It’s not legal to blocade international waters or the territorial waters of other places, especially to prevent humanitarian aid when there’s a war. The flotilla didn’t enter Israeli waters. Under maritime law, what the Israeli navy did was piracy and kidnapping.
They can’t stop you giving your Monero keys to someone else, and then they can spend it, too. You not wanting other people to spend your Monero is key to it working, and that doesn’t necessarily apply if, e.g. you’ve got family or close friends you’d be willing to have a shared wallet with.
Unfortunately, that’s because a majority of British people are casually transphobic, so see the recent Supreme Court ruling as common sense rather than something bad. It’s pretty common for brits to accept that trans people are real, and assume that means they can’t be transphobes, despite advocating for treating everyone as their AGAB in the eyes of the law and sport and every other way that isn’t whether they can wear a dress.
It’s not. The advertising lobby pushed a narrative that it stopped you doing lots of things out doesn’t, so lots of people are overly cautious, but it really just stops you doing things that no one would consider reasonable. Unfortunately, if you run targeted ads or use Google Analytics, they’ll be doing things no one would consider reasonable, so you have to not do that, but that’s not expensive.
Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel winning economist. There’s no such thing as a Nobel Prize In Economics, and economists were upset by this and made their own prize with a complicated name that the media would shorten and muddle with a real Nobel Prize.
None of that takes anything away from my original point that participating more can make things less bad. I never even said that violent action was distinct from participation, just that it’s not the easiest form of participation to convince people to do, and that attempting a revolution (which is a huge step up from bombing a few factories and assassinating a few CEOs) won’t go well if it’s not got broad popular support or police and military backing. I’ve had enough arguments with tankies who insisted that it was easy to overthrow a capitalist state with twelve guys who believed hard enough in communism to magically generate an army, and there was no point in any other form of participation, that the thread looked to me like it might be about to summon the never vote, just wait for a revolutionary communist army to form people.
I think you’ve misunderstood a lot of my comment.
The US’ democracy is advertised as giving the population what they want, but it’s designed so that it doesn’t give the population what they want unless everyone votes and does so in their best interests, and it’s also designed so that lots of people don’t vote and if they do, they vote against their interests. That way, there’s the illusion of giving people what they want so they don’t revolt, but powerful people have their interests prioritised.
Because the system has to have an illusion of working in normal people’s interests, it’s got a failure mode where it starts approximating working in people’s interests when more people vote and more people engage enough to know which options on the ballot are closest to being in their interests.
I’m not saying that magically getting everyone to know who they should vote for and then show up to the polls is feasible, just that refusing to participate because the system’s ‘broken’ is what the system wants and how it makes sure it keeps doing the things it does.
When one of the flaws is that it’s designed to only function as advertised if there’s full participation, participating harder can make things less bad, and participating less can make things worse.
Either way, it’s much easier to convince people to go out and vote than it is to convince them to take up arms in a revolution, kill their opponents, and risk being killed or imprisoned as a consequence. If your revolutionary faction can’t gather enough people to win an election, then it doesn’t have enough support to win a civil war without getting the police and military on its side, and that’s not going to happen in the US.
It’s controlled by whether the stream’s opened in text mode or binary mode. On Unix, they’re the same, but on Windows, text mode has line ending conversion.
It doesn’t have to have been effective. They might just have overestimated how many people would think killing health insurance CEOs was unacceptable.
Under first-past-the-post systems, as long as there are other people who support the greater evil, and evil’s willing to use its power to increase its influence (whether that’s removing anti-bias laws that restrict the press, raising limits on campaign donations, or more directly, things like gerrymandering), you’ll get the shift towards evil from voting for the lesser evil, as the lesser evil will chase after the voters who vote for evil.
However, plenty of people notice that, and post memes like this one that encourage voting for a third party with no hope of winning or not voting at all, which only serves to accelerate the effect, as the lesser evil has to attract an even greater share of the evil demographic’s vote to have any hope of winning. People say that voting third-party demonstrates to the lesser evil that it’s worth courting non-evil voters, but that can’t have any effect until the next election, and in the meantime, you’re stuck with maximum evil for a whole term, and the hurdles to overcome grow larger.
The best hope is to start campaigning for a third party or non-evil candidate for the lesser evil party immediately after an election instead of leaving it until right before an election, as that hopefully gives enough time for support to grow enough that the lesser evil party will see non-evil as a meaningful demographic that’s worth aligning with. It’s not guaranteed to work, but if it doesn’t, either evil is genuinely a majority and the democratic thing is to be evil, or the system isn’t a democracy, and there’s no way to remove evil by voting, so alternatives need to be considered.
The trouble with that is that the Soviets had such a large arsenal that even if only a vanishingly small fraction of it still works, it’s still ruining someone’s day. An ICBM with a dodgy guidance system or leaky fuel tank still hits a populated area even if it misses a city. An H-bomb that misfires is still an A-bomb, and an A-bomb that misfires is still a dirty bomb. It’s plausible that NATO could win a nuclear war against Russia without even firing back just from Russia embarrassing itself and giving an excuse for a conventional war they’d also lose, but that’s a huge gamble that no one wants to make, especially when winning is still worse than the status quo.
Of course not, but it’s an unrelated not fine to whether or not someone’s a tankie.
That’s not relevant to being a tankie as the US, Israel, and other states backing Israel, aren’t claiming they’re building communism or are the successor state to another which claimed to be building communism. It’s the part where communism is an excuse that means the bad things didn’t really happen and would be fine even if they did that makes tankie-ism its own distinct thing.
I don’t think their comment was pro-Iranian-post-revolutionary-government. The Shah was awful, was installed by the CIA, and did kill political opponents. US-backed governments don’t typically fall to revolutions, so a lot of people must have been upset to have enough of them to manage that. It’s generally accepted that what came after the revolution was worse, but it’s not just nutters, Stalinists and tankies that recognise it was also bad before, and got that way because the British wanted oil.
As far as I’m aware (which is a bit more than average as I’m British with an Iranian grandparent), both of you posted correct things. If the Shah hadn’t started killing anyone who disagreed with him, it would have been harder for the religious extremists to kill the rest. It’s not like you can ever assassinate all your political opponents as everyone knows other people, and those people don’t like their friends and family being murdered.
My brother frequently demands a source when I tell an anecdote, then misuses Hitchen’s Razor to accuse me of making the anecdote up. This would be understandable if it was as a pics or it didn’t happen response to something outlandish, but it’s usually for something entirely mundane that was barely interesting enough to mention in the first place.
There’s no such thing as a Nobel Prize winning economist. Economists got upset that there wasn’t a Nobel Prize for them, so came up with The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, and then pretend it’s the same thing.
It’s its default use case - adding MBA idiocy to things that were already fine and didn’t need changing.