Especially early on in the Iraq war it was considered anti-American to be critical of it. Of course, that doesn’t have the kind of baggage that anti-Semitism has, but I do think it’s being used in exactly the same way, and it’s just conveniently more effective because of the very real history (and present) of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish violence. Where as (settler) America isn’t exactly an oppressed people

The typical English name for that is Canaan. There’s a lot of history surrounding that name in the Bible (OT, so shared by Jews, Christians, and somewhat accepted by Muslims too) and a lot of it not positive. I don’t think a lot of people would appreciate that association even though it’s likely based on myth.

Personally I don’t really see that Palestine is a bad name as it’s really just a name for the region and the only baggage it has is quite modern; Zionist Jews might prefer some acknowledgement of the land as Israel and so it would be tough to get them to accept something that doesn’t include that IMO

It’s still something you can argue should be done even if it’s not currently politically feasible. Things don’t always stay politically unfeasible, but they usually don’t get pushed in that direction by people not making that argument in public.

My utopian take would be that Israel should become fundamentally secular, remove references to being a ‘Jewish state’, grant all Palestineans citizenship and full rights, and perhaps change the name - a lot of people would say that should just be called Palestine, but frankly I think a compromise of Israel-Palestine or some other completely new name would be fine too. End the colonialism & apartheid, everyone who’s there lives in peace, people who had to flee during previous wars get to come back.

I don’t know that we’ll ever see that, but it probably is much more unlikely if we don’t try to convince people that it’s a good idea.

And ironically screwing it up by still supporting European settler colonialism?

It probably won’t, but I think it will get better.

They’re active in comments, but they’re also a small minority

Yeah I don’t think this is completely true. I’m not in Gen Z but close enough and I do see that they’re a lot more accepting of a broad spectrum of attitudes toward sex, and that includes asexuality, but I think they’re also quite accepting of people being quite the opposite of that. I think where they get more weirded out and are willing to say so is when people - and because of patriarchy, it’s almost always men, but not always toward women - make sexual comments about real people who aren’t explicitly inviting that. That’s something that has been declining in acceptability over time anyway and Gen Z just more commonly takes it a bit farther, and has a better understanding of consent. But I’ve really never seen this “women aren’t capable of consenting” thing outside of a strawman for people who want to pretend it exists by misinterpreting real criticism.

Punishing drunk drivers is well-deserved, but as long as car-dependent infrastructure encourages drunk driving, it is considerably more difficult to actually decrease the rate of it. Taking a taxi is expensive and being a DD is no fun, so people take stupid risks. If you know you can take public transit home, there’s no reason to take such a risk at all.

It kind of screams co-opting by the fossil fuel industry, doesn’t it. Just like all of the efforts to make Alberta tar sands oil sound environmentally friendly, by pointing to the strong regulatory environment. Rather than focus on what will actually improve things the most, they want something that keeps them in business