Erik Haugen @ech@qoto.org

@wilw Lots of instances are off-the-rails ban-happy; find one that isn't.

@InorganicFella @flexghost This wouldn't be the first time we all thought he was about to go straight to jail.

@Teop_Versant@mastodon.social @Mlobbes Yeah it does sort of feel like she was hung out to dry there.

@Teop_Versant@mastodon.social @Mlobbes contrast those policies with the First Step Act.

I don't know about "using" Harris – I mean, in some sense every president is "using" their VP, like, to get votes in a different demographic or geographical area. I don't think you have any reason to think anything nefarious beyond that was happening with Harris.

@KimPerales There isn't much Biden can do here other than threaten to withold aid, right? (This may be a failure of imagination on my part.)

If so:

Would threatening Hamas with withholding aid get them to agree to stop murdering, raping, and kidnapping people? I don't think there's any evidence from their past behavior that this would work, but I'd love to read an argument that it would. (It might degrade their ability to do so, I suppose, since a lot of that aid goes to military purposes, IIUC. Civilians, as always, would suffer if we did this.)

Would threatening Israel work? If there was some way Israel could achieve their objective here (eliminating Hamas as a terrorist threat) while also doing something that kills fewer civilians, then I think it could! But that's a big if: I'm ignorant – are there more steps Israel could be taking to limit civilian deaths? If not, then, alas, no, it probably wouldn't. I think it's clear they need to achieve this objective, one way or another. I guess biden and the US could then wash our hands of any further casualties. (Well, not really, but it's a step.)

It might be more useful for Biden to use this carrot to pressure Israel into doing other things, like: due process, protect palestinians from settlers more fairly, etc, etc.

@flaws @danluu No, I think that's exactly why companies do this sort of thing; danluu is being a bit cynical here, it's part of his charm. I've worked at several of these companies. If you see something illegal, you talk to lawyers in a privileged context. You don't joke about "crushing the competition" or doing anything illegal, because of exactly what you say.

We've all seen legal proceedings go in an unfair direction due to some offhand comment being taken out of context or something. It's worth being careful to avoid it.

@ingo_wichmann @blogdiva Also, worth noting there are some illiberal movements in US politics: see, equal treatment under the law ends up being not so equal sometimes, so instead of trying to fix that, maybe instead we should enforce equal outcomes in some ways. Ibram Kendi's "anti-racism" and related political ideas is an example of this. If you've heard conservatives rail against "Critical Race Theory", this is what the "critical" means: analyzing ways that US Law and "liberal" institutions have failed us.

Conservatives/Republicans are generally opposed to these political movements, so in that sense especially they're positively predisposed to "liberal democracies".

@ingo_wichmann @blogdiva Although, I suppose it is probably true in the US that because of ignorance, a good chunk of people are only thinking of "liberal" as in left, so if you use the word liberal to mean the other meaning, it could cause confusion: I'm sure there's someone in the US who would read Raskin's statement as talking about leftist democracies. 😂

@ingo_wichmann @blogdiva Yes, absolutely.

In US politics, "liberal" usually means relatively Left (at least, compared to center-of-US politically 😂 ) So, Republicans are not for that...

But Raskin here is not using that meaning of the term. He's talking about like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism – equal treatment under the law, private property, consent of the governed, freedom of press/speech/etc, and so on. Most Republicans (and most Democrats, I think) are definitely for that kind of "liberal".

@Colby@mastodon.world @blogdiva The carriers aren't the problem, I think – it's not like we're using them to bomb civilians (yet). Assume we don't: having them there is a FAFO to Iran/etc, not the thing that is killing Palestinian civilians.

@bobwyman @timbray "Anarchist" might be interpreted by a lot of techies as something wildly different than the normal socialist-anarchist meaning.

@EyalL @Miriamm How do I know which of these is true? Fox News is insisting they're striking "terror hubs" (I heard that phrase so many times today) but of course there are reports of many children, civilians, and aid workers dying etc and do utilities really need to be shut off?

@freemo I'd mentioned that violence upthread; again not really the problem.

@freemo Nah, I don't think that's the problem, no worries.

@admin @freemo I didn't mean to "aim" it at anyone, pardon me.

@freemo @admin You said it matters! I certainly wasn't assuming otherwise.

@freemo "You cant have this discussion without talking about the area pre-1920, 1920-1947 and 1947 to present…" ok, but we also can't have the discussion if any statement or question about one era is interpreted to be about the other. 😂

@freemo @admin it is nice to be privileged enough where we can take political positions that don't benefit us personally!

@freemo "I am talking about anyone who chooses to move to israel fromt he first day of its founded" Oh my I am so confused :) You appear to be going back and forth between making it clear that we're talking about pre-1947 then making it clear that we're talking about after the state is founded.

I think at this point I pretty much have no idea what you're saying.

"Yea well it would be alot different if you lived in israel..." – see here you're talking about alleged problematic actions by Israel *today*, and I feel like I've made it pretty clear I'm *not* talking about that (My like whole point is what you say here: "this isnt a matter of history"). We're just talking past each other.

Well, thanks for trying 😂 All the best, and praying for peace and justice.