I think most of those students would answer that they are protesting the US government's complicity in this particular injustice -- which doesn't apply to the other injustices you list. I have a hard time imagining that most people asking this fair question can't think of that obvious answer.
I hadn't really thought about it from that angle. But it's certainly reasonable.
Do you think if the US wasn't selling weapons to Israel that there wouldn't be protests and a lot of social media posts similar to how other humanitarian disasters are treated today? I guess would it be on the same level?
I wonder if there's a correlation across western countries with respect to protests and a given country's participation in selling weapons to Israel. I recall there were/are a lot of protests going on in Ireland with respect to the conflict but I know Ireland doesn't sell weapons to Israel. But there have been of course other cases in Europe where the country does sell weapons and there are protests. Maybe there's a rhyme and reason here, I'm not sure.
Another way to put it: the point of protesting generally isn't solely to express being upset with an injustice. It's to get some actor/stakeholder - usually one's government - to DO something about the injustice.
Because of this, it's entirely rational to NOT protest with equal opportunity for every injustice that occurs around the world. Those American campus students aren't just protesting to make noise, they are hoping that their government leaders - that DEPEND on their votes - will cease enabling atrocities.
The American government hates Iran with bipartisan support and has it sanctioned to hell and back, I have no idea what I'd protest American leaders to do here?
> The American government hates Iran with bipartisan support and has it sanctioned to hell and back, I have no idea what I'd protest American leaders to do here?
Well you could rally in support of more action, or protest outside an Iranian embassy for example to put pressure on them. I was reading that something on a small scale happened in the UK and they took down the Iranian flag from the embassy.
> Another way to put it: the point of protesting generally isn't solely to express being upset with an injustice. It's to get some actor/stakeholder - usually one's government - to DO something about the injustice.
Sure, I don't disagree. But let me ask, do you believe that if the US wasn't selling weapons to Israel that the public would react to this particular conflict in a way that's similar to how it reacts to other conflicts around the world? It's obviously hard to speculate about because it's just the world we live in and counterfactuals around these things are incredibly difficult and inaccurate, but something tells me there's something unique about this conflict and even in countries that don't sell weapons to Israel we do still see rather large scale protests and rallies and such.
>Well you could rally in support of more action, or protest outside an Iranian embassy for example
You're describing methods of protest, but not demands. What specific action do you believe Americans should demanding from their representatives re: Iran, that the US government isn't already doing? We bombed Iran just this past summer, are you saying we should go back for round 2?
>obviously hard to speculate about because it's just the world we live in
The world we live in is the world where the US gives huge financial, material and political support to Israel. Your statement feels akin to saying "Sure there is a gigantic elephant in this room right now, but something tells me there's some unique reason why everyone is complaining about the room being cramped. Especially compared to these other rooms that don’t have a giant elephant inside.”
> You're describing methods of protest, but not demands. What specific action do you believe Americans should demanding from their representatives re: Iran, that the US government isn't already doing? We bombed Iran just this past summer, are you saying we should go back for round 2?
Well this action puts pressure on Iran, and in the case of the UK maybe more pressure for the UK to do something. You're right that the US government is already opposed (rightfully) to the Iranian regime and so additional rallies or protests might not have much effect but it could reinforce the government's stance and to show support. You can rally in favor of something, and protest against something, can you not?
> The world we live in is the world where the US gives huge financial, material and political support to Israel.
Yea but then you have to balance that with Iran giving huge financial, material, and political support to Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups who take up arms and fight and kill people and stuff too.
But the point wasn't to suggest that the US doesn't give these things to Israel, which if you want to introduce "the real world" you have to include Iran and friends (Russia too now that I think about it, they've been helping Iran), but to just speculate on whether we would still see the level of protest we do today even if the United States didn't give weapons to Israel. I'm unsure. But it's a hard counterfactual to run, and I'm just mentioning it because the primary argument I see for the reasoning that more people care about this issue is specifically because the US sells/gives weapons to Israel. That's all.
The US government doesn't hate Iran, the US government hates that Iran doesn't have a compliant government in an oil rich state, near Russia which is another resource rich state.
Every action of the US can only be understood if there is wealth to be stolen.
Yea. You know when I joined the military and went to Iraq I was pretty upset I didn’t get to bring home any gold or my own barrel or two of oil. Or even a washing machine! Disappointing.
Sheer coincidence, this came out a couple of days ago.
"Iran (1953), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), Russia (2022), Syria (2024), and now Venezuela (2026). The common denominator underlying the U.S. attacks and economic sanctions against all these countries is America’s weaponization of the world’s oil trade."
What is it that you say to each other: "thank you for your service." Service to whom is left unsaid.
No, enough people were angered by him when he accused Trump supporters of killing Kirk that abc had to pull for financial reasons. Not sure why he would’ve said that on a comedy show.
Yes, but in the same breath Kimmel said the assassin was a MAGA supporter.
Kimmel's words:
"...the MAGA gang [was] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them..."
The assassin may have indeed once been a MAGA supporter - his family certainly appear to be so. But political beliefs can change quickly as his history demostrates:
The assassin found true love in a transsexual roommate/lover.So overcome was he by his love for his transsexual roomie and so offended by MAGA supporter Charlie Kirk's objections to LGBTQ+, that he engraved LGBTQ+ graffiti on 30-06 ammo and shot Charlie Kirk in the neck with one of the bullets. He left the remaining bullets with the rifle IIRC.
Was the assassin a MAGA supporter at the moment he pulled the trigger? Beats me!
counterpoint:
I’m surprised “delulu” wasn’t already in OED and certainly would not consider it “cutting edge” slang in 2025 (quite the opposite). Just because one person hasn’t heard certain words doesn’t mean they don’t belong in what is meant to be a comprehensive dictionary. In fact, if you needed to know the meaning of every word that is added to the dictionary, then you would have no need for a dictionary!
Never having heard a word has nothing to do with whether OED “called it too early.” To make that judgment one would want to find external evidence.
Huh? It’s evidence-based speculation. Of course it’s conceivable that a 68-year-old would have less concerns about putting her career on the line. I’m trying to understand how you think a conversation on HN should operate
"The basic, domestic quality thermionic tubes have codes for a projected life span of either 1500 (6Н3П-Е) or only 500 hours (6Н3П). Many were used and then stored for over 50 years, quality stamps may have been accidentally altered, so life expectancy may be questionable, both for the tubes and for me!"
I love the idea of an expiration date, or at least an ever-present need for repair. It emphasizes the idea that the computer is a machine, subject to the constraints of the physical world. There's something charming about that.
I restore a lot of 50s era tube radio equipment. The tubes are suprisingly robust!
I'm surprised at how many times _resistors_ go bad, and of course we all know that capacitors fail. But more often than not, all the tubes in a typical 5 tube AM radio I find are working.
Radio Shacks¹ used to have a tube tester machine in them.² I was always impressed that there was such a finite universe of tubes that a single machine could test all of them.
⸻
1. For the kids, this was a store that sold various electric gizmos including radios and circuit components, then later computer and televisions.
2. I think they may have also been present in hardware stores as well.
I remember tube testers at grocery stores when I was a kid. I'd go with my dad to test tubes from our TV set, and buy replacements for burned out ones.
I think most of those students would answer that they are protesting the US government's complicity in this particular injustice -- which doesn't apply to the other injustices you list. I have a hard time imagining that most people asking this fair question can't think of that obvious answer.
reply