If that’s the reason behind the arrest warrens for Hamas, doesn’t it make the ICC’s chief request in bad faith? Like “I really want to issue warrants only for Netanyahu, but I know this will be unfair, so I’ll issue warrants for both sides, so I’ll seem balanced”?
No, this is not uplifting for anyone (except maybe people who hate Netanyahu and/or Israel and don’t really care about Palestinians).
Right now there is some humanitarian aid going into Gaza, despite objections from the far-far-right Israeli coalition parties. The excuse Netanyahu used to get their (semi-)cooperation is by saying “Well, this is the bare minimum so Israel won’t get hit by sanctions”. The warrants, if granted, will create motivation for Netanyahu to give in and reduce humanitarian aid (he cares much more about personal sanctions than sanctions against the country).
Also, Netanyahu will use the warrants and Israel’s isolation to strengthen his own position in the government, fortify his position and lower the chances for his government to implode.
Right, so it’s not “smart”, it’s just, you know, what he should have done regardless.
Preferably even before asking for warrants against Netanyahu and Galant. That way it won’t look like the warrants against Hamas leaders are to justify the warrants against Netanyahu and Galant, like the person I replied to seems to imply.
a. The immediate goal shouldn’t be to punish Netanyahu for war crimes, rather solve (at least improve) the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
b. Arrest warrants against Netanyahu will not help improve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, if anything they’ll make the situation worse (There are already calls from far-right members of Knesset to stop all humanitarian aid to Gaza as a response).
Therefor, this is uplifting news for anyone who hates Netanyahu/Israel more than they want to help Palestinians.
I mean, if the cops can’t actually come into your city, having them waiting outside the city limits with signs saying “if you’ll come out we’ll arrest you!” probably isn’t the best course of action for you.
“Conservatives” is a misnomer here. “Conservative” isn’t right and “Progressive” isn’t left.
Conservatives are those who want as little change as possible so as to “not rock the boat” and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Progressives are those who want to try out new policies.
From what I gather, a large portion of today’s Republicans aren’t actually conservatives rather regressive. That’s almost literally what “make America great again” means. That’s also the meaning of, for example, the Roe v. Wade overruling - going back to an earlier state.
Also, in the long run the human condition generally changes for the better (Or at least that’s what we perceive as our values and habits are usually aligned with what we have now and not what we had before). As the status quo changes, the things conservatives (and progressives) value change accordingly.
Saying “Conservatives were the people who defended King George.” as if that has anything to do with conservative today is like someone saying “Progressives on the 18th century were for women’s suffrage, they have no business talking about equality”.
I’ll start off by saying this turned out to be a VERY long post. I did my best to condense the absolutely necessary parts, and I still feel I’ve left a lot of important stuff out. Anyway, hopefully anyone who’s interested in the situation and reads this will be able to gain some insight.
The thing is, you guys are looking at the situation in Israel from your perspective without understanding the factors at play. To actually understand the situation among Jewish Israelis (who I’ll refer to as “Israelis” for simplicity’s sake) requires a thorough explanation about Israeli culture, politics and some history.
Saying “I don’t see any signs against genocide, that must mean all Israelis are pro-genocide” forces your perspective on the situation, like saying (in very broad terms) “I didn’t see any signs that talk about ‘all life matters’ in the BLM protests, that must mean they only value black lives”, so imaging that, but instead of an American saying it, it’s some dude in Thailand who has very little understanding of the racial situation on the US.
So, let’s go:
Right now, the country is pretty divided among supporters of the current government and those opposed to it. While the government has a 53% majority in the parliament, it really never had more than 50% supporters among the population (Firstly, some left wing parties didn’t get enough votes to get into parliament. Also, right after the elections the Likud government adopted a plan proposed by the religious far-right party that would, in essence, transform Israel into a Hungry-like hybrid regime which made many liberal Likud supporters oppose the government). The opposition grew stronger after Oct. 7th, though the government still has the support of (mainly) the far right, the ultra-orthodox religious parties and the Israeli version of Trump supporters who mainly want to “own the libs”. There are weekly polls that check how many people support the current government and Netanyahu is using every trick in the book to increase support among the public because his coalition is extremely fragile.
However, regarding the war in Gaza, there is a consensus that’s shared among a very large majority of the population from both sides:
The Israeli hostages must be returned. I cannot overstate how important this is. Firstly, Israel is a tiny country, quite communal and most Israelis have large families. The hostages aren’t “citizens”, “people” or even “fellow Jews”. They’re “The niece of my dentist”, “My ex’s uncle”, “The daughter of friends of my colleague” etc. Nearly Every Israeli knows someone who knows someone who’s been kidnapped. Secondly, one of the founding ethos of Israel is to have a safe place for Jews that’s free of persecution no matter what. The Oct. 7th massacre is seen not only as a tragedy, but as the state not performing one of its core functions to some extent. Lastly, redemption of prisoners is a major commandment in the Jewish faith. This is the main point on all virtually ALL Israelis can agree upon (Let me stress that again - the agreement isn’t that the hostages “should” be returned, but that they MUST be returned. That’s important for later).
Hamas must be destroyed. If they’re allowed to exist, this will happen again (There is, however, disagreement on how best can Israel vanquish Hamas).
These two objectives are seen among many (not sure if most) as contradictory - Hamas is using the hostages to force an Israeli retreat from Gaza, and the only way they will release all of the hostages is if that secures their rule in Gaza. This is also important to remember for later.
What Israel is doing in Gaza is somewhere between unfortunate and tragic, but it’s absolutely not genocide, rather a result of Hamas integrating itself into civilian infrastructure and hiding behind civilians (again, this is the mainstream opinion, not something agreed by ALL Israelis).
I, personally, subscribe to the first two points, do not believe they are contradictory and while I believe the IDF isn’t nearly as cautious about harming civilians in Gaza as it should be and that not allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza is immoral, both things do not constitute genocide.
Those numbed three points are in the Israeli consensus, but we have one more crucial piece of context before I get to the demonstrations - There are two groups of Israelis who do not believe the 1st and 2nd points are contradictory. Each belongs to opposing ends of the political spectrum - in the right there are those who think military pressure is the only way to, somehow, secure the release of the hostages. The other group is left leaning, and it believes that withdrawing from Gaza for the release of the hostages and building a civilian opposition against Hamas Will solve the issue in the long run. They also believe the current government doesn’t really want to get rid of Hamas, rather they want to make sure Hamas will remain the only Palestinian ruler in the strip, so the government has an excuse to continue the current treatment of Palestinians (both as individuals and as a people). The first group thrives on extremism and sowing division (and if this reminds you of a certain US political party and a US politician in particular, you are absolutely on the money), and the second group is trying to build on a consensus, and make room for liberal right leaning people in order to gain influence (the opposition is actually composed of two liberal right wing parties).
Oh, wait, just one other thing - There’s a joke that goes: A Jewish man is stranded on an island for 20 years. He is finally rescued, and the rescuers see the life he built for himself. Among all the things they see, there are two synagogues. They ask the man “you were on this Island alone. Why do you need two synagogues for?” The man looks lovingly at the first synagogue and says “Well, this is the synagogue where I prayed every day for someone to come and rescue me, and this” he says while looking disdainfully at the second synagogue “is the synagogue where I wouldn’t be caught dead in”. Point is, Jews and Israeli Jews in particular, love to argue and have disagreements. Think The Life of Brian’s The People’s Front of Judea and Judean People’s Front. So when I say “there are two groups”, it’s more like “there are about 1,000 groups that can be broadly divided in two camps”.
You’d think this leads to a society that’s fractured on many levels so that it can’t really operate, but Israelis are also very good at putting differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal.
So, finally, about the protests - as you may have guessed, the people who are protesting belong to the second camp. And yes, many of them think what’s happening in Gaza is wrong. But remember the whole “putting our differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal” and the “The hostages must be returned”? That’s the strategy in a nutshell. The protesters are trying to use the single most agreed upon goal, and build a consensus for a deal from there. That’s the reason you won’t see anything about Gazans in the protests. Going outside the consensus gives the far right more ammunition to paint the protesters as traitors and to rally the moderate right against them. The push for a deal NOW (the main rally cry) will cease virtually all IDF operations in Gaza anyway, so in some of the protesters’ minds (mine included), protesting against the IDF while correct in a vacuum actually goes against that very cause. Now, I don’t really know US history that well, but think what would happen if the Vietnam anti-war movement made room for more conservatives on the grounds that the war is harming the US. Maybe Nixon’s “law and order” campaign would have failed and he’d have lost the elections. I might be talking out of my ass here, but even if I’m wrong I hope this at least gives a better understanding about the strategy used by the protesters in Israel - they’re saying “You don’t have to join us because you’re a hippie peacenik. You have to join us because that’s what’s best for our country”.
I’d like to stress that the protesters are NOT hiding their opinions. They just want to make as much room for other supporters. Some people are willing to protest for a cease-fire if that means getting the hostages back, but would not be willing to protest alongside a sign that says “The IDF is killing innocent people”.
So that was about the situation in Israel. If you came this far, I hope you found the read worth your time. Now I’d like to ask for a bit more of your time in return.
I have a question for the people who are protesting against Israel to stop the “genocide” unconditionally (or those who are in support of said protests), but are not protesting against Hamas to release the hostages unconditionally (or those who see no need for these protests) - I assume you don’t agree with Hamas’s actions on Oct. 7th, but obviously you don’t believe these actions justify what Israel is doing in harming innocent people (BTW, most Israelis would agree. If you don’t understand how this can be, refer to the 3rd point stated previously).
I’d like to ask why does this logic not work the other way around? If what Israel is doing is reprehensible regardless of anything Hamas has done previously and should be opposed, then surely what Hamas has done is also reprehensible regardless of what Israel has done previously and should be opposed. Is it just a matter of numbers, so there’s a “minimum casualty” that justifies protests, and below that the victims are SOL?
Not saying that’s the case, but that’s what I was able to come up with. Maybe I’m missing some context.
And before you say that’s just whataboutism - I don’t think it is. Both things are a part of the same situation, so I think this is more a case of a cop seeing two cars driving on the road at night and stopping only one of them (where the driver happens to be black).
Thanks for the reply and sorry it took me a few days to answer. Also sorry if my reply seems disjointed. We broadened the scope from just the Israeli protests for a hostage deal to, really, the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it was hard to give the correct background while keeping it relatively short and trying to account for my own bias, so the reply was written in parts. Hopefully I was able to draw a coherent, if simplified, picture.
First of all, you got the gist of what I’m saying. There are a few things I’d say were a bit off, but most of it isn’t worth going point-by-point. I also agree with many things you said, and you’ve actually described the stance of the Israeli left as well as I could at one point (and now you have to keep reading if you want to know where…).
You’re absolutely correct saying the two camps I’ve described are not left-right. Notice I didn’t say “left”, rather “left-leaning”.
The left-right axis in Israel is best described as the answer to “Do you think Israel should aspire towards a 2 state solution with the Palestinians?” Or, how it’s usually framed, “Are the Palestinians a partner for peace?”. If this seems like a trivial question, please keep in mind this is really a mirror of the Palestinian “Is Israel a partner for peace?”, which is a highly contested question among Palestinians.
It’s also correct to say that in the last year there’s been an increase in Israeli aggression toward Palestinians (This is a view shared by a lot of Israelis, in light of the extremist government). However, in the long run, both sides are basically equally to blame(there’s A LOT of historical context I’m not going to go into. Just as a starting point, you can look up the Oslo accords in the 90s, the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the 2007 Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the blockade that followed). If the protests are against specific actions taken by the Israeli government in the last year, I’m all for it. That said, I got the distinct feeling that the protesters aren’t protesting against the treatment of Palestinians during the last year, but for a Palestinian state, in which case the protests should be directed against Hamas and Israel both. I understand why people would want to protest against Israel, but I don’t understand how one can protest against Israel and not against Hamas using the same metrics.
Hamas has been planning the Oct. 7th attack for at least a year, and invested in infrastructures to support terrorist acts for many years prior (underground tunnels, some of them leading to Israeli settlements, and some used to hide militants, weapons and hostages. After Israel’s invasion to Gaza, Hamas leadership said they have no obligation to protect Gazan civilians), so saying the Oct. 7th attack is related to Israeli aggression in the last year might have merit (talking purely about causal relationship, not justification), but there is enough reason to believe that the attack would have happened either way. Furthermore, if Hamas gets a “free pass” since their actions were a result of Israeli transgression, why does Israel not get a “free pass” as their actions are a result of Hamas aggression? This approach, where every side’s violence is justified using previous violence committed by the other side, is called a cycle of violence, and is one of the main lenses through which the Israeli left is looking at the broad confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians (we call it “the cycle of bloodshed”). I can talk about Hamas firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets as of 2004, and before that there were suicide bombings going all the way back to Hamas’s foundation, and other terror attacks going back before the Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza (that is, before what you refer to as “aparthide”). I’m saying this not to try and convince you that “the Palestinians started it!”, but to explain why “They started it!” is not a call for peace, but a call for more violence.
The former paragraph also relates to the third point (Why Oct. 7th happened), but if to address that point directly - saying “October 7th happened because of a shocking waste of resources and lapse in security from Israel” is like saying "The Gazan casualties are due to Hamas investing their resources into attacking Israel instead of caring for their civilians’'. That’s blaming the victim on top of contributing to the cycle of violence (Also, and this is really a side note, as of now there are about 35,000 Gazan casualties in total. estimates are that about 2/3 of them were uninvolved in fighting).
“The second point is much more difficult, because it’s not clear what-so-ever that the Israeli government is interested in defeating or making irrelevant Hamas through political means. Israel effectively kaibashed every political approach to peace (before Oct 7th). It just doesn’t seem like they are operating in good faith.” Welcome to the Israeli left. Feel free to grab a cup of coffee and chat with the many guests we have here from the moderate centre. You came just in time for our lecture on “How Netanyahu and the far-left propped Hamas to shoot down any option for a diplomatic solution”. The highlights include Smotrich, the current Israeli minister of finance, stating that “Hamas is an asset and Fatah is a burden”, and Netanyahu saying “Those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money [from Qatar] to Hamas”.
Regarding Israel being a “bad ally” to the US - I agree, and so do the Israeli left and large portions (most?) of the centrists. The way we phrase it is that the current government is creating a rift between Israel and the US and abandoning the values that are shared among both countries. For us, this is a moral issue (we kinda like those shared values), but also a practical one should the US withhold the support it gives us. Don’t know what Israeli news sources you’re following, but it was much talked about in the last weeks at least. BTW, the Israeli far-right, that de-facto controls the coalition, is very unconcerned about this due to, IMO, self delusion. But this also seems too narrow a reason to protest. If the US were to withdraw all political and financial support from Israel, and Israel would continue acting the same, would most protesters be content? And how does this explain protests in countries that don’t provide Israel with support?
To finish, I’d like to address the use of “apartheid” when talking about Israel. A Palestinian call fall into one of 3 categories - Those who have Israeli citizenship, those who live in the west bank and those who live in Gaza. They each live under a different legal infrastructure.
Israel has about two million Arab citizens (I’m saying “Arab” to include Palestinians, and other Arab groups like Durze as well as “ethnically” Palestinians who don’t identify as such nationally) who have the same rights as any Jewish person (small asterix - Arabs in west Jerusalem aren’t citizens, though are offered citizenship and have most of the same rights including, for example, voting in the local elections). There is institutional racism that’s more akin to the way black people are (“are”, not “were”) treated in some parts of the US. The Arabs in the (annexed) Golan heights also have full citizenship. As of 2006, Hamas is the sole sovereign in Gaza and there are no Jewish people living there, so “apartheid” doesn’t apply. We’re left with the Arabs in the west bank, who mostly do live under a discriminatory rule system (Yet still have their own government and law system). However, the distinction isn’t race, rather citizenship. For example, some Israeli Arabs moved into Palestinian settlements in the west bank (due to lower cost of living), and they still retain the same rights they had when living in Israel-proper. The Israeli left refers to the Palestinians without an Israeli citizenship as “living under occupation” and to the Israeli control of the disputed territories (excluding the Golan heights) is referred to as “the occupation” (we naturally view this as morally wrong). This, to me, seems much more correct than “apartheid”, especially considering that “apartheid” is used to specifically refer to the system in South Africa, and even the west bank is far from it. If anything, apartheid a-la South Africa is what the far-right in Israel has in mind (for both Israeli Arabs and Arabs living under occupation), and that’s one of the reasons the distinction between “occupation” and “apartheid” is important in practice - if the far-left will have their way (which seems implausible, yet not absolutely out of the question), those who say Palestinians live under apartheid now will have a hard time explaining, or even understanding, exactly how the situation changed for the worse.
Dude, thinking that Israeli Hasbara would sit quietly waiting for someone to say “hey, I wonder if there are any Israelis in the crowd, let’s hear what they have to say”, and then writing a 1,700 word reply on a small platform such as Lemmy is puzzling at best.
Calling it, even as a backhanded compliment, “developed” is mind boggling.
I feel like I’ve been kind of in the loop for most of the headlines regarding this confrontation. Yet somehow I can’t find it within myself to actually care about either side. It seems like both are lead by genocidal parties, hell bent on indoctrinating their populace into hating the other side. Yet at the same time people...
Maybe that’s my bias, but that seems to be a very… specific way of sorting sides. Mind if I rephrase that?
Pro Israeli side, which includes people who care that the hostages be saved. Some also want a 2 state solutions implemented.
Pro Israeli control of Palestinians side: people that believe any Palestinian autonomy will result in a repeat of the Oct. 7th massacre, partly because of the, well, Oct. 7th massacre.
Pro Palestinian side, which includes people who believe Israel should be destroyed and Jews killed, as well as people who maybe don’t want want Jews killed but care that Israel is defeated and/or Palestinians are not bombed.
I’d say both phrasings are about equally accurate and objective.
First, Ask the colleague why she feels her way is better.
If she says something like “it just is”, reply that while you’re open to other ways to do things, you have a way that currently works for you, and would need a reason to switch your workflows.
If she gives an actual answer, consider it. Maybe it is better than what you’re use to. maybe it’s possible to incorporate both ways to have the best of both worlds. Assuming you still think you way is better, say something along the lines of (I’m basing this on something I said to a co-worker in order not to be too abstract): “I get that doing it your way [is simpler and requires less troubleshooting], but it can also [give wrong results if a thing changes and we forget to correct for it]. My way [corrects for it automatically]. For me, eliminating the risk of [forgetting to manually correct] is worth the need to [do some troubleshooting]. Maybe that’s because you have [better memory] and I’m better at [technical stuff], so we each have a way that works for us, but will not work for the other. I appreciate that you took the time and explained your way of thinking, and I hope you understand why my way is better for me”.
After that, if she still insists, tell her you clearly aren’t able to come to an agreement among yourselves, so maybe it’s better you both talk to the charge nurse if manager or whatever.
The wrong assumption you’re making is that Israel is blowing up hospitals.
You’re probably thinking about the blast in Al-Ahli Hospital in October, that was ruled by both the US and most news agencies as a failed Islamic Jihad launch.
Say, if I were attacked a few times by the same minority, would it be okay for me to look at any person of said minority as a potential attacker?
Actually, let’s combine both things - let’s say I’m a woman who has been sexually harrsed by a minority a few time, would it be okay for me to view all males from said minority as potential sexual harassers?
I think there are a few things that should be taken into account:
Hamas stated time and time again that their goal is to take over all of the land that is currently Israel and, to put it extremely mildly, make nearly all the Jewish population not be there.
The Oct. 7th attack has shown that Hamas is willing to commit indiscriminate murder, kidnapping and rape to achieve this goal. Some of the the kidnapped civilians are currently held in Gaza.
Israel had no real choice but to launch an attack against Hamas in order to return the kidnapped citizens and neutralize Hamas as a threat. You could say “Yes, that’s because Because of the aforementioned illegal occupation”, but just like the citizens in Gaza have a right to be protected against bombings regardless of what their government did, Israeli citizens have the right to be protected from being murdered, raped or kidnapped.
So, any true solution has to take both these considerations into account. Right now, the Israeli stance is that once Hamas will no longer control Gaza, the war could end (citizens on both sides will be protected). The Hamas stance is that Israel should cease hostilities so they can work on murdering, raping or kidnapping more Israeli citizens. That isn’t to say Israel is just, rather that Israel is willing to accept a solution that stops the killing of both citizen populations, while Hamas is not. The just solution is for the international community to put pressure on both parties to stop hostilities. The problem is that the parts of the world who would like to see a just solution (Eurpoe, the US etc.) are able to put pressure on Israel, while the parts who don’t hold humane values (Iran, Qatar etc.) support Hamas.
Now, regarding the massive civilian casualties in Gaza:
Hamas has spent many years integrating their military capabilities into civilian infrastructure. This was done as a strategy, specifically to make it harder for Israel to harm Hamas militants without harming civilians.
I’m not trying to say that all civilians killing in Gaza are justified, rather that it’s extremely hard to isolate military targets. Most international law regarding warfare states that warring parties should avoid harming civilians as much as possible. Just saying “Israel is killing TWICE as many innocent civilians as Hamas, therefore they’re attacking Palestinian people as a whole” doesn’t take this into account what’s possible under in the current situation.
Holt as Sisko and Terry as Worf is cool (Holt might work better as Odo, but we’ll get to that in a sec).
Rosa should be Kira (Worf looks mean but is a big softy, hence Terry. Kira is the one that will kick your ass if you piss her off), Jina as Quark (obviously), Amy as Odo, Boyle as Rom, Hitchcock and Scully as O’brian and Bashir in their “two buds going to the holosuite to pretend they’re WW1 pilots” mode.
Jake works surprisingly well as Jadzia - both like to do silly things, kinda offbeat yet very good at their job.
Yeah, I think not only their inept dynamic doesn’t fit anywhere in DS9, it’s actually anathema for the core values of Star Trek. Trek is all about what humanity can do when people do their best. The closest to being “inept” in ST are:
Characters like Rom or Berkeley, who at first have an inept aura, but ARE good at their job if put in the right situation.
Quark, who’s kinda bad at being a Ferengi, but that’s because he lets his (by human standards) morals get in the way. Also, the Ferengi were created as a species to be an anathema for other core values of Star Trek begin with.
The Pakleds, who are kinda like the Ferengi were at first, and were a one-off species then used for comedic purposes.
The US is supporting Israel through what we can mostly all agree is a genocide of the Gazans. Clearly, Biden isn’t a genocidal maniac, yet he’s all in with unwavering support. Why are we doing this? There has to be a logical reason that isn’t just “we want Israel to kill everyone in Gaza and take their land a la...
People tent to go way the hell overboard on a lot of things. Best to focus on constructive criticism, while keeping in mind the actors are children, rather than to blindly self-censor based on the subject.
The visuals were great, and the film has a hypnotic fever dream feel to it. Not sure it can be called a"good" film, but it’s extremy entertaining.
The new film has more gravitas and is much more loyal to the book, but it also doesn’t add anything to the book and is just less interesting to watch (for me it was down right boring). I think it over-corrected the Lynch version.
I think that depends on the groups that exist near you.
I know someone who was in a similar situation (divorced around 50), and she found a local hiking group of divorced people who wanted exactly what you’re looking for. So maybe ask on a local group on some social networks?
Hiking specifically is great because it’s an activity that both kinda forces people to talk, and also supplies a default topic for conversation (It’s also free, healthy and doesn’t require special skills). If you’re not into hiking, maybe a book club? Volunteering groups, like other people suggested, also fits that bill. Point is, don’t just look for [an activity] with people your age, think about how much that activity is conductive for making friends. Something with 10% people your age, but that encourages talking with each other, might be better than something with 90% people your age where the group listens to a teacher together and then everybody does their own thing separately.
Also, It might actually get easier to find new people in a few years. Some people wait for their kids to grow up/move out before divorcing, which creates a spike of single people at that age.
I’m going to offer some practical advice that might help, but first there are also a few things I’d like to point out.
First of all, from reading your question and some replies in the thread - Is there any chance you might be neurodivergent (I think that’s the “proper” term. I mean what’s been known as low end autism or asperger)? Neurodivergent people have trouble understanding social cues/norms,and might have issues understanding why people act/react the way they do.
This is meant as a general observation that might be beneficial to understand the gap between you and other people, not as a judgment or way to imply there’s something wrong with you.
The second thing - the division between introverts and extroverts is kinda false. In reality, it’s like height - there are tall and short people, but most people are of generally average height. Like height, most people are towards the middle. You are probably on the end of the bell curve of extrovert-introvert. That’s something you need to understand. This also doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with you, but right now it looks like you’re acting like a 2.2 meter tall person who thinks everyone below 2 meters is short. Yes, society is built for people who are of mostly average “sociality”. Just like it’s built for people of mostly average height, and tall people might have issues finding clothes or having enough leg room in their car.
Most people expect some level of sociality with their co-workers. They aren’t necessary attention seekers or “extroverts”. That’s just the way their brains are wired. When they don’t get that social interaction, they will look for an explanation - Did they say something to offend you? Are you busy? In a bad mood? A standoffish person? Maybe you’re just shy, and they should initiate more interaction to make you more comfortable?
So, what you want to do is to answer those unasked questions in terms they can understand and without offending them. Imagine you’ve accidentally bumped into someone while walking. You’ll say something like “Oh, I’m so sorry for bumping into you, I was in a hurry. Are you alright? OK, sorry, again, have to run”.
Do try and offer help in work related things once in a while - “Hey, I heard [work thing] is giving you trouble. I’ve actually had the same issue and would be happy to help”. This conveys you’re approachable on work-related things, and will make people more inclined to help you when needed.
Walk fast and with a purpose. This serves a dual objective - to better convey that you’re always busy, and minimize interactions. The only question you’ll get is “why are you walking so fast?” or whatever. This can be handled by saying something casual like “you call this fast?”, “ah, you know how it is…” etc. without slowing down more than necessary.
Over the last few years my family and I have binged all of Star Trek, then moved on to Star Trek adjacent shows like The Orville and Stargate. At the moment we’re not really watching anything sci-fi. I was wondering if anyone had recommendations for similar shows (or maybe some books) that fill the void left by Star Trek. In...
International Criminal Court chief prosecutor seeks arrest warrants for Israeli PM and Hamas leaders (www.abc.net.au)
cross-posted from: lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/12333064...
Conservative author Ann Coulter heaps praise on GOP rising star Vivek Ramaswamy - then tells him she wouldn't vote for him because he's Indian (www.dailymail.co.uk)
Israelis rally to demand ceasefire and Netanyahu's resignation (www.euronews.com)
“We hope the world hears us and knows that the people of Israel are not the government of Israel,” said one protester....
A YouTuber let the Cybertruck close on his finger to test the new sensor update. It didn't go well. (www.businessinsider.com)
What's the deal with Isreal vs. Palestine side taking in the West?
I feel like I’ve been kind of in the loop for most of the headlines regarding this confrontation. Yet somehow I can’t find it within myself to actually care about either side. It seems like both are lead by genocidal parties, hell bent on indoctrinating their populace into hating the other side. Yet at the same time people...
can you help me formulate an answer to a colleague who is not my boss but feels entitled to tell me how I have to work?
cross-posted from: linux.community/post/803244...
How is the US able to instantly stop an attack from Iran but powerless when Israel attacks hospitals?
I’m missing something here. Admittedly, I’m making the assumption that blowing up hospitals is a bad thing to do.
Women Should Just Be Honest (sh.itjust.works)
Google Gemini refuses to answer questions about deaths in Gaza but has no problem answering the same question for Ukraine. (lemmy.world)
Cool cool cool cool cool. (lemmy.world)
Seriously, why is the USA supporting Israel?
The US is supporting Israel through what we can mostly all agree is a genocide of the Gazans. Clearly, Biden isn’t a genocidal maniac, yet he’s all in with unwavering support. Why are we doing this? There has to be a logical reason that isn’t just “we want Israel to kill everyone in Gaza and take their land a la...
Netflix Avatar review: another live-action cartoon misfire (www.theverge.com)
Netflix’s live-action Avatar has its heart in the right place, but its pacing and uneven performances leave a lot to be desired.
Ghost in the Shell comes to mind (lemmy.world)
deleted_by_author
deleted_by_author
More things like Star Trek?
Over the last few years my family and I have binged all of Star Trek, then moved on to Star Trek adjacent shows like The Orville and Stargate. At the moment we’re not really watching anything sci-fi. I was wondering if anyone had recommendations for similar shows (or maybe some books) that fill the void left by Star Trek. In...