ty6853

When you consider the only way to achieve that is to first kill off all humans or set them into the stone age, yes I would say so.

Ethnic/religious persecution amongst other ethnic/religious groups being the origin of Jewish strife is literally the ideology written by Herzl in the groundwork that argued for Israel, noting incompatibility with living amongst other ethnic groups in Europe, and I would note somewhat accurately considering the Nazis (and others) indeed went on an ethnically aligned campaign to kill them all off.

Unwittingly, you are arguing the foundation of Israel is Nazi ideology.

I mean, this is why I am not an advocate for peace. Peace is often degenerate, nihilistic, genocidal, disgusting, inhumane.

>The origin of "the problem" is 1920/1924 when 1200 years of Islamic rule ended in that area, and non-muslims no longer lived under apartheid

The missing piece here is that happened because of the European support and implementation of Jewish settlement.

The zionists had actually initially considered Argentina, which had constitutional provisions that would have lended well to establishing a Jewish community there, peacefully. Instead they chose the more violent approach in the middle east.

If the Arabs had pushed back harder initially, the Zionists would have quickly just went to their alternative. This accident of history ended up being the difference between the ongoing bloodfued we see now and the much happier alternative.

If the Arabs had just wiped out the settlers establishing Der Judenstaat near the turn of the 20th century, I have a real hard time coming to a calculus where it wouldn't have been more peaceful death tally than where we are at now.

I don't wish to kill off anyone, because I think individual rights trump peace.

Based on the population over/under killing off all of Gaza seems to be the most peaceful solution. Israel would work but it has a bigger population, and only one side or the other would have to be eliminated to achieve gaza-israel peace in that conflict.

Of course we don't have any real say in the matter. They're being starved to death as we speak, and once they all perish I don't think they'll be able to defend themselves or engage in hostilities.

Even though I am staunchly against this, it seems useful to the people that senators from time to time are reminded of what happens to the common man when they do this. It is all too easy for them to become complacent to the plight of the common man, because when they protest nothing happens to them.

Hopefully now that they are subject to the overbearing criminal 'justice' machine that is a creature largely of their own making, they will do something about tuning it down.

Killing them all off would achieve peace, though, since their other neighbors (or at least the ones that could prolong a violent war) seem to have no problem with it. It might be the most peaceful solution, though by no means am I implying I agree with it.

The USPS does investigate content.

You can draw a swastika and a machinegun for sale on your regular mail envelope and it will show up in informed delivery, but as black and white.

If you try to get it displayed more prominently in an advertising campaign, it violates their second set of 'guidelines' that stop what you can put in the more prominent colored advertising image.

They use this mechanism in a matter different than most social media curation, but it's still a form of curation, and favoring the particular kinds of speech they like, using two different sets of guidelines -- one guideline for de minimis B&W presentation and a second set of 'guidelines' (which even at USPS are a bit vague) about whether you can get the pretty color image in informed delivery.

Yes it's all very different when you use different rhetoric, right?

"Buying a service" is how advertisers get placement of certain content curated.

If it fits in the guidelines, you get the special placement and image, if it doesn't fit the special guidelines, you can draw it on your mails and it gets scanned and all they see is the scan. I can draw a swastika on the front of my envelope and it will show up on the feed (but only in black and white), but can I get the swastika on the advertisement image in color? IDK because the link you sent was literally just tossing back what I already mentioned which is informed delivery, not a link to their policies (the policies themselves are a bit vague, but under them it appears not, and they definitely have stronger 'guidelines' than the black and white for instance regarding weapons).

If your content on Facebook 'fits the guidelines' and the guys 'buying the service' benefit from it, then it gets curated more strongly. If it fits other less strict guidelines, I can still see it. But there's nothing stopping you from paying facebook lots of money and getting something that fits their guidelines displayed more prominently, so that wouldn't be curation!

Your argument is highly specious. "Buying a service" is a total red herring, and "guidelines" is just a hack here so you can pivot around it's a mechanism by which the curation happens.

As for the image, you claim it's required, but my mails don't get it, it appears to be 'required' as part of a particular 'campaign'. I have no trouble believing that some services might require an image, but this doesn't somehow disprove curation.

I have no idea how Brazil courts work. In the US the supreme court often has 200 page opinion full of high-IQ hot air, which all sound very nice and nuanced. But in practice they know damn well what they're really doing is a long wink and a nod and then they just deny cert anytime the lower courts do their real bidding because they know everything they wrote was bullshit and they don't want to have to hold themselves to it, the point was just to keep up appearances while rolling out the red carpet.

The problem isn't that a child knows how to cut themselves, it's that they lack guidance in life teaching them why that is a dumb idea, or if too young to learn that, supervising them so that they don't.

I'm definitely not saying it's the same as facebook, but it's an example of content curation based on 3rd party input. Selective advertising reaches a place of prominence, ty6853 doesn't get a special image when I send a letter to Santa.

Disagree, freedom of speech is a natural right.

USPS scans your mails and then includes advertising with this scans when you get the feed in informed delivery.

Non able bodied people can commit suicide via dehydration within a couple days (longer if they are healthy), provided they can avoid getting treated for it.

IMO it's purely a liability debate. The other concerns are philosophically interesting but on a practical basis mooted: anyone of sound or almost anyone of unsound mind and two nickels to rub together can reliably off themselves without asking anyone for approval.

Fair enough. You have my respect.

True or not you had to wade through at least two flagged comments to get to mine. You really have yourself to blame if you didn't want to continue reading. You were warned twice but sought this, you wanted it.

So how about this: go fuck yourself, and your nauseating appeal to your ivory tower techie faux-academic attempt at guidelines. Nothing about me is 'equal' to this self righteous racist piece of human garbage, although I admit his behavior is the very best argument as to why his culture should rapidly be overshadowed in Texas.

It's more relevant when flying overseas i think. For instance if you buy a round trip to Sweden in USD and then a separate round trip in Kroner as a Swedish transaction to Iraq, it doesn't seem to set off alarm bells that buying a straight round trip ticket from NYC might since it appears to TSA you are just going and coming from Sweden.

[flagged]

I noticed that in Abrego Garcia's recent indictment they were able to figure out he was in 2022 based on ALPR pulls that showed he was actually putzing around Texas. My understanding was most ALPRs were being stored for no more than 30 days but apparently that isn't the case, since it appears they did not start to build the trafficking case until this year.

Sure. When the military murdered and/or raped 300+ villagers in My Lai, it was a very serious offense. The commander (lieutenant) was ultimately charged 22 counts of murder, and served a very hard three years of house arrest.

As you can see, the charges are quite serious, which can exceed 3 days stuck in house per instance of illegal homicide.

Amazing how fast you backtracked. Point to actual cases of parts of the USA going hard on racist policy preventing demographic replacement which based on your rhetoric is something you pretend to be against, and your response is more or less lol actually it doesn't matter, it's just some rocks.

No matter that previously you were pointing to places as small as Arlington Texas.

You don't actually care about eliminating these discriminatory policies. You just have your racist motives to apply it inequally.

I'll address the third point since it is the only one I don't see as a fundamentally irreconcilable difference in subjective opinion that cannot be proven factually.

The ethnic discrimination laws in America Samoa, and to a lesser extent Saipan (I think for them more about control, they have no problem with Chinese running roughshod operating all kinds of shady and illegal business, it is probably the most corrupt place in the US) are aimed towards stopping cultural elimination. The case is compelling for Samoa, the others are just naked racial discrimination as the local populace seems to have settled on the fact their culture has pretty much been eliminated as anything beyond a footnote and they're going to cash grab all they can out of the remains which I guess is just the usual American dream.

(Hawaii used to go even further, and racially discriminate in voting, but racial discrimination in voting was struck circa 2000 with dissent written by the now deceased racist Ruth Ginsburg in Rice v Cayetano. Not long after that 'non-'Hawaiians also finally got the right to equally run for office).

American Samoa is particularly aggressive about it, their government and IIRC even the feds strongly imply or command you can enter for 30 days as a tourist without further authorization, despite the fact that established case law and the American Samoa Bar training to internal lawyers teach that US citizens have the right to permanently settle and work in American Samoa. I did some research and could not find any case of a US citizen being 'deported' from the territory unless they were wanted for crimes elsewhere but they do their damnedest to make it sound like you can be.

This is why I laugh whenever anyone lauds Singapore for stuff like public housing.

They literally have an immigration schema, if you want permanent resident to citizen track, that requires immigrants to match the ethnic makeup of the country's citizens.

So you have all these white public housing advocates, talking about how great public housing is in Singapore, but they leave out that you have to have PR or citizenship to get it, and they've accomplished making all that possible by having like half their population non-citizens who pay taxes for housing they're ineligible to get and then the people living in the public houses are ethnically guaranteed non-replacement.

Cultural elimination though real is largely a fraudulent right IMO, it is imposing 'positive' rights like the right to not have your culture eliminated. That's not how rights work, you have the right to practice your culture but not force other people to be practicing yours.

I'm generally for open or at least non-discriminatory immigration. A few sticking points

1) Discriminatory settling patterns are well established as imposed law in the US, i.e. 'hawaiian home lands', American Samoa, Saipan, etc. The first step here is to make ALL US nationals and citizens equal, before we can really even hope to start making immigrants equal. Given limited political capital this would be my #1 priority to burn that capital on.

2) Welfare is essentially incompatible with open immigration and pushes the populace heavily towards favoring middle age wealth foreigners -- that is basically europeans and white English speaking countries. We could probably make it a little less 'racist' if immigrants were forced to permanently disclaim any access to public funds.

3) Immigration is justified under human and properties rights, freedom to go wherever one is invited or has ownership, and basic human liberties. Immigration in practice in the US heavily relies on use of public facilities, which are paid for by the tax payers -- as property owners you would be violating their rights if US persons cannot control foreign access to the public properties they are forced to pay taxes for. i.e. there should be zero immigration controls whatsoever crossing from one ranch to the other on adjacent parts of the Mexican border, but when you use public resources you are now becoming a trespasser if the property owners don't consent.

[flagged]

No feds aren't citizens in the US in any conventional sense. They have qualified immunity and a special kind of sovereign immunity that even state and local police do not have. They can initiate violence whereas citizens cannot. They can shoot a fleeing person as a citizen cannot. They can lie to you freely but if you lie to them (their interpretation of a lie), a felony. They generally can't be held accountable unless they are dumb enough to say the quiet parts out loud, and even then usually not.

They are also effectively impossible to sue, so you'll probably never see any justice in the courts if they act unlawfully. Even if manage to get the lawsuit going they will play fuck-fuck games with jurisdiction until you lose (as I found out when trying to sue feds for stripping me naked, cavity searching me, and executing a fraudulent warrant on a fabricated dog alert -- no one would take my case because they had lost similar cases every time).

I don't know it re-establishes order but rather teaches the populace to up the ante. While I don't condone repeating history, it is instructive to look at history. When this military-type response was done at Waco, Timothy McViegh looked at that (he was there) and took out 10x as many feds as they took out citizens. And it sparked a very long period of militia movements, etc.