I’m sorry if I bummed you out! For what it’s worth, I think you’re misreading this!
This exercise isn’t supposed to reflect an inevitability to relationships becoming unfulfilling. It’s just a tool to recover the ability to see people in a balanced and realistic way instead of through the uncontrollably lens of puppy love.
I’m in a long term relationship, well past the point of early infatuation, and I can tell you that that feeling is replaced by a different kind of love that I enjoy just as much. Long term relationships shouldn’t be scary, they’re wonderful. But when you’re smitten, simulating the evolution in how you feel about someone as you get to know them is just a way to remove the effects of a crush.
Don’t be sad! Long term relationships with a person you like are wonderful.
Try actively steering your fantasy past the peak of infatuation and into the latter stages of a relationship and on to breakup.
Right now, you have intrusive thoughts about falling in love with them, and probably the excitement of getting to know someone intimately. Instead of trying to hold back, let that fantasy play out in your head further. Imagine moving in, imagine them not getting you when you’re explaining your problems. Imagine liking them, but finding their bad habits increasingly intolerable, and never being able to pick a movie to watch. Imagine them not flushing the toilet and clogging the shower drain with hair. And then imagine meeting someone new, and feeling guilty about crushing had on them. Imagine this new person reciprocates, and imagine politely explaining to your dance instructor that you guys can stay friends but, the romance has run it’s course.
And there you are. The itch is scratched, and in your mind they’re just a friend again.
To second this, I’d like Jon to keep doing the great work he’s doing, and I’d like people with similar levels of integrity and thoughtfulness who are interested and good at political activism to rise through politics and lead.
It’s a sad state of affairs in which we ask these questions, because it’s just an indication that we’re myopically focused on people with enough name recognition to discuss them.
You know who would be better considerations for president? Katie Porter. Ro Khanna. Maybe eventually Lina Khan. Despite what we’re told, there ARE people with experience leading political agencies who have shown an understanding of the back doors that have been built into our power structures and show the integrity to fight against it.
The funny thing is that when people think about potential populists for president, we get options like AOC (who I admire, but is famous more than experienced), but we don’t get enough people like Barbara Lee, who is the only member of congress who said “NO” to the PATRIOT Act, the War on Iraq, and the Authorization of Use of Military force that gave us the war in Afghanistan and our whole permanent war in the middle east. The woman is an absolute lion of courage and has decades of experience. She’s currently running for Senate, and she has my vote because she’s the only one in the race calling with the courage to call for a ceasefire in Palestine.
I love Stewart. But we need to look past the famous towards the people who’ve been quietly doing this work for many years.
I’m saying that the apartheid state needs dismantled.
It’s just a mental exercise to get people to expand their imagination. I don’t expect the end of apartheid to literally require each group to pass through a series of stages.
Part 1: I grew up a Zionist. In most versions, Zionism envisioned a peaceful, multi-ethnic state. In that sense, the zionist project is half-complete.
The first half was accomplished by people who aspired to something that everyone said was madness, totally impossible, completely unfeasible, hopelessly unworkable. And they fucking did that thing.
Now, anyone who considers themselves a Zionist needs to take on the responsibility for continuing that project with the sense of courage and insane vision that brought Israel into existence. ‘It’s too hard!’ ‘There are no good solutions!’ BULLSHIT. The whole country is founded on the idea that nothing is impossible, so let’s stop making excuses.
Part 2: The biggest problem is Jewish radicals. Itmar Ben Givir of the Jewish Power Party, Bezalel Smotrich of the Religious Zionist Party, and Netanyahu of Likud. These are the primary leaders of a genocide, and Netanyahu’s special move for decades has been foreclosing peace. Step one is wanting peace, and step two is holding accountable the people who’ve never wanted it and always tried to keep it out of reach.
Step three, I think, is to help every Palestinian climb what I think of as “the ladder”. Israel is an apartheid state. You’ve got Ashkenazi Jews at the top, and Mizrahi/Sphardeic Jews close but just below. Then you’ve got Palestinian Israelis, then a whole bunch of tiers of West Bank / East Jeruselum Palestinians, then Gazans / foreign refugees. Each group needs a path to the rights of the group above, and there has to be a roadmap to a roadmap to peace. And that is going to require international brokers. Israeli needs a government that isn’t hostile to the UN, and the US needs to reduce its involvement and stay the fuck out of the peace process.
This is devastating. And amidst so much debate over Israel’s right to defend itself, I feel it’s getting lost that this military campaign is only a success if measured by a set of goals even most Zionists would not recognize as productive.
Will it make Israel safer? No, undoubtedly the war has cost international standing, strained the US-Israel relationship, and will inevitably radicalize far more extremists than are killed.
Will it continue the right-ward shift of Israeli policy? Does it cut off avenues for peace and reconciliation and foster militant Israeli nationalism? Yes.
This campaign is only a success if the primary objective is the eventual capture of the entire region at the cost of Israel’s safety (and the safety of Jews around the world) and Israel’s international standing. By any more conventional aims, it is an unmitigated disaster.
To summarize it, human rights attorney Rabea Eghbariah makes the case that Israel’s efforts to eliminate the political agency and national identity of Palestinians should be viewed as a novel atrocity which she suggests calling a “Nakba”. She argues that using formal definitions, one can create a compelling case that Israel is guilty of at least attempting genocide in numerous discrete places and points in time, however the contours of their actions are very different structurally from past genocides, and don’t extend well when trying to characterize the broader devastation brought against the Palestinian people even when bombs aren’t falling.
She points out that our concept of apartheid emerged from a system by that name in South Africa, and our concept of genocide emerged after witnessing the industrialization of ethnic murder by the Nazis. In this vein, rather than insisting on trying to examine the Israeli model using the tools and benchmarks of past forms of ethnic suppression, she argues that we may find it more instructive to examine it as a series of innovations in control, particularly focusing on the legal systems used to carefully segment the managed subclass into a complex hierarchy selective in its conferral of rights to movement, occupancy, and legal protection.
I think this is a good framework. I’m very comfortable calling the campaign against Gaza in the last few weeks genocide, but many people call what has happened since 1948, or 1968 or since 2006 a genocide, and it’s understandably harder to pin down. But it starts to become easier to think about and talk about if we tie the intermittent bombing campaigns into a larger picture with the systems of work permits and building permits and water rights and so on that are used to dispossess Palestinians and render them powerless.
Honestly – and I before I say this, Free Palestine – if you want to be a person who tears down a poster looking for a missing person, I think you should be prepared to live your life as a someone who everyone knows tears down posters of missing persons.
I think people have a right to privacy in the ways that don’t affect other people, but when you do things that affect others – whether that’s not cleaning up after your dog or anonymously harassing whoever hung a poster of a loved one by tearing it down – I don’t feel you’re exercising a right that I have some obligation to defend. Live with the reputation of who you are.
Again, I say this as a critic of the genocide in Gaza. Bibi Netanyahu deserves to be dragged into the Hague to face the International Criminal Court. At the same time, I still hope as many of the Israeli hostages are returned safely as possible, and I have no sympathy for people who are inclined to tear down a missing person poster and want anonymity. That’s not liberating Palestine, that’s just anonymously terrorizing whatever grieving person hung the poster when they discover it’s been torn down.