Erik Haugen @ech@qoto.org
Computer programmer
"From what we can tell, Haugen works at Google. So much for "Do no evil."" – Kent Anderson
Joined Mar 2023
@Teop_Versant @Mlobbes contrast those policies with the First Step Act.
I don't know about "using" Harris – I mean, in some sense every president is "using" their VP, like, to get votes in a different demographic or geographical area. I don't think you have any reason to think anything nefarious beyond that was happening with Harris.
@michaelgemar @catsalad @evacide No. Andreessen calls those people a "cult".
@KimPerales There isn't much Biden can do here other than threaten to withold aid, right? (This may be a failure of imagination on my part.)
If so:
Would threatening Hamas with withholding aid get them to agree to stop murdering, raping, and kidnapping people? I don't think there's any evidence from their past behavior that this would work, but I'd love to read an argument that it would. (It might degrade their ability to do so, I suppose, since a lot of that aid goes to military purposes, IIUC. Civilians, as always, would suffer if we did this.)
Would threatening Israel work? If there was some way Israel could achieve their objective here (eliminating Hamas as a terrorist threat) while also doing something that kills fewer civilians, then I think it could! But that's a big if: I'm ignorant – are there more steps Israel could be taking to limit civilian deaths? If not, then, alas, no, it probably wouldn't. I think it's clear they need to achieve this objective, one way or another. I guess biden and the US could then wash our hands of any further casualties. (Well, not really, but it's a step.)
It might be more useful for Biden to use this carrot to pressure Israel into doing other things, like: due process, protect palestinians from settlers more fairly, etc, etc.
@flaws @danluu No, I think that's exactly why companies do this sort of thing; danluu is being a bit cynical here, it's part of his charm. I've worked at several of these companies. If you see something illegal, you talk to lawyers in a privileged context. You don't joke about "crushing the competition" or doing anything illegal, because of exactly what you say.
We've all seen legal proceedings go in an unfair direction due to some offhand comment being taken out of context or something. It's worth being careful to avoid it.
@ingo_wichmann @blogdiva Also, worth noting there are some illiberal movements in US politics: see, equal treatment under the law ends up being not so equal sometimes, so instead of trying to fix that, maybe instead we should enforce equal outcomes in some ways. Ibram Kendi's "anti-racism" and related political ideas is an example of this. If you've heard conservatives rail against "Critical Race Theory", this is what the "critical" means: analyzing ways that US Law and "liberal" institutions have failed us.
Conservatives/Republicans are generally opposed to these political movements, so in that sense especially they're positively predisposed to "liberal democracies".
@ingo_wichmann @blogdiva Although, I suppose it is probably true in the US that because of ignorance, a good chunk of people are only thinking of "liberal" as in left, so if you use the word liberal to mean the other meaning, it could cause confusion: I'm sure there's someone in the US who would read Raskin's statement as talking about leftist democracies. 😂
@ingo_wichmann @blogdiva Yes, absolutely.
In US politics, "liberal" usually means relatively Left (at least, compared to center-of-US politically 😂 ) So, Republicans are not for that...
But Raskin here is not using that meaning of the term. He's talking about like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism – equal treatment under the law, private property, consent of the governed, freedom of press/speech/etc, and so on. Most Republicans (and most Democrats, I think) are definitely for that kind of "liberal".
@freemo I'd mentioned that violence upthread; again not really the problem.
@freemo Nah, I don't think that's the problem, no worries.
@freemo "You cant have this discussion without talking about the area pre-1920, 1920-1947 and 1947 to present…" ok, but we also can't have the discussion if any statement or question about one era is interpreted to be about the other. 😂
@freemo "I am talking about anyone who chooses to move to israel fromt he first day of its founded" Oh my I am so confused :) You appear to be going back and forth between making it clear that we're talking about pre-1947 then making it clear that we're talking about after the state is founded.
I think at this point I pretty much have no idea what you're saying.
"Yea well it would be alot different if you lived in israel..." – see here you're talking about alleged problematic actions by Israel *today*, and I feel like I've made it pretty clear I'm *not* talking about that (My like whole point is what you say here: "this isnt a matter of history"). We're just talking past each other.
Well, thanks for trying 😂 All the best, and praying for peace and justice.
"Words are important, you tried to claim they were just immigrants at the get go…"
Right. That is one of my like 2 central claims here. I'm glad that came across clearly. ;)
"you can always just ask if they confuse you."
I did, many times. I do feel like you aren't reading my clarifying questions sometimes; if you want to use hyperbolic rhetoric to describe things, I'd appreciate it if you would throw me a bone! I'll try to be more concise and clear. Maybe that was part of the problem.
"I mean they literally showed up with weapons and killed and shot the other side to take the land…"
Ok again I don't know what this means. I will ask to clarify. Are you suggesting that the Jewish refugees from Russian pogroms in the early 1900s were all professional soldiers that came off the ship with guns ablazing, killing all the Arabs they could see? (That seems obviously not remotely the case but you keep saying this so I am confused!)
"In fact to become an Israel citizen you are required to pick up a weapon and shoot the other side by israel law."
Again, mystified. Are you for reasons unknown talking about the state of Israel's conscription policy? (Which was instituted much later than the events we're discussing? Or at least I think they are haha...)
The Jews did militarize throughout the early 1900s after the violence caused by the immigration-related tension, is that instead what you mean? Just curious: was this mandatory-participation? Can you point me to a source about that? (Not that I consider it all that significant, but I would find it surprising.) (Incidentally and apropos of nothing, this militarization is probably why they won the 48/49 war.)
"Well maybe thats why you shouldnt invade another country and take their land by force that you havent had any right to in over 2000+ years…"
Again, unclear: are you still talking about colonial empires (Turks/Brits)? (That feels like the context here, maybe.) If so: again, I wholeheartedly agree. In talking to you here I'm wondering if, in a sense, this is all their "fault": if the area had been locally governed by a just and popularly-supported government all those centuries, they could have maybe done a much better job managing any waves of refugees during the 1900s. (This would not be the only example of intractable violence after the dissolution of colonialism in the latter 1900s!)
Ok I feel like we disagree about two main things:
(1) The motives or color of the Jewish immigration ~1900–47. You seem to be imputing evil (e.g. "invasion") to, what, like a half million people, over many decades, many of them escaping genocidal violence. To me, that always seems suspect: there are definitely times when this sort of thing has happened, but the null hypothesis to me is always going to be: mostly people just trying to live their lives, with some assholes. There is a huge tendency though generally to ascribe evil conspiratorial motives to anything the Jews do throughout history, so this coloring is not surprising. (Again though you made a good point about the British probably making things worse in a variety of ways.)
(2) How much (1) matters when describing the moral implications of what Israel or Hamas or anyone else is doing in modern times. You have what I feel is kind of an idealistic desire to right all historical wrongs. To me I feel like a pretty extreme take on (1) would be necessary to justify the kinds of things you're talking about, like "invasion-by-good-guys", reparations, ethnic cleansing and mass forced migrations, etc. And even then I don't think they would justify them: several generations have passed and your proposals would cause truly enormous, trail-of-tears–level, human suffering. (But see below about how we probably do agree on a lot!)
I suspect we agree on a lot of things (I'm sure I'm mostly ignorant of the details around these issues, though, so I'll try not to say too much):
* Israel needs to do a better job with due process kinds of things: bulldozing houses, unjustly condemning property, and so on.
* Israel needs to find less violent ways of enforcing its borders against protesters. (This is hard though!)
* Israel needs to do a better job protecting Palestinians from crimes by Jewish settlers.
* Any fight against Hamas right now needs to be done with an absolute minimum of civilian casualties.
* Israel and Egypt probably need to operate in better faith about letting non-military trade good into Gaza. (The whole open-air prison thing.)
* Israel should probably find ways to unoccupy the West Bank etc now-ish.
* US aid should probably be contingent on those things.
(I think these there are the kind of thing you're getting at with a lot of your rhetoric about Israeli abuse of Palestine in modern times, yes?)
@freemo oh I see! In your earlier post you said "Once the invasion was announced (that is, the international community of jews, along with the UN,", so pretty clearly 1947. (there was no UN at the time of Balfour Declaration) So I thought that's what you meant by the numbers you gave.
Aside: You know, I'm having a hard time following you. You obfuscate a lot – e.g. calling something "illegal immigration" when you really mean "The British shouldn't have encouraged Jewish immigration or even been there at all". I mean, I see your point, and I even agree with you (of course I agree with you) that the British shouldn't have colonized 99% of the world generally and made this problem a lot worse – in more ways than just that! – specifically. But like it took an awful long time for me to nail down what it was you were talking about! I took you at your word and was thinking you're saying the Ottomans weren't enforcing their immigration laws or something.😂 It's exhausting! in a conversation like this it sure would be easier to follow if we were speaking a bit more precisely.
OK so you really are all in on this "refugee immigration" == "invasion" rhetoric. Like, deliberately. Well, that is disappointing.
"they had to get those people out" – so you understand how awful that would have been at that point, in 1947, right? I mean, even if you think the initial immigration was a terrible thing, a huge chunk of those people were born in Palestine, even. It's like the Soviet relocations – I guess you're thinking of Jewish immigration to Palestine as if it was like that – this was absolutely horrible that they did that, but what are you going to do about the situation in Crimea and other places like that 100 years later?
You object to this multi-generational refugee immigration under various empires, and as a result you want the solution in 1947 to be to solve it basically with ethnic cleansing. I mean, there's a lot going on there, but that is disgusting.
Computer programmer
"From what we can tell, Haugen works at Google. So much for "Do no evil."" – Kent Anderson
Joined Mar 2023
