Pro-Israeli interests have sometimes settled for manufacturing a helpful "truth" when it doesn't exist. The latest version seems to be that protesters are widely violent, hateful, and make campuses/cities unsafe. Here's a 4-minute message from a Jewish Holocaust survivor about his time in the front lines of pro-Palestine protests: "When the right-wing section of the present government is trying to press for the banning of these marches on the grounds that they create 'no-go areas' for Jews and they are anti-Semitic - we know that this is complete rubbish and the very opposite is true." He encourages "the brave student protesters" to keep going, and talks about how well they have been treated and celebrated even while wearing placards that identify them as Jews.

Here's a Jewish Londoner talking about how he's been attending UK pro-Palestine/ceasefire marches for months with a large Jewish bloc and they've "been received very warmly". The interviewer then disagrees with him, telling him that he's in danger and the marches are anti-Semitic in spite of the person who's actually been going to months of protests saying it's the opposite.

Here's a video of a woman who walked into the middle of a protest calling 911 and trying to invent a dangerous situation while everyone around her keeps their distance and assures her she is safe to leave.

Here's a study about how false claims of crimes hurt the cases of, and empathy for, real victims of crimes. Similarly there are real anti-Semites out there, and there are true cases of racially motivated aggression against Jews. However, such obvious attempts to invent anti-Semitism is "crying wolf" and damages the credibility of genuine allegations by making it easier to believe it's made up. The people trying to manufacture the situations they claim to fear need to examine their commitment to truth and the harmful impact of their obvious deception. On the protesters side, it's good they are booing and otherwise publicly rejecting anyone who steps over the line into hatred (whether genuinely or as a false flag). That's something they absolutely must stick to in order for the protests to stay ethical and also to avoid being discredited as racist.

That's a solid criticism and I upvoted. I hadn't thought about YouTube. Anecdotally I've had factual comments about how many kids are killed, what Israeli politicians say, etc. auto-moderated into oblivion on YouTube. But at the same time I get a lot of the facts I use from YouTube (basically never been on TikTok) so it holds water. I also get a lot of info from other sources, but I can't think of something specific I'd get from them that I could never find on YouTube.

In my defense, I'm basing my opinion on why TikTok is particularly targeted on interviews like this one with Ted Cruz. He talks about how TikTok is specifically designed to push messages that are harmful to America, including what he calls pro-Hamas content but I suspect is actually anti-Israeli policy, pro-Palestine content. That is why I would argue there's some evidence of a campaign against TikTok in particular that might skip over YouTube or other major platforms. Perhaps the Western powers feel that YouTube is still acceptably moderated towards their interests whereas TikTok isn't. Perhaps Google is just too influential domestically.

Edit: I found a video I was looking for: Biden talking about passing the TikTok/Israel funding/Ukraine funding package. A bit of language he uses that I think is telling is "it continues America’s leadership in the world and everyone knows it" which could signal US dominance as a motivation and thus TikTok as a target and not US companies.

That doesn't mean your point isn't worth discussion, or that my points aren't opinion. I'm interested to see how it develops. I've based my opinion on the conversations I can find and language used, but I'm open to adjusting my view if evidence prompts that.

I 100% admit that my take on the TikTok ban is opinion based on the hearings and arguments + the scope of the bill, so you aren't being unfair. I have never heard that about the Twitter purchase - I had read it was a poor decision Musk made only half-seriously and then was basically forced to follow through with.

Here's Bernie Sanders from a year ago talking about how a handful of companies control the news people see, read, and hear. TL:DR - He makes the argument that it's not fake news, that journalists are usually hard-working and honest. He says the problem is the limitation of allowed discussion - what topics make it to the consumer. He says for instance that he's never asked about wealth and income inequality.

I believe TikTok is being banned because as it stands now it brings topics outside the limits of allowed discussion to a lot of eyes in ways US government/companies haven't proven able to control. If the issues justifying a potential ban were truly data security or mental health as some argue (not without merit mind you), then the legislation to address those issues would look a lot different and include companies like Meta, Google, Instagram, etc. Those are valid concerns but the new measure is clearly not designed around them.

Finally, we've seen how Trump can tie up the courts for months on end even after all his self-snitching. Thus I very much doubt we'll see any actual action in the 9 months + 3 months grace period laid out for the resolution of the TikTok matter. There are too many constitutional and business law challenges in my (admittedly layman's) reading of expert opinion.

• Have you forgotten what you wrote like 24 hours ago? "So yes, there are indeed wrong kind of Jews" and then you go on to define them by metrics you create. That isn't just a sardonic repetition of my words as you claim. YOU condemned some people as the wrong kind of Jews for your own reasons and now, a day later, argue "Nobody is actually condemning people for being the wrong kind of Jew or having the wrong opinion." Make up your mind.
• You can read about all the measures taken to label Jewish Voice for Peace as anti-Semitic, hateful, etc. at the link I provided (here again since your ignorance of how they've been treated is obvious).
• Israel has tried to legislate Breaking the Silence out of existence for years. Search Israeli media even briefly and you'll find a multitude of articles like, "Yes, anti-Zionism is antisemitism". Netanyahu famously says criticism of Israel or Zionism = anti-Semitism. I shouldn't have to prove this is being said to anyone with even a casual acquaintance of Israel's stated position on the matter.
• The USA passed a resolution a few months ago saying anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, over the protests of Jewish members of Congress, one who talks about Jews he's represented who protest Israel. He says that saying anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism is "intellectually disingenuous or factually wrong", yet the resolution still passed. You can look at how they are treating college protests now to see the practical results of equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Here's a Jewish Professor talking about how accusations of anti-Semitism are being weaponized against legitimate protests. Here's a Holocaust survivor talking about how accusations of anti-Semitism are crap (as in they do exist and he gives examples) and they actually get a "tremendously warm reception" at pro-Palestine/ceasefire protests.
• Just last month, Germany seized the bank accounts of Pro-Palestinian Jews and demanded all their information. "Independent lawyer Nadija Samour said that this was an unusual request not usually required by the bank, and was “beyond legal.” German authorities have been arresting/hindering/punishing Jews for protesting Israel for months. "We have found ourselves in a Germany where Jews are being persecuted, but this time for “the right reason”, protecting Israel. It’s tragedy coming back as a farce.”

So, I have specific examples to back up my claims, and to prove yours wrong. Strawman that. Also, yet again I repeat that your arguments are based on the assumption that I somehow support anti-Semites because they are also against Israel. And yes, you specifically say I will defend anti-Semites, with your justification being I criticize governments. I've never defended anti-Semitism, I can prove the exact opposite if you want, it's unfounded and unfair, and no matter how often you assert that it won't become true.

Edit: Your edit even says your leap to put words in my mouth makes sense given my "random and unprompted attack on several countries" as if somehow that was proof I support Hamas. Well, I've given you just some of the many examples of proof that said attacks aren't "random or unprompted" above. Frankly your position that my accusations come from nowhere is evidence that you are arguing from ignorance since many of those examples are well-known and all are freely available.

Give up your flawed argument, adjust your view to fit facts, and next time actually get people's opinions + the truth of the situation sorted before you launch into attacks.

I regularly have to fight cynicism about the future, because people always talk about a golden future in which there's enough to take care of everyone. What they seem to miss is that there is enough wealth in the world to provide for everyone many times over, and there has been for over a decade at least. Stories like this help give me hope to balance out that cynicism and keep me from becoming too bitter.

Sorry to hear you have to do that. Hopefully you can also run into the many folks out there who judge based on actions, not genetics or where someone was born/resides. I never care about race except to make sure people aren't made to suffer because of it. I like science, and I don't think it makes any scientific sense to make assumptions about someone's character because of things like how much pigment their skin produces.

I don't know the book, but men can rock makeup when they want to:

I was cheering for the other team (Oilers) vs. Ferrell's Kings and I still had to respect the facepaint.

I know that, but if "might makes right" was suddenly a thing it would be a big mess. My point was we probably don't want to be bringing assassination/violence into the discussion about checks and balances, even if it comes with a wink, because there are definitely folks who will consider it.

"Over the decades, antagonism between the Republican state government and the Democratic and Black-led local government created additional obstacles to updating Jackson’s water and sewage infrastructure. A Title VI civil rights complaint that the NAACP filed with the EPA in September 2022 accused Governor Reeves and the state legislature of “systematically depriving Jackson the funds that it needs to operate and maintain its water facilities in a safe and reliable manner.”

Add "clean, safe water" and "proper sewage systems" to the list of things being unnecessarily made political. I may not support some political views but I want to "win" on merit and due process, not because folks are desperate for the most basic of human needs. Depriving people of clean water because you don't like how they vote is pretty evil in my books.

Yeah, like I said in my other post about missing the point - I suspected but was hoping for something more legitimate since my knowledge is not nearly exhaustive. Once you start employing "alternatives" things can go downhill fast. Imagine the mess if the Jan 6th insurrection had actually been effective in some way for instance.

Why do these folks keep getting nominated/elected? How long until it's "the protesters were in the wrong place, so I realized I had to command police to open fire"?

The footage of the premature baby born to a dead mother killed in a bombing, who then followed her into death moments later, was especially chilling. Can you imagine the outrage if that happened to someone from New York, or Britain, or Germany? But because they're Palestinians the mother and newborn, both killed inside a "safe zone", will be just a footnote.

There are no safe zones for Palestinians as far as Israel is concerned. Just in the last day Israel's Finance Minister Smotrich has called for the "complete destruction" of Gaza and stopping peace talks with Hamas. "He said Israel needed to attack Rafah "as fast and as strongly as possible, and then continue with the strip until its complete destruction".

I guess. I understood what might have been said, but I was hoping it was something legitimate that I just didn't know (which is a lot given I'm a) Canadian and b) not a lawyer/governmental expert). "Other mechanisms" tend to be messy, and once they're on the table things can go to crap fast.

I wouldn't ask you to do my research for me, but do you have a starting point, like a search term, for some? I can only find articles like this one, "A Supreme Court Accountable to No One", which details the difficulties reigning in SCOTUS judges.

It feels like overturning Roe vs. Wade in 2022 was a signal flare to lawmakers about what they could legitimately expect to get away with as long as the current SCOTUS judges sit. Since then it seems every few weeks I'm reading about new laws or proposed laws that would push the nation into the past by removing personal freedoms, punishing speech, removing job protections, etc. This is another example - librarians aren't an existential threat and books should only be banned for really, really good reasons and boys holding hands isn't one.

The USA needs a way for the citizens to hold national and state Supreme Court Justices accountable or at least force a review of their decisions. Right now I'm told that the only mechanism is impeachment, which happened once in 1803.

Here is a video from a press briefing in which US State Department Spokesperson Vedant Patel is asked about the reasoning of getting Israel to investigate accusations made against Israel. I don't know the channel and I'm not a fan of the quotation marks used in the subtitles, but I think the video is still a valuable, factual record of the questions and response and people can draw their own conclusions.

In my opinion, this feels like asking murder suspects to do the police work for their own court case.

Here is a video from a press briefing in which US State Department Spokesperson Vedant Patel is asked about the reasoning of getting Israel to investigate accusations made against Israel. I don't know the channel and I'm not a fan of the quotation marks used in the subtitles, but I think the video is still a valuable, factual record of the questions and response and people can draw their own conclusions.

In my opinion, this feels like asking murder suspects to do the police work for their own court case.

"Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I protest Israeli policy because I'm not a fan of people suffering and dying. I don't do it because I think other people should suffer and be killed. Hard no on calling this guy an ally until he stops calling for or hinting at extrajudicial violence. Upvoted the story because it's important to call out positions like this and reject their message publicly.