- i mean yes u cannot make money out of teenagers but damn replit's Vibe coding tool is fucking good. Better than Lovable or Bolt any day.
just to give u a perspective from a 20year old kid from a 3rd world county
I don't get all these vibe coding tools when Claude is better than any of them
No need to think about how/where to deploy, cloud platforms (AWS, GCP, Azure), etc. Just vibe and deploy.
(He did end up moving off the platform once he had enough validation)
The percentage of programmers with side projects they deploy themselves is very small. I’d guess less than 10% have a side project deployed somewhere. (And these days
replit has made it like, even a 11 year old can make something out of thin air and acutally publish it to get a link to share
“Terrorist sympathizer” and “successful businessperson” (or “rich person”) are completely orthogonal. Building a successful business does not necessarily change your terrorist sympathisation status. You can be a rich terrorist sympathiser.
feels like sophistry
the article connects the two, so they are not orthonogonal either:
> But even as things got noisy in public, Masad met eerie silence professionally. “My calendar was suddenly empty, because I was talking about Palestine,” he said. “Replit was not a hot company anymore. We did a layoff. And at the same time, a lot of my friends were no longer my friends. I was no longer invited to parties.”
> Potential partnerships dried up. Masad became a frequent topic in pro-Israel tech groupchats, a source said, where some investors accused him of being antisemitic.
> A Replit investor who requested anonymity to speak candidly told me Masad’s public persona has been “really challenging,” and he’s had to defend the founder in investor circles. I asked if Masad had lost business because of his views. “I’m sure the answer is yes,” the investor said.
The headline frames this as a paradox, as if these two things are incompatible. But they aren't mutually exclusive, he can be both.
They have a video of people from this group attacking police with sledgehammers. It is strange how much of this 'direction action' is harming Ukraine support and not Israel. If people wanted to support Palestine they can do it without attacking their own countries' military - which is not operating in Israel at all.
> "she was murdered by ICE"
They have a video of her being shot, pretty much needlessly. I'd say that should be manslaughter at a minimum.
Do you have the name or names of the person accused of 'attacking police with sledgehammers'?
I've heard a lot about this, but it's difficult to get to actual sources about exactly what is alleged.
Even if this did happen as you say. attachking police with sledgehammers is assault, potentially even attempted murder. There's plenty of laws for that.
It's not terrorism.
You should be less flippant.
The accused's name is Samuel Corner. He and his friends are still on trial for their actions.
Here's the bodycam footage where you see Samuel Corner attack police seargent Kate Evans with a sledgehammer while she was on the ground, fracturing her spine. Watch from 3m05s to 3m10s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6P7p_5D4hw
The police seargent is now disabled:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g1r15eo
> It's not terrorism.
The group's stated aim is to stop the UK or any UK companies giving Israel any military support. They target companies who they think supply Israel. They break in and smash them, and as you've hopefully just seen with your own eyes, they are not afraid to attack people with sledgehammers. They use violence to achieve their political aim. They are terrorists and belong in prison.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dzq41n4l9o
> Samuel Corner, 23, [...] Oxford University graduate from Devon [...] when asked why he struck Sgt Evans with the sledgehammer, he replied: "It was me not really knowing what I was doing
Thanks Samuel. That Oxford degree really shows, doesn't it?
Pretty solid basis for direct action.
If they provided this level of support for Russia, they'd be a new Belarus.
The mental effort a lot of people has made to pretend they aren't entirely powerless and irrelevant for stopping Israel's crimes is deeply impressive. The reality is that there's nothing the UK can do to stop Israel as long as the US is supporting them (short of going to war with both the US and Israel), but this reality is at odds with the desire to do something, so people invent and inflate leverage where there isn't any. Moreover, most of the time the very same people oppose creating more leverage for the future, as your added qualifier of "post-colonial" implies. It's depressing.
How is direct action on Palestine impacting Ukraine support? (We are also not intervening in Ukraine)
Not direct intervention; but we fly sorties, provide intelligence, ship military equipment, build systems for... None of which we provide Israel for their current war.
It's just odd to me that Israel draws so much Ire when the UK deals with all sorts. There are many worse things happening that doesn't get a second of airtime.
Multiple sources linked on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_Gaza_wa...
You mean the group that sneaked in and damaged a bunch of UK Military’s planes on a military base? Was this the action that put them into the terrorist category?
Apparently our standards have dropped so low that spray painting a couple of planes and embarrassing the UK military now puts you on par with those other organisations.
There are lots of violent criminals who harm businesses and injure, or even kill people. They should be prosecuted and imprisoned. It's not illegal to say "I support <name of criminal or criminal gang>", even if people strongly disagree with you.
However, by showing they could break into an RAF base and spraypaint the planes - that says to me that the RAF are completely shit at their job, how can they protect their base from Russians if they can't even keep out local criminals - embarrassed the Government, and the government retaliated by making it illegal to say you support them.
Say it out loud? Criminal. Wear a t-shirt? Criminal. Hold a placard? Criminal.
Might as well just hold up blank sheets of paper and wait for the police to arrest you because they know what you want to write on them, like they do in Russia.
To me, that's a free speech issue. What an affront to free speech it is. Saying you support criminal scumbags should not be a crime. You should be able to say you support a bunch of violent yahoos, to whoever will listen to you, and I should be able to laugh at you and call you a simpleton for your idiot beliefs.
Broadly speaking though, I agree. What they did was criminal damage, undoubtedly, I have no problem arresting and prosecuting people for that. But I don't believe that it's terrorism, nor that it would have been so unpopular had it not been bloody embarrassing for the armed forces. Honestly, bolt cutters and some paint should not be grounding some of your air defence.
I do wonder how sustainable it is as a business though. I expect Replit is sending the majority of that money to the big AI labs through API costs
As soon as anything becomes serious you're going to try and take it off Replit and use something like Claude Code and AWS etc
This sentence would be better without the scare quotes. Something like "calling out those in tech who support what he views as a genocide."
1. Ukraine’s media restrictions are virtually non-existent when compared to those enforced by the Israelis in Gaza, including the intentional bombing of media offices. Keep in mind that Hamas has repeatedly called upon Israel to allow foreign press and NGOs to visit and see what’s happening on the ground.
2. The Ukraine war is a conventional war between sovereign nations with standing militaries with equivalent capabilities (air force, anti-air defenses, armored vehicles, bomb shelters, etc). The Gaza genocide is an onslaught by a sovereign nation with a well equipped military against a militant group in a dense urban area. Leveling entire city blocks when fighting against an opponent that has no air force or anti-air capabilities is not only unimpressive, but also breaks the principle of proportionality.
2. You're making a bunch of separate accusations without connecting them to the topic at hand, which was press restrictions.
Let me reiterate: Ukraine is a sovereign nation with a sovereign military that has the ability to enforce restrictions within its own territory.
To bring your bad analogy more in line with reality on the ground, imagine if Ukraine was still part of/occupied by the USSR/Russia, and Russia enforced press restrictions across all of Ukrainian territory during a Ukrainian insurgency. However, in this theoretical USSR, Ukrainians did not get Soviet citizenship, and were under a total blockade.
> The only major difference is that Ukraine is >1000x larger, and has safe areas far from any fighting where such press restrictions aren't needed.
But Israel never allowed press into the strip, even during “ceasefire” periods - like right now! This implies that Israel is not somehow paternalistically concerned for press safety; it simply wants a media blackout.
So no, this “major difference” is irrelevant when comparing restrictions between the two conflicts.
> and Russia enforced press restrictions across all of Ukrainian territory
Your analogy isn't very different from reality. Russia does enforce press restrictions near military assets, including in occupied parts of Ukraine.
> However, in this theoretical USSR, Ukrainians did not get Soviet citizenship, and were under a total blockade.
That would seem very unfair, if Russia did it just because they're mean and not because this hypothetical Ukraine had launched tens of thousands of rockets at them. But I'm not sure what it has to do with press restrictions.
> even during “ceasefire” periods
The ceasefire was pretty much dead once Hamas attacked IDF soldiers in Rafah. Now it's just a lower-intensity conflict. Still not a great idea to have random journalists waltzing around and tweeting photos of military assets.
> it simply wants a media blackout
This is a funny explanation because there are millions of cameras in Gaza anyway, and this is the second most covered conflict (by metrics like article count) in all of human history. Not much of a "blackout" at all.
On one side, two sovereign nations setting press restrictions in areas they control. Standard stuff.
On the other side, a genocidal state blockading a tiny strip of land for 20 years waging a campaign that has killed & maimed so many children that we have lost count unilaterally enforcing a total international media blackout. Also standard stuff.
Silly me, how could I even argue about this? It’s just so damn obvious! Sometimes, arguing with random anons on HN pays off :)
Hamas casualties make up only a portion of palestinian casualties; palestinian casualties make up only a portion of excess deaths; excess deaths make up only a portion of total deaths.
It’s not clear that Hamas limits their counts to excess deaths. Even if they intended to, a lot of it is based on a web form, with not much validation besides basic checks that the person exists etc.
As with pretty much any conflict, there's a ton of uncertainly, and people shouldn't be recklessly speculating based on things like WhatsApp chats. Responsible casualty estimates would look more like Ukraine, where for example Zelenskyy said "tens of thousands" (one significant digit) were killed in Mariupol.
>the casualty count that Hamas claims
The Gaza Health Ministry's count is widely regarded as an underestimate, but mostly by people who don't refer to it with a dogwhistling caveat.
50,000 births by july of 2024 (starting with october 7th 2023) [2]
you can sum and extrapolate the numbers. you can probably find more numbers about births
[1] https://www.savethechildren.net/news/about-130-children-born...
[2] https://www.savethechildren.net/news/women-self-inducing-lab...
You mean Hamas’ estimate? Why do you think Hamas would underestimate their death toll?
And yes, it has.
Scare quotes don’t mean that it’s not true.
More plainly on my part, though I'm worried sounds like berating when the comments are viewed consecutively: what does that have to do with the article we are discussing?
No matter what the political views, running into "real" money radicalizes most people and gives them the impression that they reached a superior evolutionary stage that uniquely entitles them... no, demands from them that they bend society and human civilization to their will, reshape it in their image, make it better because they are better. A sort of messianic complex.
This is the famous horseshoe paradox that says extremes are closer to each other than to the center. They might look completely different in their views but in reality they're back to back in the same place. 2 sides of the same coin. Different imprint, same value.
Compared to when? How many times in history has wealth been less concentrated?
As far as I'm aware, for almost all of history post-agriculture, wealth was highly concentrated while the average person lived in abject poverty (think: kings vs peasants). The mid-20th century was an era of mass prosperity in the US and parts of Europe, but it was an anomalous few decades, not the norm.
But to those living and remembering that era - it was the norm that they (we) compare with, so it is the reference that matters.
That is what has changed.
Mostly all of them! There have been periods where inequality dropped, but mostly it's been rising since at least the 1300s. I'm on mobile and can't link research, but there are a few papers that investigate this.
> As far as I'm aware, for almost all of history post-agriculture, wealth was highly concentrated while the average person lived in abject poverty (think: kings vs peasants).
And yet it was less unequal than now, an era where we've managed to use technology to concentrate wealth at an unprecedented scale. No longer is the richest person you know the king who collects your taxes next door, now it's a SV trillionaire on the other side of the world.
Is 'Zionism' the expansion of Israel into other territories?
Is 'Zionism' the belief that Israel and the majority of the world's Jews shouldn't be exterminated?
I thought it meant the first, lately I think people are meaning the second.
It consists mainly of christians. If you assemble ten random zionists most or all of them will be christians, not jews.
If you want to learn more you could do worse than follow Zachary Foster's lectures for the Rutgers Center:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zachary+foster+...
The podcast The Empire Never Ended has recently finished a rather good series on Meir Kahane, one of the most important influences on contemporary zionism:
Yes. And one side of the coin supports and justifies colonialism, apartheid and even genocide; the other side fights against it.
Like the other comment here: I just have much better outcomes with the same prompts with other tools. That is all I meant to say.
Unfortunately they added a limit to the number of collaborators per account and we had to stop using it.
Of course, smartphones' cameras are so good and accessible, but not anyone who became a professional photographer?
And of course, isn't software engineering far beyond than simply writing code in any form - whether in English or in symbols?
The problem is, when there are no trainee and junior positions (and, increasingly, intermediate) being filled any more... there is no way for people to rise to senior levels. And that is going to screw up many industries hard.
Now there’s one or two guys out there with a total station and/or drone. You’ve gone from 10 techs/junior positions per surveyor to 1. The average surveyor is something like 60 years old and has no successor lined up.
engineering: implementing an 8088 emulator
science: discovering a way to make an 8088 emulator using quantum computing
Software engineering is systems and measurement.
Capacity planning, growth rates, algorithmic complexity (typically not to the point of designing new fundamental algorithms), durability, DR, eventual consistency, race conditions, schema design, systems architecture, instrumentation, statistics, sampling, more measurement, tech debt maintenance and pragmatism, online migrations, designing for five nines uptime ...
Programming is turning requirements into code with or without respect to these higher level criteria. The implementation detail.
"Engineering would be programming, but well" fits :)
Unfortunately their tooling locks me out from doing that and I wouldn't get help from their team after asking twice and getting moved to several different support members of their team. They just ghosted me and so I left and took my business elsewhere. Doesn't seem like it was made for advanced users.
Unfortunate.
When I pointed out that Saudi Arabia has its own abysmal human rights record, Masad drew a contrast.
“I just think about how Replit is going to be used. Like, Israel is actively committing genocide and ethnic cleansing, and if you sell to the government there, it’s possible that they’re going to use it for that,” he said, pointing to the country’s use of Microsoft cloud services to track Palestinians’ phone calls. (After an investigation by The Guardian, Microsoft said it disabled the services that made the tracking possible in September."
(come on, it's just a joke. we're still allowed to laugh at jokes, right?)
Is Saudi Arabia a human rights violator? Yeah and so is a bunch of western governments. But no modern government comes close to the abuses of the Israeli government and Israeli military. This is the view of the free people of this world.
Not only there is not a good argument for considering 1948 war a genocide on Palestinians but there is a much stronger argument Arabs have tried to genocide Jews (especially to those who think who think there was a genocide in Gaza because of starvation as a weapon of war + intent):
1. In 1948 Arab forces besieged Jerusalem and they were starting to run out of food.
2. Azzam Pasha, General Secretary of the Arab League, famously threatened "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre", Fawzi al-Qawuqji, commander of the Arab Liberation Army said that "we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish.". Hell, several have even extended the threats to not just the Jews of Mandatory Palestine, but to Jews of the Arab world as a whole, such as Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Said("if a satisfactory solution of the Palestine case was not reached, severe measures should be taken against all Jews in Arab countries.") or the head of the Egyptian delegation to the General Assembly, Muhammad Hussein Heykal("the lives of 1,000,000 Jews in Muslim countries would be jeopardized by the establishment of a Jewish state." ). As Matiel Mughannam, head of the Arab Women's Organization in Palestine put it in an interview with Nadia Lourie in January 1948, "The UN decision has united all Arabs, as they have never been united before, not even against the Crusaders.... [A Jewish state] has no chance to survive now that the `holy war' has been declared. All the Jews will eventually be massacred. " (See Benny Morris' 1948 for sources on all of these)
not to refute the difference in extent but this is somewhat notable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahyan_airstrike
Gaza is a welcome aberration.
Let's try Elon Musk then: "He was called a 'fascist'. Now, his tech company is valued $1.5T"
This is the way, right?
I guess it means almost as little as "fascist" then.
Not sure what about this is contrarian.
But you can tell it’s all motivated reasoning. Standing with your tribe. It’s not much of a matter of honour. It’s just flashing your banners.
In the end, they are wealthy, but they are just people. And they have all these things and why do I really care what Ja Rule has to say about the new cyclone.
Yes, it would be dishonorable to be mercenary, but being a tribalist is merely the default position. We’re all so at some scale.
I suspect most people that spend their time online ranting out 'zionists' (meaning 98% of Jews) haven't bothered to read any Herzl.
Whenever I read about that or the disasters that ensued in the following centuries I always spend a day depressed.
Grim.
Arab were the only folks who accepted Jews in the first place as they sought refuge from Nazi Europe
You can also look up arab violence and laws against Jews at any time you like. When the belief system mentions fighting Jews at the end of time when the trees will reveal them (except the evil Jew loving tree, yes really) you tend to act on those beliefs.
In regard to religion itself, like the other post said, he couldn't really care less and even advocated for Jews to convert to Christianity at a time, seeing it as another solution to the discrimination they're facing: "I see myself as an average modern Jew and I'm not afraid from the idea of a formal conversion to Christianity. I have a son, and I'd prefer converting today and not tomorrow so that his membership will start earlier and I can save him from the troubles and discrimination he'll face as a Jew".
I already explained why your first "quote" is false: Hertzel didn't think Jews should move to Israel because it was promised to them.
The second one is also completely wrong: He never called for expelling the native population, and he actually advocated for close and good contacts with them and the surrounding countries.
The push for a Zionist state started and accelerated in the 1920s to the end of the 1930s. Most of the Jews that moved from Europe to Palestine, which was part of modern day Israel, were by the Zionists. Reason is because the only jobs at the time were farming so people would have to give up their current triad.
Number of these individuals actually supported fascism. Even after WWII the mind set was not that fascism was bad but poorly implemented. That mind set was shared by a number of Germans and Jews that moved to Palestine before Israel became a state.
It was not until the late 1960s that younger culture started to shift that mind set to fascism is bad.
If you think I am wrong about the summation of the book ... read it.
[0] https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300253375/culture-in-naz...
It's a hundred pages. If someone hasn't read it, or even a summary, they have little knowledge of Zionism. WW2 was far after the modern return of Jews to Israel.
I grew up in a very left leaning, pro terrorism household. I was absolutely wrong about what Zionism was - not a 'God promised me this because I'm special" as I was told but rather "racism means we need a homeland let's all go back to Israel".
You might as well say that Republicans are the party that fought the Confederates and freed the slaves. It is not true today.
In the world, Jews discriminate against Jews, Christians discriminate against Christians, Muslims discriminate Muslims, ... A religious state can only have one variant of religion that is deemed the right variation even though multiple variations exist.
The closest thing to a non bigot and discriminating state is one that is not built on religion but accepts other people and allows them to exercise their variation of religion.
Earth is the home land of humans not a politically divided territory.
Jews are an ethnoreligious group. You can be an atheist and return to Israel if you want. 20% of the population is Arab, with more rights than most Arab countries, for example Arabs in Israel vote for Arab politicians that argue with other Arab politicians in the Knesset, in Arabic.
Likewise Druze are more protected in Israel than they are in the rest of the middle East.
> prevent bigotry and discrimination
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Jews, Asians and Europeans.
Jews have been in the Levant longer than they’ve been in Germany. (And in both for less time than they’ve been in America.)
The problem is with the notion of a homeland. Whose ancestors had what claim to something shouldn’t have bearing on how people are treated today.
Americans and Europeans have the false notion that Israeli Jews are predominantly European. They are not.
The land of Israel has been developed in such a way that it has become completely different from what it was one century ago, and there is no doubt that its previous owners could have never succeeded to do a similar development, due to a combination of lacking both the financial means and the skilled labor capabilities.
While I believe that returning the land would be unjust at this time, I also believe that the never-ending war between Israelis and their neighbors can be stopped in only 2 ways, one of which is not acceptable in the modern world and which would bring eternal shame on Israel if they would ever succeed to realize it.
The second option is for Israel to do the same that Israel has demanded and has obtained from states like Germany. This means that Israel should admit that they have occupied the land by force and they should repair this by paying a just compensation to the remaining descendants of the former inhabitants, exactly like Israel has received from countries responsible for the oppression against Jews during WWII.
All land, everywhere. It is NOT a natural right that anyone owns any land, nor that any countries exist. That is something everyone's ancestors fought each other for and created as a system of human society.
Of course that's written in the past tense. Facing reality rather than the fantasy presented in history books and documentaries; not only did our ancestors do that, it hasn't stopped. The bloodshed still happens today in so many places. Those we might hear about in the news, and others forgotten even in the news because it is considered normal and thus ignored.
We are not yet a species of plenty. Scarcity still exists, at the very least in the real form of land where people want to be.
You're broadly correct. But there is land that was settled within the historical record.
The Levant, obviously, is not that. It was settled prior to the historical record. It is the coast closest to our cradle of civilisation. Every human with ancestry outside Africa has some sort of claim to lineage to that land.
Antarctica is Earth's southernmost and least-populated continent.
Situated almost entirely south of the Antarctic Circle and surrounded by the Southern Ocean [ and ] is the fifth-largest continent, being about 40% larger than Europe, and has an area of 14,200,000 km2 (5,500,000 sq mi).
There was no one to "take it from" and when it was divided up by "Great powers" that was more by competition (race to open routes) and some notion of good sport:
Antarctica was claimed by several states since the 16th century, culminating in a territorial competition in the first half of the 20th century when its interior was explored and the first Antarctic camps and bases were set up.
Then there are the more remote parts of Australia, nominally "taken" by the English (despite not being reached for some time) and later returned (post Mabo) to the descendants of what seems likely to be first settlers some tens of thousands of years past (the multiple waves of settlement arguments and other aspects of the History Wars in the Black Armband / Quadrant circles are looking thin in these days of genetic markers).
But that one's a complex can of worms that takes some time to unpack.
That's always been the case with nations who lost wars. Germany lost the war and lost land because of it. Should Germany take back land that was "brutally taken from them"?
Or should they maybe just accept that they shouldn't have started the war? The Germans certainly have accepted that.
Practically? In 2026? As long as you can keep it. We're back to deciding borders through force versus treaty. Which, based on the rhetoric around Gaza, is ambiguously worse.
Okay? So are most American Jews.
Most humans can legitimately claim ancestry to the Levant. It's the coast closest to the cradle of civilization.
There is absolutely evil happening in Gaza. But pretending this is black-and-white, from an ocean away, is just alienating. It turns what should be a broad political discussion into a niche issue.
Arabs aren't native to Palestine. Jews are. They were present in Palestine before the name Palestine was ever used.
That is called birthright and the way I see it, it applies to both groups. And the conflict will never be solved (without large scale genocide), if both groups largely negate the other groups rights.
But let's be clear on this: Jews that are not currently in Israel have no right to immigrate there. Jews that are in Israel have no right on any part of the land that isn't already part of Israel proper; and finally, Jews (exactly as much as Palestinians do) have a right to life, property and safety but not necessarily to their own political entity.
To me it seems close to the arguments of the jewish who see themself as native, "just" on a larger timescale. There is no easy solution that I can see. (except letting go of fanatism)
But yes, the question of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees is a tough one; but I think it's a distraction. The very minimum the international community should force Israel to, is to withdraw within the 1967 border and cease any interference with the territory and sovereignty of Palestinians. It won't happen because the goal of Israelis and Zionists everywhere is to conquer as much land as they can, and a constant state of attrition is the excuse they need to keep settling more ethnically-cleansed land.
Saying “individuals of that race are the reason racists hate all of them” is a circular explanation for racism.
Blaming individuals within the victim race for the racism is itself racist but also illogical. Someone who wasn’t already a racist wouldn’t start hating the whole group because of individuals.
Just because something's wrong, that doesn't mean it's illogical. A logical conclusion from flawed premises is still logical.
Your reason for them becoming a racist depends on them already being a racist.
Anyway, we’re going in circles here. Some people are racists because they are assholes. Many people are racist because they are trained in a culture that encourages racism against certain groups.
All racists point to the actions of individuals as “evidence” or “justification” or “cause” of their racism.
Moreover, no country is perfect, and we shouldn't have double standards just for Israel. Can you identify any other Middle Eastern country that compares favorably, in terms of diversity and tolerance of all religions and ethnicities?
'I believe whites need to hold all authority in the United States, and must have a permanent demographic majority (for practical reasons, of course)'
then you might call me a white supremacist. I might reply:
'I'm not a supremacist, we must secure self-determination in order to secure the future of our people.'
You would gently remind me that this is exactly what a supremacist is.
So yes, please, no double standards. Also, the rest of the Middle East is just as bad, no arguments there, but it's beside the point.
Others have a right to live in the region too, hence proposals to share the land, such as the partition plan or the 2000 Camp David offer.
- You could say that antisemites are a cause of Zionism, but that doesn't mean they intentionally support it. Not all antisemites are of the "go back to Palestine" type.
- Just as "antisemitism" doesn't actually mean hate of Semetic people, "antizionism" doesn't actually mean opposition to Zionism. Instead it developed into a rather separate hate movement. Many antizionism ostensibly support a 2SS, which would mean they actually support rather than oppose Zionism, but are nonetheless part of the antizionism movement.
It’s not a racial issue either, because my friends who are first generation Asian, Indian, etc, would all share the same sentiment. America is the most welcoming place on Earth for immigrants who are willing to put up even the smallest effort to assimilate into the culture.
I’m not aware of anywhere with no racism. Humans are tribal and broad stereotypes are intellectually lazy but easy.
I’m not shocked. I also don’t believe that “not as bad as…” is the same as “not a real problem.”
Getting stabbed twice in the side missing a major organ/artery isn’t as bad as getting shot twice in the heart, but both are very serious and painful.
I don’t take seriously your attempt to hide it behind a supposed “observed factual reality.” This is similar to how eugenicists made up their own fake science to try to justify racism.
People are well within their rights to take xenophobic hate personally.
No they aren't. Even if you narrow it down just to white Americans, British ancestry is almost even with German and does not hold a majority once you include Irish, Italian, etc. [1]
I don't blame you for thinking they are tough, as Anglo culture and language has been unusually dominant, probably because the original 13 colonies were very Anglo and the whites that trickled in later largely assimilated. "Albion's seed" is an interesting book on this topic.
[1]: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/10/2020-census-d...
Edit: British doesn't usually denote an ethnic group so I took it to mean Anglo, but if you take it to mean Anglo+Celtic then it would indeed make a majority of whites in the US due to the very large Irish population.
That's fair but I'll also point out that pan-Germanic (including Nordic) ancestry is actually the majority in many Midwest and West coast states, while the northeast is obviously very Anglo. So you can get a very different impression depending where you spend your time.
People are multifaceted. We’re complex and sometimes irrational. I can also believe that you can share certain views yet still not be fully embraced or respected for them.
As a crude example, a Caucasian man who was born and raised in Japan thought of himself to be Japanese ideologically. Yet to the Japanese he was always an outsider - as a result, he has never felt truly at home anywhere.
I hope there is some humanity left in this country.
See, this is what grinds my effing gears. On one hand you have a party "calling" for the "annihilation" of Israel. On the other hand, you have a part who is calling for the annihilation of palestinians AND they are ACTIVELY doing it. But no, you have to draw an equivalence somehow ...
This is not something the state of Israel will accept and is quite blatant in declaring that they would prefer to keep up the genocide.
I'll give the writer this -- they conveyed a lot of information in just one short first sentence. I read a bit farther, but it didn't tell me anything I couldn't already guess from that sentence.