I don’t even really get the criticism. The complaints are not on whether he’s a liar or not, or whether his or Trump’s policies are what you’d prefer. The complaints are about him not being able to express any of that in a comprehensible way on the day he was most prepared to do so on the national stage, on account of him being a fossil. Trump is a liar with a horrendous ideology, but he’s very much still able to sell those lies and ideas to a very receptive crowd, because he’s obviously cognitively much sharper than Biden is. He’s still able to sell the tough guy persona while Biden is unable to sell anything to anyone at the moment. And it’ll just get worse if he remains in the race.
As I wrote, I’m not arguing about the content of what he says, he’s imo one of the most awful human beings around. What I’m saying is he doesn’t seem to have lost a whole lot of his cognitive abilities as opposed to Biden. He spewed word salads loudly and forcefully the first time around, and he was elected based on that. The fact that the content of what he says is awful is a value judgement you and I make, to his supporters, him being awful is a feature they like, and him being able to be loud and forceful proves to them that he’s able to implement his awful agenda if elected. Joe on the other hand would be a repeat of the second Reagan term when he was just a demented old man being puppeteered by those around him. Now, one might even like what those around him want to do, but in an election you’re supposed to pretend that you’re choosing an executive, not a puppet to be controlled by an unelected cabinet. Trump on the other hand gives off a forceful air like you said, which is exactly what his supporters want to see.
An Iranian monarchist who filmed herself pulling the headscarves off Iranians in London fled to Israel after UK police announced they were investigating her....
There is no reason to believe that this woman is not herself a Muslim.
What is Muslim to you? This is a prime example for how western people see Islam as a race, and therefore people from Iran are automatically classified as muslim.
There’s a very good reason to believe that this woman is not a muslim, and that’s the whole purpose of the article: she’s harassing Muslim women for the sole reason that they wear a piece of clothing showing that they’re Muslim. That you are unable to recognize this as what it clearly is, anti Muslim bigotry, is revealing your own bias against Muslims.
Do you have any other reason than the woman being Iranian for your remark that there’s no reason to believe she’s not a muslim? You don’t, so my comment stands. You decided that she being Iranian is a good reason to assume she’s Muslim, despite the article saying she was attacking Muslim women. We both know why, so stop clutching your pearls and have look at your own assumptions.
You can hide behind whatever rule you’d like. I’ve been more civil in my replies than your remarks call for. And it’s pretty clear in my unedited comments for everyone to see. Knock yourself out with whatever rule you need to hide behind, in order to avoid having an honest look at your own beliefs and biases.
I don’t ‘hate’ you, you’re just a commenter on Lemmy. I pointed out the obvious bigotry in your assumption of the woman being Muslim because she’s Iranian, despite the article making it clear she was harassing Muslim women. And you have done absolutely zero to dispell that conclusion. Assuming that my criticism is ‘hate’ just makes it clear that you’re unwilling to examine your own ideas from a critical perspective. Criticizing the civility of my comments reinforces the same conclusion. I’ve been very matter of fact, criticizing the substance of what you’ve written. I haven’t made any personal attacks as far as I can see. But you just keep doing the holier than thou thing.
Pointing to other bigoted comments doesn’t change the bigotry in your assumption, it just points to even more bigoted assumptions. Yeah, yours is more nuanced, but a more nuanced bigotry doesn’t mean it’s not bigotry.
Again, you assumed an Iranian woman is Muslim despite the article making it clear she was being bigoted against other muslim women. Ask yourself why you made that assumption if not because in your view, Iranian=muslim.
You literally wrote there’s no reason to believe she’s not a muslim herself. It’s still up there in your comment. If that’s not assuming then what is?
You do whatever you need to do. Again, it’s clear what I wrote and I stand by it. There’s nothing uncivil about what I wrote, that’s clear to all who read it. I don’t need one more opportunity, if you consider criticism and questioning of your ideas disrespectful, that’s your prerogative. So stop trying to threaten me into silence and do whatever you need to do in order to avoid examining your own biases.
You assumed she was muslim because she’s Iranian, I assumed she wasn’t because she was being bigoted against muslim women., which was the point of the article What you did is the equivalent of assuming Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Muslim because she’s Somali, ignoring that she’s made it her brand to vilify Islam.
Regarding the ridiculous comparison to gender: gender isn’t connected to nationality, which is the point we were discussing. Furthermore, I think most people would consider it reasonable to assume a person attacking trans people for being trans isn’t trans themselves. That you have trouble making this connection is the issue I have been criticizing all along.
Regarding what I comment on other people’s comments or don’t, you’re just reaching and it’s getting sad. It’s none of your business at all what I comment on, and no amount of nagging on your end has an impact on that decision. Either respond and defend your position or don’t. Beyond that is none of your business.
I did not change my tone in any of the comments I wrote, and it’s obvious to the people reading the exchange. It’s funny that you call it “returning to civility”, but whatever helps you cope I guess.
Over a dozen members of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s family, including six of his siblings, are endorsing President Biden in Philadelphia Thursday even as he makes his own bid for Biden’s job as an independent candidate....
Germany has supplied 30% of Israel s weapons, and has continued to do so during this ongoing genocide. If Germany or the US were to acknowledge the ongoing genocide, they’d have to stop supplying those arms immediately, hence stopping the annihilation of Gaza. So it’s of immense importance to keep repeating what most of the world already acknowledges: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes. History will not judge Germany kindly, but I guess that’s not exactly a new thing for a veteran perpetrator of genocide.
The US and Germany are both signatories of the UN arms trade treaty . This is article 6 (3):
“A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party”
Mass murder is the name of the game in war. So arming other militaries is always in support of mass murder. But in the eyes of international law some mass murder is acceptable as part of war. Genocide and the other crimes recounted above however, have been deemed to cross the threshold of acceptability in international law, and therefore are meant to stop the transfer of arms immediately. If the US and Germany were to acknowledge that these crimes are being perpetrated by Israel, they’d have to stop transferring arms. Mass murder in itself is admittedly wrong, but that alone is not sufficient to trigger a halt to arms exports. Therefore, it is of great importance to keep repeating: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes.
Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion?
Here’s South Africa’s 84 page indictment with details and receipts on how the genocide Convention is being violated, assuming a good faith and genuine question on your part.
That’s because the crime of genocide tends to contain within it multiple instances of crimes against humanity, breaches of the Geneva convention, attacks against civilians and so on. It’s basically the ultimate crime containing all the other crimes within it. And the highest authority on international law in the World, the ICJ, has said that it is plausible that what Israel is doing amounts to a genocide. It really is very clear and simple, if you’re willing to see things as they are.
Why is the pundit class so desperate to push Biden out of the race? (www.theguardian.com)
Iranian in UK flees to Israel after pulling off headscarves (www.middleeastmonitor.com)
An Iranian monarchist who filmed herself pulling the headscarves off Iranians in London fled to Israel after UK police announced they were investigating her....
Several RFK Jr. siblings set to endorse Biden (www.cbsnews.com)
Over a dozen members of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s family, including six of his siblings, are endorsing President Biden in Philadelphia Thursday even as he makes his own bid for Biden’s job as an independent candidate....
Germans: what genocide? (lemmy.world)