Most things are pretty easy. One problem is having the time to do literally everything yourself. The other is deciding whether that time spent doing optional tasks is worth the time not spent doing more meaningful activities.
would_be_appreciated
joined 1 month ago
Seems bizarre that people are okay with public opinion being explicitly manipulated by a very small group of people with very little overlapping interest with the public, but not okay with public opinion being explicitly manipulated by a very small group of people with very little overlapping interest with the public from a foreign country.
Salmon (although there are pockets of people who still pronounce the “l”)
See, this is a weird one, because I don't know anybody who pronounces the "L" here, but calm, balm, or psalm you would.
Prevent substantial wealth differentials in the first place.
This has actually been shown through studies a number of times!
Plenty of correlative studies that show the left associated with positive and the right associated with negative: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstb.2011.0268
But also some causal studies where people are more conservative when they're scared or more progressive when they feel safe: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2315
They really grabbed us by the Purcell.
I don't think they've released the text nor a comprehensive list of what it includes. They've only alluded to a few things, like the occupation.
This AP article says as much when it says, "Blinken, who is back in the region this week, said Monday that Israel had agreed to the proposal without saying what it entails." https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/why-is-israel-demanding-control-over-2-gaza-corridors-in-the-cease-fire-talks/
Al-Jazeera and similar have all said some variation of that as far as I've seen.
On first read, it gives an understanding that both sides are willing to approach a deal - but lack trust in the process and the mediators ability to coerce the other side to actually commit and follow through.
I don't think this is a bad reading of the article in vacuum, but I don't think it's a fair reading of the situation because AP intentionally or unintentionally has left quite a bit out. Hamas agreed to a US-backed ceasefire back in May that Israel refused. There was plenty of trust on both sides that they'd get what was in the deal, but Israel didn't want that particular deal at that particular time.
What's happening now is Hamas wants Israel to remove their troops and generally stop killing Palestinians, in addition to the other parts of the deal. Israel refuses to put this in writing, saying they'll stop killing people for now, but they're going to leave troops behind to occupy the area - but eventually they'll remove those troops. You're right that Hamas doesn't trust Israel's going to remove those troops, and I think that's entirely reasonable given how the "bridging proposal" is a variation of May's proposal, but striking out things like withdrawing troops. Seems like if that's those are the major changes they're making to the written proposal, they probably don't plan on following through.
But it's also entirely unreasonable for Israel to strike that in the first place. The Palestinians don't want Israel to be an occupying force. There's nothing they can do about the civilians continuing to settle and take their land, but at the very least they're asking for the additional soldiers that have invaded the land in the last year to get out while they're not actively killing Palestinians.
On top of that, Israel's occupation of the Philadelphi Corridor and Rafah crossing is in violation of the Camp David agreements with Egypt. It's really difficult to trust you can make a deal with somebody who's currently not following the agreement they have with your mediator.
This is a helpful article that explains the original deal in more detail than most people want to know: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/6/text-of-the-ceasefire-proposal-approved-by-hamas
This is actually really helpful clarification, I did just miss some of that. It's no wealth tax, but it's better than nothing.
Nobody would be happier than me to see that happen, but seeing how nobody's ever done something like that before I have my doubts. Can't remember the last Democrat that actually got more radical than the platform they ran on. Certainly wasn't anybody in the last 50 years.
"I believe I'm the first journalist to be arrested under this provision of the Terrorism Act. I feel that this is a political persecution and hampers my ability to work as a journalist," he said in his post.
Honestly, it's surprising if he's the first, but at least it's not (yet) something journalists can expect!
Terrorising .. with truth?
Almost like the British were the terrorists the whole time.
Being in a position where the entire country hears his very reasonable, very easy to understand words over and over again would eventually have an effect. Even the die-hards would eventually be asking themselves if it is in fact reasonable that corporations are assfucking each and every one of us every single day. Some of them would vote in a more progressive representative.
Would he get everything passed? Absolutely not. But he would get some good stuff through.