891–900 of 902 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would suggest prompting your favorite LLM about Antifa, anti-fascism and anti-capitalism, rather than advertising your naivety here. Opposition to fascism isn't centrism when fascism is broadly defined to include centrist ideas and the opposition is expressed as firebombing Tesla dealerships.
An LLM would tell me what I want to hear. It would not tell me what you think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seth MacFarlane and Mark Wahlberg were famously supposed to be on American Airlines Flight 11, and Jackie Chan was supposed to start filming a movie at the World Trade Center that very morning. I’m sure more near-brushes exist.
Looking at the total set of people who cancelled last minute appears to be the correct start. Then you'd have to find all subsets who had any common friend like Epstein in this case. I'm sure you can find more such subsets. The problem with the Epstein subset is that 100% of his friends survived (Lutnick's brother mentioned above wasn't one) and that Epstein was far from a normal person who had already been involved…
How do we know this? Not disputing this, I am just curious what evidence we have that ensures none of the dead were friends with him?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad argument. If you sabotage military equipment in Europe, obviously you also indirectly lower the military potential of that army somewhere else. The planes in Europe aren’t there to be paperweights, they are either being maintained there for service or are there as a deterrent and need to be reinforced by other planes when damaged.
Bad argument. You're saying the French were wrong to sabotage Hitler's airplanes because they might've been used after the war to defend Germany from the USSR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Damaging property for political ends has been part of the definition in the UK, and I think the US, for decades. I would say the case for targetting military equipment is stronger than for damaging most other things. > This is simply armed conflict. Armed conflict by residents and citizens against the state is usually a serious criminal offense everywhere.
> Damaging property for political ends has been part of the definition in the UK, and I think the US, for decades. Does that include property in Gaza, the West Bank or Lebanon? Because if the people who spray painted something are "terrorists", I want to know what the people who wiped Rafah off the face of the earth are called. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah
Israelis and others who support this have shown that the lesson they took from the Holocaust is that they believe it's morally fine as long as they're the ones doing the killing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it wouldn't. Parents accompanying children to their first day of school is pretty normal and sometimes required, especially for the fancy private schools someone like Lutnick probably sent his kids to.
Usually the wife in a rich Jewish family in 2001 would bring the kids to school not the husband. Today no as much. Doesn't mean everyone but it is strange.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That simile captures perfectly the logic here. I don't think it's technically sarcasm EDIT: a better simile would be if guns were giving away for free. You can see how that could be construed as increasing the responsibility of the provider if a receiver then does something illegal with it
I really do not see that responsibility. It is so perplexing, so odd a perspective that some of you are advancing, that I could (jokingly, I understand good intention) call it resembling "gaslighting" from here - do you know, for example, in the series Parks and Recreation the topos of Ben not understanding why Li'l Sebastian would be a big deal? I'll repeat a few of similes I used, with this latest: somebody giving…
If selling the weapons is "ok" because business must be allowed because the motive is purely selfish (I just want to make a living for myself and my family), and giving away weapons is "suspect" because "you clearly have an ulterior motive", if just means that we live in a world where selfishness is the norm being altruists is suspect.
I think this is the core divide of our society, much more useful than the obsolete "left" and "right" divide
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you leaving out the important details: You can't as an ISP prevent malicious actors from using your service, but you do can assist the government - in the case of the recent attacks on Berlins electricity that caused a fatality the German - to hand over the data to help assist law enforcement. If US state-department's claims [1] are true, did noblogs.org do so – help German authorities track Terrorists or did…
> did they help authorities to track Terrorists or did they cover up? Nice framing. Binary "either you are with authorities or you are against them", no consideration that "terrorist" is up for courts to decide, not govs or ISPs and that complying-or-not with a legal-or-not order can have many reasons and outcomes. Would you call apple, refusing to decrypt a terror org too? Framing those subjects as terrorists is tru…
oh, and if you believe apple doesn't cooperate with the us govt., good luck!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is literally the thing you will find when busting groups that have been performing multiple attacks on German electricity and rail infrastructure in the last years. Attacks that results in dead people and are ok with many more dead
You mean the ones that haven't actually been busted, their true motivation and political conviction unknown, with the only thing pointing towards left-wing extremism being "Bekennerschreiben" that have linguistic traits of being authored by native Russian speakers?