I anticipate this thread will earn me ire from all sides, and it addresses some private as well as more public conversations I've had. I am not anti-vaxx, and I am not anti the covid vaxx. As I have stated publicly, I decided not to get it 1) because I had covid, conferring 1/
natural immunity, and 2) because, especially in light of (1), I don't want to take on what is probably a small risk for no reason. Nevertheless, that aside, I feel ill-equipped to weigh what the risk actually is, because the pro-vaxx people (the ones who think you're bad if 2/
you don't get it) haven't been forthcoming. If I saw some honest discussion about what we can and can't know - including long term effects - and some valuation about the chance of negative long term or other effects based on our current scientific knowledge 3/
it's possible I could be persuaded. Because I don't feel I'm getting honest information that would allow me to consider my own interests along with society's, I don't feel I can make an informed decision. Since I know my risk of a negative outcome from covid is ~0 4/
I decided not to get the vaccine. I say all of this in hopes that vaccine proponents will reconsider their approach, if their ultimate goal is to persuade people to get it 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Here's how I know the gov't is coming next for US citizens who vocally oppose our support for Israel. The purpose behind the purges of noncitizens is ultimately to ensure continued US support for Israel by getting rid of people who might influence others on the subject.
2/ If the true aim was to get rid of criminals, then the subjects of these deportations would be criminals. Instead, they are guilty of nothing but engaging in protected speech, & are relatively compelling figures who stand a chance of persuading others (Khalil, Ozturk, Chung)
3/ But deporting noncitizens won't suffice to guarantee continued US support of Israel, especially in light of rapidly diminishing approval among Americans. To achieve its goal, then, the Israel lobby must get rid of enough of us to maintain a critical mass of support at the polls.
As Israel starves and bombs the population of Gaza to death, it's no surprise that its supporters are ramping up the propaganda machine. Journalists are Hamas. Mahmoud Khalil is Hamas. Everyone who exposes Israel's crimes is Hamas. This complaint is, by the way, the most absurd I've read. 1/
Plaintiffs claim that named Defendants, including Mahmoud Khalil, are responsible for the emotional distress they suffering as a result of the October 7 attacks because they are acting on behalf of Hamas. Ultimately, the "evidence" for this boils down to a social media post of SJP's on 10/7 announcing "we are back" 2/
One of the plaintiffs appears to have a genuinely tragic story, and it is unfortunate that the lawyers who filed this suit are taking advantage of her suffering. Another has a less compelling story, arguing that because he was called to serve in the IDF where he was forced to kill people in Gaza, he's suffered emotional distress due to Hamas's actions, for which students at Columbia apparently bear responsibility. This is an actual claim in the lawsuit 3/
1/ Those who supported Biden's censorship regime and celebrated SCOTUS's decision in Murthy v. Missouri, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish they had standing to challenge this regime, will now reap what they have sown. 🧵
2/ The Murthy plaintiffs rightly alleged that the feds' coercion of and collusion with tech companies to censor their speech violated their 1A rights. In a cowardly move, SCOTUS held that plaintiffs lacked standing b/c they couldn't prove that the gov't caused their censorship, as opposed to social media companies' independent content moderation determinations.
3/ Students who want to sue the Trump Admin for EOs threatening withdrawal of funds from universities that don't crack down on pro-Palestine activism will now have to contend with Murthy, and show that the university's disciplinary action against them would not have occurred but for the gov't coercion.
1/ I am obsessed w/@RealCandaceO's Becoming Brigitte. My initial reaction to the series was that I don't care much if Ms. Macron was born male. But after trying it, I have a different view: the show illuminates the corruption synonymous with political power in this day and age.
2/ It's worth noting that the issue has, I believe, been framed incorrectly. The core issue isn't really the French First Lady's biological sex, but the fact that the Macrons are not who they say they are and have been put into power by nefarious forces for nefarious purposes
3/ Moreover, hundreds of people have been involved in maintaining this deception, undermining the theory that conspiracy theories are just that, because more than a few people can't keep a secret. When it's in their interests to do so, they can, as Candace shows.
The election results cannot be pinned on a single factor. But one of the key reasons the Dems lost is disgust with the sanctimonious, smug nature of the party base and their seething, palpable contempt for regular working Americans; 1/
they smear those who disagree w/them as misogynistic, racist or granny-killers; they don't respect core Constitutional principles, such as the right to speak freely; they believe they're superior to the common man and so should dictate what he sees, hears & believes 2/
while insisting that we adopt ridiculous ideologies--such as that men can become women and viruses can be controlled with a rag--that a ten-year-old with half a brain can tell you are anathema to observable reality 3/
The House Judiciary Committee released a letter yesterday from Mark Zuckerberg admitting that Biden Admin pressured Meta to censor speech about COVID. We already knew this from a plethora of emails demonstrating it but an explicit admission is always helpful. A few thoughts:🧵
First, it’s clear Zuckerberg is acknowledging Meta censored speech it wouldn’t have due to the government pressure. He tries to hedge by saying that the company’s choices were its own, while admitting the same decisions would not have been made with the benefit of hindsight.
It’s important to understand that if courts find Meta effectively acted as an arm of government, the company can be sued as a state actor and theoretically be responsible for monetary damages based on harm to those censored.