Lurker > wpot

Revelation34 posted...

In that case it would be justified to get them fired.

It's been a while now: I'd be surprised if she managed to last this long. If she managed to get ME upset she must have been taking abuse daily: we mild-mannered Minnesotans have our limits. Especially when hangry.

But again, I don't have much interest in finding out. I went to another location and had more or less the same 20-30 minute delay issue even though they didn't have a walk-up line. It appears to be a systematic problem around here.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

Entity13 posted...

I'd take that complaint to corporate and see what they have to say on the matter. They may or may not differ.

Maybe I could get a gift card that way, but nah...I'll vote with my wallet. There are other places that can make a burrito. :)

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

My peeve is that I haven't been able to eat in restaurants since March. In this strange new world, my new peeve is restaurants that give you a time that your food will be ready for pickup and don't view that as a real commitment.

Receipt: "pick up your food at 5:40".
Me thinking I'm clever: "I'd rather have cool food than wait. I'll get there at 5:50".
Cashier at 6:05: "we're working on the 5:40 orders now".
Me feeling wronged: *looks at phone, then back at cashier expectantly*
Cashier: Silence. No apology. Nothing. I should expect my food to be a half hour late.

I used to love Chipotle, but they seem do this consistently. The worst was when I was waiting in the store and - back when walkups were still allowed - I watched people come in the door ten minutes after my food was promised, wait through the line, and leave with their food ten minutes before I got my food. With 25 other people standing around waiting for a call-in orders! That resulted in the one and only time I ever raised my voice at a restaurant employee:

Me: "I have nothing against these good people in line, but given that the rest of us over here had out food promised 20 minutes before they even walked in the door you need to ignore the line for a few minutes and complete our orders first"
Cashier/manager on duty: "There's nothing I can do."
Me: "Oh, but there is! You can tell the three people in your assembly line - those good people right there listening to me - to make our food and not theirs! You don't even have an electronic system: just move our slips of paper in front of theirs! Easy peasy: the problem is solved!"
Cashier: "There's nothing I can do."
Cashier 10 minutes later (35 minutes late): "Food for wpot". No apology/no discount.

I'm easy to please - I never complain/hold grudges - but I haven't gone back to Chipotle since and doubt I will anytime soon.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

30 yrs ago Little Caesars was pretty good. But no, not now. And I know a guy who writes a lot of the music for their ads.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

Hmmm...I'll end the debate. Where I live:

Best
Local Italian delis (there are a few; pricey but excellent)
Sarpinos
Papa Murphy's
Papa Johns
Heggie's frozen pizza
Pizza Hut
Dominoes
Little Caesar's
Worst

...although, to be fair, I never get anything below Heggie's by choice so I'm not 100% certain how to order the rest. If you don't have Heggie's, you've never had a worthwhile frozen pizza.

I'll agree with the person who said that the worst pizzas are simply mediocre, though.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

...don't know why I'm responding to this, but off the top of my head the list would be...
1) Selfishness. Traditional American "individualism" has become pure selfishness in the absence of any immediate major outside threats (climate change isn't the right kind of threat to pull people together: it's too large/decentralized)
2) Social media and the internet. There used to be a relatively common understanding of the world we could share from decently independent journalists. There were issues with that, but it was still a million times better than the "believe whatever the hell you want" we have now. I don't want Chinese style censorship, do I? No...but damn, they're going to crush us in the next century if they don't implode (which is possible).
3) No knowledge of history. Does anyone remember WWI? Heck, WWII? War is horrible, and there are huge consequences associated with selfish, xenophobic, and tribalistic actions. Get along, people.
4) Moral decay. Exactly what do we value, anyways? Christian values are on the outs. They're being replaced with...I'm not sure. Entertainment? Whatever is entertaining is good? Decadence would be the word. We like laughing about politics on late night shows and mocking opponents. Real debate over methods to achieve common goals is a million miles away. It sounds 'pie in the sky', but if there aren't values or threats holding us together drifting apart is inevitable. Reference: late Roman empire.

Qanon and Antifa are symptoms of the above, not the problems. Antifa is the most stupidly self-destructive group I can think of: all they do is provide their far right enemies a reason to believe their paranoia and distrust is justified. Qanon is just flat stupid, and it's shameful that leaders would embrace it.

Sigh.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

Revelation34 posted...

Mead posted...

honestly why should the US be backing either side of a holy war on the other side of the world

its all done just to garner support from evangelical Christians that get off on the idea of conflict in the area starting judgement day

This also needs a source.

Historically, no. The US began backing Israel because of a moral imperitive following the Holocaust and, later, the desire to have a friendly ally in the middle east. US policy had been shifting slowly away from Israel under Obama as those needs faded and the loss of moral authority/power associated with supporting a situation that more and more clearly included Israeli repression grew. Since 2016, it appears that Trump's support for Israel is based mostly on his general preference for authoritarian-leaning regimes similar to his own (as well as their presence as an opponent to Iran, an enemy he loves to hate).

Revelation34 posted...

Citation needed on everything.

As for the rest of that, correct. Those statements are over the top.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

MICHALECOLE posted...

Wait all Palestinians are a disruptive force like isis? The terrorist group that murders people?

"All", no...but it would be disingenuous to pretend that the Palestinians haven't used the same tactics (including terroristic murder). They certainly have.

If you want to argue with Kyuubi on this one I'd suggest you ask why he thinks productivity = right. Or point out that putting ISIS and antifa on anything close to the same level exposes right wing fantasy. :)

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Keep shooting missiles back until they stop attacking for good. If that ends up killing every single person there then every single person chose war over peace and so their death isn't all that sad.

I read the rest of what you posted, but if this is where you start...then we aren't going to get any further here. We have different views and different morals.

Oh, but I can't help myself. I just have to add two more things, then get some work done so I can camp:

Kyuubi4269 posted...

wpot posted...

let's be honest, if the right wing in the US were pushed out of their homes, they would do anything possible to regain them.

Let's be honest, the right cries for second amendment rights but never uses it when percieved tyranny occurs.

So far their 'perceived tyranny' in the US relates to welfare programs, government land rights, attempts to solve environmental problems, etc. Is their reaction to that "tyranny" comparable to how they would act if displaced from their homes??

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's a permanent problem only if you allow it.

There's a quick solution only if it involves killing everyone.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

I am aware of what a strawman argument is, yes. I am not trying to pretend you believe something you don't, I am trying to point out that your power-based logic and short-term view of the situation really only leads to one conclusion in the end, whether you realize it or not.

Please understand I am not arguing that the Palestinians are the good actors here. They use terrorist tactics, they have a corrupt (quasi) government, their rhetoric is extreme and problematic, etc etc. That's all true. I'm also very much agreeing with you that the Israelis have all of the the military and organizational power, clearly.

It's about the big picture. It's about practicality. It's "what kind of territory do you want to have in 50 years?" My past question, which I don't believe you answered, is what stable/good result is going to come out of the current situation...or from Israel throwing their weight around even more? You could say "Israel is only acting in a way that is right given that they are threatened", which we could debate. But even if that were fully true and their actions are 100% justified, those actions are not going to solve their security problem with the Palestinians...as has been proven over the past 70 years. Other actions might.

Either party could be the one to offer an olive branch seek a real solution, yes, but I frankly expect more from Israel: they have the power and they ultimately initiated the entire situation. They are undergoing terrorist attacks, sure, but they can't claim moral superiority in the situation: they displaced the population without consideration to start the scenario. I see you didn't comment about how right-wingers would behave if they were in the Palestinians' shoes.

If there's something in particular I didn't address that you'd like me to I'd be happy to do so, but I felt I hit the appropriate, non-argumentative points related to my long-term view of the situation.

P.S. I'll be going camping this weekend, so please don't interpret my disappearance as a sign I've given up and accepted your logic.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Either Palestine accepts the territory it has or it's wiped out and there's no opposing force left.

Palestine has no army, per se. It's "force" is integrated into it's population. You know what you're saying, don't you?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Displace them. Just as the world accepted millions of Syrian refugees, it can accept Palestinian ones.

Ah, yes...pushing them out: that's always a good practical option. That seemed to work out pretty well for the world when it was Syrians. Or perhaps the world is correct to encourage Israel and the Palestinians to make a real attempt at a solution that ends the problem, not shifts it once again.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I wouldn't attack a force far stronger than my own, I wouldn't attack civilians and I wouldn't use my friends and family as fodder. There's no means to regain what is lost, but there is means to gain peace and start rebuilding.

Nice sentiment, and perhaps that is what you would do. I don't know your politics. But let's be honest, if the right wing in the US were pushed out of their homes, they would do anything possible to regain them. Elements within them would fight as dirty as the elements in the Palestinians who are fighting now, and the most extreme "elements" often set the course of the whole in a conflict. Are you really going to try an argue there would be a difference?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Israel does not have to tolerate abuse from anybody as it has the strength to enforce its claims. Despite this superior strength they don't abuse their power to claim the entire region, they're being reasonable by not crushing their opponents who threaten their lives and land and so the rest of the world has no beef with Israel.

"Might makes right", eh? If you're strong, you're reasonable if you do anything other than kill everyone. Again, that's not logic that leads to any productive ends.

The big picture over all of this is that a choice for conflict and war (regardless of the background of the conflict) will always result in more conflict and war. This isn't the middle ages where conflicts could be ended by wars and territorial gain. Villagers/the greater population largely didn't care who their overlord was back then, nor did they perceive any reason to be in conflict with villages far away. This is the modern world, where the internet exists and nationalism appears permanent. Populations who lose their representation do not go away but instead remain a permanent problem. Have we learned nothing from the Vietnams, Afghanistans (USSR and US versions), Iraqs, etc etc? Might can't change what a population wants...or will seek in perpetuity. Using force to "crush" someone is a temporary feel-good measure in the big picture. It's not a solution.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They're allowed to exist, that should be enough.

...there it is: "we didn't kill you; you should be grateful". That mindset only leads to one end.

I'm bored of this and ready to sleep. If you'd like to continue the conversation tomorrow I'd like some thoughtful replies to these comments of mine:

wpot posted...

Your fantasy ends with Israel taking control over the remaining Palestinians territory. Even if that somehow occurred...THEN what? Israel would be directly governing a group of people larger than them who want nothing to do with them and denying them representation. How would that be stable (or desirable) in the long term? Do they think they can turn them into Israelis like themselves? Do they plan to kill them all? I really don't understand the mindset of people who think that conflicts like this can be "won" or ended with some sort of territorial take over.

wpot posted...

There is no end to the history that could get brought up here. The paradox that baffles me is that the people who criticize the Palestinians most strongly (I hate to put it in these terms, but yes: far right conservatives) are also the same people who would never in a million years accept a different group of people displacing them from their home in the way the Israelis did. They would act in exactly the same way as the Palestinians are should their roles somehow be reversed.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They have a country

Ummm...no, they do not. They are not sovereign...they live in a rump state within Israel that has no natural resources and a quasi-government.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That happens due to war, not Israel moving the border in peace time like Russia.

Either you don't understand the settlements or that's extremely disingenuous. The Israeli settlers are settling within the East Bank with the clear/admitted purpose of claiming the land for themselves...that's not really debatable. it's a different mechanism than Russia, but exactly the same intent.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Palestine chooses to be represented by children, that's their problem.

I meant there is no opportunity with the current Israeli government. Palestinians...who knows?

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

wpot posted...

This is the difference in our viewpoints. You have a black and white view of the world. Your view is Palestinians = unredeemably bad. There is truth to your criticisms of their actions. However, any simplistic view of a conflict that labels one group of people bad will lead to nothing but war and further conflict.

That's not the case. They're not irredeemably bad, they're just consistently so. Every time they attack they get smashed, however if they choose to calm the fuck down, they get to have peace.

I note you say "peace" and not "a country or real representation". That's true. With the current Israeli government their relationship with the Palestinians boils down to "If you kill us, we'll kill more of you. If you don't kill us, we won't kill you...we'll just keep creep further and further into your land while otherwise continuing the status quo." There is no option for a real solution on the table at this time (maybe at times in the past, but not now). It's possible that the Palestinians could choose to be the 'adult in the room' first by calming down in other scenarios, but they have no opportunity to do so with the current government.

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

Can also guarantee that the "human shields" are just Palestinian civvies that the Israelis shoot and kill and then claim are shields to make people look the other way.

No, there are real human shields, at least in the context of a missile war. The Palestinians have fired from population centers for "protection" (or sympathy) in the past.

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

It's cute that you think the people who are constantly being attacked and having their land stolen are the ones that need to stop attacking.

There is no end to the history that could get brought up here. The paradox that baffles me is that the people who criticize the Palestinians most strongly (I hate to put it in these terms, but yes: far right conservatives) are also the same people who would never in a million years accept a different group of people displacing them from their home in the way the Israelis did. They would act in exactly the same way as the Palestinians are should their roles somehow be reversed.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

I've largely said my piece and there isn't much point in debating the core point further in this environment. I'll just say:

Wanded posted...

once the other side made it clear they only want you dead it's no longer your obligation to be nice

This is the difference in our viewpoints. You have a black and white view of the world. Your view is Palestinians = unredeemably bad. There is truth to your criticisms of their actions. However, any simplistic view of a conflict that labels one group of people bad will lead to nothing but war and further conflict. Your fantasy ends with Israel taking control over the remaining Palestinians territory. Even if that somehow occurred...THEN what? Israel would be directly governing a group of people larger than them who want nothing to do with them and denying them representation. How would that be stable (or desirable) in the long term? Do they think they can turn them into Israelis like themselves? Do they plan to kill them all? I really don't understand the mindset of people who think that conflicts like this can be "won" or ended with some sort of territorial take over.

If the motivation is to end the conflict and have stable countries, then somebody has to be the adult in the room and propose something practical. The Palestinian position has been that Israel should be wiped off the map, but that is not a 100% firm belief among their populace. If Israel truly wanted a solution one could be reached: the entire rest of the world wants to see it happen. If the Palestinians were granted their own country and somehow CONTINUED to attack Israel...well, maybe something close to your fantasy could happen then.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Which is why they don't initiate conflict. Palestine attacks with human shields and Israel punishes them for being completely inhumane. Palestine refuses to admit its military inferiority and surrender so needless suffering occurs.

The Palestinians goad Israel into action with terrorist attacks. Israel responds with, at times, excessive force. Even if Palestinians are using "human shields" (a misleading term, but one which is functionally close enough at times) Israel is still choosing to direct fire into populated areas with predictable results. Is the military value of those attacks worth it? I doubt it, and the death toll for terrorist attacks versus Israeli army retaliation has been heavily weighted towards Palestinian deaths over the life of the conflict (and particularly so in the last couple decades). Neither party comes out clean.

But it doesn't really matter at a high level. Geopolitically, those fights are all posturing that doesn't change the situation one way or another. The "conflict" is already initiated and will not be resolved until the Palestinians have a permanent place in Israel (or in their own country).

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

Wanded posted...

you blindly choose to believe false information without fact checking and doing a little research

Why do you choose to criticize Mead and not me, the source of the so-called "false information"? Do you perhaps fear I might know what I'm talking about?

I have no doubt I will fail to convince you of anything, but for others who may be reading: yes, Israel has made two-state offers in the past. Some offers were made early, either during or soon after the Palentinians were pushed out the territory that they had until recently occupied. I believe it's unrealistic to believe a people would agree to live in a small "rump state" made up of fragmented areas while they're in the process of being pushed there. Other offers were made later where perhaps the acceptance of Israel could have been accepted, but - very long story short - they were not.

There is no doubt that both parties can point to grievance upon grievance in the past. The relevant point in 2020, though, is that no true permanent solution has been offered in many years. Isreal is the entity who has the power in the relationship (as well as the entity with good living standards). Therefore, in moral and practical terms they are going to have to be the ones to seek and find a solution. If they choose nurse grievances instead and to hold people who are in their power as sub-citizens permanently...well, I suppose history will judge them.

I should say that there is significant support for a two-state solution in Israel (depending on how you define it) so there may be some hope. However, their current leadership is close to the religious right and there is no hope for such a solution with that group.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

OniRonin posted...

What

It was still unsettled as a country following WWI. It wasn't officially/legally up for grabs, but it was still figuring itself out so to speak. I'm not saying Jews had the right to take it over (not that that's exactly what occurred - it was complicated) but it would be fair to say the territory was still coming together (in part because of the mass Jewish migration, yes).


---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.

Sooo....I think the main takeaway here is that nobody really understands the history. There's a lot of misinformation, so that's not really surprising (not to mention that nobody remembers history anymore anyways). Here are a few bullet points that will provide the basics:

• Ancient Jews conquered land ("Israel") that was occupied by others, and they were - after a while - conquered by the Romans. Change was pretty constant in the Middle East as the centuries passed.
• After the Romans collapsed the area was eventually controlled by the Ottoman Empire and Muslims (ultimately "Palestinians") came to live there. I'm skipping hundreds of years here, but close enough.
• Jewish people lived as minorities in many countries and were, yes, often treated poorly.
• WWII happened, along with the Holocaust. The world rightfully realized that the Germans had attempted genocide against the Jews and there was much goodwill for the Jews. At the same time (understandably, given the raging antisemitism in Europe), a Zionist movement had been gaining steam whereby Jews were moving back to their ancestral homeland, "Israel", in a Palestinian territory that was kinda up for grabs following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after WWI. (Note that "Israel" hadn't existed in more than 2000 years)
• This movement became a flood during/after WWII and (very long story short) the world (because of the holocaust) turned a blind eye as the Jews more or less pushed out the Palestinians. The Jews would say that their numbers grew legally and then the Palestinians chose to leave growing Jewish areas for their current refugee camps, but...yeah, that's only partially true at best.
• Palestinians are bitter and have launched terrorist campaigns. Surrounding countries have attacked Israel on the Palestinian's behalf, albeit no major attacks recently. Israelis resent the attacks/terror and are actively expanding into the Palestinian refugee areas because they think they have a God-given right to the land.
• Europe did indeed owe the Jewish people a heavy debt following WWII, although effectively rewarding them with Palestinian land (the Palestinians were not involved in WWII) just created a new group of geopolitical losers and shifted the problem. Britian sort of oversaw the area in protectorate fashion, but they could not claim to own it. It was not European land.
• Israel is a Western ally. However, they will never grant Palenstinians in the East Bank/etc the full right to vote because there are more Palenstinians than Israelis and the demographics are in the Palestinians favor: Israelis will lose primacy in the country if it is viewed as one country where everyone can vote. However, they will apparently never agree to a "two state" solution either, given the large numbers of fundamentalists who believe God promised them the entirety of Israel. Therefore, they are motivated to keep the Palestinians repressed indefinitely in the current situation. They, of all people, should understand that is not acceptable regardless of terrorism or the other (real) criticisms they hold against Palestinians.
• Western support for such a situation has (outside of Trump) rightfully been wearing thin. I would, personally, support either a one or two state solution, but the (purposeful) lack of ANY solution is not right...and I therefore cannot support Israel's leadership. I don't believe this makes me an antisemite.

So there you go: a wpot summary of the mess.

---

Pronounced "Whup-pot". Say it. Use it.