[JumpCrisscross]

The point is this comes down to a foreign policy disagreement that isn’t germane to Ellison’s comments on surveillance. (I can come with a litany of policy disagreements with anyone of Ellison’s stature, some of which I probably feel about strongly.)

Read in good faith, it’s overzealous advocacy. In bad faith, which I don’t assume here, it serves to get this discussion flagged off the front page.

[dfxm12]

These things are not happening in a vacuum:

1. Ellison's comments about surveillance

2. Conservative billionaires, including Ellison, consolidating ownership of social media, print media, TV media, etc.

3. NSPM-7 & the current admin's appetite to criminalize speech

4. The current administration kowtows to Netanyahu, who relishes in conservative ownership of TikTok

The dots are all there: if you express something that doesn't following an accepted US stance, like maybe its stance on Israel, maybe on TikTok, it gives Trump the ability to easily find, label & punish you as a terrorist, maybe even at Netanyahu's request. Trump's desire to do things like this has been explicitly stated since the death of Charlie Kirk. He's always talked about his desires to throw his political enemies in jail.

Even before this, the admin has been targeting people like Mahmoud Khalil, Mario Guevara, etc. for speech.

[amval]

You don't think that the fact that Ellison is a staunch defender of regimes that disregard the international order in favour of military might is relevant to the fact that is also advocating for building a surveillance state?

In case you don't, to me it's painfully clear that these are just different aspects of the move towards more authoritarian forms of government. You CANNOT support a genocide and expect that this will not have an effect on democracy.

EDIT: Also note that I am trying to take your comments on good faith, but characterising support for genocide as "a foreign policy disagreement" feels a bit like an understatement.

[JumpCrisscross]

> it's painfully clear that these are just different aspects of the move towards more authoritarian forms of government

Sure. But, like, the evidence for that is the advocacy for a surveillance state. Not his support for a foreign policy project that yes, involves supporting an autocratic government in Israel (fighting, let’s be fair, an autocratic force in Gaza backed by an autocratic state in Iran), but also a whole bunch of other irrelevant things.

[amval]

I don't think I understand your point, beyond downplaying the severity of current events.

[bhouston]

> beyond downplaying the severity of current events.

He is definitely calling it "polarizing" and minimizing it. I infer that he is supportive of it then.

[JumpCrisscross]

I’m not downplaying the severity of anything. Just its relevance. Someone can be severe and irrelevant, and I think that’s the case here.

[bigyabai]

Your language suggests a sort of "explaining away" that is pernicious in certain cultures abroad.