They only succeeded in influencing formal writing. Singular "they" continued to be a completely normal and heavily used part of spoken English.

> but saying that a term is being revived, rather than being a complete neologism

It's only being "revived" in formal writing. It is style guides that are changing, not the way that normal people speak.

> there are additional valid complaints, firstly that it removes information

It allows you to not specify that information. Sometimes you genuinely have no idea what gender the person you're talking about is. "Someone is knocking on the door. I have no idea who they are."

> Fundamentally you still have to argue for why, or why not.

The argument is that style guides and grammarians artificially banned people from using a completely regular pronoun in formal writing, and that the alternative they offered (gender-neutral "he") is extremely awkward. We already use this pronoun this way in spoken English. We should be able to write it too.

But it can get worse for Israel. Use of nuclear weapons is a massive taboo, and if Israel were to cross that line, it would be impossible for any government to continue to support Israel.

The reason why there's any debate at all about the singular they is not because it's new and strange. It's because beginning in the mid-18th century, influential grammar textbooks started discouraging its use and advocating "he" in its place. Many generations of kids have grown up being told in school that the singular "they" is wrong, but despite that, it has remained a very standard part of spoken English.

There would be massive political consequences for Israel. Sanctions, embargoes, no more ability to travel abroad, the end of any hope of any positive diplomatic relations with other countries, etc.

Even people who complain about the singular "they" use it when they're not paying attention. It's a regular part of the English language.

Beyond that, I think the issue with long wait times for NEV license plates is unique to Beijing.

By the way, NEVs might have only reached 50% of new registrations across all of China in late 2025, but in Tier-1 cities, it has been far higher than 50% for years. It's extremely difficult to even get a license plate for an ICE car in major Chinese cities. You have to enter a lottery, with a very low chance of winning. Even if you do get a license plate, you're banned from driving on one weekday every week.

You're right about the smoking, though. It's a massive problem.

Comparing the IDF to law enforcement in a democratic country is not relevant.

"But Muslims don't like gay people" does not justify that.

And saying the IDF "occasionally" targets civilians is just completely divorced from reality. They've been systematically attacking civilians for more than two years straight now, racking up a kill count of more than 80,000.

In the context of Israel-Palestine, this issue is only raised in order to somehow justify Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, a la "They deserve it because they're not as enlightened as we are."

At least in the US, the police come from much the same communities as they patrol, and there's some sort of democratic accountability. Don't like the police? You can vote for local government candidates who will implement reforms.

In the West Bank, Palestinians are subject to arbitrary violence at the hands of foreign soldiers. The IDF is not there to protect Palestinians. It's there to protect the Israeli settlers who are taking Palestinian land. If Palestinians don't like how the IDF behaves, tough luck. Palestinians can't vote in Israeli elections, so they have zero say in the government that exercises ultimate authority over their lives.

This is a fundamentally different situation from policing in the US.

Even the US - Israel's main backer - basically treated Egyptian and Syrian war aims as legitimate.

There is a widespread belief that Israel would have used nuclear weapons if the Syrians and Egyptians had broken through to Israeli territory, and that this was one of the major American motivations for resupplying the Israelis during the war.

Another theory is that the US embassy has constant contact with Russian political and military figures, is very familiar with how they think, and accurately reported their views back to DC in order to help the US government formulate its foreign policy.

Ironically, I think you're the one who has swallowed a narrative hook, line and sinker.

Internal State Department cables from the embassy in Moscow say that entire Russian security and political establishment viewed it as a critical national security threat.

In particular, take a look at this cable: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html. Here's an excerpt:

> Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.

There are warnings throughout the cable that Russia may decide to invade Ukraine over the issue of NATO enlargement. In other words, the claim that this is just a Russian talking point is itself just a talking point.

Absolutely not.

> For people like me, it's a matter of basic human dignity. I want to be a human with the capacity for judgement and the power to act on it.

Your human dignity does not require you to be able to run red lights when you think it's okay.

This is libertarian ideology taken to the extreme.

It's even possible to set the cameras up in such a way that they only store data when a traffic violation occurs. That would address the surveillance issue.

I have a strong sense that the primary objection people have to red light cameras is that they don't like getting caught running red lights, and that the surveillance argument is a rationalization, not the real objection.