The Zionist group Betar has been providing the Trump administration with long lists of names of pro-Palestinian protesters that they would like to see deported. Many of the activists that have been kidnapped by ICE were suggested by Betar.

A pro-Israel group says it gave US list of protesters to deport, drawing alarm from students’ supporters - CNN

Even the Anti-Defamation League (aka Apartheid Defense League, a pro-genocide hate group in my opinion) condemns Betar and says they promote “extremist and hateful ideologies”.

It kinda seems like immigrants and anti-war protesters made it to the top of the list this time.

Alright I watched your video. I agree it is a problem that a small subsect of secular humanism has been entangled with “anti-wokeness”, Trumpism, and fascism. Many of the figureheads of the atheist movement in the past two decades have become part of the alt-right pipeline, and that is a tragedy.

But as your video readily admits, the vast majority of atheists, anti-theists, and secular humanists are on the left. I was involved with the Freedom from Religion Foundation for a decade or so, and my personal experience was that nearly everyone there was on the left(even in a heavily rightwing state).

I think you are falling into the pitfall, judging a large and diverse group for the misdeeds of a small subsect of that group.

As for “not thinking of religious people as people”, if you would personally know me you would understand this is a laughable notion. I am surrounded by religion and religious people everyday, their views and beliefs are thrust upon me often, and I always respond with respect, very rarely will I offer a counter argument.

But I am still of the conviction that religious people are victim to religion. I believe my cousins, who do not allow their children to see any doctor, are victims of religion. I think any rational person would agree that their young child, recently ill for a month but not allowed to see a doctor, is a victim of religion.

And as for marginalization, I do believe religion should be marginalized. Just like I believe the alt-right and fascist movements should be marginalized. Good things are good, and bad things are bad, and I am convinced religion is bad. But let’s be honest, the power dynamics are heavily weighted on the other side. Religious people are marginalizing atheists, fascists are marginalizing leftists.

As for “intellectually engaging with their position”, I would love to. My experience has been that very few religious people are willing to intellectually engage in the subject. Despite this, I have had many intellectual and respectful discussions on religion, and I appreciate that you are giving me one more.

But if you are so concerned about anti-theism leading to Trumpism, then you should be much more concerned about religion leading people to Trumpism. That correlation is much stronger.

I think my post makes it quite clear that I was not referring to people as diseases, I specifically said that religion is the disease. The people are victims to the disease.

And if it isn’t also obvious, I do consider myself an anti-theist. The overall effect of religion on society is negative, and we would be better off without religion. I don’t see what this has to do with “woke mind virus” nonsense.

Those many “private, personal” benign religious people form a strong foundation upon which the crazies, cults, and conmen build their structures.

In my experience, these benign people are one tragedy away from metastasizing into the malignant religious type.

I have cousins who were benign-religious for most of their life, but after a death in the family they started following a new sect of christianity. Their children have never seen a doctor, nor a vaccine.

I agree people are entitled to their personal freedoms, but we would be much better off as a society if we could educate our way out of the cancer that is religion.

Have you actually tried to do this?

Personally, I’ve tried to reform the democratic party from the inside for the last 20 years, and I’ve given up, I think it’s a foolheardy endeavor.

Corporate interests are thoroughly entrenched in the party at every level. The democratic party has set up so many structural hurdles that make it nearly impossible for a progressive challenger to have a shot.

Take a small example: when I was volunteering for two different local progressive challengers, they both had extreme difficulty doing basic campaign things like printing flyers, road signs, pamphlets etc. Why? Because the Democratic Party has a explicit policy of blacklisting any vendor who aids a progressive challenger. No print shop would print our flyers.

There are so many structural hurdles like this set up by the Democratic Party, I would encourage you to volunteer and find out how bad it is for yourself.

And how do you propose we wrest control of the Democratic Party from its corporate overlords and put the power in the hands of the working class?

Seems about as farfetched as a new party imo, but I’d love to hear a realistic plan.

I understand that questioning your liberal worldview can be painful, but thought-terminating clichés like “whataboutism” do a disservice to rational discussion.

It is not whataboutism to discuss how Trump’s illegal actions are enabled by his predecessors’ illegal actions.

It is not whataboutism to point out the Biden administration routinely circumvented the Leahy Law in order to continue the genocide in Palestine.

If “full dictator” is defined as ignoring established law to enact their agenda, then Biden did go full dictator multiple times. Most notable is how he circumvented established law in order to continue sending lethal aid to genocidal Israel.

And you’re right, Biden going “full dictator” does have negative repercussions. Trumps’s illegal actions are somewhat normalized by the illegal actions of his predecessors.

I just wish for once a president would go “full dictator” for the working class and not for the billionaires and genocidal regimes.

I’m not sure the best place to post this, but I would like to say I do regret this comment.

My honest intention was to make a provocative post that would generate a discussion on ethics and morality in the age of Luigi and Elon. My intention was to lay out a hypothetical scenario “if anyone wants to become a hero…” but with sober hindsight I now see how my words could be misconstrued into a call for violence, and that is deeply regrettable.

I was recently prescribed a new muscle relaxant for my rheumatoid arthritis, and I mixed it with a couple alcoholic drinks for the first time. The result was not some drastic change, but I did become unfiltered, sloppy, and inaccurate with my words, and I will not be making this mistake again.

In the future, I do intend to continue making provocative comments, but I am committing myself to no longer discussing violence in this context.

I base it on the fact that the child in question is what, 4 years old? You know how often a 4 year old sleeps? There’s naptime, and very early bedtime…

Is your argument honestly that the human shield is wrapped around his head literally every moment he is in public? You know how absurd that sounds, right?

The only thing it takes to disprove your hypothesis is a quick Google search showing dozens of recent pictures of his head without a human shield attached.

This conversation is getting very silly.

I have no idea how often the human shield is wrapped around his head, but I would imagine any shooter who does their homework would be able to find many hours in the day when the child is not physically attached to him.

The obvious difference between this and the IDF is that, in this case, we have an actual human shield. Anyone who is paying attention knows that the IDF “human shield” justification is just a lie to cover for their atrocities.

I think an ethical shooter would take every reasonable precaution to avoid hitting the human shield.

But in the vanishingly small hypothetical where it could not be avoided, then I would still consider the shooter a hero, yes.

I appreacite your concern, but is there something substantial to fear?

I have not crossed the line into credible death threats; this is first amendment protected speech. If I get a visit from the secret service I will consider it a win for having wasted their time.

And if Trump starts rounding up “online leftists agitators” or “antifa” or whatever to put in his concentration camps, I’ll probably already be in the camps for a different reason.

I fail to see any ethical difference between murdering children under conditions of “warfare” and murdering children via assassination. Both are equally horrific.

I consider the Soviets and Americans who defeated the Nazis to be heroes, and they murdered a whole heap of children.

Only Sith deal in absolutes.

Nothing WTF about it, the trolley problem math is overwhelming. If you can kill one person to save a million, it is immoral to abstain.

If you won’t kill the king because his child prince is an innocent, then you will be a peasant forever.

Removed by mod

deleted by creator

Unfortunately history shows that heroin and memes are not enough to stop fascists when they take power.