spiderplant
joined 2 years ago
75 years isn't that recent
What do you mean war, the west bank is not controlled by hamas.
This is brutalisation by an occupying force on a population living in an Israeli controlled Bantustan.
My problem is not with inclusivity but with promoting uptake. If you are familiar with the grammar or phonetic sounds or some of the vocab, you are more likely to find that language easier to learn.
Both English and Esperanto share the same problems of universal languages that I mentioned. English does have the advantage of number of speakers but it is a mess of a language for people to have to learn.
Again to reiterate my counter to universal languages, why not learn and potentially help revive your local indigenous languages. In a world where universal translation exits on our phones everybody being able to speak the same language matters less.
Someone already said that either the created language takes from too few source languages and alienates speakers of languages with no common characteristics or takes from every language family and becomes a horrible mess that's hard to speak for everyone.
So if a world language is a bad idea no matter what languages you use as a source, why not have Esperanto or something similar for Europe/English speaking world and then a different language for Asia, and another one for Africa. You've reduced the number of translators needed and left most people with a language close to their mother tongue. You could also break the suggested regions in to smaller sections eg give Germanic Europe a common Germanic language. West/south Europe get Esperanto, east Europe sets a common slavic language. You still get languages that don't neatly fit like Hungarian but its better for most language learners than the last example.
Personally I'd not propose universal languages as a utopian idea and instead promote indigenous languages such as Catalonian, Breton, Irish and promote learning many languages in a post work society.
Capitalism has been also associated with stagnation(recessions, austerity, stagflation or economies such as Japan's), hunger(poverty, famines), neighbours turning neighbours to secret police(Americans reporting people who have gotten abortions), and at least 20 year wide gap in the mindsets of people compared to their western peers(read this one as conservative Americans and other similar countries vs more liberal and social democracy style countries). It's inherently violent(state violence eg. police in protecting property), authoritarian ideology. Facisms rising popularity in the developed world is a feature of capatilim.
That would be a ~~ecumenical~~ philosophical matter.
If you said black people were too incompetent to free themselves from slavery you'd be racist.
If you say Palestinians are too incompetent to win any wars then you're racist.
Its the same fucking thing you dolt and victim blaming.
You don't repeatedly start wars, lose those wars, and then get to dictate terms to the winning army.
So might is right. If the Nazis won world war two, do you think they should be allowed to do what ever the fuck they want to conquered peoples because they won?
It is apparent that the Palestinians will not or cannot stop their children from attacking Israel.
You keep saying palestinian children are threats and Israel should be allowed to destroy any threat even if its not imminent (contradicting international law but hey ho) then saying oh but children aren't actually being targeted, they're just dying in large numbers because of IDF whoopsies.
They also pledged or gave $2 mil to Israel recently
If Palestinians cared about their children, they would raise them to not attack Israel. Apparently, they cannot or will not. This is the consequence. Israel is not there to exact an eye for an eye. They are there to destroy any threat to their security. That means destroying Hamas and all who support them.
Again this is you saying Palestinian children are threats and that Israel is justified to remove threats
The Palestinian people are too fucking incompetent
Nice racism
You claimed at the beginning of this that you are pro-palestine
Yes personally, I'm pro-palestine which means I'm anti-israel not anti-israeli. The state built on fascism and oppression is what needs destroyed not the people. Nice of you to shoehorn the old if your anti-israel you are antisemitic, really filling up my Zionist bingo card.
You can't pretend that those calling for peace are calling for the destruction of Israel and should be suppressed.
I'm not pretending, you just admitted to it.
When I talk about the people who call for peace, I'm talking about other people from myself, the liberals who IMO misguidedly see peace without Palestinian liberation as the solution. You insult your own intelligence to call these people anti-israeal or pro-palestine. They are pro-peace. We can both say they are wrong but they mean well. It is their human right to protest and in a democracy individuals should be able to call out their government for committing war crimes or supporting war criminals. This isn't possible in Israel and a good few western nations supporting Israel right now.
Irrelevant. People die in war, including civilians, and including children. If Palestinians cared about their children, they would raise them to not attack Israel. Apparently, they cannot or will not. This is the consequence. Israel is not there to exact an eye for an eye. They are there to destroy any threat to their security. That means destroying Hamas and all who support them.
So it's war and Israel considers all Palestinian children as threats.
Again, prove that it's indiscriminate? You don't know what the IDF knows, so you can only be propagandizing with statements like that. You want Israel to be indiscriminately bombing Gaza, because of how that changes the appearance of the situation.
Hang on you just said every child is a threat and they are going after every threat but that's not indiscriminate or genocide?
And, what does this have to do with creating a solution to the war? You advocate for peace, but you ignore what will happen to Israel if they lay down their weapons. What happens to the Palestinians if they surrender? Will they be destroyed? What happens to Israel? I bet you won't answer.
I'm advocating for liberation of Palestinian people and the destruction of the Zionist state.
You can't pretend that those calling for peace are calling for the destruction of Israel and should be suppressed. Israel has not disappeared in peace time during the last 75 odd years, in fact it keeps getting stronger and bigger.
It would be wise to stop attacking the giant bear that has the power to oppress and destroy you.
So don't defend yourself from this angry bear that thinks you are a threat and wants to kill or oppress you even if you haven't done anything yet.
You really said the quiet part out loud in this comment.
Proportionality is important in international law which is one of the reasons that the UN keeps calling out Israel for war crimes. Another cool fact in international law is that the threat to national security has to be imminent to strike into another country. They can't just bomb in retaliation and say they are preventing future attacks.
Big Zionist misinformation here, population numbers going up can not disqualify acts from being genocidal. Also black people participated in South African society in the same way but no one would say SA wasn't an apartheid state because a minority existed in the army or parliament.