Moo 🔥🌹

If you see a protester being executed in Iran, they are 1 of 3 things. 1. An Iranian who committed treason by copperating with Mossad 2. A Mossad agent 3. A CIA agent Always check a persian source for the details released from the trial court before believing what the US says.

American culture has a specific, well-practiced response to historical accountability. It is called: "That was then." Slavery? That was then. The genocide of indigenous peoples? That was then. The internment of Japanese Americans? That was then. The overthrow of democratic governments across Latin America? That was then. "That was then" does its work efficiently. It acknowledges just enough to avoid denial while refusing enough to avoid consequence. It creates the impression of reckoning without the substance of it. It lets the speaker feel honest while changing absolutely nothing. But the wealth accumulated from slavery is now. The land taken from indigenous nations is now. The economic distortions created by a century of Latin American intervention are now. The past is never only then. It is also the ground you are standing on.

@DanLinnaeus This is like saying the trail of tears wasn't genocidal.

Martin Shaw is a sociologist who has been accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing for decades. A core contention of Shaw’s is that the Holocaust is not the paradigmatic genocide; it’s Gaza, and he begins with the Gaza war as evidence that scholarship needs a new sociology of genocide. For context, Shaw has been arguing for years that the entire Zionist project was ‘incipiently genocidal’, despite alternate explanations such as the modern political movement’s founder Herzl's vision in Altneuland, which offers a clear expression of intent toward shared prosperity with the Arab locals, not displacement, nor violence. In order to move around evidence of this nature, he builds an inference from cumulative destruction rather than specific intent as it is defined by the Convention and practiced in law. He presents his sociology as if he is re-founding the field on Raphael Lemkin’s authority, but what he’s actually doing is rebranding a contested sociological program as if it were the concept today. He argues that, following Lemkin, genocide law should correspond to a sociological account of group destruction, and attempts to re-anchor his theory in Lemkin’s “crippling patterns of life” construct, reading Article II(c)’s “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” through a Lemkinian sociological lens within the Convention. In the travaux préparatoires the drafters consciously narrowed Lemkin’s broader concept and confined the “conditions of life” formulation to Article II(c) specifically because the wider sociological version was understood, at the time, to be unworkable as law; it was too capacious, too dependent on inference, too vulnerable to being stretched across cases the Convention wasn’t meant to cover. The Sixth Committee debates, the dropping of cultural genocide, the exclusion of political groups, the rejection of broader “patterns of life” language as a freestanding actus reus -- all of that was deliberate, and reasoned on the record. This is why Shaw’s output is littered with pseudo-legalese and categorical novelties which he expressly employs to contest the legal ontology of the Convention itself. He disputes that genocidal intent must be shown primarily through temporally prior, explicit statements or an individualized psychological account. Shaw's analytic bridge is in its essence an effects-to-intent inference: he leans back into Article II(c)’s ‘deliberately inflicting … conditions of life calculated …’ formulation to argue that structured, sustained, foreseeable, cumulative social destruction under control is probative of genocidal intent. This is how he attempts to widen the evidentiary pathway to specific intent; he treats a structured process of cumulative destructive effects as highly probative of intent, not indefeasibly or solely, but where foreseeability becomes significantly constitutive. Once that process is knowingly sustained, managed, and escalated by a controlling authority in circumstances where alternative explanations for the scale and form of harm no longer plausibly account for it, he argues, the pattern becomes strong evidence of intent. But he concurrently allows destruction to overcome ‘twin aims’ in certain cases (cough, Israel). Shaw’s framework holds that genocidal intent can coexist with other aims (military, political, territorial); destruction doesn’t have to be the sole purpose to count. Fine, even if one concedes this tracks the Convention’s “in whole or in part” language, the problem is that “twin aims” then becomes an unfalsifiable escape hatch: its combination with the lowered inference threshold means any case where military or security rationales are visible can still be classified as genocide because those rationales don’t displace genocidal intent, they coexist. Courts have allowed inference of intent from a pattern of conduct (Krstić, Jelisić), but only where that pattern is the only reasonable inference. This is a much higher bar than Shaw’s “alternative explanations no longer plausibly account for it.” But Shaw says he is not doing courtroom doctrine; he treats “genocide” as a sociological and political concept first, and uses the Convention as one hook for that, not as the last word. Towards that, he writes that his contribution is a positively non-neutral public normative intervention to provide a legible sociology of genocide. By his own account, Shaw set about this project to clear "conceptual confusion" in the field (2015, What is Genocide, Ch. 6, p.98), but the framework he has settled on is itself a maze of sociological constructs and, when tested internally on its own terms, repeatedly collapses into self-referential complexities neither law nor his own scholarship is equipped to handle. He dismantles inherited categorical distinctions, but to preserve “analytical” clarity he substitutes them with ones he borrows from other sociologists and law alternatively, and new ones of his own making: “perpetrator bloc,” “facilitator”, “complicity”, “co-production,” “subaltern resistance,” “capability” (in place of legal reach), “genocidal massacres,” “countergenocide,” “degenerative war,” “twin aims”, ‘fused genocidal war’, and so on. The cumulative effect is that almost any sustained asymmetric military campaign with civilian destruction can be located somewhere on the spectrum. The resulting theory opens the Convention to be politicized against any military engaged in lawful self-defensive operations, and creates perverse incentives for violent non-state actors, such as Hamas, to weaponize their own population as shields in war. Following Shaw, we don’t need to say “all war is genocide.” In any sustained defensive war against urban-embedded militants, civilian devastation will be foreseeable, the devastation will be cumulative, it will be socially disintegrative, and the inflicter will invariably be the state. With those predicates in place, the genocide inference is reasonably frictionless, if not in law, then certainly in the halls of academia and the open court of public opinion. The only non-“genocidal” war left is the one fought with suicidal intimacy. No standoff fire, just close quarter contact in booby-trapped buildings and streets, at a troop-attrition rate no professional military can be expected to absorb.

@Kirkigi @tx101stxw @abierkhatib They very much were brainwashed. They called them savages and considered them less than human. When the whole society uses dehumanizing language to refer to a group of people, that is cultural brainwashing There was no reason to slaughter Native Americans like we did

@MooChristen @tx101stxw @abierkhatib Okay thank you for saying that at least. Although I do have to raise one contention in that it’s not "brainwashing" for you to support something that’s in line with your own interests. WASP's weren't "propagandized" to hate all Indians, they genocided them for land.

I don’t like equating Zionists with Jews…

@CoreyLeander 😂😂😂😂😂 it was a hill article bro Men are such submissives. Whatever anyone tells you, you will fight to the death to believe it, even when faced with evidence it's wrong. What a simple way to live.

@MooChristen Okay I read it! Now what? I’ve already cited law professors explaining to you this can’t work. What would you need to see to abandon the myth that Roe can be codified?

"Roe v. Wade was case law, which is easier to throw out because congress didn't utilize it's powers to enact it" This is how they think the Constitution works 🥴 Apparently Congress just needed to utilize Roe's "powers".

@1xaipe @AbeWashingtrump @TerrellSocialst Yeah some people are just full of ego and hate.

@MooChristen @AbeWashingtrump @TerrellSocialst He calls those “cooked” polls, but they’re YouGov with Data for Progress and The Economist. There’s nothing cooked about them. He just doesn’t want to accept reality.

Y'all be confusing me y'all say all leftists do is complain but don't have Solutions. We have given y'all Solutions bitch y'all just don't want to use them.

@AbeWashingtrump @1xaipe @TerrellSocialst So, politics isn't a team sport. Running on popular things will earn you votes. That is what candidates are supposed to do - represent US Many people, left and right, agree on all these things.

@MooChristen @1xaipe @TerrellSocialst So you agree with Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Alex Jones, Harrison Smith, and pretty much everyone you call "far-right".

@LRtius @DonahueRogers @simon_schama They were relocating. Have you ever had car trouble? Gotten lost? Got stuck in traffic? They were fleeing.

@DonahueRogers @simon_schama Why didn't her parents heed the repeated calls of the IDF to relocate south? That's on them for being obstinate in the time of war and undervaluing the life of their child. No warning was given by Hamas when they deliberately entered homes and murdered children in cold blood.

This is correct. The test is simple. Duriing the period between October 7 and the beginning of Israel's military campaign did we see sympathy that was subsequently lost by the ferocity of that campaign? We did not. what we saw - especially on campuses was the celebration or rationalisation of the mass murder, sexualised sadism and torture and hostage taking as legitimate resistance against colonial oppressors irrespective if they were children, Nova festival goers, elderly holocaust survivors, people who had spent lives working for peace. The slaughter excited a thirst for more not less Jew- killing and not the end of occupation but the end of Israel. Then came the world wide avalanche of Jew hatred and Hamas cosplaying by drum- beating white people guilty about their own colonial history and displacing it on to Jews that gets ever more toxically racist; a virulent hatred so intense it of course strenthens not weakens the case for Zionism,

@toobad @caitoz @SimonAttwood @simon_schama @TomSwarbrick1 Overnight, actually, after completely turning off their entire ectricity grid.

@caitoz @SimonAttwood @simon_schama @TomSwarbrick1 made an equally spurious claim earlier this evening – suggesting Israel paused, inferring they took time to consider their response, when in fact they launched a massive retaliatory attack on Gaza the very next day 🫤

@simon_schama x.com/MooChristen/st…

@ElliotMalin The UN said in 2024 Israel is exterminating peopel. So have fun with that.

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention once told me that the dolus specialis standard for intent is not part of genocide (it is, that's why the language is "act with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group, as such"). They blocked me when I pointed this out to them. Amnesty International said that the law was too confined to find genocide. They also took out of context statements as definitive proof of genocidal intent (like the same statement on the Holocaust memorial in The Hague). B'tselem expressly stated that they used a "broader analytical framework" to find genocide. The International Association of Genocide Scholars did not apply the legal tests and also refused dissent in the organization (I'm a member) when passing the resolution. There was substantial pushback that can be found at the Scholars for Truth About Genocide website. If each one of these must change the law, ignore it, or refuse to acknowledge it, the problem is them, not the law.

@CoreyLeander Yes. Read it. All the things you claim are impossible. congress.gov/bill/119th-con…

@MooChristen “However, banning access to reproductive healthcare on the basis of sex is discriminatory.” All you did is merely repeat your prior position 😂😂😂 no this isn’t true. That’s not how sex discrimination in law works. WHPA would explicitly override state laws that ban abortion?

@Kirkigi @tx101stxw @abierkhatib But I guess in this sense, 70-90% still think Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. So maybe it is most Jews are zionist. They do a lot of brainwashing.

@MooChristen @tx101stxw @abierkhatib What description of Zionist would that be? Pro the Netanyahu current genocidal government? 90% of the worlds Jews are Zionists, and 75% are excluding Israel

@Kirkigi @tx101stxw @abierkhatib 30% identify as zionist. 70% say they have a hard time supporting Israel's actions. So funding Israel is not going to be the deciding factor for American Jews. And it shouldn't. Americans need to worry about America. jewishjournal.org/2026/02/05/mos…

@CoreyLeander After all that mansplaining you never even looked up whether it was possible. They already wrote a bill. So stop knocking on leftists because you don't understand how laws work. congress.gov/bill/119th-con…

@LivZe48598 @Takingyourmom @skedeschi I'm not going and researching laws in dozens of foreign countries because you have a supremacy kink. It's a pity you don't have a humiliation one, cuz you would have already gotten off. Ta ta loser! See you in Palestine!

@MooChristen @Takingyourmom @skedeschi So name one MUSLIM or Arab country where Muslims or Arabs have more rights than they do in Israel.

Pakistan was created because Muslims believed they would be a minority in India, dominated by Hindus, and that their rights, culture, and security might not be protected. 1m people were killed in partition. Bizarrely, near 0% of Pakistanis think Israel has a right to exist.

@LivZe48598 @Takingyourmom @skedeschi Race has nothing to do with white supremacy culture. It's a systemic culture. No. I know about all the apartheid laws and discriminatory laws in Israel. That isn't the point. The point is, you have no right to control the land. Israel will cease to exist. Jews will not.

@MooChristen @Takingyourmom @skedeschi First of all, the vast majority of Israeli Jews are from Arab countries, not Ashkenazi from Europe. Second, name one MUSLIM country where Muslims have more rights than they do in Israel.

@CoreyLeander Right. However, banning access to reproductive healthcare on the basis of sex is discriminatory. So if a man can get a vasectomy, then a woman can get an abortion. That has potential for a written law. Also, there are multiple other drafted laws that could codify Roe

@MooChristen Banning a medical procedure won’t count as sex discrimination even if the medical procedure is specific to women. Sex discrimination has a specific meaning in law

@CoreyLeander That's what law is - finding the loophole to exploit. Find me a law professor that says that law can't be written. It's a damn good idea. It's guaranteeing equal protection under section 5 of article 14. Or it could be tied to federal funding

@MooChristen You’re so stubborn 😂😂😂 I’m just explaining it to you over and over again, citing law professors explaining this very basic fact repeated in con law casebooks throughout the country, and you’re still like “nuh uh! Just gotta get creative!”

@PuckFupett69 @WalshFreedom @mehdirhasan 😂😂😂😂 The protest is on Oct 8. Israel's response was on Oct 7. And throughout the night between the 7th and 8th. Nobody protested Israel on the 7th. Cry harder.

@MooChristen @WalshFreedom @mehdirhasan That’s a protest on October 7, which you agreed earlier was prior to Israel response. You moved the goalposts.

Come on @mehdirhasan, you know exactly the point I’m making. One day after the deadliest single day for Jews since the Holocaust, there were widespread protests in the West AGAINST Israel. BEFORE Israel even responded. How do you explain that? Did the West rise up & begin to protest against Israel ONE DAY AFTER THE DEADLIEST SINGLE DAY FOR JEWS SINCE THE HOLOCAUST bcuz they were pissed off about a few initial Israeli air strikes in response? Come on man.

@CoreyLeander Yes. And discrimination against sex is one you can't do. So you absolutely can make a law preventing sex discrimination by banning sex specific medical procedures. See how that works?

@MooChristen This is like saying “I don’t agree that light is bent by gravity, physicists say it is, but I don’t agree!” Because that’s not civil rights first of all, and second of all the constitution amendments enabling civil rights legislation only enable certain civil rights legislation