89
I remember after 911 it was pretty polarizing suggesting in public that the WTC attacks were blowback for American meddling overseas. Americans in general are pretty stupid and don't see a bigger, longer term picture.
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
89 points (89.4% liked)
politics
19103 readers
2795 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yep.
Well? Even more, that maybe we shouldn’t go to war on that, America was out for blood. We lost our sanity and created more terrorists than we ever killed.
That's how dad did it. That's how America does it. And it's worked out pretty well so far.
-Tony Stark, patriot
So the Senate statement was against pro-Hamas student groups, not pro-Palestinian groups.
Hamas is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. Saying you support them is not illegal. Providing any sort of help like donations or actual aid is extremely so.
The greater trend they're trying to track here is cherry picking examples that are less clear cut than the student group chanting "we don't want two states! We want it all! From the river to the sea!"
But this is a uniquely American issue - almost every other country on the planet treats hate speech as illegal.
nobody is pro Hamas, the problem is they're saying that being pro palestine is being pro hamas
Try to create a pro-Russian post now, and then explain in the comments that it's not pro-Kremlin.
the russian people - much like the people in gaza - aren't the people fighting the war
it's why sanctions never work because they're always passed on to the most vulnerable
it's also the same thing they do every war like during iraq when they said if you're against the war you're worth the terrorists/saddam.
he's not the first to do it but bush definitely set the narrative in the media
Yeah, that's fucked up too. People seem unable and unwilling to seperate innocent civilians from atrocious leaders.
This is what happens when you allow corporations and demagogues to take over both politics and media 😮💨
Context matters. If you post something pro-Russian and against the Kremlin in 2020, some people might understand you. But if you do it a week after Bucha, don't expect any support.
Yeah because you're not allowed to distinguish between innocent civilians and the government they have no power to topple unless you time it juuuuust right 🙄
Fuck that. There's never a bad time for speaking up for innocent victims of violence and oppression while condemning the powerful people that kill and oppress them.
My point is: no matter what was the goal of protesters, these protests benefit Hamas. Therefore people participating in it are perceived as pro-Hamas.
They don't benefit Hamas, though. The goal of the protests is an end to immediate hostilities and in the long term a peaceful resolution to the overall conflict.
Both would be ruinous to Hamas and the Israeli war hawks while being beneficial to all of the innocent civilians.
Pro citizenry posts are almost never controversial. If you're getting a lot of blowback you may be doing it wrong. Pro fascist government posts, however, will rightly get a lot of pushback if you don't differentiate. It is uncontroversial to support the Russian people, the American people, the Israeli people, the Palestinian people, etc.
the Senate statement was against pro-Hamas student groups, not pro-Palestinian groups.
Not true. Like most of rest of the government, the Senate don't distinguish between the two, lumping in advocating on behalf of innocent civilians with support of terrorism.
It's the "BDS should be illegal" bullshit all over again 🤬
From the article you clearly didn't read:
... the U.S. Senate passed a unanimous resolution condemning what it called “anti-Israel, pro-Hamas student groups” ...
Yeah I did. Operative words being WHAT IT CALLED pro-Hamas.
Claiming that them calling every pro-Palestine student group pro-Hamas proves that it's true is some asinine circular logic and/or blind trust that the people in charge are reasonable and unbiased rather than corrupt demagogues with financial ties to the apartheid regime and its PR apparatus.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But across the media and technology sectors, the arts, academia, and even generally nonpolitical industries like aviation and public relations, there has been an obvious effort to threaten, ostracize, and remove individuals from jobs based on their stated views on the subject.
In recent weeks, the editor-in-chief of the nonprofit scientific journal eLife, Michael Eisen, was forced to resign after sharing an article from The Onion satirizing public indifference to Palestinian civilian deaths; a top Hollywood talent agent, Maha Dakhil, was removed from the board of her company for suggesting on Instagram that a genocide was taking place in Gaza; and numerous journalists engaged in nonpolitical coverage, as well as ordinary corporate employees both in the United States and beyond, have faced reprimands and dismissals over their statements on the war.
Numerous writers have had their events canceled or been forced to shift venues based on past or present statements they have made deemed to be supportive of Palestinians or critical of Israel, including the political analyst and author Nathan Thrall and the novelist Viet Thanh Nguyen, who was scheduled to speak at 92NY.
A number of new websites have sprung up in recent weeks listing names of university students and corporate employees accused of issuing or endorsing sentiments deemed hostile to Israel, adding to an already rich cottage industry of such sites, including the notorious academic blacklist Canary Mission.
In the context of an emotionally charged, seven-decadeslong armed conflict, the effort to ruin people’s careers or livelihoods based on public comments on the matter have antagonized some free speech advocates.
Despite the growing climate of repression, legal advocates committed to defending free speech on the issue say that they will continue to promote the Palestinian perspective on the conflict with renewed urgency given current events in Gaza.
The original article contains 1,521 words, the summary contains 297 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!