look folks, it’s the high credibility left of center genocide newspaper!
look folks, it’s the high credibility left of center genocide newspaper!
Interesting - as the article notes the first amendment was specifically implemented to protect unpopular view points - which is tricky because it does mean that white supremacists have the same right to voice their ideas as critical race theorists - but how do we balance that hate speech should have the same footing as voicing concerns around oppression?
even more so when those that are oppressed will have a harder time of being heard in the first place? should the law (as the 1st amendment specifically says that a view not held by society is still protected) tolerate hate and bigotry? it appears the nazi bar is guarded by the first amendment :/
Under MMT taxation is just a tool to reduce inflation - why not introduce a yearly maximum income and collect everything else above as tax to manage inflation?
XY Gonadal Dysgenesis is a thing - or is her having high T levels fundamentally unfair? in which case why isn’t there a T limit for male athletes as well? while we’re at it why isn’t there a hight limit? or for that matter why doesn’t Phelps have all his medals revoked if he has multiple genetic “unfair” advantages compared to most swimmers? why is genetic variation seen as “unfair” in women but “fair” in men?
Ok let’s be pedantic then
The judges had stressed they did not need to say for now whether a genocide had occurred but concluded that some of the acts South Africa complained about, if they were proven, could fall under the United Nations’ Convention on Genocide.
Israel isn’t convicted of committing genocide, yet as there’s only “a plausible risk of genocide” - and I’m sure the “defense” minister calling for the starvation of all people in Gaza and referring to them as “human animals” will do wonders for Israel’s case…
The current ruling is that “Israel must take all measures to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza” - which is an interesting statement to make if the ICJ thought no genocidal acts were happening.
But hey innocent until proven guilty right - I just hope if it does get proven you’ll be the first one to start shouting how Israel is committing genocide - the same way you’re currently doing the opposite - as that would show your true lack of bias…
memes aside it does look pretty neat - simple .apk installs, yaml system configs, automatic boot rollback, easy multi-gpu support - all solid user focused features - will have to see how it develops but so far it seems like a better alternative to the likes of PopOS
Wait wait - you’re saying Israel didn’t start the six-day war because non-violent resistance (the Suez Crisis) on Egypt’s side was casus belli? That’s the type of colonial justification the person above was specifically calling out - but I guess you think launching preemptive airstrikes against a target that has so far used soft-power is Israel “defending itself”, ok buddy…
Here’s some math on that “revolutionary” idea to put things into perspective, as it turns out, it’s pretty underwhelming:
And remember, this is assuming we use EVERY SINGLE BIT of aluminum we produce globally!
Obv hydrogen is “cleaner” than gas, but the point is the scale - this method is a drop in the ocean compared to current energy usage.
TL;DR: Using ALL the world’s annual aluminum production to make hydrogen would only give us 0.73% of the energy we get from natural gas…
.
.
.
.
For the math nerds, here’s more detail on the chemistry and energy calc:
BTU Calculation:
Methane Comparison:
it’s still a Li-ion (like most current rechargeables) but the electrolyte - the medium that transfers the ions from the anode to the cathode - (the + and -) inside the battery is made of a solid material instead of the current gen liquid ones. The benefits are less weight/size (as liquids take up more space than solids) and a more stable composition - the liquid electrolyte can’t leak - the way batteries get gunky and corroded if left for a while
While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the police force in Ireland (an emotion I’m sure isn’t shared by everyone) I feel that it glosses over the intense distrust of other forces, like the PSNI (incorporating the RUC) in Northern Ireland, and the negative effects of state beneficial clique formations. (eg. union constables against anti-union communities)
So while you might see the Garda Síochána as a step in the right direction for a liberated Ireland - I think it’s important to never forget the main purpose of the polis - to maintain monopoly on violence.
So while the Gardaí may appear to work for you right now - I just hope you never have to be on the “wrong” side of the state and have to feel the force of “legitimate” violence used against you, especially when standing with your community against capitalist sponsored state oppression (eg Shell to Sea)
Right, I’m sure IRA supporters definitely consider the polis a public service…
What I don’t get is why spend the effort dealing with YTs shit just to increase their userbase when we should be focusing on shifting people away from YT and into decentralized solutions like PeerTube anyways?
Isn’t this just a DIY brushless dynamo? Am I missing something? Still cool tho
I really shouldn’t have to keep justifying myself to you but I do own personal property to have a place to live…
Here we’re not talking about kicking your grandma out of her single bed flat and onto the street - the main argument is that individuals that already have disproportionately more than others - should distribute it instead of hoarding more and more (especially to ones impacted by historic land grabs) - as in do you genuinely think it’s fair for one individual to own 250,000 times more land than the average person?
Land should be shared as much as possible not being an “investment” to hoard. That’s why I’m also against inheritance and have been looking into how to give away the land I’m supposed to inherit (as nobody should ever really own more than one property)
If someone asked you to give back the land you own for free, you’d fight tooth and nail to prevent it.
As these are words you are trying to put in my mouth - I can only assume it’s your stance on the issue, in which case if you claim to not be hypocritical then you have to admit to also supporting Palestine’s right to land sovereignty, right? And one could argue their claim is more valid as they weren’t the ones that explicitly took the decision to appropriate somebody else’s land by force.
Also I’m not even from the US but because like most countries, mine has had a history of both being occupied and occupying other people’s land - I am a supporter of a no borders policy, inheritance abolishment and wealth redistribution, starting from the ones that have extracted the most and giving to the ones that have been exploited the most (and I’m more than willing to distribute my fair share)
Which is why I am actively doing everything in my power to “fix a wrong” both domestically (supporting immigrants and locals and fighting for land reform policies) and internationally (pressuring governments to stop engaging in colonial practices)
So “If you won’t deal with it, they shouldn’t have to either.” doesn’t even apply here but I’d still warn against that kind of thinking as a certain “nationalist” used very similar rhetoric to claim that if the US were allowed to put native Americans in internment camps, so was he…
Nah - i want both the west and Israel to pay reparations and return as much of the land as possible (not just some nature reserves as pittance) while also apologizing and commemorating the ones that have been displaced.
I wasn’t around when the native American genocide was happening to “disallow” the outcome - but i sure can do something about the one going on right now instead of throwing my hands up and going “well same thing happened with slavery, so I guess we should just sit around and do nothing” while crying “hypocrisy!” - just because bad things occurred in the past isn’t an excuse to keep doing bad things in the future…
Yes.
That’s the main issue with colonial-settler states - they colonize the land (via terror and extermination) and then settle either in borders they’ve drawn up (or even outside if there’s not enough resistance)
Using past native American genocide to justify the current native Levant genocide isn’t the trump card you think it is…
And we can go on a whole debate around “oh but other states got to establish their borders this way in the past - why doesn’t Israel get to do the same?” - because we’re supposed to be more civilized by now and understand that killing people to take their land is an extremely inhumane and reductionist point of view.
The whole phrasing around “a land without people for people without a land” is the same native population erasing shit the European settlers used to colonize the Americas.
If Israel wants to be a brutal colonial state - it gets to decide that - but at least be honest and don’t pretend it has some sort of divine right to do so while expecting to not be met with resistance.
If Israel really wanted a land for its people (while not infringing on the rights of Arabs already living there) they could have assimilated into the already existing population where they are just one of the people living on that territory and not gone for the nuclear option of total dominion over everyone else.
Which is why Israel is so afraid of Hamas and the general resistance - because it understands the world from a dominator-dominee perspective - they cannot envision a world where somebody doesn’t try and take over Israel in return for them doing the same. Since if “every country exists because of terrorism” then the Arabs have as much right to terror and conquest as anyone else - but I doubt you would you defend their rights to do as fervently as Israel’s…
So instead a much less bloody way forward would be to work on dismantling borders for the benefit of everyone instead of stockpiling more and more guns while waiting for the inevitable boom…
nobody is cheering for the “good guys” - but when one side is actively displacing the other and your response is to just let it happen because of both sides being bad it loses the nuance of the conflict and the people just living there. especially when we’re on a thread about one side asking about a military ceasefire in exchange for the only leverage it has - while the other refuses and actively chooses to continue it’s current onslaught.
if you actually care about lives you wouldn’t argue pedantic points about which side commits war crimes but instead influence policy towards there being less war crimes in general. (maybe starting from the ones causing the most damage…)
mf you say this:
Russia can end this war tomorrow. Any and all deaths are on them. Hell, if Russia would just stay out of their neighbours business, there would have been no civil war in the first place.
but then blame Palestinians for defending themselves - so kidnapping settlers is a war crime - but ethnically cleansing and bombing children isn’t?
so if I came into your house, squatted in your living room and locked you up in your closet - it’s your fault if you break out and attack me? most sane warcock guzzler ever…
I mean the whole 1972 rape fantasy essay he wrote was potentially progressive at the the time but feels quite tone-deaf and ham fisted nowadays…