It's a stupid, vague and therefore pointless question, — Daemon

That has engaged the greatest minds throughout history. I’ll go with them over a random internet person.

If this question is stupid, every question is stupid.

The question of what we are, as human beings, is one of the oldest ones and clearly still relevant today. How we answer that question — whether explicitly in philosophy forums or in academic halls, or tacitly in how we formulate goals and conduct ourselves — obviously has large implications for humanity’s future, because the decisions of our political and economic leaders are ultimately grounded in such answers (again, not always explicitly or consciously). So you’ve touched on one of the “big ones,” in my view.

My own take in answering this question is to look at what we do— and not just in special occasions, but as Heidegger says in our “average everydayness.”

If we want to describe an object’s function, for example, we look at characteristic use. A hammer can drive in nails or open paint cans, for example, but the latter wouldn’t usually be described as its function— because it’s not typically used that way.

Likewise for human beings, I think we have the tendency to privilege abstract (rational) thinking and otherwise conscious behavior as not only our defining property (related to language) but also our basic “function” — and this is, in a sense, a mistake. Not that it’s not true, but that it overlooks what’s truly typical. Because when you look at characteristic “use”— viz., what we typically do in an average day and in average moments — we apparently aren’t very rational or even very conscious, at least in the way the traditional Western view would describe.

Rather we seem mostly unaware of various phenomena, not only our internal workings (like digestion or breathing or heartbeating) but also our bodies, emotions, feelings and sensations, reactions, attitudes, actions and thoughts. Most of our thoughts aren’t abstract but rather “junk,” just noise, in this average state. Most of our actions are habitual— automatic, unconscious, even “irrational” in a sense. Personally, the practice of meditation shows me quite clearly just how much is forgotten, overlooked, taken for granted, and otherwise ignored in my life.

So then the question becomes: when you look at habit and automaticity, or unconscious behavior, what picture of a human being emerges?

Descartes says (more accurately) “I am consciously aware, therefore I am.” This is at the start of modern philosophy and science. But to me this is like saying “I’m awake, therefore I’m alive.” What happens in sleep? Are we not alive? Do we cease to exist? No. Likewise, if our activity is largely unconscious, does this mean “I am not”? No. In fact, as I mentioned above, it appears as if there’s more evidence to suggest we’re acting mostly unconsciously— and so perhaps it is the sum that grounds the cogitare?

Food for thought.

The Darwinists have looked more at the way we have evolved from animals, although the missing link has not been found. — Jack Cummins

Come on now. This is just a mistake. Don’t fall into this reasoning. There is no “missing link.” All evidence points to us evolving from primates, and we are in fact primates ourselves.

This does not, however, explain everything. But let us be very careful about critiquing science.

but have IRA members ever ran through London stabbing other people indiscriminately until they were eventually shot? Have they ever disguised bombs as balloons and flown them towards Elementary schools? Do they throw loads of rocks at random British civilians for no reason other than that they are British? — BitconnectCarlos

No — we all agree that Israel’s terrorism and war crimes are of a far higher quality. Their way of killing children is much more humane.

You fail to understand the difference between the intentional murder of innocents, say, putting a knife through a stranger's back because of his ethnicity on one hand, and the targeting of military targets and infrastructure. Until you understand this difference it's all gonna be the same to you. — BitconnectCarlos

The United States often says the exact same thing. Like the Al Shifa bombing.

When our team does it, it’s not intentional— because we’re the god guys. When they do it, it’s intentional and they’re evil.

This is what you continually fail to see. You swallow the pretext wholesale. If we look at the real world, and not “intentions,” the death counts tell a slightly different story than the rationalizations we tell ourselves.

If you want to believe it, you’re welcome to.

The precautions and the steps taken before bombing are all very well documented. — BitconnectCarlos

As are the war crimes. You selectively choose one and ignore the other.

I guess because it’s a more “civil” kind of war crime, and a more well-intentioned terrorism, we’ll let it slide. We’re the good guys, after all, and everything we do is defensive.

The Nazi archives are filled with similar sentiments.

Yes, but reactions aren't causes. Hitler may have came to power as a reaction against the Allied forces and the treaty of Versailles, but those things didn't cause Hitler. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, they did. They’re factors that led to Hitler. The US bombing of Iraq led to ISIS. Israel’s treatment of Gaza led to Hamas.

You wouldn’t have Hamas without Israeli-imposed conditions. You want to continually translate this as some direct causal link, taking it literally as “Israel created Hamas” or whatever, but you know very well what’s meant. Argue semantics somewhere else.

Hamas is a reaction? Yes. Reactions aren’t causes— right, they’re effects. Effects from what exactly? Israeli treatment. So if Israel is serious about preventing further war, they should perhaps change their policies and stop making Gaza an unlivable shithole.

Front page of Ny Times today, and this only scratches the surface:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/22/us/israel-gaza-conflict.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Killing innocent people is not what is pertinent here. — BitconnectCarlos

On the contrary. You might not want to face it, but it’s extremely pertinent.

Israel actually takes extensive precautions to limit casualties and only targets military infrastructure, — BitconnectCarlos

Like media and residential buildings. Israel says it, so it must be true.

I deny war crimes. — BitconnectCarlos

Like most apologists for state terrorism. Swallow the propaganda whole, because it happens to be your team. Basic tribalism; basic propaganda.

You’re simply deluded.

This position of blaming everything that Hamas does on Israel also robs the Palestinians of agency and moral responsibility. Actions are ultimately taken by individuals and groups in the present and these actions are not determined entirely via past events unless you just want to strip people of free will. — BitconnectCarlos

Give me a break.

I didn’t blame Israel for what Hamas does any more than I blame the US for everything ISIS does. But both were created by Israel and the US policy, respectively.

I’m talking about the present. In the PRESENT, Palestinians in Gaza are living in a hellhole. It just so happens they’ve also been living that way for decades, thanks to Israel.

Israel is a terrorist state, as is the US. Your delusions are your own.

I haven't made anything up. — thewonder

Yes, you have.

You've proven yourself too much a buffoon for me to really care about responding seriously. Sorry, but I'm not interested.

Chomsky is talking about contemporary Libertarianism — thewonder

Which is what I'm talking about, too.

and the origins of Libertarianism as an Anarchist school of thought. — thewonder

No. Not as an "anarchist school of thought." You're making that up. He does mention that it's related to 17th and 18th century classical liberalism, which has commonalities to traditional anarchism.

Read the article. — thewonder

I already have -- and it's completely irrelevant.

https://youtu.be/mbouhVto1MY

(Because I’m tired of explaining it.)

Wall Street Journal editorial:

Meanwhile Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran saw that Democratic support for Israel in the U.S. has declined. We credited President Biden this week with not trying to dictate Israel’s security decisions, but he soon bent rhetorically to his party’s left, saying Wednesday he “expected a significant deescalation today.”

Yes -- that weak statement is a step too far for the editorial board.

We're simply living in different realities at this point.

In US history at least wealthy economic conservatives have talked a good game about the virtues of self-discipline and freedom from government control, but they've also been the quiet beneficiaries of centralized influence over protective tariffs, immigration policy, monetary policy, bailouts, subsidies, etc. — Erik

Indeed. The list goes on and on: tax cuts, weakening of tax havens, weakening of the SEC, weakening of the IRS, patent laws, roads, police and military protection, the court system, state-funded innovation and research (computers, the internet, etc.), and on and on. All gifts from the state -- i.e., from the taxpayers. None of this is considered "socialism," of course.

But when the state tries to do something for the population al la the New Deal, it's "big government meddling in your lives." It's communism. Marxism.

It's an old trick that people are waking up to, especially young people. They see the hypocrisy and the double standards. Thanks in large part to the Great Recession, the Occupy movement, Bernie Sanders campaigns (AOC et al.), and social media, this has all been exposed. The truth is on their side -- and it's obvious. Just as the science is on the environmentalists side. Very hard to argue with. It reminds me more of the marijuana "debate," which has come a long way indeed. The hypocrisy of allowing alcohol while criminalizing marijuana was extremely hard to justify after a while. Ditto gay marriage. The states can lead the way, as they should, as examples for others. Once it's shown that the world doesn't end when these things change, and that they can sometimes be (gasp) profitable, things start to turning around...very slowly. Like turning an oil tanker.

That gives me hope about destroying neoliberalism, and about the environment. What's depressing is that these signs should have been emerging about 30 years ago, right around 1990 -- or at the latest, around 2000. But nothing happened then, and so here we are.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if Al Gore was elected instead of the walking disaster that was W. It would have been a huge plus to the environment, at least. So perhaps we'd have a head start there. But who knows. Sometimes it takes disasters like Bush and Trump -- or recessions, pandemics, wars, floods/draughts/hurricanes/extreme heat/rising seas, etc -- to wake us all up.

In that case, we should consider Bibi an enemy of humanity and should "like" him dead, too.
— Xtrix

Would you wish Joe Biden dead if he were to do something similar? — BitconnectCarlos

You were the one saying you'd like Hamas leaders dead, not me. So you've completely missed the point. The point is a simple one: if you wish the Hamas leaders dead, you should wish Bibi dead. Both are responsible for killing innocent people. Although they are by no means equal -- Bibi has killed far more. (Saying "that's because Israel has a better military" -- as you so often do -- is exactly the point: they have far more power.)

The Palestinains are not only far weaker militarily, but have been living in a hellhole for decades due to right-wing Israeli policy, with numerous violations of international law. There is no parity here.
— Xtrix

It's both the Israeli government and Hamas. — BitconnectCarlos

No, it isn't. Hamas is a result of decades of living in a hellhole, not the cause. The cause is the Israeli government. There would be no Hamas without Israel's horrendous treatment of Palestinians, just as there would be no ISIS without the US's terrorist campaign in Iraq.

Again, I'll repeat: there is no parity here. If Israel truly cared about protecting itself, and about peace, then it would stop creating conditions in which groups like Hamas gain power, and stop contributing to terrorism itself.

Same is true of the US -- blaming everything on ISIS. Yes, ISIS is awful -- but how did they arise? After years of US terrorism. If you overlook that, you're not really serious about stopping terrorism.

But it's very difficult for people to see that when it's their own "team," no matter what country. Tribalism and propaganda almost always prevail. Israel is no different. Nor are you, as a defender and equivocator for Israel.

I don't think either sides' governments are interested in peace presently, but if the people can come together and somehow demand new leadership we'd be in a much better position going forward. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, especially the people who have much more privilege and power; namely, the Israeli citizens.

The first step, of course, is recognizing that your government is engaging in war crimes. So, again, you're a good example of why things don't change -- despite your claims of wanting Bibi out.

Many Americans wanted Bush out of office too, without acknowledging that he was a war criminal.

I mean, all you have to do is look up the word, "Libertarian" in the dictionary and see that is makes no mention of corporatist. — Harry Hindu

This is meant as a joke, right? Or are you serious?

It's up to us level-headed folk to educate these numbskulls what the terms really do mean. — Harry Hindu

Yes, like the meme you posted, which is what I was using if you deign to read. Hence my mentioning "government should leave us alone" and "support free markets."

The term can be used any way you like. I don't care about that. I care about reality. The reality is that the policies proposed and supported by those who claim to be "Libertarian" are clear examples of what I mentioned: neoliberal corporatism through and through.

But you stick to the dictionary if you like.

I'll state it another way. Who would want to internalize 'rugged individualism' in regards to how MLK professed it?

And, yet the right and many on the left embrace it. — Shawn

Who would "want to internalize it"? That's like asking who would want to internalize the language or religion or stories of one's culture. A very strange way to word it.

It's simply propaganda, and many people have internalized it. Whether they want to or not. Individualism has been cultivated as an ideal. As you mentioned, it's all over -- on the left and the right.

As if embracing rugged individualism would bring about anything of utility. — Shawn

Your reading comprehension problems aside, that's exactly the point: it doesn't bring about anything of utility.

I suggest reading more broadly and more carefully before commenting.

I have no idea what this means. — Shawn

No kidding. Nor do you want to.

OK, then you said:

"I'd like to get reactions to this assertion from the Forum." — Shawn

Sorry, but this is what I said:

A major part of keeping the ruling minority class in the position they are, is keeping the majority divided. Most of us know this, and it takes various forms: race, social issues, religion, geographical area, etcetera. But one of the greatest (and easily overlooked) ways of keeping people apart is by encouraging the internalization of "rugged individualism" as an ideal.

I'd like to get reactions to this assertion from the Forum. — Xtrix

I wasn't looking for a reaction to the Martin Luther King quotation, and certainly not from anyone who doesn't understand what it means.

I don't quite see the utility of the quote. — Shawn

That's clear, yes. But it's Martin Luther King, not I, who said it. It's been around for decades. Is this really your first encounter with it, or have you never understood the "utility" of it?

OK, so I'm poor, have to pull myself up by my bootstraps, and have to struggle to get forward. — Shawn

I really don't know what you mean by this. Are you describing a reality or are you describing an attitude about the poor?

The fact that you are still struggling to understand what King was talking about is revealing.

By the way, this quote of rugged individualism isn't any new thing, as Reagan promoted it to the right in his days. — Shawn

Yes, the hypocrisy of "rugged individualism" that King describes goes through many administrations. Which you don't seem to understand.

So, do idiots believe that they have to just bite the bullet and muster the willpower to pull themselves from their own bootstraps? Is that what this topic is about? — Shawn

I've explained several times what the "topic" is about. You seem either unwilling or incapable of understanding it.

The above is barely coherent, by the way. I'm not even sure what you're asking.

Yeah, so I'm asking what's so individualistic about being poor? — Shawn

This question is bizarre. You're still missing the point of that quotation.

There's nothing individualistic about being poor. There's nothing individualistic about being rich. This is barely coherent.

Again, he's talking about the encouraging of people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, to reject handouts from the government, to "make it on one's own" -- whether poor or otherwise. Not to rely on the nanny welfare state, etc. This is what that quote is about.

What he's pointing out, however, is hypocrisy. Why? Because when it comes to the rich, they're the first ones that benefit from a welfare state, despite professing the ideal of "individualism." When the poor ask for anything, however, they're told to take a hike.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

I don't think you're understanding that quotation.

Martin Luther King isn't saying that being poor is individualistic, he's exposing a common attitude taken by those in power: they decry socialism and encourage "rugged individualism." In reality, it's actually the reverse of that -- i.e., what we actually have is socialism for the rich, where they get tax cuts, subsidies, bailouts, and protections, while the poor are told to be rugged individuals who shouldn't be asking for handouts from the "Welfare state."

What's so individualistic about being poor, unless this is just trite satire? — Shawn

Who said being poor was "individualistic"? What are you talking about?

In any case, it has very much managed to seep into all of us to some extent or other. It may be starting to crack, as evidenced by Biden's agenda, which far, far from ideal, is a step away from austerity. — Manuel

Yes, and that's encouraging. That in fact was the hope -- that he could be pushed towards more progressive policies. So far there's only proposals, which are still short of ideal, and some haven't been pushed hard enough -- but it's a start. It's light years away from anything that would have happened under Trump, where we would not only not have these proposals, we'd be fending off attempts to go in the opposite direction. People still don't realize just how dangerous that would have been, and how important it was to vote him out. Which is very discouraging.

Thanks for the book recommendations.

What I said was, I bet you would struggle write a simple elegant paragraph articulating community over individualism in the manner of that speech of Thatcher's. Whatever you may think of her she and her team had a solid grasp of communication. — Tom Storm

Again, I really don't see the paragraph you mentioned as all that eloquent and, frankly, not very impressive. The fact that it resonates -- true, but so did Donald Trump's speeches. "We're gonna build a wall and Mexico will pay for it, because they're sending over rapists and drugs."

But yes, speechwriters are hired for a reason, and proponents of neoliberalism are very good at propaganda. Was this really your only point? In that case: yes, agreed.

No much of an argument to respond to here. I think it's pretty uncontroversial that socialism was instrumental in tearing down existing societal structures... like say religious institutions. — ChatteringMonkey

So's capitalism, for that matter. Capitalism is also responsible for far more deaths, if that's how we want to measure things. But that's not really the point.

The point you are making (one which I agree with to be clear) has implication, not mere eventualities or risks... and I'm not sure people realise this and/or are willing to accept those implications. — ChatteringMonkey

I really don't see the difference in the words, as they're all effects of choices and actions, but fine -- yes, there are also "implications." There are also "implications" in deciding whether to take the bus to work or not. There are implications for voting, for protesting, for living alone in the woods. I don't understand why you choose to point out truisms here.

The point is that we've been brainwashed, for 40 years, to believe that an ideal of life is to be an individual consumer and to disassociate from others, whether it be from unions or political involvement or community organizing. Which is exactly what the plutocratic class wants and has encouraged. No conspiracy, just an obvious reflection of the ideology of the powerful.

I agree with you point, and I was looking to take it bit further... but it's fine, we can leave it at this. — ChatteringMonkey

If you want to take it a bit further, I don't see how pointing out that there are "implications" involved in shifting the focus away from rugged individualism, of which we've internalized over the last 40 years, and towards collective action, solidarity, unionization, organization, etc., is doing so. But perhaps I'm missing something.

You see my problem? The Thatcher position is much easier to articulate and is elegant to read and hear. Yours is jagged and defensive. 'Complete BS' is not an argument.

Can you write a paragraph of simple elegance to rival hers, from a communitarian perspective?

As someone who has advised governments and fought neoliberal excesses here, I have tried for years and have found it difficult. — Tom Storm

That's different. If you want slogans and propaganda, there are all kinds out there. Plenty to rival Thatchers. "Things are better together" -- simple, easy. Strength in numbers. "We are the 99%". Resist "divide and conquer." "Come together" (to quote the Beatles). Whatever you like.

If you can't find that stuff, you're not looking hard enough. And frankly, I don't think Thatchers paragraph is very "elegant" at all. Not just grammatically but also in content. But to each his own.

Yes. First, it’s creating a problem that didn’t exist. Much like welfare queens, it’s a myth created to justify shifting power from the public to the private sphere. If all Thatcher sees is people wanting government to solve all their problems, that’s her own delusions. People should demand their government do more to help them.

Secondly, this nonsense about “there is no society” is laughable. Of course societies consist of individuals, just as forests consist of trees. So what? Doesn’t mean there’s no forests or societies. Any more than saying “there aren’t any individuals, because individuals consist only of cells.”

All she’s doing is creating a false picture as a pretext to shift responsibility away from collective action and the public sphere, to individuals and private ownership. Hence the policies against unions and the rhetoric about “government is the problem.”

It’s complete BS. Always has been.

I know others have, correctly in my view, said that neoliberalism cannot possibly account for everything. True. But it does account for a large part of our current global problems. They've been organizing for more than 80 years.

The left does not have that... — Manuel

True. If you really want a big-picture view, the development of neoliberalism emerging in the late 70s was simply one expression of a reaction against the 1960s, which were themselves a result of the New Deal. So when you say "80 years," you're right. The wealthy never liked the New Deal, and they've been fighting a gradual and sophisticated fight on all fronts to dismantle it ever since.

Lead by intellectuals like Milton Friedman (and to a lesser extend Ayn Rand), the underlying beliefs and justifications were provided. By the 80s, they were becoming policies. We've been living with the effects of said policies.

This to me seems to be a classic statement of what is generally more an American frame of society versus individualism. I imagine it would have wide support. — Tom Storm

Probably. But it's also complete BS.

It's not just neo-liberal ideology that is to blame though, that's only part of the story I'd say and a bit short-sighted. Socialism historically has been instrumental in breaking down any societal story that connects communities, be it religion, nationalism, ethnic traditions etc... . Granted a lot of those stories are suspect in that they also serve to justify certain power structures and all inequalities and injustices that come with that. But still, what have ideologies on the left been other than 'critical', i.e. aimed at tearing down something rather than building up a community around shared ideas. — ChatteringMonkey

Then your notion of "socialism" is strange indeed, and scope of history limited.

my intention is not to bash the left here, just to say that neo-liberalism is far from the only cause, — ChatteringMonkey

No one said it's the only cause.

So beware what you wish for. "Valuing what we do together", building communities usually implies values and stories build around common goods and goals, and those usually end up not being very sensitive to particular individuals. Or do we really think we can have our cake and eat it too? — ChatteringMonkey

I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. There's risk in anything -- whether we join together or not. There is far greater risk, in my view, of clinging to this dogma of rugged individualism, and so keeping ourselves isolated and trying to "go it alone" on everything. There is far greater power in numbers, working as a team, collaboration, networking, solidarity, education, etc. This is the only point. It has been systematically beaten out of people's heads for decades.

You appear to be overthinking it.

The lack of organization comes from the fact that both political parties are inconsistent and hypocritical. They adopt opposing view points. The left asserts that they are all about "choice" in one domain, but then deny choice in other domains. This is because both parties have both liberal and authoritarian tendencies. What about a party that has only liberal tendencies? Well, that would be the Libertarian party. — Harry Hindu

Not even close. To be "Libertarian" today is to be essentially a corporatist. The term is almost the opposite of what it once meant -- as is true for most political terminology in the United States.

"Government should leave us alone" and "support free markets." That's at the core of neoliberalism through and through. Translation: Big Government is bad, so reduce it. It's no solution, it's the problem. What IS the solution? Private business -- privatize everything, take it out of the public ("Big Government") sphere and put it into the hands of private power, which is unaccountable to the public.

No honest business person believes in free markets. It's a fantasy. They value socialism and big government more than anyone -- they simply believe the government should serve them. Subsidies, bailouts, tax cuts, deregulation, etc.

Capitalism cannot survive without state intervention. Never has in any developed country.

Even the term ceasefire (which the U.S. blocked the UN Security Council resolution for the third time) is kind of a capitulation to Israel's framing, because Hamas isn't even a state actor and Israel much more people in the past week than Hamas did over the past decade. We need to urge Bill HR 2590 that's supported by 25 House Progressives. It is simply indefensible to send Military Aid to Israel who are using our tax payer money to kill children and unarmed demonstrators. — Saphsin

Very good point indeed.

Still, even accepting this framework, this is a simple choice Israel can make to stop the murdering of innocent people and help itself in the meantime as well. If Israel wants to become even more of an international pariah, then they should continue their war crimes. This appears to be what they're choosing.

"Easy way"? How about sparing the lives of innocent people -- all the while making things harder for Israel by creating more sympathy for Hamas and creating more misery and desire for revenge to the Palestinians -- by using the enormous resources Israel has, militarily and otherwise, with US support, to deal with this problem?
— Xtrix

So what is your suggestion? We're both on the same page here - we want to minimize casualties but do you just want to use a different type of ammunition? Give me concrete suggestion. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure, I'll give you one simple and immediate one: accept a ceasefire.

I assume you want the leaders of Hamas "out of office," as well? Or more specifically out of leadership roles? If you don't want Bibi "destroyed," surely you don't want Hamas' leaders destroyed either. Correct?
— Xtrix

I'd actually like the leaders of Hamas dead, but out of office would be a victory as well. Ideally, Hamas as both an organization and a belief system would be no more - leaders dead, we can can spare the lesser members. If you are consciously and deliberately leading this movement I consider you an enemy of humanity. — BitconnectCarlos

In that case, we should consider Bibi an enemy of humanity and should "like" him dead, too.

it's like it is in the United States if Canada were to declare war on us and bomb a border town and then claim something like "well there might have been a General or soldier living there who knows." It just doesn't fly. — BitconnectCarlos

Which is exactly what Israel is doing to Gaza.

The fact that you take the pretext seriously when coming from Bibi and not from Canada is your own blind spot, nothing more.

I know. I was just questioning your reasoning earlier; you were upset that the kill count was so imbalanced and (and if I understood you correctly) due to that you were sympathetic to the Palestinians. If more Israelis died would you more sympathetic to Israel? — BitconnectCarlos

I didn't once say that. I'm "sympathetic" to any innocent person murdered by terrorists -- whether it's Hamas terrorists or Israeli terrorists. The latter terrorists happen to be the stronger force, with backing from the United States. They're also the occupiers and the aggressors.

The Palestinains are not only far weaker militarily, but have been living in a hellhole for decades due to right-wing Israeli policy, with numerous violations of international law. There is no parity here.

If Israel wants to stop this, they can. They have the power to help the Palestinian people overthrow the sadistic Hamas regime and live dignified lives. That's a choice Israel has, has rejected for decades, and continues to reject. They want to continue blaming their victims.

Just read this, by Anand Giridharadas, which also sums up nicely what I was driving at before:

The only solutions to our biggest shared challenges are solutions that have the following four characteristics: they're public, institutional, democratic, and universal. In other words, they solve the problem at the root, for everyone.

Anybody trying to sell you the notion that they have some quick-win, low-hanging-fruit, fill-the-gap thing that happens to be funded by the people causing the problem is trying to sell you a bill of goods.

What we have to do is reclaim the story that what we do together is more interesting, more compelling, more powerful, more valuable, than what we do alone.

The religion of the neoliberal era, the spiritual tradition of the neoliberal era, has been the notion that what we do alone is better and more beautiful than what we do together.

That was a massive propaganda push. It's incredibly counterintuitive. It goes in defiance of most traditions in the world, so it took a lot of work, but they did it. They pulled it off.

Margaret Thatcher literally saying, "There's no such thing as society” — which of your ancestors in any community around the world would have understood the notion that there's no such thing as society, only individual men and women?

That is a profoundly modern idea, a bullshit idea, a ridiculous idea, that none of our ancestors would have recognized, because all of our ancestors, wherever they came from, understood that they live in societies and would have felt dead to not live in societies of people with whom they had interdependence.

Over the last 40 years, we got sold this fraudulent religion, which only benefits those at the top, that what we do alone is great — and what we do together is corrupt, is tyrannical, is evil. It's false. It has hurt untold numbers of people. It's come crashing and burning down with Covid, which is the ultimate expression of a phenomenon where being left alone is literally death.

It's time to reclaim the story and venerate the tradition of valuing what we do together. — Giridharadas

I agree wholeheartedly.

And if you cared about the Irsaeli people, you'd want Netanyahu's government destroyed.
— Xtrix

I might want Netanyahu out of office, but I wouldn't say "destroyed." That's something completely different. I don't want the Israeli state destroyed. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm glad you can take a nuanced for of this. You're right. But notice I didn't say Israeli state, I said Netanyahu's government. By your standards, I assume you want the leaders of Hamas "out of office," as well? Or more specifically out of leadership roles? If you don't want Bibi "destroyed," surely you don't want Hamas' leaders destroyed either. Correct?

The answer, however, is to deal with Hamas, not to kill innocent Palestinians.
— Xtrix

Hamas has built military infrastructure intertwined with civilian infrastructure. You tell me how to properly attack them with zero civilian casualties, General. — BitconnectCarlos

There are all kinds of ways, that don't involved killing innocent people. With the resources that Israel has, it's kind of a joke to say this is their only recourse.

What if the roles were reversed, and Hamas made the same claims -- that bombing Israel was unavoidable because the leaders are "intertwined" with civilians? After all, political and military leaders don't simply live in government buildings. You accept this logic?

How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Hamas? That's reprehensible. How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Israel? I'll wait for you to look up the numbers...now that's also reprehensible, but also far greater in magnitude.
— Xtrix

Israel has a missile defense system which stops 90% of the rockets. Hamas would kill many more Israelis if they could, they're just attempting to and failing and you're holding that low casualty number against Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

You keep repeating this over and over again. No one is defending Hamas. No one. Least of all me. You're basically pointing out that Israel has far greater defense mechanisms and military might than Hamas -- far more advanced, far better funded, far more sophisticated, etc. Yes, no kidding. That's exactly the point here.

So yes, I'm absolutely holding it against Israel that they're clearly the stronger force. All the more reason not to succumb to behavior which we condemn the other side for doing -- namely, killing innocent people.

If it's wrong for Hamas to "intend" it, it's wrong for Israel to actually do it.

If you cared about Israel and the citizens of Israel, you wouldn't be supporting this behavior.
— Xtrix

If there was an easy way to go after Hamas without killing civilians I'd be all for it. But there's not. We can get Bibi out of office though, I wouldn't be opposed to that. — BitconnectCarlos

"Easy way"? How about sparing the lives of innocent people -- all the while making things harder for Israel by creating more sympathy for Hamas and creating more misery and desire for revenge to the Palestinians -- by using the enormous resources Israel has, militarily and otherwise, with US support, to deal with this problem?

Not as "easy," perhaps, but not impossible. I'd say that's worth doing in spite of being "harder" rather than killing innocent children.

(Accepting a ceasefire is an “easy” first step btw.)

It's cliché, but it's true: you can't kill an idea. Or even an ideology. You can only change moods and expectations by changing the circumstances that led the people in Gaza to choose Hamas in the first place. — Manuel

Exactly right. Same with Israel and the people they elect. But it's just pure confusion to equate the two, when one is a gigantic bully, funded and backed (economically and diplomatically) by the world's superpower (the United States), who have lead a vicious occupation for decades, with the people being occupied and oppressed, with little resources and no military or economic backing by the US.

Bitconnect and others want to ignore this imbalance (and history), as if it's irrelevant. It's essentially blaming the victim. When there is finally a reaction, the reaction is used as an excuse to decimate them even further, all under the guise of "self-defense."

If you truly cared about the suffering of the Palestinian people you'd want Hamas destroyed. — BitconnectCarlos

And if you cared about the Irsaeli people, you'd want Netanyahu's government destroyed. Both are carrying out terroristic acts against innocent people. The difference: Netanyahu has killed far more people, including children. You can't seem to get your mind around this, and so have to focus solely on Hamas while ignoring Israel.

Let me try to make it clearer: no one is saying that Hamas sending rockets into Israel is a good thing. The answer, however, is to deal with Hamas, not to kill innocent Palestinians. And not to pretend that every bombing is an "accident" or that it was aimed at Hamas (ask yourself if this pretext was used by Hamas -- would you buy it?).

We're either in favor of terrorism and the killing of innocent citizens or we're not. Condemning Hamas for killing innocent human beings is absolutely correct; now simply swapping "Hamas" for "Israel's government" and including Palestinians in the "human being" category, and we're in total agreement. That's the first step, and really shouldn't be hard if we have the slightest bit of empathy or morality as a people.

The second step is the ability to count. How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Hamas? That's reprehensible. How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Israel? I'll wait for you to look up the numbers...now that's also reprehensible, but also far greater in magnitude. No false equivalency here -- the power inequality is obvious. If you can't recognize that, you're deluding yourself.

Taking out media buildings is also a war crime.

If you cared about Israel and the citizens of Israel, you wouldn't be supporting this behavior.

Let’s briefly recap:

Netanyahu, to save himself politically, deliberately provokes the Palestinians during the end of Ramadan by storming Al-Aqsa. Knowing full well there would be a reaction, when it came it was used as an excuse for terrorism. (All in the name of self defense against Hamas terrorism, of course.)

214 Palestinians killed so far, including 58 children.

10 Israelis killed, 1 child.

181 dead, 52 children.
— StreetlightX

52 kids who won't grow up to be Palestinian terrorists. — fishfry

What a truly disgusting remark.

Almost unbelievable, until I realized you’re the same truther imbecile from another thread.

Now imagine that the parents of family B, outraged at this behaviour, decide to throw spears at the innocent members of family A. — Bartricks

:lol:

Such a shallow understanding of reality on display here really did have me laughing. How are you not embarrassed?

In any case, there is nowhere near any proportionality in the violence committed. It's a total massacre. — Manuel

Yes -- to say nothing of the decades-long brutal occupation. Apologists for Israel are incapable of seeing the reality. Anything Israel does is defensive, there's no power imbalance (and if there is it is somehow irrelevant), it's all about the "right to exist," etc. No sense in wasting time trying to convince them otherwise.

Israel is definitely defending itself, it's just defending itself so well that people like Baden have no idea that it's defending itself. — BitconnectCarlos

You've clearly identified with one "side" and so are possibly incapable of looking at this conflict objectively, but take a few moments to consider again what you've said and see if you can at least play Devil's advocate to your own remarks.

(If you can't, there's no need in going any further -- defend Israel to the end; I'm not interested.) — Xtrix