FlyingSquid is a pathetic human being, who seems to have little else in their life than banning anyone they disagree with. So, just a reddit mod. Question is, why would Lemmy have a chance to grow if it insists on having the same shitty structure as reddit, only with a fraction of a fraction of content that’s available on reddit.
That’s a problem for the Israeli state to solve, not me. There have been many ways in my view, but that’s not relevant to the question of commiting genocide. I don’t need to be an expert in order to categorically oppose genocide. There’s not a thing you can say that the Palestinians have done, real or imaginary, which would make a genocide defendable to a human being in touch with their humanity.
There’s no reason at all to discuss anything other than stopping the genocide in the current context. You don’t discuss possible long term solutions while a genocide is ongoing. After Israel stops commiting genocide, there’ll perhaps be room to discuss what to do going forward, but while it’s ongoing, there’s only one thing worth discussing: How to stop Israel commiting genocide.
If a people are being genocided and you still have difficulties seeing the black and white clearly, that’s on you. It couldn’t be more black or white than this, the side doing the genocide is always black until it stops doing the genocide. I’m a simple man, doing genocide=black in any context, always.
That’s not a Västgötaspets, looks more like a mixed breed.
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.
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.
Ok. To be fair, it is actually the first time you’re mentioning the German angle and English being your second language, so I had no way of knowing. Also, there are a lot of people online using these terms (politburo, kompromat and the like) in order to cast a subliminally negative light on the subjects being discussed, so I wasn’t trying to be malicious, if perhaps a bit too defensive 😄 My apologies for insinuating that you have a hidden agenda.
How are you this dense and don’t already have your own moon orbiting around you?
Yes, political and bureau are two English words, and if you had used them, they’d correspond to your quote from a wikipedia article. However, you used “politburo”, which is the abbreviation used to denote the political bureaus of the communist parties within the Soviet sphere. You know, like compromising material being an English phrase, while the abbreviation “kompromat” is a Russian intelligence abbreviation from the Stalin era.
It’s odd for someone getting their worldview through Wikipedia to not at least look for the wiki article for politburo. But in any case, I’d suggest not limiting yourself to the non existent nuance in Wikipedia and try to dig a little bit deeper in order to understand the words you’re using to sound smart online.
Lol, calling it the “politburo” really reveals the particular type of brain rot you’ve got. Hamas are not a communist party, and they are not part of the Soviet union.
“But ‘politburo’ scary, even if I don’t really have an idea of what it means. Some talking head on TV said it, and it sounded cool, so I’ll repeat it online in order to sound knowledgeable”.
Stick to words you know the meaning of maybe?
I think you misunderstand the method of imposing the hardship. The police will be better paid and there to impose the planned hardship on the ordinary people, including many of the people who always vote for him.
It’s honestly rather strange and depressing watching the US from the outside. I have rarely seen the most downtrodden segment of the population being so gung ho about the worst parts of the system that’s been oppressing them their whole lives. It’s amazing to me to see so many super patriotic black people for example. How? For what? Why would you blindly defend the same structures that’ve been oppressing you for centuries? It’d be less depressing and more funny if it wasn’t for the massive destructive power these people get access to when they win, power that they subsequently unleash on the rest of the world.