I don’t think this is unreasonable. Citizens in occupied territory won’t be able to vote and elections would just add pressure to a country that’s fighting a major conflict on its own soil.
However I would expect Zelensky to hold free and fair elections as soon as the conflict ends, especially if he wants Ukraine to be part of the EU and eventually NATO
Not surprised that an .ee doesn’t find “literal fascism” unreasonable.
I thought the entire reason that the white western world has been pouring untold amounts of money and resources into this small part of the world was to uphold and protect democracy? Funny how quickly that excuse just vaporizes the absolute second it’s not convenient anymore.
They love China, love Russia, and all of their past, current and yet to be supreme leaders. They like the taste of military boot leather. Some are trolls some are a little more "leftist" than the rest of Lemmy, but most are tankies.
@HuddaBudda it's a tankie instance. It's been around since ChapoTraphouse got banned from reddit. It has a culture of ... argumentative engagement. Several of the big instances have defederated it due to allegations of brigading etc.
Correct, but I wasn’t crying about it. Just pointing it out. Do you think that climate scientists who look at the overwhelming amount of data in favor of global climate change are “crying” about it when they publish their research?
I also love that the thing you’re bent out of shape about is that I’m posting something that is at worst mildly annoying to you in a comment section, rather than the fact that Ukraine’s president announced that he’s pulling the mask off and just implementing full on fascism in Ukraine.
tbf there are members on that instance and yours who have said essentially the same thing about their own instances. I assume they stay for the slop associated with broader federation (which I don’t begrudge).
This is one of those “not all men” “not all white people” things. It’s common practice to speak in generalization about groups that have a general consensus of chauvinism (whether demographics, organization members, or whatever). One thing that is good about this is that it encourages the relative outliers to not identify with the group (e.g. you can’t ‘opt out’ of being white, but you can stop personally self-identifying with the social formation of whiteness). When a .ee or .ml user disparages their instance, they are not disparaging themselves or literally every single person in it (despite the denotative meaning of the words they use) but are pointing to a broad and explicit consensus around certain views and traits. Incidentally, there are groups that you can opt out of, whether it’s being a member of a bourgeois-democratic party (“not all Liberals”) or something more trivial, like being a user on a neoliberal instance. I think it’s better to stay on one’s instance and try to change it, but it’s worth noting for the sake of completeness, and there are some instances that are not worth trying to change except to kill, like .world
We can language police all day long, but this line is old-hat and there’s little reason to believe any wording would be received as “correct” and “properly inoffensive” except for silence. A “possible ally” who is alienated by something this trivial wasn’t ready to be an ally anyway.
Zelensky has openly declared many times that the war would not end until Crimea (a territory Ukraine did not control when Zelensky was elected) was taken back, despite there being no hope of such a victory for the Ukrainian government. He has created a set of parameters where, if he is consistent with what he says, there will never be an election for as long as he survives.
For someone who was elected on the basis of promising to take a more conciliatory stance to the breakaway states, perhaps to avoid exactly the conflict he lead Ukraine into, this shit cannot be reasonable.
As someone who lives in a country that’s been in more or less continuous conflict since I was born I would be pretty upset if the leadership here decided elections couldn’t happen during wartime.
Zelensky wasn’t elected to be a wartime leader; his mandate from the public was to do the opposite. Perhaps he has won over some citizens during the conflict, but he owes it to the people of Ukraine to give them the choice to pursue peace.
I don’t even understand what the stakes are from his perspective, he’s already banned like a dozen political parties and nobody cares, what do you have to fear holding an election when you’re allowed to ban people who oppose you? It’s a free rubber stamp basically, you get democracy points and to renew your mandate by being the only legal option, it’s a win win.
First of all do you have a source for the shelling claim never heard of it, but the other claim of unfair treatment and prosecution of Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk means that Russia wants to at least take control of those areas. And the claims that Ukraine is run by neo-nazis means that Russia may want to take control of Ukraine as a whole.
Yes, and that's not in the best interest of Ukraine. So Ukraine doesn't want to lose all of that territory, but Russia wants to gain it, and Ukraine thinks it is capable of defending it's territory, while Russia thinks that it's capable of defeating them.
That's how you get a war. To get peace negotiations you need one of, or both of the nations to decide that they've had enough casualties or other loses, and that they're ready to settle down for less. Neither of them have decided that.
Falling on ears deafened from the bombs and guns and eyes blinded by rage and hatred. You're going to actually have to do something, UN. Research, advocacy and reporting is all very valid work worth doing, and I appreciate it more than you could possibly know, but there's no reasoning with power-hungry aggrieved zealotry. Logic works when the audience's primary motivation is based in logic.
You're going to actually have to do something, UN.
Kinda missing the point of the UN here. It's about keeping dialogue open so that we all know what each other thinks and wants and can offer.
The UN = all of us. There's nothing the world can do about this because we would have to either all agree or else go to war against America + Israel.
Given the existence of world powers, realistically we are never going to get UN intervention where countries like US or China are stakeholders, so that's not how it is designed. It would just turn into open warfare and we would probably be on WW6 by now.
Given the existence of world powers, realistically we are never going to get UN intervention where countries like US or China are stakeholders, so that's not how it is designed. It would just turn into open warfare and we would probably be on WW6 by now.
I mean, yes, but it would still be nice for the UN to think about addressing its own systemic biases in deciding what deserves intervention. For starters, by looking at why only those 5 nations conveniently have eternal veto on the Security Council instead of something like a rotating country moderator panel like other councils.
Given the UN literally created the modern state of Israel and defined its borders in 1947, which arguably is part of the reason this particular dispute over the territory, which happens to have been annexed by Israel in 1948.
The actions of the UN pre-vietnam war are essentially a one-off “oops we were figuring out the rules” type deal. The fact that the UN and the world at large survived the Cold War, happened in large part because all major nuclear powers had veto power, giving them a rare opportunity for open dialogue that doesn’t threaten their sovereignty. Avoiding nuclear war and/or WWIII is the UN’s Prime Directive, everything else is just a bonus. Unfortunately the only way you’ll get Putin, Biden, and Xi Xinping to sit at the same table is by assuring them that no binding decision will be taken, so that is what the UN guarantees by design.
I mean they'd probably love to do something about it but the security council has three (maybe 2 if France doesn't interfere) pro-Israel veto powers so it ain't happening.
Genocide for us and not for them. And then the politican and media cry when they come after these countries who veto these resolutions with sucide bombing and “terrorist” attacks…
Israel has a right to defend itself (from children)
Hamas made Israel do it. Bombing was the humane option.
Israel provides water for the Gaza strip for FREE! (because they exclusively control the water supply and give substandard unclean water to Palestinians) They should be thankful for the supplies!
It's not genocide if I insist on not calling it that.
I know more about the conflict than anyone who is critical of Israel. If you criticize, that means you are ill-informed.
@TinyPizza please note that for some reason this talking point is only authorized for use by people who show no other interest in LGBTQ+ rights whatsoever.
Lol@ ‘any American politician’. ‘Any American politician’ is a candidate to rule literally on top of the graves of the Native Americans’ their ancestors genocided…
Truly the US is Israel in it’s final form. Which explains all the excusing you see
This is not genocide, this is regular war. That is why it is called war. Mass casualties of the civilian population happen ALL the time. Nobody cares about it most of the time though. In war the most extreme and brutal things happen every day.
So you think Israel’s actions are not justified. Then let’s talk about something from the past, with a whole lot of casualties:
The US destroyed two large cities in Japan with A-Bombs in WW2 causing Japans surrender.
Indiscriminate bombardment of civilians is not "war" Joe, it's fucking terrorism and genocide.
"But I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using,”
Of course! Indiscriminately shelling a densely populated civilian population for weeks surely couldn't add up to such numbers! Let's just split the difference and call it two or three.
Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organization, but Israel is a terrorist state. Civilians are caught in the middle because we allow the terror to continue.
Do NOT apologize for mass murder and coordinated, deliberate terror.
Yeah, it’s funny but a nation need not be political:
A nation is a large type of social organization where a collective identity has emerged from a combination of shared features across a given population, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, territory or society. Some nations are constructed around ethnicity (see ethnic nationalism) while others are bound by political constitutions (see civic nationalism and multiculturalism).
It’s easy to call the people you don’t like “terrorists” after you put them in the world’s largest open air prison, allow them no voice in their governance, deny them basic human necessities, and they predicably act out of desperation .
What’s hard, and the right thing, is the force holding the bigger gun exercising restraint in their response.
But we’re sending two aircraft carriers to back up that already far superior force as they punch down and possibly do a genocide. No amount of conditional soup makes organized religion worth the continuous, murderous madness it brings.
If you’re willing to kill real people or die for an imaginary friend, you’re the problem.
Hamas people literally shot-up a music fest, murdering a whole lot of civilians, kidnaping even more. Where would you draw the line before calling them terrorists?
Maybe when they’re no longer perpetual prisoners. When you make hope impossible, you make vengeance an alluring alternative.
The US was founded on revolting against hilariously less tyranny than this. If you were a Palestinian watching your oppressor host lavish concerts for their children as yours starve, would you tell them that peaceful resignation is the only option?
There are no good guys in this conflict, only slightly varying degrees of dehumanization, cruelty, and violence.
If Israel or Palestine wanted peace, either or both of them should become secular states. But neither values peace. They both value believing they’re some imaginary god’s soldiers in some stupid imaginary soul war. Human life > anyone’s stupid ass religion. If they want to pray to Pikachu at 2am hopping on one leg except on Saturday nobody cares, but making your fantasy other people’s problem at gunpoint makes you wrong, every time. It is no less insane than shooting a d&d dungeon master in the chest with a gun because you lost your buff roll. It’s bonkers that we support any theocracy, let alone one proud theocracy over another.
You say that as if they’re a rival military force. You say that as if Hamas hasn’t repeatedly attacked Israeli soldiers on the only scale they can manage, single digits at a time, only to have the Israeli government retaliate against civilian populations from a distance in far larger numbers. Hamas cannot oppose the enemy actively oppressing their people on symmetrical terms. They only have targets of opportunity.
Israel, on the other hand, can and do unload on civilians regularly, the global media just doesn’t consider those civilian deaths to be newsworthy.
This guy didn’t call Israel good. He just said if you shoot up a music festival, you’re a terrorist.
If you put even 10% of your energy you put into trying to be heard into trying to hear then you could probably aim your homilies at the people who need to hear them. You could maybe engage in an actual dialogue if you read before you typed.
Alright, when the same media that condemns Hamas for terrorism also condemns Israel for terrorism, when the same countries that supply weapons, ammunition, and just about anything that can be used to kill people either also supply Palestine with the same resources or just NOT GIVE ANYONE WAR-RELATED RESOURCES AT ALL, then we can talk about condemning Hamas.
It’s really interesting that we have seldom seen journalists and news agencies asking Zionists if they condemn X atrocity, but see it all the time with Zionists.
This guy didn’t call Israel good. He just said if you shoot up a music festival, you’re a terrorist.
If you put even 10% of your energy you put into trying to be heard into trying to hear then you could probably aim your homilies at the people who need to hear them. You could maybe engage in an actual dialogue if you read before you typed.
I mean after a while you begin to realize Islam is not the religion of peace and left to ferment anywhere will lead to extremism and terrorism. I think it's time to make a very strong statement that this won't be tolerated.
Why don't the people in Gaza just give up and live in peace with Israel? It looks to me like that's what Israel was doing considering they could've wiped them out at any point prior to this.
No one has to be Muslim. I don't have a problem with human beings, I have a problem with an ideology.
You also never answered my question. These people don't need to be violent. They can just integrate into modern society like everyone else in the world.
You just don't hear about them (except for occasional puff pieces like "Mosque feeds the hungry") because it's not newsworthy for them to just exist.
Religion is an excuse for people to act horrible to each other, not the exclusive reason. Even without religion people would find plenty of reasons to treat each other like shit.
"Time to set an extreme example to those who don't assimilate."
Is what I said. Let me break this down for you: "Those who don't wish to join us in modern day society should be taught a severe lesson." Or would you rather make excuses so they continue attacking people who don't practice Islam?
You're thinking with emotion, not logic. Please stop because your line of thinking is extremely dangerous and apologetic towards terrorists.
You started this by describing Islam as a faith which "left to fester" always results in terrorism. You don't seem adequately positioned to delineate what is and isn't modern society.
They are welcome to not be apart of it. I don't have a problem with the people. I have a problem with a violent religion that instructs people to kill non-believers.
And you should too, instead of pushing up your glasses and saying "ackshually..." you're not getting brownie points from anyone for defending that shit. They'd kill you just the same. Watch some of those interviews with the people who were held hostage. These people hate everyone but those who follow their religion. It's disturbing and even more fucking disturbing that people are trying to apply western values to a very not western situation.
Why don't the people in Gaza just give up and live in peace with Israel?
Israel refuses that. Remember: The first (and second) intifadas happened for a reason, and it's not because a bunch of people decided to kill time by bombing themselves.
Oh, by leaving them alone they were totally refusing to do that. Lmao the mental gymnastics so you can be edgy. Bro, you're going too far if you're defending extremists. Please go outside.
Israel’s been imprisoning 2 million Gazans for decades. The spirit of revolution in the region is similar to that of the Americans over the British, the French over the Ancient Regime, the Haitians over the French, the Russians over the Tsardom, the Chinese over the Qing dynasty, the Indonesians over the Dutch, and countless other times where the principles of sovereignty and self-determination prevailed over a hostile governing power and gave power to the people. In places of great inequality, revolutionaries congregate. Israel only has themselves to blame for this mess.
Or the failed Turkish coup of 2016, the failed Taiping Rebellion of 1850, the failed 1733 St. John Insurrection, or any number of failed slave uprisings. These are less famous because they’re failed rebellions.
I can’t see any way the Palestinians could win. They effectively have no economy. Their military is tiny compared to Israel. They have no real allies, just other countries that use them as pawns.
KInda blows me away how people don’t acknowledge the overt genocidality of Israel’s position towards Palestine. Just call them rats, Yoav Gallant, we all know that’s what you mean. People all over social media are celebrating the actual ethnic cleansing of Gaza.
And after everything since the Nakba, we’re supposed to be surprised that the political situation in Gaza has deteriorated to the point where the government is just a pack of terrorists. We’re supposed to be confused as to how that could happen.
The attack by Hamas is chilling, but punishing all Gazans for what their government has done is collective punishment, and also presupposes a lot of things (ie, “they voted for Hamas” – 44% of the electorate voted for Hamas, which means 56%, the actual majority, voted against Hamas, and they voted once, 17 years ago, so really, less than half of the electorate ever approved Hamas, but also, collective punishment is a war crime)
It seems likely Israel will succeed in clearing Gaza, because they’ve had the upper hand here and have since they stole the entire country at gunpoint with UN backing. This is depressing, but I don’t see how massacres will help anything. If anything, further violence just seems to play into Israel’s hand.
EDIT: it’s been 17 years, not 13, since the last elections in Gaza
EDIT: Corrected typo, this was early in the day for me sorry everybody, also fixed slightly incorrect info re elections, admittedly not the most up to date on the current situation over there, but at this point I believe the info in my post is at least overall correct
Mahmoud Abbas, president of Palestine and head of Fatah, was the one to suspend both legislative and presidential elections and not Hamas. In fact, the latter “strongly opposed the decision to call off elections” (npr.org).
Abbas’ party has been working closely with the Israeli authorities. His excuse was that “Israel refused to commit to allowing Palestinians to vote in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem” (npr.org).
Some (quite convincingly) hypothesise that the suspension of the elections was aimed at preserving his presidency and salvage “his fractured Fatah party [which] was expected to suffer another embarrassing defeat to Hamas.” (apnews.com).
How can one expect the people to not fight if democracy can’t be exercised freely?
Thanks for the updates, I wasn’t aware there had been scotched election plans in the last few years. I follow various global situations but Israel-Palestine is so hopeless it’s honestly hard to keep up with. It’s worth noting Hamas has also scotched attempts to hold elections since 2006. Interesting to note they called for municipal elections 10 days ago and apparently intended to discuss with the PA such elections at the same time as they were planning an actual massacre whose only strategic merits I have even heard suggested are “Israel’s response will galvanize Gaza against Israel,” except I’m not sure what iron resolve does against a military with IDF’s resources and lack of restraint.
Anyways, they can fight if they think it will help, but given how more or less every single armed conflict has panned out ultimately in Israel’s favor, I’d question if in their case going even harder and massacring civilians even harder is really going to help anything.
Since legislative/presidential elections haven’t actually been held since 2006, we can’t really know if the 44% of the vote (in a vote which had 76% turnout, so really, about 33% of all eligible voters, similar democratic mandates as GW Bush or Trump) would even still support Hamas today, so it’s a little generous to say Hamas massacring civilians is the same as “The Palestinian people fighting”
This is absolutely wrong. He is the big fish in this Capitalist planet. But besides, the fact that he is supporting one of Germany’s legal and legitimate political parties in their ostensible democracy is absolutely not something that anyone anywhere should be afraid of doing.
The same would be true of any billionaire on earth. But since Governments exist to serve billionaires like musk, there is nothing he needs to worry about.
It should not be imposible to enter a class room and arrest somewhere there in general. But there are actual standards and also issues of common sense usually agreed to in France (and a lot of other countries).
You don't run into a class in session to arrest someone there, if you can just get the person called out of class and do it separated from everyone else. Just like you for example don't focefully arrest someone or initiate a chase in crowded areas, if the case isn't justifying the risk to bystanders for the reward of making the arrest now rather than later. That's okay if there is an actual risk right now that justifies making the arrest now and making is fast. It's not okay to do this in a crowd just as a show of force when it could be handled much easier and safer.
That's just common sense of minimizing the potential for any kind of escalation.
So yeah, this has nothing to do with the fact that you should not be allowed to arrest someone in his classroom. It's about general standards in arresting someone, that were violated purely to make a political point of showing their hard reaction.
If that guy has a weapon and is threatening someone, sure. Go in, and go in hard. If the guy has made some general threats and is right now just sitting in his regular lesson, call him out of class under some pretense and handle it professionally instead of making a show out of arresting him in front of the class. That's unprofessional bullshit made for political reasons.
I don’t think they charged in there with their guns pulled. They probably knocked. This isn’t America, there is no risk in a couple policemen entering a classroom.
It’s about general standards in arresting someone, that were violated purely to make a political point of showing their hard reaction.
Is arresting someone over literal death threats really a political point?
Unless there is further details about the police actually putting anyone at risk, I see no standard being violated.
Is it not? I admit I haven’t read the handbook on police etiquette in such situations. I just don’t see how it was “a show of force” other than it was a statement to other kids, which is a positive thing.
When I was in school, I had police in my classroom at least 4 times. But only in one instance they made “arrests”. Basically they knocked, asked if “insert names” were present and asked them to come with them. No handcuffs, sure. But this was only about shoplifting. I never though it was a big deal.
Exactly. You can't act like classrooms should be sacrosanct while simultaneously harassing other students. Makes no sense on its face.
Further, how likely is it that the harassment is only after school hours? If you can talk shit during the school day, you can take the consequences during the school day.
I mean, have you ever met a teacher who didn't act like that little box was their personal realm to be god over? I can easily imagine that anything that disabuses them of the idea would come as a shock.
They can go to the boys home. They can have the boy brought back to an office. In the classroom of an adolescent is ridiculous. Was there is a clear and present danger.
Unless you think this kid will make a run for it, then it can take place with less publicity. Did you think he will be leaving country?
Or they could just arrest him where he was at the time. Why wait?
then it can take place with less publicity
Why should it though? Showing that this kind of bullying isn’t tolerated and seeing the imidete consequences of it in person is a great lesson for the other kids, too.
The kid could also not make death threats… he would have never been arrested in the first place if he decided to behave like a reasonable member of society
That quote bugs me because if common sense prevailed, another kid would still be alive. If someone waits until after a suicide to think about common sense, they can sit on a railroad spike and bounce.
However, the Bill met strong opposition from a section of Indian-American residents who argue that it will ‘discriminate against Hindus’ and ‘racially profile select communities on the basis of their ethnicity and ancestry for disparate treatment’.
Religious extremists love saying not being able to oppress everyone else is somehow oppressing them…
Saying other groups are equal somehow hurts your group only makes sense if one of your groups foundational beliefs is oppressing others.
And as far as I know that’s not part of Hinduism. But it’s a central tenet of far right extremism
I’m also surprised it’s Indian-Americans talking about this and not Republicans. There’s been a caste system in the US since its inception based on race and income.
I am Indian and know people who have moved to the US. Irrespective of which party they supported in India, most Indian-Americans support the Democrats in the US. This is because of two reasons:-
The Indian political landscape is to the left of the US landscape. So right-wing parties in India are often similar, policy-wise, to centrist Democrats or moderate Republicans.
Even rich, upper-caste Indians face racial discrimination in the US.
In the 2020 Carnegie endowment survey, ndian-Americans preferred Biden to Trump 72% to 22%. The three biggest issues for them were economics, healthcare and racism.
From the people whom I know, the biggest concerns were the lack of free healthcare and free / cheap higher education, and racism. Nowadays gun violence and restrictions on abortions are also factors they consider.
Ah, so that’s the issue. What I meant is that in India, things like food, healthcare, higher education, electricity and internet are free or heavily subsidised. There is also a general expectation that the government should regulate prices of essentials, and even our rightwing parties at least pay lip service to the constitutional principles of socialism and secularism.
So when Indians move to the US, they get much better salaries, but suffer from racism and miss things like cheap healthcare and free uni. So they would support politicians who promise to fix these things, which are usually the Democrats.
You’re comparing how rich high caste people are treated in India compared to America. And it seems like the only things you know about India are what they tell you, or the ones still in India claim it’s like.
I’m talking about the low caste Indians coming here to get away from the racism they experience over there and the fact that their children are starving and the Indian government doesn’t give a single fuck about them.
I am saying that rich upper caste Indians in the US would vote for the Democrats (because the Democrats promise to solve the issues they face there) while continuing to support rightwing parties back home (to maintain their privileged status). Obviously lower-caste Indian-Americans would also support the Democrats; that goes without saying.
the only things you know about India are what they tell you,
I am an Indian living in India, who has Indian-American friends and relatives. I don’t remember any of them supporting Trump; even those who supported the BJP in India supported Sanders or Biden in the US.
Did you forget Modi publicly supporting Trump's 2020 presidential bid with "Abki baar Trump sarkar!" and a beaming Trump by his side and a stadium full of cheering Indian-Americans?
@givesomefucks : This was in September 2019 when Indian Americans hosted a 'Howdy Modi' event .
I didn’t. Both Modi and Trump seemed to think that support for the BJP would translate into support for Trump. And yet, Indian-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Biden (see the poll I linked above).
Oppressor uppercaste Indians want democratic values, secularism, and affirmative action in countries where they are a minority so that they can benefit from those policies. Where they'hold the reigns of power, they want casteism, religious extremism, and patriarchy.
Anyone who is under the impression that Indian-Americans are progressive & hate discrimination needs to know that Indian-Americans carry within them the oppressive caste system that they've been trained into by their families & communities since birth.
Even those born outside India are trained into & practice caste oppression. Since developed countries look down on discrimination, so caste atrocities are carried out behind closed doors and in devious ways. Indian newcomers to college/ work place are asked their full name, because the last name/ surname is a caste marker. They're invited to a pool party to check whether they wear the Brahmin caste thread, or a friendly hand is placed on their left shoulder to check whether they're wearing the Brahmin caste thread under their clothes. Once info on their caste is gathered, they'll either be welcomed as one of 'ours' or severely discriminated against by the oppressor upper castes a discreetly as possible.
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, a victim of caste oppression, India's first Law Minister, and the architect of India's Constitution had said this "If Hindus migrate to other regions on earth, Indian caste would become a world problem"
Yeah apparently a law that says everyone is equal profiles against Hindus, right. These idiots just want to bring the caste problems from India and spread it even more here.
They want to keep harrassing, humilitating, and persecuting people because the alternative is to accept that all humans are indeed equal which means their claim to superiority and pure-veg purity is & has been just b.s . It also means they and their casteist friends and their casteist families and their casteist ancestors are sadistic bastards without a shred of humanity.
The Nazis implemented their Ubermensch-untermensch discrimination for only 12 years, India's oppresor uppercastes perfected it thousands of years back. Christianity & Islam fucked up their systemised sadistic game by introducing the idea of equality, educating the oppressed, and offering them a way out of the oppressive Hindu caste system.
Christen missionaries weren’t saying everyone was equal, they were saying Christians were all equal, and they’d go after oppressed minorities because they were most likely to change religions.
Far right religious extremism is the issue, the flavour of religion doesn’t really matter.
Hinduism doesn't say Hindus are all equal. Christianity and Islam do. There are no castes in Christianity or Islam, and that is the reason many from the oppressed castes renounced Hinduism and accepted those religions. It's also one of the many reasons why Hindu supremacists hate those religions.
Your argument was that Christianity and Islam preach that we're all equal. I am saying that is not true (Or actually, that it preaches that while simultaneously preaching the opposite). It simply lacks one layer of inequality.
And that’s probably the figures China allows the international community to know. If the reports on that are anything like their emissions reports, it’s not even worth the time it took to generate them.
So true. In China, all the nuclear reactors are as radioactive as the elephant’s foot. They say solar is expanding really quickly, but actually it’s all a lie. Did you know under the Xi regime, absolute poverty has increased tenfold? It’s very sad. China lies about Japan’s nuclear safety for political reasons, so everything they say is wrong and actually my own dreams about them are reality.
good on you schooling these idiots for thinking china would misrepresent their emission stats, just because they have previously misrepresented their emission stats
China are the ultimate projectionists with this stuff. No transparency for themselves, and very quick to scream blue bloody murder about everyone else.
Wait, so his proposal is for voters to become more informed before stepping into a voting booth? Did he think this through?
If conservatives are getting crushed now wait til gen z spite-votes against anything conservative because now they have a better understanding of how democracy is supposed to work. Prime leopardsatemyface in the making.
I think a more adequate solution would be giving all voters a break down of party promises before they make a vote, with some outside organization designated for providing mandatory checks on the party’s previous promises and whether/how they delivered them.
No, his proposal is requiring approval to be able to vote. Next step is to be the one controlling the approving instance. After that they don't need a long-term plan for voting anymore, as it's either them being in control or a revolt.
That’s super troubling, especially this bit from the wiki article
The Supreme Court then upheld the ban as constitutional in Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), but just for federal elections.
So it sounds like we could return to literacy tests at a state or local level but I’ve never heard of that happening, so there must be separate state level bans on that practice or something. Would have to look into it to form an opinion.
Hush, millenials spent the last 2 decades getting conservatives to build a brick wall separating the world from hell with them on the other side, don’t ruin the whole effort now, they’re so close!
worldnews
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.