A newly obtained letter from House Intelligence Committee members demands answers from the DNI about illegal breaches of the wall guarding against CIA and NSA domestic activity.
The U.S. security state apparatus regards the agenda of “domestic violent extremists” as “derived from anti-government or anti-authority sentiment." In sum, to DHS, an “extremist” is anyone on left or right who opposes the prevailing ruling class & system for distributing power.
Just as those who questioned the excesses of the first War on Terror were accused of downplaying or sympathizing with those threats, the same tactics are
used now to vilify critics. But the worst civil liberties assaults are from these breaches.
How can a media outlet credibly claim to denounce abuse of power by political officials when they defend and glorify their own anchor's participation in it?
CNN's attempt to glorify the participation of their news host in family corruption is insultingly deceitful.
What's most amazing is Chris Cuomo "interviewed" his brother on CNN just *weeks after* their abuse of state resources to obtain testing. The interview began with them both acknowledging that the state had serious resources constraints to provide testing.
Just as the current epidemic of online censorship began with the age-old tactic of targeting someone widely disliked (Milo, then Alex Jones), these censors are trying to create a censorship precedent for Substack by forcing them to boot one bad writer, then expand from there:
That's the tactic of state and non-state censors always:
Let's find the first target that everyone hates so nobody cares when they're silenced. Then we'll have instituted this power and then we can use it far more widely.
You have to fight it in all instances, from the start.
These people are so fucking broken. It's not enough for them to refuse to read a site or refuse to write there, which is totally within their rights.
They can't stand that there's any venue they can't control, where people are free to speak. They're little petty wannabe despots.
For the third time in six months, Congress is summoning tech CEOs to testify in order to badger and coerce them to censor the internet more. Google's Pichai, Facebook's Zuckerberg & Twitter's Dorsey will all testify. I wrote about it here last month:
Congress has a legitimate role to play in overseeing tech giants, especially given its (valid) assessment that they wield classic monopoly power.
But they're not doing anything about that: they're instead trying to co-opt that power to censor the internet for their own interests
It's extra creepy somehow watching members of Congress sitting in their homes as they warn tech CEOs that they need to stop censoring the internet more or else they will enact laws to regulate and force them to do it:
1/ Estou vendo muita confusão sobre o que significa "ser judeu". Sem comentar sobre nenhum indivíduo (cuja história eu não conheço), é importante entender que - ao contrário da cristianismo - "judeu" tem um significado racial / étnico e também religioso. Estes são separados.
2/ Segundo a lei judaica, qualquer pessoa nascida de mãe judia é judia - não importa o que acredite sobre Deus. É por isso que pode ter um ateu judeu, ou um judeu budista, ou mesmo um judeu que orar pro Jesus. Este é o sentido em que "judeu" significa uma identidade étnica/racial
3/ Mas tb tem um componente religioso: qualquer ser humano, de qualquer pais, pode se tornar judeu se passar pelo processo de conversão (o que é bem difícil). Essa é a definição religiosa de judeu: alguém que acredita nos princípios do Talmud e que observa o judaísmo religioso.
I don't know the specifics of this new Yale case, but Alan Dershowitz spearheaded one of the worst censorious campaigns in recent times when he worked for years to destroy the academic career of Norman Finkelstein for the crime of criticizing Israel:
In 2014, Univ. of Illinois rescinded a faculty offer to Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor, after his tweets criticizing Israel on Gaza caused some Jewish students to claim they felt "unsafe" (the school eventually paid him $900k to settle).
Thank you for this thread: it's always disorienting to watch some on Twitter -- who care more about posturing than affecting anything -- create an image of you that's only about venting their own displaced rage and that's totally unrecognizable from the reality of your life:
In terms of people who prioritize vapid, cheap social media posturing over real-life conduct, see also this thread (and note how a couple hundred angry loudmouths are outnumbered by thousands of quiet supporters there: how Twitter creates misperceptions):
The replies to this tweet illustrate the same dynamic: a certain kind of leftist whose "politics" is confined to pointless online larping at the expense of anything that might actually change society for the better: