Odd that you talk about concentration camps when the George Washington of Palestinian nationalism collaborated with Hitler and help recruit Muslim SS troops in order to commit actual genocide.
"In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world." --
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-mufti-and-the-f-uum....
You're right, that historical event of WWII involving at most 20,000 Arabs absolutely gave Europeans the right to occupy a land they have no link to and conduct a genocide killing hundreds of thousands and ethnically cleansing millions more. Wait, were the Irgun and Haganah time travellers who predicted this historical event? Is that why they started moving towards their goals of Zionist occupation, colonialism and terrorism in the 19th century?
What about this, does this make the Zionists anti-semitic too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement It's almost like Zionists are closer in ideology to the Nazis than they want to admit.
Sure it is, the people that had been living there - Muslim, Jew and Christian - for almost a thousand years in relative harmony never actually existed and had no name or identidy whatsoever until Israel arrived in 1948 to give them one.
The defense of murder, rape, Holocaust denial, blood libels -- all grist for the Bitchat for Gaza and HN mill. Man, what a tidal wave of antisemitism we're experiencing.
Yes, antisemitism, in the same way it was anti-Americanism for the Viet Cong to resist the American occupation of Vietnam and that famous terrorist Mandela to resist apartheid South Africa. Desperate people who have heinous things done on them for 70 years do desperate, heinous things, and no-one is more desperate and more wronged than the Palestinians. Again, 70 years. It's almost like Europeans don't belong in the Middle East. Remind me what Netanyahu's real name is again? Also, since I'm sure you wouldn't want to be intellectually dishonest, I'm sure you no doubt equally agree that any criticism of Saudi Arabia, if it were doing anything remotely as heinous as Israel has for the last 70 years, would be Islamophobia, right? Right?
Is that what you see happening? Because I see most Western powers continuing to fund and enable Israel to act with impunity while reserving their harshest criticism for Hamas - the resistance movement set up in 1984, 40 years after Israel invaded Palestine, by the children who had grown up knowing nothing else. An occupier does not get to set the terms of how a desperate occupied people resist, least of all after 80 years, which was a lot longer than Vietnam lasted, and is much worse than South African apartheid. There's a reason Mandela was vehemently pro-Palestine. We can talk about how Hamas and the Palestinian people chose to resist their occupiers and hold them accountable for their relatively benign crimes once the occupation is ended. Right now, Westerners can't even admit that occupation exists, so we're nowhere near that, and virtually any criticism of Hamas is actually an attempt at deflection and maintaining the status quo of the last 80 years.
I'm not a "Western power". I am a person, and as such I am entitled to make my own personal judgments on ethical matters.
(But, yes, what Israel is doing is occupation, and most Western countries are explicitly or implicitly supporting it, including materially. And that is also wrong.)
I'm really interested in your reasoning, specifically this part:
> It's almost like Europeans don't belong in the Middle East.
What is "European" in this case and where do they belong? Do we measure by skin tone, genetics or language? What about birth place?
Wherever and whoever you are, your ancestors have definitely killed to be there, which lead you to being here somewhere.
So, where do we send white people? Can we do the same for asians/christians/arabs/blacks/people with glasses? And most important, what do we do with mixed heritage people? How pure must the blood be to consider them of some certain "race"?
Europeans are people, then and now, whose families have lived in European lands for hundreds of years, but believe they have the biblical right to "return" to a land they have no connection to and "settle on" (steal) the land and houses of Palestinians whose families have lived in those lands for almost a thousand years. This is common sense, and you know full well you would never entertain such a claim from a holy book of any other religion. No amount of semantic games and moving the goalposts changes this fact, or the fact that most "returning" Israelis were European Jews who changed their names to conceal that fact.
I’m related to a professor of design, and he recommends White House Custom Color (https://www.whcc.com/) for prints. I think you may need to upload a sample of your “work” to gain access, at least last time I made an account.
I actually have some of his prints from an exhibition hanging on my wall (via 3M adhesive strips), printed via this service. These are printed on a ~1/8” board and have a glossy protective finish. They’re super high quality.
As for whether the price is reasonable...I’ll leave that to you and your utility function.
A little different from posters, but if you're looking for something a little more durable I've had success with CanvasChamp for canvas wraps: https://www.canvaschamp.com/
In comparison to other sites I've used their framing is much more sturdy. Never had any issues with flexing or anything.
Good quality printing, and very
I'm curious about this as well. If no service exists, does anyone happen know what types of printers work best for these? I'd be willing to try it myself if I knew where to start.
Until the pandemic I produced the prints myself, but now I use print-on-demand companies like Printful or Gooten. There are similar companies out there, but these are a good balance of price and quality.
Has anyone modified these things to give them a little more power? I have a "gen 1" Bug-a-Salt and it doesn't have enough grunt to kill a fly. I suspect that a stronger spring would do the trick, but haven't seen any tear-downs or mods online.
I have seen "bug killer" add-ons for air-powered pellet guns, but they seem kind of iffy for indoor use.
I agree: read books about China. Books like "Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-1962" by Frank Dikotter, and "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression" by Courtois et. al.
These are books you are unlikely to be able to read in China, and not because reading history does not comport with some imagined "Chinese way" but rather because the truth is threatening to totalitarians.
I agree, this is a great book. Just about anything by Sowell is worth reading, but _Basic Economics_ and _Economic Facts and Fallacies_ are good starting points.
Also consider _Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics _ by Henry Hazlitt. It's coming from a strong Austrian school perspective, which some object to, but at a minimum by reading it you will be presented with ideas that are worth considering and debating.
I'm not sure that it is exactly what you're looking for, but the Econtalk podcast (https://www.econtalk.org/) covers a wide variety of economics-related topics. If you listen to it, over time you will come to understand the economic way of thinking.
Also, I don't believe it's possible to get a "quick but comprehensive understanding" of fields as involved and varied as microeconomics, game theory, finance and so on. That's a lot of ground to cover, and it's unlikely that you can do anything other than get a sense of some of the basic ideas in these disciplines in a short amount of time.
"Stalin and the Scientists" by Simon Ing tells a very different story.
Many Soviet scientists were severely punished when they found themselves on the wrong side
of Communist dogma. Making empty statements was not possible if, for example, you disagreed with Lysenkoism. If you refused to swallow unscientific nonsense you ran a very real risk of some combination of losing your job, being shipped off to a labor camp and losing your life.
Fortunately, the Grievance Studies folks have not yet figured out how to construct a gulag.
The author displays the very cognitive blind spots he decries. He says
"One reason I’ve been thinking about the virtue of humility recently is because our president, Donald Trump, is one of the least humble people on the planet.
It was Trump who said on the night of his nomination, “I alone can fix it,” with the “it” being our entire political system. It was Trump who once said, “I have one of the great memories of all time."
Trump is of course not a humble man. Is he any different in this regard than his predecessor?
“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” -- Barack Obama (https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81895_Page2.html)
"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth." -- Barack Obama, Primary Election victory speech, Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008.
Recently Obama gave an interview where he pretty much stated something along these lines. You go into politics locally, and you meet idiots, so you shrug it off, go into state politics, and meet idiots. You then hit national, and world politics, and you meet the same idiots.
While I like and respect Obama, it did make me think about the saying, if everyone is a dick, you're probably the dick.
More on topic. I know a pastor and she recently told me that its sad and disheartening at how many people will come up to her after a sermon and say, "Oh that was great, I just wish X was here to hear it." It seems when people hear about a possible flaw in behavior/personality they always search for people that have that flaw. But they rarely ever look at themselves. So it's not too surprising that the author would displays a blind spot while decrying them.
We can only hope he's realized it and is working on it.
> It seems when people hear about a possible flaw in behavior/personality they always search for people that have that flaw. But they rarely ever look at themselves.
Since you're on the topic of religion the Christian New Testament is pretty big on humility, for example the famous quote from Matthew 7:4: "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?"
As your example shows not everyone who goes to church lives up to the message. But people have been thinking about the problem for a long time.
I wonder if it is possible to be successful in politics and not be a dick. I'm a pretty passive observer of US politics. Here in Japan, when Obama got elected I spent most of my time saying, "Calm down. He won't be as good for the world as you think". When Trump got elected I spent most of my time saying, "Calm down. He won't be as bad for the world as you think". So far I think my predictions have panned out ;-). Politics is about compromise. Some people are smooth talking and can gain an advantage. Some people are bullies and can gain an advantage. Some people are tricky and can gain an advantage. That's what's called being good at politics.
I think the concept of humility is separate. To be fair, in US politics I don't think you have the option of being humble. US culture, as a whole, doesn't really value humility. Not from its pop stars, not from its sports stars, not from its business stars and not from its politicians. Advertising that you were wrong and especially offering an apology is practically a death sentence.
If you contrast that with Japan it is almost polar opposite. Pop stars, sports stars, business stars and politicians are generally quite humble (at least externally). The prime minister often resigns because he has assumed responsibility for one disaster or another. We've had 17 prime ministers in the last 30 years. Prime minister Abe is on his 2nd go around! His complete mishandling of a variety of different things has been no stumbling block at all ;-) (You might reasonably point at "Abenomics" to indicate his lack of humility, but apart from that, he seems to admit his mistakes when forced to do so...)
In general, people in the west and especially people in the US really enjoy brash and boastful behaviour. They like their heroes bigger than life. They like to cheer loudly and support their heroes to the bitter end, refusing to let them down -- even to the point of refusing to think anything bad about them. Everything is the other guy's fault, or the fault of circumstances, or something similar. Nobody wants to be made a fool of for their unquestioning support. And so, nobody supports someone who lets them down by admitting mistakes.
There are many wonderful things about this kind of culture, but there are downsides as well. The successful people who are a product of that culture can't really be blamed for doing what it takes to be successful IMHO. If you want your leaders to be different, you have to value different things.
Edit: Apparently I can't count how many times Abe has resigned. Perhaps it is wishful thinking...
There has to be a balance between humility and confidence though. If no one was ever confident (or even over-confident) in what they were doing, they probably wouldn't have enough motivation to get the task done. In addition to this, some tasks require you to exhibit your confidence in order for you to fulfill them (like showing confidence to win over votes in an election).
It’s an interesting choice to compare “best of all time at anything you care to mention” to “better at the core skills of my job than the folks in the more junior roles”. They are extremely different attitudes.
Wouldn’t most people at the top of their game think they’re good at the game? Wouldn’t it be dishonesty rather than humility if they claimed otherwise? Isn’t being able to describe your bias and ego an essential part of intellectual humility?
To judge that kind of statement, the intent and context is important. Trump is usually justifying why he doesn’t take advice and won’t answer questions.
I’ll bet you Obama (like most competent folks and past presidents) will have been making a broader point eg about the reality of being the leader but still relying on a team of good people.
I’m pretty sure Obama let his ego get in the way of any number of occasions. But Trump relies on pure ego. Not comparable in my view.
Yeah, I was a bit disappointed to see Donald Trump dragged into this, almost arbitrarily, and almost needlessly. Then I remembered I was afterall reading the Vox.
You don't seem to make a point about what specifically the cognitive blindspot is. I infer, perhaps in err due to my lack of comprehension, that you feel the author was somehow wrong to mention Trump here, or perhaps that failing to mention Trump's predecessor is an indication of a blindspot.
Politics is a great area for cognitive blind spots. Sometimes we get so wrapped up our support or opposition that we forget to build the arguments we make from sound foundations. Or our blind spots might just confuse us and leave us not making clear points at all, instead of fallacious ones.
It was unnecessary for the author to mention Trump in the article. It can even be considered detrimental, if the goal was to convey the points in the rest of the article. By mentioning a divisive figure the author undermines his ability to communicate the main points of the article. The figure diverts even intelligent people into discussion of the person mentioned as a trigger for his thoughts for the article, instead of discussion of the article.
That is why the author was wrong to mention Trump in the article.
However, if you're conveying some other point, it fails to reach me. Is it that the author is wrong to say what you yourself feel about the sitting president because earlier presidents did similar things? That the author should also give focus to past presidents who left office years ago and mention them as well or instead? Something else? I can only speculate, which usually ends badly.
The author's inspiration for the article seems to come off earnestly. It is natural for person whose actions and words are amplified and widely disseminated, and who has a lot of power, to inspire thoughts. The man's predecessor has been out of office for years now and is no longer in the same position of power. It would seem a bit disingenuous for the author to quote the previous president as inspiration for his new article, unless there was some particular recent event that caught his attention.
To some, this reply to the article might appear as if it were the result of a polarization tactic that has some historical precedent [1] in other countries. The political leaders would encourage and engage in arguments that attempt to discredit their opponents through claims of hypocrisy, without actually refuting anything. It's a variant of the tu quoque fallacy. If a leader can convince his base, through example and repetition, that this type of fallacy is a valid way to argue, it provides them a form of inoculation against other forms of reason and logic that might sway away their support. It can spread like a meme (in traditional sense) and serve as the basis for their own arguments.
It's very difficult to point out this sort of instilled behavior without offending people. And it's impossible to make a definitive determination with any kind of accuracy. Often people make accidental fallacies that are not indicative of their typical mode of argument. And even if that's their normal mode, it doesn't mean that it's something new to them, or instilled. So to be clear, I am not claiming your argument is the result of the deliberate introduction of this behavior. I have no way to know. It's something each person needs to understand for themselves.
But if an intelligent person who generally does not rely on fallacy were to begin to use them them increasingly, they might not be aware that they were doing so. If it were pointed out, they might deflect and ignore, or believe it was an accident. It would take repeated incidents for them to see a pattern. And once they saw a pattern, they wouldn't immediately associate the behavior as something that was introduced to them over a span of years of consumption. They wouldn't go back and look at the past media they consumed with a new awareness to try and determine the prevalence with which they saw similar argument and behavior.
The natural human response to this sort of suggestion is to reject it. My hope is that a person who has an self-inspecting mind that thinks about the way it thinks might eventually see this in themselves. I have a _ton_ of behaviors that have are instilled in me. I know about them, have conscious awareness of them, but don't always stop them. My go-to swear word is 'Jesus', even though I stopped attending church when I was 14. I know that I can't _really_ make people think more about their own minds with just a few words on the internet, but sometimes I do it anyway.
I can't tell if this post was a valid indicator or not; even if I knew you directly and for years, I wouldn't be qualified to say. People have to be the expert on themselves. I'm just proposing a thought for your own consideration. If the idea of thinking about the way you think is somehow upsetting or angering, then try to find out why that is. In the spirit of your affirmation that intellectual humility begins at home. I hope that you look beyond the surface thought of just "that anonymous person is irritating" and figure out exactly what it is that's so irritating. Then find out why that irritates you so much. And is it a valid reason to feel that way?
"In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world." -- https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-mufti-and-the-f-uum....
Projection is an interesting phenomena.