Honestly, what is the best strategy to confront this? Speaking out and protesting about injustice works in the US because the Bill of Rights guarantees Freedom of Speech. In totalitarian regimes, there is no such right for the people. There are no means by which we can combat MBS. Imagining that westerners protesting MBS on the internet might lead to any real positive change is a pipe dream. It won't stop the US government from trading with Saudi Arabia. It's more likely MBS will have access to Twitter/X blocked. Such a protest may backfire in the same way that protesting Donald Trump gave him more attention, with the main difference being, there is absolutely no legal mechanism by which MBS could be taken down. Such protests may only strengthen the image of power he has. Additionally, if MBS wanted to, he could easily use Saudi Arabia's resources to build their own Arab-centric version of X/Twitter.
Sometimes things go far enough that one may want to say "no, I'm completely against that" even if it means lost money or opportunities and no direct upsides. Not everyone will be up for that. Not everyone can afford to. But when it happens, I'm happy to keep it in mind and give my money to businesses that do want to treat people better.
What is this American moral universalism? Why would “we combat” or “take down” MBS? What the f—k business do we have weighing in on Saudi society? Also, do you know who is waiting in the wings behind MBS? It’s not anyone western liberals are going to like.
And I’m not defending MBS—but the reason I dislike Saudi is that they do the exact same moral universalism to the rest of the Muslim world, exporting Wahhabism to moderate Muslim countries. I see no reason for the US to get into Crusades 2.0.
I don’t subscribe to the George W. Bush idea of “you’re with us or against us.” Saying that it’s not the role of US billionaires and corporations to weigh in about the affairs of sovereign foreign countries is not a defense of what’s happening in those foreign countries. It’s about people staying in their lane.
The op was asking what we, as individuals, could do. You argued (very poorly) that we shouldn't do anything simply because it's none of our businesses.
When pressed on that (here and elsewhere in this thread) you keep pivoting to talk about what the US government, billionaires and corporations should or shouldn't do. But that wasn't the question asked.
I can only assume you keep pivoting to that angle because those are easier arguments to make and involve considerably less self-reflection.
In pivoting to that angle because the article criticizes billionaire that owns a major media platform for not leveraging that power to criticize a sovereign country’s domestic laws.
Maybe start your own top level comment thread if you want to talk about that; You specifically replied to a person asking what they can do about it as an individual. Peacefully.
You told them that it wasn’t their place to do anything. When asked to justify your position you invoked “Crusades 2.0” and George Bush.
You think individual citizens failing to mind their own business don’t fuel America’ “democracy and liberation” wars? Along with immoral and destructive economic sanctions on countries like Iran?
And OP’s use of “we” and “taking down MBS” aren’t consistent with your characterization.
Sovereignty is the recognition that the basic unit of the international order is the nation, not the individual. Recognizing sovereignty as the highest principle is also necessary for pluralism to work. If western nations think that individual “rights” in other countries is their business, then their infringement on the internal affairs of other nations—with violence—will continue unabated.
Surely you’re not justifying multi-decade sentences for insults? Or execution for retweets? I don’t think opposing those things falls into the category of “white people” human rights…
Can I defended it personally? No. But I was raised in Virginia and won’t even concede the federalists were right. However, it’s none of my business how Saudi society is structured. Nobody came from the outside and imposed that monarchy on them. The country is a closely knit collection of families with a vast imported non-citizen workforce. We can’t conceive of how their society works.
“Human rights” in general arises from a conception of the worth of the individual relative to the collective that’s distinctly rooted in European culture. And even within that culture it’s a relatively recent development.
European countries prosecuted such crimes well into the late 1800s, although usually not with the death penalty. (But Islam is also much more accepting of the death penalty.)
I’m acknowledging that it’s not defensible within the particular framework of moral judgments that I learned in a southern U.S. state that’s especially skeptical of government power. But I’m trying to convince others that they shouldn’t try to apply the moral precepts and priorities of their society to the domestic affairs of a foreign society with a very different moral framework.
It’s not like Saudis are coming to Virginia and insisting that we also execute people critical of the Saudi monarchy. Saudi nationals aren’t voting in our elections and bringing their moral framework to our country. They can run their country how they want. And moral universalism has a long history of resulting in impingement of the sovereignty of foreign nations.
What’s concerning is your apparent belief that everything is your business.
They actually do do that.. and lure dissidents to embassies where they torture, murder and dismember people who are critical of the government. Moral relativism is a bankrupt ideology. Some things are objectively wrong, and pretending like you shouldn’t point it out because you were born in a different longitude is just so sad.
> moral universalism has a long history of resulting in impingement of the sovereignty of foreign nations
For the last time: We were talking about what an individual can peacefully do in order to effect change (if anything). No one has made any suggestions about what the United States as a nation should do.
The comment you replied to was explicitly NOT geopolitical in scope. It was the polar opposite; They were asking what a single individual can do about something they personally find morally repugnant.
No one is suggesting violating the “sovereignty of foreign nations”. That’s absurd.
>What’s concerning is your apparent belief that everything is your business
OP says that "combating" while living abroad is useless, it's arguing in favour of something else. It also points out how hypocritical it is to trade with those who don't uphold democratic values.
If you want to be beheaded by stating your opinions online, be my guest. But, personally, I would trust my country more, if it didn't aid financially those who bring terror upon their people. It's easier to trust it that way.
Public beheadings are acts of propaganda and to instill fear among the population. They only serve that purpose.
I don't care much for Musk or Twitter but in this case he's not wrong. Saudi Arabia is a sovereign country. Take it up with the Biden administration if you want American foreign policy to change- but we all know it won't.
I have worked a few times in Riyadh (one time for an 8-month stint!) and one thing that rather shocked me is that capital punishment is done publicly, and it draws huge crowds.
Literally you can't even drive by the square because the entire area is packed with spectators there only to see the hand and head choppings.
Also, if you fight for this one person, you have to realize there are several put to death or getting their hands chopped off (for theft, etc) every week that are not being rallied for.
I believe it was Mondays, but it's more than a decade ago now, so I may not remember the specific day. But yea, it was a family entertainment event. I myself never went because I find the whole idea abhorrent. A number of people I was working with there wouldn't miss it for the world.
Working there gave me a whole perspective on totalitarian societies that I had not expected. I'm glad I don't live in one.
That's... I don't have words. It's saddening.
I really don't understand why one would go see such a thing, it's clearly meant to input fear on the people.
IIRC executions for traitors on Tower Hill in London were oft public as well. The way the Beefeaters tell the story, it was partly as warning but it genuinely is just as a day for family entertainment as well, similar to how ksaj is saying. Come out as a day for a picnic or buying snacks from various vendor and to watch a head roll.
How true it is, who's to say. I find it rather plausible though.
There's a song in the operetta "Candide" called "Auto Da Fe (What a Day)" that expresses the joy of the crowds in watching the Auto Da Fes (Acts of faith) of the Spanish Inquisition wherein people were forced to perform public acts of penance for their religious sins or heresies, up to burning at the stake. It's a funny song in its irony, and I'm sure Votaire would have appreciated the treatment that Bernstein gave it.
That is to say that this sort of thing is not particularly unheard of. The cultural software of some modern countries may be a bit more progressed than others, but the human hardware of at least a significant portion of the world seems inclined to delight in punishment of those perceived as sinful.
It's plausible, of course. But, even then, there must have been people that found them as horrifying displays of power.
It certainly has entered the minds of some, given how their popularity has decreased in some parts of the world.
The public execution is probably more common in human history than it's prohibition so from a human nature point of view, we are probably the odd ones. However, look at the popularity of clips coming out of the Ukraine war - grenade drops and such - snuff film entertainment - it's not too out of reach. Humans are fascinated by seeing death - modern squeamishness might have gone a bit too far such that we are in denial of our mortality and have a poor/immature conception of life and death.
> it's clearly meant to input fear on the people
I heard a Muslim who had attended these describe them. It's pretty interesting to understand there are some different concepts of justice at work. It's under control of the victim's family and various mullahs and even the executioner begs them to spare the life of the condemned.
I think if you asked many people through history which was the better death - by sword or after 30 years of solitary in a supermax, most would say the the first is humane and the latter monstrous. A beheading, especially by sword was really quite prestigious and painless back in the day.
Your last point is understandable to a degree. That is, it really depends on the nature of your "crime". I wouldn't consider stating your opinion 30 years solitary worthy. But I do agree that such a system may be less humane in some cases. In others, where your time is shorter, it allows you to have another chance. It's difficult, and interesting where one draws the line.
As for the victim's family "control", are they really in control? Where they the ones condemning the victim?
Concerning the war in Ukraine. Personally, I find it worrisome how easy it's for someone to dehumanise the other side. And, seeing those clips, I understand the brutality that Putin brought into that country. If anything, it's more of a reminder of the brutality of war, and how these men (from both sides) are forced into killing eachother. One side defending their country, and the other, defending the will of a madman.
> As for the victim's family "control", are they really in control? Where they the ones condemning the victim?
Sharia law distinguishes three types of crime – hudud, qisas, and tazir. A hudud crime is one where the penalty (whether death or some lesser punishment) is mandatory under the law, and so must be carried out (although there are various mitigating principles which can be used to justify not doing so in a particular case). A tazir crime is where the penalty is up to the discretion of the judge (and the ruler of the state as lawmaker). A qisas crime is one where the punishment is "eye for an eye" retribution, and hence the victim (or their family) has the legal right to commute the punishment. Murder (in most cases) is a qisas crime, so the family of the victim has the legal right to commute the death sentence to a lesser punishment, and no execution will be carried out without the consent of the family. This is different from hudud or tazir crimes, where the victim (if there is one) has no legal entitlement to a say in the punishment.
An exception is something like a murder committed as part of a terrorist attack, which is simultaneously a crime against the victim (murder), but also a crime against the state (terrorism). Although the family of the victim still has the right to waive the death penalty for the qisas crime of murder, the state has the right to carry out the death penalty for the (tazir or hudud) crime against the state, so the offender will be executed irrespective of the family's wishes.
Honestly, although I am personally opposed to the death penalty, I actually think in some ways the Saudi system is less wrong than the US system. Under the Saudi system, an ordinary murderer cannot be executed if the family unanimously opposes their execution (in cases of disagreement, I believe Saudi law follows the wishes of the identified senior next of kin); in the US system, the prosecutors/courts/government are under no legal obligation to respect the wishes of the victim's family, and a murderer can still be sentenced to death and executed even if the victim's family are unanimously opposed to that outcome.
Also, although people denounce Saudi public executions as barbaric, I don't think private executions are any less barbaric than public ones. If anything, I think private executions are more barbaric, in that hiding what you are doing is a sign of a guilty conscience which knows it is really wrong. If voters can't stomach watching executions, they shouldn't be allowed to vote for them. (Saudis don't get to vote, at least not in any way that really counts–but it seems on this particular issue the Saudi government are doing the popular will–if you gave the Saudi people a free democratic vote on whether to retain the death penalty, I'm certain retention would win.)
I cannot watch those Ukrainian videos and I find them distasteful to say the least. But they’re hardly comparable to this. Those are literally videos of men in uniform with guns and battle tanks who are out there to kill the Ukrainians. There’s a huge difference between that and the killing of let’s say a serial killer who is completely under the power of the state and is incapable of harming anyone at that point.
The Ukrainian equivalent would be if the military was bringing captured soldiers to Kyiv and then publicly executing them to cheering crowds. And no one is doing that as far as I’m aware. And even that would be more defensible because Ukraine is ar war which is literally a state of decivilization, where the citizens of Ukraine have spent a year and a half watching neighbors being blown up and spent half their time in subway stations so they don’t get killed in a missile attack. That’s a level of PTSD (although it isn’t even “post” but continuous and ongoing trauma) that could bring the blood thirst out in any human.
And I don’t watch these videos so I don’t know, but as far as I’m aware they very rarely show any human body actually dying. It’s usually tanks being blown out or at worst I’m guessing tiny dots of humans just falling so even the gore is not visible. Finally, there is a difference between a video and watching a killing in person.
A closer equivalent would be Americans gleefully watching bombs falling on Baghdad which was horrendous, but different from when the Abu Ghraib pictures were released which were widely condemned and drew outrage among most, even though they didn’t even involve killing AFAIR but they involved mistreatment of captives who were under custody and not an active threat to anybody.
Not in the way you probably think (like “V for Vendetta”). Dispensing justice is a core function of the state. The spectators are there to witness the punishment of people who are said to have transgressed against the group.
Every day, I'm impressed with how detached from reality people like you are. A society where public capital punishment is a weekly family event? I guess I missed that policy bullet point under "secure the border."
Your absurd fear-mongering only produces more totalitarian outcomes for the US--due to justifications for totalitarian actions based on lies.
If you seek the destruction of the US, as many do, that behavior would make sense. If you're a US citizen, you're creating your own hell.
A US president lost an election and tried to overthrow a democratic elected government, people died defending the rule of law. Is that what you call fear-mongering?
So instead of justifying your assertion that Trump voters want to make the USA exactly like Saudi Arabia, you changed the topic to a matter of election security. You haven't done much to assuage the parent comment's claim that these fears are delusional. Asking for an investigation to ensure the integrity of the election does not equal an overthrow of a democratically elected government.
Don't think that your careful wording around "people died defending" helps conceal the reach you're making. ONE "defending" police officer died of a heart attack - no court of law would hold someone responsible for a death like that. The three other deaths were pro-Trump protesters fighting for a fair election. I watched members of a certain political party mock the deaths of Trump supporters while they happened live on January 6th - who was it you were saying wanted the US to be more like Saudi Arabia?
Uff...You have to live on hyper-strong 4D reality distortion field, out of all common sense proportions to even entertain the election theories of these groups.
Theories dismissed by own Republican officials in Georgia. By Attorney General William Barr who worked for Reagan, Bush, and was nominated by Trump...
Fortunately soon we will have a live YouTube trial. The proponents of these theories will be able to provide the evidence they have been claiming,
exists for 2 years and nobody was able to see.
Trump voters want to turn the USA into a Saudi Arabia by not minding to
elect criminal, lying, could-not-care-less, officials in a fraudulent way,
just because...and note ...just because...they somehow endorse his life
view. It's the same in Saudi Arabia, were I had the chance to work. You
get by based on the tribe, and family, you belong to. Everything else is secondary.
It's the most abject of Moral and Ethical standpoints. To support on a personal level, a fraudulent candidate reflects poorly on one's moral and ethical values. It's essentially saying that the ends justify the means, no matter how dishonest those means might be. To have a democracy, and use those privileges, to put forward support for a candidate willing to undermine that same system,must be the worst moral sin.
And even worst...To entertain conspiracy theories no sane person, from even your own political side, has given even the minimum credit, must require a special kind of individual, one let's say...A few sandwiches short of a picnic...
You can’t pull “free speech absolutist” card when it costs you nothing and is your stated reason for protecting insurrectionists, fascist and racist content on your platform, while keeping quiet when your buddies, who gave you billions of dollars, kill people who use your platform.
Is there a great strategy to deal with saudis? No, I’m with you in that, there’s not.
But it just shows how full of shit Musk is. He’s a high school bully, who talks when talk is cheap, attacks weak ones and back down immediately when someone actually confronts him.
> Tech billionaire Elon Musk has been noticeably silent after a Saudi Arabian national was sentenced to death for a series of posts on Musk's social media platform criticizing his government, calling into question the limits of Musk's commitment to uninhibited free speech when it comes to his own financial interests.
This makes no sense. Free speech is an American value. Most societies, even other European-descended societies, do not share that value to the same degree, if at all. And it’s not the job of American billionaires to tell other societies how to govern themselves.
> And it’s not the job of American billionaires to tell other societies how to govern themselves.
It hasn't exactly stopped them and I don't remember Elon ever couching his statements with "in the USA". I mean he wasn't even born in the US, wasn't a citizen till 2002, and holds citizenship in 2 other countries as well. I wouldn't exactly expect him to hold only to American values (or any values for that matter) nor is free speech a uniquely American value.
Gotta love the media. Attacks social media's financial interests to limit speech on social media the past decade and then mocks social media for limiting speech to protect their financial interests.
Also, let the saudis, russians, africans, iranians, chinese, indians, etc protect their own 'values' and let them punish people for 'disinformation' as they fit. The same propagandists complaining about foreign interference sure love to interfere everywhere.
Are they interfering with the country in this case, or are they pointing out that a U.S. based company should be more concerned about their investments or financial interests?
Really, is this piece "interfering" abroad?
His entire rant is that God doesn't solve all the world's problems. But as a non-religious person, even I can tell you why that's a stupid argument because there's one answer every Christian (probably most other religions too) will give you: it's a test. And tests don't work when you're handed it all on a silver platter, frolicking through the fields of flowers, holding hands with the rest of the world.
That's called heaven. No (mainstream) religion ever said Earth was heaven. It is actually quite the opposite. Earth is closer to hell than it is heaven.
You're right, it's not their job. But allowing this type of use of Twitter to continue means that the company is implicitly supporting it. If people can be upset at Nabisco for enslaving children in developing countries, then there's nothing wrong with being upset at Twitter here.
And it's not unreasonable to expect a personal response from Elon since he's such a publicly vocal person.
If Musk publicly criticises MBS for this, I really doubt that is going to save the man's life. If anything, it will likely anger MBS, and he'll feel more inclined to make sure the execution is carried out.
If Musk privately contacts MBS, and asks him to reconsider this – there is a chance he might convince MBS to quietly commute the sentence.
So, if you really want to save this man's life - urging Musk to speak out publicly about it may not be the best approach.
55 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 99.5 ms ] threadhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdurot/2022/10/31/saudi-prin...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/28/saudis-kingdom-hol...
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-twitter-deal-extra...
And I’m not defending MBS—but the reason I dislike Saudi is that they do the exact same moral universalism to the rest of the Muslim world, exporting Wahhabism to moderate Muslim countries. I see no reason for the US to get into Crusades 2.0.
When pressed on that (here and elsewhere in this thread) you keep pivoting to talk about what the US government, billionaires and corporations should or shouldn't do. But that wasn't the question asked.
I can only assume you keep pivoting to that angle because those are easier arguments to make and involve considerably less self-reflection.
You told them that it wasn’t their place to do anything. When asked to justify your position you invoked “Crusades 2.0” and George Bush.
You’re being blatantly disingenuous.
And OP’s use of “we” and “taking down MBS” aren’t consistent with your characterization.
Believing you shouldn't be brutally murdered for criticizing your government is not an American thing.
>What the f—k business do we have weighing in on Saudi society?
Some people believe basic human rights ought to be universal. Strange, I know.
>I see no reason for the US to get into Crusades 2.0.
Absolutely no one is suggesting that.
“Human rights” in general arises from a conception of the worth of the individual relative to the collective that’s distinctly rooted in European culture. And even within that culture it’s a relatively recent development. European countries prosecuted such crimes well into the late 1800s, although usually not with the death penalty. (But Islam is also much more accepting of the death penalty.)
What a truly baffling (and concerning) serious of comments.
It’s not like Saudis are coming to Virginia and insisting that we also execute people critical of the Saudi monarchy. Saudi nationals aren’t voting in our elections and bringing their moral framework to our country. They can run their country how they want. And moral universalism has a long history of resulting in impingement of the sovereignty of foreign nations.
What’s concerning is your apparent belief that everything is your business.
For the last time: We were talking about what an individual can peacefully do in order to effect change (if anything). No one has made any suggestions about what the United States as a nation should do.
The comment you replied to was explicitly NOT geopolitical in scope. It was the polar opposite; They were asking what a single individual can do about something they personally find morally repugnant.
No one is suggesting violating the “sovereignty of foreign nations”. That’s absurd.
>What’s concerning is your apparent belief that everything is your business
Your strawman game is really off the charts.
If you want to be beheaded by stating your opinions online, be my guest. But, personally, I would trust my country more, if it didn't aid financially those who bring terror upon their people. It's easier to trust it that way.
Public beheadings are acts of propaganda and to instill fear among the population. They only serve that purpose.
I don't care much for Musk or Twitter but in this case he's not wrong. Saudi Arabia is a sovereign country. Take it up with the Biden administration if you want American foreign policy to change- but we all know it won't.
Literally you can't even drive by the square because the entire area is packed with spectators there only to see the hand and head choppings.
Also, if you fight for this one person, you have to realize there are several put to death or getting their hands chopped off (for theft, etc) every week that are not being rallied for.
I believe it was Mondays, but it's more than a decade ago now, so I may not remember the specific day. But yea, it was a family entertainment event. I myself never went because I find the whole idea abhorrent. A number of people I was working with there wouldn't miss it for the world.
Working there gave me a whole perspective on totalitarian societies that I had not expected. I'm glad I don't live in one.
How true it is, who's to say. I find it rather plausible though.
That is to say that this sort of thing is not particularly unheard of. The cultural software of some modern countries may be a bit more progressed than others, but the human hardware of at least a significant portion of the world seems inclined to delight in punishment of those perceived as sinful.
> it's clearly meant to input fear on the people
I heard a Muslim who had attended these describe them. It's pretty interesting to understand there are some different concepts of justice at work. It's under control of the victim's family and various mullahs and even the executioner begs them to spare the life of the condemned.
I think if you asked many people through history which was the better death - by sword or after 30 years of solitary in a supermax, most would say the the first is humane and the latter monstrous. A beheading, especially by sword was really quite prestigious and painless back in the day.
As for the victim's family "control", are they really in control? Where they the ones condemning the victim?
Concerning the war in Ukraine. Personally, I find it worrisome how easy it's for someone to dehumanise the other side. And, seeing those clips, I understand the brutality that Putin brought into that country. If anything, it's more of a reminder of the brutality of war, and how these men (from both sides) are forced into killing eachother. One side defending their country, and the other, defending the will of a madman.
Sharia law distinguishes three types of crime – hudud, qisas, and tazir. A hudud crime is one where the penalty (whether death or some lesser punishment) is mandatory under the law, and so must be carried out (although there are various mitigating principles which can be used to justify not doing so in a particular case). A tazir crime is where the penalty is up to the discretion of the judge (and the ruler of the state as lawmaker). A qisas crime is one where the punishment is "eye for an eye" retribution, and hence the victim (or their family) has the legal right to commute the punishment. Murder (in most cases) is a qisas crime, so the family of the victim has the legal right to commute the death sentence to a lesser punishment, and no execution will be carried out without the consent of the family. This is different from hudud or tazir crimes, where the victim (if there is one) has no legal entitlement to a say in the punishment.
An exception is something like a murder committed as part of a terrorist attack, which is simultaneously a crime against the victim (murder), but also a crime against the state (terrorism). Although the family of the victim still has the right to waive the death penalty for the qisas crime of murder, the state has the right to carry out the death penalty for the (tazir or hudud) crime against the state, so the offender will be executed irrespective of the family's wishes.
Honestly, although I am personally opposed to the death penalty, I actually think in some ways the Saudi system is less wrong than the US system. Under the Saudi system, an ordinary murderer cannot be executed if the family unanimously opposes their execution (in cases of disagreement, I believe Saudi law follows the wishes of the identified senior next of kin); in the US system, the prosecutors/courts/government are under no legal obligation to respect the wishes of the victim's family, and a murderer can still be sentenced to death and executed even if the victim's family are unanimously opposed to that outcome.
Also, although people denounce Saudi public executions as barbaric, I don't think private executions are any less barbaric than public ones. If anything, I think private executions are more barbaric, in that hiding what you are doing is a sign of a guilty conscience which knows it is really wrong. If voters can't stomach watching executions, they shouldn't be allowed to vote for them. (Saudis don't get to vote, at least not in any way that really counts–but it seems on this particular issue the Saudi government are doing the popular will–if you gave the Saudi people a free democratic vote on whether to retain the death penalty, I'm certain retention would win.)
The Ukrainian equivalent would be if the military was bringing captured soldiers to Kyiv and then publicly executing them to cheering crowds. And no one is doing that as far as I’m aware. And even that would be more defensible because Ukraine is ar war which is literally a state of decivilization, where the citizens of Ukraine have spent a year and a half watching neighbors being blown up and spent half their time in subway stations so they don’t get killed in a missile attack. That’s a level of PTSD (although it isn’t even “post” but continuous and ongoing trauma) that could bring the blood thirst out in any human.
And I don’t watch these videos so I don’t know, but as far as I’m aware they very rarely show any human body actually dying. It’s usually tanks being blown out or at worst I’m guessing tiny dots of humans just falling so even the gore is not visible. Finally, there is a difference between a video and watching a killing in person.
A closer equivalent would be Americans gleefully watching bombs falling on Baghdad which was horrendous, but different from when the Abu Ghraib pictures were released which were widely condemned and drew outrage among most, even though they didn’t even involve killing AFAIR but they involved mistreatment of captives who were under custody and not an active threat to anybody.
Every day, I'm impressed with how detached from reality people like you are. A society where public capital punishment is a weekly family event? I guess I missed that policy bullet point under "secure the border."
Your absurd fear-mongering only produces more totalitarian outcomes for the US--due to justifications for totalitarian actions based on lies.
If you seek the destruction of the US, as many do, that behavior would make sense. If you're a US citizen, you're creating your own hell.
Don't think that your careful wording around "people died defending" helps conceal the reach you're making. ONE "defending" police officer died of a heart attack - no court of law would hold someone responsible for a death like that. The three other deaths were pro-Trump protesters fighting for a fair election. I watched members of a certain political party mock the deaths of Trump supporters while they happened live on January 6th - who was it you were saying wanted the US to be more like Saudi Arabia?
Theories dismissed by own Republican officials in Georgia. By Attorney General William Barr who worked for Reagan, Bush, and was nominated by Trump...
Fortunately soon we will have a live YouTube trial. The proponents of these theories will be able to provide the evidence they have been claiming, exists for 2 years and nobody was able to see.
Trump voters want to turn the USA into a Saudi Arabia by not minding to elect criminal, lying, could-not-care-less, officials in a fraudulent way, just because...and note ...just because...they somehow endorse his life view. It's the same in Saudi Arabia, were I had the chance to work. You get by based on the tribe, and family, you belong to. Everything else is secondary.
It's the most abject of Moral and Ethical standpoints. To support on a personal level, a fraudulent candidate reflects poorly on one's moral and ethical values. It's essentially saying that the ends justify the means, no matter how dishonest those means might be. To have a democracy, and use those privileges, to put forward support for a candidate willing to undermine that same system,must be the worst moral sin.
And even worst...To entertain conspiracy theories no sane person, from even your own political side, has given even the minimum credit, must require a special kind of individual, one let's say...A few sandwiches short of a picnic...
Is there a great strategy to deal with saudis? No, I’m with you in that, there’s not.
But it just shows how full of shit Musk is. He’s a high school bully, who talks when talk is cheap, attacks weak ones and back down immediately when someone actually confronts him.
This makes no sense. Free speech is an American value. Most societies, even other European-descended societies, do not share that value to the same degree, if at all. And it’s not the job of American billionaires to tell other societies how to govern themselves.
It hasn't exactly stopped them and I don't remember Elon ever couching his statements with "in the USA". I mean he wasn't even born in the US, wasn't a citizen till 2002, and holds citizenship in 2 other countries as well. I wouldn't exactly expect him to hold only to American values (or any values for that matter) nor is free speech a uniquely American value.
Also, let the saudis, russians, africans, iranians, chinese, indians, etc protect their own 'values' and let them punish people for 'disinformation' as they fit. The same propagandists complaining about foreign interference sure love to interfere everywhere.
Yes obviously.
> or are they pointing out that a U.S. based company should be more concerned about their investments or financial interests?
What? You think newsweek is looking out for elon's financial interests?
> Really, is this piece "interfering" abroad?
No. Saint media is worried about elon's financial well being.
So is looking the other way when Saudis murder people.
https://youtu.be/gaa9iw85tW8?t=262
"Religion stupid, amirite guys?"
His entire rant is that God doesn't solve all the world's problems. But as a non-religious person, even I can tell you why that's a stupid argument because there's one answer every Christian (probably most other religions too) will give you: it's a test. And tests don't work when you're handed it all on a silver platter, frolicking through the fields of flowers, holding hands with the rest of the world.
That's called heaven. No (mainstream) religion ever said Earth was heaven. It is actually quite the opposite. Earth is closer to hell than it is heaven.
And it's not unreasonable to expect a personal response from Elon since he's such a publicly vocal person.
If Musk privately contacts MBS, and asks him to reconsider this – there is a chance he might convince MBS to quietly commute the sentence.
So, if you really want to save this man's life - urging Musk to speak out publicly about it may not be the best approach.