tryptaminev

Ich finde Doppeldenk besser. Man denkt nie nur eine oder zwei Sachen. Und auch der Bereich rational oder ethisch sinnvollen Meinung zu einem Thema enthält meist mehr als nur genau eine Meinung. Doppeldenk zeigt, dass wirklich zwei volle Gedankenkonstrukte aus zahlreichen sich widersprechenden Einzelgedanken und insgesamt widersprüchlich nebeneinander stehen können.

There was a new decision on Palestinians facing immediate starvation and demanding Israel to fully comply with with the prior ruling as well as working together with the UN and immediately allow unobstructed access for humantarian aid.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/icj-orders-israel-to-increase-humanitarian-aid-to-gaza-demands-report-in-30-days/

Also the court did not rule that there was no genocide in its first ruling. It said that there is a plausibility of genocide and that Israel needs to comply with the provisional measures to not increase the risk of genocide. Given that it had to not only repeat itself on that but increase the scope of demands, it certainly does not represent Israel as being sincere about the preventionof genocide.

Doppeldenk:

Doppeldenk (engl. doublethink; in älteren Übersetzungen: Zwiedenken) ist ein Neusprech-Begriff aus dem dystopischen Roman 1984 von George Orwell und beschreibt eine Art widersprüchlichen Denkens, von dem gesagt wird, dass zu seinem Verständnis Doppeldenk selbst die Voraussetzung bilde. Durch dieses propagierte Denken, bei dem zwei widersprüchliche oder sich gegenseitig ausschließende Überzeugungen aufrechtzuerhalten und beide zu akzeptieren sind, setzt die herrschende Kaste die Gesetze der Logik außer Kraft. Dadurch wird das Denken der Parteimitglieder schwammig und in Zweideutigkeit gehalten, wodurch schnelle Kurswechsel des Regimes auf eigentümliche Weise sofort akzeptiert werden können, auch wenn es sich dabei um das genaue Gegenteil der zuvor noch „gültigen Wahrheit“ handelt, etwa bei abrupten Wechseln der Feindbilder oder der politischen Losungen.

Das schließt mit ein: Absichtlich Lügen zu erzählen und aufrichtig an sie zu glauben; jede beliebige Tatsache zu vergessen, die unbequem geworden ist, und dann, falls es wieder nötig ist, sie aus der Vergessenheit zurückzuholen; so lange wie nötig die Existenz einer objektiven Realität zu leugnen und gleichzeitig die Realität zu akzeptieren, die man verleugnet.

Sie wissen was sie tun, und sie wissen auch warum sie es tun. Es ist Teil einer autoritären Herrschaftsstrategie.

The ICJ just ruled again, that Israel is not upholding its obligations to prevent genocide, in particular that it must finally allow for full humanitarian access and end the starvation of the people in Gaza.

I trust the highest court of the world to be more qualified to recognize genocide than some pro Israel propaganda piece.

Ireland is not comparable. As the market share of a company grow, so do the demands of customers if they get mislead by the company and the interest of competititors to have legal repercussions for illegal activities.

Ireland is different, as it works as a tax haven for these companies. They don't care about how many customers are there. They care about how much of their profit they can declare in the country with the least tax rate.

I am not so sure about this. There used to be plenty of space for both. There was no "forced" interaction and the dog population was much smaller. So there was no genetic pressure into the wolf population, even if there were some crossovers. Now the habitation is extremely limited for wolves, getting into contact with human population is inevitable and any influx of dog genes into the wolf population has a realistic chance of forcing itself through, as seen by the hybrids making up most of the wild wolf population in many places.

In 1800 the Western European populations were at a bout half of what they are today. In Northern and Eastern Europe it was more like a quarter to a fifths of todays population. But back then there were no cars, hardly any trains, and the overall land usage was much much smaller than today.

EDIT: The following is only referring to the usage in common used language. The legal distinction is as pointed out by @geissi@feddit.de and freezing in legal terms is different from confiscation.

The factual control over that property is taken away from the owner. That is confiscation (in the common used language not in legal terms). For any physical property that term is used directly in that sense. The term "freezing" for bank accounts has established in that sector but it remains valid to speak of confiscation as the factual control over that asset is seized from the owner.(in the common used language not in legal terms) For that is is irrespective of whether the recognized ownership has changed. I.e. if a police officer takes all the money out of your wallet and puts it in a safe at the police station it still has been confiscated from you, even if he gives you a letter stating it is still your money. You are denied access to it, until some decision has been reached by someone.

~~The only legal distinction here is that the bank is a regulated private or in this case public entity that is legally seperate from the executive, whereas the police is a direct executive organ.~~

You comment is a perfect example of how jewish people dissenting with the unconditional support for Israel stance are targeted using antisemitic conspiracies, insults and and propaganda attacks.

The zionist movement is not just allying with antisemites both historically and today. It itself is using the fully playbook of antisemitic tropes to attack dissenting jews.

I would say that modern zionism cannot exist without anitsemitism. Zionism relies on the same inhumane cruelty and doublethink patterns that fascist ideologies rely on.

At the time there was no news article available.

EDIT: the following only applies to the usage of the term in common language. It is not accurate in the legal sense, where the term has a distinctly different meaning from the term freezing A bank account being frozen can be referred to as confiscation though. It means that you loose the factual control over your property. When a teacher confiscates the phones of students to give them back at the end of the school day. Or when police confiscates all your electronics in a criminal investigation, only to give them back month later.

It is true that there currently is not the level of permanence that the term can also include. However it means that the organization is unable to operate and there is strong reason to believe their stance that this is done for politican reasons just shortly before they want to hold a conference.

For context, the Berliner Sparkasse is a subsidiary bank of the Landesbank Berlin. It used to be owned by the state of Berlin but has been sold to the group of Sparkassen in 2007 to deal with the states debt. It is therefore owned by a few hundred state and muncipality banks.

The bank is in full public ownership. The government of the state of Berlin can remove members of the executive board at any time if it sees the banks actions in violation of any law. There is also an advisory board that is appointed by the state government and members can be removed from the advisory board at any time, without any specified reasons in the law.

The bank is publicly owned and subject to possible direct intereference by the state government of Berlin, which has been particularly strongly cracking down on peace activists including arrests of jewish activists for peace and bans of demonstrations by jewish peace organizations such as the Jewish Voice for Peace in the first month after Hamas attacked Israel on 07. October.

Ah yes, no need to look at questions like socioeconomic causes, psychological issues or the failure of the prison system at rehabilitating people.

Just lock them up indefinetly. And then what is now considered the medium persistency group can be split into a new high persisting and a smaller medium persisting group. What to do then is obvious. You must permanently lock away the new high persistency group. Just rinse and repeat until a large part of the population is in prison and the economic and social consequences of having so many people incarcerated will cause crimerates to spike as people need to survive in a dysfunctional society. Luckily we can just lock up these people too, until the entire country is imprisonend.