AreaSIX

No replies on the holding the door and smiling being the sign of a swindler? That actually sounds like you live in an exceptionally hostile place. I’m swedish, as in people not exactly known for showing a lot of warmth to each other in public, and I always hold the door, and smile at people very often. The smiling part might be somewhat unusual here in Sweden too, but not unusual as in bad or a sign of a swindler. Most people seem to appreciate these behaviors. Either that or I’m absolutely delusional and everyone secretly views me as a swindler ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That’s not a Västgötaspets, looks more like a mixed breed.

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.

There’s evidence of apple cultivation in the middle east from around 5000 years ago as far as I know.

Here I thought I was ancient because it was combat. Seems like there are many of us old farts around here.

Meanwhile here in Sweden, everyone’s criminal record is public, and even available to search online. Unless the crime is something minor punished with a fine. It’s really ridiculous, everything is publicly available online, like addresses, phone numbers, the cars or pets people own. Unless you have a protected identity, it’s all available to everyone online. I tried to apply for a protected identity on account of being a public servant that is involved in making decisions many people very much dislike. But I couldn’t provide a concrete threat so it was denied. It’s like the system is still geared towards pre-internet times. The system itself in fact doxxes every resident in the country.

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!”

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.

Jesus brother/sister, come down. Most people on Reddit are like most people everywhere, regular normal people with an extra dollop of asshole because they can hide behind a handle online. Many probably don’t know about other alternatives, or find the somewhat convoluted sign up processes to be intimidating. Or they sign up and don’t find the content all that varied or interesting. God knows I’ve been tempted to go back from time to time, but I refuse to use the garbage they call an official app. Drugged up lost causes with an insatiable need to be righteous seems like a somewhat drastic judgement to me. Unless you think that of people in general, in which case yes, they are like people in general.

That’s because the crime of genocide tends to contain within it multiple instances of crimes against humanity, breaches of the Geneva convention, attacks against civilians and so on. It’s basically the ultimate crime containing all the other crimes within it. And the highest authority on international law in the World, the ICJ, has said that it is plausible that what Israel is doing amounts to a genocide. It really is very clear and simple, if you’re willing to see things as they are.

What exactly are people referring to when the label this a genocide?

This is The UN Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide detailing what constitutes a genocide.

Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion?

Here’s South Africa’s 84 page indictment with details and receipts on how the genocide Convention is being violated, assuming a good faith and genuine question on your part.

The US and Germany are both signatories of the UN arms trade treaty . This is article 6 (3):

“A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party”

Mass murder is the name of the game in war. So arming other militaries is always in support of mass murder. But in the eyes of international law some mass murder is acceptable as part of war. Genocide and the other crimes recounted above however, have been deemed to cross the threshold of acceptability in international law, and therefore are meant to stop the transfer of arms immediately. If the US and Germany were to acknowledge that these crimes are being perpetrated by Israel, they’d have to stop transferring arms. Mass murder in itself is admittedly wrong, but that alone is not sufficient to trigger a halt to arms exports. Therefore, it is of great importance to keep repeating: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes.