Yeah, there’s a similar issue from the other side (at least in my country) - Men will usually apply for a job if they don’t meet all the requirements, while women won’t tend to do so.

Going on a tangent off “The traits that people typically associate with success in leadership, such as assertiveness and strength" (from the article), that almost sounds like something form the 50s - “Look here Johnson, I need those forms, and I need them yesterday, now get moving!”. Traits I associate with leadership (at least in high-skill modern work place) are good communication and motivation skills, ability to plan ahead and multi-tasking/ability to prioritize. Sure, once in a while a manager has to bang their fist against the table, but the real skill isn’t in banging on the table as hard as you can, it’s the ability get what you want without needing to do so in the first place. Point being that, if anything, women are better managers.

Thing is, There are less women in STEM, there are less women in management position etc. Therefor, either women are less interested/worse at these things (which is the conservative view) or society itself treats women differently than men. The rational behind affirmative action and programs geared towards women isn’t that women are less skilled and therefore need more help, rather that society makes it harder for a woman achieve the same as a similarly skilled man. By treating women differently we can help level the playing field.

Also, making gender “as unimportant as eye color in most things in life” is a completely unrealistic goal in the near future even in the most liberal countries in the world. We can (and do) strive to reach it, but that’s not a viable solution for issues we have right now.

And you know what? Legally changing your gender SHOULD be harder than filling a form. Someone who’s transgender should have no problem showing that’s what they are. The thing is to make sure the legal process is done respectfully, without making the person feel like they’re being interrogated.

Gaza was a part of Egypt and the west bank was a part of Jordan until 67. Israeli Arabs (not saying “Israeli Palestinians” as some of them don’t identify as such) were under martial law till the 60s, but still had many rights deprived from other Palestinians and even some minorities in western countries (for example, they had the right to vote).

Wow, I just got and used a whetstone for the first time yesterday!

I’ll tell you what I did, with the understanding that I’m less knowledgeable than others in this post, but can probably better relate to your situation.

I’d also be happy to hear feedback from others.

I bought a dual King whetstone of 1000/6000 grit for a basic German knife that lost its edge after a few months of daily use. The 6000 side is probably overkill (King is made for Japanese knifes, which do require 6000 grit. 2000-4000 would do for a German knife), but the whetstone was at the correct balance of price, apparent quality and known brand.

I mainly used these two videos as guides:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkzG4giI8To

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tahaaHxhbsA

Using a marker to see if I’m holding the knife at the correct angle helped, thought I mostly used it to get my bearings. I didn’t bother with the whole 10, 8, 6 etc. stropping process, rather went a few times on each side, and tested it until the knife was able to cut through paper easily. Overall, I’d say it took me less than 10 passes on each side.

The main issue for me was forcing myself to hold the knife correctly and move my other hand to apply pressure at the right point (I was able to do it correctly, it just took a bit of work). I also had a hard time keeping the angle of the knife constant.

The whole process start to finish took me about half an hour, I’d say about 5-10 minutes were due to me being a noob.

When inspecting the edge, I noticed it was convex, which makes sense as the angle wasn’t uniform. From what I understand, this might actually be better than a straight V edge (the most common type), so… yay for me, I guess?

After finishing the knife easily passed the paper test, and cutting through a tomato was more a matter of placing the knife on top of the tomato and sliding it back and forth, allowing the edge to drop down and slice it. The knife is at least as sharp as when it was new, if not sharper. There is one spot where I think the edge isn’t as good, but I only noticed it because I was looking for issues and it isn’t noticeable with regular use. Overall I’m very happy with the results.

Every day until the Pandemic.

Cool, good for you (seriously). Do you honestly think they’ll say they’re against the freedom of the individual, or is it that you think they’re against it? Not saying you’re right or wrong, just asking if you’re describing what you think they’ll say, their own beliefs or the beliefs/consequences of their party. It’s an important distinction, especially when trying to engage in dialogue with them.

I’m just looking at what I’ve spent the past several months witnessing via news reporting and video clips.

Maybe I don’t follow enough news outside of Israel, but I do read quite a bit and there wasn’t anything about Zionism. Could you maybe link to one or two sources?

I’m not debating what the dictionary says about it.

I’m actually not debating at all, right now I’m trying to understand you, and I’m having some difficulties. My best guess is, you seem to have issues against the Israeli army and government (me too, btw), and somehow decided that’s Zionism. Zionism is more than a century old, and there are plenty of people who call themselves Zionists, yet don’t support all the IDF and the Israeli government did during the past few months (you’re talking to one right now, and Biden is another example). Do you think these people are wrong in what their opinions are? That they’re lying? That they’re not using the correct word, even though that’s the same usage as in the dictionary?

I don’t think they say this much anymore since all Republican policies are explicitly about restricting the will of their fellow citizens.

Thant’s not really the point, though it does kinda feed into a general issue with the way both out countries (assuming you’re from the US) are divided - When was the last time you had an actual talk with a republican in order to understand what he/she thinks?

I never used it this way or considered it this way until the past few months. 🤔 Now you’d have a hard time convincing me that it’s not what it means.

Err… that’s just the definition of the word? You can look it up on any dictionary.

We could talk about the current government, it’s policy or the opinion of Israelis but saying the entire concept of Zionism equals support for Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza is not only factually wrong, it collapses the Israel-Palestine issue into a winner-take-all situation, where both sides are encouraged to beat each other in the hopes one of them will give up before both are dead.

I’m from Israel, and no one is using “Zionism” in the second meaning.

Zionism is, by definition, support for Israel as a Jewish state.

There are those who say “real Zionism” is supporting settlements in Gaza and the west bank, but there are also those who say “real Zionism” is an Israeli state existing alongside a Palestinian state. That’s like a US democrat saying a “true patriot” would support supplying a social safety net for the well-being of all citizens, while a US republican would say a “true patriot” would support a small government that doesn’t restrict the will of all citizens.

Personally, I feel that referring to Zionism in general as support for Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza started as a (partially successful) tactic to de-legitimize the existence of Israel. Not saying everyone who uses the term incorrectly is an antisemitic or whatever, but that’s basically where it came from.

To help the people caught in the middle, from both sides, one has to understand the interests of the Israeli government and Hamas. I think the last actions Biden did have the best chance of stopping the war.

Hamas’s interests are a full retreat of Israeli forces and keeping as many hostages. They don’t really care what happens to the general population. The “political” leaders in Qatar also have an interest of staying there. They are also OK with keeping the war going since as time goes by the public opinion turns more and more against Israel. The latter part can be dealt with by not letting Hamas of the hook for what’s going on in Gaza (if you want to say “But no one is saying they’re not to blame!” - yes, but most aren’t stating clearly the ARE to blame. In practical terms, that’s about the same). Also, pressure can be put on Qatar so they can put pressure on the political leadership, as Biden has reportedly done.

The Israeli government is a bit more complex, as it’s a coalition with three “legs” - Netanyahu/Likud, that mainly want to stay in power and nothing else (the war is good for them, since they don’t have to answer for their part in how it started), the far right that want to take over Gaza (and therefor welcome international sanctions, as it “proves” that the whole world hates Israel and therefore the only solution is to disregard what the world thinks), and the ultra orthodox parties that want to keep certain privileges for their voters.

The international arrest warrants, while not desirable on Netanyahu’s part, actually increase his power. He spins them as warrants against “the entire country”. And in fact, right after they were issued Likud rose in the polls.

So what can be done regarding the Israeli government? Well, Netanyahu is playing all sides against the middle, telling everyone different things while trying to change the situation, no matter what the situation actually is, as little as possible (since any change can result in him losing power). Biden, by stating the offer currently on the table came from Israel tore the mask from Netanyahu’s double speak and makes it harder for him to keep the current situation.

Err… Yes?

I mean, if the cops can’t actually come into your city, having them waiting outside the city limits with signs saying “if you’ll come out we’ll arrest you!” probably isn’t the best course of action for you.

No, what I’m saying is:

a. The immediate goal shouldn’t be to punish Netanyahu for war crimes, rather solve (at least improve) the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

b. Arrest warrants against Netanyahu will not help improve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, if anything they’ll make the situation worse (There are already calls from far-right members of Knesset to stop all humanitarian aid to Gaza as a response).

Therefor, this is uplifting news for anyone who hates Netanyahu/Israel more than they want to help Palestinians.

Right, so it’s not “smart”, it’s just, you know, what he should have done regardless.

Preferably even before asking for warrants against Netanyahu and Galant. That way it won’t look like the warrants against Hamas leaders are to justify the warrants against Netanyahu and Galant, like the person I replied to seems to imply.

No, this is not uplifting for anyone (except maybe people who hate Netanyahu and/or Israel and don’t really care about Palestinians).

Right now there is some humanitarian aid going into Gaza, despite objections from the far-far-right Israeli coalition parties. The excuse Netanyahu used to get their (semi-)cooperation is by saying “Well, this is the bare minimum so Israel won’t get hit by sanctions”. The warrants, if granted, will create motivation for Netanyahu to give in and reduce humanitarian aid (he cares much more about personal sanctions than sanctions against the country).

Also, Netanyahu will use the warrants and Israel’s isolation to strengthen his own position in the government, fortify his position and lower the chances for his government to implode.

If that’s the reason behind the arrest warrens for Hamas, doesn’t it make the ICC’s chief request in bad faith? Like “I really want to issue warrants only for Netanyahu, but I know this will be unfair, so I’ll issue warrants for both sides, so I’ll seem balanced”?

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.

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.

The wrong assumption you’re making is that Israel is blowing up hospitals.

You’re probably thinking about the blast in Al-Ahli Hospital in October, that was ruled by both the US and most news agencies as a failed Islamic Jihad launch.

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:

1. Hamas stated time and time again that their goal is to take over all of the land that is currently Israel and, to put it extremely mildly, make nearly all the Jewish population not be there.
2. The Oct. 7th attack has shown that Hamas is willing to commit indiscriminate murder, kidnapping and rape to achieve this goal. Some of the the kidnapped civilians are currently held in Gaza.

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:

3. Hamas has spent many years integrating their military capabilities into civilian infrastructure. This was done as a strategy, specifically to make it harder for Israel to harm Hamas militants without harming civilians.

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.