AreaSIX

It’s definitely not a good precedent for governments to shut down communication platforms. But free speech is for all, and Twitter censors speech it doesn’t like, mainly left wing opinions. So I’m not going to act like free speech is the main issue here, even if I dislike governments shutting down or blocking platforms.

You know that Twitter isn’t banned in Turkiye and India because they complied with their requests for censure, since you know, those are right wing governments run by strong men that the Apartheid beby likes? Funny how free speech becomes the issue just when the requests come from governments whose ideology don’t align with this particular clown’s. GTFO with the free speech posturing, if you’re defending the free speech of a platform where it’s fine to harass trans people but you’re banned if you correctly call someone cis gendered. Free speech my ass, Twitter is a right wing cess pool, not a beacon of free discourse.

Hade aldrig hört luftlök! Det brukar stå supersolo där jag bor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solo_garlic?wprov=sfla1

“Goddamn it! I don’t know how to express myself unless through anger and personal attacks!”

Alright. I was thinking about bank holidays here in Sweden. They’re generally off days for all workers here. You can choose to work, it’s not like everything is closed. But that’s a voluntary thing that your employer can’t force you to do, and which is handsomely compensated on account of it being a bank holiday. So people in the hospitality sector for example generally seem to like these shifts and there’s no shortage of volunteers to cover them. This is yet another area where the US system is raping US workers it seems.

That’s just an appalling situation for workers in the US. I work in the public sector and get 37 days off a year in vacation time. Admittedly, I work in the public sector and have a generous vacation deal, but it’s absolutely insane that workers in the US have a worse deal than many third world nations. My 37 days are working days, meaning I get almost 8 whole weeks of vacation time, on top of all the other regular bank holidays everyone else gets. The people there often seem to cherish your second amendment, but fuck, what tyranny are you guys waiting for. How about using them weapons for something else than suicides and accidental shootings?

You assumed she was muslim because she’s Iranian, I assumed she wasn’t because she was being bigoted against muslim women., which was the point of the article What you did is the equivalent of assuming Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Muslim because she’s Somali, ignoring that she’s made it her brand to vilify Islam.

Regarding the ridiculous comparison to gender: gender isn’t connected to nationality, which is the point we were discussing. Furthermore, I think most people would consider it reasonable to assume a person attacking trans people for being trans isn’t trans themselves. That you have trouble making this connection is the issue I have been criticizing all along.

Regarding what I comment on other people’s comments or don’t, you’re just reaching and it’s getting sad. It’s none of your business at all what I comment on, and no amount of nagging on your end has an impact on that decision. Either respond and defend your position or don’t. Beyond that is none of your business.

I did not change my tone in any of the comments I wrote, and it’s obvious to the people reading the exchange. It’s funny that you call it “returning to civility”, but whatever helps you cope I guess.

You literally wrote there’s no reason to believe she’s not a muslim herself. It’s still up there in your comment. If that’s not assuming then what is?

You do whatever you need to do. Again, it’s clear what I wrote and I stand by it. There’s nothing uncivil about what I wrote, that’s clear to all who read it. I don’t need one more opportunity, if you consider criticism and questioning of your ideas disrespectful, that’s your prerogative. So stop trying to threaten me into silence and do whatever you need to do in order to avoid examining your own biases.

I don’t ‘hate’ you, you’re just a commenter on Lemmy. I pointed out the obvious bigotry in your assumption of the woman being Muslim because she’s Iranian, despite the article making it clear she was harassing Muslim women. And you have done absolutely zero to dispell that conclusion. Assuming that my criticism is ‘hate’ just makes it clear that you’re unwilling to examine your own ideas from a critical perspective. Criticizing the civility of my comments reinforces the same conclusion. I’ve been very matter of fact, criticizing the substance of what you’ve written. I haven’t made any personal attacks as far as I can see. But you just keep doing the holier than thou thing.

Pointing to other bigoted comments doesn’t change the bigotry in your assumption, it just points to even more bigoted assumptions. Yeah, yours is more nuanced, but a more nuanced bigotry doesn’t mean it’s not bigotry.

Again, you assumed an Iranian woman is Muslim despite the article making it clear she was being bigoted against other muslim women. Ask yourself why you made that assumption if not because in your view, Iranian=muslim.

You can hide behind whatever rule you’d like. I’ve been more civil in my replies than your remarks call for. And it’s pretty clear in my unedited comments for everyone to see. Knock yourself out with whatever rule you need to hide behind, in order to avoid having an honest look at your own beliefs and biases.

Do you have any other reason than the woman being Iranian for your remark that there’s no reason to believe she’s not a muslim? You don’t, so my comment stands. You decided that she being Iranian is a good reason to assume she’s Muslim, despite the article saying she was attacking Muslim women. We both know why, so stop clutching your pearls and have look at your own assumptions.

There is no reason to believe that this woman is not herself a Muslim.

What is Muslim to you? This is a prime example for how western people see Islam as a race, and therefore people from Iran are automatically classified as muslim.

There’s a very good reason to believe that this woman is not a muslim, and that’s the whole purpose of the article: she’s harassing Muslim women for the sole reason that they wear a piece of clothing showing that they’re Muslim. That you are unable to recognize this as what it clearly is, anti Muslim bigotry, is revealing your own bias against Muslims.

I agree, while the head of state is the more important and powerful position, the president certainly isn’t exactly powerless and handles the day to day business of government. But calling the leader the Ayatollah is slightly misleading. While it’s a requirement in the constitution that the head of state be an Ayatollah, Ayatollah itself is a religious rank, not a political one. So there are many Ayatollahs around, even more since the revolution as many believe that the rank has become somewhat inflated.

You like to pretend that you care about what the animal feels, but you clearly just want to feel good about yourself by feeling superior to others. Why otherwise would you be this rude and obnoxious for no good reason? Do you think this behavior is likely to make people think “hmm, maybe he’s right and I should just eat beans and shut the fuck up”? Of course not, you’re just looking to feel superior. You have no actual interest in convincing others about the feeling of animals facing death.

The OP is not wrong, the capitalist system of exploitation is the root of the issue, and you’re the obvious example of a misguided vegan.

You’re equating Jews with Israel, so you’re basically on the same moral level as Israel and deserve just as much respect. So, fuck you.

I hope the “some sodomite sent me a bucket of poop”-drop returns soon. I don’t really like the latest drops for new technocrats.

Calling Iran’s support for Hamas “colonial shenanigans” is a perfect symptom of Zionist brain rot. Particularly when it comes from the mouth of a supporter of the only settler colonial society in the region.

Notice the gradual shift from an international order based on international law to the current “rules-based” international order that has happened during the last 2 decades? The ICJ is an arbiter of international law while the rules-based order is based on arbitrary rules made by the US and mostly NATO allies not necessarily related to international law. This shift was designed for situations like this where adherence to these arbitrary rules can be used to override/ignore international law. So when the highest court in the world when it comes to international law rules that the case brought by SA has clear merit, the US can punish SA for bringing the case in the first place and pretend that’s by the rules.

Red army’s stationed in Berlin at the end of WWII, but Sweden doesn’t consider that a big enough threat to join NATO. Russian army is now in eastern Ukraine, which would’ve been deep within the Soviet Union at the end of the WW, and suddenly we have to join NATO to keep safe. You know, protect ourselves against imperialism by joining the chief imperialist block and give the top imperialists access to 17 military bases on our soil. We’ve become so pathetic compared to the swedes from the fifties. They valued true independence, we gargle uncle Sam’s balls instead to feel safe. Sweden was uniquely independent, we’re now in alliance with Turkey and the US. That’s quite a fall from grace and it makes me sad. Like I’m losing what made my country special.