They also abducted the entire medical team, destroyed all broadcasting vehicles, and are shooting at anyone around the surroundings of the hospital. The Zionist army and their supporters are the most depraved group of evil cnuts we've ever witnessed.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
This is the case with other social media apps as well and doesn't speak to the fundamental problem the US government has with Tik Tok, which is related to the fact that ByteDance is headquartered in Beijing, and as such is beholden to China's 2017 national intelligence law, as well as two other Chinese laws from 1993 and 2021 that give the government access to their data, even if said data is based offshore.
Therefore the US, in its increasingly adversearial role with China, has an interest in not allowing the Chinese Communist Party to access the data of 150m American citizens on Tik Tok. The interest in buying TikTok by a US consortium, is therefore an attempt to preserve US access to it.
On the subject of Mnuchin, it just comes across as the latest lazy, anti-Semitic trope that gets propagated by monetized activists like Lowkey and others who follow similar accounts, namely that "the Jews own the banks, the Jews own the media etc". Its simply a way to drive clicks within the anti-Israel ecosystem and completely misses the much broader issue about why the US government has viewed CCP control over ByteDance's data of US citizens a massive problem for years predating anything to do with 10.7
More depraved than the Nazis?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Nothing is more depraved than the Nazis in modern history.
I am not saying he wasn't there, Hamas terrorists must be hiding somewhere. Problem is it is very hard to believe anything coming from official Israeli sources. They have been very untrustworthy and at times even intentionally lied or even fabricated stories.
Yeah, the guy who's a senior policeman and just secured aid for the first time in months for more than half a million starving people.
He's part of the same police that the Biden administration itself asked your depraved army to stop targeting them. You posted from the official IOF, so that's enough nonsense for a while.
He's part of the same police that the Biden administration itself asked your depraved army to stop targeting them. You posted from the official IOF, so that's enough nonsense for a while.
Even then they are calling him internal security, he's part of the police.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
When I google this sentence this is what I get, 2 results and one of them is this redcafe thread. Since the first link sends me to a 300 page book, can you point out where this is more specifically so I can read it with the full context?
I can accept that. The problem is people here taking things from other sources as gospel...
Another goal of these operations is more ethnic cleansing and moving people toward one of their concentration camps where they bomb civilians' tents day after day.
I think most don't. There are a few that have been taken over by emotion. I can only speak for myself but I honestly try to screen my sources a lot. I read UN reports and read a lot of statements and reports made by help organisations. There is little truth to be found from the two sides at war.
The most trustworthy are civilians on the ground. Gazans may be untrustworthy for some but they have proven since the start of their genocide that they are the most reliable in reporting what's happening.
The other thing is, pretty much everything they've said has been corroborated by other independent organisations after.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So far, all I've got is below, which seems to be a quote in a chat under an article. Chomsky's potential words are in inverted commas, with the introductory paragraph being from the poster:When I google this sentence this is what I get, 2 results and one of them is this redcafe thread. Since the first link sends me to a 300 page book, can you point out where this is more specifically so I can read it with the full context?
As for the race & IQ debate. I suppose you are referring to Chomsky’s dismissal of Richard Herrnstein’s IQ. In fact questioning the propriety of some particular scientific investigation is *not* equivalent to a call for the *banning* much less of punishing such an investigation. I can see no double standard just common (left-libertarian) sense. There would have been equivalence had Chomsky suggestes banning Herrnstein’s article or firing him from his university position. This was not the case. The relevant quote regarding Chomsky’s criticism of Herrnstein’s IQ is this:
“… the question of the validity and scientific status of a particular point of view is, of course, logically independent from the question of its social function; each is a legitimate topic of inquiry, and the latter becomes of particular interest when the point of view in question is revealed to be seriously deficient on empirical or logical grounds.
… (The scientist) is responsible for the effects of what he does, insofar as they can be clearly foreseen. If the likely consequences of his “scientific work” (can be used as a justification for class and caste hierarchies), he has the responsibility to take this likelihood into account. This would be true even if the work had real scientific merit-more so, in fact, in this case.
Similarly imagine a psychologist in Hitler’s Germany who thought he could show that Jews had a genetically determined tendency toward usury … or a drive toward antisocial conspiracy and domination, and so on. If he were criticized for even undertaking these studies, could he merely respond that “a neutral commentator … would have to say that the case is simply not settled” and that the “fundamental issue” is “whether inquiry shall (again) be shut off because someone thinks society is best left in ignorance?” I think not. Rather I think that such a response would have been met with justifiable contempt. At best he could claim that he is faced with a conflict of values. On the one hand, there is the alleged scientific importance of determining whether, in fact, Jews have a genetically determined tendency toward usury and domination (as might conceivably be the case). On the other, there is the likelihood that even opening this question and regarding it as a subject for scientific inquiry would provide ammunition for Goebbels and Rosenberg and their henchmen. Were this hypothetical psychologist to disregard the likely social consequences of his research (or even his undertaking of research) under existing social conditions, he would fully deserve the contempt of decent people. Of course, scientific curiosity should be encouraged (though fallacious argument and investigation of silly questions should not), but it is not an absolute value.”
Excellent post.
I’ve just read this and can find no references to “jewish run media” or “jewish domination of cultural and economic life”. Or have I misunderstood your citation?
(edit): actually it is there at the very end. The full quote:
@Fingeredmouse @maniak
The Chomsky quote comes from this article (pdf link), I'm pretty sure. The title is different, and published elsewhere, but it's written at the same time, contains the same quote, and is a response to the same article.
He's comparing Richard Hernstein (co-author of The Bell Curve) looking into whether or not black people have lower IQ because of genetics to a scientist in Hitler's Germany looking into whether or not Jewish people are predisposed to engage in usury and domination.
The Chomsky quote comes from this article (pdf link), I'm pretty sure. The title is different, and published elsewhere, but it's written at the same time, contains the same quote, and is a response to the same article.
He's comparing Richard Hernstein (co-author of The Bell Curve) looking into whether or not black people have lower IQ because of genetics to a scientist in Hitler's Germany looking into whether or not Jewish people are predisposed to engage in usury and domination.
Thank you. Most helpful.
So Chomsky's quotes are him just making comparisons or imagining hypotheticals. I guess it tells us something about what type of sites/news @Giggsy PO reads.
It's pretty clear with people like Chomsky, the zionist community start with asserting a position on them and work backwards to try and build some sort of narrative.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Glad to see people taking the time to methodically dismantle his argument, but the very idea that Chomsky or Finkelstein are antisemite is downright absurd for anyone familiar with the two and their work.
Frankly, yes. Here's the context of his reply to Rosenthal:
As you can see he's not making an observation, he's comparing Rosenthal's notion that Palestinians should make do with Jordan to the (in his view) equally fallacious and provocative idea that Jews should make do with New York. He poses it as a rhetorical question to which he already knows the answer: Rosenthal, you, I and the Times would rightly consider that statement antisemitic. That's precisely his point.Letters from Lexington - The Middle East Lie said:
As for the second quote, the context here is Chomsky arguing against Herrnstein's postulation that a just society must naturally and necessarily become stratified on the basis of intellect (as defined by IQ). His argument is three pronged - motive, value, byproduct. As part of this argument Chomsky alludes to how justifying one's seat atop society on the basis of IQ is disturbingly reminiscent of 19th century anthropological justifications for slavery. His argument in the passage in question is that even if we grant (he doesn't) that the subject under scrutiny (e.g. race based IQ) has scientific value this doesn't necessarily mean that the work should be undertaken. Social effects must be taken into account and just undertaking the research might serve to advance unconscionable public policy and reinforce pre-existing stigmas. Later arguments concentrate on the fact that he doesn't think that these subjects have any scientific value anyway and that any results from them fail to rise above the trivial.
Here are the pertinent paragraphs that shed light on your Chomsky quote (pg 382, here):
Last edited:
Hence my concern. I do not know Mr. Finkelstein's work to comment, but Chomsky's work seems wholly incompatible logically with antisemitism and he is, no matter your thoughts on his opinion, logical if nothing else.
I don't know where does your article comes from, when it was published, why it has different title.
My source was correct:
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ061325
The article can be also found in Ethical Issues in Scientific Research: An Anthology, edited by Edward Erwin, Sidney Gendin, Lowell Kleiman (1994).
But you know what is funny. In your article the parenthesis say "an empirical question, no doubt" while the article I sourced says "as might conceivably be the case". Why the difference?
A good question, but irrespective, it's seemingly pretty certain that the quote used earlier is not representative of the work, nor Chomsky's opinion, unless I'm missing something?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sounds familiar on how people find abhorrent when russia dresses their kids with army kits because Ukraine's war
Yes, I know, but those publications aren't available online, at least freely. This one is.
Those two quotes mean the same thing.
Instead of conspiracy theories about the Chinese government controlling TikTok and manipulating unsuspecting Americans. This seems to me like a far bigger concern that affects directly American democracy right now.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Man, they shift policy in 2021 just to arrive in time on elections 2022. October 7 happened 1 year after. Sometimes I can't help to put my tinfoil hat. Seriously
At least we found a conspiracy theory relating to Tik Tok @Raoul.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The article doesn't really break any new ground. The move to ditch Tik Tok isn't based on something that has already happened, but rather on the legal infrastructure of ByteDance having to comply with Chinese law if the CCP demanded access to its data, to include 150m US users or anyone else from any other country. The Chinese and Russian governments have similar laws in place so they can access user data to prevent social networks from influencing opposition movements domestically, and they can also use the same data to weaponize it against democratic systems with high user followings.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby have always been controversial. For instance, Mearshimer and Steven Walt wrote a book about the Israeli lobby in DC back in 2007. But ultimately its only a pantomime villain that glosses over the fact that America is inherently a Christian country that relates both religiously and culturally to the existence of a strong Israel. That's not something that would go away if AIPAC contributed less to various politicians.
That’s irrelevant given that there’s literally no evidence at the time of writing that supports that.
U.S. intelligence has produced no evidence that the popular social media site has ever coordinated with Beijing.