This is gross, if you can't control your anger during these talks why have them at all? Why do this to yourself and others.
I've always wondered... How do people value the cordiality towards a single human vs humanizing an entire group of people? I'll gladly make fun of his weight when I have had conversations with him washing away the genocide in Gaza as "war is war" and how fitting to fat shame a dude who is able to express such apathy towards genocide from his sedentary suburban lifestyle where never once in his life has he had to fear the sky above him dropping 2000lb ordinance on his neighborhood. So nah he can stay out of this topic if he wants to give an excuse of having limited time to express empathy for a dude who got bagged by a fascist paramilitary ICE unit with no warrant with a 8 month pregnant wife in the house for expressing speech to stop a genocide of his people. **** cordiality when people dabble in dehumanization. And it says a lot about your moral character that this is the first thing you call "gross" in a thread full of dehumanization rhetoric. Shame on you. Be a better person.
What does your perceived issues with someone else's "cordiality" have to do with the way you behave? DD's random opinions on this or that or whatever doesn't effect much of ****, the most impactful thing he does is vote, and in that one case, he votes the same as you. You on the other hand, personally berating him for personal things that have zero relevancy on this topic, is an attempt to be directly impactful. I understand, you are directly offended in this discussion by his opinions (more so than khalil, or a person in gaza) and you want to express that, you can and should point that out and explain why... but if in the end, you aren't satisfied with someone else opinion, it really isn''t a free pass to call them a fat f*ck or a n*gger or what have you. If you think people are being indecent it doesn't exonerate you becoming indecent, it's just now two indecent people? You talk too much about empathy to be making these attacks.
He makes personal attacks too. Especially politically. He can't live in a glass house. If you want to be opinionated then you have to be able to take criticism. He's overweight and he doesn't take care of himself
You are good when the the US government sees you as a genocide sympathizer and takes action against you?
Personal attacks based on someone’s political opinions (not that I endorse this) is at least somewhat more on topic than going after someone’s appearance in a political discussion. I would also say it’s very weak to attack another’s appearance while keeping hidden what one looks like (as most of us do, probably for good reason).
I guarantee the poster you quoted hasn't made any substantial contribution to this thread or any other in the D&D this month.
Trump was arrested by NY for accounting bookkeeping violations. Trump was arrested by the federal government for the alleged (fake) mishandling of documents that had already been declassified. And you guys are outraged that Mahmoud Khalil was arrested for inciting chaos, violence, and upheaval all around the country? Oh, the mind of the American liberal! Makes no sense to anyone except themselves! Self-awareness = zero GOOD DAY
Your emotional outbursts discredit your views. I understand you’re not just here to persuade but also to vent. But if you can’t stick to reasoned arguments, don’t expect others to when they debate you. And definitely don’t expect someone to be more self reflective when you attack them in that manner.
The US government will make it official first, so yea, its up to you after that point. Kinda like when they pass a new law you know, "from now on running a red light is arrestable offense", and then @Amiga runs a red light and acts all surprised if they actually do arrest her.
That phrase is definitely highly charged and provocative. It was also not in the podcast we are discussing. In addition, he said that comment was based on the initial reports that only 50 Israelis had been killed in the attack. You are using an out-of-context and out-of-timeline phrase to make a point that you aren't assuming he's not after factual findings. I think it actually reinforces the idea that you are making an assumption about his intention based on your strong disagreement with his views.
Running a red light is not a political viewpoint. So, to be clear, if you hold the viewpoint that the Israeli IDF should "bomb the heck" out of Gaza, and the U.S. government considers that as supporting genocide and takes action against you, that's fine with you?
I don't hold that viewpoint, I'm actually one of the very few Republicans that supported the Palestinian people, and I share your viewpoint that Israel did commit a genocide. I don't have to agree with the Republicans on everything, funny how that works, you liberals ought to try it. But I'm not gonna support any organization that my government made it official not to support.
I said IF YOU hold that viewpoint. That’s the point here. IF you have a political viewpoint that the U.S. government strongly disagrees with (whether it’s against their foreign policy, or considered terrorism, genocide, or something else very bad), should the U.S. government have the right to act against you? Another way to put it is: should we no longer have the freedom of controversial political viewpoint? PS: I don’t have a viewpoint that Israel committed genocide (I don’t know if they did or didn’t).
Saw this and changed my Avitar. I'm holding up OK for a 56-year-old guy. Or at least my wife thinks so. I have no issue with people seeing who I am. I was 205 in that pic. I'm 188 now.
Yea I think I've answered it. If I have a viewpoint that the government disagrees with (we're talking specifically about foreign affairs, what the government considers to be an enemy of the US). I wouldn't go around yelling my support to that organization, country etc. That would just be plain stupidity on my part, do I want the government to start watching me closely? No, I want 'em to stay away from me, and I'll stay away from them. So why draw any unnecessary attention.
I'll point out that the government can and does change its mind (it just did from the last administration to this one). You may have a viewpoint today that is perfectly fine, but tomorrow, they may deem it’s not. We are really just beating around the bush here. Do you support or not support political speech for yourself and for others? Your answer so far is that we should not have freedom of speech.
I think you're missing the point entirely. You really think that if this was WW2, you could walk around the States showing your support to Nazi Germany? Yea if you wanted to be thrown into a POW camp, there were alot of Germans in POW camps around the States, granted most of them were actually captured in the war fighting, but some were actually US citizens that supported Germany (close to 11k to be exact). Or that you could showed your support to Viet-Cong? You could of been against ww2 or the Vietnam war, but you can't be siding with the enemy, its common sense, that has nothing to do with the freedom of speech Lol. Get real, no offense
