trytryandtryagain

[trytryandtryagain]

#please say sike

sike indeed, the film in question is Book of Clarence, and the actor playing Jesus is Nicholas Pinnock, who, among other things, played an unnamed shield dude in Captain America: The First Avenger. Cumberbatch cameos as a beggar who gets mistaken for Jesus, in commentary on "why the popular conception of Jesus holds him as a white man, when the film's Jesus, along with every major character in his circle, is played by a black actor."

I’m literally on thr verge of tears

[trytryandtryagain]

AND

the infuriating thing, to me, is that the chik-fil-a boycott worked? in 2012, after the first wave of bad press, they promised to stop donating to organizations with “political agendas,” ceasing donations to groups such as the AFA and FRC.

Following, there were further protest considering Chick-fil-A’s donations to other controversial nonprofits, like salvation army

and THEN, in 2019 chik-fil-a reorganized its donation policy to focus exclusively on “hunger, homelessness, and education.” They now donate over $5 million a year to food banks, college readiness programs and similar. Like. We won. This is SUCH a win. and yet, here we are, in forever boycott land where no improvement is enough, where there is nothing you can do to be forgiven your sins.

Hey remember that a boycott if actually MORE effective under capitalism if you profess you would actually end the boycott under certain conditions.

“Nothing this company does can make up for their bad actions, I will never buy from them again!” Okay so they’ve lost you as a customer and have no reason to try and get you back. You can HOPE to drive them into bankruptcy but Chic-Fil-A is evidence of how well that works.

“This company did something bad. I would not consider buying their product again, UNLESS, they publicly apologized and made up for it by … [donating money to a cause, promoting different content, offering better care to their employees, etc.]” This is actually MORE likely to be effective because if enough people say this, the company m sees them as potential customers of a certain demographic, and is willing to make changes to get those customers back and, long term, make money from them.

[trytryandtryagain]

More Sortedfood Alignments

[trytryandtryagain]

I am from Europe and I know what there are, but only because my american friend has one!

[trytryandtryagain]

and for the record, gold-plated connectors do serve a genuine purpose (though admittedly, not in the audiophile sense of 'it sounds better'*)

gold-plating is more corrosion resistant, which matters a lot if your set-up goes through a lot of thermal cycling, or your set-up experiences regular high humidity, or you're a sound engineer, who connect and disconnect your equipment a lot for a variety of set-ups. it increases the transportation durability of your equipment, and maintains signal quality for longer making the cables have longer shelf-lifes.

*third hand, a degraded nickel connector will in fact have worse signal quality than a gold-plated one, and so sound worse than a gold one, but a non-damaged nickel connector sounds just as good as a gold-plated one.

listening to the pronunciation samples wikipedia offers of different types of consonants and you know what, I don't believe some of these are actually different sounds. I think this is some audiophile shit like gold-plated cables.

[trytryandtryagain]

Not australian, but I do know who this is

Jordan Shanks-Markovina, under the handle friendlyjordies online. He's back on the internet after the firebombing of his house (alledgely linked to the Alameddine network, following an exposé linking Barilaro financially to them. Allegedly.)

Independent journalist, political commentator, stand-up comedian, and all the other news/politics/finance wonks on youtube have been hyping his return, but he's very focused on NSW stuff, so I guess there might be an international audience going 'who t f is this dude' about it?

I accidentally deleted the ask that was asking me about Jordan Shanks. I don't know who he is, though I could tell from the ask that he is Australian & a political commentator. Could perhaps @hlmoorewrites, @beautifulpaxiel, @gehe-lihiyot-androgynos-varda, @queerble or anyone else who's also Australian answer this for me.

To the person who asked, sorry for not having an answer & sorry for accidentally deleting the ask when I was trying to answer. I can't even remember the specifics of the question.

[trytryandtryagain]

I like the 'sandwich is an adjective' solutions,

but I strongly disagree with the 'hot dog sandwich' is a redundancy that neither helps nor hinders understanding because a hot dog sandwich is clearly this object:

which is clearly something different from a hot dog.

A newsletter has a regular feature going down the list of Notable Sandwiches on Wikipedia. This week's is the hot dog. The writer emailed 30 professors. I commend everyone for the well-thought-out answers, especially the grad student who produced graphs. buttondown(.)email/theswordandthesandwich/archive/notable-sandwiches-89-hot-dog/

What a fun feature overall! I haven't reviewed the entirety of the Hot Dog Document yet, but I feel like now I want to do a bunch of back reading, too. I like reading about sandwiches, even if I'm fairly picky when it comes to them myself.

I will say, and perhaps this is populist of me or perhaps it's even more ivory tower than the academics, but as we all know I have a longstanding solution to all of this "is a hot dog a sandwich" nonsense, which is this:

"Sandwich" is not a noun. It is an adjective.

I don't mean that literally, like I haven't found some weird archaic dictionary that tells us so, but "sandwich" as a word is not used as a noun but rather as a descriptor of a thing, ergo, adjective. An object is a sandwich if you must apply "sandwich" to the end of the noun in order to properly identify it. It's like how many different kinds of dogs can be "brindle" but that is not a breed of dog and doesn't stand on its own as a classification.

Now, I have no objection to anyone saying "a hot dog sandwich" because that's simply a redundancy and if they wish to, that's their prerogative; it sounds fun and old timey, like saying "a hamburger steak". But we need not classify a hot dog as a sandwich simply because you don't need to say "hot dog sandwich" for the person you're speaking with in order to make yourself understood. Much as you would not generally say "Italian beef sandwich" even when speaking to someone who might not know what an italian beef is. You say "an italian beef" and then elucidate.

There is a possible exception to the rule, which is the Grilled Cheese Sandwich, commonly referred to as simply a Grilled Cheese despite taking a very sandwich-like form, but there are three arguments one can make regarding this:

It SHOULD be called a Grilled Cheese Sandwich to distinguish it from Halloumi

It is technically a "melt" which like a hamburger is distinct from a sandwich (ie, a Tuna Melt or Patty Melt) in the classification of "sandwich-like objects that need not be called a sandwich"

The grilled cheese is the exception that proves the rule and this is right and just, because grilled cheese sandwiches are the best and should be considered special.

Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk; I will not be taking questions at this time.

[trytryandtryagain]

Ever since October 7th, the amount of misinformation and disinformation about Jews, Israel, Judaism, and even just like, basic facts about reality have been so intense that it's really dredging up a lot of my gaslighting trauma.

(No, not in the memic sense that it's been distorted into, but the kind of gaslighting that leads you to detransition and think it was your choice despite drowning in dysphoria, the kind that warps and changes and erases memories, and makes it so that you dissociate for literal months at a time to escape the pain. That kind.)

And I recognized this because I keep finding myself arguing facts and trying to reason with people who say that they're part of the compassionate left and care about working on antisemitism but yet spew the kind of antisemitism that would be totally at home on Stormfront.

It's that first arguing stage of gaslighting, where the abuser keeps saying outrageous, untrue things and you're still fighting to try and get them to empathize with you and seek mutual understanding. This:

A gaslighter does not simply need to be right. He or she also needs for you to believe that they are right. In stage 1, you know that they are being ridiculous, but you argue anyways. You argue for hours, without resolution. You argue over things that shouldn’t be up for debate — your feelings, your opinions, your experience of the world. You argue because you need to be right, you need to be understood, or you need to get their approval. In stage 1, you still believe yourself, but you also unwittingly put that belief up for debate.

(bolding mine) (source)

This is a pattern I recognize in myself in personal relationships and even within communities, but what's happening right now is a lot bigger and more diffuse. It's not one abuser or even a shitty cohort of abusive people who are monopolizing a community space. This is being encouraged in a frighteningly large number of non-Jewish progressive spaces. In the same way that stochastic terrorism adds up very quickly, this type of cultural gaslighting and stochastic emotional abuse feels like a deluge.

But if you look at history, this is not new, for Jews. This is but the latest version of a very long game of Why Won't You Just Give Up and Assimilate or Die that Jews have thus far prevailed on at great cost to ourselves.

Anyway I'm done arguing with goyim about things that absolutely should not be up for debate: Jewish history, Jewish culture, what certain religious concepts in Judaism mean, Jewish lived experiences, what is and isn't antisemitism. If you aren't willing to engage in a genuine way that seeks mutual understanding, I'm not interested. I'm done.

You are engaging in violent behavior and lying to yourself about it and calling it activism. Well I am no longer going to participate. You can lie to yourself all you want, but you are a bad person and I don't forgive you, and you can do that alone.

You are acting from a mob mentality and a mob cannot be reasoned with. You are drunk on your tiny bit of power and social capital, and years down the line you'll lie to yourself and pretend that you cared about us.

You didn't. And deep down you know it, too.

Instead of arguing with people who refuse to see facts or reason and put our experiences up for debate, I am going to work on compiling a resource for people who want to actually learn.

Everyone else can fuck off.

[trytryandtryagain]

He was asked to give the money back because it wasn't his payment, which he got to keep without any argument, they agreed it was funny commentary and they'd display it even though he didn't deliver to spec*, he was however also LEANT approximately $70k in cash to make the collages with, as materials, always supposed to go back to the museum.

They agreed it was art and exhibited it, so he got to keep his comission. However, the 70k were never his. Those 70k were not the comission, they were the materials, and were supposed to be delivered alongside the canvases. He didn't. That's why he had to pay the museum back. Because it wasn't his money.

*the comission was for two collages made of cash, one for the median salary of the first quartile of danish salaries and one for the median salary of the fourth quartile, something something commentary on income disparity and inequality, and I'm not sure he delivered to spec, and I'm not sure I would've faulted the museum for going 'very funny, but not what we ordered' about it.

my collection of "weird social practices that are too funny to be considered rude"

[trytryandtryagain]

Time to bring out the Step on Foot analogy

You step on my foot. It hurts, I say ouch.

Then I say, 'you stepped on my foot, that hurt.'

If you intentionally stepped on my foot, you're an asshole.

If you stepped on my foot by accident, you still stepped on my foot. My foot still hurts. You, because you're a good person, say sorry and remove your foot from mine.

You don't say 'I didn't mean to' and leave your foot there. You don't say 'only people who INTENTIONALLY step on feet have to apologize'. You don't say 'it is insulting to say I stepped on your foot, becuase I didn't do it intentionally'. You don't say 'how do you define feet here?'. You apologize and remove your godamn foot. Because it doesn't matter that you didnt mean to, you still stepped on my foot. I am still in pain because you stepped on my foot. My foot is still hurt.

My willingness to forgive and move on and not hold a grudge is way higher, because you didn't mean to step on my foot, it was an accident. But you still stepped on my foot!

The stepping on my foot here is practicing, supporting, giving legitimacy and financial backing to the evangelical christian offshoot called Messianic Judaism, a movement that is inherently and to it's core antisemitic. Doing it unknowingly doesn't make my foot not stepped on. Saying that you stepped on my foot isn't an insult, it's a statement of fact.

Genuine question, do you believe messianic Jews are valid? Do you believe they are not just Christians? I am a messianic Jew, and it’s actually a long story on how my family ended up this way, but I don’t feel like dwelling. I saw one posts that said messianic Jews were just Christians who appropriated Jewish practices, and tried to trick Jews into following Jesus. I obviously don’t believe that is true, but please give me your opinion.  

[trytryandtryagain]

They do indeed not know what misinformation is, citing mondoweiss, whose factual reporting is 'mixed' and credibility rating is 'low'.

(not to say sexual and gender violence isn't a problem in conflicts across the board or that this specific mondoweiss piece is false. HOWEVER. Vetted news media is vetted news media and it MATTERS if things have editorial standards and factcheckers and a reputation.)

I'm not going to include graphic descriptions here, but be warned that they're in this article. I'm just posting this here as a reference.

Remember: if you cannot condemn violence against women that's inconvenient for you, you are no better than right-wingers who vehemently defend rapist politicians like Donald Trump. All sexual violence is wrong. No one has to listen to you if you deny or defend rape.

[trytryandtryagain]

I just saw some more of the videos from NYC and London today with the newly enthusiastic Houthi stans and I'll be honest, I really cannot wrap my mind around what we're witnessing in real time. put aside their rabid antisemitism, what was done to the Jews of Yemen, their "curse on the Jews" slogan and flag. put aside "death to America." clearly these people aren't concerned about that and if anything are happy to support it, it excites them. but the AUDACITY of them pretending to care about human lives is what gets me. (Jewish people don't count here, obviously.) the Houthis are quite literally violent rapists and slavers. not from the 18th century. NOW. TODAY. their people are starving. they subjugate and terrorize them. they have killed them. and no one ran to the streets to protest that. no one went out to advocate for innocent Yemenis. AND THEY'RE STILL NOT!

and three months ago, those of us who watched what happened so quickly, what sparked like a fire, with the leftists openly supporting Hamas after they slaughtered, tortured, raped, pillaged, and kidnapped innocent people warned about this. we said, no, please don't support murderers. please don't support an oppressive regime who wants nothing but death. if you don't care about, or even if you hate, Israelis, at the very least you cannot support Hamas and a free Palestine, because the concepts are antithetical. no one listened. they screamed "by any means necessary" and called them "freedom fighters" and quickly became justifiers of infanticide and rape apologists.

and then they decided to lose their minds and celebrate Osama Bin Laden, and we said, please don't do that, and they didn't listen, despite the fact that his vicious homophobia and misogyny and racism should defy every principle they claim to stand for.

and then they tweeted about how Hitler had a point and wasn't totally wrong and he was a humanitarian actually - things we only used to see from virulent neo-Nazis coming from the "progressive" left.

what's next? I'd assume open ISIS stanning, but hey, people have already been taking ISIS flags to rallies, like they've been doing with swastikas for months. Putin support? we've seen that too. (especially if it can be linked to demonizing Zelensky, because you know, he's a Jew). an embrace of Assad despite the scores of his own people - and Palestinians!!! - that he's brutally murdered?

make this make sense. who is going to be freed by literal extremists? how are leftists supporting groups that are opposed to EVERYTHING they've ever fought for - equal rights, due process, anti-racism, religious freedom, LGBTQ+ rights, feminism, animal welfare, education, children's welfare, anti-war, anti-slavery, anti-rape culture, the list goes on - every. single. stance. that progressives claim to have. is what these terrorist arms of the IRGC stand against and want to tear apart. what is happening here. they cannot simply hate the Jews this much.

[trytryandtryagain]

https://x.com/persianjewess/status/1741515536134221972?s=20 the way the entire Western world pretends they cannot see or hear this.

like I said a couple months ago, 99% of the Israeli bleeding heart leftist soul got thanos snapped out of existence on October 7th, and its going to sign the palis economic death sentence

[trytryandtryagain]

Continuation on 3, whether damage to the civilian infrastructure counts as something that needs to be weighted with regards to the military objectives depends on which set of legal interpretations the attacking army is relying on. The civilian lives are never exempted from the proportionality assment, but the buildings might be.

I’m not anything even close to an expert on the laws of war, but from what i am gathering from people who seem to know what they’re talking about the laws involving where armies can and cannot target revolve around 2 principles (well, more than 2 but these 2 are important):

1) areas where there are children, medical sites, and religious sites should not be targeted

2) because of the obvious ways that point 1 could be misused, anyone who thinks they’re a clever boots by using the above areas for military purposes has committed a warcrime and also removed said areas’ protection

A lot of people seem to be investing a lot of effort into either pretending point 2 doesn’t exist or in using point 2 to entirely invalidate point 1. It’s frustrating.

Also, if anyone sees this who actually is a scholar of the laws of war, and you think I missed something important or got something wrong, please respond with your corrections

[trytryandtryagain]

MEMRI stands for the Middle Eastern Media Research Institute, they are a US based organisation who do translations of (mostly, but not only) arab media, specifically as a response to the issue of arab leaders speaking out of one side of their mouth when talking english to a western audience, and the other when speaking arabic to an arabic audience.

They are not a media organisation and have not hosted Yahya Sinwar, they are a monitoring and research organisation and have translated media who hosted Yahya Sinwar.

Just wanted to share with someone that I always thought the "The American people are not intellectual, to put it mildly" reaction picture was funny until I looked it up earlier to grab the image again and realized that woman is a Holocaust denier. Suddenly became extremely not funny and I wonder how many people know about Nagwa Younis and what that interview the screenshot is from is about. Maybe you knew this, but I only ever saw that meme used in the silliest most trivial contexts that never had anything to do with anything that serious or even political, so the idea that someone watched that interview and decided to make a joke out of it... and so many people use it... Scary to see how normalized and prevalent that stuff is and people don't even realize or think to check.

I didn't know that.

Reminds me of the moment I was forced to learn that the "Change my mind" meme is Stephen fucking Crowder and the original sign said "Male Privilege is a Myth, Change My Mind".

[trytryandtryagain]

this is a VERY secondary point to the whole entire argument, which, good post OP

"#v true lol about it being silly that they're in eurovision in the first place cause they're not european"

neither is Azerbaijan or Armenia, who do compete in ESC

and neither is Egypt or Jordan or Morocco or Algeria or or Tunisia or Lebanon or Libya - all of which are entitled to compete, no application and special dispensation (aka Australia) needed, they just refuse because EBU won't ban Israel. (and maybe a little bit because ESC competition is expensive)

'Eurovision' is a naming convention holdover for all of the Across The Cooperation Area Broadcasts, named for one of the founding networks of the EBU, the european (public service) broadcasting union, and, quote membership is for broadcasting organizations whose countries are within the European Broadcasting Area, as defined by the International Telecommunication Union, or are members of the Council of Europe, end quote. Israel isn't in Europe, but they are in the European broadcasting area.

The Olympics tend to also be, at least partly, eurovision broadcasts.

honestly if you're surprised b'tzelem exists it's cause you've dehumanized israelis to the point you see them as some sort of bloodthirsty hivemind

[trytryandtryagain]

Very well, here you go; 🌟sources🌟

"The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council". Yale Law School THE AVALON PROJECT. Yale Law School. 1–17 July 1968. Retrieved 5 November 2023. Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit...Article 6:The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

Rotenberg, Marc (February 1980). "The Palestinian Charter: An Obstacle to Peace?". Harvard International Review. 2 (5): 8–10. Retrieved 5 November 2023. Major General Shlomo Gazit, the overseer for the occupied territories between 1967 and 1974, also cites the Palestinian Covenant as an obstacle to negotiation with the Palestinians. He stated that a precondition to a peace settlement would be "an explicit, declared change of the Palestinian Covenant. You cannot say, 'I am prepared to make peace with Israel,' holding this charter which states that Israel has no right of existence. that it must disappear, and that we want to establish a Palestinian state where only Jews living there before 1917 have the right of residence. This is impossible.

"Fatah leader: Armed struggle is the perfect choice to uproot the occupation". Qudspress.net. Quds Press. 10 November 2022. Retrieved 31 October 2023. ‎وأشار المقدح لـ"قدس برس" اليوم ال��ميس، إلى أن أبو عمار "استدرك بعد توقيع اتفاق أوسلو ( 13 أيلول/ سبتمبر 1993) بسنة؛ أنه لا جدوى من المفاوضات مع هذا المحتل، ولا خيار للمواجهة سوى خيار المقاومة، لذلك قام بدعم قوى وفصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية؛ ومن (حماس) و(الجهاد الإسلامي)، وغيرهما من الفصائل". ‎وأكد أن "انطلاقة حركة فتح التي أسسها الشهيد ياسر عرفات، هدفت إلى تحرير كامل التراب الوطني الفلسطيني، من النهر إلى البحر. [Al-Maqdah pointed to "Quds Press" on Thursday, that Abu Ammar "took, after the signing of the Oslo Agreement (September 13, 1993) a year; that there is no point in negotiations with this occupier, and there is no option to confront except the option of resistance, so he supported the Palestinian resistance forces and factions; and from (Hamas), (Islamic Jihad), and other factions." He stressed that "the launch of the Fatah movement, founded by the martyr Yasser Arafat, aimed to liberate the entire Palestinian national territory, from the river to the sea."]

Shemesh, Moshe (Summer 2003)."Did Shuqayri Call for "Throwing the Jews into the Sea"?". Israel Studies. Indiana University Press. 8 (2): 72. JSTOR30247797. Retrieved 5 November 2023. The source of the accusation against Shuqayri came from an announcement he made at a press conference in East Jerusalem on June 2, 1967, after stopping off in Amman on the way back from Cairo in King Hussein's plane (Hussein left for Cairo on May 30 and returned the same day). According to the Lebanese daily Al-Yawm (3 June 1967), Shuqayri was asked what would happen to the citizens of Israel if the Arabs won the war. His answer: "We will endeavor to assist [the Jews] and facilitate their departure by sea to their countries of origin." Regarding the fate of Israeli-born Jews, he replied: "Whoever survives will stay in Filastin, but in my opinion no one will remain alive."

Kuperwasser, Yosef; Lipner, Shalom (2011). "The Problem is Palestinian Rejectionism - Why the PA Must Recognize a Jewish State". Foreign Affairs. 90: 2. The Palestinians have in fact not recognized the legitimacy of the national rights of the Jewish People,

Karsh, Efraim (October 2004). Arafat's War: The Man and His Battle for Israeli Conquest. Grove Press. p. 87. ISBN978-0-8021-4158-3. If Israel does not recognize the establishment of a Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as [its] capital" he said "there would be not be any decision to cancel the clauses of the charter calling for the liberation of all of Palestine.

Meighan, Katherine W. (1993–1994). "The Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles: Prelude to a Peace". Virginia Journal of International Law. 34: 435. Detailed accord outlining the Israeli recognition of the PLO and transfer of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank town of Jericho to the PLO in exchange for PLO recognition of Israel and alteration of PLO's charter.

straight from the wikipedia on the origin of the phrase.

Listen, I support hand-in-hand and a land for all as much as the next peacenik, but historical revisionism aint it.

People boarding a US Navy vessel that didn't have weapons destined for Israel on it, because they heard on the internet that it had weapons destined for Israel on it, feels very "how was I supposed to know it was illegal to shit on the speakers desk" but left wing.