Then use Al Jazeera. But if Trump Media tells me it’s rainy in the Pacific Northwest I’m going to have doubts, and if Iran says Israel’s doing Israel things… I’m going to have doubts.
MyEdgyAlt
joined 1 year ago
While there’s nothing about the story that’s hard to believe given Israel’s love for genocide and harming anyone who cares about the humanity of Palestinians, can we get a source that isn’t literally Iran?
Edited to add:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/09/09/middleeast/israel-gaza-united-nations-convoy-intl-latam
Hey now, we’re also going to deliver another shipment of 2000lb bombs to use against civilians in tents, but with a strongly worded letter attached.
But per the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which has been widely adopted (and here), anti-Zionism is antisemitic. Why do you hate Jewish people?
-
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
-
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Protection? They also need reparations after this.
Don’t worry though, people who dislike Israel just secretly hate people for being Jewish. Totally not because of the decades of abuse.
BBC is calling him a key figure in ceasefire talks. Unfortunately it’s in the “live” story so this prrmalink probably isn’t very good:
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c4ng7g74xppt?post=asset%3A702473f5-3053-4c5d-bec9-c92763876f83#post
This feels misleading.
Vance made it clear, said Aaron Fritschner, deputy chief of staff for Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), "that he meant no disrespect to cats, but he did mean to demean women and still holds the view in 2024 that they should be punished for not having children."
So the actual quote here is from a chief of staff of a Democratic representative, not from dolphin-loving couch-loving JD Vance. So it’s an accusation that interprets for us. And the tweet the article cites heavily edits the text it quotes:
"Obviously it was a sarcastic comment. I’ve got nothing against cats. ... People are focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance … and the substance of what I said, Megyn — I’m sorry, it is true."
Heres a video of the clip without the editing: https://therecount.com/watch/obviously-it-was-a-sarcastic/2645895762
Ok, so the edits here at least aren’t misleading..
Then based on the 9 minute clip of her show in the original article, it seems like he’s claiming the substance is not about the cat lady comment, but some lies about what Democrats believe about families (democrats think kids are for the economy, republicans want to make it easier for women to stay in the workforce (I mean, is there a more blatant lie than that? They’re the ones who fight against extending COVID-era childcare credits!), etc). That’s what says he’s doubling down on. And given the context that does truly seem to be the lies he’s doubling down on.
Let’s try to stick to sincere, defensible attacks against people for whom there are many valid attacks, and not spread misleading claims that JD is doubling down on “crazy cat ladies”. He’s shit and we can demonstrate that in good faith, or we can lie like he does.
I don’t want to be held responsible for the appalling actions of my government, but as a voter I understand why people in other countries would. I have more control over it than they do, so them influencing me influences my government.
view more: next ›
That’s fine, but I think you’ll be able to reach/influence more people with intentional source selection.
In this example, if Iran claims the UN said that, I’d still go and confirm it (which I did). If Al Jazeera or Reuters says he said it, I don’t feel the need to double check; I know they won’t flat out lie. Someone lazier than I was here might just remember this story as a “maybe” if they didn’t bother checking the source themselves.