Supplying bullets to your body…

This is choosing between losses, not between to gains. The EU is not the king in this situation, it is the servant who has two masters demanding loyalty and both being willing to punish what they perceive as disloyalty.

Yeah, i don’t think that is what happening.

When two people are pointing a gun at you and one of them will shoot if you choose the other one, you are not exactly “winning”.

Pope Francis declared it possible for Priests to bless same-sex marriages.

If the supposed cult leader of a supposed homophobic cult is allowing for the supposed cult to bless same-sex marriages, how is that consistent with the notion of a supposedly homophobic cult?

Sure. The US military can just start murdering everyone in the country with their superior firepower. Then the economy is gone and so are the relatives and friends of the soldiers.

Look at Israel failing to militarily defeat Hamas. And that is not only with the firepower difference but also with decades of supremacist indoctrination and a near total disregard for the human life of the people they designate as enemies.

Look at how the Ukrainians took over their country in 2014, throwing stones and pushing garbage cans as shields against the army and police shooting at them.

If the people in the US were dedicated to oppose a fascist takeover, they would win. Yes people will die in the process, but the idea that the army would just massacre everyone without hesitation from a human perspective is far fetched, just as the idea of the government and their cronies happily affording to loose large parts of the population is far fetched.

How does your sentiment differ from someone who would say:

The catholic church LGBT is indeed a homophobic sinful cult that condemns homophobia as a sins for which you get punished in hell religion as being a homophobic cult, having million of followers or being popular doesn’t change the fact.

You take the broadest brush and just stroke over everything, instead of being willing to accept any nuance.

She is describing herself as catholic though and even studied catholic theology.Her attack was directed at all churches, not just the catholic church.

More specifically she said “the churches shouldn’t be another NGO” and then gave examples as to what they shouldn’t talk about. So the idea is already that "NGO"s are something bad and civil society voicing political stances is bad. But then religious institutions commenting on how politics are in violation of the values the religion teaches, seems to be particularly disdained. This is also historically worrisome as the churches in the GDR used to be hailed for taking a stance against the regime and there is a lot of stories, how the churches in the third Reich would have taken stance, although i am not sure if the ratio of opposition/silence/collaboration is accurately represented in those stories.

Assuming the green-text is true, or even if it is just as a story to bring across the point, the notion is that “do what you want with me” is implied to be some of the “hardcore” things rather than the possibility of anon just wanting sensual intimacy.

The critique is that the assumption of everyone wanting “hardcore” things is just false. And frankly a lot of people do make themselves suffer by trying to adhere to this porn idea of sex, instead of allowing themselves to be sensual.

If your concept of a religious institution that has more than a billion people listening to it is reduced to “homophobic cult”, how does that differ from being part of a “bigoted cult” because you condemn people based on your simplistic understanding of their religion?

The church is political. The church should be political. Francis pushed for the church to take more of a stance and it rubbed “christian conservatives” the wrong way, because their political goals are a mockery of the values Jesus preached.

I think in terms of the church the term “conservative” does not necessarily align with the political understanding. The largest shift in the church is demographic. White Europeans are loosing power rapidly in the catholic church. Subsequently the catholic church will align less and less with “Western” conservatives, and their imperialist understanding of geopolitics.

I expect to see much more opposition of “christian conservative” politicians in Europe towards the catholic church.
Ironically just yesterday the president of the German federal parliament of the “christian conservative” CDU told the Churches to shut up about politics.

“blindly hating” is a pretty strange way to describe opposition to ethnic cleansing, genocide, illegal occupation, settler colonialism, apartheid / racial segregation, ethno-nationalism, regular taking of women and children as hostages in “administrative detention” without having access to legal representation or even knowing what they would be accused off, torture, rape, sexual violence against minors in those facilities, regular murders, looting, breaking and entering of peoples home to drive them off their land, poisoning of livestock…

All of this is either legally confirmed by the ICJ itself or argued in consensus by major human rights organizations. Often these acts are documented by Israelis themselves, who proudly boast about the crimes they committed. Except for the direct genocide all of this has been going on for decades.

In the article the family members are repeatedly quoted asking “who approved of the festival location?” in regards to security. The question if it is ethically or legally acceptable to “rave” high on drugs on land you stole from another people, just outside the wall used to siege them in, with slow but systematic starvation, seems to not be a common question among Israeli minds. In such it is also cynical how the people indulging in that obscene display of their supremacists mindset are described as “wanting to spread love”.

That does not justify killing unarmed people. Their delusions shouldn’t be repeated without contextualizing the reality of who they are and what they do either.

So it is not given to a centralized authority, that is guided by for profit motives and also does the moderation of its plattform.

Where this can lead was shown with twiiter. The moment the central organization is captured, the central authority will abuse the authentification for its own goals. Then instead of just having to check for the authentification to be reliable you need to question everything that is on that plattform as a whole, which is infinetly more consuming, but also simply impossible.

I looked at the one for mysoginy

One in four of the young people who have heard of Tate have a favourable opinion of him, but there is a clear gender divide: only 12% of female respondents have a positive view, compared to 41% of young men.

We asked young people what they liked about Tate. The top three reasons overall are: “He’s not afraid to push back against ‘woke’ ideology” (24%), “He wants men to be real men” (22%) and “He tells it how it is” (20%). Although it is commonly thought that Tate’s opulent lifestyle, cars and fitness are an entrypoint through which young people become interested in his content, admiration for lifestyle (14%) and humour (11%) do not rank as highly. This suggests that the main pull of Andrew Tate for young people is his hateful activism.

That said, younger Tate supporters aged 16-17 and female respondents are more likely to admire his lifestyle, at 20% and 18% respectively. Putting Tate’s motivational and fitness content within a wider context of his divisiveness and hatefulness, as well as signposting other figures who produce similar lifestyle content without the underlying misogyny, could be an important step in combating his influence on younger, female audiences.

I think the source provides a nuanced picture and offer suggestions how to combat his influence that got lost in the short notion in the guardian article.

I think this is ambigous. When people are asked “do you support the views of Andrew Tate?” How many actually know these in particular? What if individual views are asked and then if more than 50% are answered with “support” it is considered to support his views overall?

I’ve read enough news to know that Tate is a terrible person and probably a serious criminal. But i would not be able to describe his views, nor do i want to find out what his views are exactly.

If the same authority is doing verification that is also doing moderation and both ultimately in a for profit setting, that has conflict of interest.

We dont know how reliable bluesky moderation will stay. We dont know how they will respond to political pressure. We dont know how they will monetize past the growth phase and then could also argue a “service fee” for verification.

In a perfect world none of these would happen, but then everybody could still be on twitter and be fine there.

Idk. Celebrities and Politicians usually have other vetted channels such as their own website or a website of their ogranization representing them. It should be basic journalistic work to see if their social media links link to the account in question or not.

The US has been a threat to world peace no matter who was president for the past 30 years (at least)

There is measures everyone can take by speaking up, holding political representatives accountable, boycotting Israeli products or products by companies complicit in Israeli crimes, by demonstrating, by organizing and by educating ourselves.

As an individual we have little power. As a collective we have more than enough power, which is why it is crucial never to become defeatist.

Libya and Ukraine are two warning examples what happens if you give up your nukes. There is no reason for Iran to trust this US administration or any other administration to come.

So Iran at the very least will try to maintain a level of being ready to develop and build a few nukes in a short time frame, if any outside threat would become more serious. In order for Iran to not feel such a threat to manifest, the whole power dynamics in the region would need to change fundamentally. But with Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey being strategic threats and Israel also having nukes, i don’t see any scenario where Iran would not have reasons to feel threatened.

Do you mean the enlarged picture? It could be that you run a script-blocker and it is blocking the javascript of the instance. If you click the picture again or the post link it should link directly to the file on feddit.org w.o. requiring javascript.