I ask you again. Why did they choose this plane? If your answer is, “lol, IDK, I guess they’re just dumb.” Then you’re probably missing something very critical. You haven’t even bothered to answer why they chose these planes. You just whine about it.

Again then, please illuminate us. This is a pretty well organized group. They don’t just pick targets randomly. If you have all the answers, illuminate us on why these planes were targeted instead of just whining.

There’s a reason I’ve been using the phrase “I hope you get exactly what you voted for” a lot lately. It makes a very useful blessing or curse.

Found Blue MAGA.

You care to support your unfounded assertions? Two weeks is still pretty close to the election. You can only do so much on day-of exit polls. Two weeks later is very close to the election. And you quoted a paragraph, but I see nothing actual objectionable there. What exactly is your problem with anything you quoted? That’s a very large sample size. You’re just dismissing the study’s methodology as “bullshit” by fiat. It’s bullshit because you arbitrarily decided it was bullshit. Or more precisely, it’s simply bullshit because you didn’t like the conclusions reached. Blue MAGA indeed.

Well don’t leave us in the dark. Why didn’t you bother explaining what the planes were actually used for? You’re clearly trying to portray the Palestine activists as cliche violent anarchists who destroyed government property for no rational reason. That is really the only reason you wouldn’t explain why you think they did what they did. Likely it’s something that’s still clearly genocidal, but you didn’t want to mention that so you could get that “moving the goalpost” zinger in.

So let’s actually look into this, as you failed to do so in order to muddy the waters.

Oh hey, they’re mid-air refuelers.

So we’re not talking bombers carrying out bombing runs, we’re talking about flying gas stations that top off the tanks of the fighters and bombers carrying out bombing runs. These war planes directly used to enable genocide.

Any sane person would call this “a distinction without a difference.” You didn’t bother explaining what they actually vandalized (really just painted) because you wanted to make it seem like they torched a random civilian airliner or something equally irrational.

But I guess this is just “moving the goalposts” in your warped reality. And in reality, I’m not even moving the goalposts. I said these planes were used to bomb Palestinians. And that’s exactly what these mid-air refuelers have been used for, even if they didn’t carry any bombs themselves. This is like arguing a loading truck that carries bombs from storage to the tarmac aren’t involved in bombing. Sure, it doesn’t directly drop a bomb, but it’s still used for bombing.

You just have myopia and think that only bombers are involved in bombing.

Well then you need to work on your critical thinking skills, it’s pretty obvious. The election wasn’t lost because people stayed home. If more people had voted, Trump would have one even more. Kamala didn’t lose because progressives stayed home. She lost because she abandoned enough policies that support the working and middle class that many of these voters voted for Trump instead. The online progressives that centrists love to blame thing on held their nose and voted for Kamala anyway, as unlike liberals, progressives will actually vote blue no matter who.

The voters disagree, and they are the ultimate determiners of this.

You’re right. And the results show that the idea that the election was lost because progressives stayed home is a complete historical myth.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/26/2024-election-turnout-trum-00426544

Nope. That’s not what happened in 2024. This is victim blaming. Progressives did not cause Harris to lose. Progressives refused to go full Orwell and pretend that Harris was the messiah. They had no problem speaking out about her failures and trying to get her to do better. But in the end, progressives still turned out to vote for her. Harris didn’t even lose because people stayed home. If the voter turnout had been higher Trump would have done even better.

Biden won in 2020 because of two key reasons. First, he had covid helping him. Second, he adopted a lot of policies popular with the working class that would provide direct support to the embattled working and middle classes. Harris abandoned this path and only offered paltry heavily means-tested wonkish tax credits for a handful of people. She certainly wasn’t running on something like Medicare for All.

Yes, progressives shat on Harris in a lot online discussions; she was a deeply flawed candidate. A lot of liberals took a more Orwellian bent, wanting to censor any and all criticism of her. They forget that responding to criticism is the fire that forges strong candidates. Instead they shielded her from criticism, and it just made her look weak.

Harris lost because her policies were so uninspiring that she couldn’t appeal to enough low-engagement voters to get her over the top. The politically active people on the left who spend time talking politics on social media? Yeah, they held their nose and voted for Harris. Her status on Gaza cost her a lot of Muslim votes, but Muslims aren’t hardly a reliably progressive voter base. If it weren’t for the right’s raging Islamophobia, most practicing Muslims would naturally be Republicans. It’s only the right’s historic Islamophobia that gives Democrats any chance with Muslim voters. Naturally, the religious conservatism of most Muslims should fit right in with Republican values. And predictably, as Harris chose to run a campaign leaning in to Islamophobia, Muslim voters found little reason to support her. Resisting Islamophobia is one of the few reasons most Muslims have to support Democrats. If Democrats aren’t going to resist Islamophobia, then Muslims might as well support the party that aligns with more of their beliefs.

Well, considering my younger self was a repressed trans kid pretending to be a straight guy, and now in my 30s I’m a long-since post-op trans woman happily married to a cis het guy. Well…let’s just say there are some things I like in the bedroom that a younger me would be very surprised to learn…

May the people of Texas receive exactly what they voted for.

Yeah the only cases I would consider it even remotely conceivable to use the word would be when you’re actually trying to capture its horror in a historical context. Like if you’re reading some newspaper from 1910 Alabama as part of a history lesson on lynchings. I don’t know if those just casually drop the N word, but it seems likely. Same reason you might show examples of Nazi-era anti-Jewish propaganda. Sometimes we have to look at the ugly parts of history.

But even then, actually saying it out loud probably isn’t necessary. If I was having students read some Jim Crow era news clipping, I wouldn’t cross the word out from the page itself. The students can still see and read it with their own eyes. But we also don’t need to read it out loud. Hell I would probably just have a frank discussion about it at the start of the lesson. That would probably be a good learning experience in and of itself.

Palestine Action are heroes. We should be singing songs about them, not prosecuting them.

Remember, legality and morality are only vaguely related. Beyond the natural crimes of murder, rape, etc. laws are just politics by another name. And the wealthy and powerful write laws to advance their own corrupt interests. Many moral obligations are criminalized, and many things that if there is a Hell will surely get you sent there are perfectly legal.

Those planes deserved to be vandalized. Hell, they deserved to be set on fire. It’s a shame they weren’t destroyed completely. If those planes are being used to carry out a genocide, then they should be destroyed. That is the simple absolute moral truth. If the law says otherwise, then the law is wrong. Anyone violating it still needs to keep the consequences in mind. But outside observers should not be afraid to speak truth to power. What Palestine Action did was not wrong; it was an act of heroism. The UK should be electing these people to parliament, not prosecuting them. Want courageous leaders who will actually stand up to powerful interests and do the right thing, even when it’s hard? Well it seems you just found that exact rare kind of person right here.

Destroying planes that are bound to assist in bombing in Gaza is simply the morally right thing to do, regardless of the law. It’s no different than a Jewish resistance fighter in the 1940s setting fire to a cattle train about to go collect prisoners for transport to Dachau. Sometimes destruction of government property is the only morally correct choice available to people.

And we shouldn’t be afraid to say this. People in the UK should be contacting their politicians demanding a full pardon for these heroes.

You would have said the exact same thing about the Holocaust.

Doesn’t mean it’s not the morally right thing to do. Aircraft that are being used to bomb innocent civilians should be vandalized. Hell that’s the minimum. The morally right thing to do is to set them on fire. Legality and morality are only weakly correlated. Obviously the law says what the powerful want it to say, but that doesn’t mean it’s right or just. Setting fire to a UK plane that is being used to genocide people is no different than setting fire to an empty train in 1944 that’s about to be sent out on a run to gather up people to take them to a concentration camp. Sorry, but that’s just the simple truth of it. You can cite evil laws you want, but you might as well be citing the laws of Nazi Germany. Everything they did was legal as well.

Some things are just wrong. And enabling them is wrong. And we shouldn’t be afraid to say that. The people who vandalized those planes did nothing wrong. They’re victorious heroes. We should be memorializing them in song and story. The laws of evil men are not even worthy of consideration, beyond the practical choices of those choosing to engage in such acts of bravery and heroism.

Samuel Clemens would be proud. Read this comment in Mark Twain’s voice, and it is absolute perfection. Bravo.

We live in a two party system. Or, more precisely…we play politics as a game whose rules with great pressure encourage the formation of two parties. This is true. But those two parties are not eternal. if one or the other is weakened enough, they can be toppled from their throwns. A three party system is not stable long term. But the parties themselves are not eternal.

How about this? On the front, an image of Charles signing a decree condemning trans women as pedophiles. On the back, a painting of an obese King Charles furiously masturbating to child pornography while an anti-genocide protester is chained naked in the same bed. That’s the truest representation of the UK I can think of right now.

How about renditions of the movie Threads? That seems the most optimistic projection for the UK’s future on its current path.