The Jews control the media. /s

In reality, the article is arguing that the people in charge of LiveNation and a few other big concert management companies are run by pro-Israel leadership, and if a band refuses to play Israel they will get denied concerts in other areas those companies control.

Though the article also says that, in the old days, artists would only ever make music if they actually had something to say, never for commercial gain. So, you know. It’s maybe not the most intellectually honest opinion piece.

Not saying it’s wrong. I don’t know. Just that the author has some interesting thoughts writ large, lol. I don’t know that I’d take them as the most reliable source of information.

Guy in the bottom right of the thumbnail looks like Tim Robinson.

I did. I’m confused by your question.

Is it because I said “at minimum”? Because that’s simply implying that there is a potentially more charitable read of what she said, which I then outlined.

Look, at minimum she clearly says all Jews are morally culpable Zionists. Do you think she’s considering herself a culpable Zionist?

The word “all” is often used in ways that don’t mean literally every single one. If I say “all Americans are fat and lazy,” or “none of the users on lemmy.ml understand how language works,” do I mean that there are literally zero exceptions to that? Of course not.

She is saying that the vast majority of Jewish people, even those who disavow the actions of the state of Israel, are still just as morally culpable as the staunchest Zionist and should be treated the same. And she makes it pretty clear how she values the life of the staunchest Zionist.

I’m aware. I read the article.

It’s a pretty long article, so I probably won’t read it again. It does end with “If Judaism has to die for Palestine to live, kill it,” though. It also says that October 7th was a good and righteous attack that everyone should support.

I think that one can be against Israel without wanting the elimination of all of Judism. I also hesitate to full throatedly support an attack against civilians that happened prior to the large scale Palestinian genocide that’s been happening since 2023.

None of which is to say that Israel is some misrepresented good guy. They’re not. And they certainly aren’t the victims of the Palestinian genocide.

But I don’t think that’s grounds to hate my Jewish American neighbors. And if there’s one thing this article is abundantly clear in its stance on, it’s that all Jews, even “non-Zionist Jews,” are directly morally culpable for the Palestinian genocide.

Man, I thought that “yes, all Jews” was clickbait, but no, the article is saying that literally all Jews are culpable for Israel and that they would support the extermination of all Jewish people. Kind of a wild take…

For sure. But the problem isn’t palm oil itself, which seems like something of a miracle plant when compared to other sources of vegetable oil. It’s that the supply chain for it is rife with abuse. Similar to coffee, or honestly, most things that are harvested predominantly in poorer countries with less oversight.

But, like coffee, it seems there are organizations that certify certain palm oil suppliers as “cruelty free,” so it’s probably better to try and hunt those out in favor of foregoing palm oil entirely, which seems like a pretty incredible product otherwise.

That article you linked seems to be saying that palm oil is actually really good?

It says that it is a major driver of deforestation because people are tearing down trees to grow more of it because it’s a very useful and versatile oil.

It later says that switching away from palm oil isn’t a solution because palm oil is actually such an efficient crop that if you used something else the amount of land needed to produce enough oil would drive far more deforestation.

The article is a call for more regulation on deforestation, not a call to not use palm oil. It in fact almost argues the opposite.

I didn’t say bombings were always a failure. I said they were always the result of failure.

Or is your argument that there was literally zero chance to stop the fascist decline of Germany at any point prior to full scale war?

Bombings are always the result of failure. Violence is the final refuge of the incompetent. Sometimes necessary certainly, but never correct with appropriate foresight.

And revenge being the reason behind any action is foolish. It’s like making the focus of prison punishment instead of rehabilitation. When you drop bombs, it should be with particular policy goals in mind.

I also think that it would be preferable if things in the Middle East got calmer, not more escalated. If I had the choice between less violence there and more, I will certainly chose the less.

So, we then have to define what we mean by “bombing Israel.” Wanton bombing I can see no argument for that isn’t simply punitive, which is clearly bad under the aforementioned criteria.

There may be an argument for a targeted strike to just target Netanyahu. You have to ask yourself what the goals and effects of such a strike would be. I think it is unlikely to greatly change Israel’s posture. Netanyahu is unpopular domestically, as is this war, but the nation of Israel has a history of rallying around martyrs that would probably overwhelm any gains by having Netanyahu out of the picture. This would also likely lead towards an even greater retaliatory strike against Iran (which, again, would also be bad.)

So what’s the benefit of bombing Israel other than “it makes me feel good to hurt a bad guy”? Why is it actually good?

I didn’t say that, for one. For two, I have no idea what “Stephen Universe reasons” means.

In general, I don’t cheer for escalation in the Middle East. I think bombing Iran was bad. I think bombing Israel would also be bad. I can agree that Netanyahu is bad without championing for more bombs.

The ideal would be that he is removed from office and tried for war crimes. Not that we have a continuing and escalating war.

Is anyone claiming that this isn’t a reasonable stance for them to take?

Like, plenty of people I’m sure don’t want them to succeed, but I don’t think anyone is a shocked Pikachu that they want to.

Iran hasn’t been historically shy about calling for people’s deaths, and as you say, their head of state was just killed. Of course they want to retaliate. That is the natural and expected thing for them to want.

It may or may not be a good thing if they’re able to succeed, depending on your perspective. But I don’t think anyone thinks it would be an “unfair” thing of them to do.

To be fair, the “change one” part is wrong. Two particles that are quantum entangled maintain the same quantum state when separated. But if you change the quantum state of one it doesn’t propogate. They are just in sync.