781–790 of 934 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, it's bad behavior. Now what? That means nothing.
Harassment can be punished by the law. So that is the "now what". No, freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can engage in serious harassment of people, their workplace, or their children or family.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, hopefully we all value Palestinian lives. I certainly do. Where the consensus breaks down is what does that mean in practice? Should Israel be allowed to attack terrorist organizations in Palestine? If so, is there an "acceptable" level of civilian casualties (collateral damage)? Does that level change if the terrorists intentionally use civilians as human shields, for example by using a hospital as an operatin…
I don't normally get into this type of political debate but ... >Should Israel be allowed to attack terrorist organizations in Palestine? yes. I think actual terrorists should be eligible for being attacked anywhere. The real question you didn't ask is who gets to label what is and is not a terrorist? Black Panthers were considered terrorists in the US in the 60s and 70s but heros to the Black community now. In the U…
Hamas is a terrorist organization. There can be no possible debate about that point.
Real life is not like what you see in the movies. Modern militaries are in no way able to consistently do surgical strikes with no collateral damage. That is magical thinking.
Your comparison with civilian law enforcement is so specious that I suspect you're not even commenting in good faith. There no "volunteer SWAT teams", that's not a real thing (the officers on those teams do volunteer for the duty but they get paid). SWAT teams aren't tasked with fighting their way through hundreds of terrorists to capture a suspect; they're generally up against no more than a few criminals armed with small arms. And it's unfortunately fairly common for law enforcement to accidentally shoot innocent bystanders or hostages.
It's cheap easy to criticize and claim the moral high ground when you don't have to make hard choices or deal with the consequences. Again I'm not attempting to justify war crimes but the decisions get a lot messier when you step away from your computer and operate in the real world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Non-citizens in Germany have no free speech rights period. You get banned and deported even for making lectures about unfavorable topics, as it seems. That's quite different from protesting, since you're not making anyone listen to you. Lecture/conference is an offer, that Germans and others may take out of their own interest to learn about what you have to say. That also infringes on the German citizens, because you…
> Non-citizens in Germany have no free speech rights period. You get banned and deported even for making lectures about unfavorable topics, as it seems. No, the right to utter your opinion in Germany applies to everyone, not only Germans. The constitution has two categories of people, Germans and Everyone, some rights apply only to Germans, some to Everyone. The right to assembly and public protests is one just for G…
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/video-donald-trump-germany-cr...
22:20 ("social center raid for a progressive resistance flyer") 26:20 ("hate crimes") 30:25 (shutting down a congress) ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just asinine. Consider the same argument flipped around: "If you get deported for saying something stupid, you may want to consider the notion that you do not deserve to live in the US. They’re called consequences, and if you don’t like them, remaining silent is free." Both arguments are ridiculous because they present no evidence as to whether someone deserves a job or a visa stay.
Consequences as “asinine”? Let’s agree to disagree.
Your argument can be used to support consequences for every single one of these scenarios because it's just "maybe when a bad thing happens it was deserved". Sure, yeah, sometimes people deserve things and sometimes they don't, but pointing this out is a useless addition to a conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strongly agree. The problem is that Hamas represents them (illegitimately IMHO). Thus you have a lot of Palestinian supporters advocating for Hamas, and that is effectively "supporting" terrorism.
> Strongly agree. The problem is that Hamas represents them (illegitimately IMHO) Thats a dangerous line of argument to make. Zionists work VERY hard to promote the idea that they represent all jews. I for one would take great offense to the idea that all jews are land stealing colonialist savages. Its just as dangerous to normalize the idea that hammas represents palestinians
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consequences as “asinine”? Let’s agree to disagree.
No, I'm not going to disagree with your empty statement; there's nothing there to even take a stance on. The problem with your original position is that there are real differences between A) getting deported for saying there are too many civilian casualties in Gaza, B) materially supporting Hamas, C) getting fired because you have a secret twitter account where you're overtly racist, and D) refusing to bake a cake fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consequences as “asinine”? Let’s agree to disagree.
No, I'm not going to disagree with your empty statement; there's nothing there to even take a stance on. The problem with your original position is that there are real differences between A) getting deported for saying there are too many civilian casualties in Gaza, B) materially supporting Hamas, C) getting fired because you have a secret twitter account where you're overtly racist, and D) refusing to bake a cake fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Perhaps you can enlighten me what these enabling factors are? Sure, yeah So both parties accept campaign donations and quid pro quo for the support of Political Action Committees that support them. Both parties are beneficiaries of a toothless Federal Election Committee enabling non-compliance with the stated regulations, with any remaining accountability existing upon shaky legal ground, completely nullified when…
All good ideas. Let's do them too. Instead of dismissing the differences between the choices we have today as inconsequential.
given that I’m surrounded by partisans and you are more familiar with being one, how would you reword my point
the commonality I see is that the partisan wants to only talk about things that potentially add power to their party and are offended by talk that doesn’t suggest an interest in doing that
to me that seems like its not working and is unproductive, but to you, how would you cut through that filter towards doing something that is productive and would affect both parties
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "We will not accept students from politicians that support anti-education policies" Given how many stories there are about children seriously at odds with their parents about political issues, I don't think that is a good idea. At all. Do you want to be judged by how your parents think or behave, or think that is acceptable?
This wasn't a serious proposal, I was mocking the cruelty and logic of the current administration.