henchmannumber3 @ henchmannumber3 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

27

Joined

1 mo. ago

The vote being referenced was a doomed amendment vote by MTG (who stated she was upset about a Catholic church getting hit, not expressing any concern for Palestinians), and specifically not referencing the military funding bill itself. AOC, and all the other people mentioned here, voted against the actual bill itself. AOC literally voted against funding Israel.

AOC literally voted against the bill. She literally voted against funding Israel. She literally said she opposes genocide and has called Israel out for it.

The headline is misleading. She voted against the bill.

Okay...so where was the denial of genocide by me?

I didn't say, "genocide is not happening in Palestine." If I had said that, I wouldn't be asking you to quote me.

So first, AOC voted against the funding entire bill itself, so the issue surrounding a single doomed amendment vote was irrelevant. It had no possible effect on the bill whatsoever and never had a chance.

AOC has literally called out Israel for genocide already, notably in a floor speech last year in March.

So where's the denial?

Also, you're ignoring the nuance that even if AOC had supported funding genocide, that's not the same thing as denying genocide.

This entire issue seems like a right wing troll campaign trying to undermine the left-most voters to stop pushing left, create distracting in-fighting, and just accept corporate Democrats or not vote at all, letting the conservatives continue their authoritarianism.

If you care about ending genocide, attacking AOC on a single amendment vote has no effect whatsoever and it has nothing to do with whether people are admitting that genocide is happening or not.

So you're certain it was genocide denial but you don't actually remember what was said. That is compelling evidence.

You're also able to review the mod log if you need a refresher.

Is it possible in your opinion that a human mod has ever been wrong or are mod actions always factually accurate?

The idea of knowing what you want to do with your life is overrated. A lot of people do a lot of different things and often don't know what they're going to do until the inspiration hits them. In the meantime, do things you like. Don't make any big decisions without thinking about the implications. Try out new hobbies and activities and see if any of them feel like something you want to do more. Oftentimes one interest will drive you to a similar one.

Get a job if you need the basic stuff people need to survive. Preferably not a job that demands too much social masking if that sort of thing causes you anxiety. That may be hard to come by depending on your skill set though. You can look at people whose jobs you find interesting and ask them what they did to get there. But it may also just be a matter of finding a job you can tolerate so you're able to do the things you enjoy when you're not working.

Quote me where I denied the Democrats role in it. You seem to believe people who don't agree with the specifics of your fixations must agree with everything you disagree with. You're inventing enemies that don't exist.

Yeah, this seems like terrible advice.

Just because DNA currently doesn't say much about you that can theoretically be used against you, that doesn't stop bad actors from using it as a pretense. Don't imagine what an honest person will do with it. Imagine what a dishonest person might try to do with it. Act accordingly.

And what's the opposite side? Where's the benefit of letting them keep it? You can always get your DNA tested again later if they actually come out with a useful application of the information.

Quote me where I denied it. Genocide is absolutely going on. That doesn't mean AOC is solely responsible for it. Nuance is a thing.

You tout science, but you've cited an NPR interview where the conclusion you call "most likely" is described by issuing agencies as "low confidence." That doesn't make it seem "most likely" at all. What is most likely is that we don't have enough information to draw a definitive conclusion, so being judgemental about it might be hasty and hypocritical. The NPR interview also states that we don't know where the intelligence is coming from, so criticizing China for not being transparent but ignoring the secrecy of the intelligence agencies is a double standard.

The other source is a video from Ken LaCorte, who is a former Fox News executive who killed a legitimate Trump and Stormy Daniels story that turned out to be true, so his credibility is questionable on top of the fact he ran competing US political partisan websites and hired Macedonian teenagers to write the content to stir up contention.

You claim to never trust the media, but you're trusting a known manipulative media executive.

A better question is why the origin story matters so much to you. Does it change the need for masking or quarantines or vaccines in your opinion? If China came out and said it was a lab leak, how would it affect your life in a fundamental way?

People get banned on social media for legitimate and illegitimate reasons every day. This is a weird hill to die on.