Aesthetics, plus the seductive appeal that pre-modern, pre-liberal-democratic societies (when the governments were authoritarian, the women were submissive, and the men "were men") have for reactionaries, incels, and cryptofacists.

I think by "support" they mean "send billions of dollars in US military hardware, which both funds the military-industrial complex and furthers wars and conflicts on the other side of the world". Not everyone thinks that is a good idea.

While I'd personally argue that the quality of the character development, writing, and storytelling in the show doesn't even achieve the level of "fine", you're right in that 1) people should be allowed to enjoy things in peace and 2) RoP in particular attracts criticism which is often hyperbolic. At the same time, however, there should also be the freedom to honestly critique a piece of media without being labeled as a hater, obsessive fanboy, or a neckbeard, etc. Especially when dealing with an IP as treasured as Tolkien's.

Whether you find this article excessive in its criticism or not, the writer makes the very valid point that the media landscape today is becoming increasingly saturated with this 'memberberries/nostalgia/callback type of storytelling, along with the constant stream of prequels and sequels based on this formula. People are growing tired of it, and Rings of Power has it deep in its bones.

For a good examination of the showrunners' over-reliance on referencing the Jackson movie trilogy in lieu of interesting, original storytelling, I highly recommend this YouTube video. I think it really gets to the core of why so many people find RoP frustrating or disappointing as a show in its own right, let alone as a Tolkien adaptation.

Hard to argue with him about the JJ-Abramsification of all things, or the perplexing fact that modern audiences appear to lap it up.

Watching season one of RoP felt undeniably reminiscent of watching The Force Awakens and almost hearing the audible *ding as yet another callback got checked off the list. It's not art any more; it's just content to be consumed.

And what is dropping this wikipedia link supposed to prove?

Does it contradict the scholarly article I cited which supports everything I said?

P.S. who is "you people"?

Gaddafi literally funded terrorist attacks on the US in the 80s, which led to about 15-20 years of political disruptions between the two countries.

According to the Regan administration perhaps, but not according to intelligence agencies from several European countries. There was a concerted effort to link Gaddafi to individual terrorist attacks, like the Lockerbie bombing, although there was no hard evidence to support that.

It seems we're largely in agreement then - that 1) NATO did, in fact, make a move on Gaddafi and 2) the West supported him when it was beneficial but turned on a dime the minute he stopped cooperating.

That also overlooks all the times western powers were friendly with Gaddafi. They didn't mind him following his ascent to power, nor in the post 9-11 period when the U.S. and European countries restored diplomatic ties with Libya, and Western oil companies re-entered the Libyan oil sector.

In 2007, the UK's Tony Blair visited Libya to strike up energy deals, and France's Sarkozy met with Gaddafi for military and economic agreements.

Was Gaddafi a supervillain then too, or did he only become one when his interests were no longer aligned with the Western powers?

He certainly played up to the role, presumably for egotistical reasons, but most of it was sabre rattling bravado. He wasn't seen as a genuine threat by Western intelligence agencies.

Also, NATO didn't have to kill Gaddafi directly in order to be instrumental to his deposition. You only have to look at the history of US intervention in Latin America for many examples of how regime change can be carried out via proxies and rebel groups.

Except there is strong evidence that Western powers (predominantly France, the UK and US) created the fiction of Gaddafi being a global supervillain and then used NATO forces to enact regime change in Libya, under the pretext of "preventing civilian casualties". The real goal, of course, was to secure Libyan oil reserves and open the country up to western markets.

NATO is often used an extension of Western foreign policy. To pretend it is solely a benevolent peace keeper is just as simplistic and naïve as saying that everything the West / NATO does is pure evil.

Could you share any specific examples? I haven't seen or read any instances of him being that off the mark.

Ear buds or IEMs typically have a much higher sensitivity than full sized headphones. The higher the output power of your PC's headphone out, the louder your earbuds will be at any given volume %.

There isn't anyway around this except to manually change the volume whenever you use your earbuds.

Actually, it's nothing more than lazy slander pepetuated by duopoly apologists.

There's zero proof Stein is "Putin backed". She once sat at the same table at an international conference and barely spoke to the man. That's it.

Meanwhile, AOC has been publicly performing as a genuine progressive for her voters and constituents all while voting and acting like a corporate Democrat behind the scenes.

1. Israel primarily needs bombs, and lots of them. No other country could provide Israel with bombs and planes on the scale that the US currently supplies them. A US arms embargo would force Israel to use up its current stockpiles, and could seriously affect their war effort.

2. Israel has initiated all of the recent military strikes in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon and despite this, none of Israel's neighbors, not even Iran, want escalation to a full scale conflict. The idea that they would all suddenly attack Israel following a US arms embargo is sheer fantasy.

3. The US State department is imposing restrictions on Israel's use of US weaponry? Uh, since when? They are not currently imposing any restrictions, even though they should be under the Leahy Laws, so imposing an embargo would not change Israel's behavior in this regard whatsoever. All this talk of being "in compliance with international humanitarian law" when it comes to Israel is a total PR farce.

The Democrats are trying to do the exact same thing to the Greens in Wisconsin and Montana. It's a duopoly thing.

Sure, because our current economic system creates governments and laws that protect private capital and short-term exploitation at the expense of the natural world.

I do see hope in the book, though. Once you look beyond the human scale, it shows us that trees are always going to outlast us, no matter how hard we try to destroy our environment. The question is - can we learn from their patience and adaptability before we screw ourselves beyond the point of no return?

I haven't finished it yet, but so far the fatalism seems to be balanced by the reminder that we are intrinsically linked to the natural world, and that it is never too late to seek solace in it.

They allowed the family of an Israeli hostage on stage. Why not afford Palestinian Americans the same courtesy to have one of their own represented? Hell, they could have stood alongside the hostage's family to show solidarity and hope for peace in the future.

The Uncommitted movement did everything the "right way" -- they went through the official channels and offered the DNC a list of speakers and gave them permission to vet the speech however they wanted. But apparently that was still too big of an ask.

It's a perfectly good source. Is there anything about their argument that you find unsound, or is it simply because it makes you uncomfortable?

I'm not advocating either way, although the horrors I’ve seen committed in Gaza are on a whole other level than anything I’ve witnessed before.

I wouldn’t blame anyone who votes third party, or even sits this one out.

I'm not advocating either way, although the horrors I’ve seen happening in Gaza are on a whole other level than anything I’ve witnessed before.

I wouldn’t blame anyone who votes third party, or even sits this one out

Sorry, that's completely wrong. Israel is still extremely reliant on the US military hardware -- tanks, planes, missiles, guns, you name it. The vast majority of the bombs being dropped on Gaza come from the US, also.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/04/1242911786/a-closer-look-at-u-s-military-support-for-israel

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/11/us/israel-gaza-bombs.html

Also, the Biden administration merely delayed one shipment of 2,000 lb bombs. Netanyahu claimed that the Biden administration was holding back more, but this was just a PR move. The US is still happily sending tank engines, planes, guns, and smaller bombs to Israel.

Al in all, the Biden administration has done very little to effectively restrain Netanyahu. The "bear hug" strategy has been an unmitigated failure.

Huh, not paywalled for me but here's an archived version anyway:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240821013836/https://theintercept.com/2024/08/20/dnc-harris-gaza-uncommitted-protest/

Oh, I agree. I think the last six months have really disabused me of the notion that working to effect meaningful change within the US system as it currently stands is even remotely possible.

Smacking a muslim woman protesting a genocide on the head with a WE LOVE JOE sign is a very specific type of irony.

Did any of the main news channels in the US even cover this panel? I haven't seen any.

The media and online punditry seem far more happy to obsess over a few Hamas-flag-waving protesters outside than to listen to experienced doctors relay the horrors they saw in Gaza. What a shocker.

An arms embargo in some form is literally the only leverage the US has that could change Netanyahu's mind, at this stage. Personally, I don't think Kamala has the guts for it.

Yeah, fair play. I've been something of an apologist for AOC for some time, but her full transformation to mainstream Democrat is disappointing.

Obama's

Yikes. Where's a copy editor when you need one?

A translation of the top caption says

The last Iron Swords survey was conducted between the dates 07-11.8.24 led by the data collection and analysis desk at the Institute for National Security Studies. The fieldwork was carried out by the "iPanel" Institute, during which 772 men and women were interviewed on the Internet and by telephone in the Hebrew language and 200 in the Arabic language, which constitute a representative sample of the adult Israeli population in Israel aged 18 and over. The maximum sampling error for the entire sample is 3.5% ± at a 95% confidence level.

He won't need to nix anything - Hamas will not agree to a deal that does not actually hold Israel to a lasting ceasefire:

"After being briefed by the mediators about what happened in the last round of talks in Doha, we once again came to the conclusion that Netanyahu is still putting obstacles in the way of reaching an agreement, and is setting new conditions and demands with the aim of undermining the mediators' efforts and prolonging the war," Hamas said.

More specifically, Hamas objects to the fact that the proposal doesn't include a permanent ceasefire or comprehensive Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Source

All this talk of a ceasefire deal is a PR stunt that allows the US to pretend like it's trying to make progress while still funneling weapons to Israel.

Based on what evidence? That claim was just an attempt to smear her campaign on social media.

Yes, God forbid that people vote for parties that actually represent their values rather than always picking the lesser of two evils

An irony that 100% of Christian Nationalists will never appreciate.

Yup. Decades of Cold War propaganda, an incompetent news media, and a binary, two-party duopoly that positions itself as "the right" versus "the left" have all worked together on this one.

More bullshit from the DNC. Luckily the judge appears to have dismissed the complaint, which means the Greens are still on the ballot in Wisconsin.

The DNC has subsequently filed a lawsuit in response. The author of the complaint, David Strange, says the Greens should not be on the ballot because

the Green Party can't nominate presidential electors in Wisconsin because no one in the party is a state officer, defined as legislators, judges and others. Without any presidential electors, the party can't have a presidential candidate on the ballot

All this pretty rich coming from the party that is allegedly out to "save democracy".

Musk sycophants coming to his defense in the comments by quoting "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" 🤦‍♂️

... at a police association, of all places 🤦‍♂️

This doesn't come across as a "Zionist" mod persecuting you for criticisms of Israel, this comes across as a pretty squabble involving two people who should know better, quite honestly.

People criticize Israel in News & World News all the time; it really depends how you go about it.

Same here, although I confess I wasn't blown away by this one. I often find that while Ghibli films always crush it on the imagination front, the writing can be hit and miss. I understood the autobiographical origin of the plot, but there were several parts that felt underdeveloped or poorly explained. Overall, was good but definitely not up there with Mononoke or Spirited Away, imo