If self-determination means an enthnostate then no people has that right. If every ethnic group had its own state in which it was guaranteed supremacy, the world would be a complete mess. It doesn't work. We are seeing in Israel/Palestine a thoroughly worked out example of why it doesn't work, and what the consequences are when you try to make it work.
I don't see how Israel/Palestine is any kind of evidence that ethnostates can't work. There are Palestinians that have been peacefully living in Israel just fine for decades. There are unique historical reasons why there's so much conflict in this region.
> Palestinians that have been peacefully living in Israel just fine for decades.
when you write something like this ask yourself if were Palestinian if you would be happy if you son or daughter said they are moving to Israel to live there. if you answer Yes, we good. but of course no way you’d ever say yes…
How is ethnicity related? Judaism isn't an ethnicity, and there are Jews in Israel from Poland, from Ethiopia and from India. In terms of ethnicity, Israel is probably one of the most diverse places on Earth.
Judaism is a religion, but Jewish identity encompasses ethnicity.
And Judaism is a religion founded on the idea of a "chosen people" formed from the "seed of Israel" after all. And the Tanakh says this chosen people is entitled to the Palestine region. So we can easily see how this is a mythos made of an ethnostate, when interpreted through an extremist (Zionist) lens.
Apple's customers don't like the advert. There's not point in Apple arguing with them. Its like trying to argue with someone about whether a joke is funny. If they didn't laugh the first time, having a debate about it just makes it worse.
Apple couldn't care less about anyone being offended or hurt. Apple cares about not buying again. And since the (effective) value proposition of an Apple product (at least for me) is: You don't have to worry about it. You can use it if you want, it will work. But you don't have to (it's not taking anything else away).
And this ad directly contradicts the second part. They needed to crush everything else! Which, while maybe true already, is most definitely _not_ a reason for me to buy anything. So, at least for me, but I'd argue at least subconsciously for most people, this ad is making it less likely that I buy the advertised product!
Naively I wonder if the tendency towards "plausible bullsh*t" could be problem here? Making very convincing legal arguments that rest of precedents that don't exist etc.
In a cringe-inducing court hearing, a lawyer who relied on A.I. to craft a motion full of made-up case law said he “did not comprehend” that the chat bot could lead him astray.
