Funtitled

“Light was right (except he didn’t kill billionaires)” okay you didn’t understand Death Note. “The Jedi were actually the bad guys and the Empire is good” that’s cool maybe you should rewatch Star Wars, a bit more carefully. “The UNSC aren’t authoritarian like 343 retconned them to be” Susan the list of things “the UNSC considers contraband” that Jun and the militia on Reach discuss includes rations. As in food.

if you have 6 billion dollars lying around it should go to feeding people

i don’t care if they gave him a fake empty useless plan

i don’t care if 6 billion dollars doesn’t fix everything

my fucking god he’s a trillionare he won’t miss it he doesn’t need it

dying starving children need it

6 billion is a lot of money and IT. FUCKING. HELPS.

Most of Elon's net worth is stock options. It's in companies. With employees.

It is literally already feeding people.

In fact, lots of working-class Tesla employees recently became millionaires because of their stock options.

>i don’t care if they gave him a fake empty useless plan

People on your team are the ones who are mad at him for not throwing his money at the plan, which they blindly assume would've worked.

He said he wanted the plan to be publicly disclosed and the books to be public, and the guy he was talking about refused.

At this point, (collective) you're essentially reduced to throwing a tantrum and ignoring any counterarguments.

>my fucking god he’s a trillionare he won’t miss it he doesn’t need it

Except OP - and that nontroversy - was long before he was a trillionaire.

>6 billion is a lot of money and IT. FUCKING. HELPS.

Why exactly should anyone trust you, when you admitted you don't actually care what happens to the money as long as it's supposedly helping and it's coming from someone you hate?

In reality, a lot of financial aid to help developing countries is embezzled. Which can cause lots of damage, especially when it's uncovered.

Such as freezing aid.

So blindly throwing other people's money at the problem demonstrably makes things worse.

And the US already spends a lot more than 6 billion every year. So does the UK. And France. And Germany. Sweden, Italy, and Holland all donate close to that much individually.

anyways

Yeah, very innocuous

The meme that disproves Hamas being terrorists

Hey, here's an idea, why don't you provide a source for your conspiracy theory that's not just "hey retard, stop believing the jihadis killed people in their massacre, that offends me!

i love this reasonings defenders of israel have now of "Israeli deaths caused by the war are horrible and sad! Except when caused by Israel as strategy, then they are okay and very reasonable and just the consequences of war acshually"

a source explaining how home ownership worked in cuba after the revolution:

https://reimaginerpe.org/19-1/hamberg

For 50 years the great majority of Cuban households have legally owned their homes as a form of “personal property,” but with some limitations.

.

After the Cuban revolution in 1959, evictions were halted, most rents were reduced and urban land speculation was largely controlled. Through the 1960 Urban Reform Law, tenants became homeowners by amortizing the purchase price of their units through rents. Landlords and other property holders were allowed to keep their own home as well as a second vacation home. State-built housing was offered as long-term “leaseholding,” with rents set at 10 percent of family income. Private renting was prohibited. In addition, vacant units confiscated from emigrants were distributed to people in need, and the Cuban lottery was transformed into a short-lived vehicle for financing new housing. Residents of poor urban housing remained as long-term leaseholders, but by the mid-1960s, no longer paid rent.

.

The 1984 (and 1988) General Housing Laws converted most leaseholders into homeowners, legalized most illegal and ambiguous tenure situations of tens of thousands of self-builders and others, permitted free-market private rentals and sales of roof-rights, and fostered self-building by both individuals and newly permitted housing cooperatives (which never got off the ground). The only groups not converted into homeowners were residents of tenements and shantytowns, who remained rent-free leaseholders, and occupants of units directly “linked” to workplaces.

.

By the early 1990s, more than 85 percent of Cuban households were homeowners, paying little or nothing for their units except for maintenance, repair and utilities. There were no mortgages or land and property taxes. Financing for purchases of units or repair was considered a loan, not a mortgage, and therefore dwellings were not used as collateral.

article 22 of the 1976 Cuban constitution is also relevant:

Prior to this point, when Odysseus tries to exercise Xenia (ancient Greek guest rites/hospitality code), he did what he was supposed to do. (Well, we think so anyway — notably, the most famous books of the Odyssey are told by Odysseus, who isn’t exactly a reliable narrator.)

But when Polyphemus kills and eats some of the men, the game changes. The Cyclops makes it clear he has no intention of abiding by Zeus’s laws, and will cannibalize the lot of the men. So, Odysseus responds in kind — he breaks Xenia and lies. He introduces himself under a false name as part of a trick. Polyphemus then breaks Xenia again — he tells Nobody he’ll be eaten last, and that is the Cyclops’ guest gift to him.

Odysseus’ transgression is clearly the lesser one. The Nobody trick works. It gets Odysseus and most of his crew out of the cave alive.

But, crucially, before leaving Odysseus sheds his disguise. He admits his true identity, in detail, so he can boast of his achievements and add vanquishing a Cyclops to the list. And it bites him in the ass spectacularly.

The only reason why Polyphemus can curse Odysseus, can bid his father Poseidon to curse the man who blinded him, is because he now knows who did it. If Odysseus had kept his mouth shut, he might have safely made it home from there. But while a big part of why the Nobody disguise vs. real name reveal is showing Odysseus’s hubris, it’s not just about that. It’s also about the start of a pattern that hurts him more than it helps him.

From this point in the Odyssey on, Odysseus lies about his identity constantly. And sometimes it protects him, but more often it’s a detriment or at least unnecessary. He’s lying about his identity primarily to people who are on his side — a kindly loyal swineherd, his son, his faithful wife, his ailing father.

The last one is especially damning, because happens when Odysseus has already killed the suitors and returned home and reunited with the rest of his family sans disguises. He knows from everyone else that Laertes never betrayed him or his legacy, but was mourning his son and heartbroken for almost a decade. Odysseus has publicly declared his return to everyone else — his father doesn’t know because he’s living in squalor remotely. But Odysseus doesn’t tell his father who he is. He makes up a fake identity and tells a story implying Laertes’ son is dead. And when Laertes bursts out crying, then Odysseus drops the charade and finally admits who he really was.

There was no utility to that lie. No loyalty to test. No hidden threats to worry about. But Odysseus still instinctively lies to his beloved father about who he is, only dropping the charade when he sees the damage it’s doing to his relationships.

Because at this point, lying is pathological for Odysseus. He can’t seem to stop doing it. Because with Polyphemus, a lie protected him and the truth hurt him. That is the point of the “ Nobody” disguise.

For example... The fact that you talk about positive masculinity as being about guys wanting a version of being a good person that's not for girls.

Just look at how it's described in 2026 (now), in 2016, in 2006 and in 2004 (below the cut).

one of said sources, Rashid Khalidi, is a former PLO spokesperson. like, actively produced propaganda in an official capacity for the PLO.

another of the sources claims that “as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible” was a position that “enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations” (emphasis my own), which is just… an utterly batshit and easily-disproven statement for anyone who has ever met a Zionist (or for that matter, a Jew) or read the writings of the early Zionists.

Nahman Syrkin, socialist zionist, said that Palestine was “thinly populated, in which the Jews constitute today 10 percent of the population, must be evacuated for the Jews." B. Katznelson and Y. Kaufman, eds., Ketvei Nahman Syrkin [Writings of Nahman Syrkin].

Israel Zangwill, British zionist author and confidante of Herzl, in 1905 stated "[We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." Speech delivered in April 1905, in Israel Zangwill, Speeches, Articles and Letters (London: The Soncino Press, 1937), p. 210

Zangwill wrote in the League of Nations Journal in 1919 that Palestinians “should be gradually transplanted” in Arab countries. In his book, The Voice of Jerusalem, in 1920. There, he advocated an “Arab exodus” that would be based on “race redistribution” or a “trek like that of the Boers from Cape Colony,” which he advocated as “literally the only ‘way out’ of the difficulty of creating a Jewish State in Palestine.” Masalha, Nur. 1992. Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882–1948

He also stated quite racistly, that "many [Palestinians] are semi-nomad, they have given nothing to Palestine and are not entitled to the rules of democracy."

Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote in 1925: “If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find a benefactor who will maintain the garrison on your behalf . . . Zionism is a colonizing adventure and, therefore, it stands or falls on the question of armed forces." Jabotinsky constantly disparaged anyone seeking a "peaceful" route to a jewish state by calling them "peace mongers."

Ben Gurion, first PM of Israel, in a meeting with the Jewish Agency Executive in 1936 said "If it was permissible to move an Arab from the Galilee to Judea, why it is impossible to move an Arab from Hebron to Transjordan, which is much closer? There are vast expanses of land there and we are over crowded….Even the High Commission agrees to a transfer to Transjordan if we equip the peasants with land and money. If the Peel Commission and the London Government accept, we’ll remove the land problem from the agenda. Flapan, Zionism and the Palestinians , p. 260, citing Protocols of the Executive meeting.

Also in 1936, Schmuel Shmuel Zuchovitzky (later Zakif), a leading figure in the agricultural sector and a member of the General Zionist Party Executive stated in a committee "I am convinced that it would be impossible to carry out transfer without compulsion. I do not see in this any immoral measure. I want to help the Jews to come to the Jewish state and to help the Arabs to cross to the Arab state. I know that these things are not so easy and involve a lot of difficulties …. And also [land] expropriation must be carried out." Compulsory transfer meant through the use of force. Protocol of the Jewish Agency Executive meeting of 12 June 1938.

Yosef Weitz, former director of the Jewish National Fund's Land Department, wrote in 1941 seeing “large [Arab] villages crowded in population and surrounded by cultivated land growing olives, grapes, figs, sesame, and maize fields . . . and once again I hear that voice inside me called: Evacuate this country” Another diary entry that same year: “They [the Arabs] are too many and too much rooted [in the country]… the only way is to cut and eradicate them from the roots.”

Weitz also wrote, "Amongst ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country. No 'development' will bring us closer to our aim to be an independent people in this small country. After the Arabs are transferred, the country will be wide open for us; with the Arabs staying the country will remain narrow and restricted . . . The only way is to transfer the Arabs from here to neighbouring countries, all of them, except perhaps Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Old Jerusalem. Not a single village or a single tribe must be left. And the transfer must be done through their absorption in Iraq and Syria and even in Transjordan. For that goal, money will be found—even a lot of money. And only then will the country be able to absorb millions of Jews and a solution will be found to the Jewish question. There is no other solution."

Even if you trusted & took the translation, sourcing, & framing of all the above quotes at face value (which you should not), they still don’t refute or even address anything that anyone here was talking about at all.

You could’ve saved yourself a lot of effort assembling that whole gishgallop if you had actually addressed the specific claim (that “‘as many Jews as possible, with as few Arab Palestinians as possible’ was a position that ‘enjoyed unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations’”) instead of falling back on the entirely-irrelevant-but-much-easier-to-defend position that “there existed any Zionists who either saw the conflict as zero sum and/or advocated for evacuation at some point.”

Because no duh. There were people like that on both sides of the conflict. That was never a question.

But even just the Ze’ev Jabotinsky one alone makes it so clear how deceptive these quotes are being presented, because he literally said, consistently and on multiple occasions, that the removal of Arabs would not only be impossible but immoral and that he rejected the idea. He went as far as to draft a proposed constitution that would ensure equal rights & participation in the Israeli government for Arabs. These are not the words or actions of a person who was trying to ethnically-cleanse Arabs.

These voices are not just from the extreme like jabotinsky but members from the "socialist" perspective? Again I highlighted their roles before quoting them. The JNF was a major organization in the development of zionism and israel and its members believed in the transfer of palestinians

These were all major leaders in the establishment of israel.

And yes all these quotes go to show that this position from left to right on early zionist committees faced unanimous support. The constant debate from the 1890s to the 1940s was how to transfer palestinians not if they should..

Just because you dont believe that these people had a bearing on the development of zionism does not mean none of these quotes mattered.

There's also the famous "well, there were a small number of Black Vikings, therefore it makes perfect sense for Vikings Valhalla turn an actual historical white male chieftan into a black woman."

No corset slander: yes

Colorful clothes, historical hairstyles, hats and headcovers: YES

No potatoes or pumpkins: this one doesn't bug me as much unless it's plot relevant but sure

Actors with aging and minimal makeup: other than you don't understand what stage and screen makeup is, yes.

Hema consultants: I would KILL for this.

Diagetic soundtrack music: Some of the best soundtracks use period instruments.

One brown immigrant did something, which was apparently justification to assume it was a cultural thing based on no evidence, and then to riot and terrorize other brown immigrants.

I've been against that sort of racebaiting, from the left or right, even when it didn't put me, personally, in danger.

Heck, even when it would benefit me.

Other examples include saying media where a regular straight white guy is mocked and put upon by women and minorities is a general prescriptive statement on how white men should be treated.

They literally got away with executing a man in broad daylight and murdered a woman cause she was rude to them.

Damn. That is a weird way of saying she hit a cop with her car.

Like the time they claimed the ICE agents weren't clearly cops by saying the ID patches were unreadable smudges.

...Based exclusively on one blurry, low-res video.

Of course, given how dedicated they are, I assume they're either a paid troll or just plain mental, so

are on the table.

Trying to drive your car with a cop reaching in the window automatically puts that cop in danger, and I don't think I've seen seen any of them acknowledge that.

So even if we ignore the cop who was already in front of her telling her to stop when she started moving forward, what she did still could've killed a cop.

-> she lost her head

Her last words were "im not mad at you"

Vxkghqob, d whuulibluo rvprvlv ri vrxqg iloohg wkh wlqb dofryh. Wkurxjk wkh udwwolqj jidvv, d sdoh, wlqb surervflv dsshduhg wr uhdfk iruzdug, lwv wklq skdodqjhv wdssluo zlwk jkrvwob whqgflwb djdlqvw wkh sdqh.

"ohw ph lq!" fulhg d vruurzixo yrlfh, lwv wrqh d fkloolqj fdfrskrqb wkdw hfkrhg ghhs lqvogh khu gldskudjp. "l kdyh orvw pb zdba dfurvv wkh juhdw dvwuroduh ri wkh prru! l kdyh ehhq d zhdub pdulqhu lq wkh gdun iru wzlqwb orqj vrovwlfhv!"

He was just a young man. His life mattered.

*nitter link below for those who can’t access the twatter. simply copy and paste to your preferred browser to watch the video and read the comments

Here's the context missing;

>Vickrum Digwa, 23, claims he acted in self-defence after [Nowak] used a racist insult, punched him and knocked his turban off, Southampton Crown Court heard.

And;

>Police initially handcuffed the victim before discovering his fatal injury a short time later.

So, officially, the cops didn't even notice he was stabbed when they cuffed him.

Even being very charitable, that sounds a lot like incompetence. Were they in a very dark alley or something?

Still, the trial of his killer has been covered multiple times by the Beeb and other outlets.

>It is admitted that Nowak, already weak from knife wounds, was trying to reach help when the police arrived. The evidence is that, having arrived, the police interviewed both parties; told that Nowak had started a drunken fight and racially abused Digwa, they immediately handcuffed him. Afterwards, they realised his condition. When he collapsed, they removed the cuffs and administered first aid. But it was too late. He died in their hands.

but that's just a family of criminals. what's maybe more egregious is that henry told police multiple times that he'd been stabbed and one of the officers turned around and told him, word for word, "i don't think you have, mate".

Especially when suspect lie about being hurt all the time.

Also, the original complaints were about Nowak, Digwa, and the cops' treatment of both. Not the family of either of any of those.

1, the family and suspect claimed racism in the first place to justify claiming victim status.

2, the murder weapon was a religious dagger that they were allowed to carry around as an exception to britains stringent knife laws.

3, someone's apparently put out the handbooks and such that the police are trained by and IIRC, it basically codifies "don't arrest the non-whites, arresting non-whites means contributing to racism" behavior, which people are also claiming is part of why they didn't bother checking Nowak for injuries at all until he collapsed and stopped responding.

3. Were those handbooks for these specific cops?

What was the exact language used?

What are the rules and policies for this sort of situation if they were not acting on racial motives, and were they following those rules?

This BBC article says Digwa's brother called 999 and claimed Nowak was the attacker. Even if he was stabbed, it could've been in self-defense if they thought the call was true.

The operator also said they sent an ambulance.

And the cops called a bus and started CPR one minute after they arrested him. Which was one minute after they arrived.

So, two minutes total. That doesn't sound like they could've done a lot to help him even if they hadn't cuffed him.

The judge said Nowak's injuries were so severe he would not have survived, however quickly he received first aid, CPR or expert medical treatment.

Forgive me if I CAN'T in any way give benefit of the doubt to UK cops at all. If a guy is on the ground struggling to stay up in any way, he's not a threat. Then after you tried to sit him up, he falls over again? That's not incompetence. That's full lack of care. Add to that putting him in cuffs and then never ONCE cuffing Digwa? That sounds like racist policy to me. They treated the killer with more dignity and respect than the Nowak's got. So a guy is on the ground and you put him in cuffs because, "this guy was racist" sounds like a policy issue not a, "Oh we are just kinda stupid" issue. Though I also tend to fall under:

He could just be drunk.

There are also loads of examples of concussed and stunned people who were unable to stand up straight, but they were also violently combative.

>Add to that putting him in cuffs and then never ONCE cuffing Digwa?

Two minutes. They were on the scene for two minutes before calling a bus. They had Nowak arrested for one minute.

That's not some great length of time.

Also, like I said, his brother called the cops, so Digwa would seem to be the defender, not the suspect.

>That sounds like racist policy to me.

He was just a young man. His life mattered.

*nitter link below for those who can’t access the twatter. simply copy and paste to your preferred browser to watch the video and read the comments

Here's the context missing;

>Vickrum Digwa, 23, claims he acted in self-defence after [Nowak] used a racist insult, punched him and knocked his turban off, Southampton Crown Court heard.

And;

>Police initially handcuffed the victim before discovering his fatal injury a short time later.

So, officially, the cops didn't even notice he was stabbed when they cuffed him.

Even being very charitable, that sounds a lot like incompetence. Were they in a very dark alley or something?

Still, the trial of his killer has been covered multiple times by the Beeb and other outlets.

>It is admitted that Nowak, already weak from knife wounds, was trying to reach help when the police arrived. The evidence is that, having arrived, the police interviewed both parties; told that Nowak had started a drunken fight and racially abused Digwa, they immediately handcuffed him. Afterwards, they realised his condition. When he collapsed, they removed the cuffs and administered first aid. But it was too late. He died in their hands.

but that's just a family of criminals. what's maybe more egregious is that henry told police multiple times that he'd been stabbed and one of the officers turned around and told him, word for word, "i don't think you have, mate".

Especially when suspect lie about being hurt all the time.

Also, the original complaints were about Nowak, Digwa, and the cops' treatment of both. Not the family of either of any of those.

1, the family and suspect claimed racism in the first place to justify claiming victim status.

2, the murder weapon was a religious dagger that they were allowed to carry around as an exception to britains stringent knife laws.

3, someone's apparently put out the handbooks and such that the police are trained by and IIRC, it basically codifies "don't arrest the non-whites, arresting non-whites means contributing to racism" behavior, which people are also claiming is part of why they didn't bother checking Nowak for injuries at all until he collapsed and stopped responding.

3. Were those handbooks for these specific cops?

What was the exact language used?

What are the rules and policies for this sort of situation if they were not acting on racial motives, and were they following those rules?

This BBC article says Digwa's brother called 999 and claimed Nowak was the attacker. Even if he was stabbed, it could've been in self-defense if they thought the call was true.

The operator also said they sent an ambulance.

And the cops called a bus and started CPR one minute after they arrested him. Which was one minute after they arrived.

So, two minutes total. That doesn't sound like they could've done a lot to help him even if they hadn't cuffed him.

The judge said Nowak's injuries were so severe he would not have survived, however quickly he received first aid, CPR or expert medical treatment.

I like how his le epic own quote isn't an actual counterpoint.

And most of the rest of the video is people clapping like trained seals. Presumably so other left-wing people will feel smug.

"Va inva unir V fgehttyrq, tbcsnvyf!" ur rkpynvzrq, uvf ibvpr n ybj, gerzoyvat pnplcubal bs enj rzbgvba. "Zl jvyy unf orra hggreyl pbadhrerq ol lbhe ornhgl! Vg jvyy abg qb. Zl srryvatf pnaabg or ercerffrq ol beqvanel qrpbehg. Lbh zhfg nyybj zr gb gryy lbh ubj neqragyl V nqzver naq ybir lbhe ragver cebobfpvf."

tbcsnvyf fgnarq ng uvz va nofbyhgr fghcrsnpgvba. Ure urneg orng ntnvafg her qvncuentz yvxr n genccrq oveq vafvqr n jvpxre puelrnyvf. Fhe ybbxrq qbja ng gur qryvpngr fvyire pungrynvar unatvat sebz her fvyx ghavp, gelvat gb tngure rabhtu pbtvgngvba gb fcrnx. Fhe xarj uvf neebtnag yvarni-r ybbxrq qbja hcba her bja uhzoyr cunynak bs n snzvyl, naq gur furre nhqnpvgl bs uvf cebcbzny ghearq ure fubpx vagb n obvyvat cyrguben bs qrrc erfragzrag.

In fact, I got in a forum argument with someone who openly scoffed at the idea that Hamas was hoarding or stealing food, just because the reporting source was Israeli.

So, yes, people are implicitly and explicitly denying Hamas did it.