themeatbridge @ themeatbridge @lemmy.world

Posts

9

Comments

7,341

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Yarr matey. I was just making a joke about how my morality is at odds with my nostalgic devotion to intellectual properties.

Oh wait, I thought of another witty reply:

You wouldn't download a Razor Crest, shoot a Mandalorian, shit in his helmet, give it to his alien baby foundling, and then steal the helmet again.

Shit like this happens every fucking day. This is news because the victim is famous.

I suspect we'll find out in his opening monologue.

My bet, he treats it like a victory lap, does a few innocuous jabs at "both sides", drops one really sharp line seemingly off script, and then continues the show as if nothing happened. He will make fun of how awkward Trump was at the Kirk memorial, and make no mention of racism, bigotry, or fascism because that's the deal they made.

And I can't say I blame him. The gun isn't to his head. It's pointed at all of the people who work on the show and don't have the political freedom that comes with being extremely rich.

[side-eyeing the Mandalorian and Grogu poster, sweating]

It's a two part process. One part happens on your machine. The browser is given a fingerprint to shift colors, and then the trackers can identify you even in a screenshot.

Acosta is one of them. Epstein provided children to them. We outnumber them, so they have to pretend they care what we think, but we have to keep the pressure on to demand the farce from them.

Yep, and their belief is a danger to literally everyone who does or will ever live on Earth.

Not at all. And in fact, I wish more people weren't expecting a cool prize at the end of all the death and destruction.

To be entirely fair, we are like 2 cubic meters of carbon dioxide away from total ecological collapse. Made-made climate change is now beyond any threshold where we previously had reasonable expectations of being able to prevent it. The oceans will rise, climate catastrophes will increase, and the world will become more hostile.

It kind of feels like were frogs in a boiling pot, and we're living though the apocalypse now. But the wifi still works, so scroll on and don't think about it too much.

Trump commented: Don't worry, we've found the people responsible for the operation and we are revoking their credentials.

I just find it absurd that the story goes "The White House wasn't informed of what Trump told Tulsi to do." Like certainly, she and Trump both work for Putin, and revoking the credentials from anyone who investigated Russian interference in the election is transparent corruption.

I mean, she received her orders in a private conversation whilst in the oval office. Clearly Trump does not possess the faculties to run the show, but he's the figurehead of the whole thing.

Does anyone actually believe that Tulsi went rogue on this, and wasn't simply acting under the direct orders of Trump?

It's both, but in journalism, you pick your words carefully. There's no chance the writer of the headline wasn't fully aware of both connotations. There are a dozen other words that could have meant the same thing without making it sound nefarious.

There are a few things at play.

First, there is the negative connotation of those words. Almost universally, people think of bigotry, anti-Semitism, and racism as bad things. Like, indefensibly bad. So pointing those things out is a good thing, because we should not tolerate bigotry in any form.

Unfortunately, I had to use the qualifier "almost" in that paragraph, and the group that does thing bigotry is OK is growing larger and louder. Several superpower countries are currently led by avowed bigots, and their supporters either pretend they aren't bigots or celebrate that they don't feel the need to hide their bigotry. The more ignorant hatred there is, the more it spreads.

But most average people still don't want to be called those things, even when they are. The feew that embrace it provide political cover to the vast majority that just want to hate people without being called names.

So right off the bat, just the act of accurately labeling bigotry, anti-Semitism, or racism is already a bit of a conversation ender, and it's not alwaysclear whether the person being a bigot even cares that you recognize it.

Next thing we have to clarify is that there is legitimate criticism to go around to practically any group. Specifically, the state of Israel is currently engaged in a violent, brutal, and merciless genocide of the Palestinians. This is a fact, and it is not in dispute.

But then there are anti-Semites who would like to see all of the Jewish people in Israel killed. Their response to one genocide would be to engage in another. As previously mentioned, those voices are growing in number and volume, and any time their is legitimate criticism of Israel, their voice join the chorus of outrage to steer the conversation towards eradication.

There's an old saying that 11 people who have dinner with a Nazi are a dozen Nazis. If you are seated at the "stop genocide" table, and a Nazi sits down to say "yeah, and kill all the Jews,"you have a responsibility to your cause to disavow them. But that's really difficult in the age of Twitter to separate yourself and disavow every Nazi who wants to support you. So when the Israeli government points at your table and says "those who criticize Israel are being anti-Semitic," you can't say that everyone who criticizes Israel isn't being anti-Semitic. Nuance doesn't fit in a soundbite. Look at how many words I needed just to get to a point where I could say "Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, but many critics of Israel are anti-Semitic" without making it sound like I am defending the genocide in Gaza. And I will still probably get downvotes on both ends from people who do defend the genocide, but also from anti-Semites who don't like being called out.

And that brings us around to the ouroboros of intent in political discourse. Your original question was whether people misuse those accusations to shut down criticism, and the answer is unequivocally yes. Even if the criticism is valid, and even if there are bigots among the critics, using those terms to describe or defend against critics is a tool to shut down the debate. Let's stick with Israel as an example. Israel is engaged in genocide. They have an interest in shutting down the debate. Anti-Semites want to kill all the Jewish people in Israel. They have an interest in mainstreaming their hatred and making peaceful revolution impossible. It serves both interests to label all critics of Israel as anti-Semitic, and the vast majority of reasonable people who don't think genocide is good are merely stuck between two sets of violent conservatives. Neither the Israeli government nor the bigots who hate Jewish people care about how many innocent people die. And it's always the innocent who do most of the dying.

We see this same avalance of hatred and ignorance when we talk about racism or really any form of bigotry. Any criticms that are even remotely valid are co-opted by hate groups because it helps promote their faction of conservativism, and then pointing it out helps the targets of criticism avoid accountability. And then the sheer quantity of accusations leveled dilutes the power of those words in the public consciousness, emboldening the actual racists, anti-Semites, and bigots.

TLDR yes, people "misuse" those labels to shut down criticism, even when they are accurate, and even when it is used by the bigots themselves.

Plotting, eh? How diabolical of her.

Damn, I remember when consoles got less expensive over time, and when free speech was a thing.

If you rely on religion for your morality, you can be convinced that anything is moral.

"I never thought of it that way."

"That's a new perspective."

"I love your confidence!"

The series Ted Lasso is chock full of these, but my favorite was after Jade meets Rupert and he leaves, she says, "Well, he seems rich."

Like it almost sounds like a compliment, but only if you lack the self-awareness and empathy of someone who isn't rich.