homura1650

joined 1 year ago
[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Its not symbolism.

The reason people view Dax as a trans is that they were at times male and at times female. That is not symbolic of being trans, it is just being trans.

However, despite exploring what it means to be a trill passing through generations of hosts, the changing gender aspect of it never comes up. If Kurzon was a women, I doubt we would be talking about Dax as a trans stand-in, but I can't think of a single plot point or character development that would meaningfully change.

Normally I'm a believer in death of the author, so I won't be offended if anyone wants to completly ignore thus section, but in the DS9 documentary, they have a section on LGBT representation, and their big example for it was Jadzia. However, that was not for being trans, it was for being in a gay relationship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya8WTQc93yI&t=5467s

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

Don't, Jadzia clearly appreciated it.

Trill's relationships to their past hosts is complicated and never fully explored, but it is clearly established that the distance they create between their current host's life and that of their past host is something that is enforced apon them by broader trill society.

Both Kurzon and Jadzia were, at least at times, clearly unhappy at the extent to which they had to distance themselves from their past life.

https://youtu.be/Qu-bP5367Yo?si=YNBFC_IUo7o7FpCd

The thing is, Trill are not trans. Dax didn't go from being a man to a woman. Kurzon was always a man and Jadzia was always a women. And DS9 actually took this concept seriously on its own terms.

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

I can't guarantee that none of those drivers were actually part of Hamas

We need to get passed the idea that the mere presence of a Hamas member justifies all military action. Assuming it is true, what were those Hamas members doing?

Throwing away the vaccines to use the marked car for transporting weapons and fighters? Valid military target (and a war crime)

Assisting in distributing polio vaccines? Not a valid target.

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

No good Sir, I'm on the level.

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

First, he wasn't found "not guilty," the charges were dismissed.

Doesn't matter. Jeopardy attaches when the Jury is sworn in. And the jury has already been dismissed. At best, they can ask for a mistrial at this point. There are some cases where you can get a mistrial that allows for a new jury, but that is pretty much impossible if the mistrial was the prosecutor's fault; even if, on review, a mistrial was not nessasary. Essentially, you do not want prosecutors to deliberately induce a mistrial in order to restart a trial that is not going well.

Further, there is simply no mechanism that allows the judge to even consider this motion, and the prosecutor in her brief did not provide a single theory for why it would be proper to consider the motion. This motion was written for the media, not the judge.

This us not out of character. In the hearing that led to the dismissal, there was a conversation with the judge during the lunch break. It subsequently came out that the judge was inclined to dismiss the case. Following that meating, the prosecutor's co-council quit; and the prosecutor called herself as a witness. On its own, a prosecutor calling herself as a witness (subject to cross examination) is crazy enough. But the judge already told them he was dismissing the case. There was no legal reason for her to do so. The only justification for it was PR. In explaining her decision to call herself she said, on the record (but not under):

Court: It doesn't matter to me weather you call yourself as a witness. It doesn't matter to the defense weather you call yourself as a witness. So, if your calling yourself as a witness, there is no one here that is requiring you to be called as a witness.

Prosecutor: The information. Everything that happened in this regard, especially as it pertains to me, needs to come out in the public

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=03FPAS71YYs&t=24292

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In the modern era, wars are rarely in the interest of either side. However, miscalculations happen, and the more you play at the edge of war, the more likely you are to fall over.

In April, Israel calculated that they could bomb an Iranian complex in Syria, targeting top Iranian officials without sparking a war. They were correct.

In response, Iran calculated that they could send 300 drones/missiles to Israel, and have enough be intercepted by air defense systems to avoid starting a war. They were correct.

Israel and Hezbollah have been exchanging fire; each side calculating that each strike would not start a war. Thus far they have been correct.

For years, Hamas and Israel have been exchaning small attacks. Both sides correctly calculating that they could avoid a full war. Then, on October 7th, the IDF fucked up. A Hamas attack was far more successful than it had any bussiness being, and now both sides are 10 months into a war that hurts both of them.

A war with Hezbollah might not be inevitable, but the current level of conflict is not sustainable. Every day that it is not resolved is one more opportunity for miscalculation; and one more notch ticked on the escalatory ratchet.

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

The President’s role is largely ceremonial. The President consults party leaders to determine who they would support, then nominates that person. The nominee must then form a coalition that can get support from a majority of the Knesset.

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That inherent right does not extend to using any means to achieve it; just like a state's right to self defence does not grant it the right to use any means to achieve it.

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

How do you think intelligence agencies work? There is a reason why background investigations for security clearences focus so much on "is there anything you can be blackmailed with"

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

He is entitled to $80,000 per year imprisoned; payable as a lump sum of $2,720,000 or as a lifetime annuity at the same present value as the lump sum payment. I don't know exactly what the state sponsored annuity would pay, but a quick estimate from schwab estimates it at $15,483/month.

That still doesn't pay for 34 years in prison. However, it is a respectable retirement.

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

It was not compulsory for Ben Gvir, who was excused from compulsory service because the IDF at the tine thought he was too extreme. He has since been convicted of terrorism, and currently serves as Israel's minister of defense.

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Prior to the Holocaust, there was a significant part of the Zionist movement that was playing footsie with the actual Nazis. The Nazis didn't want to kill the Jews, they wanted them out of Europe. Zionists thought that made them potential allies. Ultimately, that didn't work out because the Nazi's thought that moving them to where modern Israel is would be too destabilizing for the region. The Nazis still ended up supporting establishing a Jewish state, with Hitler approving a plan to do so in Madagascar. This plan was eventually abandoned in favor of their "final solution".

 

About 30 minutes, I was cutting some wood when my hair got sucked into the saw's motor, pulling my face into the piece and giving me a bloody nose. I couldn't pull the saw out like then, so I carried the entire piece to my tool rack to cut the hair off with scissors.

Tie your hair up people.

view more: next ›