It was a mumbled yes. After Mehdi asked her ten times. Only to be followed by ‘but but but’. Gotta be careful what we say about Putin, right? No problem with Biden though. Clear and emphatic out of the gate YES

Why can’t it be a yes full stop? The same way she did for two others?

It’s yes but with an excuse. It’s not a hard yes. It shouldn’t be like pulling teeth. She seems to have no difficulty saying that for Biden. What gives?

Why can’t it be yes, full stop? The same way she did for Biden and Netanyahu?

Saying yes with no many qualifiers is insane level of weaseling.

Heres a simple example:

“did you rape that woman” “yes”

vs

“yes she was asking for it”

Is not the same. That’s what she’s doing.

Saying yes then loading it with ten thousand qualifiers is not a clear yes. Nice try though.

Wrong. Her answer is ‘yes’ followed by a million qualifiers. Because for sugar daddy Putin we need to use the softest padded gloves. We’re not stupid. The ruse is up.

How come she can give a clear yes for Biden but Putis it has to be surrounded by a million qualifiers? Multiple times.

We all watched the interview. What are you trying to prove.

Give the full exchange. I watched the full interview. She said “we condemn his actions”. She never could in a full sentence condemn him. It’s gotta be loaded with qualifiers, and even THEN nothing of value comes out of her mouth. It shouldn’t be like pulling teeth. It’s a simple yes/no.

This was an interesting book (although their economic analysis is not great). I think by now all the atrocities of the CIA are pretty well documented and the world is pretty informed. This book focuses on a period that took place about 75 years ago when the US (under Nixon, JFK and Reagan) had a strong anti-communist stance and active policy.

That policy is to longer an actionable framework for the US. It wouldnt be fair to attribute the current agency the same level of culpability. I’m not saying the current CIA is beyond scrutiny but times have changed and the world has moved significantly beyond the so called dangers of the cold war.

I just imagine Pim Toole grabbing the cash with his eyes closed as Lauren slides it across the table.

You actually have to pay a hefty fee to denounce your citizenship

There’s no way they’re not anticipating this. We didn’t all wake up yesterday to Trump.

Yes. “Grigorian” was the fictitious investor they set up to act as the funding source.

However, in the communication between Chen and her husband they were able to figure out whoever that they were based out of Russia. In one of the messages between the they are found looking up Moscow time to check why Grigorian hadn’t replied to a communication.

It’s crazy.

Lauren and her partner are Canadians (Persons 1&2 in the indictment). They set up a company in Tennessee to manage production and pay the ‘talent’.

It’s in the indictment: Tenet Media

Colloquially the concept of yashad does stand for that. However, the way the user is bringing it up is not appropriate in my opinion. I get what they are trying to say, but we can’t apply it to every single instance when someone is killed. It’s trying to insinuate that every journalist killed so far has been invited to “bear witness” which… No.

It’s a dumb argument and makes no sense.

Just them going after Adobe is enough for Kamala to get my vote. Fuck Adobe.

Lego has shifted (or is trying to shift) towards a more plant based, biodegradable plastic. They have to put a big effort because their entire product line is based on a material that has (rightfully so) negative connotations.

Man, the straw man was about having access to the internet as an example of uncensored access to information invalidating book moderation. It wasn’t about equivocating between different degrees of offending narratives. I was just following the principle to its final conclusion.

It doesn’t have to be a snuff film. That was an example or meant to be a hypothetical to further the discussion. I don’t see how nitpicking it is constructive if it sidesteps my point.

Now we get to an actual strawman -Finally! My position has never been the banning of all books, but rather questioning if moderation is useful or not. You can’t say that the logical conclusion of some moderation is total banning because it doesn’t follow.

The person I replied to said internet exists so banning books is worthless anyway which is not a terrible argument. I think it’s worth considering it 2024. I was just taking the hypothetical to its extreme conclusion to test if it was still a principled position to have. I think we all agree at this point.

Anyway. I’m not pro banning and I appreciate the convo so thanks.

Cheers!

I totally agree. Thanks for contributing your perspective. I really appreciate it. I think the only factor perhaps to consider is liability. The internet is completely decentralized so the onus is more spread out maybe? I’m gonna think on this a little but I do concede that you make a good point in that the info is already out there. Twenty years ago our conversation might have sounded totally different.

Thanks!