you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]d3rr 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

saying that the US government is doing things that it's not in order to get us all riled up is a lie

Imo tracking anti-Semitism across Europe from now to forever is a waste of my tax dollars and not part of the Feds responsibilities. It is more free work and $ for Israel.

The definition given will be used when doing this reporting/stats work.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Imo tracking anti-Semitism across Europe […] is a waste […]

And that's what the discussion should've been on. But it wasn't, because it was misrepresented by the OP via a manipulated screenshot.

[–]d3rr 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't see how focusing on the definition is manipulation. The definition was important enough to be included and relevant to the law. You said it yourself, the state department has using that definition since 2010. The definition is offensive to some 1st amendment advocates, peace advocates, and human rights advocates.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Focusing on the definition is not manipulation. Making it appear that the definition is what's being restricted by the new law is. And that isn't even a definition; it's merely a set of examples.

I don't want to get too much into the politics of the matter here, but /u/Orangutan made it appear that Congress was saying one thing when it was saying another. That's lying.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly.

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

what was represented as a new law by the US Congress was, in fact, merely a definition given by the EUMC

I think I see your point. This definition does not directly apply to Americans (yet!). I guess it's not a good idea to try to memeify laws.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yet..

Why should US laws apply to foreigners?

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It shouldn't, and this whole law shouldn't exist because it is racist.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fact.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I guess it's not a good idea to try to memeify laws.

I think this was more than that, though. The screenshot was deliberately edited to make it seem like that was a top-level part of the law; it wasn't just cropped.

It seems like that thing that… I can't remember who said it or what it was called, but that thing where you fill a community with fake undesirables and then criticise it for being full of undesirables. The thing is, we currently don't have the slightest defence against something like that happening, and I want us to be able to hold that off at least until the decentralisation happens.

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah critical context was omitted. One thing to keep in mind here is that this is a famous redditor who generally only posts A+++ material, so a huge upvote bias doesn't surprise me.