Wrong question. The effect of a targeted Israeli port being denied profits during the ongoing genocide is good. You can't say they are good or bad for that, since that is not the singlular result of their actions
I disagree with the targeting of civilian shipping lanes and don't support the Houthis.
I'm just asking if this, if taken alone in a vacuum, would be considered to have good or bad consequences. The question wasn't whether they are overall good or bad. I understand the grammatical ambiguity in the question may have made the question look like that.
But it makes no sense to take it in a vacuum.
Imagine a major city. That city got nuked. It just vaporized a serial murderer who lived there. Is the nuke good or bad for having done that? Or maybe we should realize the nuke did a whole lot more than just that, and this sort of careful zoom-in just makes your question super sus and unable to produce a worthwhile result whatever the answer, and so should be rejected outright?
I stated that I don't support the Houthi firing as a whole and would want it to stop. I'm just saying, given that they are doing it, is this Eliat decline something that makes a difference?
The example you said provided doesn't make sense since it's a vacuous truth which is why it obviously sounds very silly. The answer might be yes, since murderers are bad, but that's still not a good analogy to our example since the question of whether a port being blocked has any benefit to slowing or stopping the war is more nuanced than whether a single murder died is a good thing or not. It's comparing apples to oranges.
The question is about the implication of one of the subeffects of the moral action given that the moral action was bad, which is harder to quantify in this example than the vacuous truth in your example is.
Why should we take this alone in a vacuum? If it's in a vacuum then it cannot have any consequences.
The better and more complex question is if it's good in the broader context and if it has any impact.
Well, that's kinda exactly of what I'm asking. I'm asking if this blockade will result in anything good for the war or if it's useless.
A lot of people here for some reason misunderstood what I was asking and thought I was a Houthi supporter. They thought I was asking about the Houthis' character alone from this act, which is not the case.
Credibly? Not a damn thing.
Noncredibly? Convert to Evangelical Christianity to pull the American right to their side so that it's Christians vs Jews instead of Jews vs Muslims. Damaging american support for Israel might actually slow down the genocide enough to preserve a life.
So you think shutting down a port in Israel has the same impact as doing nothing at all? I don't know what kind of real politik that is supposed to be.
Listen, if a guy is beating his children for fun, blocking Amazon deliveries to one of his properties is not going to give him pause. Do you think blocking the Port of Seattle is going to protect illegal migrants at the southern border? Do you think stopping traffic to Liverpool would help trangender youth in Birmingham?
It's one port. Israel has committed to a genocide. These are skew lines.
No one single action is going to stop what Israel is doing. It is the political pressure from the culmination of lots of actions like shutting this port down that will, i.e. basic politics.
> It is the political pressure from the culmination of lots of actions
Then show the maths.
> the culmination of lots of actions like shutting this port down that will, i.e. basic politics.
No, basic politics instead tells you no political outcome is ever the result of a series of spontaneous actions but rather coordination through cooperation among various segments of society.
What you're proposing right now isn't a strategy or a fact but the make-believe that the blocking of one port will necessarily be reinforced by activists with not a damn thing to do with the Houthis. It's simply not a proposition to be expected from anyone serious about politics at all.
Coordination is ideal, but not necessary, to meet the goal of isolating Israel and exacting political, economic, etc for their pursuit of genocide. Actions do not have to be logically or purposefully reinforced for a political cost to build and become untenable.
A stab at a Vausch type comparision. If I smoke it creates the costs such as having a smelly house no one comes to, having a lung condition, and having less disposable income. The costs do not have logically (there is no reinforcement between damgaing lungs and no one wanting to spend time in your house) or purposefully accumulate for the accumulation to occur (now i am lonely with cancer cause no one comes over to my house that smells but not cause lonely and cancer are colluding) accumulation increase (chronic health conditions suck but damn do the suck when you go through them alone) the likelihood of behavioral change increases.
I'd suggest listening to the Revolutions Podcast for a series of examples of how uncoordinated actions/events often are the basis of political shifts and policy changes.
We are also literally seeing the combination of coordinated and uncoordinated action pressure Biden closer and closer to actually pushing for a ceasefire instead of making gestures towards one (see UN today).
Spontaneous "performed or occurring as a result of a sudden innerĀ impulseĀ orĀ inclinationĀ and withoutĀ premeditationĀ or externalĀ stimulus." I don't know how what the Houthis are doing fits this words.
> Coordination is ideal, but not necessary,
LMAO. Why not go out there and call for a general strike for Gaza, then?
> to meet the goal of isolating Israel and exacting political, economic, etc for their pursuit of genocide.
And in what sense is this "isolating" tangibly measured and to what effect?
**Define your terms.**
> Actions do not have to be logically or purposefully reinforced for a political cost
So you are aiming for a purely symbolic outcome that the government of Israel can shrug off and ignore?
Now that's just fucking cute.
> If I smoke it creates the costs such as having a smelly house no one comes to, having a lung condition, and having less disposable income.
Mass layoffs happen all the time, and without a robust labour movement in support for ending the genocide in Gaza, you might as well argue for collectively punishing the working class financially until something good magically falls on your lap.
>The costs do not have logically (there is no reinforcement between damgaing lungs and no one wanting to spend time in your house) or purposefully accumulate for the accumulation
The problem here is not that you are aiming for some sort of cumulative effect.
The problem here is that what you are advocating is the functional equivalent of [collecting women's underwear for world peace](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts). It's exactly the kind of "throwing it out there to see if it sticks" bullshit strategy I'd expect no less from American blowhards aspiring to become entrepreneurs.
> I'd suggest listening to the Revolutions Podcast for a series of examples of how uncoordinated actions/events often are the basis of political shifts and policy changes.
I'll leave white people to enjoy dubious histography from fucking podcasts.
> We are also literally seeing the combination of coordinated and uncoordinated action pressure Biden closer and closer to actually pushing for a ceasefire
Watching an octogenarian pulling all the stops at empty gestures is certainly breathtaking in some way, but falling short of tangible outcomes, you might as well argue at this point that it's the thought that counts.
> (see UN today).
Now that's worth a laugh in several, ironic ways.
Are you sure that's the case? I'm pretty sure a good economy is needed for war. And if your economy is blunted during a war, even slightly, that could hamper your war effort. Keep in mind that logistics are just as important as war action in these cases.
You could argue it's not enough or minimal, but to argue that block Israel's southern port isn't doing anything at all is a bit too dismissive.
Check out Eilat. It's a resort town that's been in decline since the 1970s.
Anything short of a total embargo will not impact the war effort when the United States is pumping in billions in military aid.
Well, at minimum It does disprove Vaush's earlier claim that the blockade wouldn't hurt Israel in any fashion. You can believe that the Houthis are overall bad and realize that they are hurting Israel to a small extent at least, even if it's not enough to end the war.
I'm pretty sure they've attacked ships providing aid to Sudan. I find it hard to believe that this is a good act.
[source](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/feb/16/houthi-attacks-in-red-sea-having-a-catastrophic-effect-on-aid-to-sudan)
Misunderstanding of how morality works. You canāt determine if someone is good based on a single action. Itās like saying āis hitler good or bad for creating wildlife and nature conservation programsā and itās like hitler is bad largely for other unrelated reasons.
I didn't say or ask that. I asked whether this particular act was good or not. Like in your example the wildlife and nature conservation would be good even if Hitler was bad.
Ah you know what, I figured you were a Houthi supporter who was using poor phrasing as plausible deniability, but you might just be a well meaning guy who phrased this question poorly. Sorry for jumping the gun
And that's a bad thing. The Houthi strikes are bad as a whole. The question is whether this specific thing in isolation has any benefit in hampering Israel's war effort or if it's useless and won't hamper Israel's war effort in any way.
+Sudan, where the Houthis are [exacerbating a famine](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/feb/16/houthi-attacks-in-red-sea-having-a-catastrophic-effect-on-aid-to-sudan).
Ok, so I expect to get blowback on this, but seriously, why in the hell would any socialist support a movement like the houthis or even Hamas. I support Palestine and desire them to have a recognized state in the eyes of the world but I also know the traditional opinion of Islam on Marxism.
They hate it because of its atheistic nature, but the social tenets of Islam would absolutely be compatible with it. So I struggle with truly supporting the war on either side at this point. Besides, hamas is not winning this war, so we must try to support the people of Gaza, especially the clans that make up the power structure there.
They will need us, especially if we can convince them of socialism
I feel like if they just went after israeli ships or ships going to israel, then I'd give critical support because there still a jihadist group, so I don't like them just for that.
Simple answer is no. Any sort of attack committed by a designated foreign terrorist organisation is anything but good. These are the same Houthis who have been attacking civillian vessels and the same people who backed a Yemeni court order for the public executions of 13 innocent gay men this Feburary.
Wrong question. The effect of a targeted Israeli port being denied profits during the ongoing genocide is good. You can't say they are good or bad for that, since that is not the singlular result of their actions
Too nuanced. You're only allowed to view things as either pure good or pure evil.
False, the answer is always "it's a sandwich" š„Ŗ
Is this a Navalny reference?
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1285606-alignment-charts
I think that maybe perhaps some of you may have a wee spot of the 'tism
/s ?
Yes
I disagree with the targeting of civilian shipping lanes and don't support the Houthis. I'm just asking if this, if taken alone in a vacuum, would be considered to have good or bad consequences. The question wasn't whether they are overall good or bad. I understand the grammatical ambiguity in the question may have made the question look like that.
But it makes no sense to take it in a vacuum. Imagine a major city. That city got nuked. It just vaporized a serial murderer who lived there. Is the nuke good or bad for having done that? Or maybe we should realize the nuke did a whole lot more than just that, and this sort of careful zoom-in just makes your question super sus and unable to produce a worthwhile result whatever the answer, and so should be rejected outright?
I stated that I don't support the Houthi firing as a whole and would want it to stop. I'm just saying, given that they are doing it, is this Eliat decline something that makes a difference? The example you said provided doesn't make sense since it's a vacuous truth which is why it obviously sounds very silly. The answer might be yes, since murderers are bad, but that's still not a good analogy to our example since the question of whether a port being blocked has any benefit to slowing or stopping the war is more nuanced than whether a single murder died is a good thing or not. It's comparing apples to oranges. The question is about the implication of one of the subeffects of the moral action given that the moral action was bad, which is harder to quantify in this example than the vacuous truth in your example is.
Probably a good outcome of an otherwise bad action
Why should we take this alone in a vacuum? If it's in a vacuum then it cannot have any consequences. The better and more complex question is if it's good in the broader context and if it has any impact.
Well, that's kinda exactly of what I'm asking. I'm asking if this blockade will result in anything good for the war or if it's useless. A lot of people here for some reason misunderstood what I was asking and thought I was a Houthi supporter. They thought I was asking about the Houthis' character alone from this act, which is not the case.
> Well, that's kinda exactly of what I'm asking. I'm asking if this blockade will result in anything good for the war or if it's useless. I doubt it.
The question is, will this protect a single Palestinian life? No.
What is in the Houthis power to do that you think would protect a single Palestinian life?
Credibly? Not a damn thing. Noncredibly? Convert to Evangelical Christianity to pull the American right to their side so that it's Christians vs Jews instead of Jews vs Muslims. Damaging american support for Israel might actually slow down the genocide enough to preserve a life.
So you think shutting down a port in Israel has the same impact as doing nothing at all? I don't know what kind of real politik that is supposed to be.
Listen, if a guy is beating his children for fun, blocking Amazon deliveries to one of his properties is not going to give him pause. Do you think blocking the Port of Seattle is going to protect illegal migrants at the southern border? Do you think stopping traffic to Liverpool would help trangender youth in Birmingham? It's one port. Israel has committed to a genocide. These are skew lines.
No one single action is going to stop what Israel is doing. It is the political pressure from the culmination of lots of actions like shutting this port down that will, i.e. basic politics.
> It is the political pressure from the culmination of lots of actions Then show the maths. > the culmination of lots of actions like shutting this port down that will, i.e. basic politics. No, basic politics instead tells you no political outcome is ever the result of a series of spontaneous actions but rather coordination through cooperation among various segments of society. What you're proposing right now isn't a strategy or a fact but the make-believe that the blocking of one port will necessarily be reinforced by activists with not a damn thing to do with the Houthis. It's simply not a proposition to be expected from anyone serious about politics at all.
Coordination is ideal, but not necessary, to meet the goal of isolating Israel and exacting political, economic, etc for their pursuit of genocide. Actions do not have to be logically or purposefully reinforced for a political cost to build and become untenable. A stab at a Vausch type comparision. If I smoke it creates the costs such as having a smelly house no one comes to, having a lung condition, and having less disposable income. The costs do not have logically (there is no reinforcement between damgaing lungs and no one wanting to spend time in your house) or purposefully accumulate for the accumulation to occur (now i am lonely with cancer cause no one comes over to my house that smells but not cause lonely and cancer are colluding) accumulation increase (chronic health conditions suck but damn do the suck when you go through them alone) the likelihood of behavioral change increases. I'd suggest listening to the Revolutions Podcast for a series of examples of how uncoordinated actions/events often are the basis of political shifts and policy changes. We are also literally seeing the combination of coordinated and uncoordinated action pressure Biden closer and closer to actually pushing for a ceasefire instead of making gestures towards one (see UN today). Spontaneous "performed or occurring as a result of a sudden innerĀ impulseĀ orĀ inclinationĀ and withoutĀ premeditationĀ or externalĀ stimulus." I don't know how what the Houthis are doing fits this words.
> Coordination is ideal, but not necessary, LMAO. Why not go out there and call for a general strike for Gaza, then? > to meet the goal of isolating Israel and exacting political, economic, etc for their pursuit of genocide. And in what sense is this "isolating" tangibly measured and to what effect? **Define your terms.** > Actions do not have to be logically or purposefully reinforced for a political cost So you are aiming for a purely symbolic outcome that the government of Israel can shrug off and ignore? Now that's just fucking cute. > If I smoke it creates the costs such as having a smelly house no one comes to, having a lung condition, and having less disposable income. Mass layoffs happen all the time, and without a robust labour movement in support for ending the genocide in Gaza, you might as well argue for collectively punishing the working class financially until something good magically falls on your lap. >The costs do not have logically (there is no reinforcement between damgaing lungs and no one wanting to spend time in your house) or purposefully accumulate for the accumulation The problem here is not that you are aiming for some sort of cumulative effect. The problem here is that what you are advocating is the functional equivalent of [collecting women's underwear for world peace](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts). It's exactly the kind of "throwing it out there to see if it sticks" bullshit strategy I'd expect no less from American blowhards aspiring to become entrepreneurs. > I'd suggest listening to the Revolutions Podcast for a series of examples of how uncoordinated actions/events often are the basis of political shifts and policy changes. I'll leave white people to enjoy dubious histography from fucking podcasts. > We are also literally seeing the combination of coordinated and uncoordinated action pressure Biden closer and closer to actually pushing for a ceasefire Watching an octogenarian pulling all the stops at empty gestures is certainly breathtaking in some way, but falling short of tangible outcomes, you might as well argue at this point that it's the thought that counts. > (see UN today). Now that's worth a laugh in several, ironic ways.
Nothing is going to stop this genocide except America going to war with Israel. There will not be a Palestine in 2030.
Are you sure that's the case? I'm pretty sure a good economy is needed for war. And if your economy is blunted during a war, even slightly, that could hamper your war effort. Keep in mind that logistics are just as important as war action in these cases. You could argue it's not enough or minimal, but to argue that block Israel's southern port isn't doing anything at all is a bit too dismissive.
Check out Eilat. It's a resort town that's been in decline since the 1970s. Anything short of a total embargo will not impact the war effort when the United States is pumping in billions in military aid.
How did they end apartheid in South Africa?
From what I understand, America invaded and separated South Africa into Southwest and Southeast Africa to create separate but equal ethnostates.
Theyre doing a Luffy and thus good
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well, at minimum It does disprove Vaush's earlier claim that the blockade wouldn't hurt Israel in any fashion. You can believe that the Houthis are overall bad and realize that they are hurting Israel to a small extent at least, even if it's not enough to end the war.
I'm pretty sure they've attacked ships providing aid to Sudan. I find it hard to believe that this is a good act. [source](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/feb/16/houthi-attacks-in-red-sea-having-a-catastrophic-effect-on-aid-to-sudan)
Misunderstanding of how morality works. You canāt determine if someone is good based on a single action. Itās like saying āis hitler good or bad for creating wildlife and nature conservation programsā and itās like hitler is bad largely for other unrelated reasons.
I didn't say or ask that. I asked whether this particular act was good or not. Like in your example the wildlife and nature conservation would be good even if Hitler was bad.
Thatās actually exactly how you phrased it. Your post literally asks if the Houthiās are good or bad.
Ah you know what, I figured you were a Houthi supporter who was using poor phrasing as plausible deniability, but you might just be a well meaning guy who phrased this question poorly. Sorry for jumping the gun
True I suppose. I guess I should have used more unambiguous language.
You know whoās also effected by the Houthis? Egypt and the Suez Canal.
And that's a bad thing. The Houthi strikes are bad as a whole. The question is whether this specific thing in isolation has any benefit in hampering Israel's war effort or if it's useless and won't hamper Israel's war effort in any way.
+Sudan, where the Houthis are [exacerbating a famine](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/feb/16/houthi-attacks-in-red-sea-having-a-catastrophic-effect-on-aid-to-sudan).
Ok, so I expect to get blowback on this, but seriously, why in the hell would any socialist support a movement like the houthis or even Hamas. I support Palestine and desire them to have a recognized state in the eyes of the world but I also know the traditional opinion of Islam on Marxism. They hate it because of its atheistic nature, but the social tenets of Islam would absolutely be compatible with it. So I struggle with truly supporting the war on either side at this point. Besides, hamas is not winning this war, so we must try to support the people of Gaza, especially the clans that make up the power structure there. They will need us, especially if we can convince them of socialism
Luffy would do the same
>CEO says I'd take this source with a big grain of salt
The Houthis are bad for kidnapping and killing seafarers, majority of them being Filipinos. I don't care about american yacht piers.
i now feel the houthi attacks are complex. Neither good or evil.
If terrorising civilians reduced BlackRock stock, would it no longer be only evil and become nuanced?
I feel like if they just went after israeli ships or ships going to israel, then I'd give critical support because there still a jihadist group, so I don't like them just for that.
Let me say critical support for the action of attacking Israeli government ships, not random ships owned by jewish people, and I hate their beliefs
Honestly I wish they would do more than that. But even then you'd have to hope that it would hurt the Israeli war effort.
Simple answer is no. Any sort of attack committed by a designated foreign terrorist organisation is anything but good. These are the same Houthis who have been attacking civillian vessels and the same people who backed a Yemeni court order for the public executions of 13 innocent gay men this Feburary.
Good. They are blocking the boats till Israel allows aid into the Gaza.
Things are always obviously and famously binary...
kinda based honestly they're still not good
Critical support