• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 2nd, 2024

help-circle

  • You’re just flat out lying at this point lol. 21-23% of the entire Israeli Jewish population is first-generation immigrants; 30-35% is second-generation, direct offspring of immigrants; 30-35% is third-generation; 10-15% is fourth-generation; under 5% is fifth-generation or beyond (which would include Jews who lived there since before Aliyah). These are numbers are from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics. There’s also statistics that rather say 40-45% are third-generation with much less being fourth-generation or beyond, but with around the same amount or slightly less being first and second generation – I find the former estimates far more reasonable though. It’s estimated around 90-97% of Israeli Jews are descended from immigrants since 1900.

    A majority of Israeli Jews are descended from immigrants of several Aliyah (immigration to “Zion” from outside of the lands of Palestine/Israel, practically starting from 1882 but mostly ramping up around the start of the British/Israeli oppression of Palestinians in the region in the early and mid 1900s). Even the most conservative estimates say that around 50-70% of Israel’s Jewish population growth since 1900 came from immigration, with most of the rest of the population growth coming from recent immigrants having children. And those are really conservative estimates, the actual amount is likely much higher than that.

    A significant portion of Israeli Jews came from immigration in the 90s, especially from the Soviet Union after its collapse – 1.4-1.6 million Jews (compared to Israel’s total current Jewish population of around 7.4 million) immigrated to Israel following the collapse of the USSR. Over a fifth of the entire Israeli Jewish population in just the span of one generation. Yet second- and third-generation Israeli Jews make up like 3-3.5x as much still.

    It’s crazy for you to try to state that modern Israelis aren’t primarily (nearly exclusively) descended from relatively recent immigrants who displaced (and outright genocided) the native population. You straight up just made that up without consulting any history/statistics, not even Israel’s own statistics lol. Palestine faced a colonization and replacement by Jewish immigrants – according to the Jewish Virtual Library, 8% of people in the region were Jewish in 1882; then 11-13% after the end of WW1, after the adoption of a Zionist policy for Palestine and occupation by the UK (see the Balfour Declaration); then 32% in 1947 after several Aliyah; then in 1948 – the year the Israel was formally established and immigrants were shipped in from all over the globe, and the year European immigrants to Israel started all-out total war and genocide against Palestinians – that number jumped to 82%. It is not Jews’ “indigenous land”, 93%+ of people in the region were Arab Muslims at the time of the first Aliyah, hundreds of thousands compared to the 9,000 Jews and even less Christians. Jews hadn’t been the majority in the region since the 4th century, Arabs & Muslims have been the majority since before the Magna Carta, the Crusades, European Feudalism, they were most of the population when France just started to exist.

    Considering the actual facts of the situation, your justification basically becomes “colonization and apartheid in the modern day is okay because some other people they identified with lived there 1,500-3,000 years ago”, in which case I have some bad news for like, 95% of Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Asians, who all exist on lands which were someone elses in that same time period. Ethnonationalism with feeling you have a “right” to certain land you have no actual connection to based on some ancient “predecessor” civilization that had those lands stolen from them before Hindu-Arabic numerals existed is a strong hint that you’re in the wrong (see: Nazism). Modern Jews are about as indigenous to Israel as the modern Japanese are to Korea, or modern Turkish are to Mongolia.

    Zionism is modern-day ethnonationalism and colonialism by predominantly non-Levantine peoples (more than half of those being primarily European in ancestry). Its purpose is creating and justifying an ethnostate where Jews are superior and have rights that other groups don’t have – and such things are cemented in the Israeli constitution and law. To exist, Israel requires relegating non-Jews to second-class personhood and requires (or required at some recent point in time) commiting acts of genocide towards certain non-Jews; abolishing that would be abolishing the concept of Israel and Zionism as a whole. There is no real moral defense of the state of Israel.







  • Something people living in almost entirely racially homogenous countries don’t often get is that you can’t help the problem of racism by trying to ignore it. The only way to correctly address racism is to realize that it exists, that people do have biases based on race & ethnicity, that there are groups that are underrepresented, and to actively work to provide more ways for people to represent themselves and their identity. The fact of the matter is that more representation, even in seemingly minor ways like more emojis which they can identify with more, helps normally underrepresented people feel more comfortable with themselves and their identity and helps alleviate societal pressures for them to mask their identity/culture. Even small changes play a part.

    Acting “colorblind” just makes the problem of racism worse, as it means you’d be acting blind to obvious biases based on race/ethnicity… including people who are part of a certain in-group (or multiple in-groups) being overrepresented and people of an out-group being underrepresented or represented poorly/highly stereotypically. There is no morally just approach to discrimination which attempts to pay no attention to the traits being discriminated against.

    It’s pride month, this is like one of the most relevant times of year to this… It may be easier to see from that point of view instead – what purpose does queer pride exist even in places where queer people are “legal”? Why are there pride flags and events and characters and such to represent LGBT people? A similar answer may be applicable to racial minorities.

    I was raised in the part of the United States with likely the most racist/racially tense history in the nation, possibly one of the most in modern history (it was the heart of the Confederacy after all, one of the most significant historical events of our nation was burning down half the state and presenting my city to the president as a Christmas gift, I’m sure it’d make a top 10 list of the big racism or something), a place that still has extremely bad problems with racial discrimination, and I used to think the “colorblind” approach and avoiding race as much as possible was the solution to racism, but I’ve realized over time that this approach is a tool that racism uses to thrive – it makes people refuse to acknowledge the racism in the first place, and it causes people to be unable to find out what racism really means and how many minor things can have major affects on minority groups. It’s a very common approach by (often conservative/“libertarian”) people here who haven’t subscribed to the whole calling people racial slurs and committing hate crimes, but still can’t face the fact that racism is alive, everywhere around us, and that they’re likely participating in it or propogating it regularly despite not actively trying to be racist.

    Basically… let them have their variously skin-colored emojis




  • sparkle@lemm.eetoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlSwitching to OCaml bois
    link
    fedilink
    Cymraeg
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I like polymorphism. Having to have a hundred differently named functions or structs or something that do the same thing but slightly differently in Rust is annoying as hell. Especially with all the underscores you have to type… If Rust were more functional though it’d make that problem go away pretty quickly.


  • Surely you must notice that “Modern American Liberalism” and “Liberalism” are two separate terms? “Liberal” can mean MANY things other than American liberalism. It even specifies in the article you’re quoting. You cannot just assume that any and every usage of the term “liberal” is in reference to social liberalism, even in America it’s still used in the common/typical/“original” sense frequently (just not by uninformed voters).

    And AFAIK nobody said anything about liberalism (and American liberalism) and conservativism being equivalent either. “Conservative” is a significantly more broad term than “liberal” and it’s impossible to definitively equate or oppose them, but generally conservativism is opposite to progressivism – seeing how liberalism is usually socially progressive, it isn’t generally a perfect match. But there does exist “conservative liberalism”, which is socially conservative and economically liberal – in theory what American conservatives are supposed to be, but in reality they’re a bit more… fascist.

    Relatively though, American liberals are significantly more conservative than, say, socialists and most leftist ideologies. They still hold many very (especially fiscally) conservative beliefs. There are plenty of American liberals that are in the pockets of big pharma.

    Also calling modern American liberalism “socialism”, even “democratic socialism”, is laughable. Socialism requires abolishing capitalism and having the means of production belong to the workers/public. Democratic socialism is an ideology that believes that socialism can be achieved through peaceful democratic reform rather than violent revolution. Modern American liberalism specifically advocates for a mixed economy with mostly private, but some nationalized, industries, which is very much NOT socialist. It is quite literally, regulated capitalism. It also specifies that in the same article you quoted. You can’t just take any welfare state (or attempt at one) and call it socialism.

    For the most part, “lib” is synonymous with “so-called market capitalist and liberty advocate”, i.e. almost all Americans in politics. A non-American using it to describe American politicians bought out by big pharma makes perfect sense, as most of them also claim to like the free market and (negative) freedom and stuff.


  • “Liberal” isn’t only a word used for modern US/Canadian progressives. “Liberal” is used to mean someone who believes in “free-market” capitalism, free trade, private ownership of the means of production and anti-nationalizationism, anti-protectionism/anti-regulationism, and individualism/anti-collectivism. It’s pretty much synonymous with right-wing “libertarian” ideologies, including neoliberalism, classical liberalism, and "anarcho"capitalism. This is what the word has always referred to normally, and is by far the most common usage in most of the world, and it’s still used this way in the US – mainly in economic, philisophical, or “fundamental rights” contexts though.

    Liberalism is pretty much the antithesis of socialism, in a purely left-versus-right sense at least. The American ideology is often considered “social liberalism” or even “modern American liberalism”, which still holds beliefs of individualism and capitalism, but differs from liberalism in that it pushes for a regulated mixed economy, as well as the government contributing to fulfilling social needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. It also is defined by focusing on social justice/civil rights, as opposed to traditional liberalism (which is opposed to social justice and civil rights, believing people in a “free market” will decide to do the right thing). It ranges from being a centrist ideology to being a left-leaning right-wing ideology, so when the only opposition is basically dormant fascism, it is the “left” ideology. In a full political view though, it isn’t leftism.

    The American misappropriation of the term came from a time when the word “progressive” was starting to be seen as “radical” (and therefore negative). Progressives started using “liberal” instead, and it became a way to say “I only want some government intervention in the economy and social issues, but not a radical amount”. When New Deal politicians like FDR popularized it, it kind of became cemented in American political discourse as meaning that.


  • The only good option I could think of to do this is to utilize the DAFT between the Netherlands and the US. Pretty much every European country has a self-employment visa/permit with lax requirements though – usually they only require you have like 10-20K€ stored in a government bank account that you aren’t allowed to withdraw from.

    An issue with this is that, on such visas, you have to have your own private insurance and can’t rely on the government’s welfare/social safety whatsoever, or else your visa won’t get renewed. Of course the healthcare will still be affordable unlike in the US, but it’s something to keep in mind.

    An added bonus to doing it in the Netherlands is you won’t run into many people who can’t speak English well. Obviously if you’re moving somewhere else, you should use the primary languages spoken there and not just talk to everyone in English, but it can’t hurt to be able to use English when your Dutch skills are lacking, especially if your customers are primarily English-speaking or if you want to hire the people who live there.



  • €5 a month for a VPN is expensive compared to others? I always saw Mullvad as one of the least expensive options other than like protonvpn and very few other open source ones. Most VPNs are hella expensive

    Personally I use Mullvad because it’s simple, very usable, open-source, and I can trust it the most (not to say some of the other open-source privacy-oriented options aren’t trustable). Ever since I got into programming, I’ve only ever used completely open-source options when I had the chance – if it’s not open source, I won’t use it. I make very few exceptions, like for games, because open source isn’t as successful there for the most part


  • I don’t like explicitly stating “cherry-picking”/“strawman”/“ad hominem”/other fallacies because people seem to have a visceral reaction to seeing those words, probably are confused as to what they actually are and are assuming you’re just throwing out random fallacies to conveniently discredit any arguments with no basis, and will refuse to consider the rest of the stuff they read. I think it’s more consumable for the people who really are open to seeing new angles if they have more specific/relatable views to work with, rather than me repeating the same thing they’ve already heard a hundred times without much elaboration. I can’t confirm that though


  • The same reason people hate leftists, feminists, trans athletes, “gamer girls”, people on welfare, blacks, etc. An image the right cultivated of the group, out of convenient easily-hateable annoying people in it that they could use to create a generalization/stereotype out of. It’s something that’s able to happen to any group, I could portray any hobbyist or activist in this way the same exact way as these “annoying” groups are portrayed, but the right is particularly willing to just flat out lie, slander, and cheat their way into making countercultural/anti-status-quo groups look as absurd as possible, to the point that the majority of the population falls for it (even those that don’t consider themselves to be conservative).

    I’ll make a comparison. Conservative/“anti-sjw” thumbnails often have a picture of some angry-looking rainbow haired woman, usually the same few, in order to be like “look how irrational and crazy these feminazis are, she must hate men so much” and like 4 out of 5 of those times it’s a picture of a woman that was protesting a literal neo-nazi gathering or something, not some sort of radical crazy man-hating feminist. But the internet has conditioned the average person to look at someone like that and immediately think they’re an irrational “feminazi”, and conservatives showing these pictures everywhere and making 100 videos on the same person makes people subconsciously believe they’re rampant and have a massive (and bad) grip on society.

    Same kind of thing happens with vegans, you have the same 10 or so internet vegans people use to portray veganism that conditions people to think poorly of the concept “vegan”, and when these influencers are confronted about it they say “I don’t hate veganism, I just hate the annoying vegans” then they go onto Twitter to complain about the vegans and how they’re irrational for not eating meat and their brains must be de-evolving or something. They know what they’re doing, but they can hide behind plausible deniability, and the majority of viewers fall for it.