5 ms·
You don't think that the fact that Ellison is a staunch defender of regimes that disregard the international order in favour of military might is relevant to th
by amval 1y ago
You don't think that the fact that Ellison is a staunch defender of regimes that disregard the international order in favour of military might is relevant to the fact that is also advocating for building a surveillance state?
In case you don't, to me it's painfully clear that these are just different aspects of the move towards more authoritarian forms of government. You CANNOT support a genocide and expect that this will not have an effect on democracy.
EDIT: Also note that I am trying to take your comments on good faith, but characterising support for genocide as "a foreign policy disagreement" feels a bit like an understatement.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> it's painfully clear that these are just different aspects of the move towards more authoritarian forms of government Sure. But, like, the evidence for that is the advocacy for a surveillance state. Not his support for a foreign policy project that yes, involves supporting an autocratic government in Israel (fighting, let’s be fair, an autocratic force in Gaza backed by an autocratic state in Iran), but also a whole bunch of other irrelevant things.
- amval 1y agoI don't think I understand your point, beyond downplaying the severity of current events.
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoI’m not downplaying the severity of anything. Just its relevance. Someone can be severe and irrelevant, and I think that’s the case here.
- bhouston 1y ago> beyond downplaying the severity of current events. He is definitely calling it "polarizing" and minimizing it. I infer that he is supportive of it then.