Marianne Williamson

Rank 18 of 47
|
Score 64
12/28/2025, 8:51:14 PM
X
In reply to:
Lester Fremen
@RolloFinnback
·
20d
@marwilliamson @IMDibe Are you out of your fucking mind (bad way this time)?

What proposal for a 2ss ever has Israel as not the dominant state that can continue to dominate forever? Hello? Can you read slightly less auras and crystals and slightly more pieces of paper?
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
20d
@IMDibe Not at all. Jim Crow was the opposite of a two state solution. It was one people dominating another. That is exactly what we should not have.
Charlie from the river to the sea 🇵🇸 تشارلي ديبه
@IMDibe
·
21d
@marwilliamson Americans love this imaginary “two state solution” for the same reason they loved Jim Crow.
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
21d
I can't believe I have to remind anyone of this, but here goes: Jesus was a Jew.
He was born in a land called Judea. The word Palestine was coined by the Romans 135 years later.
Muhammad was born in 571 AD.
Both peoples should be considered indigenous to the

The statement engages in a public discourse about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the concept of a two-state solution, which are significant public issues. The tone is somewhat dismissive and suggests a lack of engagement with diverse sources of information.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but implies a dismissive attitude towards the other person's knowledge, which could be seen as indirectly harmful. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it does lack respect for the dignity of others by implying they are uninformed. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it dismisses the other person's perspective without engaging constructively. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it dismisses the other person's knowledge without providing substantive counterarguments. [-1]