Having lived there for a few years, I don’t think this describes Japanese child raising culture at all. I’m not sure how you can infer so much about the culture based on a single visit to Japan without any ability to speak the language. You may have just had culture shock.
One of the common definitions of “regularly” is “frequently”. E.g. “We used to meet regularly, but less and less as time went on.” This is also why frequent customers are called “regulars”.
edit: “Happening or doing something often” is even the first definition of the Cambridge English dictionary. Misinterpreting OP’s use of “regular” just feels like Stack Overflow level pedantry.
Nowhere in your first comment do you make anything like the argument in your second comment. You say that my summary is reductive and that I built an “over complicated argument” by talking about broken promises. But then you essentially argue that this will be a broken promise!
Your second argument is more reasonable, and not at all over complicated, which is why I anticipated it. The problem with your fatalist take is that “mere talk” precedes, not only broken promises, but also fulfilled promises. Honestly, if your cynical take is right, then there’s no reason to expect anything from any party ever. Cynicism is depressingly fashionable on the left.
Well said. This feels like an existential election for Taiwan.
Is it “mere talk” when Biden says US support for Israel is unconditional? No, we can and should criticize him for that because those words encourage Israel to act without restraint. But, conversely, when the US signals that they will not support actions like forced relocation, we should also see that as a corrective, not “mere talk”.
To your point, in IR theory, there also exists phenomena such as the paradox of empty promises, where making unfulfilled promises can worsen human rights. But that claim is more nuanced: the problem occurs when promises are empty. That doesn’t mean all promises are empty or promising doesn’t matter. Public declarations are a necessary step (but insufficient on their own) to justify further action.
This might be the first time I’ve heard a demand imposed on Israel from the US during this recent escalation. Hopefully, the first of many.
I don’t understand. Can someone explain this to me?
Agreed “win” is too simplistic. Still good shot at forming government though. I’m not familiar with the Dutch system, but, even in systems with proportional representation, the plurality winner usually gets first shot at forming government, and by convention usually does form government. They need 76 seats to govern and are more than halfway there with 37.
I actually can’t understand how most people live without a password manager.
By that logic, imagine how much a soccer ball will cost!
Yes, French sea salt especially for desserts! Put that sucker on some decadent butter cookies.
Black Diamond salt for me, which is what a lot of restaurants use. Worth the extra cost, especially given how potent a small bit of salt is.
This is an incredible map!
That’s not what I’m seeing. Most world leaders are expending political capital supporting Israel, and losing young, progressive, and middle eastern voters in the process. I think this scorched earth strategy is stupid even from the perspective of Israel’s self interest.
I think 9/11 is a great analogy. The lesson I draw from that period, however, is that we cannot let bloodlust win. Hundreds of thousands dead, $8 trillion spent, for nothing.
The editor of the Jewish Current makes the same analogy in his article Have We Learned Nothing?
That America overreacted to 9/11 and compounded the scale of the tragedy is now a standard position among progressives, and even some conservatives; these days it takes little courage to denounce “the forever wars” and to condemn the shortsightedness of liberal intellectuals who aligned themselves with George W. Bush and his neoconservative advisers to champion the invasion of Iraq. But at the time, it was far more common for conscientious progressives to equivocate and prevaricate. To foreground the suffering of the Americans in the Twin Towers was obligatory; to acknowledge the past, present, or future victims of American violence abroad was at best awkward; to imply these things might be related was something almost no one wanted to hear when it might have made any difference.
Now is not the time to abandon nuance, but neither is it the time to be too “understanding” of Israel’s bloodlust, because their overwhelming advantage in power and resources over Palestinians means an alarming potential for abuse.
I think you’re right that Hamas benefits from having civilians around. They’re extremist assholes who do not benefit from peace or stability. A peaceful Palestine is one where Hamas loses its purpose.
But to be honest, I haven’t seen much concern from the IDF for preventing civilian casualties. Compared with civilian deaths in the dense cities of Ukraine or any other recent conflict, the utter disregard for innocent life is staggering. And the rhetoric coming out of Israel from both military and politicians — including calling Palestinians vermin and animals, claiming unarmed children are valid targets, threatening to nuke them, eradicate them completely or expel them — does not inspire confidence in their best efforts or good intentions.
Moreover, it is also 100% in the IDF’s best strategic interest to claim that civilian deaths are unavoidable. I also suspect there are some hot heads who actively want to kill civilians as vengeance or a terror tactic, to make Palestinians lose hope.
I am glad you are diverging from the disgusting argument that random Palestinian children are valid military targets.
But the US is literally one of the countries least critical of Israel. It’s like saying “Well the fact that Fox News hasn’t condemned Trump is pretty telling.” No it’s not. That attack has drawn international condemnation. Even the US agrees that the way that the war is being waged leads to a needlessly dire humanitarian crisis. People are drinking salt water and subsisting on a starvation diet.
I am not one of those people who thinks this is some easy choice for Israel. But I read comments like yours and wonder if there is literally anything the IDF and Likud can do, no matter how extreme, that you won’t defend?
Are you justifying killing children because “some of them” might be combatants? Absolutely fuck that. The IDF said that they bombed the refugee camp to target a single Hamas commander. That’s not inevitable collateral damage, that’s sending a message that no where is safe. And I take it you wouldn’t be that sympathetic to the argument that no Israeli is a civilian because they all serve in the military.
Look, I understand that war is going to have gray areas. But that doesn’t mean anything goes. At a certain point we need the moral courage to recognize when things cross a line. Hamas absolutely crossed a line and they should be condemned. But so has Israel.
“Combat” is not the main reason for the 10,000+ deaths in Gaza. It stretches credulity to call bombing a refugee camp full of children “combat”.
No please read my comment again. I know there are alternative stores. In practice, many mainstream apps are not easy to install using these stores. If you had done a 1 minute search, you’d find tons of people complaining about trying to degoogle their phone. I think almost everyone just gives up on at least a few apps.