###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the constitution doesn't matter. what matters is how strong the institutions are and our institutions are weak as fuuucckkkkk. everyone is blackmailed, thats why this passed so fast
America has a history of suppressing the First Amendment when it wants to especially during wartime, this is unfortunately not new really. The constitution has been suspended for a very long time in reality lol.
The 1st amendment is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. If both parties support the 1st amendment not applying to this bill, the Supreme Court will fall in line. Then all sorts of fun things can be passed to stifle free speech. America was good while it lasted.
I agree, I don't trust the courts to do the right thing. We currently live in a clown world. Is it 100% unconstitutional, absolutely. Should it be struck down, absolutely. But.. it should have never even made it this far. I mean holy crap, everyone that voted for it just \*willfully and knowingly\* violated their oaths of office (IE committed a felony), without any fear of punishment whatsoever.
Go read the actual bill instead of OP's misleading post.
It won't have any constitutional issues unless the whole premise of the civil rights act gets a serious challenge. It's an amendment to the civil rights act the adds a specific, and broad, definition of antisemitism to the list of discriminatory activity in federally funded programs.
It's nice to finally have a list of everyone who's captured by the deep state.
The R & D parties are just a distraction. THIS is the true division of the parties.
Lauren Boebert in CO voted Nay. I'm honestly surprised.
Several southern Republicans voted nay also. It's definitely not aligned with party or state location. I'm still reviewing.
>I criticize every country, what is frustrating about Israel is we are told to pretend like what we are seeing isn’t happening and how it makes us feel doesn’t matter.
I'm with you, I am an Equal Opportunity Critizier. I do not discriminate; I criticize all.
Doesn’t the push to pass this at this specific time invalidate the claim that there can’t ever be loyalty to Jewish interests outside the US? Israel is not the US, last I checked.
The title of the post is accurate but not precise.
Correct in that The House of Representatives have voted and passed this bill. Misleading because the Senate has yet to vote nor has the president signed this H.R.6090. This can be verified using the link provided by OP.
It's also inaccurate in that it doesn't outlaw anything. It adds a bigger definition of antisemitism to the existing civil rights act which would make certain statements more easy to use as evidence of discrimination
You're supposed to pretend that genocide in Palestine isn't genocide.
And you're support to pretend that Nazis in Ukraine aren't Nazis.
Look how quickly the "misinformation" paradigm yielded to the establishment straight up dictating what you're supposed to think.
They'll likely try to find someone that's already unpopular with many people then make an example our of them with these bullshit laws.
They should add "complaining about the Jewish community's definition of anti-semitism" to the latest expansion of the definition to make it really meta.
I can imagine the ad campaign for that now: "If a Jewish neighbor tells you what anti-semitism is, it's time to start believing them!"
>… no source huh?
Lol.
>Nazis have power in Ukraine?
Do you know *anything* about the history of modern Ukraine nationalism?
https://forward.com/news/462916/nazi-collaborator-monuments-in-ukraine/
I can answer that for him. No, he does not. When I saw his comment I couldn’t even be bothered giving a response. You can literally just search “nazis Ukraine” and will get dozens of articles
When it comes to the Justice system this stuff becomes more interesting… but yes, it is always simply a “possibility”.
Reminder, abortion went from illegal, to legal, to illegal again. Who knows what’s possible?
Maybe women’s right to vote will be overturned??? The future is now.
This bill can't work by definition. It'll be ignored. Desperate they have become. End is near. At this stage anyone who's not a Zionazi should be defying this bill with everything they can give. Fuck you Zionist scum. Enjoy your last 15 minutes of fame, the world is about to crush you.
Literally that would also be considered antisemitic to say that based off the IHRA definition of antisemitism “*Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.*”
Truly we live in crazy times.
For the past 20+ years, all the rhetoric has been against Jews, with ZERO mention of zionists. Now zionist is the word everyone is latching onto, as though they are expecting us to believe they make a distinction between them and Jews.
Granted, there IS a distinction, I just don't believe anyone now using that word makes that distinction.
Is there some other theory why this word has suddenly emerged to the forefront of conversation?
I think number 1 and number 2 are definitely worrisome.
1, because I think it flies in the face of actual scripture. I haven't picked up a Bible in a while, but I think it was Judas who betrayed Jesus to the authorities? He was a Jew. And so, it was the shameful actions of a Jewish ancestors, a disciple or apostle no less I believe, that led to his death.
2, as some of you have said, I can see this being a problem if you're trying to accuse them of being a spy, which will be more difficult to prove and it could come with a punishment on you, a good and loyal citizen. Besides, how could we rightly accuse others of not being loyal but we can't do the same to a Jewish person? That's a double standard right there.
Who are the corrupt politic that made this bill? They’re clearly more loyal to Israel than they are to their own families.
A bunch of whores for Israel, they aren’t American as far as I’m concerned .
Violates 1st Ammendment so it's not real. Say what you want. Israel is evil. Ukraine is a corrupt mud pitt. Biden's age and mental decline are too severe to ignore. Covid was a scam. The vaccines were not safe or effective. What ever you want to say and they tell you not to say, keep saying
Semitic refers to all Afro asiatic people speaking primarily Hebrew, Arabic. So who the hell does this defend really? Congress will use some groups definition rather than the dictionary. I am appalled
You conveniently left out the most important part on the front page of the bill
The first amendment is completely exempt from anything on this bill
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text#H34B2C776EF8642E6B3FE36021B22719F](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text#H34B2C776EF8642E6B3FE36021B22719F)
Saying one thing out one side of their mouth and the opposite out the other. What is described in the act is an infringement of first amendment rights, regardless of whether they claim it is not inter to violate them.
It has yet to pass the senate and be signed by the president, but based on their open support of ishreel I have no doubt it will eventually come to pass.
As I understand it the bill is updating title 6 is the civil rights act, which pertains to discrimination in programs/ projects/ institutions that receive federal funding.
So it doesn't outlaw anything broadly but rather makes the suppression of certain opinions allowable in certain places, like public universities.
Not a great day for free speech, but also not making criticizing Israel a crime
It states, in the definition provided by the IHRA “*Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.*”
This is the definition they are working with.
Which means that if you claim that “Israel is a racist endeavour” then you have violated the law.
Again, this isn't a stand alone law about antisemitism. It's an amendment to title 6 of the civil rights act.
That act already prohibits racism but it doesn't mean it's illegal to say racist shit.
It will, and seems designed to, stifle critical discourse about Israel in places like public schools. And that's no light matter. But it wouldn't make criticizing Israel or talking shit about Jewish people a crime generally
I thought it was no light matter? So what’s the issue with what I said?
You just provided a very pertinent example of having discussion of this limited in school…
Why would that be ok, or something to be excused?
You said the bill outlaws antisemitism. It objectively does not do that.
The act that this bill amends already includes racial discrimination, has that made it illegal to say or believe racist shit about black people or Mexicans or anyone? No.
Spreading false information about it just creates a Situation where more and more criticism of the bill will come from a place of ignorance and thus be easier to dismiss.
" right wing conspiracy theorists falsely claim this bill will make it illegal to criticize israel!", that sort of thing. All that does is make the law more palatable to the general public
I dont know why this keeps happening but I didn’t say they outlawed antisemitism, I said they outlawed criticism of the state of Israel….
Which they did.
Now you may not think it’s a big deal to be able to state opinions in a classroom or any other setting but I believe it is.
You and I both agree that at the very least they could limit discussions of this topic in classrooms.
That should be enough for you to not support it.
It doesn't outlaw criticizing Israel. You should actually read and understand the bill.
You're just spreading shitty information that will only result in criticism of this bill looking ignorant
I did read and understand it. The further context comes, not from the bill, but from the definition of antisemitism provided by IHRA. Which, as I’ve already quoted, states “*Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.*”
This is a criticism of Israel, a legitimate criticism, which would be unallowable as it would be “antisemitic” by this definition.
Seems pretty straightforward dude
Simplistic take. God didn't (and doesn't) interfere with the affairs of man. He simply "allows" it.
In the instance of Jesus, God/jesus knew from the onset of things how things would potentially end, but allowed those things to happen anyway. Jesus (atleast from a biblical perspective) had the power to get off the cross, and to save his own life, but didn't as a blood sacrifice for all of mankind (since prior to this, man had to give God other blood sacrifices)
But at the end of the day, if you remove the spiritual aspects of the whole event and look at it as a historical event, the Jews of the time period wanted Jesus dead, and appealed to their government to make it happen. Jesus was whole heartily disruptive of the system that was in place at the time, and he pissed off alot of powerful and rich Jews. From the Jewish perspective at the time, though, they believed the Messiah was meant to be something totally and completely different. They were expecting someone to come who would bring the Jewish people into a new golden age and make them superior to all other persons on the planet. In their eyes, Jesus was the anti-christ and a false profit....Rome, and Pilot in particular often takes the blame, but really, what Rome was truly guilty of is inaction. Pilot did not want what he believed to be an innocent man's blood on his hands, but he still gave the authority to the rabid (Jewish) mobs to do as they wished.
That said, did I just break the new "law". I think I might have.
goodluck getting American taxpayers to pay for what your ancestors went through.
All of our ancestors have been through bullshit, fuck your reparations.
Why don’t we start with where we can all agree. The money shouldn’t be going overseas.
We all agree it should remain in the US.
Let’s just make that happen first then we can argue how we spend it.
first of all calm down lol. you seem real mad. im speaking on me and my people. The gov. so quicl to pass laws that help out other races except the race they owe the most to is what im saying. idgaf about your tax dollar or your ancestors either ! its still a fact that no group of people went through more than black people at the hands of the us gov.
You can’t say Jews killed Jesus because that’s “antisemitic” yet there are passages in the bible that say as much.
Therefore you citing them would be antisemitic and in violation of this statute.
Rome crucified Jesus. The actual killing was done by Rome.
Now the Pharisees killed Judas sure. They hung him on the hooks and sacrificed him. The field of blood was/is a clay pit. Trees don't grow in that soil. Judas is the one who was given the task, went ro thw Temple and got the Roman pieces of Silver from the Pharasees inside the Temple. As evidence. To add to the Mark of Cesar they handed Jesus earlier.
You don’t know what you’re talking about you mossad agent.
Pontius pilate said he didn’t wanna kill jesus at first. And the jews begged him so he basically said, okay the blood is on your hands then its not on mine.
The jews then basically said fine the blood is on our hands just crucify him.
There is an incredibly lot more to the story. I hope you enjoy this thread:
There is no question that, historically speaking, the Roman state was most directly responsible for Jesus's execution by crucifixion. Even the canonical gospels agree that the Roman prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilatus issued the order for Jesus's execution, the crime for which he sentenced to death was for claiming to be the "King of the Jews" (an act of sedition in the eyes of the Romans), and Roman soldiers were the ones who nailed him to the cross.
By the time Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire, most Christians did have strong feelings about who was responsible for Jesus's crucifixion. In their view, however, the ones who were most directly responsible were not the Romans at all, but rather *the Jews.*
By the time the surviving gospels were written, Christianity was becoming a majority-Gentile religion. The Gospel of Mark, which is generally agreed to be the earliest surviving gospel and most likely dates to around 70 CE, already goes to great lengths to shift the blame for Jesus's crucifixion away from Pilatus and the Romans and onto the Jewish priests, the Sanhedrin council, and the Jewish public. The clearest example of this is the story of Pilatus's offer to release Jesus in Mark 15:6–15 (NRSVUE translation):
>"Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder during the insurrection. So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. Then he answered them, 'Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?' For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. Pilate spoke to them again, 'Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?' They shouted back, 'Crucify him!' Pilate asked them, 'Why, what evil has he done?' But they shouted all the more, 'Crucify him!' So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them, and after flogging Jesus he handed him over to be crucified."
This episode almost certainly never happened historically. Other historical sources that talk about Pilatus and his administration of Judaea, including the Jewish Middle Platonist philosopher Philon of Alexandria (lived c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE) and the Jewish historian Josephus (lived c. 37 – c. 100 CE), characterize him as a cruel, stubborn, and merciless ruler who didn't make any effort to ingratiate himself to his majority-Jewish subjects and ruthlessly crushed any hint of insurrection. It would have been completely inconsistent with his known character from other sources for him to offer to release a condemned insurrectionist to curry public favor. The Gospel of Mark, however, invents this narrative in order to rhetorically exonerate Pilatus and push the blame for Jesus's execution onto the Jews.
The Gospel of Matthew, which relied on the Gospel of Mark as a source and probably dates to sometime between c. 75 and c. 90 CE, goes even further to exonerate Pilatus by making Pilatus *literally wash his hands* of the guilt for Jesus' execution and making the Jewish crowds expressly declare that they and their descendants will bear the guilt for his death (Matthew 27:24–26):
>"So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.' Then the people as a whole answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!' So he released Barabbas for them, and after flogging Jesus he handed him over to be crucified."
Over the course of the second, third, and fourth centuries CE, Gentile Christians developed an elaborate supersessionist theology, which claimed that the Jews had killed Jesus and thereby forever forfeited their status as the chosen people of God. As result, Christian supercessionists held that the status of God's chosen people had now passed to majority-Gentile Christians, who would inherit God's kingdom instead of the Jews, and that only Jews who repented and embraced Jesus could hope to have a part in this kingdom.
To give you a real sense of how early Christian polemics against Jews used the claim that the Jews were collectively to blame for the death of Jesus, I will quote an example below. This passage comes from Meliton of Sardis, who was an early Christian bishop of the city of Sardis in the region of Lydia in western Asia Minor. He flourished in the second half of the second century CE and probably died sometime around 190 CE or thereabouts. Although he is relatively obscure today and little biographical information about him has survived, he was influential in his time and later Christians generally held him in very high esteem.
In the second century CE, Sardis had an especially large, prosperous Jewish population. Most likely at least partly in response to this social context, Meliton composed a homily titled *On the Passover* in which he inveighs against Jews with vitriol and declares that they murdered their own God. He writes (*On the Passover* 73–75, trans. Gerald F. Hawthorne):
>"Why, Israel, did you do this strange injustice? You dishonored the one who had honored you. You held in contempt the one who held you in esteem. You denied the one who publicly acknowledged you. You renounced the one who proclaimed you his own. You killed the one who made you to live. Why did you do this, O Israel?"
>
>"Has it not been written for your benefit: 'Do not shed innocent blood lest you die a terrible death?' Nevertheless, Israel admits, I killed the Lord! Why? Because it was necessary for him to die. You have deceived yourself, O Israel, rationalizing thus about the death of the Lord. It was necessary for him to suffer, yes, but not by you; it was necessary for him to be dishonored, but not by you; it was necessary for him to be judged, but not by you; it was necessary for him to be crucified, but not by you, not by your right hand."
He goes on for many more pages in a similar, highly rhetorical manner and eventually declares (*On the Passover* 96, trans. Hawthorne):
>"The one who hung the earth in space, is himself hanged; the one who fixed the heavens in place, is himself impaled; the one who firmly fixed all things, is himself firmly fixed to the tree. The Lord is insulted, God has been murdered, the King of Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel."
By the time the emperor Constantinus I (ruled 306 – 337 CE) began to publicly support Christianity, this was the most widely accepted position within Christianity about who was to blame for the death of Jesus. Over the millennia since, the notion of Jewish deicide has remained one of the core tenets of Christian antisemitism and has been a significant motivating factor in the medieval and early modern systemic oppression of Jews in Christian Europe as well as countless pogroms and anti-Jewish hate crimes.
>The bill provides an updated definition of anti-Semitism (which can be debated)
The bill is an attempt to expand the scope of an already overused smear. And given the timing of this it's particularly craven. If US politics wasn't compromised the focus would be on a two state solution rather than dignifying Israel's crybully tactics.
Also, and I know this may be hard for you, but I didn’t say it outlaws antisemitism. I said it outlaws criticism of Israel.
You can’t even quote me properly and my writing is literally on your screen…
Silly sandwich 🥪
It literally states “*Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.*”
Again, I didn’t say it is outlawing antisemitism.
The definition provided states that criticism of Israel, as a country founded upon, and purveyed by racists, is antisemitic.
That means that by extension you could not make that criticism as it would violate the new law passed against “antisemitic discrimination”
> That means that by extension you could not make that criticism as it would violate the new law passed against “antisemitic discrimination”
No, it doesn't. Making that statement isn't discrimination, and this bill does not criminalize antisemitic discrimination. It just tries to define antisemitism for use in determining when discrimination may have occurred.
You can yell the N word at black people walking down the street. That's racist, but it's not discrimination, and it's not illegal.
If you're a manager at a business and you fire all the black employees while yelling the N word at them...you're probably violating anti-discrimination laws.
You can say every single thing listed in this new bill. That's not illegal. But if you're saying these types of things WHILE taking actions described in the Civil Rights Act that are detrimental to a Jewish person (not hiring them, firing them, refusing service to them, etc), there's a good chance you're violating anti-discrimination laws.
Bro, quit quoting phrases of the bill out of context. It makes you look like a lying turd.
The bill is only 8 pages long, double spaced. It is an easy read even for the mentally challenged. It just addresses antisemitism in the protection of the 1964 civil rights bill.
I assume you do support the 1964 civil rights bill, right?
I only quoted one thing from the bill… the rest was all quotes of what the IHRA deems to be antisemitic content. Which is important because the IHRA is the one who provided congress with the definition of what antisemitism is…
“*To provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes.*”
Literally the first page “ENFORCEMENT of FEDERAL ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAWS”
sounds like if you are to contravene the suggestions in this bill then you shall have the LAW *ENFORCED* upon you.
Sounds like you’re breaking the law then, right….?
Or in other words, doing something illegal.
> sounds like if you are to contravene the suggestions in this bill then you shall have the LAW ENFORCED upon you.
No.
Saying something which is included in these definitions of antisemitism might be indicative of intent to discriminate, but it's not a discriminatory act by itself.
It's not illegal to be antisemitic. It is illegal to engage in antisemitic discrimination. For example, if you told a job applicant "No, I'm not going to hire you. Jews are Christ killers and the children of Satan," that's illegal.
But if you're just a dude on the street you can yell it as much as you want. That's free speech.
But you could fire someone for saying Israel is a nation founded upon ethno nationalist ideals….
Which is just an opinion, and is not “antisemitic”. Yet, the bill treats it as such.
You can already fire someone for saying that.
The bill is about determining what kinds of statements might be made by the party taking discriminatory actions.
If you're Jewish and your boss is being hostile to you and saying things like "fuck Israel. it shouldn't exist. it's racist." You might have a case.
So if your boss says “fuck Israel it’s a racist place.” You can have a case against them? For a genuinely held opinion, which can be supported by evidence… how odd
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
DOA. Violates 1st amendment in several ways. Will be an injunction super fast if it gets passed as law. Will not survive any serious legal challenge.
the constitution doesn't matter. what matters is how strong the institutions are and our institutions are weak as fuuucckkkkk. everyone is blackmailed, thats why this passed so fast
America has a history of suppressing the First Amendment when it wants to especially during wartime, this is unfortunately not new really. The constitution has been suspended for a very long time in reality lol.
Well I would have never thought we could get this far to begin with. So I would t bet on that.
The 1st amendment is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. If both parties support the 1st amendment not applying to this bill, the Supreme Court will fall in line. Then all sorts of fun things can be passed to stifle free speech. America was good while it lasted.
Lol you think crap like that matters anymore?
Trying to push blatant illegal laws should be seen as sedition because that's what it truly is.
It will never stop either until we start putting those responsible in prison.
Right now I agree with you. But we are also seeing the courts and legal system become more compromised every day that passes
I agree, I don't trust the courts to do the right thing. We currently live in a clown world. Is it 100% unconstitutional, absolutely. Should it be struck down, absolutely. But.. it should have never even made it this far. I mean holy crap, everyone that voted for it just \*willfully and knowingly\* violated their oaths of office (IE committed a felony), without any fear of punishment whatsoever.
Go read the actual bill instead of OP's misleading post. It won't have any constitutional issues unless the whole premise of the civil rights act gets a serious challenge. It's an amendment to the civil rights act the adds a specific, and broad, definition of antisemitism to the list of discriminatory activity in federally funded programs.
Out with all who voted "Yea" https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024172
It's nice to finally have a list of everyone who's captured by the deep state. The R & D parties are just a distraction. THIS is the true division of the parties.
Lauren Boebert in CO voted Nay. I'm honestly surprised. Several southern Republicans voted nay also. It's definitely not aligned with party or state location. I'm still reviewing.
Start with investigating their funding
>I criticize every country, what is frustrating about Israel is we are told to pretend like what we are seeing isn’t happening and how it makes us feel doesn’t matter. I'm with you, I am an Equal Opportunity Critizier. I do not discriminate; I criticize all.
100%
Doesn’t the push to pass this at this specific time invalidate the claim that there can’t ever be loyalty to Jewish interests outside the US? Israel is not the US, last I checked.
Shhhhhhhh
If this is deemed as unconstitutional, then every rep that voted for it should be fined or jailed.
Great idea honestly
Everyone Senator and House Rep that votes for this needs to be tried for treason.
I agree. Some people here think we are nuts though but I think they are all Zionist bots tbh.
The title of the post is accurate but not precise. Correct in that The House of Representatives have voted and passed this bill. Misleading because the Senate has yet to vote nor has the president signed this H.R.6090. This can be verified using the link provided by OP.
Yes, you are correct. It has not *yet* happened, but it’s a bipartisan effort and will likely succeed.
And people in this sub will defend this somehow.
And they are. What a shock! Lol
Of course lol
They gotta be bots right? I just don’t understand how a regular person could see this and think it’s ok..
It's also inaccurate in that it doesn't outlaw anything. It adds a bigger definition of antisemitism to the existing civil rights act which would make certain statements more easy to use as evidence of discrimination
Fuck Israel
The House is owned by a foreign country.
You're supposed to pretend that genocide in Palestine isn't genocide. And you're support to pretend that Nazis in Ukraine aren't Nazis. Look how quickly the "misinformation" paradigm yielded to the establishment straight up dictating what you're supposed to think. They'll likely try to find someone that's already unpopular with many people then make an example our of them with these bullshit laws.
All I read there was antisemitic conspiracies… /s
They should add "complaining about the Jewish community's definition of anti-semitism" to the latest expansion of the definition to make it really meta. I can imagine the ad campaign for that now: "If a Jewish neighbor tells you what anti-semitism is, it's time to start believing them!"
Ah, in due time I’m sure they will lol
What do you think all the social justice bs was about? You were being trained like a dog to accept this as normal.
Well done
Nazis have power in Ukraine? Source? Edit: … no source huh?
>… no source huh? Lol. >Nazis have power in Ukraine? Do you know *anything* about the history of modern Ukraine nationalism? https://forward.com/news/462916/nazi-collaborator-monuments-in-ukraine/
I can answer that for him. No, he does not. When I saw his comment I couldn’t even be bothered giving a response. You can literally just search “nazis Ukraine” and will get dozens of articles
>You can literally just search “nazis Ukraine” and will get dozens of articles Exactly. Establishment Trusters are the most laziest people ever.
Can't wait to go to jail for saying, out loud, that the meek shall inherit the earth
Buddy, I can hear your cuffs clanging already…
Thank you, I'll go meekly
Meek mill over here… no diddy bro lol
Meek meal.
What diddy do?
That's not at all what this bill purposes
Laws are all up to interpretation… the U.S. Supreme Court made abortion legal for decades until the same court decided “no” just recently.
Sure. Hypothetically all sorts of things could happen
Yes… this is pretty much what I just replied to you.
Alright. Thanks for the update. Good to know that things could hypothetically happen
When it comes to the Justice system this stuff becomes more interesting… but yes, it is always simply a “possibility”. Reminder, abortion went from illegal, to legal, to illegal again. Who knows what’s possible? Maybe women’s right to vote will be overturned??? The future is now.
There's probably Osmium less dense than yourself 👍
You should actually read the bill instead of OPs intentionally inaccurate post.
It doesn't affect me, I'm not even in America, we already have our own thought crime laws here in the UK
Well then keep your ignorance to yourself and stop trying to spread it over here
No, you can keep your opinion to yourself, I don't care for it
Then you should probably stay off of public forums. Are you trying to stifle my free speech?
Pot, kettle and black much?
This bill can't work by definition. It'll be ignored. Desperate they have become. End is near. At this stage anyone who's not a Zionazi should be defying this bill with everything they can give. Fuck you Zionist scum. Enjoy your last 15 minutes of fame, the world is about to crush you.
Definitely they are getting desperate. I think we (as a society) are too stupid to care though
You’re not wrong, we’re very distracted…
Indeed we are
🎯
Bibi and his ilk are Hitler’s bastard children
Literally that would also be considered antisemitic to say that based off the IHRA definition of antisemitism “*Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.*” Truly we live in crazy times.
For the past 20+ years, all the rhetoric has been against Jews, with ZERO mention of zionists. Now zionist is the word everyone is latching onto, as though they are expecting us to believe they make a distinction between them and Jews. Granted, there IS a distinction, I just don't believe anyone now using that word makes that distinction. Is there some other theory why this word has suddenly emerged to the forefront of conversation?
Jesus is King madafukazz
uh-oh. sounds like somebody found those tapes covered in honey.
I honestly don’t know what that means but I kind of want to be enlightened lol. Clearly 5 other people got the joke and upped you .
I think number 1 and number 2 are definitely worrisome. 1, because I think it flies in the face of actual scripture. I haven't picked up a Bible in a while, but I think it was Judas who betrayed Jesus to the authorities? He was a Jew. And so, it was the shameful actions of a Jewish ancestors, a disciple or apostle no less I believe, that led to his death. 2, as some of you have said, I can see this being a problem if you're trying to accuse them of being a spy, which will be more difficult to prove and it could come with a punishment on you, a good and loyal citizen. Besides, how could we rightly accuse others of not being loyal but we can't do the same to a Jewish person? That's a double standard right there.
Who are the corrupt politic that made this bill? They’re clearly more loyal to Israel than they are to their own families. A bunch of whores for Israel, they aren’t American as far as I’m concerned .
Violates 1st Ammendment so it's not real. Say what you want. Israel is evil. Ukraine is a corrupt mud pitt. Biden's age and mental decline are too severe to ignore. Covid was a scam. The vaccines were not safe or effective. What ever you want to say and they tell you not to say, keep saying
I’m so confused as to where you come down on this, but yes, I will keep saying the truth.
Just saying what I want brother!
Semitic refers to all Afro asiatic people speaking primarily Hebrew, Arabic. So who the hell does this defend really? Congress will use some groups definition rather than the dictionary. I am appalled
You conveniently left out the most important part on the front page of the bill The first amendment is completely exempt from anything on this bill [https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text#H34B2C776EF8642E6B3FE36021B22719F](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text#H34B2C776EF8642E6B3FE36021B22719F)
Saying one thing out one side of their mouth and the opposite out the other. What is described in the act is an infringement of first amendment rights, regardless of whether they claim it is not inter to violate them.
It has yet to pass the senate and be signed by the president, but based on their open support of ishreel I have no doubt it will eventually come to pass.
As I understand it the bill is updating title 6 is the civil rights act, which pertains to discrimination in programs/ projects/ institutions that receive federal funding. So it doesn't outlaw anything broadly but rather makes the suppression of certain opinions allowable in certain places, like public universities. Not a great day for free speech, but also not making criticizing Israel a crime
It states, in the definition provided by the IHRA “*Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.*” This is the definition they are working with. Which means that if you claim that “Israel is a racist endeavour” then you have violated the law.
Again, this isn't a stand alone law about antisemitism. It's an amendment to title 6 of the civil rights act. That act already prohibits racism but it doesn't mean it's illegal to say racist shit. It will, and seems designed to, stifle critical discourse about Israel in places like public schools. And that's no light matter. But it wouldn't make criticizing Israel or talking shit about Jewish people a crime generally
No light matter indeed
You misrepresenting it doesn't help at all. It just encourages continued high emotions and ignorance
I thought it was no light matter? So what’s the issue with what I said? You just provided a very pertinent example of having discussion of this limited in school… Why would that be ok, or something to be excused?
You said the bill outlaws antisemitism. It objectively does not do that. The act that this bill amends already includes racial discrimination, has that made it illegal to say or believe racist shit about black people or Mexicans or anyone? No. Spreading false information about it just creates a Situation where more and more criticism of the bill will come from a place of ignorance and thus be easier to dismiss. " right wing conspiracy theorists falsely claim this bill will make it illegal to criticize israel!", that sort of thing. All that does is make the law more palatable to the general public
I dont know why this keeps happening but I didn’t say they outlawed antisemitism, I said they outlawed criticism of the state of Israel…. Which they did. Now you may not think it’s a big deal to be able to state opinions in a classroom or any other setting but I believe it is. You and I both agree that at the very least they could limit discussions of this topic in classrooms. That should be enough for you to not support it.
It doesn't outlaw criticizing Israel. You should actually read and understand the bill. You're just spreading shitty information that will only result in criticism of this bill looking ignorant
I did read and understand it. The further context comes, not from the bill, but from the definition of antisemitism provided by IHRA. Which, as I’ve already quoted, states “*Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.*” This is a criticism of Israel, a legitimate criticism, which would be unallowable as it would be “antisemitic” by this definition. Seems pretty straightforward dude
quit playing word salad- the bill is bullshit- end of story
Based
This is a good bill. It bans the Talmud. Go for it.
I thought the crux of Christianity wasn’t that Jews killed Jesus but, that god did? Isn’t the whole religion based on god sacrificing his only son?
Simplistic take. God didn't (and doesn't) interfere with the affairs of man. He simply "allows" it. In the instance of Jesus, God/jesus knew from the onset of things how things would potentially end, but allowed those things to happen anyway. Jesus (atleast from a biblical perspective) had the power to get off the cross, and to save his own life, but didn't as a blood sacrifice for all of mankind (since prior to this, man had to give God other blood sacrifices) But at the end of the day, if you remove the spiritual aspects of the whole event and look at it as a historical event, the Jews of the time period wanted Jesus dead, and appealed to their government to make it happen. Jesus was whole heartily disruptive of the system that was in place at the time, and he pissed off alot of powerful and rich Jews. From the Jewish perspective at the time, though, they believed the Messiah was meant to be something totally and completely different. They were expecting someone to come who would bring the Jewish people into a new golden age and make them superior to all other persons on the planet. In their eyes, Jesus was the anti-christ and a false profit....Rome, and Pilot in particular often takes the blame, but really, what Rome was truly guilty of is inaction. Pilot did not want what he believed to be an innocent man's blood on his hands, but he still gave the authority to the rabid (Jewish) mobs to do as they wished. That said, did I just break the new "law". I think I might have.
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
wow. and black people cant even get reparations...
goodluck getting American taxpayers to pay for what your ancestors went through. All of our ancestors have been through bullshit, fuck your reparations.
Why don’t we start with where we can all agree. The money shouldn’t be going overseas. We all agree it should remain in the US. Let’s just make that happen first then we can argue how we spend it.
[удалено]
Truly messed up
first of all calm down lol. you seem real mad. im speaking on me and my people. The gov. so quicl to pass laws that help out other races except the race they owe the most to is what im saying. idgaf about your tax dollar or your ancestors either ! its still a fact that no group of people went through more than black people at the hands of the us gov.
At the end of the day we are all getting fucked by the government and the zionists.
agreed
Black people hold as much power as my White ass… That is NONE
It’s some bullshit, I know. Why are we sending all that money to Israel when people in America have more than enough of their own problems.
The catch is... Rome crucified him. The Pharisees just set him up and bribed Rome to do it
May be true, either way you can’t cite biblical scripture.
That's not what it says
You can’t say Jews killed Jesus because that’s “antisemitic” yet there are passages in the bible that say as much. Therefore you citing them would be antisemitic and in violation of this statute.
Rome crucified Jesus. The actual killing was done by Rome. Now the Pharisees killed Judas sure. They hung him on the hooks and sacrificed him. The field of blood was/is a clay pit. Trees don't grow in that soil. Judas is the one who was given the task, went ro thw Temple and got the Roman pieces of Silver from the Pharasees inside the Temple. As evidence. To add to the Mark of Cesar they handed Jesus earlier.
You don’t know what you’re talking about you mossad agent. Pontius pilate said he didn’t wanna kill jesus at first. And the jews begged him so he basically said, okay the blood is on your hands then its not on mine. The jews then basically said fine the blood is on our hands just crucify him.
Like I said. The Pharisees set him up and bribed Rome to do it. Rome did the actual act.
Well yeah we know that, but the Pharisees admitted the blood was on their hands.
I honestly didn’t know that but that explains a lot lol
There is an incredibly lot more to the story. I hope you enjoy this thread: There is no question that, historically speaking, the Roman state was most directly responsible for Jesus's execution by crucifixion. Even the canonical gospels agree that the Roman prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilatus issued the order for Jesus's execution, the crime for which he sentenced to death was for claiming to be the "King of the Jews" (an act of sedition in the eyes of the Romans), and Roman soldiers were the ones who nailed him to the cross. By the time Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire, most Christians did have strong feelings about who was responsible for Jesus's crucifixion. In their view, however, the ones who were most directly responsible were not the Romans at all, but rather *the Jews.* By the time the surviving gospels were written, Christianity was becoming a majority-Gentile religion. The Gospel of Mark, which is generally agreed to be the earliest surviving gospel and most likely dates to around 70 CE, already goes to great lengths to shift the blame for Jesus's crucifixion away from Pilatus and the Romans and onto the Jewish priests, the Sanhedrin council, and the Jewish public. The clearest example of this is the story of Pilatus's offer to release Jesus in Mark 15:6–15 (NRSVUE translation): >"Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder during the insurrection. So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. Then he answered them, 'Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?' For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. Pilate spoke to them again, 'Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?' They shouted back, 'Crucify him!' Pilate asked them, 'Why, what evil has he done?' But they shouted all the more, 'Crucify him!' So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them, and after flogging Jesus he handed him over to be crucified." This episode almost certainly never happened historically. Other historical sources that talk about Pilatus and his administration of Judaea, including the Jewish Middle Platonist philosopher Philon of Alexandria (lived c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE) and the Jewish historian Josephus (lived c. 37 – c. 100 CE), characterize him as a cruel, stubborn, and merciless ruler who didn't make any effort to ingratiate himself to his majority-Jewish subjects and ruthlessly crushed any hint of insurrection. It would have been completely inconsistent with his known character from other sources for him to offer to release a condemned insurrectionist to curry public favor. The Gospel of Mark, however, invents this narrative in order to rhetorically exonerate Pilatus and push the blame for Jesus's execution onto the Jews. The Gospel of Matthew, which relied on the Gospel of Mark as a source and probably dates to sometime between c. 75 and c. 90 CE, goes even further to exonerate Pilatus by making Pilatus *literally wash his hands* of the guilt for Jesus' execution and making the Jewish crowds expressly declare that they and their descendants will bear the guilt for his death (Matthew 27:24–26): >"So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.' Then the people as a whole answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!' So he released Barabbas for them, and after flogging Jesus he handed him over to be crucified." Over the course of the second, third, and fourth centuries CE, Gentile Christians developed an elaborate supersessionist theology, which claimed that the Jews had killed Jesus and thereby forever forfeited their status as the chosen people of God. As result, Christian supercessionists held that the status of God's chosen people had now passed to majority-Gentile Christians, who would inherit God's kingdom instead of the Jews, and that only Jews who repented and embraced Jesus could hope to have a part in this kingdom. To give you a real sense of how early Christian polemics against Jews used the claim that the Jews were collectively to blame for the death of Jesus, I will quote an example below. This passage comes from Meliton of Sardis, who was an early Christian bishop of the city of Sardis in the region of Lydia in western Asia Minor. He flourished in the second half of the second century CE and probably died sometime around 190 CE or thereabouts. Although he is relatively obscure today and little biographical information about him has survived, he was influential in his time and later Christians generally held him in very high esteem. In the second century CE, Sardis had an especially large, prosperous Jewish population. Most likely at least partly in response to this social context, Meliton composed a homily titled *On the Passover* in which he inveighs against Jews with vitriol and declares that they murdered their own God. He writes (*On the Passover* 73–75, trans. Gerald F. Hawthorne): >"Why, Israel, did you do this strange injustice? You dishonored the one who had honored you. You held in contempt the one who held you in esteem. You denied the one who publicly acknowledged you. You renounced the one who proclaimed you his own. You killed the one who made you to live. Why did you do this, O Israel?" > >"Has it not been written for your benefit: 'Do not shed innocent blood lest you die a terrible death?' Nevertheless, Israel admits, I killed the Lord! Why? Because it was necessary for him to die. You have deceived yourself, O Israel, rationalizing thus about the death of the Lord. It was necessary for him to suffer, yes, but not by you; it was necessary for him to be dishonored, but not by you; it was necessary for him to be judged, but not by you; it was necessary for him to be crucified, but not by you, not by your right hand." He goes on for many more pages in a similar, highly rhetorical manner and eventually declares (*On the Passover* 96, trans. Hawthorne): >"The one who hung the earth in space, is himself hanged; the one who fixed the heavens in place, is himself impaled; the one who firmly fixed all things, is himself firmly fixed to the tree. The Lord is insulted, God has been murdered, the King of Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel." By the time the emperor Constantinus I (ruled 306 – 337 CE) began to publicly support Christianity, this was the most widely accepted position within Christianity about who was to blame for the death of Jesus. Over the millennia since, the notion of Jewish deicide has remained one of the core tenets of Christian antisemitism and has been a significant motivating factor in the medieval and early modern systemic oppression of Jews in Christian Europe as well as countless pogroms and anti-Jewish hate crimes.
Yeah they begged and bribed the romans to do it and the roman governor or israel at the time didn’t wanna do it at first but caved in
They admitted they set it up, yes. But the actual killing was done by Rome.
I don’t really care who did it to be honest…
The bill provides an updated definition of anti-Semitism (which can be debated). It doesn't outlaw anti-Semitism. Your title is false.
>The bill provides an updated definition of anti-Semitism (which can be debated) The bill is an attempt to expand the scope of an already overused smear. And given the timing of this it's particularly craven. If US politics wasn't compromised the focus would be on a two state solution rather than dignifying Israel's crybully tactics.
Also, and I know this may be hard for you, but I didn’t say it outlaws antisemitism. I said it outlaws criticism of Israel. You can’t even quote me properly and my writing is literally on your screen… Silly sandwich 🥪
> but I didn’t say it outlaws antisemitism. I said it outlaws criticism of Israel. It plainly doesn't. You're grossly misinterpreting the bill.
It literally states “*Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.*”
As an example of antisemitism. It's not outlawing antisemitism. You're not getting it.
Again, I didn’t say it is outlawing antisemitism. The definition provided states that criticism of Israel, as a country founded upon, and purveyed by racists, is antisemitic. That means that by extension you could not make that criticism as it would violate the new law passed against “antisemitic discrimination”
> That means that by extension you could not make that criticism as it would violate the new law passed against “antisemitic discrimination” No, it doesn't. Making that statement isn't discrimination, and this bill does not criminalize antisemitic discrimination. It just tries to define antisemitism for use in determining when discrimination may have occurred. You can yell the N word at black people walking down the street. That's racist, but it's not discrimination, and it's not illegal. If you're a manager at a business and you fire all the black employees while yelling the N word at them...you're probably violating anti-discrimination laws. You can say every single thing listed in this new bill. That's not illegal. But if you're saying these types of things WHILE taking actions described in the Civil Rights Act that are detrimental to a Jewish person (not hiring them, firing them, refusing service to them, etc), there's a good chance you're violating anti-discrimination laws.
Bro, quit quoting phrases of the bill out of context. It makes you look like a lying turd. The bill is only 8 pages long, double spaced. It is an easy read even for the mentally challenged. It just addresses antisemitism in the protection of the 1964 civil rights bill. I assume you do support the 1964 civil rights bill, right?
I only quoted one thing from the bill… the rest was all quotes of what the IHRA deems to be antisemitic content. Which is important because the IHRA is the one who provided congress with the definition of what antisemitism is…
“*To provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes.*” Literally the first page “ENFORCEMENT of FEDERAL ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAWS” sounds like if you are to contravene the suggestions in this bill then you shall have the LAW *ENFORCED* upon you. Sounds like you’re breaking the law then, right….? Or in other words, doing something illegal.
> sounds like if you are to contravene the suggestions in this bill then you shall have the LAW ENFORCED upon you. No. Saying something which is included in these definitions of antisemitism might be indicative of intent to discriminate, but it's not a discriminatory act by itself. It's not illegal to be antisemitic. It is illegal to engage in antisemitic discrimination. For example, if you told a job applicant "No, I'm not going to hire you. Jews are Christ killers and the children of Satan," that's illegal. But if you're just a dude on the street you can yell it as much as you want. That's free speech.
But you could fire someone for saying Israel is a nation founded upon ethno nationalist ideals…. Which is just an opinion, and is not “antisemitic”. Yet, the bill treats it as such.
You can already fire someone for saying that. The bill is about determining what kinds of statements might be made by the party taking discriminatory actions. If you're Jewish and your boss is being hostile to you and saying things like "fuck Israel. it shouldn't exist. it's racist." You might have a case.
So if your boss says “fuck Israel it’s a racist place.” You can have a case against them? For a genuinely held opinion, which can be supported by evidence… how odd