andrewrgross

It's actually already there.

Ending US wars is like universal healthcare. Sadly, this is one of those things where the mainstream public consensus is overwhelmingly on our side.

Which is really scary. This isn't a challenge of shifting the Overton window. It's one of figuring out how to translate the will of the people into government action in what is supposed to be a democracy. 'Cause we already won public opinion, and it turns out that's not where the sticking point is.

I'm glad I'm not in Maine. Before Fetterman this would be easier to rationalize away.

I hope Platner can reassure folks and then serve honorably, because let's be real: despite a lack of known tattoos, I don't think Susan Collins or Janet Mills are actually less extreme. As you've pointed out, support for lawless colonial attrocities is the mainstream, bipartisan consensus.

This debate we're having, imo, is really over whether the person he is today is a morally coherent champion of humanistic values or if there is no such candidate in this race. Which is kind of a bummer.

Respectfully: your point is unclear, but it feels like you've lost the plot.

Maybe reread the thread and see if you're saying what you mean to be saying?

Do you have more info?

Can you share a source?

Agreed. His comments are so bizarrely stupid on so many levels.

They're not just "wrong": they're half-right-half-wrong. And the half that is wrong is idiotic in the extreme, while the half that is right casually acknowledges a civilizational crisis like someone watching their neighbors screaming in a house fire while sipping a cup of coffee.

Like this farmer analogy: the farmers were right! Their way of life and all that mattered to them was largely exterminated by these changes, and we're living in their worst nightmare! And he even goes so far as acknowledging this, and acknowledging that we'll likely experience the same thing. We're all basically cart horses at the dawn of the automobile, and we might actually hate where this is going. But... It'll probably be great.

He just has a hunch that even though all evidence suggests that this will lead to the opposite of the greatest good for the greatest number of people, for some reason his brain can't shake the sense that it's going to be good anyway. I mean, it has to be, otherwise that would make him a monster! And that simply can't be the case. So there you have it.

It'll be ~~terrible~~ great.

100%.

Peter Frase deconstructed this in an article a decade ago (and subsequent book) "Four Futures".

It's really not complicated. Saying 'the rich want to make us all obsolete and then kill us off ' sounds paranoid and reactionary, but if you actually study these dynamics critically that's a pretty good distillation of what they'd like to do, and they're not really concealing it.

Reported experiences vary between the hundreds of hostages, but in general, public statements have been inspecific declarations that they went through hell. A smaller number have spoken more publicly and described specific horrible abuses. Prisoners released by Israel largely mirror this, which is consistent with an abundance of public evidence that Israel operates extremely brutal extrajudicial torture camps.

But honestly, I'm not sure why we're still talking about this. This started because you said that you believe it's important to exercise skepticism towards sensationalist claims, and I pointed out that it's equally dangerous to ignore credible atrocities because they are too shocking.

The situation in Israel/Palestine is really not that complicated. If you're unaware because you're not following it, that's fine, but then I think it's ignorant to demand extreme forms of evidence for things which are already well documented that you can't be bothered to review.

The US is materially supporting a state sponsor of terrorism in broad daylight. This is publicly acknowledged by experts and major figures within Israel. Do with that information what you will.

You know, that's kind of a weird response. Because what I asked was whether or not my interpretation of a set of events fulfilled your criteria for credibility. And instead of answering a pretty simple yes-no question you asked whether Greta Thunberg has published photos of her unclothed body.

I feel like you responded in your head, and then imagined my response, and then wrote a response to that.

But I think I can infer that you're unconvinced.

Now I gotta ask: if that's your standard of evidence, do you also doubt the veracity of the Israeli hostages returned from Gaza who attested to being tortured and abused?

If not, I think you're exercising some pretty "selective" skepticism. And if so, congrats on your neutrality but Jesus Christ, that's fucked up. When anyone gets back from captivity and alleges that they were abused or raped or violated, requiring them to expose themselves to you as the price to have their claims considered is quite gross. It's not even an effective form of proof. Most torture is markless, and bruises are easily faked.

I'm not asking you to "believe women" or accept any victim narrative unexamined. I'm just pointing out that you can judge victims credibility without demanding that they submit to your leering gaze. Don't believe Greta? Fine. I think that just as the hostages are far more credible witnesses to their own treatment than Hamas, the hundreds of flotilla activists testimony is far, far more credible than IDF. But you do you.

So where does this fall for you?

Two weeks after the alleged incidents, we have further reported details. Greta Thunburg has given a lengthily interview to Aftonbladet. In it she alleges that she was tortured in captivity. She also shows off her suitcase, which bears Israeli vandalism. Her story is corroborated by interviews with numerous witnesses, including journalists such as Saverio Tommasi.

Thunburg describes a visit by the Israeli Minister of National Security, Itmar Ben G'vir. Ben G'vir has confirmed this, and released footage of the event. Though the foreign minister has denied the claims that she and the other activists were tortured, Ben G'vir has expressed pride that they were made to suffer. He described them as terrorists. This was reported by The Times of Israel. This should be understood in the context that he is responsible for overseeing their treatment, and he has repeatedly expressed that he believes that terrorists in captivity should be tortured.

So my question, again, is whether you'd say that Greta Thunberg's claims to have endured torture in Israeli captivity, during which time she was beaten, starved, and subjected to solitary confinement can be considered objectively verified.

I think so. I think the original report was fairly credible, and I think subsequent reporting thoroughly substantiates it by rigorous journalistic standards. Would you agree with this?

That's pathetic. You're either an artist or a philosopher. No engineer would be able to write such nonsense

(What no art education does to a mfer)

I'm actually an automation engineer!

Look: it's fine to be unfamiliar with ideas, but please don't be rude and stubborn about not knowing something.

You should read Einstein's writing. Sagan too. If you place technical knowledge as the highest (or only) form of intelligence then maybe they'll break through for you.

Can I ask how old you are, and what your parents do/did growing up?

I don't want to come off as mocking, but it sounds like you don't understand the role art plays in a functioning society.

Artists explore ideas at the lowest level of a chain of creativity that extends up to scientists and decision makers. In the same way that rocket engineers rely on physicists and chemists to uncover the science that underlies engineering, and physicists and chemists require mathematicians the uncover the math that underlies physics and chemistry, artists essentially research the human condition to allow their society to weigh whether building a rocket is worth doing; where it should go; what it should do; who should be on it; etc.

Our collapsing society could in some part be blamed on the fact that our economic system has failed to fund research into the ideas and social technologies that we need to transition away from obsolete social systems.