Claiming Chabad is part of some nefarious political movement is of course absurd, but if you did want to make Jews feel unsafe in this country, targeting Chabads would be a good tactical move. Make Jews feel most unsafe outside of Jewish communities. In other words, it's a tactic of isolation.
If you don't know what Chabad is, it's an outreach organization that offers religious services for Jews temporarily displaced from their communities. For example it's common to have a Chabad on college campuses so students have a place to go to celebrate holidays.
Tucker Carlson, who latest sources claim is now funded by Qatar, has made a sharp turn towards crazy antisemitism. A few weeks ago in Israel spouting lies, and now claiming that Chabad is some kind of political mastermind group.
He's trying to get the Nazis to attack Chabad houses.
Regarding #3: The law requires that applications obtain age bracket information from the operating system PROVIDER. Not from the operating system. This means that Microsoft (for example) must store this information.
And MS can't store just age brackets. Because those change over time.
4. Giant corporations will use this law to make their operating systems more like a company store in which third party software is simply impossible, and users are 100% beholden to the giant corporations for all their software needs.
3. Giant corporations, will, at their whim, use this law to crush smaller competitors (and maybe critics) who, on obscure corner case technicalities are theoretically in conflict with this law, and don't have the lawyers to fight the giant corporations.
Here's what I think will happen.
1. The giant corporations will implement some minimal thing their OS and software, and use this law as a shield against lawsuits, because they did the dumb thing and trusted it.
2. Giant corporations will use this to centrally collect age information for everyone.
Holy shit what has California done?
Their new operating system age verification law is so horribly written that it is probably unenforceable. Or at least hopefully.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VliK...
I really feel like my fellow Democrats have all lost their minds. And I think it comes down to this: A political choice is being made at the expense of a humanitarian choice.
Or to put it in yet another way, Democrats' positioning on this issue has set up a situation in which a global moral victory would help Trump and hurt Democrats.
That would be tragic for Democrats, but good for oppressed Iranians.
As a Democrat, these should not be misaligned.
As someone seeking social justice, as part of a party that is supposed to do the same, I should never have to choose between supporting oppressed people or scoring political points.
I am still rooting for the revolt to succeed. I am rooting for it entirely for humanitarian reasons. But I can see the political landscape in front of me, and I realize that if the revolt does succeed, this could massively hurt Democrats in the next election. And help Trump.
It seems they have suddenly turned off their liberal empathy for victims of oppression. And it appears to me this position is taken merely in service of a political choice to oppose Trump's actions and not for any other better or higher purpose.
That doesn't mean supporting this war (though, I do in principal, even while I doubt Trump will carry it out in a useful or reasonable way).
But it means that when I hear most Dems make these sort of matter-of-fact "the revolt will fail" declarations so casually, I find it incredibly callous.
The point, the thing that crystalized in my head in that moment, is that, OK, it is actually unlikely to succeed. But EVEN SO, the Iranians ACTUALLY IN IRAN are making the opposite bet WITH THEIR LIVES and have been since December.
This underscored the moral imperative that I respect their effort.
This all crystalized for me when someone responded to one of my other postings about the revolt and the possibility of regime change. They claimed that none of the Iranian ex-pats they know believe regime change is possible. (I tend to doubt this is true but it's beside the point.)
But I don't see any of the accounts that I have come to trust over the years taking a single moment to even acknowledge that this Iranian revolt has been happening, let alone the reasons for the revolt.
And, I know, there have always been plenty of liberals I have disagreed with. The more extreme left has always been problematic for me. But I thought I'd created a social media bubble that consistent of people with more enlightened and nuanced views.
I know, this sounds to many like some right-wing screed, and that maybe I'm lurching across the aisle. Now. This is my shock and disbelief that my fellow Democrats would not take even a second to talk about the massive human rights violations that have been escalating in Iran.
None of these things I'm saying here have ANYTHING to do with whether or not any individual liberals, or the left as a whole, chooses to support the war itself.
Democrats could easily oppose this war without abdicating their responsibilities to social justice for Iranian victims of the IRGC.
But the terrible unspoken truth for this immoral bet being made by the left right now is that, if the Iranian revolt succeeds, it will be BOTH a giant political loss for the left in America, AND a giant loss of credibility for failing to support those trying to uproot this horrific regime.
The bet being made against the lives of Iranian protestors is, the revolt will fail. The bet is that nothing will change, and everyone in America will be pissed off about lost U.S. lives. Lives lost waging a useless war that left Iran ultimately stronger.
The humanitarian choice is, millions of Iranians are literally betting their lives that they can overthrow one of the most oppressive and dangerous regimes on the planet. And the left in America are betting AGAINST this revolt succeeding.
To score what they believe are easy political points.
I really feel like my fellow Democrats have all lost their minds. And I think it comes down to this: A political choice is being made at the expense of a humanitarian choice.
But apparently millions of Iranians who are still in Iran are literally betting their lives on a regime change.
If you want to set aside political alignments and consider actual issues:
War in Iran: Every Argument For It and Against It — Laid Bare share.google/q8EzOQzWCWjW...
War in Iran: Every Argument For It and Against It — Laid Bare share.google/q8EzOQzWCWjW...
And in that vein I'm also kinda pissed about how all my social justice peers seem to not give a rats ass that in two months the IRGC has murdered possibly as many or more civilians _during protests_ as Israel killed (a combination of combatants and civilians) in two years _during a war_.
And that's fair. Nobody has to support this war. But I am deeply annoyed (or borderline outraged) at how shallow the reasons people are giving for being opposed to it, and how it exposes how little people actually know about what is happening in Iran.
That incident is still completely unconfirmed. The only source is the IRGC itself. There are also (unconfirmed) reports that the school was next to IRGC infrastructure.
As for pretext, the nonsense that Trump and his minions say doesn't mean there are no valid reasons in existence.
