I have so much admiration for everyone involved in this. The stories of loss are unbearable.

But what is really, clearly unbearable, for Zionists, is to see that it’s possible to be scared and angry and still recognize the humanity in everyone, and seek peace over vengence.

It’s no wonder Zionists hate this event so much. Can you imagine seeing others demonstrate the courage and moral integrity you’ve abandoned? And knowing that it’s proof that contrary to your constant claims, you have no entitlement to your cruelty: you’re just a hateful, selfish monster?

It’s an incredible display of the power of unbreakable hope. May we all find peace and success soon, soon, soon.

As sick as all this is, I think of it as a positive development that it’s out in the open now.

Things were already terrible when Israeli society concealed this kind of behavior. At least now the ugliness is exposed to the world.

You’re welcome to your opinion, but what’s funny is that I live in Oakland in a household of three on a joint income of $160k. We live in a two bedroom apartment near Lake Merritt that costs $2500 per month. And we’re pretty comfortable.

It sounds like you and I are neighbors. If you’re having a harder time than I am I don’t want to invalidate your experience. But not everyone who feels financially constrained is poor, imo.

I saw it, and it said that a household of eight living on an income of $200k would be “low income”.

First, “low income” is not poor, either legally or in the informal definition of the word. Even according to the chart you’re referencing, $200k is far above the poverty line. It’s more than twice the cutoff for “extremely low income”.

Second, this is also based on an absurd qualifier: It’s only “low” if you’re trying to support seven dependents.

By this logic, $300k a year is poor too (if you’re supporting a household of 12), and a million a year is also poor (if you’re supporting a household of 40 in San Francisco).

This is silly. If your monthly income is $16k you aren’t poor.

You can still be broke. You can be in debt. But no: you are not poor.

I’m not saying that you can’t run out of money if you make $200k. I’m saying that it’s not poor.

If earning well above average in an area with a high concentration of high earners can be poor, the word means nothing.

$200k is not poor in San Francisco.

It’s still significantly above average, even in San Francisco.

I mean no offense, but I don’t think this is true.

I don’t think anyone who makes $200,000 a year is considered poor under legal definitions or under the casual common use of the term.

You could make $200k and be in debt. You could make $200k and be in a precarious situation. But I don’t think you can make $200k and qualify as in poverty, either legally or in the court of public opinion.

Okay, but that’s not what poor means.

No?

This question makes no sense.

I mean, the inputs into his decisions are simple, but also such a jumbled mess that it’s hard to be sure. But my hopeful guess is that he is finally looking for an overdue exit strategy, and his goal now is to agree to as many of Iran’s terms of ceasefire while obscuring the defeat as best as possible.

I’m hopeful this is a blustery move to look tough as the US forces capitulate and leave.

This story is wonderfully written.

While this may be true, never forget that what he says has no connection to the truth and are purely reflective of whatever words will produce the outcome he wants at a given moment.

I get the logic. But it’s still really dumb.

This is truly an April Fools-level move.

The US is closing the Strait? The generals couldn’t open it, so Hegseth said, ‘Okay! I’ve got it! We declare that WE’RE closing it, NOT THEM!’

How … is this better?

Wow that’s… kinda fire. Ngl.

I’m not a big fan of the IRGC, but that’s a banger of a diss track.

It’s pay walled for me

Wow, I’ll admit my guess was wrong: that’s a pretty clear endorsement of terrorism. I still don’t think she should be arrested.

Also I think it’s terrible journalism that they didn’t say specifically what she posted. That’s necessarily context. Thanks for sharing it.

This whole thing is Orwellian, but nothing more so imo than when stories like this report that someone was arrested for speech but doesn’t actually tell us what the offending speech was.

I think it’s pretty obvious that they know that they’ll get in trouble with the same people if they share the message. It’s quite sad.

I’m generally supportive of diplomacy, but I suspect that these delegations are only finding common ground on the worst fucking things.

I would second all of this, except for the suggestion to delete it. It’s a common question.

To reiterate, “biologically male” means very little scientifically. Sex in biology is far more complicated than most people understand.

It doesn’t matter, because when we discuss gender socially, we’re not describing reproductive capabilities. We don’t stop calling women women when they go through menopause, for instance.

If someone wants to debate it, say no thanks. It’s a waste of your time. If someone asks in good faith, you can explain it if you feel capable, or shrug and say you’re not really sure, but it doesn’t matter.