Twelve dead, 29 injured (updates continue) on Bondi Beach in Australia

Very much sending Love and support to all our Aussie friends.

I will save commentary for a more reasonable time.

Perhaps I came a bit late because you might already know this, but it is worth sharing the obituary anyway.

RIP James Ransone. Actor James Ransone, known for his role in ‘The Wire,’ dead at 46.

His fictional character, Ziggy Sobotka, was one of my favourites in The Wire. I read on the Internet that he also performed in other interesting works of American drama.

More than a dozen staff members at the influential conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation are leaving the organization to join a group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence.

The mass departure follows turmoil within Heritage and the larger conservative movement over the role of right-wing influencers who've promoted antisemitic and other extremist ideas. Those tensions were on display at Heritage after its president, Kevin Roberts, released a video defending Tucker Carlson for a friendly interview in October with Nick Fuentes, an avowed white nationalist who has previously praised Adolf Hitler. — NPR

I found this story interesting. The right seems to be dividing out between the ideologues and the entertainers. The former are trying to push their ideology and the latter trying to get as many hits as possible. You've got Tucker Carlson platforming an open racist/misogynist/anti-Semite (Fuentes), Candace Owen with crazy conspiracy theories, and plenty of others complicit on that side. Then you've got the true believers running from them (the Heritage Foundation members, Pence, and Shapiro). The fault line was openly exposed by Shapiro (an Orthodox Jew) with his open atrack on Carlson when Fuentes said Hitler was great guy (or some such).

Vance, not wanting to lose support from the racist crowd, has tried to ride the fence. Hopefully that works out poorly for him.

What I'm hoping is this moment signals the beginning of the end to Trump Republicanism. Unfortunately the left has responded to Trump by shifting too far left for ordinary voters, which means the binary choice will be between radicals.

The next few years will be interesting. Vance commented that he's fascinated by Bernie Sanders. I hope that's a good sign, because Sanders is a fundamentally decent human being, whatever one thinks of his politics.

A rather confused analysis.

In fact what is happening in the U.S. and throughout Europe is the rise of forms of ethno-nationalism (similar to what is in effect in Israel), largely in response to the post-war policies of "openness" and "inclusivity," and spurred on by the inevitable problems being caused by mass immigration (from grooming gangs in England to widespread fraud in Minnesota).

The reaction of the post-war generation is predictable: accuse everyone of "racism" or some made-up "phobia" and hope the problem goes away. Instead of having an honest look at the real problems, just rely on dogma, taboo, and shibboleths in conjunction with a great deal of sanctimony. Indeed, this has been the policy of TPF in banning individuals who raise these burgeoning societal issues, from Lionino to Bob Ross. This has resulted in a highly insular echo chamber filled with individuals who cannot see the forest for the trees.

R. R. Reno is among those who have catalogued the problem that the post-war regime will inevitably have to stop ignoring with their taboos and gaslighting. Here is a short video.

Instead of having an honest look at the real problems, just rely on dogma, taboo, and shibboleths in conjunction with a great deal of sanctimony. Indeed, this has been the policy of TPF in banning individuals who raise these burgeoning societal issues, from Lionino to Bob Ross. This has resulted in a highly insular echo chamber filled with individuals who cannot see the forest for the trees. — Leontiskos

We can openly discuss what you've described, which is a societal reaction to stresses, without entertaining thinly concealed attempts at advocacy for unacceptable positions

For example, you may wish to argue Nick Fuentes arose from a dysfunctional system and that to correct the problem we should identify the source, but that doesn't equate to our treating his positions as valid.

I don't get to parade my misogyny around (for example) because society hasn't taught me a better way to express myself. If you want to talk about why misogyny might be on the rise we can, but if I speak not as the analyst, but the advocate, I should expect ostracizism.

So, if you want to know why homophobia is on the rise, ask it. If you want to say gays are disgusting deviates (as Bob did), save it or get banned. There's a difference between asking why bigots are on the rise and catering to them.

:up: :up: :up:

Squirrel seeks shelter:

:up:

The difference between advocating and analysis is often obscured by those who use "freedom of speech" as a tool to attempt bringing in a trojan horse of bigoted bullshit to a discussion.

If someone is unable to spot the difference, that is either utter stupidity, or just an act to keep the "freedom of speech"-shield up against any criticism.

Not tolerating the intolerant is an act to defend freedom of speech.

Yeah, definitely agree here. There's some issues with his finances etc... but clearly a reasonable person in general.

I'm unsure you're seeing hte problem that objectors see with that position. It's not quite that it's "wrong" - because intolerance, on it's face is something soceity rejects. So much is true, and te concept is sound.

But what constitutes "intolerance" is often confused, muddled and in some cases plainly reversed (i.e UK arrests for pithy posts, abusing citizens for wearing tshirts you don't like etc..). I am not saying you, personally, would indulge in this sort of confusion but it clearly happens that, apparently, plenty agree that killing Charlie Kirk was justified on those grounds. I presume you'd disagree? So maybe there's less daylight between the two positions than initially appears.
Which is worse: Wearing a MAGA shirt, or assaulting someone wearing one? Again, not putting that on your shoulders just illustrating why some are going to just laugh at this.

Not tolerating the intolerant is an act to defend freedom of speech. — Christoffer

When adequately tempered and moderated, sure, but then the questions arise about who gets to draw lines etc... It may seem obvious to you where they are, but that doesn't make you right.

Another fatal high-speed train crash in Spain. At least more than 20 people have been killed. :sad:

High-speed train crash in southern Spain leaves at least 21 dead.

UPDATE: The death toll is 39.

High-speed train derailed, jumped onto the track in the opposite direction and crashed into an oncoming train on Sunday in southern Spain.

Turtle saves other turtle.

Absolutely indefensible verdict acquitting Palestinian Action 'protesters' of aggravated burglary and GBH which the judge should have thrown out immediately. This better get challenged and reversed - there is no possible way to have acquitted people who were filmed carrying out the offense they are on trial for. Juries can do this because of bias - but the judicial system is bound to correct this. It is legally untenable.

Further, disgusting that Jeremy Corbyn called this is a triumph for Palestinian action: If that's the case, you support terrorism and political violence. Full stop. Absolutely abhorrent stuff.

Just to counter the one-sided propaganda: the protesters’ did indeed have a defense, including that the security used excessive force and that video footage went “missing.” Actually perfectly defensible, to anyone who has the slightest clue about law.

The selective outrage is telling. Notice that it’s not directed at genocide, but rather at those trying to stop it. That’s striking. Also embarrassing.

The article says it best:

“Our loved ones dared to poke this beast – and no expense has been spared in policing, prosecuting and imprisoning them without trial. Imagine if the government had put the same amount of money, resources and political will into preventing a genocide.”

Yes, and likewise — if only the righteous indignation and posturing outrage were directed more towards the genocide part. These are the same types that would have vehemently opposed those trying to stop the Holocaust, reserving the harshest language for their unlawfulness and crimes while ignoring or minimizing the actual atrocities. And we know why: they either deny it’s happening or don’t care. Disgusting indeed.

The acquittal should be celebrated. I’m very heartened to hear it.

Just to counter the one-sided propaganda: the protesters’ did indeed have a defense, including that the security used excessive force and that video footage went “missing.” Actually perfectly defensible, to anyone who has the slightest clue about law.

The selective outrage is telling. Notice that it’s not directed at genocide, — Mikie

So, legally, we have the facts: there is video evidence of their breaking and entering (already committing a crime), assaulting officers prior to anything remotely close to 'excessive' force being used multiple times including causing grievous bodily harm with a weapon. This, also in the commission of a terror offense definitionally although that's clearly bunk.
They did not use a self-defense defense in the main - only one individual did it doesn't look like that was hte successful argument. They questioned intent. It would be good to see the jury question trail, it seems to me it was not appreciated that the charge does not require intent... They broke and entered wielding weapons of offense (legal terms here).
You'll also note they were not acquitted of several other offenses. This one only had to do with aggravated burglary. Questioning gaps in evidence is not amenable to an acquittal, but a mistrial. Or it should be have a pre-trial issue.

The logic you're using would mean all that is incredibly excessively self defense in the commission of a crime. So, as a legal professional, these facts make the defence of "self defence" unavailable other than as "excessive" self defense which cannot lead to an acquittal anyway. A female officer had had back broken by being struck with a sledgehammer on the ground. I don't quite think you're in position to talk about 'selective outrage'.

The retrial is going to be interesting.

genocide — Mikie

Gaza pop increased from 1.4mil to 2.3 mil from 2009-2023. The difference between immediately prior to October 7 and now is about 200,000, maybe a nudge more. You are not a serious person if you call this a genocide without laughing at Israel for failing.

no expense has been spared in policing, prosecuting and imprisoning them without trial

We're actually currently discussing the trial. Could you clarify how this is relevant, directly rather than being in the same vein? I presume this must refer to something else.

Actually perfectly defensible, to anyone who has the slightest clue about law. — Mikie

I guess I would just say that as a legal professional I understand these things quite well. Perhaps others do not...

“Legal professional.” Well I’ll just say that your legal acumen is in keeping with the rest of your posts. I credit you for at least not even pretending to be a lawyer.

Gaza pop increased from 1.4mil to 2.3 mil from 2009-2023. — AmadeusD

Repeating tired, embarrassing talking points like this is likewise in keeping with how “serious” you are. For someone who knows so little about anything, you sure do guess the wrong side consistently.

But no matter. Keep up the good work of genocide apologism and selective outrage. I post only to counter propaganda; you’re otherwise irrelevant.

When Israeli propaganda becomes so absurd that even its target audience raises an eyebrow, the need arises to imbue it with a pseudo-scientific sheen. At the end of the day, apologists for Israel aren’t actually going to do any research on the matter before absorbing it into their repertoire of mythology; all a talking point needs to accomplish is to sound plausible, regardless of how false it is. After all, this is about making claims, not reflecting reality.

https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/population-growth-ethnic-cleansing/

For those truly interested in this stupid, lazy and racist claim. TL/DR: population increase does not mean no genocide. Regardless, there are statistics that say the population has actually decreased since the genocide began. Worth reading.

Btw, definition of genocide (for anyone interested in international law):

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

From the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, 1948.

I note three ad hominems and only one response that tries to address what I've said.

Cool.

genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such: — Mikie

I suggest you read things carefully and thoroughly before lauching into such ad hominems. I also suggest, strongly, you do not attempt to comment on nuanced legal situations.

I also suggest, strongly, you do not attempt to comment on nuanced legal situations. — AmadeusD

I’m sorry that you have so little understanding of what you claim to be a “professional” in. That’s not my fault. Given the genocide convention, it’s amazing to not only make the claim you did, but seemingly sticking to it after being shown how stupid it is. Oh well — I suggest keeping your mouth shut about stuff you don’t understand. Stick to whatever you actually do. :up:

These are the same types that would have vehemently opposed those trying to stop the Holocaust, reserving the harshest language for their unlawfulness and crimes while ignoring or minimizing the actual atrocities. And we know why: they either deny it’s happening or don’t care. — Mikie

You showed me evidence of why it's not a genocide. I can't do a lot. When all of your posts are nothing but venom, who can?

You showed me evidence of why it's not a genocide. — AmadeusD

:lol: Your denial knows no bounds. If you really think what I quoted shows how the Gaza genocide isn’t a genocide, or that it supports the argument that population increase negates the possibility of genocide — I won’t bother.

Complete ignorance of any counter-argument to such a well-worn claim in today’s world of google and YouTube is enough to tell me you not only have a superficial understanding of this conflict (and that’s being generous), but don’t care to learn about it. That’s also not my fault. I posted a brief article about your ignorant claim and its historical application to even the Nakba. You can start there if you like.

Or you can continue posturing, as always.

Hey man, as always, you're free to think and feel as you wish.

You continually assume no one but you (or those who agree with you) have the correct information. Suffice to say, that is not how I would approach anything. All good :)

Not at all. I’ve learned a lot from others here. But that’s because there are others who know something about the topics I’m drawn to. When I enter a discussion, I at least show the basic courtesy of familiarizing myself with the subject, including arguments for and against, counter arguments, and counter-counter arguments. What I don’t do is show up, repeat a tired slogan, and then demand I’m placed on equal status with other members. It would be embarrassing to do that.

You do so often. Why, I don’t know. But don’t expect much when you do.

And just in case ANYONE is reading along, I’ll be lazy and quote a simple Wikipedia entry— not as definitive proof, but just to demonstrate what’s out there and perhaps give one pause before assuming a cut-and-dried narrative…

The Gaza genocide is the ongoing,[19][20] intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war. It encompasses mass killings, deliberate starvation, infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, and prevention of births. Other acts include blockading, destroying civilian infrastructure, destroying healthcare facilities, killing healthcare workers and aid-seekers, causing mass forced displacement, committing sexual violence, and destroying educational, religious, and cultural sites.[21] The genocide has been recognised by a United Nations special committee[22] and commission of inquiry,[21] the International Association of Genocide Scholars,[23][24] multiple human rights groups,[c] numerous genocide studies and international law scholars,[30][31] and other experts