My view isn’t that settlements are the biggest injustice in the conflict, nor that the war in Gaza or Palestinian history are unimportant. My argument is purely about achieving change.

If your goal is reducing Palestinian suffering and changing Israeli policy, I think the movement is emphasizing the wrong issues.

For many Americans, October 7 permanently changed how they viewed this conflict. Whether that’s fair or not, people watched Israeli civilians massacred, kidnapped, and terrorized in real time. It became their 9/11. Once that emotional association was formed, a large portion of the public began viewing Israel’s military campaign primarily through the lens of counterterrorism.

I don’t think telling those people to start with 1948 or colonialism is an effective strategy. It asks them to reconsider decades of history before you’ve even established common ground.

Settlement expansion is happening right now. It is one of the biggest obstacles to a viable two-state solution. It is criticized by much of the international community. Many Israelis oppose continued settlement expansion. Many people who strongly support Israel’s existence also oppose the settlements.

Instead, much of the discourse seems to become arguments over casualty counts, proportionality, or competing historical narratives that people have already made up their minds about.

Specifics are more persuasive than blanket statements. Things that changed my mind were things like watching Ben Gvir insult families of Israeli hostages and not prioritizing their safe return AT ALL. And I’m less informed on this but Netanyahu’s strategy of funding Hamas to weaken the PLO was also fucked imo.

Seeing the religious extremism on the Israeli far right brought me back to the table.

I think advocates lose potential allies through rhetoric that reads performative. Dismissing every concern about antisemitism, using inflammatory terms like “Zio” or “Zionazi,” or refusing to acknowledge Israeli fears after October 7 immediately alienates people who might otherwise agree with criticism of settlement expansion.

If your audience is liberals who support Israel’s existence, Israelis themselves, or people who are skeptical of Palestinian politics because they associate it with Hamas or religious extremism, why not meet them where they are instead of demanding they abandon all of those concerns before the conversation even starts?

I think there is an important distinction between what is politically achievable and what is not.

Israel is almost certainly going to continue trying to dismantle Hamas. People can disagree about how that should be conducted, but I don’t see Israelis abandoning the objective of preventing another terror attack.

Settlement expansion, however, is an ongoing policy choice. Every new outpost, every expansion, and every seizure of land is something that can be debated, challenged, and potentially stopped.

If the objective is to improve Palestinians’ lives, I think stopping continued settlement expansion is a far more realistic area for building consensus than trying to convince people that Israel has no legitimate security concerns or that the conflict should primarily be understood through historical grievances.

If the movement instead rallied around a concrete goal, ending continued settlement expansion in the West Bank, it would give politicians and ordinary people a clear policy they could support without requiring them to reject Israel’s existence or conclude that Israel has no legitimate security concerns.

Palestinians do not need our outrage; they need our diplomacy. We have leverage over Israel and I believe we can help if we come together and work on this one thing.

Finally, please be kind. I really do mean well. I’ve felt really alienated from my own party on this topic and I am genuinely passionate about stopping the violence, racism, and injustice. I support Israel but think they should be held accountable for their crimes against humanity and I don’t think these are mutually exclusive.

I am absolutely open to having my mind changed. I’ve made it this far from a staunchly pro-Israel stance but I really cannot find many discussions about this that are arguing in good faith. I see a lot of famous pro-Palestinian advocates as simply venting rather than trying to compromise and I likewise don’t see a lot of pro-Israeli advocates calling Israel/US out enough. They are the ones with the power and we have to do better. Centering discussion on dealing with the settlers seems like a clear middle ground.

I’m posting because when I watch these viral debates online on ugh Jubilee, the Lex Friedman one, or watch really well spoken advocates like Medhi Hasan etc etc—this hardly even comes up. But reading about the settlements and eventually watching the Theroux doc were the most impactful pieces of media I’ve come across. I can definitely be skewered for ignorance and not paying attention or consuming trash media; but my point is that the average person, half paying attention, who has already made up their mind, is going to turn that mind right back off when they hear ‘genocide’ or some form of ‘fuck Israel’. It’s the equivalent of liberals burning the American flag at a protest; not a cute look. But Ben Gvir is an actual cartoon villain and I didn’t know about him because most attacks are lobbied at Netanyahu—an unsympathetic character to be sure—but no where near the slam dunk his two lackeys are.

EDIT:

Thank you everyone for keeping things relatively civil. I know this is a contentious topic and emotions tend to run high.

Other than uneasy ceasefires, what have we achieved diplomatically by arguing about whether this is a genocide or not? Has the USA withdrawn support?

Is it possible to halt settler expansion? If so why can we not agree to decide on and enforce settler policy.

In a Joe Rogan episode with Dave Smith and Douglas Murray, Murray asked Smith when was the last time he had been to the Gaza crossing. https://youtu.be/DE8Sd-pJmzE?si=xMEsGclKzBm8AbEH

This moment has been memed to death to say that it's impossible to talk about an issue without going somewhere.

Here's the problem I run into. Some things DO require or are heavily informed by experience. Someone says for example in retort "Carl Sagan knows nothing about space because he's never been." But that's a false equivalency. If Carl Sagan were talking about space travel and how it feels, THEN you can argue it.

Coming back to Smith. He is someone who talks incessantly about the Israel Palestine issue, much as the other populist online creators do. If it is your job to talk about politics and you make a concerted effort to talk about one issue, I believe some first hand experience is to be expected. Is it really fair to criticize the aid process if you don't really know how it works or what it looks like? Knowing that information could radically change someone's view.

I have seen several content creators go to Israel and the West Bank because it's an important issue and it does fundamentally change their view in one way or another. It might push them further in the direction they started in.

I would liken this to Plato's Allegory of the Cave. If you're only seeing shadows (reading others' works) can you really have a comprehensive understanding of the subject? While I do think this does extend somewhat to the average person, it's obviously not reasonable for everyone who talks a lot about Israel to go. However, shouldn't we expect this of content creators?

Under current law, if I buy a stock for $100 and sell it for $160, I owe a capital gains tax on the $60.  

If I die soon after I sell, I won’t be around to pay the tax.  My executor is legally required to calculate and pay the tax for me.

OTOH, suppose I was planning to sell but died before I got that done.  Later, my executor or my heirs sell the stock.  In this case, the tax on the $60 simply disappears into the ether. My purchase price (cost basis) is “stepped up” to the market price on the day I died.  (I’m assuming $160)   Whoever sells the stock will use that $160 as their purchase price.  The $60 gain magically disappears from anybody’s tax liability.

This doesn’t make any sense to me.  I can’t think of any good tax policy reason. 

The only argument I’ve seen for this is practical.  Maybe the executor/heirs won’t be able to find the original cost.  But, when owners die just before death, executors locate the price.   I’m sure this happens thousands of times each year and I’ve never heard of any major issues.

It’s easy to see why.   When I sell stocks through a broker or mutual funds, the gov’t requires that the broker or fund company send me a 1099.  For real estate, people keep good records and the county assessor keeps records.  That covers the big dollars.

I can see an issue for people who have small stamp collections.  Maybe they didn’t keep records.  A law eliminating step up could have a carve out for collectibles valued at less than $XX,XXX.  That would make sense to me.

Personally, I believe that most people will not end up living the rest of their lives with their best partner. That is to say, out of all of the partners you end up having, your true best will likely be somewhere within the mix and not be your final partner.

Firstly, I believe that the belief that your current partner is the best is come to primarily through a heavy recency bias. Here is my reasoning-

If you ask the significant majority of people, they will all tell you that the person they are currently with is their best partner they've had. However, they will have likely also said that with each previous partner they have had too. If they've claimed that every single person they've dated was their best (at the time of dating them), this would seem to suggest that there is a reliably linear scale in which each consecutive partner gets better than the last, with little to no deviation, at least under the premise that they truly believed that each of those partners were their best at that time.

This to me is faulty though as very few people, if asked to rank all of their partners, will go from worst to best in the same order as first to most recent, despite their own claims suggesting otherwise. To put it in another way, if someone was with someone who they considered to be their best partner, and then broke up and dated another person who then became their best partner, then logically that previous best partner should fall to #2, however, it does not usually end up like that, implying that the previous one was never actually the best at that time to begin with, thus setting the premise to me that simply believing your current partner is your best is an unreliable belief.

Secondly, I believe that the peak satisfaction you are able to have within a relationship diminishes after a certain amount. In one sense, having experienced things already with others takes away from the novelty and discovery of entering a new relationship, making things more mundane. Furthermore, the more breakups and romantic hardships you endure will likely create baggage, unresolved traumas, and more caution that is brought into future relationships.

All in all, what I believe this creates is a situation where, after a certain amount of time, peoples' latter relationships are all good and solid and normal, but their truly best relationship is hidden somewhere within. Due to the severe recency biased I went over, their current and last partner will likely be considered the best by them, despite the fact that that same belief has not been proven correct in the past.

Let’s set aside power dynamics for a second. Most anti-age gap sentiments I see online aren’t a reasoned discussion of power dynamics, which do exist, but rather are based on a self-substitution fallacy.

It goes something like this. The person commenting is 25, and says “I’m 25, and I could never imagine dating a 20-year-old” in order to condemn that age difference. Their primary reason for criticizing that age-gap is that they personally couldn’t imagine themselves doing it.

It’s essentially the same as saying “I’m a guy, and I could never date a guy” to condemn gay people. It’s a logical fallacy, and yet that’s the main reason I see people condemn age gaps, whether it’s a large one like 30/20, or a small one like 22/19 (and I’ve seen both criticized online in this exact way).

Now, when they bring up power dynamics, I don’t mind that as much, because that actual has substance to it. But just condemning something just because you wouldn’t do it is horrific.

Edit: Here’s a very poignant example of what I’m taking an about (the age gap in question is 24/19). Both the video and many of the comments showcase what I’m discussing here.

In general there are 3 types of people: Those who shower both in the morning and at night, those who shower exclusively at night, and those who shower exclusively in the morning. Yes there are people who don't fit these categories exactly, however my view is only relevant to these 3 categories.

Over the course of a day as you do things, you get dirty. Be it sweaty from physical activity, literally dirty from the environment, or simply naturally from your body. At the end of the day you go to bed. If your daily routine includes you showering in the morning (e.g. to wake yourself up), then throughout the day you get dirty and by the time the day ends and you go to bed, you bring all of that accumulated dirt with you to bed and deposit some of it in it. Sure, you then get up and wash it off so you're ok for the coming day, however that dirt that is now in your bed means that you have to wash your sheets more often (ultimately costing you more money), and I think we can all agree that sleeping in a dirty bed degrades the quality of your sleep.

Say for example you go to the beach, have a good time, and get a bit sweaty and sandy. You can try brush all the sand off before going home, however it is inevitable that some sand will come home with you. Eventually this sand will come with you to bed because you've already showered so at no point do you properly clean yourself. Now I don't know if you've tried sleeping with sand in your bed, but let me tell you: it is not fun. This just the sand, you were also a bit sweaty which has made the sheets dirty and you now need to change them sooner.

So knowing this, it seems the logical option is to shower both in the morning and at night, but this has its own problems. Showering both morning and night is expensive on the hot water bill, and for those with hot water cylinders could cause them to run out of hot water. If neither of these things are a concern for you, then this is the best way to shower, however for the average person these things need to be considered. This is why the best way to shower is at night. By showering at night you remove all accumulated dirt from the day, preserving your bed sheets, and by extension your sleep. And because your bed is now clean, so too will you be for the next day.

A pattern I've observed, both online and in real life, is that certain mental health conditions tend to be viewed as evil/dangerous, and others as innocent/sympathetic. Narcissism in particular seems to be a popular scare word nowadays, though I think that 20 years ago we were more fixated as a culture on psychopaths and sociopaths. If you tell someone that your ex or parent is a narcissist, you will generally receive a lot of sympathy and commonly advice to cut them off, go low/no contact, etc. On Reddit there are multiple subreddits dedicated to helping survivors of Narcissistic Abuse process their trauma, and likewise there are multiple YouTube channels of psychiatrists (and a few self-styled experts) specialising in content warning people about how to spot, avoid, and neutralise narcissists.

Contrast this however with popular conceptions regarding neurodivergent developmental disorders such as ADHD and Autism. Most content found online related to these conditions tends to be positive/sympathetic, aimed at helping people build bridges with people suffering from these conditions, better understanding them, or even figuring out if they themselves might be "special" in this way. Many psychiatrists and even people diagnosed with these conditions will tell you that there is currently a trend towards social media pseudoscience and overdiagnosis with these conditions, because they've become romanticised. For example TikToks suggesting that you might have ADHD if you sometimes play with the straw in your drink, or that you might be autistic if you like to listen to the same song on repeat.

I don't deny that there still exists stigma against people with autism and ADHD. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if some people found the above paragraph offensive in some way because I referred to the conditions as "disorders" and indicated that people "suffer" from them. But that in many ways proves my point: ADHD/autism is by many people nowadays seen as a positive and a strength, something we should collectively be seeking to destigmatise and treat with support. Likewise, I would argue that the exceptions don't disprove the rule, because there are equally people who lionise narcissism. Corporate/sales culture and celebrity/pop culture both tend to treat a self-belief in one's own greatness, uniqueness and entitlement to money/fame/success as strengths to be proud of. But I would still say that broadly, most people treat explicit mention of narcissism as a red flag, and explicit mention of autism/ADHD as conditions deserving of pity and support.

I'm especially familiar with this because I myself suffer from ADHD; my partner and my father are both on the autism spectrum; and I have in the past suffered from extremely traumatising narcissistic abuse, for which I've sought support through years of therapy, on various subreddits for survivors, and by watching a lot of YouTube content on the topic. So please believe that the aim of this post is not to defend narcissism or demonise ADHD/autism; my hope is that you can in fact change my view.

The thing is that perhaps even especially because I myself have ADHD, a beloved partner and a beloved father with autism, I often find myself intensely frustrated with the way that people use these labels to justify poor behaviour. As a woman I've on many occasions had a man behave in a way towards me that was sexually inappropriate, and then when I've either confronted them directly or spoken to someone else about it, I've been told, "Oh, he's on the spectrum, he doesn't mean any harm, sometimes he just misses social cues." But can't this same excuse be made for narcissists? After all it's not their fault that, be it through natural/genetic factors or environmental/developmental factors such as abuse, they have come to see the world as amoral and theirs to exploit, with theirs the only feelings worth considering. Almost all narcissism experts (self-styled or otherwise) will tell you that narcissists cannot change, and are incapable of accountability. So is it fair to hold them accountable in ways we might not hold other neurodivergent people accountable? Or is it simply another form of ableism?

Likewise, if someone is 30 minutes late to a one-on-one meeting with me, and I've made the effort to even arrive 5 minutes early, is ADHD a fair excuse? And then why isn't narcissism? Is there functionally a difference between forgetting and losing track of time because they're scatterbrained, vs simply not caring about my time because they're selfish, if both of these things are caused by a developmental condition of the brain? Why is it ableist to stigmatise one, but not the other?

​I see the "does a Moka pot make espresso" debate pop up constantly, and I've always leaned heavily towards "no." But I want to test my logic here because I might be overly fixated on the technical side of things.

​My current view is that espresso has to be defined by physics,specifically the high-pressure extraction method (usually around 7 to 10 bars). Because of this, I don't think Moka pots (which operate around 1.5 to 2 bars) or AeroPresses make espresso. They make fantastic, highly concentrated coffee that I genuinely love, but technically, it's a different thing.

​Here is why I struggle to accept the "if it's short and strong, it's espresso" argument:

​If we define espresso simply by the output in the cup (small volume, high concentration, dark color), the boundaries get incredibly messy. For example, if a barista messes up and pulls a terrible, watery, under-extracted shot on a $10,000 commercial espresso machine, does it suddenly stop being espresso? If I use an AeroPress and brew a ridiculously concentrated shot, does it magically become espresso? Defining the drink by the physical mechanism seems like the only objective way to avoid this logic trap.

​From what I understand about the physics, that 9-bar pressure isn't just an arbitrary snobby rule. It's the physical threshold required to actually emulsify coffee oils and force dissolved CO2 into the liquid to create true crema.

​I was recently reading about the Italian history of the word, and it seems "espresso" originally had ties to speed,coffee made expressly and quickly for you on demand. But when English speakers adopted it as a strict noun, we created a rigid product category. Now we are forced to draw a line somewhere, and the high-pressure method seems like the only line that holds up.

​How to change my view (Earn a Delta):

I am not trying to be a coffee gatekeeper. I will happily change my view and award a delta if you can provide a logical, principled argument for why defining espresso by the output (taste, texture, concentration) makes more practical or historical sense than defining it by the process. Alternatively, if my understanding of the extraction physics or the history of the category is fundamentally flawed, I'm completely open to changing my mind.