At what level of genocide do you say “I can’t support this”?
At what level of genocide do you say “I can’t support this”?
Tell the families who are dead and asked to vote FOR genocide that they lack nuance when they refuse to support either of the people who want their people genocide.
At what point does genocide cross the line for you?
No matter who won, Palestinians are being genocide. There is no “worse one” here. Genocide is genocide.
She wanted a ceasefire, but keep sending them arms unconditionally.
Regardless, lite genocide is still genocide.
We had two candidates that were both pro-Palestinian genocide.
We do.
It’s mailto or mime for the scheme. There’s even mbox as a scheme.
Interpreted by the jury.
An argument could be made for “yes”, and with nuance, the justification gets stronger the higher up the food chain you go.
He is a mass murderer.
A self defense murder, which is a legal type of murder.
Mastodon has been usable, and simple, as well.
I signed up for my tildeverse account once they spun up an instance, and I followed people I saw posting. And now, I’ve collected a fair number of followers and people I follow to see what they say.
Works quite well.
So, what isn’t usable or simple?
Define “better”, first.
I’ve been using Mastodon for about 5 years now, and what I’ve seen of bsky, is that it’s not better: It’s centralized, owned by cryptobros, and subject to the exact same problems as twitter is for user safety.
I have yet to break anything doing release upgrades on Debian since… 7? Or 6?
I still don’t care about why an oligarch died, as long as they died.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’d agree. He likely got great comedic value from the people dying as a result of his decisions; and thinks those people being healthy is a tragedy.
Policy doesn’t cover bullets as a cause of death. DENIED.
Removed by mod
I voted for Harris too.
However, none of that discounts that she was pro-genocide, just like Trump. And it’s hardly reasonable to ask families of people your genociding to vote for you.