Remember: if you see any on social media instructing you on how to "unregister" as a voter as a protest, they are working for anti-democratic. pro-fascist regimes.
Even if they aren't, they still are.
Don't buy in to the narrative being pushed that voting in a broken system makes you complicit, or that not voting sends a message.
The only thing that does send a message is actually voting. Vote.
If someone claims to be Jewish, especially if they are "anti-zionist", it seems a good way to determining right away if they're a fraud is to ask them what was their bar/bat mitzvah parasha. If the can't remember the name, they should at least be able to tell you something about the content.
Even if they don't know it, how they react will probably tell you a lot.
If you're Jewish and didn't have a b'nai mitzvah, that's cool. We can still hang. I'm not trying to gatekeep Judaism.
I am however strongly gatekeeping using "but I'm Jewish so my opinion on XXX matters". If you can't converse about their Jewish upbringing, you probably didn't have one. And if you didn't have one, who are you to speak for other Jews?
I'm an avowed descriptivist over prescriptivism, but when people us "literal" to describe something that is impossible, it still raises my hackles.
Like, "it literally cost a million dollars" is fine because it is possible for something to literally cost a million dollars.
or "it literally cost a ton of cash", yeah, it's possibly to weigh cash, so cash could weigh a ton.
But, "that website action creates a literal ton alert messages"... ☠️
Alert messages don't have weight, so it's not possible to "literally" have "a ton" of them.
If it was just "it generates a ton of messages", no problem. But a "literal ton" of something that is intangible: 🤯
@shekinahcancook
I'm a descriptivist, so I think that there isn't any "right" way to language. Language changes and it should be the way that people use it.
That said, I am human, and have certain learned and ingrained biases that react to stimuli in various ways whether I want them to or not.
A few years ago when all the independence referendums were going on or being discussed, Catalonia, Scotland, Basque, etc, people seemed to be surprised by how much I support those movements. To me, this is an obvious extension of my Zionism.
My belief that a people have the right to self-determination and self-government. That is the core of my Zionist belief.
This, of course, extends to Palestinians as well. I believe that Palestinians should have the same right.
A "two-state solution" is the obvious conclusion of my Zionism. Full autonomy and self-governance for the Palestinian state. This is born from, not opposed to, my Zionism.
@shekinahcancook I totally feel where you're coming from, but for me not all of that is something I'm comfortable enforcing on another sovereign population who has self-determination and self-governance.
This is not to say that a sovereign population is not free of consequences from making shitty decisions, including the decisions made by the shitty government they install. Including very catastrophic consequences.
I am not one of them. I can't decide for them. They should get to decide their fate. That's kind of the whole point.
@shekinahcancook I completely agree, if by "not be accepting" you mean "not treat as ok", or even "apply strong political, moral, social, and financial pressure to change".
But would not be comfortable to it as far as "not allow to exist by force against the wishes of the people".
Even in such a case, if that's what the Palestinian people choose, it's their choice to make.
We shouldn't make that decision for them.
We CAN'T make that decision for them.
People are literally using that exact same logic, wording, and conclusion right now all around us to argue that Israel is not a valid state and should be dismantled.
Who gets to choose, if not the people who will be ruled?
For the record, I never said that everyone in Gaza is fundamentalist or right wing or wants to destroy Israel.
I am very much in favor of human rights, lgbtq rights, freedom of religion, belief in science, and all that jazz.
I guess I'm confused what you think should be done.
What is the consequence of a government being illegitimate? If it happens here in the US, what's the recourse?
If it is to split the US in to two different countries, a "liberal" and a "conservative" one because the people don't want to live in the other's America, that goes exactly with what I've been saying that the people should get to choose that.
Should the liberal countries invade and occupy any country that doesn't guarantee the human rights?
Reading what you wrote there, it sounds to me like you're agreeing with my main point: that people should have the right to self-determine their government, up-to-and-including leaving/separating from their current government.
If the Scots don't like living under the King of England, they should be able to separate from the UK.
If a Palestinian preferred living under Israeli rule instead of under Hamas, they should be able to emigrate to Israel.
If Trump regains power in the US and makes good on his dictatorial threats... well, that's why I have the route to smuggle my family across the southern border mapped out already.
And, as I already said, freedom of self-determination (if you're in the in-group) does not grant freedom from consequences. You listed some pretty good ones.
@hauntedhideaway I had the same thing recently with a Baltimore native and "missing out" by not trying the local crab last time I was there. He was very insistent even when I told him multiple times that I really wasn't missing out, but I'm glad he enjoys it.
@raf Uni Kuru Togas (mechanical), hands down. They come in both plastic and metal bodies and last forever. I probably have 3 or 4 within arms reach right now. You won't be disappointed.
