sup
sup
Well, many people *do* say that about Russia. But I also don't think it's baseless to suggest that China is the biggest overall threat. They might not be the most "acute enemy" (not exactly sure what that means), but I think it's very reasonable to say that they are the biggest threat.
Obviously racism is more serious than accusations of racism! But, the thing about *false* accusations of racism is that they are made *in the absence of racism.* Feel free to block, or get another jab in. It's your call, as it has been for this whole time.
Yeah, it's so crazy that people have gotten annoyed at you for accusing them of being racist for saying things which you concede are true. What a bolt from the blue! I guess they accused you of pontificating, so the gloves are fully off at that point.
It seems like you are bouncing back and forth between having appropriate and admirable humility about the limited applications of your (cool, thought-provoking) study, and getting very mad at anyone who points out those limitations.
I certainly agree that the concept of countries being different is often deployed by racists. I would suggest, however, that this concept is very malleable, and not exclusively or even predominantly used by racists! (the thing I took personally was the insinuation of racism)
My goal was to clarify what "peer country" means, but you decided to make things incredibly weird and hostile.
You had a brief moment of self-awareness bordering on contrition, and now we're back to where we started. Unfortunate.
you're doing it again
That sounds tough. Making baseless accusations of racism seems like a good way to make it worse.
That's a very weird non-answer.
Great, so why did you insinuate that I was racist for suggesting that these differences exist?
Do you think there are any qualitative differences between the societies of the Jordanian Bedouin and the societies of OECD countries which would make it difficult to transpose Bedouin modes of justice to OECD countries?
Saying that a society is not a peer is not the same as saying it is "less than." It just means it is qualitatively different. Even if you insist on viewing the peer vs. non-peer distinction as hierarchical, a non-peer can be *better*...
Imagine if LGBT activists organized a protest movement in 2008 to sink Obama’s candidacy over his non-support of gay marriage. That’s basically what’s happening now, except activists are organizing based on Newsom’s vague musings on a podcast three years out.
But if you genuinely agree with what I'm saying, then...just say that? Somehow you've managed to make agreeing a hostile act.
Just civility! Not sure where you're getting those other things from. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to hope for.
It's kind of funny that you're getting mad at me for supposedly failing to appreciate this distinction when you yourself have used those concepts interchangeably in this thread. Instead of just getting mad, you could try having a dose of humility about the clarity of your writing!
I don't think this is a minor nitpick, it goes right to the core of what you're saying. I think we were having a civil discussion just now with both sides politely disagreeing with the other. I'm not sure why you've suddenly snapped.
bsky.app/profile/bana...
I know that. I'm just saying you're fundamentally missing the original point about people's unwillingness to do *law enforcement work* in the US while unarmed. If you want to say that social workers should be called before cops in many situations, that's fine, but it's a separate argument.
You're arguing "if social workers can deal with these situations without guns, why can't cops", and I'm pointing out that they're not dealing with the situations in the same way at all, so the risks (real and perceived) are not the same.
You did, though. You brought up social workers as evidence that there is a broad willingness to do unarmed law enforcement work in the US.
The difference is that they are not "dealing with" these situations from a law enforcement perspective. The merit of non-law enforcement interventions does not contradict the point that enforcing the law against a heavily armed populace is very fraught.
Obama was against gay marriage in 2008. During his presidency, he ended DADT, endorsed gay marriage, and appointed the SCOTUS justices who gave us the Windsor and Obergefell decisions.
I will also say that inconveniencing people who want to buy semi-auto rifles with a detachable mag is a worthy goal in of itself.
My point is just that those features formed part of the definition. I think the (rhetorical) question I asked is more important. The law added features to the definition because there wasn’t political will to enact a blanket ban on all semi-auto rifles that take detachable mags.
I do not think “semi-automatic” and “able to accept a detachable magazine” are meaningless cosmetic features. I also think listing specific models makes sense on a practical level. Do you have good reason to think there is or was political will to enact your ideal version of the ban?
Any enforceable regulation that’s enacted in a society where racism still exists will create new possibilities for racial profiling. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enact new enforceable regulations. Also: www.pewresearch.org/social-trend...
And why is that? The second…
Any kind of over-engineered politically expedient gun ban will have loopholes, and we will always have smarmy pro-gun people pointing that out. The real issue is a lack of political will for truly effective blanket bans, not a lack of technical knowledge.
That’s probably true, but this isn’t an issue stemming from a lack of knowledge. It’s just become a cultural flashpoint. People on the left realize AR-15 bans wont solve gun violence, but they’ve fixated on it because they’re desperate for *some* kind of win.
Well yeah, all laws are made up. If you’re saying that it didn’t go far enough, then I completely agree, as does almost everyone who’s pro-gun control.
It *was* an actual category with defined characteristics that applied uniformly across state lines. Unfortunately, the federal assault weapons ban expired.
This is a function of pragmatic politics, not inept policymaking. Americans love guns. The only way you can get them to endorse new regulations is to enact incremental changes based on whatever type/style of gun has the worse press at that moment.
Ok, so this helps explain why people are preoccupied with the AR-15, a semiautomatic weapon.
Vaguely complaining about libs being dumb about guns is different than using your knowledge to offer constructive and relevant input.
My point is that these technical distinctions are often irrelevant and raised in bad faith, not that you specifically are doing that. But, if you want to make it clear that you’re not a bad faith actor, it would be good to identify why these technical distinctions actually matter.
I agree with the general sentiment, but this kind of gun pedantry is almost always used for bad faith gatekeeping or misdirection.
I have not! Is this inquiry related to my previous post in some way?
what’s annoying about these ultimatums is that they’re making demands that literally cannot be met by the people to whom you’re addressing the demands.
Nobody is doing that. Literally all anyone is saying is that he *might* end up the nominee regardless of what any of us on BlueSky do about it.
One of the most offensive things you can say online is “[X] might not be that bad.”
oh, ok
Who is Frito Lay in this analogy?
To put a finer point on it: Star Trek is about the bridge, Star Wars is about the air wing.
If that was the impression you got, then I apologize for not communicating more clearly. It seems like you're disappointed that I'm not denying that Israel has targeted civilians, which is weird!
What exactly did you want me to say about that? It's a bad name! The algorithm itself seems bad!
No, not that either. Neither Lew nor myself are claiming that Israel's strikes were proportionate in all cases. I'm just suggesting that people not misrepresent what Lew said. This makes people very mad, apparently.
“Israel has done very bad things in Gaza” is not a statement I disagree with!
Alright, I’m not going to waste any more time with this! Good luck out there.
Ok, so…you’ve been confused this whole time? My apologies. I’ve been trying to get you back on track this whole time, which was clearly a wasted effort on my part.
Do you see how I replied by saying “I agree, but this isn’t what Lew was talking about”?
Yeah, this was where you started to pivot and change the subject, thanks for pinpointing that.
It has direct relevance to both. It’s increasingly seeming like you either wasted your time here because you didn’t read the original post, or you’re just trying to pivot to avoid admitting to being wrong. Either way, kind of sad.
If you are confused about the subject of the conversation, I would suggest you re-read the excerpt of the interview which triggered it!
It has a bearing on an after-the-fact assessment based on limited info, as I’ve repeatedly explained to you throughout this conversation.
You were trying to draw a distinction between two different kinds of after-the-fact analyses: an analysis of Israel’s pre-strike proportionality assessment, and an analysis of the proportionality of the strike. *That* was the distinction I said was not meaningful.
Obviously there’s a difference, and obviously we’re talking about the latter, notwithstanding your efforts to change the subject to the former.
Proportionality will always be relevant. Obviously it *also* matters whether Israel actually conducted a proportionality analysis beforehand, but they will always claim that they did, and this is difficult (if not impossible) to rebut this without evidence of gross disproportionality.
I think you’re getting a little confused, so let me try to boil this down for you: There is no world in which it is not important for the US to figure out what actually happened based on the available information. I have no idea why you would try to argue differently.
Chill out.
That is a distinction without a difference. In either case, you need to piece together an accurate factual picture based on the available information.
You are illustrating my point, thank you.
…what? Obviously assessments of proportionality are made after the fact by various interested parties, such as the United States. It’s kind of insane to suggest otherwise. Obviously Israel needs to assess proportionality beforehand, but we’re talking about the US’s after-the-fact assessment…
OK
I didn't think that needed to be explained, but: if a civilian is living in the same building as a legitimate military target, it is more likely that their death will be proportionate to the achievement of a military advantage. This also engages the closely related LOAC principle of "necessity."
I think it's important that discussions about I/P be based on an accurate understanding of what key people say and do about it.
Again, we're not talking about the proportionality determination that takes place prior to the attack. We're talking about an after-the-fact assessment by another government based on limited information. You keep getting mixed up on this.
It doesn't change the value of a civilian life. However, a civilian cohabiting with a legitimate military target can influence whether the loss of their life was proportionate to a legitimate military objective.
We're talking about a scenario where we don't precisely know where the civilians were located, and where we're trying to figure that out based on the available information.
Alright, well I guess we've figured out the source of our disagreement: you don't know how proportionality under LOAC works.
I've explained it to you multiple times, in very simple terms. It's not a mitigating factor, it's a piece of evidence which helps you draw inferences about cohabitation / collocation, which is relevant to the proportionality analysis.
Let's try a different approach: if you know that a child was killed by an Israeli airstrike and you are trying to figure out if that airstrike complied with LOAC, is it relevant whether that child was cohabiting with a Hamas fighter at the time, Y/N?
I've explained it a few times. It doesn't impact it, and that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about Lew trying to piece together what happened after the fact using the available information.
I have explained it to you a couple times now. It's relevant because of the inferences it allows you to draw about their probable location relative to a legitimate military target.
I don't know how I can break this down any further for you. To repeat: quantity of deaths is not the only relevant factor to the proportionality analysis. The location of a child relative to Hamas fighters is also relevant, and their parentage helps you draw inferences about that.
It sounded like Lew had information re: quantity of deaths. But that's not the only relevant factor to the proportionality analysis. Their location at the time of death relative to Hamas fighters / assets is also relevant to proportionality, and parentage helps you make inferences about that.
I never assumed that.
If you have limited information about what happened and you're trying to figure out the likelihood that this child was cohabiting with a Hamas fighter when they were bombed, their parentage would definitely be relevant. That's the precise scenario Lew is talking about.
I agree, and that's not what Lew is saying.
Targeting civilians and incidentally killing soldiers is very different from targeting soldiers and incidentally killing civilians.
I think you're taking significant liberties here.
Alright, well I would encourage you to re-read the screen-cap, especially the last part. But as I said, you are free to disagree. I agree that parentage has nothing to do with proportionality in of itself. But parentage is indicative of cohabitation / collocation, which is often relevant.
I'm sorry to hear that
Oh, that's not what I'm doing. Again, I'd suggest reading what I actually wrote.
If you read what he said in full (especially the last part of the screencap), it's clear that he's saying that the relevant factor is whether they're cohabitation with a Hamas fighter, and that parentage is indicative of cohabitation. You're free to disagree, of course.
defending what?
I think you need to read what I actually wrote.
This does not conflict with anything I said.
Where?
yes, that would be relevant
In general, and yes.
What the hell are talking about lmao
I think you need to actually read what I'm saying.
I never claimed otherwise.
That's not what you and the other person originally claimed. Once again: neither I nor Mew have not defended the use of this or any other algorithm. All I have done is tried to make sense of the claims you've made about it.
I'm going to ask you to please tone down your perversion.
It wasn't merely a "UI detail," it was a very specific and very heinous function that you seem to have made up. I personally consider the I/P conflict to be a serious matter, which is why I take these kinds of allegations seriously! You seem to take a different approach.
Yeah, I said that! I stand by it, because it's correct, and because it highlights a meaningful distinction under the law of armed conflict. If you think the distinction is meaningless, your argument is with the law of armed conflict, not with me.