"I care SO MUCH about what's happening in Palestine that I CANNOT vote for Kamala Harris"
Thanks guys
Ah yes, who could forget that time he fought to continue the flow of any arms, trade, and people to the settler state. Which bill was that that he supported? What was the exception carved out, how was it carved out? Clearly I'm super clueless on this topic, what year did he introduce the bill? I want to know, maybe you can help me understand. I know there must have been hundreds if not thousands that he introduced, so just focus on one. Tell me.
Whee look at the goalposts go
Everyone knows if you're going to get a bill passed in the US Senate, the best thing you can do is include something in them where individuals can't trade with Israel anymore. Like Cuba. Just cutting off the flow of military aid would be useless and not accomplish anything, unless we included that totally possible and sensible step in addition, and then asked all the senators to vote on it.
I am honestly a little bit surprised to see so many people eager to jump up and provide examples of the type of bad faith argument I was talking about in my original comment.
If free speech applies to private businesses and they are forced by the government to host all opinions then it becomes compelled speech.
Completely agree, that would be terrible. That's not what I am talking about.
That is the antithesis of free speech, yet you somehow see it as, “look, Sinclair banning Kimmel is the same as Nazis being banned from Substack,” and they are actually not the same at all
I actually went further than saying they're "not the same," I said they're not even equivalent.
Glad to hear we agree on so many things. Including among other things the horror of the FCC going around and ordering people to remove speech on this topic. If only I'd mentioned that in some way.
He still believes in sending weapons, aid and trade to the occupation ensuring the continued murder of the Palestinians can continue.
Watch the YouTube videos I posted where he is repeatedly introducing bills to stop ensuring exactly that, and yelling with pictures on the floor of the Senate about how important it is.
You're talking pure shit.
ignoring the main point, in that the Federal Communications Commission threatened ABC’s license over this
Search for "hand-in-glove".
was that the types of speech that folks were advocating to have removed was speech that quite often led to real-world violence when it was able to propagate en masse.
Okay, so reddit was right to frenetically remove everyone talking about Luigi, right? Lemmy.world too? Just bring up a connection to real-world violence (which connection is also applied to pro-Palestinian activists, BLM protestors, all sorts of people) and then it becomes okay to pull their hosting / delete their comment?
I mean there are cases where I agree with you. Everyone can make their decision about where the lines are, that's the wonder of being a private company or whatever, and this is part of what I was quickly glossing over when I said "within certain baseline limits." Generally though, the principle is that whoever has the money and is in charge of the government is going to be the one deciding what is "violence" and what is "a counter-terrorism operation" or whatever distinction, so it's usually a lot safer to say that people can just talk even if someone who's in charge of pulling the plug or not feels like it's unsafe and dangerous what they are saying.
THEY are typically the ones screaming the loudest about the need for some form of community based moderation and/or censorship of certain ideas.
Citation? I'd be interested to read about it.
(I mean certainly that's not true now. They are not screaming louder than the government is screaming about needing to fire or deplatform anyone who talked about Charlie Kirk the wrong way. I do get what you meant though.)
It is incredibly easy to accuse someone of being a genocide apologist if you want people to rally against them. I think there is some kind of human psychology thing there, where there is an "enemy" box that gets checked in the head which applies to that person, and then if they try to explain that they actually don't support or apologize for genocide, then it doesn't matter because that person's bad now, and they're lying.
You're all good. TokenBoomer is making wild accusations to be able to smear you, for reasons of their own, it seems pretty clear here.
He and AOC have let us down in our time of greatest need.
Except for Palestine. They are loud and proud about all their support for human rights and fighting for everyone, except for Palestine.
I feel like there are a whole bunch of YouTube links up in the parent comment that you need to watch
Pencil test level 8000
Yes. They've always wanted to be able to tell you you're not allowed to say things they don't like, and now they think they can get away with making it happen. They can't, in the long run, but they might be able to make some people suffer in the short run before they get consigned to the historical ash-bin.
Surprisingly enough, a one-sentence Twitter link has led you astray!
https://www.commondreams.org/news/sanders-force-vote-israel-weapons-sales
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34/text
The bill blocks a particular sale by Trump of weapons to Israel. It's not just offensive weapons, it's a specific list of weapons (everything in Trump's attempt) plus some US military support services "and other related elements of logistics and program support." What's carved out of it? It looks to me like it's blocking literally the entire sale.
I am done with this exchange, it is abundantly clear that you're happy to continue talking bollocks for as long as I'm willing to respond to you. It's been educational though! Like I say, I'm a little bit surprised that people popped up to do exactly what I described in the original comment, and also in a particularly ham-handed manner that makes it pretty obvious that they're just casting around for reasons to shit on Sanders.