henchmannumber3 @ henchmannumber3 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

46

Joined

1 mo. ago

It's really weird that you keep posting screenshots that debunk your own arguments.

No, people criticizing her over the amendment and falsely claiming she voted for funding Israel's genocide are making a bad faith argument. Voting for or against the amendment was meaningless. It was never going to pass. It was introduced by MTG as a stunt. Not going along with a stunt by a crazy racist conspiracy theorist is nowhere near the same as supporting genocide or funding it.

The bill is what matters. Ignoring the greater context is acting in bad faith. Ignoring the effective result is acting in bad faith. And pounding this issue only helps get people to not vote for the more left-leaning candidates. It's a really weird fight for anyone claiming to be a progressive.

Again, that's the amendment, not the bill. The bill funded Israel. AOC voted against the bill. AOC voted against funding Israel.

The vote in question was for an amendment and was a meaningless one that was never going to pass and get added to the bill.

The vote she showed is the bill that actually funded Israel and she voted against it. You are disingenuously claiming that a meaningless vote on a doomed amendment for a bill she wasn't going to vote in favor of is the same thing as voting in favor of the bill.

She disagreed with other people about ingredients for a meal she refuses to eat and you're pretending the ingredients argument disagreement was the same as eating the meal.

It was an amendment that was never going to pass, not a bill. It's important to know and recognize the difference. An amendment is useless if it doesn't get added to the bill and voting for or against an amendment is different than voting for or against the bill.

It's like arguing over what goes in a shopping cart at a store where you're not going to buy anything anyway.

The screenshot is correcting your confusion but you're ignoring it. The screenshot is of the bill, not the amendment. She's showing you proof she voted no against the greater bill. Pretending the amendment is the bill is disingenuous.

AOC literally voted against the bill. She literally voted against funding Israel. She literally said she opposes genocide and has called Israel out for it.

The headline is misleading. She voted against the bill.

The idea of knowing what you want to do with your life is overrated. A lot of people do a lot of different things and often don't know what they're going to do until the inspiration hits them. In the meantime, do things you like. Don't make any big decisions without thinking about the implications. Try out new hobbies and activities and see if any of them feel like something you want to do more. Oftentimes one interest will drive you to a similar one.

Get a job if you need the basic stuff people need to survive. Preferably not a job that demands too much social masking if that sort of thing causes you anxiety. That may be hard to come by depending on your skill set though. You can look at people whose jobs you find interesting and ask them what they did to get there. But it may also just be a matter of finding a job you can tolerate so you're able to do the things you enjoy when you're not working.

Yeah, this seems like terrible advice.

Just because DNA currently doesn't say much about you that can theoretically be used against you, that doesn't stop bad actors from using it as a pretense. Don't imagine what an honest person will do with it. Imagine what a dishonest person might try to do with it. Act accordingly.

And what's the opposite side? Where's the benefit of letting them keep it? You can always get your DNA tested again later if they actually come out with a useful application of the information.

You tout science, but you've cited an NPR interview where the conclusion you call "most likely" is described by issuing agencies as "low confidence." That doesn't make it seem "most likely" at all. What is most likely is that we don't have enough information to draw a definitive conclusion, so being judgemental about it might be hasty and hypocritical. The NPR interview also states that we don't know where the intelligence is coming from, so criticizing China for not being transparent but ignoring the secrecy of the intelligence agencies is a double standard.

The other source is a video from Ken LaCorte, who is a former Fox News executive who killed a legitimate Trump and Stormy Daniels story that turned out to be true, so his credibility is questionable on top of the fact he ran competing US political partisan websites and hired Macedonian teenagers to write the content to stir up contention.

You claim to never trust the media, but you're trusting a known manipulative media executive.

A better question is why the origin story matters so much to you. Does it change the need for masking or quarantines or vaccines in your opinion? If China came out and said it was a lab leak, how would it affect your life in a fundamental way?

People get banned on social media for legitimate and illegitimate reasons every day. This is a weird hill to die on.