You can try diverting from the core issue at hand, using semantic sleights of hand, but it’s becoming apparent that Israel is indeed an apartheid state.
By the laws it enacts and the oppression they enable, it is the definition of a racist state.
The world is beginning to see it too, though very slowly.
I think in a conversation that's this divisive it's critical to be semantically very clear. I don't know that I'm using any sleights of hand, but if you want to agree to very specific definitions on the terms being discussed I always think that's useful.
Regarding the apartheid analogy:
I don't want to get into a semantic sleight of hand here, but the term apartheid comes from Dutch Afrikaans to describe their rule over South Africa. I genuinely don't believe the analogy of Dutch settlers colonizing Africa is comparable to displaced Jews establishing Israel. But again, you could consider my use of colonizing versus establishing a semantic sleight of hand. Depending on your definition of colonization, you could say Israel is a colonial state. I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but I don't agree with that definition.
If we're defining racism as unequal treatment of different groups based on race, then yes, Israel is a racist state because clearly, as is evident from this article, they are treating groups differently based on race (that is, if we're defining Judaism as a racial/ethnic designation rather than a religious one). I will not defend Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people, but I think it is worth defending the concept of Israel as a state that does not fundamentally need to be racist.
Stop, just stop this nonsense! you know you are using strawman arguments to justify oppresion based on ethnicity, religion or whatever else in the 21st century for crying out loud. How is this supposed to be a well behaved representation of "democracy"? it clearly is not!
> I genuinely don't believe the analogy of Dutch settlers colonizing Africa is comparable to displaced Jews establishing Israel. But again, you could consider my use of colonizing versus establishing a semantic sleight of hand. Depending on your definition of colonization, you could say Israel is a colonial state.
What else is it but a sleight of hand? Like in your first comment, all of your words are chosen to sound like Israel was formed on un-ocuppied land, as if the Zionist movement found a piece of desert and established a Jewish state there, and now their envious neighbors are seeking to colonize and attack them. In fact, they came and settled an area of immense religious significance to half the world's population that had been inhabited by hundreds of thousands or millions of Arabs for hundreds of years.
And they came with the explicit intention of not only living there, but being the majority population there: an act that explicitly required an ethnic cleansing (or genocide) of Palestine by its very definition.
The existential crisis of Judaism is indeed a core issue, although I am of the opinion that it does not justify the tactics and laws present. That does make it an Apartheid state.
However, OP used no semantic sleights and the suggestion he did is concerning to discourse. He was describing its origins, and you its current conditions. If you reject the idea the Jewish people would like / need a homeland then just say that.
“ Regarding comments I'm seeing here saying Israel is an apartheid state or that Israel is racist or that Israel the concept of a Jewish state is disgusting”
Then later on says:
“Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. It was not built to be a place of equality, and unfortunately, by its nature it cannot be one and continue to serve its purpose”
How does that make sense? How is this logically coherent?
Well its no different to showing you a pack of cards (i.e Israel is not a place of equality by their own omission).
And then making the entire pack of cards disappear (calling Israel is racist).
Granted OP does it in a different order.
Dude should be on Penn and Teller hes a goddamn magician.
The phrasing of the disgusting line is unclear, I apologize. I'm not calling people claiming that disgusting, I'm commenting on people who are calling the concept of a Jewish state disgusting, as in, I'm commenting on people who are saying "the concept of a Jewish state is disgusting."
I would still love to meet Penn and Teller though.
I would encourage you to read it before marking it as a “narrow view”. It is literally taking a broad view factoring in societal impacts. It is written by highly respected experts.
Alcohol absolutely has severe societal impacts: violence rates are positively correlated to rate of alcohol consumption; clogging up hospitals with self inflicted injuries, driving under the influence, health issues (liver damage), clogging up emergency departments on the weekend etc.
I mean I could literally go on. Of all the drugs alcohol really shouldn’t be as easily available as it is.
Personally I find the argument that it does “good” pretty wishy washy and more driven by societal bias toward it as an accepted medium for socialistion. Alternatives do exist.
Most of the harm from heroin stems from it being illegal and unregulated. It obviously would be abused if legal and readily available but even that would be better addressed by spending money on health/prevention vs. police/courts/jails.
My brother died of a heroin overdose many years ago. If it had been legal, pure, and known quality that likely wouldn't have happened (he could still have been affected by addiction like our mother with alcohol, but he wouldn't be dead).
Thank you so much. I do too, as well as for all the others who suffer because of these misguided policies.
It so easily could be changed, but we are collectively trapped by the delusion that the only route to safety is to make drugs illegal. You'll see it here on HN, in this thread, about how the "dangerous" drugs should not be readily available because people will get hurt if society lets them have legal access.
It's such an easily solvable problem and we collectively support the worst possible way to deal with it -- it's crazy making.
> If it had been legal, pure, and known quality that likely wouldn't have happened (he could still have been affected by addiction like our mother with alcohol, but he wouldn't be dead).
Overdoses on opiates happen even with legal opiates [1] and it's related to tolerance mechanisms. You become tolerant to euphoric effects much faster than you become tolerant to respiratory depression and nausea.
This basically makes opiates much more dangerous than any other drug class.
The study is based on a group of drug experts going in a room and assigning point values to harm of different drugs. It's not really a 'study' at all in the empirical sense, it's just a social group expressing its pre-existing biases.
For sure. I'll list some books for introduction to proofs, abstract algebra, real analysis, topology and category theory.
These are not comprehensive, just listing books off the top of my head. I'll definitely be leaving off personal favorites other people have. You'll like some better than others. Some of these are beginner books and some are more advanced. A good tutor can help you get through the more advanced books. I tried to list the most beginner friendly book first in the list under each subject. Then the more advanced books later in the list.
Introduction to Proofs:
Just pick one of these that speaks to you the most. All three are good.
Discrete Mathematics with Applications - Epp
Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications - Rosen
Mathematical Proofs: A Transition to Advanced Mathematics - Chartrand, et al.
Abstract Algebra:
How to Think about Abstract Algebra - Alcock
Abstract Algebra - Pinter
Abstract Algebra: A First Course - Saracino
Algebra - Artin
Abstract Algebra - Herstein
Abstract Algebra - Dummit & Foote
Linear Algebra:
Maybe an engineering based book first if you haven't seen linear algebra in a while (e.g. Strang or Linear Algebra: Step by Step by Singh).
Then:
Linear Algebra - Friedberg, et al
Linear Algebra Done Right - Axler
Linear Algebra - Hoffman & Kunze
Real Analysis:
How to Think About Analysis - Alcock
Understanding Analysis - Abbott
Tao's Analysis text
Principles of Mathematical Analysis - Rudin
Topology:
Topology - Munkres
Topology A Categorical Approach - Tai-Danae Bradley, Tyler Bryson, and John Terilla
Categories and Toposes: Visualized and Explained - Southwell
Conceptual Mathematics: A First Introduction to Categories - Lawvere
Category Theory for Programmers - Milewski (if you like functional programming)
Programming with Categories - Fong, Milewski, Spivak (if you like functional programming)
Category Theory in Context - Riehl
There are a few others by Spivak which you may like.
If you don't know category theory whatsoever then I like Southwell the best (pair them up with his youtube videos). Eugenia Cheng also has a nice set of lecture videos.
If you already know math pretty well, then Riehl is a favorite.
Calculus is a subset of analysis. It's not really its own subject. Generally what people call calculus is a collection of results that are part of analysis.
I was introverted at uni and it was difficult to make friends initially. So much so that i stopped leaving my room and became pretty depressed. I felt pretty sad everytime I went to lectures and just sat on my own with no one to chat to. I saw other folks socialising and having a great time but i just couldnt figure out how they got in a position to make friends.
Heading for lunch was also a sad affair as it was pretty much just me and my food watching the world go by.
What helped me was to get involved in societies etc. I found making a couple of friends easier after this (though i was still a little shy around women).
The key was to just be myself, not give a shit about what other people thought of me, and to try and enjoy each and every interaction with another human being. I think if you overthink how other people perceive you, it will make it harder for you to make friends. Simply dont give a shit and voice ur opinions (unless they're extreme and illegal)
Funnily enough, as I got older, I found I much prefer being alone and focusing on my own interests and personal development.
I now cannot be asked to go out socialising at the expense of my own insular interests.
Reason I mention the last point is that as hard and lonely university will seem right now, things will get better for you. You may find,like I did, that people are insufferable wretches best observed from a distance.
You are absolutely right, but some people are unable to read between the lines. For them its not true unless pg writes it down in a confession in his essay.
> Activist investors are a small subset of all investors. Most investors are just out there to ride the business cycle to the top.
There is research on dual-class firms. "Excess insider control is associated with decreased overall [corporate social responsibility] ratings," with the "community and employee dimensions...display[ing] the strongest negative association with excess insider control" in firms not in "the top decile or quartile of firms with respect to their cash and cash equivalents, operating cash flow, and free cash flow" [1].
Outside the limited case of technology company founders and family-owned firms, the evidence is strongly in favor of investor-controlled companies over the alternatives in virtually every dimension of "better."
typically niches are found or created, rather than listed on job searches. If you're already a contract software engineer, the most accessible 'niche' would be contract/interim CTO positions. Beyond that, specific expertise or contacts in specific industries would be the way forwards; at this point it's not a matter of applying for jobs, but creating opportunities.
[edit] forgot to mention contract (cloud) architects and project managers. They can make a lot, too.
Is there a point to your question?