[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.