TheSanSabaSongbird

She forgot creepy old rich guys.

No, conservatism is ultimately about some people being naturally more deserving than others. It really is that simple. Everything else follows from that proposition. There's no reason to further complicate it by looking for more proximate explanations.

"Need" probably isn't the best word. It's not a "need" so much as it is a belief. They "believe" themselves to be better and more deserving. Everything else follows from that. Start plugging it into what you know about conservatives and you will immediately see that it's by far the best and simplest explanation.

Also bear in mind that people are often, and in fact quite usually, unaware of why they hold certain opinions and far from using reason to arrive at their opinions, tend to arrive at an opinion and then use reason to rationalize why it's correct.

The SCOTUS is a great example; we already know how the justices will rule because we already know their underlying opinions about the world. What we don't know is how they will justify their rulings. If this weren't true, then neither party would care about SCOTUS nominations. The fact that we care very much tells you that we all privately know that I am right.

You and I do it too. We all do. Some of us are more aware of it than others.

Craigslist struck the first blow against newspapers by taking away classified ad revenue. The death blow came when Silicon Valley taught people that "information wants to be free," which meant that no one wanted to pay for local news anymore. That led most local newspapers to collapse, while the few that managed to survive --apart from a handful of "legacy" papers-- mostly did so at the cost of turning into click-bait sites or outrage machines.

We have to bring back the idea that people should be happy to pay for local news.

Or, you know, we go back to the time when the news media had real gatekeepers and not just any random jackass could churn out some bullshit copy and broadcast it to the world, let alone have it get published by their local paper.

It's nice that the Internet has democratized access to a national or even global audience, but let's not pretend for a moment that it hasn't caused a ton of problems in the process such that now many people have no idea of what to believe while others believe whatever they want.

It's still pretty easy to tell the difference. You have to have a pretty low level of media literacy to not be able to easily spot it. Unfortunately we already know that most people don't have a clue when it comes to mass media, and even if they did, we also know that people tend to believe whatever reinforces their priors.

It also raises the very thorny issue of who adjudicates what is and is not "memetic effluent."

Out of curiosity, how do you think she'll rationalize it?

Years ago I had one that was spring-loaded so you'd press a little button on the side and it would pop open in one move. I really liked that phone. Don't remember what brand it was.

Sometimes but not always. There's more to it in international law. That said, I realize that in arguing caution before leveling accusations of genocide, I am in the minority in this instance. My take is based on what I've read of expert legal opinion on the subject and not on my own evaluation of the IDF's moral position.

The long and short of it is that there are matters of intent that have to be shown in order to have a case for genocide. Thus far, regardless of how we think about the IDF vis war-crimes, I have yet to see a convincing argument for genocide on a legal basis.

You may say that this is a distinction without a difference, and while I'm sympathetic to that idea, I still think it's worthwhile to maintain these sharp legal definitions.

I think a lot of people are in denial about who and what Hamas is.