After a short period of introspection, I have determined that I am not a young woman in her 20s-30s with a boyfriend.
The whole question seems vastly underspecified. Like, I cannot imagine the idea is to literally envision walking past any ordinary adult male person on a trail. There has to be an assumed "and he's somehow frightening." And how far away is the bear supposed to be?
I think the bear is likely to have better woods survival skills that this particular human male.
3: "than this particular male". Also the bear is probably a better typist.
I think the implicit part that should be specified is that the question is about a North American black bear, which mostly runs away from people. Anyway, when I camp I am alone and I when I stop for the night, I am very aware of how far I am from the nearest road. I try to be more a mile from anything driveable. I have also noticed that women hiking by themselves seem a little leery when crossing my path, though pairs or groups do not.
I think the real point of this exercise is to trick men into taking it seriously so that they get all worked up which then proves what monsters they are.
Like, I cannot imagine the idea is to literally envision walking past any ordinary adult male person on a trail. There has to be an assumed "and he's somehow frightening."
I haven't seen anything to tip towards "he's somehow frightening" besides that it's on a trail.
I am pretty sure the question is not "and he's the type of crunchy outdoorsy type you're likely to find on a trail" but also not "he stares you down in an uncomfortable way". Just a random man.
It is worth noting in this context that 6% of American women believe that they could defeat a grizzly bear in unarmed combat. (Source: YouGov US research, 2021) Now, the grizzly is the largest and most ferocious of American bears (excluding Alaska) so presumably had the question been about bears in general the percentage would have been higher because some women would imagine facing smaller, more easily defeated bears.
However, it is also known that all women in America live in fear that men will kill them. (Source: Atwood, M., undated.)
Logically, therefore, some American women will be indifferent between the two equally lethal options of bear and bloke, while others will prefer the bear, as they would be confident of being able to kill it with their bare hands before it killed them with its, I guess, bear hands.
I think the implicit part that should be specified is that the question is about a North American black bear, which mostly runs away from people.
Would you rather be trapped in the woods with a North American black bear, which mostly runs away from people, or a North American man, which mostly continues on in a straight line and ignores you?
(I almost put "North American black man" just for the parallelism, but that of course brings in a whole 'nother bit of how black men have to bend over backwards to appear extra non-threatening to this universal Karen persona who every somehow agrees is the ultimate arbiter of all social norms.)
Also!! On the indoctrination of this kind of thing. Hawaii went on a school trip to Houston for three days. On the way there, they stopped at a mall food court for lunch, and the kids were given some time to hang out at a Traditional North American Mall. But in the pre-trip meeting, they got a big lecture on sex trafficking and how they had to stay in groups of 3-4 lest they be trafficked from a mall outside Houston on a Thursday at lunchtime.
I've noticed that since I found out about the "men think about the Roman Empire" thing, I find myself thinking more about the Roman Empire which just shows how insecure I am about my masculinity.
Per 8, anyone who would rather be alone with a grizzly is nuts.
There's also the possibility that some of the respondents assume that there's a bear in the woods *anyway* so the real choice is between a wood containing you, a man, and a bear, and a wood containing you and two bears. The second might well be safer because the bears might keep each other distracted or become friends or something, leaving you to pass through in peace.
10: They should also warn them that they could get shot by a concealed-carry guy if they try to make a TikTok.
"Would you rather be trapped in the woods with a North American black bear, which mostly runs away from people, or a North American man, which mostly continues on in a straight line and ignores you?"
The first one, definitely. It doesn't sound like much danger, and if I saw it that would be cool. I've never seen a bear. But I've seen lots of North American men, the novelty has worn off.
9.3: I had a thought the other day that maybe this proverbial Karen was named after Plankton's computer wife, Karen. But when I researched this, I realized it couldn't be because Karen, the computer wife, is actually kind of cool.
Yeah, he married up.
But all of the woodsy-literature is about how bears aren't the main danger in the woods. It's people, drowning, and tree-falls. The concern about keeping your food from bears is because they shoot the bears if they eat people food too much.
I think it's become more clear to me why this is so irritating: you're forced to conclude that all women are in constant fear of being murdered by men, or else you must conclude that women are staggeringly bad at assessing the full range of men who are being sampled here in this scenario and understanding statistics.
It's been done: https://twitter.com/LinkofSunshine/status/1785292775602147688
I just listened to a podcast about Night of the Grizzlies, which was one of the tipping point events that caused rules to be put in place about not feeding the bears and playing with the cubs, etc.
19: Or that women think bears in the woods are like Pooh and Paddington? Or that women enjoy trolling men?
It is true that I think teddy bears are extremely cute.
Coming across Paddington in the woods would be a true delight.
The one time I've been close to a bear in the woods, I was distinctly frightened of her and her cubs, despite the fact that she was the apparently non-dangerous type of black bear. I was closer to a man than I was to her, but I'd brought him into the woods with me so he probably doesn't count for the purposes of the thought experiment.
You should be terrified of a bear with her cubs. But that's outside the specifications because it's plural.
But she was at her closest probably less than two feet from me: standing right outside a tent I was sleeping inside. At that range I'm definitely more scared of a bear even if it's just standing there than I am of a man who's just standing there.
She had broken the tree we'd hung our food in, and the cubs were eating the babka we'd brought for breakfast.
26.last: You need to stay in your state so you don't violate the Mann Act.
The obvious conclusion is that America (or at least Reddit) has been infiltrated by thousands of Marians Engel.
20 is good. Honestly, this is a very dumb thought experiment, because the sane answer is that without a lot more specification (the bear is right next to you and you can't walk away for some reason, the man has started following you or something) neither situation is really worrisome at all.
Let's assert that, for every American woman, if you arrange all the bears in North America in a line ordered by ferocity, with the fiercest on the west coast, there must be some point along this line where she is sufficiently confident about her fighting ability that she does not fear any bear to the east of this point. (Even for an extremely feeble and uncombative American woman, should such an entity exist, there will be some tiny, weak, inept newborn bear which she does not fear.) And the same must be true for all the men in North America. At some point on the line between Robert Halford on the west coast and a sickly newborn baby boy on the east coast, every woman will be able to say "I do not fear any man to the east of this point".
I think what is happening here is that in neither case are the women answering the question thinking first "hmm, what is the ferocity of the median American bear, and of the median American man, and which is greater". They're picking different points along the line because they're more optimistic about bears.
Not to quibble (oh, who am I kidding) but the ranking couldn't be "if I have to fight this man/bear who would win", or most women wouldn't count on making it far enough from the Atlantic that it's hard to get fresh seafood. The ranking would have to be something more like "how likely is this man/bear to initiate violence that I can't safely avoid?"
Lyz Lenz says that if it comes to being eaten, at least the bear knows what he's doing.
36: Another Marian Engel walks among us.
Let's assert that, for every American woman, if you arrange all the bears in North America in a line ordered by ferocity, with the fiercest on the west coast, there must be some point along this line where she is sufficiently confident about her fighting ability that she does not fear any bear to the east of this point. (Even for an extremely feeble and uncombative American woman, should such an entity exist, there will be some tiny, weak, inept newborn bear which she does not fear.) And the same must be true for all the men in North America. At some point on the line between Robert Halford on the west coast and a sickly newborn baby boy on the east coast, every woman will be able to say "I do not fear any man to the east of this point".
God, Ajay, this makes no sense.
Clearly you'd line up the toughest bear on the west coast and cuddliest/cutest on the east. But then you'd line up the men in the opposite way: toughest on the east and cuddliest/weakest on the west.
Then all a woman has to do is look at midpoint of the boundaries of her zones of complacency. Like are you an Arkansas kinda gal? Do you have an overlap? Do your zones meet perfectly in one unique hybrid man-bear with both cuddly and aggressive tendencies? Marry him.
32: I feel like Chuck Tingle must have been that book at some point in his youth.
There are two doors. One is guarded by a man who always rapes. One is guarded by a bear who always eats. You're allowed to ask one question to distinguish the two apart. What do you ask???
39 is great, and could actually be the basis for a horrible best-selling guide to finding a husband.
15, though upsetting to peep, does refer to an interesting point: the question is not "which do you think is more likely to harm you", it's "which would you rather be stuck in the woods with". So maybe for American women the novelty value of the bear outweighs any slight increase in danger vs the man, as indeed it does for me. Since men and women are equally likely to be the victims of violent crime in the US, the degree of perceived danger should be roughly the same; nor can I think of a good reason why men should on average find bears more or less interesting than women do.
41: "How often do you think about the Roman Empire?"
43.last: And Ajay demonstrates that he is not Canadian.
Suppose you're outside in the woods. Would you rather encounter a bear, on whom upon closer inspection turns out to be a man in a bear suit, or would you rather encounter a man than turns out to be a bear in a skin suit?
45: "This isn't about the hunting, is it?"
The doctor says, "I can't operate on this boy! He's my son!" How can this be?!? It's the boy's bear.
Kinda wish I'd gone with "bearent" in 48.
Something about 48 flipped the bear in question into Fozzie.
It's really unseemly for me to be suppressing this much laughter while proctoring a Cal II final exam.
Save it for differential equations.
I have eaten
the babka
that was on
the tree branch
and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast
Forgive me
it was delicious
so sweet
and so yeasty
On topic because both are wearing black: I went to get fancy bagels this morning and across the street from the bagel places was some kind of Hasidic bookmobile. It was a panel truck, like the kind a plumbing company has for big jobs, and the sides lifted straight up into the air. That was high enough to hit some overhead lines if they werern't careful. The books were older and there were just books on shelves on each side. I don't know what was done with the space in the middle of the truck. They were playing Eastern European-style Jewish music. I felt like Fievel, but I've never seen that movie.
36 is a good line, but also makes me think of headlines like, "Grizzly Bear Peels Back The Skin Off A Salmon Like A Pro"
Going by the annual San Francisco bear festival, which advertises on the BART message boards, I think the cuddliest bears are likely already distributed on the west coast.
I think most women would be safe in the woods with them, as well.
32:
A writer sent an article to a well-known magazine. The magazine replied, we like your article, however, we think your title, "A Bear" is a little too bland, can you give us something more provocative? The writer sent in "I Screwed a Bear". The magazine replied that it might not appeal to their conservative readers. The writer came up with the title "I Screwed a Bear for the FBI", and he sent it in. Fine, the magazine replied, very close, but the overall effect is a little paganistic, a little sacrilegious don't you agree? So he sent in "I Screwed a Bear for the FBI and Found God." The magazine accepted the article and published it under the title "The Most Memorable Animal I Ever Met."
Melvin van Peebles version of an old literary joke in A Bear for the FBI.
I suspect Van Peebles is not on many reading lists, but can recommend A Bear for the FBI, and even more so The True American: A Folk Fable.
20: That thread is like many ex-Twitter threads, in that I would rather be in the woods with a bear than with any of those people.
Women learned from this Reagan campaign commercial that anybody who tells them there is a bear in the woods is bullshitting them and they don't have to worry about it.
62 is good (but that might force you to argue with LizardBreath which doesn't seem like a good idea).
Also, most women have never met a bear that wasn't in a zoo. Plenty of women have been harassed/assaulted/threatened with assault by some guy on the street, and usually more than once. It's true that not-all-men applies, but
Apparently, women have even more to fear on the street.
I liked 20 too.
When I try to imagine someone answering "bear" to the question and having a good reason for it, the best I can come up with is something like this: "With a bear, at least I know what to expect. 'If it's brown, lay down. If it's black, fight back.' I guess I also have to look around for cubs, and if I see them, just ran away as fast as I can. Simple enough. But with a man? Maybe he'll ignore me, maybe he'll actually be nice and we'll have a normal conversation but I can't plan on that because maybe he'll say or do something creepy but not overtly harmful and then if I react to it I'm the problem, maybe he's a rapist, maybe he's an axe murderer! Which is worse, getting raped or getting murdered? Depends on details! Is there anything at all I can do to downgrade the threat by a level or two? Maybe, maybe not! I faced this choice 200 times already today, I can't take one more even if it is just hypothetical!"
Deciding that the second scenario is literally worse than the first would require assigning a lot of importance to avoiding social interactions or managing them hypersensitively. But it's definitely more complicated.
I love all the humor, but unfortunately have nothing funny to add, so I'll be boring: Social media performative opinion and image broadcasting promotes shooting from the hip about easily misunderstood stimuli, this nuanced and funny conversation basically would either be drowned out or ignored where the original question got posed. Oh wait, now I need to fit that in with having liked and basically agreed with the Fuck Nuance essay-- probably this web magazine is too small to matter, while harmful nuance is what sank Liz Magill ? Multitudes.
Has anyone watched Herzog's Grizzly Man? I loved his volcano film.
Henry Cuellar indicted for Azeri bribery. Don't know if his primary has happened yet. I see this as an AOC vindication.
Haven't seen Grizzly Man either, but the volcano film was great.
I should watch one of his Amazon movies.
Neither are particularly worrisome. Most bad guys aren't hanging out in the woods waiting for women to hike by, and most bears aren't near enough to populated areas to be a problem. Encounters to worry about: rattlesnakes (nope rope) and moose (live on the mountain where I bike, charged a friend, often aggressive.).
62, 63: No, no. I am completely in agreement with anyone who learned from that commercial that Reagan was bullshitting them.
Moose are indeed a much bigger risk than bears.
71. Both great, Aguirre has nicer river footage because no steamboat distraction, Fitzcarraldo is zanier.
I loved Grizzly Man. There is no secret world of bears!
72: There are also (very rare) cougar attacks. This was a recent, dramatic story: https://www.kuow.org/stories/cougar-attack-washington-state-cyclists
16: The only Karen among my friends is actually the person after whom the computer wife character was named. She's a notably kind and accommodating person (as well as being very funny and charming), so the use of that name as a slur always seems wrong to me.
77: Who would you rather encounter in the woods, a bear or an older woman who romantically pursues young men?
68: jfc, what a sleazy bunch of petro-fascists to take bribes from.
Major fire at a factory in Berlin today, we got warnings about a possible copper cyanide cloud but fortunately that does not seem to have materialized. The fire was about four stops up the train line and a bit east of us. Some reports that the facility was involved in missile defense production; other claims that although the company is active in the weapons industry, this location made paint and other coatings for automobiles. No way for me to tell which is more believable. If it's the former, Russian sabotage is definitely a possibility, considering there was a big cyber attack on the governing party's headquarters today, and yesterday there was a big outage in the railroad system's electronic operations.
On topic because bears.
Closing song from Grizzly Man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMBxuk0r6QQ
They only sabotage the political process here.
We have black bears in the yard from time to time. Mountain lions are around, so people keep their pets in at night.
Not to be too humorless, but I thought the point of the original hypothetical was that asked "man or bear?" people starting hypothesizing or asking questions or thinking about various options, but asked "woman or bear?" everyone just said woman.
We have men in our backyard from time to time. One left their jacket behind the other day, and the cops texted Jammies that they were looking for a guy who might be on our security cameras. He was.
Yes, cougars! A few years ago one was spotted near the trailhead about half a mile from me, which of course means they're there all the time and I just try not to think about it.
78: She's married to the voice of the Sponge. I'm assuming that means you know him. And since you are posting on Unfogged, I know you. This may finally get me some respect from my step-daughter! Thank you!!!
87: Wait, I got this totally wrong. She was married to the Creator of the Sponge! Does that mean you knew him?
That's even more exciting!
On the other hand, by getting this confused I've forever lost any possibility of being respected by my step-daughter.
89: No, I met her after he passed. I've actually never seen the show, and was shocked to read somewhere that SB is more recognizable to young people in America than Mickey Mouse.
Then all a woman has to do is look at midpoint of the boundaries of her zones of complacency.
something something bearnary search trees something
(I'm sorry, I've fallen behind in one of my computer science classes and need to catch up this weekend.)
I do all my hiking in a bear suit. Because I'm a feminist.
Who would you rather encounter in the woods, a bear or an older woman who romantically pursues young men?
If you're not a young man, but you are the only available man in the area, and the woman has been in the woods for roughly the same amount of time as a bear's average lifespan ...
See, if you put "man in a bear suit" as a third option, it's like RFK Jr.
Still, I don't want to try to explain, "I'm not a Californian" to a bear.
Or saying "Not all white people" to the bears.
77: Mountain Lions are especially dangerous for cyclists, because you're moving so fast that they don't realize you're not a deer until after you pounce, and also the being on a bike increases the force of the impact and means you're more likely to die even if it figures out you're not a deer.
It's annoying because it's typical too-online far-left discourse. You have to be maximally extreme all the time or you're not taking the threat seriously. So if you don't think a man is more dangerous than a bear that makes you a rape-apologist. You probably also go to Starbucks which means you're literally committing genocide.
98: This is an important point, is it A White Man? is it A White Bear?
(Aside from the joke, the latter really does matter because for all the Black bear vs. Grizzly discourse what you really really don't want to run into is a Polar Bear.)
Speaking of Grizzly documentaries, I saw this guy speak once:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Hurtubise
I didn't know he had died. I was hoping for a new bear-proof suit.
- Or do they think the context of "man in the woods" gives an ordinary man sufficient pretext to let his inner rapist out?
That reminds me that today I saw a bumper sticker reading "Paddle faster, I hear banjos."
"SB is more recognizable to young people in America than Mickey Mouse."
Seems plausible - when was the last time you saw a Mickey Mouse episode?
what you really really don't want to run into is a Polar Bear
Because holy fuck would I be lost.
99 One of the most recent griz fatalities in Northwestern Montana was a mountain biker.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/sheriff-grizzly-kills-person-near-glacier-national-park
As you see from that link, griz fatalities are quite rare.
You probably also go to Starbucks which means you're literally committing genocide.
This is driving Elke insane. Apparently it really has traction with kpop fans/haters. I did bemusedly snap a photo of all the "Ahava" Dead Sea cosmetics on the deep-discount shelf at a beauty store; when I mentioned it to her, she said "Oh no! Should we not shop here??" I said that no, it seemed like the targeted boycott was having an effect, whereas boycotting the entire store would only improve our lives. Maybe I didn't put it quite like that.
Apparently the BDS campaign has decided to target renewable energy infrastructure. Imagine my surprise. (I guess that will measurably improve the lot of the Arab people, specifically the Gulf state royal families.)
Good news on that though, huge pro-ceasefire protests in Israel the last couple of days. They've been matched by massive protests against Hamas across the West Bank, Gaza and the Middle East hahahahaha no of course they fucking haven't.
Not much time to attend protests while you're trying desperately trying to stay alive and find food for your surviving family during an engineered famine and ongoing genocide.
Also guessing any large assembly of people in Gaza would be bombed to pieces.
There is that. Also a minute's googling will find you a number of stories about Palestinians in Gaza protesting Hamas, before and after October 7th.
Not for love or money or even the glory of Rome will I read this thread, but I am confident Tilda Swinton couldn't possibly make it worse.
72. My brother in law is archaeologist based in California and he keeps a handgun. I asked him why, and he said, "For digging in the desert. Rattlesnakes." He's an extreme liberal by US standards and it's impossible to imagine him carrying the thing around town, but in Rattlesnake country? I'd get one too.
People say that rattlesnakes are common along Pennsylvania hiking trails, but I've never seen one. I don't usually move rocks around though.
I'm not what you would call stealthy either. I assume snakes hear me and hide.
Typically they're most dangerous for dogs (most of my friends get snake training for their dogs), who tend to chase snakes that they see. I worry about startling them on my bike (I've hit three snakes but I think they were box snakes) and sometimes they like to bask on the trails, which isn't great given that a lot of our trails are quite exposed.
When the drought was bad they'd come down into the neighborhood looking for water.
If you can shot a snake from a moving bike, that would be impressive.
my mother's first memory is of her father shooting a rattlesnake from the back of the horse she & her father were riding. they were on their way up into the sierras, she & her mother would camp there for most of july & august. her father would bring them up from fresno with a couple of pack horses, visit for a couple of long weekends over the summer, then bring them back down for the beginning of the school year. her mother would make her a birthday cake for her late august birthday in a dutch oven over the campfire, my grandmother was a legendarily excellent cook. the snake bite kit was an object of morbid fascination each year when we would head off on our own yearly camping trip (shorter, but generally in the same area). my mother always slept outside, she couldn't bear sleeping in a tent. she would bang pots & pans if a bear wandered too close.
It's easier to shoot from a horse than a bike because a horse can be self-guided if you take your hands off.
Okay but what about shooting accurately while swinging on a rope over a ravine? Or how about shooting from a bike at a snake that is also riding a bike and wearing a full-scale Lowly Worm costume? How hard is it to shoot the hat off? I've never handled a firearm.
It's easy to shoot off a hat. Just aim low because if you miss the hat but hit the guy, the hat falls off.
120: I've seen 2 or 3 in PA, but that is over a pretty long period of time. Most recent was in the "Grand Canyon of Pa." and was actually from a bike. Have seen a few more in PA-adjacent parts of West Virginia.
I've never seen a rattlesnake in Montana. They're here, I've just been lucky.
110: I like that sheriff:
The bear knocked Treat off his bike, and the second rider left to look for help, Curry said.
I, too, would have left to look for help, and if I'm ever in such a tough situation, I hope the authorities are sensitive enough to frame it that way. Lenny Bruce did a bit on Jackie Kennedy, who was said to have been going for help when she crawled over the trunk of the car.
Also:
three bears killed and partially ate a park vendor employee while he was hiking.
I'm thinking he had probably stopped hiking by the time they were eating him.
I've seen rattlers in Nebraska, but that was last century.
We came here to hike trails and chew vendors, and we're all out of trails.
I'm thinking he had probably stopped hiking by the time they were eating him.
A human like that you don't eat him all at once.
https://youtu.be/vATVsdYLRT0?si=6pMqEjwozYtEE2FO
131, 133: Did see one in Wyoming up near Cody. But otherwise all in Arizona and Southern California. Number out of proportion to my time spent there.
Scariest were a couple up on a high grassy plateau near Dolly Sods in WV. In high grass and blueberry bushes in late summer. Heard two (different places) only when quite close, catching a fleeting glimpse of one as it slithered off. Did not help at the nearby Seneca Rocks Visitor Center I had seen a picture of one shot ~100 years ago that looked like a small log.
And on same trip encountered 3 bears in similar circumstances, basically barely saw them only as they charged off when we startled them from their blueberry feast.
Blueberries are about the only fruit you can eat while on The Zone. That's probably why bears like them.
137: Don't say we didn't warn you.
And on same trip encountered 3 bears in similar circumstances
Did you eat their porridge?
In the context of this thread I assume that'a a euphemism.
So... all y'all glued to the news?
It's obvious what's going to happen, and yet I can't look away.
If we wish to found a State today, we shall not do it in the way which would have been the only possible one a thousand years ago. It is foolish to revert to old stages of civilization, as many Zionists would like to do. Supposing, for example, we were obliged to clear a country of wild beasts, we should not set about the task in the fashion of Europeans of the fifth century. We should not take spear and lance and go out singly in pursuit of bears; we would organize a large and active hunting party, drive the animals together, and throw a gelignite bomb into their midst.
I'm confused about what's happening. Most news sources say Hamas accepted the third party (Qatar/Egypt) proposal and Israel is balking, but That Fucking Newspaper says "After cease fire talks stall, Hamas proposes new terms"
Hamas accepted the proposal. Israel has not yet expressed a firm position but is invading Rafah anyway.
So the NYT just has a false headline? If Hamas accepted terms proposed by a third party, they are not proposing new terms.
It appears to be casting the acceptance of the Qatar/Egypt proposal by Hamas as Hamas proposing those terms to Israel. No one seems to be reporting exactly what the terms are.
It seems like there were changes to what the proposal entailed, but that could easily be the normal kind of home-stretch amendment that would be glossed as "accepts" in another context. Without details, hard to say.
When rattlesnakes come down into the common areas of my friend's monastery, they put a poster tube with an open end in front of it. The snake goes right in, 'cause it looks like a dark safe hiding place. They cap the open end, then carry the snake back up to the open space.
This seems right to me https://x.com/colinpclarke/status/1787527070584594585?s=46&t=nbIfRG4OrIZbaPkDOwkgxQ
Here's Haaretz as of 2 hours ago:
A source familiar with the cease-fire proposal Hamas agreed to told Haaretz that the new outline gives the organization greater flexibility on significant issues that Israel has insisted upon until now.
As part of the proposal, Hamas will not be obliged to meet the Israeli demand for the release of 33 hostages, and the number to be released will be determined in talks between the two parties to consolidate the outline.
There is also no unequivocal statement regarding Hamas' demand for a complete cease-fire. The proposal also states that Israel will not be able to veto which Palestinian prisoners will be released as part of the deal, including those convicted of murdering Israelis.
The fourth condition of the deal is that Israel withdraw from its main routes in Gaza and allow freedom of movement without checking Palestinians, alongside a stipulation that there be limitations on Israeli flights over the Gaza Strip.
I don't think it matters, though. The pro-war faction is not taking its hands off the wheel.
The pro-war faction is not taking its hands off the wheel.
Nobody's hands are on the wheel. But they all have their feet on the gas pedal.
Russia, meanwhile, rattling its nuclear saber.
Good grief, the sticking point is that Hamas can't find 33 hostages and wants to know if they can make up the difference with corpses.
https://twitter.com/NTarnopolsky/status/1787768893261381883
Just awful. Do we know if there are still hostages being held by other armed groups other than Hamas? That was one of the sticking points the last ceasefire talks go-around.
Honestly it is not at all surprising they've lost a bunch of hostages given all the assorted ordnance that's been blasted at Gaza for the last six months. As for the ones in the hands of this or that other outfit or private individual, who knows? I would be amazed if Hamas had any idea.
Honestly it is not at all surprising they've lost a bunch of hostages given all the assorted ordnance that's been blasted at Gaza for the last six months.
They've lost far more than you'd expect just from the effects of bombardment. There are about 130 hostages still unreleased. If 40,000 of the 2.3 million population of Gaza have actually been killed, that's about 1.7% - if the hostages are being no better protected than the civilian population, you'd expect about 2 of them to have been killed. (Because, of course, Israel has been attacking civilians indiscriminately.)
Hamas are saying that it may not have 33 left alive - implying that more than 100 of them have been killed.
And of course the hostages are supposed to be considerably better protected than the average Gazan, because they're down in the underground shelters, and thus much better protected from indiscriminate bombardment aimed at civilians.
Of course, the hostages would be at much greater risk if Israel had not been indiscriminately bombing civilians, but had been trying very hard to bomb Hamas targets. Then there would be a big danger of Israel hitting a Hamas location and killing hostages that were being held there. But since we all know that Israel hasn't been doing that, and has instead been engaged in a genocidal campaign aimed at killing civilians, obviously the hostages should have been relatively safe. Which implies that Hamas has been murdering its hostages.
The Israelis also managed to shoot some of the hostages themselves.
Plenty of blame to go around in the blame bucket!
I don't think the Israelis have shot 100 of their own hostages by accident and covered it up. Same argument applies as for bombardment there, really.
Yes, there's no reason why two things can't be true at the same time: the IDF is indiscriminately bombing Gaza in a campaign of revenge and collective punishment, the evidence for this is insurmountable at this point (and long before this point tbf). The IDF is also hitting Hamas targets hard when they have good intel, hence the higher death rate among hostages.
That some died on account of lack of necessary medical care would not be surprising. I would not put it past Hamas or other armed groups holding hostages to have outright murdered a few but it seems unlikely to me that Hamas would have done that to many on account of the fact that the hostages are their chief asset.
162: maybe not 100, but you don't have to keep denying it after the IDF official spokesman's given up: https://www.timesofisrael.com/battalion-chief-told-hostage-to-approach-when-he-did-a-soldier-shot-him-probe-finds/
That was the incident that convinced me that IDF Official Spokesman is a punishment posting.
Sure, but you have to be *IDF official spokesman*. Don't you have any self esteem?
I think it's like with Trump, who is clearly actively trying to force anyone he hires with any kind of a good reputation to ruin that reputation.
you don't have to keep denying it after the IDF official spokesman's given up
I didn't, I just expressed scepticism that they've shot another 97 after the first few and managed to cover all those incidents up.
I would not put it past Hamas or other armed groups holding hostages to have outright murdered a few but it seems unlikely to me that Hamas would have done that to many on account of the fact that the hostages are their chief asset.
Nothing could be more ludicrously improbable than Hamas deciding to murder a load of civilians in a completely stupid and strategically counterproductive way.
In the UK do they instead argue about which you'd rather meet in the woods a man or a badger?
Saw a mother black bear and 2 adorable little cubs today on our annual Mothers Day visit to the Bison Range.
It's weird that bears go to the same place as humans for Mother's Day.
Somewhere with snacks? Makes sense to me.
Would you rather be trapped in the woods with a North American black bear, which mostly runs away from people, or a North American man, which mostly continues on in a straight line and ignores you?
(I almost put "North American black man" just for the parallelism
It does give the question a very different feel if you ask "would you rather be trapped in the woods with a bear, or with an African-American man?" and I bet it would produce a very different set of answers.
And yet it shouldn't. African-American men are men.