You were the one making accusations about me specifically. Now that your argument completely fell apart, you were talking about someone else? What a fucking loser, go kick rocks.

Free speech means being able to say and support things you believe in without the threat of being murdered for it.

According to whom? You can’t just redefine legal terms to suit your argument. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, again this is just a strawman argument.

You are already legally protected from being murdered for what you say, last time I checked murder is still illegal.

Any sympathy for the murderer undermines free speech and democratic society

First of all…who was expressing sympathy for the murderer? Understanding someone’s motive isn’t the same as being sympathetic towards something. The CIA has reported that 9/11 was the result of political blowback from our previous involvement in Afghanistan. By your logic the CIA is sympathetic towards the terrorist responsible for 9/11?

Secondly, you don’t get to dictate what people get to feel or talk about. Especially while hypocritically accusing people of undermining the freedom of speech for their beliefs or statements.

Lastly you have no fucking clue what the freedom of speech clause of Constitution actually means, because as I have previously stated… you are a moron.

This is not complicated…

I’m pretty sure tying shoe laces is complicated for you, this has obviously gone over your head.

Seems like a lot of victim blaming in here. It can be very simple. Don’t murder people you disagree with.

Moralizing once again, no one here advocated for murdering anyone.

Also, free speech needs to be protected culturally as well, and not just through the government.

The idea of freedom speech is a constitutional right, it’s not a social mores. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, you are just trying to erect a strawman argument.

doesn’t need to be a discussion about understanding motives at all. It’s wrong and needs to be condemned, full stop.

Lol, kinda ironic someone who is whining about free speech is trying to get people to stop talking about someone’s motive. We can discuss whatever we want, if you don’t like it you can leave. Hypocrite.

Otherwise you don’t have a free country. You can’t hand wave it away or shrug just because you understand their motive.

Lol, free speech means stop talking about something I don’t like because of freedoms…You are a moron.

a massive false equivalence comparing what Israel has done against the murder of two individuals.

People aren’t trying to equivocate the two, that would be insulting, not only to the people who were murdered, but to the tens of thousands of people being killed in Palestine.

The guy that got murdered isn’t Israel. He’s a person with opinions, right or wrong. He got murdered for a few tweets and an affiliation with Israel.

I mean he’s a representative of the state, which is why this is a politically motivated murder.

He’s not a combatant, but a civilian. Same for his wife. People justifying these murders are flat out wrong

Explanations aren’t justifications, just because people understand and even agree with the motivations of the killer doesn’t mean the agree with how he acted upon them.

I find the cries for the sanctity of protecting civilians to be pretty meek considering the state these civilians represent have overwhelmingly killed more civilians than armed combatants.

This is the inherent problem with a state targeting civilian populations, it provokes violence upon your own civilians.

In order to have a system where free speech is protected, you can’t allow people to be murdered for their views.

Another person misunderstanding the Constitution…Free speech doesn’t protect you from the public’s reaction to your speech, it guarantees protection from the government targeting you for your speech.

This isn’t an example of someone’s free speech being violated. An actual example would be students being arrested for their protest about Israels actions in Gaza.

There is no defending these murders or trying to justify them.

Again, understanding a motive isn’t justifying. No one said they agreed that those people deserved to be murdered , you’re just moralizing.

It’s illogical to compare them from a moral perspective.

The only person doing that is you… Everyone else is trying to point out that the two events are logically connected.

You don’t get to just shoot people because they have a different perspective than you, because they were raised differently or get their news from different places than you do.

Lol, I don’t think his motivations were centered around where people get their news. There is a genocide happening in Palestine, it’s not really a matter of perspective or debate. Violence begets violence, no one is claiming that’s a good thing, it’s just inescapable blowback.

It’s not exactly whataboutism though, it’s more of a false equivalence.

No one is equivocating the two. People are just acknowledging that political violence against those who represent a state is to be expected when a state conducts a genocide.

you think he is, then you are blinded by ideology and shouldn’t be allowed to participate in democratic society.

Lol, I’ve started my statement claiming I didn’t think people deserved to be murdered. You keep trying to connect my statements to moral grandstanding because you don’t have any other kind of rebuttal.

I don’t think I would really consider it a grossly exaggerated claim, more of just a misinterpretation of a report.

“For now let me just say that we know for a fact that there are babies who are in urgent life-saving need of these supplements that need to come in because their mothers are unable to feed themselves.”

“And if they do not get those, they will be in mortal danger,” he said.

I definitely wouldn’t claim that it was a claim based on antisemitism as Weissbrod is accusing. It’s a fact that the Israeli state is starving tens of thousands of people for no justifiable reason. I don’t think a misinterpretation of the timeline is really enough to claim someone is participating in blood libel.

I mean, I don’t think you get to decide what the scope of the context is.

For this not to be contextual you would have to claim that the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians had nothing to do with the gunman’s motive. I think that would be hard to claim considering that the murders were politically motivated, considering that the two victims were diplomats.

I think people have gotten a little too comfortable with claiming anything that shares a sentence structure with a logical fallacy to be a logical fallacy. You have to remember that logical fallacies have to be illogical in the first place. It’s not illogical to assume these two claims are associated.

Whataboutism have to equivocate two different scenarios that aren’t logically associated with the events in the originating claim.

I mean context is always important. Pretty sure any murder investigation goes into the motivation of the person who killed the victims.

I think it’s important to dispel the notion that the occupation of a neighboring country is somehow an act of protection, when it’s pretty obvious that it’s sparked a lot of provocation.

I mean also…

“In his final post on social media hours before the attack, Lischinsky had shared a post from the Israeli ambassador, Amir Weissbrod, accusing UN officials of engaging in “blood libel” over claims that 14,000 children faced starvation in Gaza.”

Not saying they deserved any violence, but even once moderate Israelis have been driven pretty far right in the last couple years. Accusations of blood libel while the state is actively starving children doesn’t exactly seem to be promoting any positive dialogue.

Lethal injections are performed by physicians.

No they are not. They’re usually performed by volunteers, most commonly EMTs or nurses. A lot of state protocols request that a physician be present to witness and call time of death, but even that’s rare.

The code of ethics in the AMA strictly prohibits physicians from participating in executions.

“A physician must not participate in a legally authorized execution,” the American Medical Association says in its Code of Medical Ethics. “When physicians participate in capital punishment, they are being utilized to intentionally inflict harm by using their medical knowledge and skills to forcibly cause death,” AMA media relations manager R.J. Mills told NPR. “Physicians who participate in capital punishment take an active role as agents of the state, not as advocates for the condemned, even if their intent is to minimize suffering.”

I’ve said this before, but I truly believe at some point a psychiatrist diagnosed RFK Jr with autism or some kind of spectrum disorder and we are now getting to experience his grand display of denialism.

The guy was best friends with his flacon, was constantly called an odd kid, and has been fixated with being around, talking about, or acquiring dead animals since a very young age.

I don’t know if he’s actually autistic or just severely traumatized, but based on his bio it wouldn’t surprise me if someone’s given him the diagnoses in the past based on his history of troubling behavior.

I build and fit orthotics and prosthetics…this is mainly just a marketing gimmick. The myoelectric sensors that feed the data to the terminal device are built into the socket of the prosthetic. There’s no real reason to wear the socket without the hand, and you can’t operate the hand without the socket.

The hard connections from the end of the socket and the hand are very durable, and they typically don’t really have any issues with wear. I don’t think fidelity is a big issue because there’s not a ton of information being transferred, the myoelectric sensors haven’t really changed a bunch in the last 40 years and the amount of information being sent is minimal.

The biggest downside I foresee is that if you had different terminal devices, you’re probably going to have to pair them to the socket whenever you want to switch. When the traditional hard connection is just plug and play. That and you are just adding extra things to break in devices that are built to take a beating.

Nah, it’s just a rumor started most likely by Musk himself. Pretty sure it was a ploy to halt the Tesla stock sell offs. It started around the same time another rumor that the Tesla board was going to ask him to step down.

It’s the same trick trump was doing his last term, lie to publishers and then accuse them of not being trustworthy for printing unsubstantiated rumors.

The sad thing is that a good amount of these guys aren’t actually working for the state. A lot of them are actually immigrants who left Russia for more opportunities, but are still rampant nationalist attempting to damage the countries that gave them a new home.

Yeah… Because Trump has such a good track record of maintaining nuclear deals. This is just a pretense to allow Israel to invade Iran once they’ve finished their genocide in Gaza.

The whole reason Israel felt comfortable enough to commit to purging Gaza is because Trump ended the original nuclear deal to begin with. Now that Benni feels things are wrapping up in Palestine, he’s going to need another war to keep Israel’s bloodlust going and keep his coalition together.

International law no longer holds any water. Every world power seems hell bent on making geopolitics revolve around hard power. The US backs out of treaties every four years, the Russians haven’t ever made a deal they didn’t pretend never happened, and China is out there pretending a vast swath of the Pacific is there’s because of reasons…

In a time where a level of global cooperation is needed greater than ever before to prevent climate change, we as a species are shitting the bed harder than ever before.

[email protected]

[email protected]

Are another two just off the top of my head.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that fascist parties all over Europe are gaining traction at the same time, running on the same platforms, and offering the same solutions?

They are going to use the same play book being utilized in America in your country, if you don’t know the playbook you are going to have the same problems.

is there a news page that does NOT contain American politics?

I get the sentiment, but politics and news are irrefutably intertwined.

I feel for the victims, but only Americans can do something about it. And they never dealt with the “death penalty for walking on the street while black” problem.

I would argue this is a lot like people in France questioning why they should pay attention to Nazis invading Poland. Nearly all democratic nations are currently being subversively attacked by right winged political parties .

If people in your nation don’t learn from the US’s example, right winged parties will continue to grow in power.

anarcho-capitalist libertarian utopia?

I hate that edgelord libertarians are trying to rebrand themselves as “anarcho-capatalist”. Anarchy and capitalism are antithetical to one another. It doesn’t have anything to do with anarchy if you aren’t evaluating hierarchy, and capitalism is literally one of the most hierarchical organizational structures possible.

I mean, they know it’s not “legal”, they are just testing the boundaries of judicial oversight. They are going to push boundaries and whenever they get any kind of push back they are going to scream about persecution and claim judicial over reach.

The point is to overwhelm the system to the point of breaking and then claim we don’t need to listen to the judicial system, because look how broken it is.

These people aren’t stupid, they’re just fascist who know things like legal systems are social contracts that depend on good will and trust to operate. If they can break that good will and trust them they can rewrite the social contract.

It is dangerous to assume these people are just stupid.