least be recognised by their neighbours. If your achievements are only acknowledged by yourself, then racism probably isn't the cause. Purely anecdotal but I've never heard an Indian person talking up their country and pointing to its achievements like you are, whereas people from my small country will not miss an opportunity to tell you how great we are and we claim credit for everything.

You can practice this stuff to make it less stressful. If you aren't willing to do that, it's not the employers problem

Saying transgenderism is the treatment to dysphoria is itself an extremely controversial statement and not one you can present as as a pillar of any argument. There is a contingent that _don't want_ anything other than transgenderism to be the solution to dysphoria, because it would put a lot of question marks over the accepted dogma.

This was previously on the WPATH Wikipedia page but has since been removed:

In 2021, WPATH's President-Elect, Marci Bowers called the association intolerant of dissenting opinions. She said, "There are definitely people who are trying to keep out anyone who doesn't absolutely buy the party line that everything should be affirming, and that there's no room for dissent."

There's a debate between her and Boris Johnson on youtube arguing the Romans vs the Greeks and he makes her look like an amateur both in delivery and content of her arguments

Well that's just not true at all

I think the more normal thing to do would be not to buy a TV and just don't make a meal out of explaining why. 'I would never use it, ' is pretty sufficient

Does your site or any other allow a user to click notes on a fretboard and have the app deduce the chord from the positions? I know a lot of chords the names of which I have forgotten, and don't have the theory chops to work it out myself

I spent quite a bit of time exploring this topic some years back and have engaged with all of the nuances you have elaborated. However I still think you can reduce this part about the 'little primate brain that just wants to fuck' to a moral decision where the cheater is simply willing to put their own needs over those of everyone around them. The fact remains that maaany people _can_ ignore this part of their brain and after all the books and articles, I still feel they those who can't are just wimps when it comes down to it.

We have words for people who are not willing to sustain pain for a greater good and we have words for those who can.

Alain de Botton's book was the worst. It attempted to glorify it as being some necessary/indirectly selfless act done for the preservation of a marriage. Deluded

Do you have any good sources for info about Mao's approach? Very interested to learn more about this. The wikipedia article seems to corroborate what you have said but provides no sources either :(

Stephen Kotkin is an interesting historian that (I think) would argue that China's govt is still very much communist and perhaps that their adoption of capitalist ideas were a necessary compromise and not a rejection of their former ideals

I'm Irish.. what is offensive about it? Potatoes are a big part of our culinary history

All great artists directly copy ideas. That is exactly what the statement implies. The point is that your own style will manifest as a mishmash of other people's ideas and this itself will constitute a new style. New ideas are just combinations of old ideas

It is stigmatized because it plays a part in facilitating people's addictions and mental problems. Just like gambling, drug-dealing, snake-oil salesmen, etc. It's not all roses, that's for sure..

Personally, I would prefer if OnlyFans didn't exist. I think that is a nicer world.

/r/murderedbyAOC is a subreddit with seemingly limitless content. I for one believe that slamming people is her shtick. She is blue team Trump

No mention of Nazi Germany, I'm curious to know what their position was. My understanding is that The Times was very sympathetic to Hitler's claims of not having bad intent regarding Czechoslovakia and regularly railed against the government for not giving their support

I watch fight videos all the time. I enjoy them and I know many guys that do. It doesn't surprise me at all that it might suggest them for you if you are a young man and i don't think it has anything to do with the election

Some people don't think that 'fair treatment' should be determined with the bosses wealth as a factor

Out of curiosity, what distinguishes studying history from doing history?

"final solution to the Jewish problem".. I wonder what they felt when people first learned what that implied

> No, the 25 point plan was announced by Hitler in 1920, including all of those socialist ideas.

I'm not contesting that.

Here's what the book I'm reading has to say about the 25 points:

> A good many paragraphs of the party program were obviously merely a demagogic appeal to the mood of the lower classes at a time when they were in bad straits and were sympathetic to radical and even socialist slogans. Point 11, for example, demanded abolition of incomes unearned by work; Point 12, the nationalization of trusts; Point 13, the sharing with the state of profits from large industry; Point 14, the abolishing of land rents and speculation in land. Point 18 demanded the death penalty for traitors, usurers and profiteers, and Point 16, calling for the maintenance of “a sound middle class,” insisted on the communalization of department stores and their lease at cheap rates to small traders. These demands had been put in at the insistence of Drexler and Feder, who apparently really believed in the “socialism” of National Socialism. They were the ideas which Hitler was to find embarrassing when the big industrialists and landlords began to pour money into the party coffers, and of course nothing was ever done about them.

It's hard to argue against this, that really is the 25 point program of the Nazis. However, I think it is generally understood that Hitler's entrance into the National Socialists marked a deviation from Socialist ideas. My understanding was that there were literally two factions, one which took the socialist aspects seriously and one which had no interest in socialist principles. The socialist faction had people like Gregor Strasser as figureheads and they got routed out as part of the night of the long knives.

Much of the Big Business that invested in the Nazi party were tentative at first because of socialist name and were convinced by Hitler et al that it was in name only..

He didn't state any of his own political views so you can't place him. You should consider whether those talking points actually have some legitimacy rather than using them to identify which group he's in. This is actually part of the problem he refers to.

I encourage you to read more.. Your take on the wikipedia article reads as as you had your decision made up beforehand. The words he uses, which you think are too elaborate, have specific definitions within the context of the book. Your 'summary' missed the mark completely

I see your point and I think the messaging about books is often a bit wishy washy, however I really do think books are a different beast.

I read a lot of biographies of legendary figures. Whether its Stalin, Oppenheimer, Teddy Roosevelt or Robert Moses, they are nearly always big readers. They tend to treat it quite seriously too. Not a few books per year, but 50-100+.. Teddy Roosevelt had 4 hours~ of his days' schedule blocked off for reading particular books, during an election campaign!

For me (and I believe, for them too), reading is serious business and the rewards really are great. This is not 'curl up by the fire with a nice story' and I will suddenly incur some magical benefits. Rather there are some things that are not easily achieved otherwise. Books allow you to efficiently deep dive and when you dedicate lots of hours to it, you can really make staggering progress. Reading all of the books on a particular topic becomes an achievable task. I could spend some hours scouring the internet trying to learn about a particular topic, or I could blast through a 200-300 page book on the topic. When you start treating books as your primary source of learning about new topics, and you build up a sort of grit for getting through books, you become a bit of an information processing machine and it is a bit magical.

I nearly always have a stack of books on my desk now and I just plow through them one after another. I would never absorb so much useful information reading articles on the internet or watching videos. Books are #1 for efficiency..

Right now I'm primarily reading Shirer's The Rise And Fall of The Third Reich.. It's a massive book (1100+ pages) and will take me over 2 weeks. It's hard to imagine how I could possibly get this much information on the same topic any other way. Try and find some documentary series? Follow my nose on wikipedia clicking around? Crap options, mostly. If I do this with two or three more books, by almost any measure, I have become somebody who knows a lot about WW2 and nazi germany. Now follow process with many other topics..

Indeed. Apparently these things are important to state upfront yet leaves out what country she operates in and which industry. It was enough for me to stop reading.

I recently joined a US company and it was a shock to me to hear how often my colleagues will drag in irrelevant social issues into the discussion of day to day business. These colleagues appear to be so in their own bubble that they just assume everyone is on the same page as them.

Well.. I think if there was a blockbuster movie that came out with Brad Pitt starring as Il Duce and it clearly articulated the origins, I think it would have a significant effect.

The prescriptive/descriptive discussion doesn't mean much to me (although DFW has a great essay on it if you are so inclined). I just wanted to throw my 2c in with the guy being downvoted, because I think he's right. I think the extent of Average Joe's historical knowledge is basically whatever Hollywood has made movies about. AverageJoe thinks that the Nazis are Nazis, and Fascism is a more generic term which contains the Nazis and other 'far right' groups.. and who knows, maybe _it is that_ now, but lets be honest how we got here - that nearly everybody, even the most vocal 'anti-facists' are historical ignoramuses. They think that by merely existing they have the necessary information to assert their opinions on historical/political movements. It's a joke