How does Zelenskyy's government venerate Bandera? Zelenskyy apparently dismissed his ambassador to Germany after the ambassador defended Bandera.
The Kremlin pushes the idea that the government of Zelenskyy (a Jewish man) is full of Nazis, because they think this justifies their invasion of Ukraine.
In reality it seems to me that Russia is behaving like Nazis, not Ukraine. Russia is the one that has launched an invasion of conquest, just like the Nazis did.
"Echo chamber" is often used as a criticism on the internet. But in real life, when you make friends, it's with like-minded people, right? So maybe it makes sense to seek online spaces with like-minded people, rather than spaces with people of various views attacking and insulting each other.
Criticising a government isn't racism. If you criticise a country's government it doesn't mean you hate every person who lives in that country.
I don't think it's just the fact that she's a black/Asian woman.
I saw this on BBC News which is probably correct:
I get paranoid enough about making sure I'm clicking the correct search result and not some scam. I hope I would avoid any AI answers but yeah, to many people it could be confusing.
Russia and China “have developed and demonstrated the ability to conduct war fighting in space.”…
Do you think this kind of thing is worrying or not?
I live in the UK and we already have hate speech laws making certain speech illegal, e.g. extreme racist speech. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the encouragement of suicide was also illegal under such laws. Do we really think that people should have the right to encourage suicide? Surely the right of others to live is more important.
I dunno, I'm just suggesting it, I'm not saying the law should definitely be changed in this way.
It would be more democratic if Puerto Rico had the same congressional representation as a state. Same with DC. Also, maybe the number of senators for every state should be proportional to population, again to make things more democratic.
If it was just one occurrence then maybe a large fine or some community service. If someone does it multiple times then maybe prison time. I'm just guessing really. People who are more knowledgeable about the justice system than I am could probably answer this better.
"Killing is fine as long as your numbers aren't too high"
It's just a dumb take isn't it.
Edit: you'll try to say "that's not what I'm saying" but it's what you're suggesting, by saying that Hamas are somehow more moral. What I'm suggesting is that maybe they're both bad. Also, if Hamas had the same amount of weaponry that Israel has, do we really think Hamas would hold back?
I think the ICJ was correct to want to bring the leaders of Israel and Hamas to trial for war crimes. I don't think it makes sense to give one side a pass, or say they're better, when both have killed many innocent people who didn't deserve death.
I’m not excusing Hamas. The fact that you read what I did says that you are either responding in bad faith
The fact that you seem so upset with me saying that killing civilians is bad no matter who does it implies to me that you think it's fine when some people do it. Or that it's fine as long as they don't kill too many people.
You're extremely stupid.
Yeah I'm not into the whole "let's excuse Hamas" thing. In my view killing civilians is bad, which is why I think both Hamas and the Israeli government are bad. Neither should kill civilians at all - not 1, not 100, not 1,000, etc.
I think I heard on the radio the other day someone saying that reparations should be less about handing cash to descendants of slaves, and more about investing in descendants of slaves, which I guess would mean ensuring that those descendants have an equal access to education and job opportunities, and maybe other adjustments. Whether that's a good idea, I guess society would have to decide, but I thought it was interesting.
In the future it might not be though. Developing countries are getting richer and they have growing populations. Britain's population isn't growing that much. Even public opinion within Britain may one day favour reparations, let alone outside of Britain.
The UK had previously insisted the subject was not on the agenda at the leaders' summit in Samoa.
Thoughts on this?
Ideally I don't think any civilian deaths should happen, so they're both wrong. I'm not going to say Hamas is somehow better because they killed fewer people. To me that seems like saying "oh you didn't kill too many people, that's fine then". Which would be completely wrong in my view.
Is there any evidence of these CIA/Israeli bots / paid posters?
If somebody makes a pro-Israel post, maybe they just genuinely support Israel (I wouldn't say that's my view currently - I think both Israel and Hamas are wrong because both have killed civilians).
Edit: your downvotes aren't evidence.
The problem isn’t that there is pro suicide content, the problem is that people are listening to it. If your society is so gullible and fragile that they will kill themselves because some asshole online says to, you have a much much bigger problem than online speech.
I get why you don't want to restrict free speech. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.
I think I would probably be okay with the encouragement of suicide being illegal. Imagine a child or young teenager committing suicide because people online encouraged them. Some young people might brush off any such encouragement, but some young people might not. I think the young person's right to life is more important than some online person's right to encourage somebody to commit suicide.
Good point. The uncomfortable truth that many people don't want to face.
It seems they're not being removed because they're Russian, but instead because they work for specific companies who are subject to US sanctions:
Intuit possibly succumbs to the Streisand effect
Intuit CEO Sasan Goodarzi claims it’s not accurate the company lobbies against free tax filing.
The CEO of Intuit (who make financial software) did an interview, and it seems a pretty normal interview. But some senior guy at the company asked for part of the interview to be deleted, after it took place.
By putting in that unusual request (rather angrily), more attention is being drawn to the interview.
Thoughts?
Elon Musk’s X is now worth less than a quarter of its $44 billion purchase price
Elon Musk's X is now worth less than a quarter of its $44 billion purchase price, according to a new estimate from investor Fidelity. The asset manager, Elon Musk's X is now valued at less than a quarter of its $44 billion purchase price, according to Fidelity.
"Fidelity is currently valuing X at about $9.4 billion"
I found this funny.