I simply cannot wrap my head around this. How is this defensible? What possible justification could they provide for banning Maus?? Anne’s Diary?? How could you even link these to any contemporary agenda?
They can link them to their own goals. They want to avoid that people might notice the signs and recognize them as a warning. Let me guess, “The Wave” has been banned there, too?
Nah I get that they’re Nazis. But the article failed to mention the official justification to ban these. I want to know what’s the sugarcoated, duplicitous rationale they provided.
Their justification is that they would have banned them anyway if they’d thought of it on their own, but now that somebody’s brought it up they realize it exists and provided the smallest justification to ban it.
It makes me glad that my state passed a law against banking books (in public libraries at least). Hopefully it’ll spread to public schools. Religious schools are probably a lost cause though.
See, us Jews control Hollywood, so all of that is just PR messaging about our Holocaust lie. And we also control the banks, so we’re the ones buying these books and bribing school librarians to put them on the shelves. Whereupon, I guess, something about the trans agenda happens? I’m a cishet Jew, so I’m only up on our side of the conspiracy.
There’s a reason for that, which I mentioned in a post elsewhere in the thread:
“Outspoken Israel advocates” who are evangelical Christians don’t love Jews. Quite the opposite. They need Israel to exist so all Jews in the world can be forcibly deported to it, and then made to rebuild the Great Temple, so Jesus can come back and throw them all into Hell.
And a red cow comes into the picture as well.
None of that is sarcasm. That is really what they think.
Even without the whole Religion angle, racists the world over just love ethno-nationalism: each ethnicity living in their own corner, separate from the rest, is exactly what these people want.
In my experience something similar exists with a subset of Russians, - they hate Israel the particular way, they just love the fact that it exists and commits crimes.
When you are Jewish and proud of yourself, it makes them just as livid as when you are Armenian and proud of yourself.
Republic of Armenia is quite miserable and they enjoy that, Israel is strong, but lacks dignity even more than RoA and they enjoy that, so the emotion gets especially extreme when you put these states and your own pride and the fact that they can change and have dignity in contrast.
They acknowledge that “something” happened, but deny various separate traits, like intent or numbers or relevance for today or even just say that genocide wasn’t illegal then. There’s also that “it didn’t happen, but they deserved it, and we’ll do it again” thing. Which gives a very special feeling, considering they are well in position to do it again.
And it’s illegal to publicly recognize it in Turkey, so not only malevolent, but also benevolent voices seem to be kinda in denial, while in fact not.
Still had Germany not lost WWII so conclusively, I suspect we’d be amazed at how self-conscious a lot of Turks are as compared to Germans.
True, I was not totally right in that. It just is so sad beyond the genocide and the genocide denial that Ataturk was such a force for good when it came to his own people and such an evil fuck when it came to Armenians. Until Erdoğan, Turkey was a generally secular state, a rarity for a predominantly Muslim country and that is down to Ataturk, who was an atheist. I wish I could praise him, but I can’t. He was part of the Young Turk movement and he was instrumental in trying to erase what happened from history.
He wasn’t as good to them either, look up Dersim rebellion and such. Erdo started as a democratic change with a small flavor of Islam. Because that secularism was about creating a fascist state and a social layer of Kemalist privileged elite (military mostly). But that’s something a Turk may explain better.
It tracks! Nazi Germany was actually pro Jewish state as well, the rationale was that it gets all the Jews out of Germany. It also supposedly kicks off the rapture when the Jews return to Israel.
Well it’s a trick, they are more anti-muslim than anti-jew. They want the war to escalate because both sides die, and the one they hate more has more casualties.
They can also sell them all the weapons used in the war… might as well fill the pockets with the new “solution.”
My interpretation of the article is that it’s a question of timing. If you offer me money in order to hook you up, that’s a bribe. But if I hook you up and later you give me money in thanks, that’s not a bribe.
Obviously both of them are corrupt. But apparently this law can only target the former.
“Ms Hilton, I first read about your story in Vanity Fair. I don’t usually read that magazine, my wife does. She told me, ‘You have to read this story. You won’t believe what happened to her,’” Representative Mike Kelly said. “You telling what happened to you…is absolutely incredible and opens up a whole new vision for the rest of us.”
Nice save there, Mike.
Well, if it’s going to be the government of celebrity, maybe we can at least get some good done with it.
If you thought all the dumb controversy over masking that took place during the height of the COVID pandemic was finally behind us, think again.
Anti-masking laws were around well before COVID-19. I’d been talking about it due to stuff like the “burkini” controversy in France bringing up restrictions various countries had on clothing.
Plus discussion about mass facial recognition permitting tracking, and whether masks could counter that.
I also remember joking, at the start of the conflict, about how mask mandates conflicted with anti-masking laws.
There are anti-mask laws in many U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
New York State’s anti-mask law was enacted in 1845, to provide for public safety after disputes between landlords and tenants.
Many anti-mask laws date back to the mid-20th century, when states and municipalities passed them to stop the violent activities of the Ku Klux Klan, whose members typically wore hoods of white linen to conceal their identities.
In the 21st century those laws have been applied to political protesters such as those affiliated with the Occupy Movement or Anonymous – wearing Guy Fawkes masks.
These laws have been challenged on the grounds that they violate the guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to free speech and free association. Some courts have weighed freedom of speech against the public safety interest, and upheld such laws. For example, the Georgia Supreme Court found the law constitutional on the grounds that the wearing of the mask was an act of intimidation and a threat of violence, which is not protected speech. That law has exceptions for holiday celebrations, theatre performances, and occupational safety; the ruling makes it unclear if someone is violating the law if they wear a mask without the intent to threaten violence. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a New York law on the ground that wearing a Ku Klux Klan mask did not convey a protected message beyond that conveyed by wearing a hood and robe. Other courts have struck down anti-mask laws. For example, Tennessee and Florida state laws have been invalidated on the grounds that they were unconstitutionally broad. An ordinance in Goshen, Indiana, was struck down based on First Amendment doctrine that specifically protects anonymous speech and anonymous association, especially for unpopular groups like the KKK.
My own gut take is that across-the-board restrictions on wearing masks probably aren’t necessary; the ability to track people is a lot more extensive than was the case when such laws went into place. And in 1950, companies had no prospect of, say, tying together camera networks and running facial recognition en masse. Today, that’s a real possibility.
That being said, I think that unless social norms change so that a significant portion of people do wear masks, which I don’t think is likely, elimination of anti-mask laws probably also isn’t going to do much to avoid mass surveillance.
Carbon taxes simply make sense. The more this kind of thing happens the more interest and investment there will be in better alternatives like precision fermentation.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.