Yes, I saw that before I posted and still had questions, so I asked.
A dog's human Trans rights are human rights Free Palestine He/him
1,994 followers 211 following 4,473 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Yes, I saw that before I posted and still had questions, so I asked.
Thank you very much for this! Much appreciated.
Hamas exists because of Israel. π€·ββοΈ
Hunger has etched my faceβeach line tells a story of sleepless nights without food. This pale look carries the burden of famine on a fragile life. chuffed.org/project/1253...
I'd still like to know his views on the issues I listed, and so would a number of other people, apparently. π€·ββοΈ
I've read a fair bit of good things about you. I haven't seen what your stance is on the following issues yet, though. If you could provide your views, that would be great! - LGBTQ rights - how to help the homeless - Israel and their actions in Gaza - reproductive rights
The screenshot of part of the contract that Allie O'Brien posted in attempt to refute the article directly corroborates the related part of the article instead. I think the full contract will need to be released in order to answer everyone's questions (both for and against the article).
πGod's care was with me and my child Omar at the last moment. Thanks to your support, assistance and love, my child and I were able to move to another area that I hope will be safer. Your continuous support and love keeps us alive. ππ tinyurl.com/ycxdtddx
My son is starving. Not metaphoricallyβliterally π₯Ή. His ribs show. His lips are cracked. He asks for food I donβt have π«. I hold him as he cries, and all I can do is cry too. Pleaseβ¦ donβt let him die πβ€οΈβπ©Ή. π©΅π Donate here: https://gofund.me/da8b4494 β β Verified by: https://palestinejpn.com
If the child were a dog or a cat, everyone would have donated to him. Many days have passed without anyone donating, unfortunately. Please help the child and save his life. Ahmed, 14 years old, suffers from severe malnutrition. Please donate here ππ» chuffed.org/fundraiser/3... ππ»
Graham Greene was an absolute goddamn motherfucking legend and quite possibly Canada's greatest gift to cinema. He was awesome in everything he appeared in. It is a tragedy that so many shitty people live on while he has gone. May you rest in complete awesomeness, Graham. Thank you for all of it.
Yep. Most of them weren't offered $8k either. Some weren't even offered $1k monthly. So they sold out to billionaire dark money for less than their rent, but claim to be part of the progressive movement that represents regular middle class people? Riiiiiight.
He's worn a hair piece for years, but yeah, this looks different. Maybe cancer treatment?
My strategy was to vote for whomever had the best chance to oust the dog shit conservative MP from my riding and then hold their feet to the fire. That ended up being the Liberal candidate, who seemed surprisingly decent. He got trounced, though, and the status quo of dog shit continues here.
"Rather die than go to Burning Man? I say go to Burning Man, then die."
Thread BREAKING: A new 38 page proposal shows Trump & Netanyahu are openly planning to take over Gaza & turn it into a casino & tourism resort. Here are the horrid details, & yes all of this is a violation of international human rights law & further confirms Israel is committing genocide. 1/4
I'm talking on a mass scale. People just go to the polls by the tens of millions and keep the status quo rolling. So if the "good" party is shutting it down, people should stop supporting them, in MASS. And it is starting because the Dem party are losing support monumentally right now.
...and the voters accepted it with almost no resistance.
If the majority of a nation wants their representatives to stop arming a genocide but those representatives refuse, it means they are not afraid to lose votes. By voting for the "lesser evil" for decades you didn't honor the right to vote so many fought for, you devalued the only currency you had.
And they did a bang up job of that when their "peacekeepers" killed a man and tried to pin it on someone else.
Not having a stance on a country enduring a genocide primarily funded and supported by the US is a MASSIVE red flag.
Are you able to release a full copy of the contract for public view? I think the vast majority of everyone's question (both pro and con) could be answered by doing that.
I am asking because 50501 have previously said they have "no defined stance on Palestine." Which is a huge red flag for any organization claiming to be progressive and in favour of human rights.
I intend to celebrate the occasion and see if Bluesky is as awesome as Twitter was the day the queen died.
"Of course I didn't like him; he insulted my wife!"
No, you don't have to. If a candidate doesn't meet all your red line requirements, there is no compelling reason to vote for them. That's on the candidate, not the voter.
I don't like Taylor, so I re-read the entire article a second time while pretending it was written by someone I don't have a negative view of. Then I watched creator rebuttals. Every single rebuttal attacked Taylor personally and refuted none of the content of the article. It all felt co-ordinated.
Wired once did a profile on me and the fact checking took 5x as long as the interviews and was conducted by a team of people. I don't care what you think about Taylor Lorenz, but you don't get to pretend Wired is the New York Post. These influencers took money to ignore genocide & the Dems paid 4 it
Do you have a defined stance on Palestine yet?
Doesn't seem like it.
What's interesting to me is how the attacks are all being directed at Taylor personally, but not Wired or the article itself. They're bypassing the fact that Wired have editors and lawyers that would have thoroughly vetted EVERYTHING, and talking as if Taylor logged on and posted it sans oversight.
I'm sorry, but democrats/liberals are not left leaning.
One of the creators showed part of the contract in a video and it says exactly what the article claimed. Their debunking backfired. I haven't seen any other receipts from creators that refute the content of the article. If you could direct me to any, that would be great.
This is the first thing that's given me hope in longer than I'd care to admit. That's how you Win.
So many people know fuck all about how insurgency works, and they think it'll be some kind of head to head battle.
π¨This mybaby Aser suffers anemia, weightlossπ Hishealth deteriorating Welive inextremely harsh conditions Myfamily displaced,hungry,sick π¨Weneed Β£500 buy some food,medicine β verified by @mommunism.bsky.social β οΈVetted by@gazavetters,my number verifiedlist(#544 )β οΈ PlsHelpππ tinyurl.com/Support-my-f...
Yes.
You should probably educate yourself on the history of that.
That would definitely explain it, lol. Great history teachers are treasures. This thread is a perfect example of that.
Good move, Chicago. Let's see how it plays out.
I would like to recognize how well you're acquitting yourself in this conversation. Genuinely. Well spoken, clear points. Very nice.
If he's that knowledgeable and educated, then that makes his take even worse than it already is. You understand that, right?
I constantly see this posted as if itβs a dunk or whatever. But Iβve attended a few civil wars and you donβt want that, not at all, itβs the worst thing humans do to each other.
The problem is that's only how it goes in the beginning. Then the insurgency stuff starts. And that is when it *really* gets ugly.
He co-founded the middle man company paying the creators. He probably gets considerably more than they do.
O world, I beg you to save the life of my family who suffers from acute malnutrition in northern Gaza and no one responds to us What can we do to live please I don't want to lose any of my family members to malnutrition stand with me your donation is importantπππ chuffed.org/project/1462...
Just want to clarify because of your comment on Lorenz being a non-lawyer here: are you saying that she wouldn't have had actual lawyers review EVERYTHING prior to publication?
On her way to Gaza. www.commondreams.org/news/global-...
If the article is false and defamatory, Chorus and/or one of the signed creators could easily prove it by publicly releasing the contract. That would answer almost every outstanding question.
One of those mistakes, according to Dorsey, was "the fact that Bluesky has some form of content moderation and has occasionally banned users for things like using racial slurs in their usernames." www.engadget.com/jack-dorsey-...
100%
So telling that neither him nor any of the creators have publicly released the contracts.
Her last album was awful, though. She needed someone to edit it and tell her when shit sucked.
I encourage you to watch the video I posted above. The guy is mutuals with multiple people named in the article. Starting at about the three minute mark, he illustrates nicely how it's not a hit piece.
Read the article as if it was written by someone you donβt have a negative view of. Thatβs what I had to do. This guy basically did it in video form. Line by line. vt.tiktok.com/ZSA49X7Fp/
And they lose almost every time they do. And then the entire US political sphere shifts a bit further to the right *because of the Dems*. And then everybody loses. Except the rich. Because they control the country, ultimately.
Bryan Tyler Cohen could answer almost every single outstanding question from EVERYONE by simply releasing a copy of the contract.
I didn't say you're angry at them, I said you blame them. Which you just did again. If the dems are never blamed or held accountable for their choices, they have zero incentive to be better. And the dems sucking shit is why Trump won.
She's a red flag for me as well, which is why I didn't take her at her word and did my own dive into the article. Her being shitty doesn't mean she's wrong. And as it turns out, she's not wrong on this one.
It was game over the moment she campaigned with Liz Cheney. It was already going down hill, but that's when I knew the choice was made. The dems did what they always do - shift right to appeal to "centrists" that were never gonna vote for them anyway.
The issue isn't that you voted for Harris. The issue is that you blame the voters for her loss rather than her.
Not only did they stick to it, they doubled down when they sent Bill Clinton to Michigan to tell Muslims to fuck themselves. That was, what, a week before the election?
As Israel seeks to empty the federal government of Yemen.
I want to hug this mural.
Even if you boil it down to that single issue, if genocide isn't enough, then what is?
What? I'm not a single issue voter. I'm pointing out that if Harris changed her stance on a specific single issue, she'd have won.
All Harris had to do was oppose genocide. Blame her, not the voters.
How did I sabotage an election?
That's funny because law enforcement quite literally beat people that were protesting about Gaza prior to the election.
Most of the claims in the article don't come from Lorenz either. They're taken directly from contracts obtained, group chats she saw, creators she spoke with, or the experts she talked to.
bsky.app/profile/long...
Also, in March of 2024, US approval of Israel's actions in Gaza had already dropped to 36% (a 14% drop in just 5 months). (from Gallup) In November, 64% of Harris voters wanted the next President to pressure Israel to leave Gaza. (from Arab American Institute). It wasn't even close.
On its own, no. In combination with other information and claims, it can definitely carry some weight. I think it does here. Specifically, as a point to people who base their entire perspective of the content of the article solely on what they think of its author.
Okay. I saw parts of the contract, and they line up with what the article claims quite directly. I currently have no reason to believe the main points of the article are false. The creator responses I've seen re-enforce my perspective.
It's not about Lorenz. It's about the content of the article. Pretend ANYONE else wrote it. How would you refute it?
Yes. That's why I did my own extensive looking into the article and didn't take her at her word.
I have red flags up for people that knowingly use things that fund and platform fascists.
I watched a response from one of the creators listed wherein she unintentionally gave evidence *directly from the contract* that backs up the article. No feelings, no opinions.
What terms would you prefer I use?
Also, if we're going to judge character rather than content, any "progressive" or "leftist" creator with a substack is an automatic red flag for me. And there's at least a few mentioned in that article that do.
You're assuming politicians in the United States of America operate in good faith. Specifically, the VP committed to genocide that was running for President. WTF? There actual polls that show the number one reason she lost was Gaza.
If by discussed you mean rationalized as somehow being okay because it's the "good guys" doing it, then no thanks. Also, apparently one of the donors of 1630 settled a sexual assault lawsuit in 2013 because he was soliciting a former employee for sex so she could get grants for non-profits.
Israel is a terrorist state.
How does an article about an AI-generated journalist refute the article of a journalist you know is a real person?
That doesn't answer my question. Chorus' own lawyers don't dispute the article outside of minor clarifications that have minimal effect on the point.
A dem citing the New York Post to try to discredit Wired was not on my bingo card.
Let's say Wired are crooks. How do you then explain Chorus' lawyers having nothing but minor clarifications?
All dark money should be removed from politics. That shouldn't be a controversial sentence. And yet...
Chorus' own lawyers had only minor clarifications. I don't think you grasp what that means.
Okay, you're on a tangent that has nothing to do with the content of the article. Are you trying to distract or something?
I don't even like Lorenz, but I understand that Wired is credible and would not have run this without the most thorough vetting because they'd have to issue retractions and/or get sued. That, combined with the fact Chorus lawyers also reviewed it, makes it clear it's legit. People lack logic.
A Chorus lawyer literally reached out to Wired with clarifications that were added. That means that the Chorus lawyer reviewed the entire article. So even Chorus is saying it isn't bogus.
That makes this take from him even worse then, and it was already extremely embarrassing.
The 1630 fund does not appear to be mentioned in that article...?
I'm a few minutes in. The guy talks about the article and brings up the clarifications to it. He notes it was a Chorus lawyer that got in touch to clarify some things. If the article was false or misleading, one would think a Chorus lawyer would have a lot more issues with it.
If you can provide time stamps of relevant info, that would be great. I'm not watching an hour and forty two minute live stream just to see IF the person has points when their introduction doesn't address anything relevant.
I'd appeal to amend the label to "Rude to Nazis" for accuracy.
I watched the "teaser" section at the very start of the video, and he opens by addressing what commenters are saying, rather than addressing the content of the article itself.
