InappropriateEmote

one party is clearly more zealous about ending democracy than the other.

You don't get it. Bourgeois democracy is a sham. It has never served working people the way they tell you it has. "One party is clearly" blah blah blah. No. Both parties are playing one of the two roles of the "good cop/bad cop" routine. That's all this is! It can be true that one side can cause more damage while in power than the other side, but at this point, it's just batty (and wrong) to think that the side with the blue donkey logo is going to do less harm. Even if we forget that it's the latter side currently funding and helping orchestrate a fucking genocide, it only ramped up and made worse all the terrible policies implemented when the red elephant had ostensible control. Don't fall for it. Both "sides" (aka both cops) only want to fuck you over and they're doing it as a collaborative effort. Voting for either of them only sends the message that you have indeed fallen for the act and that you'll keep supporting them as long as they keep up that act, which of course they will. If you feel that voting serves a purpose, or that it can be still be used for good, then vote for someone who actually shares your ideals, which neither fascist cop does.

It's because journalism as a profession in the west is more about propaganda and manufacturing consent for the ruling class than it is about getting at the truth or reality of a situation. Their opinion is the only part that's actually necessary or relevant to their purpose. Any "investigation" they do is just a garnish to legitimize whatever narrative they're being paid to propagate. Why would they ask questions of people whose answers will probably contradict that narrative? It is clownishly unprofessional, but for a number of reasons, including just the sheer volume of "news" vying for attention, it's become less and less needed recently to provide that pretense of doing any investigation.

It's not a slur any more than calling someone a Nazi is a slur. In both cases, the fascists chose the term for themselves and use it to self-identify. Leftists likewise use the terms with all the derision they deserve. Simple as. If I call a Nazi a Nazi, it's not a slur just because I think Nazis are evil and disgusting and are in need of redacting. So too with Zionists.

If someone is using the term to describe themselves, but they (correctly) think that settler-colonialism is wrong and that the state of Israel is a genocidal ethnostate, then they are misusing the term, according to both the vast majority of Zionists as well as the people who oppose Zionism. As always, what is antisemitic is the equating of Zionism with Judaism, it is not antisemitic or saying a "slur" to accurately use the term Zionist as an epithet. It's disgusting but unsurprising how the Zionists keep harping on this to try to make themselves out to be the ones being persecuted.

I get what you're saying, everything the article is hand-wringing about is in reality extremely good and necessary, so any thinking person's reaction is "wait, you're saying that's bad?" But the author's perspective was clear from the get-go with lines like "Forget saving the planet - now she wants to save Palestine" You can just feel the smug eyeroll. And referring to activists as "climate zealots" in the byline. You can easily tell that Brenden feels revulsion for the people who feel revulsion for the capitalism that is so dear to his precious little heart.

The Preacher and the Slave as performed by Utah Phillips

Written by Joe Hill

Joe Hill was a labor activist and songwriter, active during the Progressive Era.

He was executed in 1915 at the age of 36, after being convicted of murder in Salt Lake City, Utah. The subsequent appeals garnered international publicity, with many activists alleging that Hill was an innocent scapegoat.

When people laugh by sucking air in over the sides of their tongue.

I'm confused by this and am having trouble making a mental model of what you're describing. Given the thread topic, I'll go ahead and admit that it's irking me just slightly that I can't figure out what you mean!

I can kinda picture laughing by pushing air out along the sides of your tongue, but sucking in? Whaaaa?? The only things I can conjure up that seems like it might be what you're talking about are:

1. When someone makes clicking sounds that way, as is commonly done to call a horse. (We don't have any horse emojis?! thought for sure we had at least a Canadian Mounty acab.) It can also be thrown in during regular speech to delay or break up speaking in a similar way to an "uhm" or "ehr" though its use is uncommon this way. Sometimes it can be done as an expression of like "I gotcha"
2. The sound someone might make when suddenly, unexpectedly experiencing pain but doesn't want to vocalize it. This is the kind of sound that results from sharply sucking in air and it's somewhat like a hiss but with the sides of the tongue giving it more of an audible edge than a typical hiss. It always goes along with facial wincing from the pain. Or,
3. A sound very similar to 2 that some people make that's actually like an expression of empathy at someone else's physical pain, again like an auditory wince or cringe, just usually not as sharp or intense. It also sort of works with the "yikes" response to something:

But those don't seem to line up with what I think you actually mean since none of those could be mistaken for laughter. Well, maybe the horse-call one could, possibly. Do you know of any easily found videos or the like that would demonstrate? Not to trigger your peeve.

I know this is a lot to write on something so trivial, but hey I'm having fun with it.

I'm kind of pissed that thread got locked. I get that sometimes "struggle session" threads need to get shut down because they just devolve into drama. But sometimes these things really need to be hashed out. Especially when there are so many upvotes for the liberals who think supporting Hamas is bad because bad optics. I honestly would not have guessed so many on this website would agree with the OP who was openly fed-jacketing the protest organizers for daring to say something that is true and correct, and that those organizers "ambushed" OP and their friends.

Just a heads up, OP: You posted about this in the general mega, not the newsmega.

lol, reread what you're responding to, comrade. Friendly fire.

Long reply incoming.

im extremely skeptical of fasting as being a universally applicable “booster”.

It's not universal, but it is broadly beneficial for most people, especially people with western diets. You can be skeptical of that, but it really is backed up by the science, with very clear physiological mechanisms explaining how and why it's beneficial. Anecdotally, almost everyone who gives it a try will also have positive things to say about it. Normally, I wouldn't really count that anecdotal thing in, but I'm not just talking about people trying new internet trends here, we're talking about something on a scale of (for example) hundreds of millions or more Muslims who do fasting as a spiritual practice and religious observance.

As far as coinciding with the tendencies you mentioned, once again... fasting is not some new fad. It may have gained some mainstream popularity (as it has in the past since fads are often cyclic) and is recently getting discussed in the same rounds along with actual fad diets, but like I mentioned before, fasting is something that almost every major religion has incorporated in some way. You talk about listening to our bodies and the folly of trying to repress our desires but a major, even basic part of listening to our bodies is learning how to balance our desires. I'd agree that there has been a puritanical current especially in American culture that demonizes natural and healthy desires resulting in their repression in deeply unhealthy ways. But that doesn't mean that overindulgence doesn't exist or that it isn't a major problem for a lot of people, or even that there isn't also a precedent for overindulgence on a cultural level as well, given the capitalist emphasis on consumerism. Despite the bourgeois shitheads in the OP article, it's no secret that traditionally the way to show off wealth has been through flaunting excess.

As with most things, there is a healthy balance that needs to be found between short term desires and long term health. I'd hope that isn't a controversial thing to say. The exact location of that balance varies with the individual, but to look at modern western diets along with all the severe health consequences they are known to be responsible for and conclude that the problem is the suppression of desire is just... well, misguided to put it lightly. Like we know the addictive nature of the processed sugars that are pumped into food for the express purpose of getting people to keep eating long after they've had even ten times the amount that would be healthy to have in a day. It isn't a person's fault for having the desire to eat more because it is literally a physiological addiction, that again, has been intentionally manufactured to drive consumption and therefore profits. But the immediate answer for someone suffering from that addiction is absolutely not to give in to the desire and just eat more. No more than the answer for someone with an opiate or alcohol addiction is to just indulge when the desire is felt, but rather to make an attempt to curb the consumption of opiates/alcohol/sugar despite the sometimes overwhelming desire to give into it. Listening to your body is much more about recognizing what it's telling you about its long-term well-being than it is about sating its immediate desires. And for the vast majority of people especially in the west/global north, fasting is a positive way to respond to the malaise their body is screaming at them with. Almost everyone who really tries fasting, including people in this thread, report that they feel much better as a result of doing so. That is listening to your body.

there have been studies associating this stuff with an increased chance of heart disease. That study was specifically about intermittent fasting, but if someone is already at risk it doesn’t seem like a good idea.

I'd take a look at that study then, but with an extremely skeptical eye, considering there have been literally scores of studies saying the exact opposite. Thee major lifestyle element that most strongly predicts longevity is restricted caloric intake. In other words, of all the factors that we have been able to find that correlate with people living longer lives, is people who have taken in fewer calories over their life. This is well known as any quick search can quickly confirm for you. As another obvious example, again, we know through countless studies with overwhelming evidence how bad a high intake of sugar is, how it directly leads to heart disease and of course diabetes. Diabetes (specifically type II), as you may know, is epidemic in the US. Diabetes essentially is insulin resistance, and the way to fix insulin resistance is to stop all consumption of sugars/carbohydrates for a time, ie, to fast. I'd recommend looking up "fasting + insulin resistance." This is all stuff well known to science and medicine, but there is so much more I could get into. Like what we now know about autophagy and how fasting massively speeds it up, the role of mTOR signaling pathway in fasting, or the evolutionary reasons that fasting is good for a species that through most of its existence experienced famines where it had to cope with surviving without food for lengths of time. (The "3 square meals a day" thing is a very recent phenomenon). I'd post links of the many many studies that back all this up if it's absolutely necessary, but it can all be easily confirmed with a web search. Whatever studies you're talking about, if they are as you say, are in complete contradiction of well-established consensus.

Finally, it’s just not practical for everyone. Lots of people have gut issues or physical disorders that make fasting significantly more painful and impractical than it would be for others. I can’t go too long without eating - my body starts becoming extremely nauseous. I assume this is true for a lot of people and not just me.

Fasting is not appropriate for everyone in every circumstance and I never implied otherwise. There are absolutely people who should not do long fasts, and though fewer, there are even people who shouldn't do intermittent fasting. Definitely. But they are in the minority. It's funny that you mention gut issues because one of the first and most successful methods for treating the most common gut issues (I know a number of people with colitis and IBS, the latter I used to have myself) is fasting and elimination diets. This is what gets recommended by doctors, and for good reason. I have no idea what your issues are, so I wouldn't presume to tell you that fasting would be the answer for you, but something to consider is that almost every treatment for an ailment will cause initial discomfort. For many people who experience that normal nausea upon forgoing food longer than they're used to, including me, it's because it's literally a type of withdrawal. Your body has adapted to having food at the frequent intervals we usually eat, particularly carbohydrates which can be quickly converted to energy. Fat can also be used as a source of energy but your body won't tap into that longer-term energy storage mechanism until the carbohydrates have been used up. If your body is not used to doing that, it will be uncomfortable. But so too is it uncomfortable for a brain used to a steady supply of external opioids to go without them until it adapts to using the endogenous ones again.

As for practicality, sure. That's a different issue. Fasting takes a commitment and very likely will include that initial discomfort. For people barely scraping by and having to work multiple jobs and keep their energy constantly up, taking the downtime that one would need for (as an example) a 3-day fast just isn't feasible. That said, if they had some respite for a while and some time to tend to their health, most of them would find that fasting would help them. The same way someone who needs coffee to function and go to work but gets no sleep would find that if they could quit caffeine and get better sleep, it would help them cope with work in the long term, but quitting coffee just isn't feasible in order to keep up with the necessary grind. On the other hand, someone who is in a relatively easy position to give up coffee and get better sleep would not be listening to their body or doing themselves any favors by using the excuse "ugh, I just feel like crap when I don't get my caffeine." I'm not implying that's you, but it definitely is some people who would pooh-pooh something genuinely positive because it seems uncomfortable at first.

Overall I’m sure it works for you but it’s just too much of a “self-help-book” “minimalist”-coded solution for me to see it as a universally good practice.

It seems like rather black-and-white thinking to keep referring to it as being either a universally good practice or typical self-help-book bunkum. It is not universal. But to view it through the lens of being "minimalist" or worse, JP-esque self-help bullshit is a very narrow and inaccurate way to look at something that has such a long history, cultural significance, established medical use, and overwhelming scientific consensus.

Different tactics work on different people. I was swayed from liberalism to communism much more by long form argumentation, stuff I had to read and really think about and examine, before concluding that my liberal beliefs were the garbage they were. Just saying "bad thing bad" to me would have made me roll my eyes and think you didn't have any valid arguments. And to be honest, current me doesn't blame past me for thinking that. Maybe that works on some people, but again, that's why there are different tactics. Yours is no more valid than VILenin's, and were it me on the other side, yours would be less valid than his by far. That's not me calling you anti-intellectual, but neither should you act like using reasoned argumentation is too high brow to influence anyone who isn't already a committed pro-Palestinian communist.

because again everyone understands that genocide is bad.

Clearly they don't understand that it's bad enough, seeing as this whole conversation is centered around the "calculus of deciding that a genocide is an acceptable trade-off." Many people who do recognize genocide is bad, still think "well, it's a complicated situation" or they have fallen for the both-sides lie and think that the Palestinians would be genociding Israelis if the zionists weren't doing it first. These are the kinds of lies that would be good to disabuse them of. Which is something we can do in numerous cases, since it has happened, and one effective way of doing that is to used reasoned argumentation with healthy rhetoric. Which is what VILenin was talking about. Coming in and saying "Nah, it's useless" or "that tactic doesn't work, but my short pithy one does" is weird and unhelpful. I'm not sure why you insist on putting down what he came up with.