Your argument boils down to : If there is history of colonialism, requiring a basic level of the most spoken language is bad. Otherwise it’s good.

Wrong. And obviously so. When I gave the US teaching Mexican immigrants in English as an example of something I’m completely ok with, what did you gather from that? Did you think “aw geeze, I guess this guy really hates it when America teaches Mexican immigrants in English”? Because that’s a pretty dumb thing to think. When I tell you the sky is blue, do you think I really mean it’s purple? There’s no talking to you. You’re doing this on purpose, you have to be

But everything you’re saying in the other posts is pretty generic and applies to the pro and anti abortion crowd in the other countries as well.

There it is!

Hasn’t it already been resolved in a whole bunch of countries? I mean, sure there’s still some folks that disagree with the outcome, but you’ve got folks disagreeing about the earth being round as well. If that’s your bar for debates not having been resolved then I agree with you, but I’d also say you’re not saying anything particularly interesting, disagreeable, or controversial.

Haha your head is pretty far up your ass. No funding means no iron dome, no iron dome means no pissrael.

Ok, so I think our wires cross regarding terminology here. We’re roughly on the same page. So, when you believe something, you can put some probability on how likely it is to be true. I think we both agree that putting probability 1 is either mistaken or a lie. It is asserting that you’re infallible. And I think we both agree that asserting your infallibility is silly. So, to every belief you have you put some probability. If I look at the cat on the mat in broad daylight I will put 0.999, and I’ll put 0.99 if it’s a dimly lit room or whatever. In any case, despite believing the cat to be on the mat, I admit that I am human, therefore fallible, and I will assign some non-zero probability to the negation, namely 0.001 or 0.01. And here I think we’re still on the same page.

From this point I think we diverge, and it’s just a matter of definition. I’ve been referring to that small sliver of probability of the negation of my belief being true as “doubt”. So with my definition of doubt, you will agree, there is always some doubt. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but it is always there. Let’s refer to my definition of doubt as “schmoubt”.

If feel like your conception of doubt is basically when schmoubt reaches a certain threshold, namely where you’re no longer comfortable saying you believe the proposition. So for example, we might dim the lights quite a lot, and maybe my schmoubt goes all the way up to 0.4 or whatever, and I no longer believe there is a cat on the mat. I’m pretty sure there’s something sitting on something, but my schmoubt for the statement “the cat is on the mat” is too high for me to justify my belief to myself. So clearly you believe schmoubt is real, but you wouldn’t call it doubt. What do you call it?

Regarding the funeral thing, I think you need to be a bit more critical of your analysis. It is perfectly consistent to believe in an afterlife but also be sad when someone passes. Because for the time being, you will be separated from them. You will be going at it alone, for quite some time in some cases. And that sucks. It’s the same as being sad when your significant other will work abroad for a while. You believe you will see them again, and that this is temporary, but you are sad because you will not be able to enjoy their physical presence for a while.

To keep things a bit on topic: equating the interests of the state of Israel with Judaism as a whole is anti-semitic, and the existence of Israel has by and large made the world less safe for jews, not to mention Palestinians.

I didn’t read your comment, but deepseek said this:

Well said. You’ve nailed the key distinction: AI as a thought amplifier vs. thought substitute. The value depends entirely on the user’s foundation of knowledge. Your approach—building a curated knowledge base so people (and AI) can learn just-in-time—is exactly right. It sets everyone up for success by grounding the AI in truth. Smart strategy.

I haven’t read this either but I hope it helps.

So, I get that you’re trying to be sarcastic or whatever, but you should know that AIPAC spending is public knowledge. So not only is it true that most dems are in Israel’s pocket, it is also very far from a fringe belief at this point.

Look up UN votes on various issues regarding Israel. We’re already there, and have been for decades. It’s just that the US holds the UN hostage with their veto power.

If your bar for believing something is that you’re 100% certain that it is true (i.e., a complete lack of doubt), then you’ve rendered the whole concept of belief useless as there is no proposition this applies to.

Me, if I see a cat sitting on a mat, I will believe there is a cat on the mat. But it might be that it’s a capybara wearing an incredibly convincing cat costume. Very low odds, but the possibility is there. It could also be that I was a bit careless in looking, and the cat is actually sitting on an especially mat-like section of the newspaper. There is always doubt. Sometimes there’s more (maybe the lights were off), sometimes there’s less (I spend a good hour examining the cat-mat situation, consulting biologists and mat experts), but there is always doubt.

Asserting you have no doubt is asserting you made no mistake in assessing reality, i.e., that you’re perfect. And call me a dick, but I don’t think you are.

Anyway, death to Israel.

Exactly, and the allied forces could’ve just not attacked the nazis. All Germany wanted was to be left alone. Great point!

The dems and the republicans are not the same party. But when it comes to American imperialism, they are both on the same side. Democrats and republicans are not the same. Regarding the imperialism, see for example how Biden and Obama handled Israel (60B in military aid). The democrats and republicans are not the same. See also Kamala Harris’ DNC speech where she promised she would ensure America has the most lethal fighting force in the world. Anyone who thinks the democrats are the peace party is a fool. The two parties are not the same though, there is more to policy than foreign policy.

Inb4 “Oh so you think they’re the same?”

Holy shit you are so fucking dense. This has nothing whatsoever to do with immigrants. No one is talking about immigrants but you.

You’re putting words in my mouth.

I keep mentioning, over and over, Polynesians, Inuit, Aboriginals AND Tibetans AND Uyghur as examples of native populations forced to learn the tongue of their colonizer. I keep mentioning, over and over, how the situation of colonization in the US, Canada, and Australia is SIMILAR to the one in China. It’s deeply frustrating how much I have to re-explain here. Am I that bad at writing?

Given that this is Germany, I think you’d get a pretty conservative answer if you were to ask him if we should support the genocide in Palestine. But then, if you’d ask this to Die Linke members early on in the genocide you’d get the same answers, so not sure what this says about the conservative. Germans and genocide, name a more iconic duo.

I am not talking about immigrants, I am talking about the native population. The Uyghurs, Tibetans, Polynesians, Inuit, Aboriginals are not immigrants.

We are talking about someone moving to a new country, not a country invading another country and forcing them to learn the new language to assimilate them.

I’m not talking about people moving to a new country at all. Polynesians didn’t move to the US, the US invaded their land and forced them to learn a new language. And so on and so forth for the other settler colonies. I am not talking about immigration at all. There’s a reason why I talk about the US, Canada, and Australia, and not for example Italy. They are settler colonies. They moved somewhere and then forced the locals to learn their language.

So folks getting upset about the Chinese teaching Uyghurs and Tibetans in Mandarin in schools should be just as upset at the Americans, Canadians, and Australians for teaching Polynesians, Inuit, and Aboriginals in English in their schools. I hope it’s a bit clearer now, I’m not a great communicator, and I really cannot make the hypocrisy more obvious than this.

Other examples: Norwegians teaching Sami in Norwegian, the Portuguese teaching the locals in Brazil in Portuguese, the Spanish teaching the locals in Chile in Spanish, the English teaching the Maori in New Zealand in English, et cetera.

Nonexamples: the Dutch teaching Turkish immigrants in Dutch, the Germans teaching Moroccan immigrants in German, Italy teaching Slovenian immigrants in Italian, the US teaching Mexican immigrants in English, China teaching Indonesian immigrants in Mandarin. – I am fine with all of these, full stop.

I actually don’t think having a main language in a country and offering education in that language is a bad thing per se.

But I don’t like hypocrisy, and if someone’s upset at the Chinese for teaching in Mandarin I need them to be just as upset at Australia, Canada and the US for doing the exact same thing.

I specified those countries (and not, for example, Germany or France) because they are settler colonies. I’m not talking about immigration.

When I was a teenager, I knew that killing 165 little girls is a bad thing to do. I understood that torture is a bad thing to do. Also, the average age of marines is about 25. Most of them are not teenagers.