Профиль

Totally. Which is why the first thing is still my least favourite thing

They don't consider fans or even players to be their constituency and they're resentful that they have to act like they are. They are interested only in staying in the good graces of UEFA. In this way they mirror the government

Because like, we all know If someone goes against a bad social norm, you specify. Voltaire was "brazen", Martin Luther King "challenged conventional thinking", but no one just says that; they describe the specific causes and ideas they promoted When you use the euphemism, it's for a reason

Could see this happening to Mark Rutte sometime in the future

I hate bad poll design

The possibility of a SF-FF coalition doesn't look great here

This is also why nuclear coercion of non-nuclear states never works btw

Drivers are just like horses, they can tell when you're nervous and if so will throw you and then crush you. So you must take charge of the situation

The traditional game of chicken has two players, each in their own car. You'd think having no car would be a disadvantage, since in any collision you are sure to be worse off. But in fact it demonstrates your impetuousness, like celtic warriors going into battle naked, so your opponent flinches

Oh yeah, tortured excuses for exposition about things that aren't even very important for the plot but I guess made Aaron Sorkin feel smart. A real staple

Actually happens quite often! When there are passing references in the West Wing to little facts about the world - geography, law, politics, history, the military, things that should be the show's bread and butter - like a third of the time they're just...wrong. Plausible-sounding but wrong

In that it described a person's highest rate of taxation applying to their entire income as opposed to only the income in that bracket which is an idea of progressive income tax I have otherwise only ever seen held by 16 year old libertarians on the internet

"But he's one of the few symbols of the GDR to enjoy widespread affection and survive the post-reunification erasure of all traces of the former state" yeah well they should've chosen to save a symbol that didn't suck. Bring back the Palast der Republik imo, it was cool

it boils down to: 1. his whole purpose is to tell me what to do; I dislike being told what to do. I also see him as representative of Germany's strong social norms against jaywalking, an activity I enjoy. And the cutesy spin on it is a bit Brave New World 2. I think his little hat is pretentious

A leadership which considers people entering Europe more of a problem than those same people dying is a leadership which would be open to killing people to prevent them entering Europe

What's even left to say at this point

Exactly. They know well that a combination of carrot and stick is how you manage things like this, but they refuse to use the stick in this case because they don't really believe that what Israel is doing is especially wrong

And finally even if it weren't bad faith and hadn't obviously failed, this approach would still be morally wrong. You don't negotiate with the perpetrators of crimes against humanity about the timeline on which they'd be most comfortable wrapping up. You have a duty to compel them to stop now

Which is why I think it's usually bad faith. I don't disagree with people making this argument on the best strategy to get Israel to change its conduct. They start out with the conviction that it's wrong to impose any consequences on Israel, and then invent an argument about strategy to justify that

There are a million versions of it. Some focus more closely on specifics of Israeli politics, like this. Then there's the Germany/EU line of calling for some nebulous "dialogue", which sanctions would presumably impede. But the logic is the same, that any concrete action would be counterproductive