it’d be on the corporations deciding to change narrative independently, not being forced to by the government.

That is incredibly naive

Yeah we’re saying the same thing. I recognize that there is a long history of denying Whiteness to people who have white skin. As I said, Irish, Italian, Slavic, and other catholic/orthodox peoples have been denied Whiteness at various points in history, in the US and elsewhere, in addition to people who are Jewish or Roma.

My point though is clearly the typical Irish person is white even if they are not seen as “White.” The typical Bosniak is white, even if they are not seen as “White.” And yes, clearly the typical Jewish person is white, even if they have not historically been seen as “White.” But that’s because really only White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are reliably considered to be White in the United States - which is a 3-part conjunctive test, of which people who are Jewish only satisfy, at most, the first two parts.

The point is that Whiteness doesn’t even objectively exist, and is a socially constructed tool used to maintain the historical/current superstructure of Anglo Bourgeois hegemony in the West. So we should reject the classification of anyone as White rather than merely try to expand its definition to include historically oppressed peoples with white skin

Nevertheless, my point originally was that you don’t need white skin to be Jewish. And because there are Ethiopian and Polish and Arab jews, it seems difficult to believe that there could be a Jewish ethnicity like the Zionists claim. And it seems that claiming that Jews are a distinct ethnic group is itself highly othering - and that othering is the intentional goal not only of White supremacist bigots, but also, for different reasons, is the goal of Zionist ethnostates such as Israel

the Jews who are white are often not considered to be white because they are Jewish. It is the othering of Jews we’re talking about.

Yeah I agree. But those people would be white regardless of if they were Jewish. Whiteness as a social construct is determined by skin color or national origin or both. Religion doesn’t have anything to do with it, although clearly through history it has - which catholics have also dealt with to some extent, especially in the WASP areas of the southern US.

But there’s a difference between saying most Icelanders are white and saying whiteness is a necessary condition to being Icelandic.

Either ethnicity/race is a necessary component of belonging to a group, or it isn’t. And if it isn’t, then idk how one can claim that such a group is an ethnicity.

So long as human beings who are black, Arab, Asian, etc can be Jewish, then idk how we can say that Jews are an ethnicity

especially how many white people don’t see Jews as white, but most non-white people don’t see Jews as non-white.

There are people who are Jewish and non-white though - Ethiopian jews for example.

Which seems to negate the (Zionist-created) argument that there is such a thing as a Jewish ethnicity in the first place, as opposed to Judaism simply being a multi-ethnic faith like Christianity or Islam.

Clearly though plenty of people who are Jewish are also white. And clearly there is a history of denying them this Whiteness once their faith is “discovered” by those they know. Same as Irish or, to a lesser extent, Italians and Slavs. Which is wrong - as is the concept of race/ethnicity/“Whiteness” in the first place

Herein lies one of the innumerable differences between democratic socialists and liberals

the origin of one of the international courts in The Hague, specifically the one that prosecutes individuals, the International Criminal Court, comes from the Nuremberg Trials.

The ICC was created in 2002, just FYI. So long after the Nuremberg Trials. And the ICJ predates Nuremberg via its predecessor entities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

You’re meaningfully correct in everything you’re saying though. Just saying this for full context

I agree.

And, again, RCV and campaign finance reform would certainly be an improvement.

But the root issue would remain untouched. And eventually, the ruling class would find ways to grossly manipulate that system to their own ends as well - or would gradually chip away at it through the judiciary that they control

These proposals should be adopted nevertheless. But we should be clear-eyed about what they will and will not accomplish

Why should we believe that a more equitable voting system would solve this issue? Or any similar issues?

To be sure, ranked choice voting would result in some improvements to the United States, and should be supported on that basis. But it would do nothing to modify the current structure wherein oligarchs rule the United States with impunity. It’s just that this would empower the neoliberal Democratic oligarchs rather than the fascist Republican oligarchs. Which is harm reduction and is therefore preferable, but is not a meaningful solution - especially to something as entrenched as Zionism

What is the penalty of a Supreme Court directly overruling precedent?

Answer: there isn’t one

The only thing that will kill the GOP in its current state is lack of power. That would require people to band together and consistently vote Democrat, whether they like the candidate or not. That would force Republicans to adopt more liberal/libertarian policies in order to capture more of the vote.

If power is the only thing that influences the GOP (which is true) then why would they acquiesce to election results?

They don’t care about the rule of law, except when they can use it as a sword to advance their agenda. So why would outvoting them change anything?

Putin cannot be removed from power in Russia by an election, even if he were to somehow lose an election. This is because Putin has a monopoly on power and will not give that up merely because of election results. Why would we expect the GOP to behave any differently?

The United States is a democracy only if oligarchies are democracies

So you’re being a hypocrite given what you’re criticizing and what this site is

Elitist white college kid attitude right there

Says the person using Lemmy

The correct term is “progressive.”

The term is actually Democratic Socialist. Which he has repeatedly reiterated in highly televised settings for 9 years, and in less televised setting for decades before that

Though Social Democrat may be more accurate in some respects.

Either way, “progressive” is a weasel word label that neoliberals use to cloak themselves in the language of the left. See: Hillary and Pete

Vermont, at worst, will elect a moderate Democrat. And likely will elect someone similar to him as a replacement. Things can’t really get very messed up by his untimely demise

Which is the opposite of how things were with RBG

The difference between inflated prices being down vs the rate of ongoing inflation being lower than previously

Hasbara

Israel is a democracy, or so we have been told.

Which means sanctions would motivate the voters to elect a new government that opposes genocide. Which is the result we want.

Therefore, sanctions are justified because they would stop Israel’s genocide of Gaza by forcing Israeli voters to face the consequence of voting for genocidal fascists

Neoliberals are Zionists