🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@jbburd seeing as i just spent 2 years living with them i dont really need someone to tell me what they mean. They have explained themselves many times.

@jbburd

And as i said thats not what the statement means. It means that palestine is forr palestinians. It by its nature rejects sharing the land with the jews that are there. It implies the jews are eliminated and the land given back to palestinians.

@JoshuaHolland

@jbburd

What you just did is called moving the goal post. I am in no way claiming they cant be free, they just cant have land to themselves without murdering since people are there. For example a one state solution where both sides merge into one state would allow they and israelis to be "free" but would not give palestinians the land "from the river to the sea"

@JoshuaHolland

@jbburd @JoshuaHolland

Which has multigenerational people living on it. So you only get to that state with genocide, how else do you plan to eliminate the people that are there?

@jbburd

"Decolinization" not so much, but "from the river to the sea" does imply genocide of the native people and a desire to take their land. It seems to be a decleration of genocide and violence.

@JoshuaHolland

@garyackerman was it next to the ICQ icon?

@jbburd

Calls for violence seem like a fairly common and reasonable line to draw.

@JoshuaHolland

@Lazarou

Agreed, it is good we announce who we are so you guys wont infect our feeds with your toxic bullshit.

@Tempehlover @JoshuaHolland

@JoshuaHolland Claiming they didnt say a single thing worthy of being banned is a claim you'd have to prove, and probably going to have a hard time doing it.

Yes he has claimed he beleives in free speech, and he has made clear that does **not** mean he beleives in any speech on his platform being allowed. You may disagree with his interpretation of free speech, but he has made it clear what he meant and it isnt what you mean by it apparently.

@JoshuaHolland Musk never claimed you can say whatever you want and not get banned.

@BlueDouche

Thanks

I could never hate a dog. It could literally be attacking me and eating me alive and I would just go "Awww poor guy must have been hungry, eat up!"

#Dog #Dogs

@robryk

You may not be able to

@realcaseyrollins

@robryk

evidence of their intent, but no not observed effects, intent doesnt always align to effect.

So an example is tapes of him stating his intent to someone else (which is what id expect he cant shut his mouth)

@realcaseyrollins

@robryk

Expiernce. Seeing how their past words and actions have played out and how their claimed intent aligns with their demonstrated intent.

To me it is obvious he lied and manipulated to try to convince people of election fraud. Therefore it is obvious he intended to convince people of election fraud. It is also obvious that Trump is **very** bad at hiding his intent, his lying and manipulation in that regard is transparent.

Yet as far as I know I have seen him do nothing to suggest he intended violence. If he had intended it becaus ehe is so bad at hiding his intent I would expect there to be a mountain of recording of him saying exactly that.

That fact that he never slipped and let his violent intent be known is very strong evidence he had no such intent.

@realcaseyrollins

@robryk

In that case it isnt coded language it is manipulative language there is a difference.

In the case of the pilots they were saying things that would cause people to beleive something contrary to what is said. "everything is fine" implies there is a reason someone might incorrectly think everything is fine and look for it.

In Trumps case its very different. His language didnt convery hidden meanings or coded speech, he didnt say one thing intending to imply another. He said exactly what he intended to be heard, and wanted to incite action (though not necceseraly violent action) as a result. Any reasonable person hearing his speeches before the riots wouldnt go "he just suggested everyone riot and break down the capitol".. a reasonable person would say "He wants to rally people into thinking there is election fraud so they will protest it and fight it, peacefully and gain so much support they will overturn it"...

That said I wouldnt be surprised if he did want violence, I just havent seen any evidence of that. What I did see was evidence of him saying exactly the results he wanted, for the population to fight for a recount and to get election results thrown out so he can win. I think he knows he lost and was being manipulative (and worthy of arrest) in doing so, but not for inciting violent, but for lying about election fraud to win an election.

@realcaseyrollins

@robryk

By that logic those campaigning against Trump at the time (Biden et el) were responsible for the riots they "caused".. sure they never specifically asked for riots, but that was the result of their rallying speeches all the same, so they should be guilty for the nation-wide rioting that lasted months.

Obviously in reality I dont think like that. People are responsible for what they do, not for what they hope they want.

@realcaseyrollins