Interesting question, i should have made this clear in my original comment. Ill answer later when im free. Also im very interested in understanding your opinion, its very hard to learn something about or discuss this topic, both sides are deeply entrenched and emotionally loaded (which is understandable)
Im not denying that im criticizing the usage of the word zionism in this context
Are you implying that you think implementing the regional order that ended nearly 80 years ago (like it or dont) is a legit solution for the problems we see/have? I know that israels actions are (recently progressing) expansionistic but zionism is not the word that describes this. And using the word for other things than what it means is highly problematic. On whatever side you stand in a conflict, accepting the un resolutions from 1948 or not, fighting for an geographical order that nearly noone alive remembers will lead to nothing but bloodshed. At some point you need to just accept borders as they are, nearly no border was ever created or changed right- or peaceful. That doesnt mean we cant stop fighing after winning or losing a war. The same of course also applies to israel. of course its hard to define borders from.what time you want to accept (thats a diplomatic question and unfortunatly one of military power) but 80 years ago is defintily an insane timespan. The most stupid thing to fight for ist the conflict somones great-grandfsthers had.
deleted by creator
Yeah my comment was random and while im thinking through it… i didnt take the waste heat at the pot surface area over the longer time into account so im also wrong But use the small one when the liquid is already cooking :)
As if science or as i call it “scam” was ever useful for anything
Edit: /s just to be on the safe side
Nice, induction
Take the small one and save energy (if not frying). It doesnt take much longer and the pot uses the energy more efficiently Edit: nm dont do that if the water is not yet boiling
Wtf thought this was clickbait and they maybe responded a shooting accidently killing the baby they did not see but wtf is that
Reminder to choose wisely which bank you put your savings in or which stocks you buy if you do. If you go to a random bank, the risk is high that you borrow your money to the carry out of projects you would never want to get realized.
Disnt know that, makes sence!
Still better to have 15 standards to 15 usecases than no standards. When there is legit usecases which make it useful. In my opinion too many “standards” come from gatekeeping companies not even trying to find a standard together with others or big established production which makes change expensive so they all make their own. In the best case (and many cases) a few years after a new technology establishes but not too late that the expenses are reduced, a public institution sets the standard(s) (or enforces it) and everyone is fine with that limitation to defined usecaes. And for the minority of very rare usecases you can still do exceptions but once a standard is established, its hard and expensive in man ways for a not monopolist company to go their own way against a standard (if they are allowed to).
Joking aside whats that “tree” for?
I want to add that “friends of nikki” is mabye wrong, she is totaly alone, which i find interesting: bear lies about nikki to the other two, and obviously isnt truely interested in her wellbeing. Ian had an affair with nikki but is just interested in her wellbeing when he uses it to shoot against baer who he envies. Sarah is in love with bear and is totally toxic against nikki, victimblaming her. Ok maybe bear is very central in these relationships bur maybe not less central than nikki…
I get that you didnt like the movie too much and i dont wanna be that movie defending fangirl but there a a few scenes where we learn things about nikkis past and future plans, her view of love and relationship… we dont learn that about bear (maybe indirectly). She also has a relationship to her male an female friends which exists and is shown outside bears perspective. I miss the female characters perspektive in many movies (most slightly older movies, weve come a long way lol) but that movie didnt give me that feeling… But maybe thats just my subjective experience. Yeah its still a horror movie where things before and after the story are not presented in detail but i think nikkis view was given at least as much room than the male co protagonists view. Maybe sometimes more subtle, because she is obsessed most time… What still haunts me are her eyes in the first sex scene (or rape scene, depends on how much knowlege you grant bear in the beginning).
Haha yeah i had many edits. I come to correct a typo and stay for another add on. I admit this movie hyped me more than i thought, it haunted me e few days after i saw it and from time to time i still think about it, what i barely do after movies.
There are many scenes which make it clear that in fact she is the victim. Theres a permament latent layer of meaning which shows that his only problem is her strange behaviour and not her suffering, he adressed that in many scenes. Even when she talks to him with clear mind in her sleep begging to just kill her all he answers is “is it so bad to be with me”. Also when the one whish willow hotline askes if he wants to talk to the in the background crying and suffering " real nikki" he just denies. Pretty much every scene has these two layers: the classic horror where the crazy nikki hunts her victim and the layer of bear clearly knowing he just trapped this girl against her will for selfish reasons. It shows very subtle in the beginning of the movie and gets more obvious in the further course… I didnt recognize many of the more subtle signs in the first third of the movie until i saw it a second time, i can really recommend to do this (if you two find the time) and rewatch with another perspective, its very well done! Also after i saw it the second time i watched some analsysis and it showed even more details i didnt see the second time, i love how much love went into the details and the social relation between the four friends and what happens in the (sometimes blurred) background.
Idk if maybe my or your english is bad but i dont get it. Or maybe im just stupid or you are trolling who knows
Do you mean pee by yourself?
i hope i dont need walls of text but ill try to explain myself:
The vague idea of zionism goes back to middle ages, largely connected to conpersecution of the jews, but the word zionism in the context of the modern state israel came up in 19th century as reaction to the ongoing and rising antisemitism in europe, later peaking in the mass murder (mostly industrialized) of 6 million jews by the nazis an their supporters until 1945. When great britain was overwhelmed with the ongoing conflicts between arabs and jews in palestine, they gave the mandate to the UNO. The partition of palestine into an arab and a jewish state was then decided upon by a large majority of UNO members states 1947 (the arab states surrounding except of jordania were already members at this time, but voted against). Shortly after the partition, the surrounding arab states attacked israel, israel won. The UNO organized an armistice agreement between israel and the surrounding states at the green line (new borders from 1949). This was the first and last expansion of the israeli borders, the UNO-States accepted with majority. Every expansion after that was condemned by UNO (as far as i know), also of course israels recent action in gaza.
The word zionism is used for the support of the foundation of a jewish secular state (not specified where or in which borders) in the direct context of conpersecution of jews. If you talk about the expansions after 1949 in political, historical or social studies, you usually dont use the word “zionism” or if you do, you call it “neo zionism” in the context of fundamentalistic jewish settlements.
The first thing is, if you use the word zionism in a series of KKK and Al-Qaeda, i find that highly problematic, if you support the foundation of a jewish state or not.
My second opinion is, that a movement, that supports anti-zionism or uses slogans like “from the river to the sea” is also problematic (also both if you support israels foundation in palestine or not, if you support it in the borders of 1947, 1949, or whatsoever), because at some point, especially if a long time has passed (in the case of anti-zionism around 80 years) you need to accept borders as they were kept after an armistice agreement. If this was under rightful circumstances or not. history is not fair, no or nearly no nation was new established peace- or rightful. The best we can do in modern times is to respect international law (this also applies to israel of course) and dont fight over borders that established a long time ago. an the best international instrument we have (i know its not perfect in many ways and its power is very limited) to solve those conflicts without a bloodshed is UNO. I take your example from your other post about native americans: i think we both agree, that the conquest (and many other things) of native americans by europeans were not rightful. Was it right to fight at these times for your freedom as native american? i think yes. was it advisable? i dont think so because of the massive military inequality. i get the concept of guerrilla warfare, but thats another topic. but the important question is: does it make sence, as a native american in the year 2026 to terrorize or fight or to reclaim national sovereignty from south to north america? i dont think so. Its a complicate question when to go back to accept a border, but doing it without any military chance, even with irans support (except of the possibility to terrorize civilians) is insane and leads to a bloodshed. this bloodshed of course also happens to civilians or those, who didnt decide to fight a guerrilla war against the supressors. i dont want to victim blame the massacre in palestine by israels government and its supporters and many violent settlers, also i dont want to blame the israeli victims from october 7th. So of course its not my moral right to decide, if and how palestinians fight when they are invaded as long as its compatible with international law, but fighting for the reclaim of land that was taken when noone now fighting was alive (what in my understanding anti-zionism is about) is catastrophic. if every border, expanded unlawful in the last 100 years was fought, the world was one (i say it again) bloodshed. i know that in our actual word borders matter, but what matters more is the people inside those borders. And an anti-zionist movement is not helping at all, not in theory and not in practice. It will not solve the border problem, the settler problem, or the arab minority in israel problem. and especially its not helping ending the war or the terrorism (both sides say the other sides warfare is terrorism). Anyway of course i support the end of the fascist israeli government or the bloodshed in palestine. israel highly depends on western financial and military support, so as a westerner, i guess this is the most easily accessible pressure point that I have to push israels politics back into international law and to strive to grant full sovereignty and state recognition to the remaining palestinian territories. A hungry or mutilated child doesnt care, if it lives under israeli or palestinian state law in peace.
Offtopic: What happend to Auth’s comment? Deleting contrary opinions will lead to a circle jerk and both sides cant learn from each other.