• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle








  • While you scrutinize the finer points of morality relating to the detainment of sailors as part of an economic blockade, Israel is intentionally starving millions of children. Your priorities are so out of whack it’s absurd that you don’t recognize it. You don’t have to support the Houthis to acknowledge that their economic blockade of Israel is justified. If engaging in that level of nuance makes me a terrorist in your eyes, you’ve completely lost the plot.

    Besides, the word terrorist has always been used by the US as a propaganda tool to paint specific militant groups that are enemies of US empire as barbaric and inhuman. If the basic definition of terrorism were applied fairly across the board then the IDF and US military would be considered the most prolific terrorists and the US and Israel the largest state sponsors of terror. The standard of violence is set by the oppressors.


  • You desperately need to escape the bubble that you’re in as a member of Ethan’s community. He’s become a useful idiot for Israeli propagandists and now even the MAGA fascists - as evidenced by the details of Ethan’s false accusations against Hasan being brought up by the CBP agent who detained him. By attacking and slandering pro-Palestinian content creators and influencers he feels personally slighted by he is unwittingly doing the bidding of Netanyahu and Trump both.


  • Either way, philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution. Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties of others: “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”

    That’s a whole lot of words to communicate what could be easily described by reframing the concept of tolerance as a social contract rather than a moral precept.


  • So they took over a building they don’t own, refused to leave, and had a list of demands?

    Yeah, sounds like something the police should be called for.

    Would you say the same thing about organized sit-ins in segregated buildings during the civil rights movement? Same set of facts, took over a building they didn’t own, refused to leave, had a list of demands. If not, then clearly you believe that if the status quo is untenable and the demands reasonable then the action is justified.

    This is peaceful civil disobedience in opposition to an ongoing genocide being broken up by the police state.