danhakimi

China having more global influence than USA would help

... would it? I'm not sure I see how.

I feel like he totally misunderstood the concept of a Palestinian "right of return." They're not asking for a right to return to a future Palestinian state, that isn't a controversial thing, they would obviously be in control of their own immigration policy. They want a right for millions of Palestinians to "return" to Israel.

Israelis view this not only as an unacceptable danger, but as a move that would end Israeli democracy; an instant majority of Muslim voters, many of whom were raised to believe that Israeli civilians should not be allowed to live, would turn Israel into, you know, the rest of the Middle East. Ban alcohol, ban homosexuality, ban apostasy, ban building synagogues or churches, do everything else every other Muslim-majority country does.

This was one of the major sticking points at Camp David. And this guy just totally missed it.

I mean, the Olmert proposal was an opportunity. The 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was an opportunity. It doesn't seem that "freedom" was good enough for Palestinians back then.

Netanyahu has been winning because Israeli attempts at peace never seem to work.

Targeting civilians is bad.

Terrorists, including those who target civilians, are combatants, and are valid targets. They remain valid targets when they use schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, and residential areas as bases for combat operations. This is pretty clear in international law.

Israel still must not target civilians, and must take reasonable measures to minimize civilian casualties of war. We've seen Israel, in at least some contexts, take quite extreme measures to warn civilians, help evacuate civilians, and carefully target munitions to minimize civilian death despite Hamas and PIJ using those civilians as human shields.

The raw numbers are still gruesome... unless you compare them to other instances of urban warfare, in which case the numbers are actually lower than many would expect. The civilian death ratio, as far as we've been able to estimate (since Hamas does not estimate), appears to be lower than usual.

Civilian deaths are tragic. It would obviously be much better if Hamas had not started this war, or if they would agree to the ceasefire Israel offered, or if they weren't so committed to war in general. But they are. They frequently condemn even the concept of peace, and insist that they will repeat the October 7th attack as often as they can. There is no avenue to peace while they remain in power.

So the war will continue. And we will continue to hope that Israel does its best to minimize harm to civilians.

That’s essentially the reality of the situation, though. The land was populated by Palestinians before Europe and the rest of the Middle East NIMBY’d their remaining Jewish populations to Israel.

This is all kinds of wrong.

Zionism was a Jewish movement. Antisemitism was not NIMBYism, that's a pretty horrible thing to say, it was persecution, pogroms, attacks, the holocaust, a constant stream of hate and oppression. Zionism was certainly not a movement of the Europeans and Middle Easterners who persecuted us. It was our movement. Zionism was not just an escape, but also a long held dream of the Jewish people that coalesced as it became plausible in late Ottoman policy. It was finally possible for Jews to buy land in, and immigrate to, Israel, so many of us did.

We are not foreign to Israel. It is our indigenous homeland. As the rest of the world rejected us, we no longer felt safe as strangers in strange lands. We considered the possibility of having our own nation on borrowed land from the Russians, or from the Germans, or in Alaska. We didn't care for those ideas because of how stupid they were. We wanted a homeland in our homeland. If you don't understand Jewish indigeneity in Judea, maybe you're not ready to talk about complex topics.

As for the Palestinian ties to the land—Palestinian nationalism barely existed before Jewish people started returning to Israel. Arabs in the various Ottoman Sanjaks or whatever division there was at the time were mostly traveling merchants or pilgrims; there was, of course, a small permanent population, which included Jews (always, despite various efforts to remove them or ban them), Christians, and Muslims, but that population expanded dramatically starting in the mid-late 1800s on all fronts. The Arabs then either continued to call themselves Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians ("Jordan" and "Palestine" were part of the same colony, I hope you know), or they subscribed to some conception of pan-Arabism. The word "Palestinian," to the extent was used at all before the ~1960s, was used largely to refer to whoever happened to be in Palestine (like "New Yorker," not referring to a race of some kind), or specifically, in Europe, to refer to Jews. Palestinian nationalism largely gained traction in the 1960s as a political movement, and even then, many leaders were committed to pan-Arabism but treated Palestinian identity as a useful political fiction; Zuhair Moshen in particular, as a leader of the PLO, pushed these ideas, and in much of the politics between the West Bank and Jordan through that period. Of course, since the 1940s, Palestinian identity has taken on new meanings, but many of these meanings are young, and the vast majority of these peoples' ties to the land start between the 1800s and 1948—a beat before similarly-shaped spikes in the Jewish return.

Palestinian nationalism is now used in other Arab countries to keep Palestinian Arabs oppressed; Jordan revoked their Jordanian citizenship, Lebanon refuses to grant them basic rights, UNRWA refuses to resettle them across multiple generations.

they will back a super narrow conception of "right to repair" that only hurts their competitors, but doesn't inconvenience Google at all.

I'm with you, but more because I eat rice-based dishes and it's good to have a spoon + fork combo for those.

His jacket looks like right before he gave someone a hug which raised the upper back portion or waved with a high shoulder action. That action lifted the bottom and pulled at the chest due to it being buttoned. My suits often do this as well. His fit around the arms specifically and the mid section shows that it’s much more appropriately sized and tailored to him. Not just something oversized and slapped on.

Yeah, so good suits don't ride up and look like shit the second you start moving in them. I'd say he could use a better tailor, but I'm guessing his stylist got the jacket from Armani like two days before and they didn't feel like rushing any tailoring and just thought it was good enough.

We had a few good ideas from the 90s. However baggy jeans and chunky shoes literally never looked good. It goes back to the 70s and the bell bottoms and how bad those looked too. The skinny jean fit was bad because it was skin tight which made people look like they were walking on stilts. However a proper fitting Jean or pant looks significantly better than this current trend. I’ve just seen people trying to bring back the denim on denim look of the 90s as well… which is never a good sign.

I'm still not clear on why you think Will's pants look good. The golden era was full of wide legs, the only times slim legs were normal before 2008 were fabric rationing (affected production in the 40s, mostly seen in style in the 50s) and SLP (a 70s alternative to flared legs). Will's pants taper hard to the ankle with zero room—if they were any longer, they wouldn't be able to break right, because they're just way too narrow at the leg opening.

People love to talk shit about anything that's not super slim as though they understand how tailoring works. Like, "oh my God, the pants don't bunch up at all, this is 90s style JNCO bullshit!" Naw, Jeremy Allen White's pants here are probably the most classic cut.

A few... What about these chinos from bronson (in brown or khaki)? They're creased and pleated chinos, so they can be dressed up, but they're based on milsurp styles, so they can also be dressed down. Chino cloth does wrinkle a little, but it's supposed to, and it doesn't really look bad like that.

As a more expensive option that hits a lot of your other requirements, Suitsupply's Duca is a good cut. Wool trousers should not wrinkle normally, and if you fold them right and hang them for a minute when you land, they should look good when traveling as well. Some wools travel better than others—you either want a heavy weight wool or a "high twist" wool (usually more expensive).

Is your budget lower than that?

You could also try thrifting vintage Ralph Lauren corduroys. The "Andrew" cut is very popular and available for pretty cheap—it's a double forward pleat with a straight leg, and it's shockingly versatile.

Will Ferrell has IMO the best fit.

What makes you say that? his pants are aggressively tapered, I hate, but if you love that... there are plenty of other slim pants here. His jacket is too tight, it's pulling at the button and flaring out in the back, which looks even worse because his pants are not a traditional full cut. The lapels are buckling at the chest because he went for a cheap fused jacket from a brand that used to be a designer brand, and is now just coasting on its name.

Did no one look back at 90s pictures and audibly not laugh at how bad they looked back then?

Yeah, in the 2000s, and that's how we got the skinny fit trend, and people have now looked back on that and laughed at it too. And now people look back at the best outfits of the 90s, and realize that some of them were actually great.

"High stretch" and "good quality" are strictly incompatible. Elastene is garbage. It loses its elasticity after 1-2 years. It will sag, and you will dump it in a landfill.

People got caught up in stretch when they thought they had to wear super slim pants everywhere. Now that people are starting to wear not-incredibly-slim cuts again, they need to realize—stretchiness is bad, and pointless, and not good.

1. Inertia

People don't leave until they have a compelling reason to leave. They will stay put until something pushes them to move. Bad corporate practices are not that strong an effect—boycotting every bad company in 2024 is not a thing people are trying to do, the world doesn't work like that.

1. Positive Network Effects

The size and value of Reddit's network still dwarves the fediverse, and that's the primary value of any social network—the people you can interact with.