Far from being hard to understand Zionists in this sense is not all Jews but those that support the actions of Israel in the latest conflict because of the impact on the Palestinian civilian population. I agree there is a lot of equivocation in that article though but it mostly seems to be from people that wish to soft-soap the on-going war crimes Israel is committing rather than anyone genuinely being confused by the term. Basically one side is saying 'hey we don't want people that in our eyes support genocide taking part' and the other side is ignoring that and saying 'uWu we just want a Jewish state to exists but don't look at what the only extant state is actually doing'.
Historically the majority of jewish people fall into this definition.
So off the bat you creating your own incorrect definition proves it IS hard to understand what a ban on 'Zionists' mean. You've called me a liar for no reason previously so I won't bother responding to you beyond pointing out how flawed your starting premise is.
You said the organizers couldn't agree on what it means. I'm just stating that doesn't seem to be true and I didn't give my definition of Zionism but what it seemed to be based on the article. Finally I used the words 'in this sense' to recognise that it was a particular, local definition. Quoting a dictionary definition doesn't change the fact that words in it can have very different meanings in different contexts. So your attack on my premise is flawed.
You gave a definition of Zionism that doesn’t match its actual, established meaning. Now you’re trying to justify redefining words by niche subgroups as not being confusing.
If the organizers of the event have chosen a different definition than the one that most Jewish (and non-Jewish) attendees would reasonably expect it's a recipe for confusion and exclusion. Dismissing those who use the correct definition as irrelevant is wild. You deny their legitimacy so a political agenda can take center stage. Redefining words, excluding people, it's all super gross and 1984 AF.
You’re still wrong, and your attempt to reframe this only reinforces the article’s point. Redefining terms like Zionism confuses and erases people who actually use them in their accepted sense. Using redefined words to ban/prohibit people is gross. Especially when under it's 'plain reading' the ban is effectively a ban on the majority of Jewish people. Defending it is gross. The burden is on event organizers to communicate effectively, and that burden includes using words common/standard definitions not Orwellian redefinitions done purely to politicize a word.
Creating a Jewish ethnostate in Israel means kicking out everyone who isn't Jewish, or at least keeping their levels low enough they don't have any political influence, which pretty much means doing the things Israel is doing. I don't think these are significantly different definitions.
Israel has a 20% Arab population so your first sentence makes no sense, they did not in fact 'kick out everyone who isn't jewish' and shows your comment has zero basis in reality but is instead purely propaganda.
However, the surrounding Muslim theocratic states have basically zero jews left. The majority of Israelis' are Mizrahi jewish refugees that were pushed out of the surrounding theocratic Muslim states.
Many men and women socialize differently in mono-gender groups, for a wide variety of reasons, and reducing that to “being offensive to the other axis” is…well, reductive flamebait.
I can have a lot of empathy for someone who had explicit promises broken but apart from this sounding like a completely made up story it has no bearing on his skin color or sex. People are taken advantage of all the time and promises, even contracts are broken all the time. Your 'son' has taken the route of victimization rather than taking the high road. Getting screwed over is one thing, turning that in to bigotry is quite another. Like even if you were screwed over BY bigots its not a reason to become one.
Wow, glad you can tell I'm a liar based on absolutely nothing.
People can have down/shitty bits without just throwing them away/writing them off as irredeemable. Especially when they are frustrated over a specific event. Frustration that normally we try and help them leave behind. But for some reason in this situation 1. It's not true/didn't happen and 2. My son is trash for caring about it. I'm not around this stuff much, I don't do social media, I don't watch TV, and I live remote, but I'm getting a better sense of how my son went such the wrong direction over this.
Nowhere did I justify anything. I complained I want my son back and I refuse to write him off. Maybe check your lack of compassion, quickness to judge, willingness to write people off, and reading comprehension.
You first say "sounds like a made up story" and then you go on to assert that "it has no bearing on his skin color or sex"
Where are you even coming from with that?
The Op said directly "Once it was all successfully running the promise was broken and he was passed up because he was a white male (this was explicitly the reason"
It also assumes that even in the case that AI replaces all these roles that the transition will be immediate when it's way more likely that it'll take years beyond the point the technology can do that for adoption to hit high numbers. Most companies simply aren't set up to move that fast.
> There needs to be some place men can just spend time with other men.
This is literally anytime, anywhere though. Do just not meet up with their friends? You can go to dinner, get drinks, go hiking, play sports, bike, ski, sunbathe, play videogames and many more things in single-sex groups without raising an eyebrow. The real classic for men of a certain persuasion from a western cultural POV is golf right?
I think there's some strange cultural hangup I'm missing where the entire place needs to be single-sex.
You'll note that most people saying this stuff are being extremely non-specific about what it means. My impression is that a lot of what they want to do would be offensive to lots of guys as well. Essentially they want a space to act in a way that women would feel quite threatened by. Not that mixed groups don't already have that as an issue.
You couldnt be more wrong in your guessing. The answer lies in games all women play with both men and women constantly, never being truly honest with words, expecting men to pick up meaning between lines, predict their emotions and so on and on. We have enough shit in our lives already, no need to add more.
Its frustrating and tiring experience for all men, thus the need to vent out somewhere else where these dynamics dont play out semi constantly.
I am pretty sure women see it similarly in reverse although details in dynamics are very different.
As a man I don't recognize that game playing as something all women do. It's just not something I've experienced in my relationships platonic or otherwise with women. Maybe it's a Europe vs. America thing (edit: from your other comments, you seem to be in Europe so not that) or something personal to you and your experience but it sounds very 'incel-adjacent'.
Yep, there's always a strong element of "what opinions, motherfucker" goose comic in these discussions. And we always end up at "tell me you're an incel without telling me you're an incel"
In the UK at least I suspect it's at least partially a generational thing. When I was in school back in the 90's it was deeply uncool to be in to anything academic. It's also not a surprise it was the height of lads mags and a very heavy drinking culture. These days that social pressure is entirely different for kids.
That said there are lots more ways to be good at your job than a narrow focus on hours worked and raw brain power.
> In the UK at least I suspect it's at least partially a generational thing. When I was in school back in the 90's it was deeply uncool to be in to anything academic. It's also not a surprise it was the height of lads mags and a very heavy drinking culture. These days that social pressure is entirely different for kids.
This was in the US too--there was a "Gen-X slacker" ethos that persisted into mid-millenial "culture". Radically different for people born even 5 years later, I think it largely reflects the relative (perceived) security back then.
> Thing is - when you're writing an _engine_ you need all that. You don't get to tell people writing games that you don't really need shadows or that they need to limit the number of game objects to some number etc. But when you're writing a _game_ (and you can call part of that game the engine), suddenly you get to tweak things and exclude things in all these ways that are perfectly fine.
When you're making an engine it's perfectly fine to bake in constraints. Probably most famously PICO-8 does that very intentionally and is written by just one person. Similarly RPGMaker and a bunch of other 'genre specific' game engines also do this. It's just that everyone tries to make something super general purpose which is really a Sisyphean task.
But it's tightly scoped, there is only really one thing that needs to be dynamic, although it worked admirably with more. We wanted big impulses so could get away from questionable cases easily and could deal with crushing cases simply by exploding the ship.
Likewise the players on the ship running around and the players when they're jetpacking about are all different sub-sets of code implementing that specific behavior.
A lot of "make a game, not an engine" is working out what the minimal thing you need to build is rather than making everything extremely generalized.
> Programmers waste enormous amounts of time thinking about, or worrying about, the speed of noncritical parts of their programs, and these attempts at efficiency actually have a strong negative impact when debugging and maintenance are considered. We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil. Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%.
Sometimes the best way to tackle that 3% is upfront when you're deciding on your system architecture.
reply