I think we're on two different wavelengths.
Put stuff in: Stand next to closed car with no free hands, could use automatically opening doors.
Take stuff out: Open car. Pick up stuff out of the car. Stand next to open car with no free hands, could use automatically closing doors.
Because taking stuff out is like putting stuff in, only in the reverse order.
Maybe that's my bias, but that seems to be a very... specific way of sorting sides. Mind if I rephrase that?
I'd say both phrasings are about equally accurate and objective.
First, Ask the colleague why she feels her way is better.
If she says something like "it just is", reply that while you're open to other ways to do things, you have a way that currently works for you, and would need a reason to switch your workflows.
If she gives an actual answer, consider it. Maybe it is better than what you're use to. maybe it's possible to incorporate both ways to have the best of both worlds. Assuming you still think you way is better, say something along the lines of (I'm basing this on something I said to a co-worker in order not to be too abstract): "I get that doing it your way [is simpler and requires less troubleshooting], but it can also [give wrong results if a thing changes and we forget to correct for it]. My way [corrects for it automatically]. For me, eliminating the risk of [forgetting to manually correct] is worth the need to [do some troubleshooting]. Maybe that's because you have [better memory] and I'm better at [technical stuff], so we each have a way that works for us, but will not work for the other. I appreciate that you took the time and explained your way of thinking, and I hope you understand why my way is better for me".
After that, if she still insists, tell her you clearly aren't able to come to an agreement among yourselves, so maybe it's better you both talk to the charge nurse if manager or whatever.
In what other circumstances would that be OK?
Say, if I were attacked a few times by the same minority, would it be okay for me to look at any person of said minority as a potential attacker?
Actually, let's combine both things - let's say I'm a woman who has been sexually harrsed by a minority a few time, would it be okay for me to view all males from said minority as potential sexual harassers?
I think there are a few things that should be taken into account:
Israel had no real choice but to launch an attack against Hamas in order to return the kidnapped citizens and neutralize Hamas as a threat. You could say "Yes, that's because Because of the aforementioned illegal occupation", but just like the citizens in Gaza have a right to be protected against bombings regardless of what their government did, Israeli citizens have the right to be protected from being murdered, raped or kidnapped.
So, any true solution has to take both these considerations into account. Right now, the Israeli stance is that once Hamas will no longer control Gaza, the war could end (citizens on both sides will be protected). The Hamas stance is that Israel should cease hostilities so they can work on murdering, raping or kidnapping more Israeli citizens. That isn't to say Israel is just, rather that Israel is willing to accept a solution that stops the killing of both citizen populations, while Hamas is not. The just solution is for the international community to put pressure on both parties to stop hostilities. The problem is that the parts of the world who would like to see a just solution (Eurpoe, the US etc.) are able to put pressure on Israel, while the parts who don't hold humane values (Iran, Qatar etc.) support Hamas.
Now, regarding the massive civilian casualties in Gaza:
I'm not trying to say that all civilians killing in Gaza are justified, rather that it's extremely hard to isolate military targets. Most international law regarding warfare states that warring parties should avoid harming civilians as much as possible. Just saying "Israel is killing TWICE as many innocent civilians as Hamas, therefore they're attacking Palestinian people as a whole" doesn't take this into account what's possible under in the current situation.
Because while "what we can mostly all agree" to that, Biden does not think that Israel is engaged in genocide.
Just because a group of people perceive something to be the absolute truth, doesn't mean everyone interpret reality the same way.
Yeah, I think not only their inept dynamic doesn't fit anywhere in DS9, it's actually anathema for the core values of Star Trek. Trek is all about what humanity can do when people do their best. The closest to being "inept" in ST are:
Characters like Rom or Berkeley, who at first have an inept aura, but ARE good at their job if put in the right situation.
Quark, who's kinda bad at being a Ferengi, but that's because he lets his (by human standards) morals get in the way. Also, the Ferengi were created as a species to be an anathema for other core values of Star Trek begin with.
The Pakleds, who are kinda like the Ferengi were at first, and were a one-off species then used for comedic purposes.
I've put way too much thought into it, haven't i?
I know that wasn't the point, but:
Holt as Sisko and Terry as Worf is cool (Holt might work better as Odo, but we'll get to that in a sec).
Rosa should be Kira (Worf looks mean but is a big softy, hence Terry. Kira is the one that will kick your ass if you piss her off), Jina as Quark (obviously), Amy as Odo, Boyle as Rom, Hitchcock and Scully as O'brian and Bashir in their "two buds going to the holosuite to pretend they're WW1 pilots" mode.
Jake works surprisingly well as Jadzia - both like to do silly things, kinda offbeat yet very good at their job.
People tent to go way the hell overboard on a lot of things. Best to focus on constructive criticism, while keeping in mind the actors are children, rather than to blindly self-censor based on the subject.
Hi, Israeli here.
I'll start off by saying this turned out to be a VERY long post. I did my best to condense the absolutely necessary parts, and I still feel I've left a lot of important stuff out. Anyway, hopefully anyone who's interested in the situation and reads this will be able to gain some insight.
The thing is, you guys are looking at the situation in Israel from your perspective without understanding the factors at play. To actually understand the situation among Jewish Israelis (who I'll refer to as "Israelis" for simplicity's sake) requires a thorough explanation about Israeli culture, politics and some history.
Saying "I don't see any signs against genocide, that must mean all Israelis are pro-genocide" forces your perspective on the situation, like saying (in very broad terms) "I didn't see any signs that talk about 'all life matters' in the BLM protests, that must mean they only value black lives", so imaging that, but instead of an American saying it, it's some dude in Thailand who has very little understanding of the racial situation on the US.
So, let's go:
Right now, the country is pretty divided among supporters of the current government and those opposed to it. While the government has a 53% majority in the parliament, it really never had more than 50% supporters among the population (Firstly, some left wing parties didn't get enough votes to get into parliament. Also, right after the elections the Likud government adopted a plan proposed by the religious far-right party that would, in essence, transform Israel into a Hungry-like hybrid regime which made many liberal Likud supporters oppose the government). The opposition grew stronger after Oct. 7th, though the government still has the support of (mainly) the far right, the ultra-orthodox religious parties and the Israeli version of Trump supporters who mainly want to "own the libs". There are weekly polls that check how many people support the current government and Netanyahu is using every trick in the book to increase support among the public because his coalition is extremely fragile.
However, regarding the war in Gaza, there is a consensus that's shared among a very large majority of the population from both sides:
The Israeli hostages must be returned. I cannot overstate how important this is. Firstly, Israel is a tiny country, quite communal and most Israelis have large families. The hostages aren't "citizens", "people" or even "fellow Jews". They're "The niece of my dentist", "My ex's uncle", "The daughter of friends of my colleague" etc. Nearly Every Israeli knows someone who knows someone who's been kidnapped. Secondly, one of the founding ethos of Israel is to have a safe place for Jews that's free of persecution no matter what. The Oct. 7th massacre is seen not only as a tragedy, but as the state not performing one of its core functions to some extent. Lastly, redemption of prisoners is a major commandment in the Jewish faith. This is the main point on all virtually ALL Israelis can agree upon (Let me stress that again - the agreement isn't that the hostages "should" be returned, but that they MUST be returned. That's important for later).
Hamas must be destroyed. If they're allowed to exist, this will happen again (There is, however, disagreement on how best can Israel vanquish Hamas).
These two objectives are seen among many (not sure if most) as contradictory - Hamas is using the hostages to force an Israeli retreat from Gaza, and the only way they will release all of the hostages is if that secures their rule in Gaza. This is also important to remember for later.
I, personally, subscribe to the first two points, do not believe they are contradictory and while I believe the IDF isn't nearly as cautious about harming civilians in Gaza as it should be and that not allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza is immoral, both things do not constitute genocide.
Those numbed three points are in the Israeli consensus, but we have one more crucial piece of context before I get to the demonstrations - There are two groups of Israelis who do not believe the 1st and 2nd points are contradictory. Each belongs to opposing ends of the political spectrum - in the right there are those who think military pressure is the only way to, somehow, secure the release of the hostages. The other group is left leaning, and it believes that withdrawing from Gaza for the release of the hostages and building a civilian opposition against Hamas Will solve the issue in the long run. They also believe the current government doesn't really want to get rid of Hamas, rather they want to make sure Hamas will remain the only Palestinian ruler in the strip, so the government has an excuse to continue the current treatment of Palestinians (both as individuals and as a people). The first group thrives on extremism and sowing division (and if this reminds you of a certain US political party and a US politician in particular, you are absolutely on the money), and the second group is trying to build on a consensus, and make room for liberal right leaning people in order to gain influence (the opposition is actually composed of two liberal right wing parties).
Oh, wait, just one other thing - There's a joke that goes: A Jewish man is stranded on an island for 20 years. He is finally rescued, and the rescuers see the life he built for himself. Among all the things they see, there are two synagogues. They ask the man "you were on this Island alone. Why do you need two synagogues for?" The man looks lovingly at the first synagogue and says "Well, this is the synagogue where I prayed every day for someone to come and rescue me, and this" he says while looking disdainfully at the second synagogue "is the synagogue where I wouldn't be caught dead in". Point is, Jews and Israeli Jews in particular, love to argue and have disagreements. Think The Life of Brian's The People's Front of Judea and Judean People's Front. So when I say "there are two groups", it's more like "there are about 1,000 groups that can be broadly divided in two camps".
You'd think this leads to a society that's fractured on many levels so that it can't really operate, but Israelis are also very good at putting differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal.
So, finally, about the protests - as you may have guessed, the people who are protesting belong to the second camp. And yes, many of them think what's happening in Gaza is wrong. But remember the whole "putting our differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal" and the "The hostages must be returned"? That's the strategy in a nutshell. The protesters are trying to use the single most agreed upon goal, and build a consensus for a deal from there. That's the reason you won't see anything about Gazans in the protests. Going outside the consensus gives the far right more ammunition to paint the protesters as traitors and to rally the moderate right against them. The push for a deal NOW (the main rally cry) will cease virtually all IDF operations in Gaza anyway, so in some of the protesters' minds (mine included), protesting against the IDF while correct in a vacuum actually goes against that very cause. Now, I don't really know US history that well, but think what would happen if the Vietnam anti-war movement made room for more conservatives on the grounds that the war is harming the US. Maybe Nixon's "law and order" campaign would have failed and he'd have lost the elections. I might be talking out of my ass here, but even if I'm wrong I hope this at least gives a better understanding about the strategy used by the protesters in Israel - they're saying "You don't have to join us because you're a hippie peacenik. You have to join us because that's what's best for our country".
I'd like to stress that the protesters are NOT hiding their opinions. They just want to make as much room for other supporters. Some people are willing to protest for a cease-fire if that means getting the hostages back, but would not be willing to protest alongside a sign that says "The IDF is killing innocent people".
So that was about the situation in Israel. If you came this far, I hope you found the read worth your time. Now I'd like to ask for a bit more of your time in return.
I have a question for the people who are protesting against Israel to stop the "genocide" unconditionally (or those who are in support of said protests), but are not protesting against Hamas to release the hostages unconditionally (or those who see no need for these protests) - I assume you don't agree with Hamas's actions on Oct. 7th, but obviously you don't believe these actions justify what Israel is doing in harming innocent people (BTW, most Israelis would agree. If you don't understand how this can be, refer to the 3rd point stated previously).
I'd like to ask why does this logic not work the other way around? If what Israel is doing is reprehensible regardless of anything Hamas has done previously and should be opposed, then surely what Hamas has done is also reprehensible regardless of what Israel has done previously and should be opposed. Is it just a matter of numbers, so there's a "minimum casualty" that justifies protests, and below that the victims are SOL?
Not saying that's the case, but that's what I was able to come up with. Maybe I'm missing some context.
And before you say that's just whataboutism - I don't think it is. Both things are a part of the same situation, so I think this is more a case of a cop seeing two cars driving on the road at night and stopping only one of them (where the driver happens to be black).