AreaSIX

It’s definitely not a good precedent for governments to shut down communication platforms. But free speech is for all, and Twitter censors speech it doesn’t like, mainly left wing opinions. So I’m not going to act like free speech is the main issue here, even if I dislike governments shutting down or blocking platforms.

You know that Twitter isn’t banned in Turkiye and India because they complied with their requests for censure, since you know, those are right wing governments run by strong men that the Apartheid beby likes? Funny how free speech becomes the issue just when the requests come from governments whose ideology don’t align with this particular clown’s. GTFO with the free speech posturing, if you’re defending the free speech of a platform where it’s fine to harass trans people but you’re banned if you correctly call someone cis gendered. Free speech my ass, Twitter is a right wing cess pool, not a beacon of free discourse.

He ran in 88 and 2008, ran as a vice president 2008 and 2012, skipped 2016 and ran again 2020 and 2024. I’d say it lines up, Biden always wanted to be president, and his only regret seems to be that he was persuaded not to run in 2016.

Meanwhile here in Sweden, everyone’s criminal record is public, and even available to search online. Unless the crime is something minor punished with a fine. It’s really ridiculous, everything is publicly available online, like addresses, phone numbers, the cars or pets people own. Unless you have a protected identity, it’s all available to everyone online. I tried to apply for a protected identity on account of being a public servant that is involved in making decisions many people very much dislike. But I couldn’t provide a concrete threat so it was denied. It’s like the system is still geared towards pre-internet times. The system itself in fact doxxes every resident in the country.

Jfc, a media outlet asks a presidential campaign a question, and the answer from the official spokesperson is “your phone must be fucked up.” It’s amazing how fast standards seem to be unraveling within the US political system. Even random student groups have better judgement in their communication with the media, this is like a spokesperson for a shitty frat house talking to Mother Jones.

As I wrote, I’m not arguing about the content of what he says, he’s imo one of the most awful human beings around. What I’m saying is he doesn’t seem to have lost a whole lot of his cognitive abilities as opposed to Biden. He spewed word salads loudly and forcefully the first time around, and he was elected based on that. The fact that the content of what he says is awful is a value judgement you and I make, to his supporters, him being awful is a feature they like, and him being able to be loud and forceful proves to them that he’s able to implement his awful agenda if elected. Joe on the other hand would be a repeat of the second Reagan term when he was just a demented old man being puppeteered by those around him. Now, one might even like what those around him want to do, but in an election you’re supposed to pretend that you’re choosing an executive, not a puppet to be controlled by an unelected cabinet. Trump on the other hand gives off a forceful air like you said, which is exactly what his supporters want to see.

I don’t even really get the criticism. The complaints are not on whether he’s a liar or not, or whether his or Trump’s policies are what you’d prefer. The complaints are about him not being able to express any of that in a comprehensible way on the day he was most prepared to do so on the national stage, on account of him being a fossil. Trump is a liar with a horrendous ideology, but he’s very much still able to sell those lies and ideas to a very receptive crowd, because he’s obviously cognitively much sharper than Biden is. He’s still able to sell the tough guy persona while Biden is unable to sell anything to anyone at the moment. And it’ll just get worse if he remains in the race.

You assumed she was muslim because she’s Iranian, I assumed she wasn’t because she was being bigoted against muslim women., which was the point of the article What you did is the equivalent of assuming Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Muslim because she’s Somali, ignoring that she’s made it her brand to vilify Islam.

Regarding the ridiculous comparison to gender: gender isn’t connected to nationality, which is the point we were discussing. Furthermore, I think most people would consider it reasonable to assume a person attacking trans people for being trans isn’t trans themselves. That you have trouble making this connection is the issue I have been criticizing all along.

Regarding what I comment on other people’s comments or don’t, you’re just reaching and it’s getting sad. It’s none of your business at all what I comment on, and no amount of nagging on your end has an impact on that decision. Either respond and defend your position or don’t. Beyond that is none of your business.

I did not change my tone in any of the comments I wrote, and it’s obvious to the people reading the exchange. It’s funny that you call it “returning to civility”, but whatever helps you cope I guess.

You literally wrote there’s no reason to believe she’s not a muslim herself. It’s still up there in your comment. If that’s not assuming then what is?

You do whatever you need to do. Again, it’s clear what I wrote and I stand by it. There’s nothing uncivil about what I wrote, that’s clear to all who read it. I don’t need one more opportunity, if you consider criticism and questioning of your ideas disrespectful, that’s your prerogative. So stop trying to threaten me into silence and do whatever you need to do in order to avoid examining your own biases.

I don’t ‘hate’ you, you’re just a commenter on Lemmy. I pointed out the obvious bigotry in your assumption of the woman being Muslim because she’s Iranian, despite the article making it clear she was harassing Muslim women. And you have done absolutely zero to dispell that conclusion. Assuming that my criticism is ‘hate’ just makes it clear that you’re unwilling to examine your own ideas from a critical perspective. Criticizing the civility of my comments reinforces the same conclusion. I’ve been very matter of fact, criticizing the substance of what you’ve written. I haven’t made any personal attacks as far as I can see. But you just keep doing the holier than thou thing.

Pointing to other bigoted comments doesn’t change the bigotry in your assumption, it just points to even more bigoted assumptions. Yeah, yours is more nuanced, but a more nuanced bigotry doesn’t mean it’s not bigotry.

Again, you assumed an Iranian woman is Muslim despite the article making it clear she was being bigoted against other muslim women. Ask yourself why you made that assumption if not because in your view, Iranian=muslim.

You can hide behind whatever rule you’d like. I’ve been more civil in my replies than your remarks call for. And it’s pretty clear in my unedited comments for everyone to see. Knock yourself out with whatever rule you need to hide behind, in order to avoid having an honest look at your own beliefs and biases.

Do you have any other reason than the woman being Iranian for your remark that there’s no reason to believe she’s not a muslim? You don’t, so my comment stands. You decided that she being Iranian is a good reason to assume she’s Muslim, despite the article saying she was attacking Muslim women. We both know why, so stop clutching your pearls and have look at your own assumptions.

There is no reason to believe that this woman is not herself a Muslim.

What is Muslim to you? This is a prime example for how western people see Islam as a race, and therefore people from Iran are automatically classified as muslim.

There’s a very good reason to believe that this woman is not a muslim, and that’s the whole purpose of the article: she’s harassing Muslim women for the sole reason that they wear a piece of clothing showing that they’re Muslim. That you are unable to recognize this as what it clearly is, anti Muslim bigotry, is revealing your own bias against Muslims.

Sentenced to 420 months, haha. Why didn’t he serve the sentence? Anyone know what fuckery they pulled?

That’s because the crime of genocide tends to contain within it multiple instances of crimes against humanity, breaches of the Geneva convention, attacks against civilians and so on. It’s basically the ultimate crime containing all the other crimes within it. And the highest authority on international law in the World, the ICJ, has said that it is plausible that what Israel is doing amounts to a genocide. It really is very clear and simple, if you’re willing to see things as they are.

What exactly are people referring to when the label this a genocide?

This is The UN Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide detailing what constitutes a genocide.

Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion?

Here’s South Africa’s 84 page indictment with details and receipts on how the genocide Convention is being violated, assuming a good faith and genuine question on your part.

The US and Germany are both signatories of the UN arms trade treaty . This is article 6 (3):

“A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party”

Mass murder is the name of the game in war. So arming other militaries is always in support of mass murder. But in the eyes of international law some mass murder is acceptable as part of war. Genocide and the other crimes recounted above however, have been deemed to cross the threshold of acceptability in international law, and therefore are meant to stop the transfer of arms immediately. If the US and Germany were to acknowledge that these crimes are being perpetrated by Israel, they’d have to stop transferring arms. Mass murder in itself is admittedly wrong, but that alone is not sufficient to trigger a halt to arms exports. Therefore, it is of great importance to keep repeating: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes.

Germany has supplied 30% of Israel s weapons, and has continued to do so during this ongoing genocide. If Germany or the US were to acknowledge the ongoing genocide, they’d have to stop supplying those arms immediately, hence stopping the annihilation of Gaza. So it’s of immense importance to keep repeating what most of the world already acknowledges: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes. History will not judge Germany kindly, but I guess that’s not exactly a new thing for a veteran perpetrator of genocide.

You’re equating Jews with Israel, so you’re basically on the same moral level as Israel and deserve just as much respect. So, fuck you.

Calling Iran’s support for Hamas “colonial shenanigans” is a perfect symptom of Zionist brain rot. Particularly when it comes from the mouth of a supporter of the only settler colonial society in the region.