Light @light@qoto.org

(This was a joke, in case you couldn't tell)

@realcaseyrollins @light@noc.social

>If you think citizens should be able to [support violence and terrorism] [...], I respect that take, but I do think violence is the line of what should be tolerated.
I agree with you. The First Amendment (at least according to #FIRE's podcast So To Speak, which I have listened to quite a few episodes of) does allow that, however. When the KKK were around, the courts allowed them to promote violence against black people; and because of that black nationalists and supremacists were allowed to say violent things about white people in turn. IIRC.

>I am not particularly concerned about repercussions against people who are supporting violence and terrorism.
Was Rümeysa Öztürk supporrting violence and terrorism?
As far as I'm aware she wrote a perfectly peaceful anti-Israel article in her university newspaper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_R%C3%BCmeysa_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk

@LordCaramac @YawnEMIT because neither of them are wearing skirts like stereotypical female stickmen (stickwomen?) on traffic lights, presumably.

@happyborg
Quote from link:
Advocates of liberal or new eugenics agree that past eugenic practices were morally wrong and should not be repeated. However, they contend that the use of current reprogenetic technologies does not share any of the morally impermissible features of such past eugenic programs (Silver 1997; Agar 2004; Harris 2007; Savulescu and Kahane 2009). They argue that current practices do not involve the morally troubling characteristics of their historical predecessors. First, reprogenetic technologies and practices are individual in nature rather than state-sponsored. The intended benefit of any reprogenetic intervention is individual/private welfare (that of the child-to-be or of the family), rather than the welfare of the state. Second, they are premised on individual liberty, the freedom of parents to choose according to their own values and conceptions of the good life. The state does not mandate contraception, sterilization, prenatal testing, abortion, or any other form of eugenic intervention (note: there are potential exceptions in which judges or states have offered long-term contraception such as Norplant as a condition of probation related to a criminal offense or for the continued provision of welfare, see e.g., Dresser 1996). Rather, it allows individuals to choose among a range of alternatives. Third, recognizing that individual parents will often desire different things for their offspring, current reprogenetic technologies and practices presume value pluralism. This means allowing others to choose in ways that we ourselves would not, in the interest of preserving a liberal society that is neutral about conceptions of the good. The aim of a liberal eugenic program is to expand reproductive choices for individuals, in contrast to the historical eugenic programs that clearly cut off reproductive options for many.

Good definitions of political terms:
https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729324
"""
On definitions: here’s a set I find helpful, although certainly incomplete.

“Liberals” are focused on equality of rights among people. What count as rights is heavily contested, but in general universal rights are the liberal focus. Liberals are opposed to privilege (private law-where class/status are legally important) and fairly are criticized for “the law, in it’s magnificent equality, forbids both rich and poor from begging for bread and sleeping under bridges.”

“Leftists/socialists” are focused on economic inequalities, generally influenced by Marx to some degree. Leftists are opposed to economic inequality, and often see it as a cause of social/rights-based inequalities rather than seeing those as separate things. Leftists are opposed to difference-making inequalities in private property, and are fairly criticized for “Wonderful theory, wrong species.”

“Progressives” are focused on social/identity-based inequalities, often based on feminist and critical race theorist social critiques. Progressives see economic inequality as entangled with social inequality, but see social inequality as the more immediate concern. Progressives tend to focus on the social and institutional factors that maintain social inequalities, and to be very focused on ensuring that all institutions serve the needs of society. Leftists criticize progressives for focusing on the wrong problem; liberals criticize them for re-inventing privilege.
"

@mauve Sounds good. But how would you legally define a paraphrase?

@feld cc: @freemo will it be in QOTO Mastodon?

>Some have said that [Palestine Action] has never hurt a human being,[12] although this appears unsustainable after three injuries resulted from the August 2024 raid on Elbit at Aztec West,[17] and in March 2025 three activists were charged with one count of assault by beating after a raid on another Elbit facility at Aztec West.[18]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Action
I'm completely on board with Palestine protests and everything, but why do people insist that #PalestineAction is completely non-violent when it isn't?
Whether that counts as "terrorism" or not, I don't know. But it's certainly not as bad as what Israel is doing.

[12] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/6/25/palestine-action-are-not-terrorists-israel-is
>Crucially, Palestine Action has never harmed a human being. Their actions – non‑violent yet disruptive
[17] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mnnje4wlro
>Employees and police officers who intervened were assaulted, Avon and Somerset Constabulary said, and six people were arrested.
>Sledgehammers, axes, whips and other homemade weapons were seized, police added.
>During the incident, two officers were assaulted with a sledgehammer, police said.
[18] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0jw41k9p7o
>also charged with one count of assault by beating

@jeffcliff

@kakafarm
p.s. this was a joke

@anubiarts I don't care about being cool , so how about that?