Oh, come on…

From the link: “Video game available on Steam allows players to simulate being a Hamas teroist who k*lls Jews in the Old City of Jerusalem while shouting ‘Allahu Akbar,’” the account posted. In November, Nijm released an update called the “Operation al-Aqsa Flood Update,” which alludes to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel by having Palestinian fighters paragliding into an Israeli military base.”

Fair enough. Have a good one.

No. You have given an opposite example.

I said “Would you be against […] a game glorifying the IDF as it fights against Hamas terrorists in Gaza?” (and I would link to that if I could figure out how to do that…).

The main part of your message is just you saying “Israel are Nazis!!!”, which is besides the point.

Panzer Corps probably glorifies Nazis as well.

Great. as I said earlier - I’m willing to put $1000 that this game doesn’t glorify Nazis, and $100 more that it actively makes it clear to the player that while the game is played from the Nazi perspective, the game isn’t intended to glorify Nazis. Would you be willing to take that bet?

Bliutzkrieg Poland: Heroes of the third reich” has a very explicit context. The third reich specifically refers to nazi Germany.

Sorry, but if you think “panzer corps” doesn’t specifically refers to Nazi Germany, that’s on you. The first line from Wikipedia reads: A panzer corps (German: Panzerkorps) was an armoured corps type in Nazi Germany’s Wehrmacht during World War II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_corps

You just said you’d be okay with glorification of “theoretical” Nazis, but not if they hadn’t committed multiple war crimes, countless atrocities, murdering and incarcerating people based on mental health, ethnicity and sexual orientation. No, the thing you’re most with is that they didn’t have a good enough reason to invade Poland.

I lost interest in talking to you.

I’ve already given that example earlier…

What other comment?

Okay, let’s put that another way:

Do you agree that “Knights of al-Aqsa” probably glorifies Hamas?

Do you agree that “Panzer Corps” probably does not glorify the Nazis?

If you answered “yes” to both questions, do you understand the difference between both games?

If the Nazis had legitimate grievances against the Polish? Maybe.

Who decides what’s “legitimate”?

Parts of Poland belonged to the second Reich, but were taken away by force in the aftermath of WWI. From the Nazi perspective, they had every right to claim them back.

Edit: Wait, what just happened? Did you actually say saying you’d be okay with a game glorifying the Nazi invasion to Poland if they “had legitimate grievances against the Polish”? WTF?

Your premise is flawed in that it assumes everything a Palestinian resistance fighter does is terrorism that can’t ve glorified.

My premise assumes that every Hamas fighter that crossed into Israel on Oct. 7th is a terrorist. The “resistance fighters” that attacked military bases are the same people who raped party goers, burned to death civilians in their homes and kidnapped men, women, children and the elderly to be used as a bargaining chip and human shields.

Would I be for a ban of Fatah fighters attacking IDF bases? Maybe, maybe not. I probably wouldn’t argue over it with strangers on the internet, for what that’s worth.

Would you object to an Irish-made game that allows you to play as the IRA and car bomb the British?

Depends. is it called “Knights of the IRA” or glorify the IRA in any way? Then I would support the ban. Because the they were a terrorist movement that targeted civilians. Why would you even ask that? Are you seriously okay with glorifying terrorists if you happen to agree with their goals?

I’m willing to put $1000 that this game doesn’t glorify Nazis, and $100 more that it actively makes it clear to the player that while the game is played from the Nazi perspective, the game isn’t intended to glorify Nazis.

I said “glorifying the Nazi invasion”, not “play as a German soldier in World War 2”. These are two very different things. Why the hell do I even have to explain this?

The game is called “Fursan al-Aqsa: The Knights of the Al-Aqsa Mosque”. How about a game called “Bliutzkrieg Poland: Heroes of the third reich”? In what store can I buy that one?

Telegraph and wire transfers were a thing 100 years ago, you could say “Everyone have a telegraph at home. Private communication, for example orders to your bank to wire money, uses codes/cyphers that can be decoded if the third party was smart enough”.

You’d have to go back before the discovery of electricity, and even then you could make an analogy with lighthouses (which isn’t really a stretch, as fiber optic cables can be described as point-to-point light houses), and most people at most periods are probably familiar with the idea of talking in codes.

Technology isn’t really that hard to explain. Social change is much harder. Try explaining to someone from 1920 that the US had a black president and nothing catastrophical happened, or that all professions today are open to women and you’d have a much harder time.

Let’s flip the question around.

Would you be against a video game glorifying the Nazi invasion to Poland if it didn’t show Nazis killing civilians?

How about a game glorifying the IDF as it fights against Hama’s terrorists in Gaza?

For the same reason western European countries have roads connecting them to Russia.

That’s not how tariffs are suppose to work.

You impose a tariff that will allow the local industry to compete with imports. Not blow them out of the water.

The $10 you gave is objectively wrong. If we know the cost of making a widget in-country, we can easily calculate the correct tariff. In your example, it’s about 5.01$ (making a local widget just a bit cheaper than an imported one, but not too high to incentivize a raising prices).

In practice, the issue is that usually local manufacturers will claim it costs them $15 to make a widget so they can get the $10 tariff. This is an issue in countries with high historic tariffs, and the local industry claims lowering tariffs will take them out of business, or (to a somewhat lesser degree) where there’s very little local industry, and entrepreneurs claim they need the price to be $15 to make it economical for them to build factories. That’s why, ideally, before imposing tariffs, the government should do an economical study of the local industry to figure out how much manufacturing actually costs them.

That said, my bet is that Trump will impose high tariffs on industries with local operations owned by him and his cronies.

Huh?

The smartphone improvements hit a rubber wall a few years ago (disregarding folding screens, that compose a small market share, improvement rate slowed down drastically), and the industry is doing fine. It’s not growing like it use to, but that just means people are keeping their smartphones for longer periods of time, not that people stopped using them.

Even if AI were to completely freeze right now, people will continue using it.

Why are people reacting like AI is going to get dropped?

To address your second point “not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump”; why isn’t the opposite true? “Not voting for Trump is a vote for Harris”, follows the same logic, so refusing to vote or voting independent should be net neutral, no?

You’re missing some context - “not voting [instead of] for Harris is a vote for Trump”. If the dilemma is between not voting and voting Harris, choosing not to vote subtracts a vote from Harris.

Of course Harris got a boost in donations after she became the candidate - she appealed the the people who thought Biden was too conservative. That doesn’t mean conservative democrats are an insignificant demographic, they simply already donated earlier. The move towards the center is meant to not drive them away into not voting [instead of voting for Harris]. Obviously there will be some progressives and some conservatives who will decide to not vote [instead of voting for Harris], the goal is to move to the point where these margins from both sides will be minimal.

Volunteering?

There’s a good chance got them because dunkin donated them or because the cafe didn’t want to give cash for fear it could be construed as pay.

The point of gift cards is that they’re: a. Not money (when using money might have some sort of disadvantage for either side). b. Have restrictions that the person who gave it to you might want to impose. c. Are usually cheaper than paying money directly to the vendor.

And frankly, no one forced you to try and use them. They were given as a gesture of appreciation, and you could have given them to someone who would have been happy to have them, or just politely refuse to accept them. Also, not checking the expiration date is on you.

Yes, young people usually engage more in “forbidden” activities than older people.

Yes, Fatah is a relatively secular organization. And is absolutely a better start than Hamas.

You should to realign your metrics for the middle east if you think If “hooking up with Putin” is the worst thing someone can do there.