homura1650 @ homura1650 @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

249

Joined

2 yr. ago

A bit more context for that quote:

calling for a one-state solution without specifying equal rights for all people; Jewish in particular.

The "one state" in the one-state solution is Israel, which currently views itself as an occupying power, and has Jewish Supremacy enshrined in her basic law (essentially constitution). Jews are not the group that is at risk in this scenario.

Interested to see how this plays out.

Prohibiting Holocaust denial is relatively easy, because we have the benefit of it being history, and we have an ample historical record and a clear consensus among historians. Plus, no one can credibly claim that the legislatures were not thinking of the Holocaust when they wrote the law.

However, how are they planning on applying the law to contemporary international crimes? People make accusations of them all the time. And the other side always denied them. And the actual facts are generally obscured by a massive fog of war that can take years to see through, if ever.

There is also plenty of history where the answer is less clear. Do we really want courts involved in determining if the 15th century conquest of the Canary Islands counts as a genocide. Or if some unnamed mass grave an archeologists unearths was caused by an invading army killing all of a city's adult males, or simply a burial site for fallen soldiers?

What about the book of Esther. Taken literally, it ends with what is arguably a genocide committed by the Jews against the Persians. However, outside of some Israeli hardliners reinterpreting that ending for contemporary political purposes, it is widely understood that that ending is a literary device, not a literal telling of events. Did my Hebrew school teachers violate this law when they told me we didn't actually kill 75,000 Persians? [0].

What about the ongoing genocide against white Afrikaners going on in South Africa today? Am I violating the law when I say that genocide is not real, and just something the rightwing in the US invented for domestic political purposes. If the US has such a law, could Trump use it to jail his political opponents who criticized his recent stunt of accepting 60 Afrikaner refugees?

Do we defer to an international body like the ICC or ICJ? In that case, you have just outlawed disagreeing with those bodies.

The UN has repeatedly found it to be a massive human rights violation. Does disagreeing with those findings violate this new law?

[0] As an aside, secular historians generally consider all of Esther to be fiction.

According to the bill, denial of the Holocaust or other serious international crimes, such as those defined under the statutes of the International Criminal Court, would be punishable by a fine or a prison sentence of up to two years.

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/26868-finland-moves-to-ban-holocaust-denial-under-new-criminal-law.html

I still burn DVDs. Ever since USB storage was deemed "not secure", they are the easiest way to get data into and out of sensitive networks.

The left had a Joe Rogan. His name was Joe Rogan.

4% is widely used as a safe withdrawal rate. It's based on modelling with historical data of market returns and achieving a near 100% probability of not drawing down your principle over the long term.

I think the image assumes that the viewer is familiar with merge sort, which is something you will learn in basically every undegraduate CS program, then never use.

To answer your first question, it helps to have something to compare it against. I think the most obvious way of sorting a list would be "insertion sort", where you look through the unsorted list, find the smallest element, put that in the sorted list, then repeat for the second smallest element. If the list has N elements, this requires you to loop through it N times. Since every loop involves looking at N elements, this means you end up taking N * N time to sort the list.

With merge sort, the critical observation is that if you have 2 sublists that are sorted you know the smallest element is at the start of one of the two input lists, so you can skip the inner loop where you would search for the smallest element. The means that each layer in merge sort takes only about N operations. However, each layer halves the number of lists, so you only need about log_2(N) layers, so the entire sort can be done in around N * log(N) time.

Since NlogN is smaller then N^2, this makes merge sort theoretically better.

So, your mom is OK with gay sex, and recognizes trans people as being their chosen gender? How progressive!

The owners of Twitter made him go through with it, using the courts as the enforcement mechanism.

Be sure to check state law before doing this.

In Ohia V Miller (2024), Miller was found guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence after he drunkenly drove a horse drawn buggy. This finding was upheld my the appelete court.

In State v Blowers (1986), the Utah Supreme Court found that riding a horse while intoxicated did not qualify as DUI. This finding had 2 parts: A) A horse is not a vehicle and

B) The provision:

Every person riding an animal or driving any animal-drawn vehicle upon a roadway is subject to this chapter, except those provisions which by their nature can have no application.

Is unconstitutionally vague.

In the case of Mythbusters v Drunk Driving, the Mybuster found that it is illegal to operate a vehicle while drunk, even on a closed course. However, it is legal for a blind man to operate a vehicle under the direction of a drunk man.

The Gaza Ministry of Health systematically undercounts the dead. First, they only attemp to count direct casualties, which excludes preventable deaths from malnutrition, disease, loss of shelter, etc. Second, their capacity to find the dead is significantly reduced due to the war. This isn't unique to this situation. For almost any disaster, casualty estimates continue to go up after the disaster itself is over, and there are resources to spend looking for dead bodies.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to declare a prior Congresses laws invalid. For a bunch of internal stuff like the fillubuster rules, or remote voting, the current Congress can do whatever it wants without presidential review. However once a law is passed through the constitutional process, the constitution does not have a separate process for repealing it. This means that Congress would need to go through the same constitutional process to repeal it, which includes the possibility of a presidential veto.

Having said that, the Supreme Court does have the constitutional authority to declare a law invalid[0], and the President has no veto authority over that. Further, the current Supreme Court has invented out of nothingness two bedrock pillars of constitutional analysis:

1. The Major Questions Doctrine, which states that questions of major political or economic significance may not be delegated by Congress to the executive branch.
2. The Non-Delegation Doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate it's lawmaking authority to other entities.

Since the Supreme Court is an unbiased arbiter of the law, I'm confident that they will apply these principles consistently and determine that Congress's initial delegation if tarrif authority was unconditional. /s

[0] This is not actually explicit in the Constitution. But has been how it is interpreted since Marbury v Madison in 1803.

)

https://getyarn.io/yarn-story/5f8d07b3-d956-481b-b7c9-8f68de41a8ad

No they aren't. Marrying a US citizen makes it easier to get a green card, but you still need to apply and go through the process. Even then, there is no legal guarantee that your application will be granted.

Not really. Anti semites want Jews to go away. Israel is away. There is no inherent contradiction in them supporting Israel. In fact, there is significant ideological alignment between anti-Semitism and Zionism, as both tend towards ethnononationalism.

The idea of giving Jews their own country and sending them all there has historically been quite popular with anti-semites. When we talk about Nazi's "final solution" we often skip over their earlier solution to the Jewish Question, which was to send us all to Madagascar [0]. In 1933, Nazi Germany signed the Haavara agreement, which would have Germany subsidize Jews emigrating to Palestine. This caused a divide within the global Jewish community, most of which was attempting boycott German exports (which funded the Haavara program), and viewed the program as legitimizing the Nazis. Despite this general opposition among the global Jewelry, the Zionist Congress of 1935 voted overwhelmingly in favor of the program.

Fundamentally, most anti-semitism (and racism in general) is rooted in an ideology of ethnonationalism. In this view, the concept of an anti-semetic Zionist is not a contradiction at all. They don't hate Jews, they just want them to go away so that the anti-semites can get their pure Aryan/Christian/Arab nation back. If that means that the Jews get their own pure Jewish nation for themselves, then that seems quite reasonable.

Dr. Achim Gercke seved in Nazi Germany's Ministry of the Interior, where he was an expert on racial matters. He decided the system banning marriage between Jews and Aryans. In his article entitled "Solving the Jewish Question", he writes

If we support Zionist plans and attempt an international solution by establishing a homeland for the Jews, we will be able to solve the Jewish Question not only in Germany, but in Europe and the entire world.

Dr. Johann von Leers served in the Ministry of Propaganda and was a highly influential Nazi thinker. In his paper,The End of Jewish Migration, he writes:

Only a barbarian standing outside of the last great divine manifestation of world history would propose a general anti-Semitic battle aimed at the extermination of this people. The goal of the highly developed peoples is not to promote hatred where there is a decent way to solve the problem.

The only imaginable, positive solution that will finally resolve the Jewish problem in Europe, and at the same time provide the real possibility of becoming a people, of becoming rooted to land, and even perhaps allowing its less valuable elements to be influenced by the more valuable elements, is a healthy region outside Europe.

Both of these articles are well worth reading to understand the thinking that ultimately led to the Holocaust. The final solution was only devised, when the Nazis realized that their other solutions would not work.

[0] Not that they were particularly tied to that location, it is just what they thought was most practical. They were initially concerned that attempting to establish a Jewish colony in mandatory Palestine would end up being a political and humanitarian disaster. A position that is difficult to dispute with the benefit of hindsight.

Normally, I would respond to this type of argument by explaining how the two party system is structural. But in this case, you are complaining about one of the only politicians that is not part of a political party.

Zionism is an ethnonationalist Ideology that says that Israel should exist as a Jewish state. Like all ethnonationalist movements, Zionism also has a strong component of territorial expansionism.

Israel's founding was absolutely a Zionist project. And Zionism has been a large part of Israeli politics since then. However, there is another school of thought that goes "I don't care how we got here, but it is 2025, and the state of Israel is a thing that exists, and I support the right of that entity and it's citizens".

This is a bit muddled in today's climate, because the current Israeli leadership has been thoroughly captured by ultra Zionist. As in, Netenyahu's government is only holding on to power by forming a coalition with far right fringe parties that until a few years ago were a third rail in Israeli politics. Back in 2007, their c now current Minister of National Security, Ben Gvir, was convicted of supporting a terrorist organization.

However, as with every country, people can have a different view towards the country as a whole, and it's current political state.

I was shopping for a new vacuum cleaner when a saw a portable carpet cleaner. Basically a vacuum with a precision nozel bolted to a water sprayer. It has been a complete game danger for cleaning up the mess my cats would sometimes leave. Although it is still not as effective as the course of dewormer their vet prescribed.