What is the anti-Zionist solution for Israel to continue to exist and its citizens to be safe and free of terrorism? 

Naziism has nothing to do with economic stability. I was referring to the white picket fence. And nuclear families are fine for those who want them and can be fine for a wife if her husband isn’t a fucking jackass. To be clear: Naziism bad. Economic stability (as evidenced by home ownership with a white picket fence) good. Nuclear family a viable life choice. 

Sounds like he is a moron with some fascist sympathies, then. 

Pregnancy should not lead to job loss. You should not be forced to choose between family and career. Because that choice is overwhelmingly forced upon women and almost never on a man, it is rooted in sexism. 

Also, the meritocracy is a myth. Pretending that people who work harder get the best outcomes ignores racism, sexism, privilege, cronyism, etc. 

Zionism historically is rooted in trying to escape from antisemitism. Which, to be clear, exists in every nation in the world to varying degrees. Can Jews live safely in the Us? Mostly. It’s an antisemitism that isn’t currently killing people. But the US would not accept the population of Israel to live safely here, so it’s moot. 

So back in 1948 when Jews were trying to find a place to go after the Holocaust, the state of Israel was formed. Jews, having been betrayed by all of the nations in Europe and all nations that could have taken them in as refugees (including the US), but didn’t, decided to form a nation state. The rest of the world agreed, but couldn’t figure out where to put them. Other places were suggested, but nobody wanted to cede territory. The combination of Britain pulling away from its empire and thus having no loss by ceding the land they had been governing for almost half a century and the historical roots of the Jewish race in Israel led to them choosing Israel. (They didn’t care about the population already living there since they were pulling out anyway.) 

 Thus Israel was initially formed as a refugee state. Everyone who moved there did so in order to escape anti-semitism, not to create a new colony and impose their will upon others.  

 NOW, dismantling Israel would… do what? Like how would that happen? Jews being forced to move… where? These descendants of Holocaust refugees would be welcomed… where?  Expansion of Israeli territory into Gaza and the West Bank could be argued to be colonialist, could be argued to be an overreaction in defense of Israel’s right to exist. I will say it’s not okay how many many people have died since October 7. But I don’t understand why people are forgetting the history of the nation of Israel and ignoring the impossibility of doing away with that nation’s sovereignty and existence. 

I mean, nothing against the white picket fence with blonde people lifestyle. Wishing for a family and economic stability is valid, and if you’re blonde and your spouse is blonde, your kid will likely be blonde. 

But who tf can argue that Naziism is a thing of the past if they’re beyond 4th grade. Seems fishy. Reeks of “Oops. My joke didn’t go over as I thought and I don’t want to be cancelled.” It’s either that or he is a genuine moron. Neither are good looks. 

Name one country that would accept an influx of Jewish refugees from Israel (like the whole population) and allow them to live as they wish peacefully without antisemitism or forced assimilation. 

Israel as a nation was created out of the British Mandate after WWII in part because no other nation wanted to cede territory for a Jewish state let alone accept refugees from the Holocaust. 

Not saying Israel is perfect or what they’re doing in Gaza and the West Bank is okay, but let’s not pretend that Israelis have another place to go. 

Trump’s cult following and narcissism won’t be paired with Project 2025 if they try it with a different president. A different president wouldn’t call for insurrection when he loses because he isn’t a delusional narcissist who can’t believe he would lose legitimately. I think we have a better chance if we can keep Trump out of the White House. 

Christofascism is the biggest threat to the US right now. 

I agree… as long as Trump is off the ballot. Right now he’s the first danger. And then, yes, the fact that the parties basically pick the primary nominees, gerrymander districts, use the electoral college to circumvent the popular vote, and collude with each other in other ways is the next danger. 

I’d vote 3rd party in 2028 as long as Trump stays off the ballot. 

The thing about Trump is January 6. A man who literally cannot believe he legitimately lost the election is delusional. A man who cannot apologize or concede defeat is narcissistic. A man who has these qualities PLUS a large following who will do whatever he asks, compares him to their literal God (Jesus), and believes he can do no wrong is uniquely dangerous.

An average Republican would have some abhorrent policies, but I doubt he would have the combination of cult following, narcissism, and delusion that Trump has.

78 is 22 points below average...

Fine. Prosecute all the criminals. Not worshipping your leader and holding them accountable for doing wrong is a very important part of maintaining our democracy. This is why Trump deserves his charges. The whole "I won't deny Trump did it, but I will try to justify him by claiming other people also deserve prosecution" doesn't work because... yes! Prosecute them all!

And what about Trump... it's a "who is worse" question, now, not whether or not the emails or his dementia matters. Of course they matter. But Trump as a narcissistic cult leader has the power to cause more harm than any of these other candidates.

It's not about electing a Democrat... it's about keeping Trump out of the White House. Narcissists who can't concede defeat and have a cult following are dangerous to our democracy.

Pretending these things don't exist? I watched January 6 live on the news. Project 2025 has a website. Legit terrifying. Falling for the fallacy of "I'm a Republican, so Republicans can never do that?"

Many of us voted red for years until 2020. How many times have you voted against your cult? Name one thing your narcissistic leader has done wrong. If you can't admit Trump has caused many, MANY problems, you are the one in the cult.

THIS year? THIS year with Donald Trump as our options? If the Dems get a humiliating defeat, they might never get another chance to run for office. Trump can't admit defeat. I don't know if someone who is this narcissistic that he can't even admit he lost will ever leave the White House once he gets in again. He already proved he can stoke a rebellion.

Sadly, there are many ways in which society is harkening back to the 19th and early 20th century... -.-

I think there are a small number of whackos who legitimately believe this. I think there is a larger number of whackos who use the whackos who believe this to denigrate and denounce the LGBTQ+ community.

I read it. But I am responding to your statement: "Remember, harms are evidentiary, so it's not like I can proclaim "harm" and sue. Courts have to find you actually have a case."

1. Publicly calling out someone for creating harm, if false, causes harm itself.
2. You can sue people, and that causes harm even if they're not found guilty as it damages their reputation, costs them time and money, and can have a lasting impact on their career.

If you can't rebut my points, don't bother commenting. "Reread something you already read because I don't want to respond" is a pointless response.

So, I can see both sides here. The danger with lawsuits is very possible:

SCENARIO 1 Imagine that a pharmaceutical company invented a drug. The drug went through FDA approval and all the current methods of study and proof of safety. It was sold on the market for 25 years and became the gold standard in curing various diseases. Now imagine that, unbeknownst to everyone, the drug caused those who took it to die after taking it long-term for 30 years. Imagine that the only hint of this would be something like a study on rats that was buried and hidden. Imagine that a scientist stumbled upon this study and wanted to expand it and do more research to challenge the status quo and get people off this drug. But, out of fear of challenging the status quo and being prosecuted, the scientist doesn't. (And before you argue that this wouldn't happen because of the rigorous checks in approving drugs, remember Thalidomide or, more recently, check out all the new side-effects coming out about using Ozempic).

SCENARIO 2: In another scenario, a scientist discovers a possible new cure for a certain type of cancer. It requires a lot of testing, but a few preliminary tests show inconclusive results. Because the results are inconclusive, the scientist is afraid of moving forward and publishing anything that might lead to him being prosecuted.

On the other hand, the Wakefield study itself proves that the scientific community has a lot of internal problems.

One of them is this sanctification of the status quo. True science is always supposed to be open to change when presented with new information. It is never supposed to be dogmatic and fixed because upholding the current belief system helps maintain a financial influx for those who are profiting therefrom. No scientist, doctor, pharmacist, etc is supposed to be unquestionable. Even a newbie should be able to ask and receive answers from the most prestigious and established doctor out there. Peer review *isn't* inviolable. And scientists are no longer unbiased.

Another problem with the modern scientific community goes hand-in-hand with the aforementioned: the financial aspects. Aside from corporations and powerful elites using "science" as a way to justify their profits, there is also a bias in grants and funding for research toward that which will help profit certain companies. This leaves certain avenues of scientific exploration closed off for financial reasons and not because they would not be fruitful in producing results and advancement.

Another problem is the infantilizing of the public by the scientific community. We are not idiots. Present us with the information that you have in non-jargon terms and allow us to draw our own conclusions. Don't spoon feed us the information you want us to have while leaving other things out because you want to *lead us* to a certain conclusion. Now, you could argue that Wakefield misled the scientists before misleading us, but part of the reason the public engages in stupid conspiracy theories is that the scientific community acts like it has something to hide because it's not presenting all of the data, but rather what it wants us to see. Wakefield was wrong about the MMR, but VAERS proves that vaccine injuries do exist. In a desire to combat anti-vaxxers, the scientific community's public interface wants to ignore that and the fact that pharmaceutical companies cannot be held accountable for those injuries.

So the argument could be that if the pharmaceutical companies can't be held accountable for real vaccine injuries, why should Andrew Wakefield be held accountable for falsifying information about vaccines? But I think that pharmaceutical companies and other scientists who cause harm by what they've created should be liable for the harm they cause just like corporations that release chemical pollutants over a community and causing cancer should have to pay. Thus, Wakefield could be sued, too. But only by those who were directly harmed by his publications... a child who had a permanent ailment from a disease that could have been prevented by vaccination, the family of someone who died from a disease that could have been prevented by vaccination, etc.

Being sued is harmful to someone's reputation, finances, career, etc. Just BEING sued, not even being found guilty.

Not to mention being publicly maligned. Proclaiming "harm" can cause harm in itself in the court of public opinion.

This. Both girls’ needs conflict, but it’s just as easy for Nicole to move or to not stay out late as for Ava to get noise makers and block the light. Easier, I think, as blocking sensory input is hard af. I don’t see why Nicole should get to do whatever she wants anymore than Ava. 

Best compromise: every other night a girl has to do what she doesn’t like to accommodate the other. 

This is not the year to risk it. Keeping Trump out of power needs to be high priority. 

Abusive