fennecfoxfanfare.bsky.social
11 posts
0 followers
2 following
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
If somebody says "we must protect free expression, even if someone advocates for XYZ", and your response is to criticize advocacy for XYZ, it pretty clearly shows that you don't think "we must protect free expression" is important. Especially when the conversation's about protecting free expression.
comment in response to
post
Especially while you are engaged in the traditional Russian hobby of relocating bathtubs at 3:00 AM.
comment in response to
post
It doesn't matter who he was supporting with his activism. It's political expression, so it's protected free speech.
Folks who think activism for Gaza is inherently favorable to Hamas should also want Khalil immediately freed.
comment in response to
post
On the one hand, ick.
On the other hand, answering "what will you do?" with "we'll enhance relevant training, improve systems, enforce policies, and cooperate with stakeholders" is business-speak for "absolutely nothing lol".
comment in response to
post
When the governing party claims that the government has broad powers to persecute the governing party's political opponents, it says a lot about how long they intend to remain the governing party.
comment in response to
post
Jeffries' statement (and Schumer's) is very close to Reason's take on the issue.
Reason's ideology is "Trumpism with libertarian characteristics", so Dem leaders' views would ideally be different from theirs on the topic of Trump disappearing political opponents.
reason.com/2025/03/11/m...
comment in response to
post
The right context for discussing Khalil's illegal warrantless arrest is political freedom - a value that Americans nearly universally hold dear (or at least pay lip service to).
Jeffries removes Khalil's illegal detention from that context, and situates it in the context of campus activism on Gaza.
comment in response to
post
Jeffries spends the first half of his response attacking Khalil and holding him personally responsible for hostility to Jewish students at Columbia, and throws in a brief, *conditional* criticism of non-specific "actions" taken by the Musk-Trump administration.
comment in response to
post
A strong response focuses in on the crux of the actual problem, and leaves out distractions and irrelevant information. So in this case, a strong response should be focused on defending our proud tradition of free speech, and drawing a line from Khalil to other groups Republicans have threatened.
comment in response to
post
The vibe was very much "how dare you hit my kid - I'm the only one who's allowed to beat my children".
comment in response to
post
It reminds me of right-wing politicians condemning the 2016 Pulse nightclub mass shooting and praying for the victims, while awkwardly avoiding any mention of who exactly was shot. "I'm praying for you" has a certain threatening quality when it's directed at LGBT people by fundamentalists.