|
DeadlyMuffin posted:You haven't provided a source of Biden calling *anyone* a terrorist for protesting. Now you're moving the goalposts to the Biden administration and you still haven't provided a source for that. If I said that someone If I said that someone If I said that someone I'm pretty sure that whoever wrote this statement on Biden's behalf was very carefully threading the "not touching you" needle in order to link terrorism and the protestors, but if you can point out why the above similes aren't applicable I'm willing to entertain another point of view. edit: changed "used" to "echoed" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Apr 25, 2024 |
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
All of your examples are behaviors that can occur solely verbally. I don't think anyone would seriously consider a terrorist someone who solely says awful things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 16:33
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:If I said that someone Someone can easily be a racist or a transphobe through their words. From that, someone that echos the rhetoric of a racist or a transphobe could be described as being a racist or a transphobe if they believed that rhetoric. I did a quick search for a definition of terrorism. First hit was UNODOC which used this definition which I think is reasonable. https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-4/key-issues/defining-terrorism.html#:~:text=criminal%20acts%2C%20including%20against%20civilians,a%20government%20or%20an%20international posted:criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, Echoing the rhetoric of a terrorist is not sufficient to make someone a terrorist. It takes more than words to make someone a terrorist. The same isn't true for your examples.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
A lot of posters in this thread echoing the defensive rhetoric of fascists, but many of them are good. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 16:38
|
|
|
This doesn’t seem to be how you should treat someone we definitely all agree isn’t a terrorist. Multiple taser shots to a bound arrestee at Emory University: https://x.com/JenniferD_MUA/status/1783515380238950647 We’re doing a hell of a lot of damage to ourselves for Israel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
selec posted:This doesn’t seem to be how you should treat someone we definitely all agree isn’t a terrorist. Multiple taser shots to a bound arrestee at Emory University: Another video showing brutal police actions. PharmerBoy posted:All of your examples are behaviors that can occur solely verbally. I don't think anyone would seriously consider a terrorist someone who solely says awful things. Food for thought; thanks. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 16:46
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:A lot of posters in this thread echoing the defensive rhetoric of fascists, but many of them are good. You could discuss the actual bad things that are happening, like selec below you, instead of inventing make believe things to be mad at.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 16:46
|
|
|
nm.
Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Apr 25, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 16:52
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Could we please not impugn other posters' motives nor tell them what they should be posting? We've had a fruitful & nuanced discussion for the most part. Based on the context of the discussion ("is echoing the same as actually being") that post reads as calling posters in this thread fascist, which feels out of line to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 16:55
|
|
|
I wasn't saying that "echoing" terrorism meant the same as "being" terrorists; I was saying that "echoing terrorist rhetoric" links terrorism to the protestors. A rhetorical trick, so to speak. In any case, I erased my later post shortly before you posted your reply.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
Not sure if you're following the SCOTUS hearing on the Trump immunity case... but Alito has gone off the deep end, and it really seems like the Republicans on SCOTUS are going to say the President has ultimate immunity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:We are required by current moderation policies to entertain and respond to unserious arguments. The users who make them have the right to play. Are you implying these users are antisemitic? sartre's op posted:Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:Based on the context of the discussion ("is echoing the same as actually being") that post reads as calling posters in this thread fascist, which feels out of line to me. To be honest, I don't think the people engaged with that conversation are fascists. I just wanted to demonstrate how insinuation and innuendo can be used to paint an entire group negatively. I'll take my probe for breaking the rules now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
“Terrorist” is an extremely loaded term in the US; it’s especially so when the White House uses it, given the past three decades of history. It is a handy cudgel when an administration wants to slime an individual or group, often unfairly or hypocritically. It’s similar to how “Communist” was used as an epithet during the Cold War (and still is, of course). I don’t buy the suggestion that they weren’t trying to deliberately malign protesters by making this association. e: it is similar to this example: https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1783186070558933411 One could argue that the former Speaker isn’t DIRECTLY saying that protesters are stooges of Putin, just that he’s “encouraging” them to help He Who Must Not Be Named (good lord) get elected. But I would hope we’d all be able to recognize such an argument as sophistry. These aren’t off-hand comments, they’re not whoopsies by communications staff, they are talking points that are being used strategically. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Apr 25, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 17:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:“Terrorist” is an extremely loaded term in the US; it’s especially so when the White House uses it, given the past three decades of history. It is a handy cudgel when an administration wants to slime an individual or group, often unfairly or hypocritically. It’s similar to how “Communist” was used as an epithet during the Cold War (and still is, of course). I don’t buy the suggestion that they weren’t trying to deliberately malign protesters by making this association. *watching a HUAC hearing* "look, they're not saying that these people ARE Soviets, they're just saying that they are ~echoing~ Soviet talking points, calm down".
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Not sure if you're following the SCOTUS hearing on the Trump immunity case... but Alito has gone off the deep end, and it really seems like the Republicans on SCOTUS are going to say the President has ultimate immunity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:07
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Not sure if you're following the SCOTUS hearing on the Trump immunity case... but Alito has gone off the deep end, and it really seems like the Republicans on SCOTUS are going to say the President has ultimate immunity. They clearly won't say that. They'll probably narrowly tailor it to apply to Trump this one time, or do something else that will gently caress the trial
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:11
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It sounds more likely that they are going to remand this back to the lower court which would make it so that Trump's trial will be post-election Yeah this is my read as well. The conservative wing wants Trump to get away with it but they can't get caught saying such, so they'll give him enough time to get reelected first and then he'll have de facto immunity anyway
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Are you implying these users are antisemitic? Sartre perfectly described the school of bad-faith argument that anti-Semites must follow, but it's so generic that it's popular with everyone who has an opponent that believes more in words than they do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:17
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Yeah this is my read as well. The conservative wing wants Trump to get away with it but they can't get caught saying such, so they'll give him enough time to get reelected first and then he'll have de facto immunity anyway Similarly, if Trump loses they don't need to care about him anywhere near as much since they'll have four years till the next election instead of six months.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:20
|
|
|
Hamas did terrorism. What happened in October was terrorism. It’s very likely that Hamas knew how awful Israel’s over response would be when they attacked. Using Hamas’ rhetoric and framing is a problem. Isreal is pretty clearly trying to genocide Palestinians in Gaza now. Using Israel’s framing is a problem. It’s not necessary to pick a particular sides framing. It can all be loving terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:The conservative wing wants Trump to get away with it but they can't get caught saying such...
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Why would they care? There is no recourse. Alito clearly doens't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:They clearly won't say that. They'll probably narrowly tailor it to apply to Trump this one time, or do something else that will gently caress the trial
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:50
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Hamas did terrorism. What happened in October was terrorism. It’s very likely that Hamas knew how awful Israel’s over response would be when they attacked. Using Hamas’ rhetoric and framing is a problem. All well and good and principal but it's not terribly difficult to declare basically anything as one sides framing or the other
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Hamas did terrorism. What happened in October was terrorism. It’s very likely that Hamas knew how awful Israel’s over response would be when they attacked. Using Hamas’ rhetoric and framing is a problem. I broadly agree, but we’re talking about how the WH is characterizing the anti-genocide protesters, ie: as terrorist apologists/supporters/dupes. I don’t think one can credibly “both sides” that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 18:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I broadly agree, but we’re talking about how the WH is characterizing the anti-genocide protesters, ie: as terrorist apologists/supporters/dupes. I don’t think one can credibly “both sides” that. The original claim was that they were called terrorists, not what you describe
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:How is that clear? It certainly doesn't seem clear from their arguments today. Because it would essentially be the end of the USA and the justices know that. A couple of them asking insane questions doesn't change that
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
Papercut posted:The original claim was that they were called terrorists, not what you describe None of the above is an acceptable thing for the White House to be calling peaceful anti-genocide protesters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
the pedant's response is that they didn't call them "terrorists" just "terrorist supporters/sympathizers". you're not getting through to anyone who thinks that is a meaningful distinction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:04
|
|
|
punishedkissinger posted:the pedants response is that they didn't call them "terrorists" just "terrorist supporters/sympathizers". you're not getting through to anyone who thinks that is a meaningful distinction. They also didn't call them that though? We're supposedly required to use precise language here so for the sake the discussion it's important to make the distinction
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:06
|
|
|
ok so that sure was an unreadable page. so did the white house call student protesters 'terrorists' or not
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
punishedkissinger posted:the pedant's response is that they didn't call them "terrorists" just "terrorist supporters/sympathizers". you're not getting through to anyone who thinks that is a meaningful distinction. So this is how many pages of you failing to support your claim? Agree he didn't say it, move on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:None of the above is an acceptable thing for the White House to be calling peaceful anti-genocide protesters. They did not. They specifically said the protestors are fine, but calling for violence is not. They go out of their way to distinguish between people using "the right to peaceful protest" and people calling for violence or antisemitism. quote:calls for violence and physical intimidation targeting Jewish students and the Jewish community are blatantly Antisemitic, unconscionable, and dangerous quote:We condemn these statements in the strongest terms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Hamas did terrorism. What happened in October was terrorism. It’s very likely that Hamas knew how awful Israel’s over response would be when they attacked. Using Hamas’ rhetoric and framing is a problem. Oh cool let's bring back the "do you condemn hamas" before you can talk about the rights of Palestinians or students ability to protest or about how Israel is commiting a genocide (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:12
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They did not. Let’s put our cards on the table on this issue: do you think that the WH intended to associate the protests with terrorist groups by deploying the term “terrorist” or not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:12
|
|
|
punishedkissinger posted:*watching a HUAC hearing* Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the people brought before HUAC were directly accused of being communists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:12
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the people brought before HUAC were directly accused of being communists. Some were, but there was a large amount of indirect accusations, innuendo, and bad faith character attacks as well. e: many folks were dragged before the committee but never accused - just intimidated into falsely accusing colleagues or acquaintances. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Apr 25, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Let’s put our cards on the table on this issue: do you think that the WH intended to associate the protests with terrorist groups by deploying the term “terrorist” or not? No, they explicitly went out of their way to separate the two and the statement was in response to being shown a video where people were literally chanting in support of terrorism and they were asked about it. quote:The White House statement on Sunday came after videos posted online appeared to show some protesters expressing support for the 7 October attacks. And the response was specifically about calls to violence. You initially claimed he had explicitly called "peaceful anti-genocide protestors terrorists" and have been slowly walking back the goal posts when the actual statement was posted. You should read the full context and examine your priors to see why you initially thought that despite it not being true. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68871751 Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Apr 25, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Let’s put our cards on the table on this issue: do you think that the WH intended to associate the protests with terrorist groups by deploying the term “terrorist” or not? being as AOC was at the same event and is widely reported as praising the 'peaceful student-led protests', they're doing an incredible bad job of it. maybe we should just use occam's razor and figure that calling antisemitic rhetoric bad was intended to call antisemitic rhetoric bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 19:20
|
|
