You know what’s even more precise? A bullet from an AK-47 wielded by a Hamas fighter. These bombs are of similar precision to Hamas on October 7th. The Hamas militants charged across the border and started shooting every soldier they could find. A bullet is directly directed by an individual person, so they are intrinsically more precise than any guided bomb.

Did a lot of innocent Israeli civilians get caught in the crossfire? Sure. There were civilian casualties, and those increased by an order of magnitude once Israel started shooting into crowds of its own civilians. But I’m glad you recognize that Hamas does such a great job of protecting civilians. If you find the Israeli pager bombings a work of superior precision combat, you should similarly admire the work of Hamas on October 7. They are works of similar precision.

These were pagers handed out to Hezbollah operatives. How do you get more precise?

You were incorrect. They were handed to Hezbollah military and civilian officials. Hezbollah is effectively the government in that area; the civilian state is degraded due to decades of Israeli military strikes and incursions. There are tons of people who are “Hezbollah” but work the kinds of jobs the people down at your local city hall work. They’re the people operating the water systems, trash collection, etc. Realize also that this pager system WAS the local emergency response system. Think of the radios carried by police, EMS, and fire departments. There were doubtlessly police officers blown up by these bombs.

And worse still, these pagers have been in circulation FOR YEARS. They didn’t just send them out and immediately pop them. How many years do you keep a phone? How many of the people who had these devices later found their way to others hands?

You’re a member of Hezbollah, working in the civilian branch. One day you get a walkie talkie and carry it around with you. Another day you decide to be done with Hezbollah, so you get work somewhere else and you take the old walkie talkie to a pawn shop. The next day someone else, completely unaffiliated with Hezbollah, buys a set of those walkie talkies to talk with people around town.

So if Hezbollah launches a campaign to mail anthrax to leading Israeli military and civilian leaders, will you call that well-targeted as well?

Ultimately, the only hope of the Lebanese retaining any kind of country long-term is to violently resist Israeli expansion. All of Lebanon is part of Israel’s long-term territorial ambitions. So yes, honestly, violence is necessary to resist Israeli expansion. Israel’s plan is that 100 years from now, Lebanon and Jordan will not exist. See Greater Israel.

Remember, these terms are identical:

“God’s Chosen People” = Übermensch

“God’s Promised Land” = Lebensraum

The Germans in WW2 believed they were a special people chosen by God. This gave them the natural right to take over the lands of racially inferior peoples and to drive the existing inhabitants out through intimidation and violence. The modern Israeli right shares the same beliefs. They are indistinguishable; they just use different marketing.

One key note is that Israel is worse at protecting civilians than Hamas is. By their own numbers, the IDF kills more civilians for every enemy soldier they kill than Hamas does. Hamas is actually a far more ethical army, in terms of civilian casualty ratios, than the IDF is.

The harsh truth is that the only reason we call Hamas a “terrorist group” and the IDF “an army” is classism. The IDF kills 10 civilians to destroy one Hamas fighter with a laser-guided bomb? That’s just collateral damage. Hamas kills 10 civilians to kill one IDF soldier with a truck bomb? That’s terrorism.

The definition of terrorism should be amended:

terrorism (n): violence committed by a group representing one demographic group against a wealthier demographic group.

That is how YOU vote. A lot of people do not view it as a practical matter. They view their vote as an endorsement.

I don’t know where you are going with the utilitarianism and Hitler example. This is a massive stretch bordering on being rather insulting.

It really isn’t when we’re discussing fascists coming to power in the US. Godwin’s Law is dead. It is not a stretch when the reason Kamala lost is for literally supporting a genocide.

Kamala’s message was, “yes, I support a genocide overseas. But, my opponent supports it even more, and he will support crimes against humanity at home, while I will only support them overseas.”

Yup. And she let him play her like a fiddle. And there are like, 3 anti-Israel voters in the US. Harris lost because of anti-genocide voters, not because of anti-Israeli voters. You seem to be implying that anti-genocide = anti-Israeli.

If you believe that the only way a person can be an Israeli is if they support the massacre of innocent civilians, then you are racist anti-Semitic trash that doesn’t deserve to live. If that is the case, please chain yourself to a large rock, and throw the rock in the ocean.

You are ignoring how people actually think and live. You view voting as a utilitarian choice. Utilitarianism is not the only ethical system in existence. In fact, utilitarianism is exactly how histories worst autocrats justified their atrocities. Hitler himself ran on a platform of doing painful things that, he at least claimed, simply had to be done. The Holocaust itself was justified entirely from a “lesser of two evils” perspective. Hitler just had to convince the broader German populace that killing all the Jews was a necessary evil. Kill all the Jews or have the world taken over by godless Communists. That was Hitler’s central “lesser of two evils” message.

This is the fatal flaw of appeals to the lesser of two evils approaches. Yes, you “achieve more” by picking the lesser evil. But from many ethical perspectives, if both choices are objectively evil, and you can’t stop either, your only ethical choice is to not support either side. You’re still supporting evil, even if it’s the lesser evil.

I voted for Kamala, ya dingus. I just have enough self-reflection to note that her messaging was shit and that there was little difference between the two of them when it came to Palestine. I voted for her because of domestic policy, not foreign policy.

There are lessons to be learned here. And sticking our heads in the sand will not help us learn those lessons. And one of those lessons should absolutely be that, “vote for me. I support genocide, but my opponent supports it EVEN MORE!” is a shit campaign message. Whoever thought of that strategy should be shot.

Vague bullshit platitudes. That’s all she offered.

What you quoted is indistinguishable for saying, “I want all the good things for both Israelis and Palestinians! I like good things. I don’t like bad things.”

Zero acknowledgement about the hard choices involved.

She says she’ll do “everything in her power,” but we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she is lying.

Will she make US offensive aid contingent on a cease fire?

Will she make US defensive aid contingent on a cease fire?

Will she support US military aid contingent on Israel ending its ethnic-cleansing-by-zoning code in the West Bank?

Will she support slapping sanctions on Israeli leaders who support genocide and ethnic cleansing?

Will she agree to not interfere with the attempts to prosecute Israeli officials at the International Criminal Court?

Will she make long-term support of Israel contingent on the establishment of a two-state solution?

She cares for the Palestinians, but only if she doesn’t have to life a finger for them.

Kamala is to the right of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush when it comes to actually reigning in Israeli excesses.

Again, Kamala supports a SLOW GENOCIDE. She doesn’t mind genocide. She isn’t willing to lift a finger to restrict it. Her only concern at all for the matter is that it might hurt her at the polls, so she opposes the kind of overt ethnic cleansing that Trump supports. Trump supports putting a line of tanks on the east side of the Gaza Strip and just driving forward until the entire Gazan population is forced into the sea. That’s the kind of overt genocide Trump supports.

But in practice, Kamala is little different. I voted for Kamala, but I did so reluctantly. She says she opposes genocide, but those are meaningless words not backed by actual practice. Actions matter, words don’t. And by her actions, it is clear she and Biden support genocide. They just want it done quietly.

They’ve already BEEN doing it. And this was the critical failure of all those who argued that Trump would be better for Palestine than Harris. I voted for Harris, but I am not at all surprised this cost her the election.

Israel doesn’t need to do ANYTHING differently to complete its genocide of Gaza and the West Bank. It is already on that road, actively engaging in a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. And the Biden/Harris team have, through their inaction, fully endorsed this genocide.

Kamala was so comically bad on Palestine that the only hair-brained thing they could come up with to defend her stance was, “well…well…Trump will let the Israelis do a genocide EVEN FASTER!”

Kamala’s campaign slogan was, “a vote for Mussolini is better than a vote for Hitler!”

And then she was surprised when enough liberal voters in swing states stayed home to cost her the election. It turns out, there are plenty of people who will NOT turn out to vote for Mussolini just because Hitler is also on the ballot. They won’t vote for either of them; they’ll just say “a pox on both your houses!” and stay home.

Is a vote for Mussolini better than a vote for Hitler? Objectively, probably yes. Hitler objectively did a lot worse harm than Mussolini. But you also can’t be shocked when people refuse to hold their noses and vote for Mussolini, just because Hitler might be objectively worse. Ultimately, it’s your fucking fault for expecting people to vote for Mussolini.

I mean, aren’t they? The only real difference I can see between Kamala and Trump on Palestine is that Kamala prefers a more respectable version of genocide. She supports genocide, but she just wants it to be done slowly and quietly. Trump is on board with a fast and overt genocide. Their policies lead to the same outcome; Trump is just a lot more honest about it.

I voted for Kamala, but be honest. The only difference between Kamala and Trump in terms of Palestine is that Trump supports a fast overt genocide, while Kamala supports a slow and quiet genocide. Neither of them care two shits if every last Palestinian is exterminated. Kamala just wants the genocide to be slow and quiet enough that she doesn’t have to answer awkward questions about it.

Let’s be honest, I voted for Harris. But her message was essentially:

“Vote for Kamala Harris. She will enable a slow genocide. But her opponent, Donald Trump, will enable a fast genocide. She is clearly the superior choice.”

Saying that Kamala would be better than Trump was objectively true. However, it was also just shit, brain-dead, zero-awareness messaging. You cannot practically run on a message of, “yes, I will enable genocide, but my opponent will enable it WORSE!”

It’s just a shit, poorly thought out message. Who actually is this for? Those pro-Zionist voters won’t be persuaded either way. Those who want to see the Palestinians genocided will go with Trump instead, as he’ll get the job done faster. Those opposed to genocide were asked to hold their nose and vote for someone who should be on trial at the Hague, simply because she was running against someone who deserves to be on trial at the Hague even more!

It’s like running a campaign saying, “yes, I have some Nazi tendencies, but my opponent is a full-on avowed Nazi. My opponent is objectively worse.”

A statement can be true, while also being just complete shit in terms of campaign strategy.

“Yes, my candidate is Mussolini, but her opponent is Hitler! Clearly a vote for Mussolini is better than a vote for Hitler!”

It is a party issue. The reason Democrats couldn’t effectively run on the issue of democracy is that they THEMSELVES did not treat Trump as a threat to democracy. Actions speak louder than words. Democrats called Trump a fascist and a threat to democracy. But they didn’t even start an investigation of him til two years into the Biden term. That man should have been arrested day one, hauled in front of a military tribunal, charged with treason, and dealt with accordingly. Any SCOTUS justices that tried to prevent this should have been charged as accessories after the fact and similarly tried as enemies of the republic.

THAT is the rational response to a former president that tried to overthrow the government. Trump should have been six feet under before Biden finished his first 100 days. That is the kind of urgency that is needed when a true existential threat is present. Look what happens when a random citizen tries to walk into the White House carrying a rifle. Do you think they weigh the political calculus of dealing with the person and how to respond to them without angering voters? No, they do what is necessary, then and there. That is what you do in an emergency.

What kind of existential threat do you just ignore for two years and then slow-walk? If China were invading Hawaii, would we move with that kind of sloth? No, an existential threat requires immediate action. By giving so much deference to Trump, Biden made extremely clear that he didn’t believe Trump to be an existential threat to democracy. Entirely because of his actions, any later campaign pleas about the threat of Trump fell of deaf ears. If the president of the United States won’t take something seriously as a threat to democracy, why would anyone expect voters to?

Require all philosophy professors at the Athens University philosophy department to be middle-aged gay men with 20-something twink lovers.

We should give a bunch of military aid to Greece. But make it all contingent on them recreating the Sacred Band of Thebes.

Full self driving should only be implemented when the system is good enough to completely take over all driving functions. It should only be available in vehicles without steering wheels. The Tesla solution of having “self driving” but relying on the copout of requiring constant user attention and feedback is ridiculous. Only when a system is truly capable of self-driving 100% autonomously, at a level statistically far better than a human, should any kind of self-driving be allowed on the road. Systems like Tesla’s FSD officially require you to always be ready to intervene at a moment’s notice. They know their system isn’t ready for independent use yet, so they require that manual input. But of course this encourages disengaged driving; no one actually pays attention to the road like they should, able to intervene at a moment’s notice. Tesla’s FSD imitates true self-driving, but it pawns off the liability do drivers by requiring them to pay attention at all times. This should be illegal. Beyond merely lane-assistance technology, no self-driving tech should be allowed except in vehicles without steering wheels. If your AI can’t truly perform better than a human, it’s better for humans to be the only ones actively driving the vehicle.

This also solves the civil liability problem. Tesla’s current system has a dubious liability structure designed to pawn liability off to the driver. But if there isn’t even a steering wheel in the car, then the liability must fall entirely on the vehicle manufacturer. They are after all 100% responsible for the algorithm that controls the vehicle, and you should ultimately have legal liability for the algorithms you create. Is your company not confident enough in its self-driving tech to assume full legal liability for the actions of your vehicles? No? Then your tech isn’t good enough yet. There can be a process for car companies to subcontract out the payment of legal claims against the company. They can hire State Farm or whoever to handle insurance claims against them. But ultimately, legal liability will fall on the company.

This also avoids criminal liability. If you only allow full self-driving in vehicles without steering wheels, there is zero doubt about who is control of the car. There isn’t a driver anymore, only passengers. Even if you’re a person sitting in the seat that would normally be a driver’s seat, it doesn’t matter. You are just a passenger legally. You can be as tired, distracted, drunk, or high as you like, you’re not getting any criminal liability for driving the vehicle. There is such a clear bright line - there is literally no steering wheel - that it is absolutely undeniable that you have zero control over the vehicle.

This actually would work under the same theory of existing drunk-driving law. People can get ticketed for drunk driving for sleeping in their cars. Even if the cops never see you driving, you can get charged for drunk driving if they find you in a position where you could drunk drive. So if you have your keys on you while sleeping drunk in a parked car, you can get charged with DD. But not having a steering wheel at all would be the equivalent of not having the keys to a vehicle - you are literally incapable of operating it. And if you are not capable of operating it, you cannot be criminally liable for any crime relating to its operation.

I think we should indict Sam Altman on two sets of charges:

1. A set of securities fraud charges.

2. 8 billion counts of criminal reckless endangerment.

He’s out on podcasts constantly saying the OpenAI is near superintelligent AGI and that there’s a good chance that they won’t be able to control it, and that human survival is at risk. How is gambling with human extinction not a massive act of planetary-scale criminal reckless endangerment?

So either he is putting the entire planet at risk, or he is lying through his teeth about how far along OpenAI is. If he’s telling the truth, he’s endangering us all. If he’s lying, then he’s committing securities fraud in an attempt to defraud shareholders. Either way, he should be in prison. I say we indict him for both simultaneously and let the courts sort it out.

Hezbollah clearly needs to seize a 20 km chunk of northern Israel to serve as a security buffer zone for the people of Lebanon.