All posts/comments by me are licensed by CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, unless otherwise noted.
Snowflake, if you don’t like the article headline the author used, downvote and move on and email the author. Cripes, not everything is about you sweetheart.
No, its not about me, its about all of us here on Lemmy, and the quality of posts we get.
The post title is an exact and faithful copy of the linked article, though. There’s no editorializing here.
That’s one of my points. They could have changed the title of the Lemmy post (like what is done MOST of the time around here) to not match the subject of the article but instead be accurate for us Lemmy readers, and not just duplicate the same/wrong title. The “editorializing” in this case is the NOT correcting of the title in the Lemmy post.
So either the person who posted here on Lemmy didn’t read the article they posted about, or they decided to purposely carry forward the invalid title from the article, after having read the article. (Or, this is just an astroturfing article and we are all wasting our time commenting here.)
I’m pretty sure he’s a sov cit. Don’t bother trying to reason with him.
No, I pay my house taxes, and drivers license fee, and my car registration, etc., etc., etc.
Weak attempt.
On Monday, Washington’s Metropolitan Police revealed that two people accused of vandalizing a Tesla windshield will be charged for “political hate speech.”
Not to be pedantic, and to be fair, but it is political speech. It’s definately not complaining about customer service or warranties.
The title of the post matches the title of the article, this isn’t a case of a poster editorializing.
I’m going to call b.s. on that one. I read the article. And so did others.
Edit: From the comment I initially replied to…
The article’s title does not match the content.
And how you replied to me replying to the above …
The title of the post matches the title of the article
I’m talking about the body of the text of the article vs its title, the same as the person that I replied to. I don’t care about the ‘red herring’ assertion you are making.
And while we are at it, the article title doesn’t match the body of the article itself.
I get how you want to ‘Kill the Messenger’ and diminish my rep here, but don’t be so literal/pedantic, and goal post moving.
The article’s title does not match the content. I read it and it does not talk about how Musk controls Trump. It talks about retaliation for those organizing protests against Tesla.
Welcome to Lemmy, where people’s personal agendas/marketing shape the titles of their posts.
From the article …
“What’s happening, it seems to me, is they’re being fed propaganda by the far left, and they believe it. It’s really unfortunate,” Musk continued, claiming that the “real problem” isn’t the “crazy guy” who attacks his vehicles but rather the people that push the “propaganda” that encourages him to do it.
“Those are the real villains here, and we’re going to go after them,” the DOGE chief warned. “The president has made it clear, we’re going to go after them.”
“The ones providing the money, the ones pushing the lies and propaganda? We’re going after them,” Musk said, casually pointing his fingers in the shape of a gun.
That doesn’t mean they want the US to inflict half a million civilian casualties, as they did when ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein. And this time, Trump and Hegseth will be running the show, so it’s a certainty it’ll be worse.
Personally I would tend to agree with you, but that didn’t stop the Iranians from having protest events in Iran calling for Trump to win/invade.
People don’t always act logically, or maybe they measure the ‘lesser of the two evils’ and take actions based on that. Iranians were hoping Trump would win the election just for that reason, to invade and kick out the Mullahs.
You need to make the connection that this is U.S. Government-sanctioned slavery.
Slavery existed in Africa for hundreds of years (unfortunately).
Though they do worry about what you’ve mentioned, most Iranians I’ve talked to currently are “willing to risk it”, as they are sick and tired of the Mullahs at this point.
Its not a matter of knowing the history or not (I do), its a matter of using extreme dumb hyperbole (‘slave market’) in trying to make a point. Its bad conversation.
And it happen way too often here on Lemmy.
Yeah, no. The Iranians had a front row seat on what happened when the Americans ‘freed’ the Iraqis.
I spoke to a younger Iranian once who ran an electronic store in Tehran about the very same thing.
I asked him if they wanted (at that time) G.W. Bush to come in and free them, Iraq style. He took a moment to think, then said, before the Iraqi invasion, yes definitely. After, the invasion, not so much. But also, that he definitely hated the Mullahs.
If you ask older Iranians, they all overwhelmingly want that to happen. So might just be an age divide thing.
I don’t know, the Shah was pretty bad. But I guess he wasn’t policing fashion?
I heard the story once from an Iranian, about the difference between the Shah and the Mullahs.
If kids at school were talking about how their parents hated the political leader, and the leader was the Shah, then that evening some plain clothed people would show up to their front door to beat up the parents.
But if the leader was the Mullahs, then the plain clothed people would show up at their front door to shoot/kill the parents.
So Iranians see a difference between the two.
Potentially. Especially with all their oil.
But still, I think that still would be preferable to them, the lesser of the two evils.
the US could reintroduce the slave market in Iran
Most (70%+) Iranians would welcome the U.S. getting rid of the Mullahs, freeing them.
From the article …
The chat included Vice President JD Vance; Secretary of State Marco Rubio; the national security adviser, Michael Waltz; and others, but not the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Christopher Grady, the highest-ranking military official.
Mr. Parnell said that “military leadership are frequently not included in political meetings.”
So what did you see?
They want to bomb Yemen, basically
And “hate having to bail out the EU again”.
It’s not that. They already can have their own schools. It’s just they want to take our money to pay for them
But there’s certain things they couldn’t do in the past, if they wanted the fed money. Now that those policies and mandates are going away, they can do whatever they want, they can go hardcore, for lack of a better description.
If you’ve been reading the newspapers over the last year or two, you’ve seen various States try to pass various rules about the Bible or the Ten Commandments. They weren’t doing that in private schools; private schools already could do that, right?
IANAL, but no, for constitutional reasons, as well as getting money from the feds if they don’t do it, versus sacrificing that money if they do do it.
You must be fantastic at Community volunteer efforts/work. /s
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0