u/Shi-Stad_Development

Ya know what, unfortunately, you are probably right

Women's volleyball is better to watch than men's. The men are too strong it's basically about who can hit the ball the hardest. The women actually have good rallies and skills

The results make me think of this;

https://preview.redd.it/xhok64cz5ixh1.png?width=1078&format=png&auto=webp&s=aba84b4fa11af5377d78a31c1b6b13cdf7b97e43

Should the "West" invade a place that has proven, with every Western invasion, that the people just get radicalised against you every time you try?

We could just help them peacefully liberalise, but idk I'm just a stranger on the internet

It's not offensive, but it also isn't a justification for continuous military action and expansion

Are you illiterate or just racist?

But why? Do I need to be flexible for the party/revolution or something? Because ultimately, I think there is a significant amount of work I COULD (if I get extraordinarily lucky) do to bring about the conditions for revolution without needing to be the one quoting Marx, Engels, or Lenin. Thus, I think I could still be a tool for the cause regardless of my actual knowledge base.

wdym move on?

Wdym defend? Is there something I am supposed to be defending? There isn't anywhere that has achieved true communism, so it's not like I have to defend its history or anything; it's more of a persuasion of its plausibility?

Well, for starters, I don't have the books, and secondly, I read a lot related to my career and studies, which is how I came to communism in the first place. I found that a lot of the language I was reading as best practice was essentially just synonymous with communist talking points

Hmm I wonder if this suspiciously hook shaped worm is bait?

The French are a nation of professional protestors. This shouldn't be that surprising.

Anyone who isn't "French" but IS taking part in the protests, I think should get citizenship for participating in the national pastime of France.

Who is voting nuance and then note explaining in the comments. It's a pretty binary question and the correct answer is no country has a right to exist. That's why all of them have militaries

I consider a genocide to be an organized typically state sponsored mass murder of a population with the intention of eradication

So you reward inability/incompitense with a free pass? Israel is moving Palestinians from their lands, bottling them up in the West Bank, where they only let supplies in so that the rest of the world doesn't hamper its ability to continue expanding. Like, they are setting up for state-sponsored mass killings; the writing is all over the walls and you'r like "nah, till it happens, it's fine".

 You can't simultaneously say yes the definition is much more broad and technically doesn't even require any killing only intent right? And also say you must help stop the genocide!!!

You can. Australia has a thing called the Stolen Generation, where they rounded up all the Aboriginal people, put them into homes/camps and tried to whitewash them. Effectively erase their culture, genes ect. without state sponsored killing (though many people died anyway). So even though the population never reflected mass killing, if it was successful, the net result would have been the same. The loss of that culture and its people. A genocide.

Like there's probably more people dying in Ukraine every month than in gaza total if we count soldiers on both sides. Not to mention Sudan which also has 2x the casualties and genuinely no one is talking about it.

This is what-aboutism. Both of these things also matter and the lack of conversation IS an issue. But that doesn't detract from what this conversation is about, which is the genocide in Gaza.

If Israel was another Arab country bombing Palestinians we wouldn't ever hear about it.

This is a terrible hypothetical. Israel is the "land of the jews"; switching jews out for arabs doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless you also switch out the historical role of jews for arabs in which case the result would be the exact same.

It'd be Saudi Arabia and Yemen. But since there's the extra spice thrown in it becomes a virtue signaling issue.

If you aren't hearing about Saudi Arabia and Yemen, that's on you. I hear about it just fine, so perhaps its your echo chamber which is the issue.

Like 20-60k white people dying every month in Ukraine is boring.

That is an insane thing to say. I kinda get the sentiment; I also felt like once Israel restarted hostilities with Palestine, the Ukraine war was overshadowed and that it would no longer get the attention it deserved. But like, Ukraine is also fighting with everything it has to prevent the war from being exciting. Because exciting in this context would mean they throw Russia out, which they can't do or they would have done it OR let Russia make huge gains, like capturing cities, which feeds the narrative that Ukraine can't win, so it should just give up, which gives them less support, making it more likely to be true. Israel, on the other hand, has a massive capability advantage over the Palestinians, resulting in everything being exciting because massive explosions and lots of death/destruction make for good TV.

A mass shooting could be considered a genocide or part of a genocide context, pending. For example, if you took a bunch of Americans out into a field and cut them down with machine guns for the purpose of destroying the American population, that would be a genocide. BUT if your motive was something like sending a message, then it's probably more along the lines of terrorism. But the main point is, scale shouldn't matter in the context of a genocide. Any amount of destruction of culture, identity, or population makes the world a less vibrant place (even if you disagree with said culture/identity/population). Reform is fine; destruction is not.

Besides, it's not like there isn't hostile intent on the part of Israel to kill Palestinian people and steal their land. So yes, you could rope in some less heinous things if you wanted to be disingenuous about it, but within the context of Israel and Palestine it's pretty apparent what's going on.

Besides, no one is going to give you a reward for bootlicking and defending a genocide. So what's the point? What are you gaining from denying a genocide? Like, ignoring every other argument I've made for a moment:

Either you defend a genocide, and Israel completes its genocide, the world loses that culture, Israel gets some land, and you get nothing, OR you fight the genocide; if you are successful, Palestinian people and culture survive, maintaining the richness of the world, Israel continues to exist, and you get to sleep knowing you've done anything to stop a genocide; if you are unsuccessful, the result is the same as if you defended the genocide, but you still get to sleep knowing you did anything to stop it.

So if by that definition it's a genocide, cool!

Possibly not the sentence I'd be leaving on the internet, btw.

In the real world, genocide isn't measured in population change but in intent.

As defined in 1948:

Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as:

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

Palestinian civilians are dying from IDF actions; war will always create serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Israeli IS blocking UN supplies to the West Bank, which is an attempt to starve Palestinians to death; Israel has moved people from their homes.

That's the majority of acts ticketed off in part or in full.

Plus, the "population is going up" narrative is both misleading and not a permanent state of affairs. Misleading, because the adult population is dying faster than it would naturally; there are just enough children being born to cover the difference. Not a permanent state of affairs because Israel continues to expand its operations in the West Bank; more Palestinians will die, potentially exponentially so if aid like food, water and medicine can't get through Israel.

Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel said in a new report today. 

The very first paragraph literally says it's a UN commission, not just A commission. You'd know that if you'd read anything beyond the title.

In what world are you better able to ascertain whether something is a genocide with more impartiality and accuracy than the UN. Ya know, the organisation is built with representatives from most countries and actually has boots on the ground and resources monitoring the situation independently, instead of trying to get a good news story?

Wrong https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds

Doesn't justify a genocide

Only if the bigots catch you

Wow 1Y old account is still within bot territory for you? I must be a good bot if you are the only person who's noticed. Maybe I'll treat myself to a cup of water in your honour.

Also, wtf are you on about? The only point you've made is that bigger isn't always better, which I AGREED with. I just added the stipulation that if things were equal and the only variance was population size, the city with the bigger population would have more demand for city-like infrastructure, thus making it the better city. You then completely ignore all my points, expecting me to answer YOUR questions and then somehow land on the conclusion that I am a bot, a bot without a corporeal form, no less.

Also, dumbass, in this conversation neither of us has mentioned Mississippi once; you are replying to a thread where I spoke about West Virginia and the Chinese cities, and that's it. So I think it's you who needs to stop hallucinating and maybe accept the fact that you are a rambling fool.

Pay walled

That seems weird to me. I assume the anti-regulation aspect comes from a desire for density, and removing height restrictions and the like is anti-regulation in nature? But as a planner in the public sense, it's your job to manage the regulation rather than remove it? Ig, you could probably blame civilian governments for the overregulation and thus just don't trust government intervention?

"Certainly it's far from the easiest path there. But dismantling it just sidetracks us onto the long route of nationalizing all that capacity and expertise that was formerly allowed to disperse into the private sector before we (I presume) speed up the last step. Corralling and redirecting it would be better. And if we are going to take a long time, just imagine if we spent some time ensuring that there were tax deductions from purchasing dense housing, and everyone had to pay taxes and abide by mandatory density rules that all funded denser cities and mass transit."

I think you are putting too much emphasis on US as planners within a hypothetical revolutionary government. We are planners; we plan land uses; we do not run mines, factories, legislative bodies, emergency services or economies. So we wouldn't suddenly be tasked with all these burdens outside of our current profession. Our task would be 2 fold: plan cities for a communist future (plan for community, cooperation and the facilities to maintain society post-money) and improve the planning process. Like for sure, someone would need to do all those things, and it would be disruptive, but ultimately it probably wouldn't be our burden

"I've noticed that capitalist enterprises are centrally planned internally for years. I've worked for some of them. It's just that they usually don't have the scope or power of a state on their own and have to bribe them into obeying their whims. Which is certainly dastardly, given that some of their biggest pushes and bribes have been pretty socially and bodily damaging."

That's what I'm saying: money as an incentive in planning/development is leading to negative outcomes for people.

"I mean, we could benefit from some Swiss-style federal obligations toward continuous upzoning and such. But still, having every urban planner be- or live in a place run under laws made by- a communist seems mostly extraneous to improving urban planning outcomes to me."

Depending on where we are talking about, it wouldn't take much to improve the planning system. However, I feel like communism kinda speed-runs the improvement process. Like, obviously, our skills and practices wouldn't improve overnight, but having (at least in theory) political support to actually plan based on the specific context of the site and the needs of the community, as well as having no economic incentives to cut corners or alter the outcome for the benefit of the developer or landowner, would go a long way toward creating a genuinely equitable/socially rich built form.

I didn't think that Georgism has a stance on zoning? Because I'd wager that zoning and approvals are bigger hindrances to density than economic incentives.

Also, density alone doesn't create a vibrant community. That's half the inspiration for this post: sometimes the basics aren't enough, and profit eats bling.

Look, I'm no economist, and I doubt many people on this sub are either. So I don't think or want to suggest that we give urban planners control of the economy or all resource inputs or whatever. But what I am suggesting is that, for a more socially equitable urban form or urban planning process, profit as a motive for development must be quashed.

Additionally, under capitalism, we already have techniques in place for resource inputs and the allocation of resources. It's called a work schedule/gantt chart. Granted, those materials still have to spawn, but they'd work as a request form to a higher authority who does know how to get those resources. So within our own field, which is the only field I feel any confidence in commenting on, wouldn't our plans/projects/schemes/processes be better if we were communist?