- 36
- 64
Halftime show sucked
https://old.reddit.com/r/insanepeoplefacebook/comments/1ilvnzl/here_comes_the_racism/
s ruin magic
https://old.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/1iln7lb/maros_final_word_on_dei_in_magic/
New hampshire chud victory
Trump derangement syndrome can be cured
https://old.reddit.com/r/Omaha/comments/1ilscfa/its_been_getting_increasingly_worrisome_out_here/
Asians don't need the democrats
Magic the gathering again
https://old.reddit.com/r/freemagic/comments/1ilorsr/since_it_is_already_locked_in_the_main_sub_here/
- 6
- 19
OMG. Argentina President Javier Milei just gifted Elon Musk a chainsaw for DOGEπ€£ pic.twitter.com/CWZandGxik
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 20, 2025
- 41
- 94
A leaked draft of the list of plans by the European Commission shows that the Commission wants to follow a new approach to introduce "hate crime" as a felony in the entire EU. There have been several attempts since 2021.
Already during her first term as Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen wanted to declare "hate crime" a EU felony.
The magazine Euractiv recently published a draft of the list of all initiatives that the European Commission wants to implement this year. On Tuesday, February 11th, the final list is to be presented by Ursula von der Leyen to the members of the European Parliament. The European Commission president wants to tackle another initiative so that "hate speech" is recognized as a felony in all of the European Union.
Already in 2021, during her first term as Commission president, the Commission presented a corresponding legal initiative. The parliament agreed to the initiative, but there was no agreement in the Council of the European Union. Because "hate crime" can only be introduced as a EU-wide felony if all member states agree. In November 2023, members of the European Parliament demanded again that the initiative shall be followed on.
Crimes need to meet certain requirements in order to be considered "EU crimes". These requirements are stipulated in Article 83 Paragraph 1 on the work of the European Union. The crimes must be cross-border, the acts must be categorized as "particularly severe crime", and there must not be an alternative to the expansion of EU crime status to get the crime under control. So far, among EU felonies are human trafficking, terrorism, and money laundering. "Hate speech" allegedly is cross-border not only because of the Internet, but also because media such as newspapers are able to distribute content far and wide.
So far, at the level of the European Union, discrimination on the basis of skin color, religion, or s*x is punishable. The European Commission argues that the introduction of a felony "hate crime" is necessary because hate not only harms the individual victim, but "also society at large", as the legal initiative from 2021 says. "Hate undermines the very foundations of our society. It weakens mutual understanding and respect for diversity on which pluralistic and democratic societies are built", it continues.
When "hate crime" is fundamentally recognized as a felony in the European Union, then, in a second step, the Commission together with the Parliament and the Council of the European Union, in the scope of the regular legislative procedure, can set concrete characteristics of the felony "hate crime". Also, the three institutions can then decree minimum regulations that are then valid in all member states.
Currently, in EU law, there is no definition of hate speech and hate crime. On the definition of the term "hate speech", the Commission refers to a recommendation by the European Council from 1997, in which it states that hate speech is the incitement of hate because of certain protected characteristics like religion or s*x. The term "hate crime" is being defined in a recommendation by the European Commission in 2015 as "advocacy, promotion or incitement, in any form, of the denigration, hatred or vilification of a person or group of persons." A "negative stereotyping" is also seen as "hate crime". In that, it is about characteristics like an alleged social gender identity, age, origin, s*x, or religion.
Based on these two documents, the Commission speaks of "hate crime" being any crime with a motive based on prejudices. Specifically, the initiative from 2021 says: "For both hate speech and hate crime, it is the bias motivation that triggers the perpetrator's action." Furthermore: "These are 'identity' or 'message' acts, as the messages conveyed - notably that the targeted victims do not belong to that society - are addressed not only to the victim, but also to their community or group."
Accordingly, the motivation of the perpetrator is crucial for the felony. In addition, the text says that "hate crime" and hate speech "undermine the foundations of the EU". The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided in 2006 that it could be necessary for "democratic societies to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance".
The right to freedom of speech does not protect against law enforcement reactions to hate speech, the ECtHR says. The legal initiative from 2021 also refers to the concept of a "ladder of harm" or "pyramid of hate", according to which hate not only leads to discrimination or insults, but also "bias motivated violence" like r*pe, murder, or genocide. As an example, they refer to a study according to which hate-filled tweets lead to an increase of hate crime in a city.
- 122
- 122
The #Groomer is trying to turn our children into freaks. https://t.co/o92QlF8E1o pic.twitter.com/sitBzuEVfi
— Darrin Bell (@DarrinBellArt) April 23, 2022
https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/darrin-bell-freelancer
anyway lets look at the works of his that won the pulitzer
- 10
- 18
- 1
- 22
do you guys think it would be like changing the channel pic.twitter.com/cCjKYAbuzu
β mantis lover (@mantisthighs) February 17, 2025
- 21
- 46
Here's the text of one of the resignations, from a former clerk for Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts (conservative judges for the s reading)
I expect you will find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.
You can see another here: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/13/politics/read-acting-us-attorney-resignation-letter-doj-response/index.html
which is from a Federalist society member and Scalia clerk:
And to top it all off, 's Border Czar threatens to renew the charges if he doesn't cooperate with ICE (totally not corruption though):
- 7
- 26
The boys love being under the sheets where it's warm
- 18
- 47
Delta Flight 4819 (Operating as EDV4819) crashed on landing today at Toronto Pearson International Airport.
— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) February 17, 2025
The Canadair CRJ-900 inverted and caught fire at some point after reaching the runway. pic.twitter.com/mJxuNqO2HQ
Can't wait until this is blamed on Trump. Canada really is the 51st state.
- 41
- 77
Itβs ironic that the only NATO member to ever have invoked Article 5 (mutual defence) is America, after 9/11, yet itβs the first to say it wonβt honour it for others.
— Grindell Matthews FellaπΊπ¦π¬π§ #NAFO (@MyDeathRay) February 13, 2025
I hope you Americans donβt ever need help again pic.twitter.com/KFPtxke7EU
- 5
- 36
#Pokemon
β κ°ν 리 (@gamtoryy) February 10, 2025
λκΊΌμ΄ μ§λ°© μ λ§λ³΄ μλ°©μ‘μμ κ·Έλ €λ³΄μμ΅λλ€ pic.twitter.com/ph9QXxw9q8
- 44
- 70
Lammy to open slavery reparations talks after Caribbean ex-colonies demand Β£18trillionhttps://t.co/z4wqQz6xnh
— GB News (@GBNEWS) February 7, 2025
- 33
- 34
- 13
- 60
- 14
- 43
WARNING THIS POST CONCERNS LEFTISTS SO EVERYTHING IS
Honestly I (f19) feel like I messed up very badly here, despite having been the "more educated" one on the topic. I blame it on my impulsivity, bad debating skills and lack of empathy, and now I regret having cut someone off too quickly. (posting from a throwaway acc. Might delete this post later). Ok, very long wall of text incoming, only read if you have time to care to hear about the troubles of a dumb leftist teen...
We got along greatly, shared a lot of hobbies and interest in the same media, she (f20) seemed to like me a lot, and I might've even developed a crush on her. But then the issue appeared when I once compared the depiction of an oppressive system from "Arcane" to what's going on in Palestine. Turns out she's "neutral", is only focused on the current war (without any regards to the broader historical context) and refuses to support a liberated Palestine bc then Hamas would rule and enforce sharia law (she's specifically concerned about the women. In her own words, she "can't support a country that treats women worse than animals") (also she spoke of Hamas as if they're the only Palestinian semi-governing power, it seems she has never heard of the PA (although I'm aware that they're collaborators of the occupation)). (Also she wrongfully regurgitated the claim that Israel is more tolerant towards other religions.) I told her, among other things, about how Israel forces all of its citizens into military training in order to maintain the occupation, but her only response to that was "yeah, I too wish they would leave the women out of the conscription", completely missing the point. I also mentioned the Nakba, but eh, to no avail. And to be fair, it was probably a mistake on my part to not provide sources right away the first time it came up. I wish I had just sent her the purplewashing-article from decolonizepalestine.com right away instead of wrestling with my weak words. And I feel like in general I didn't address her points and concerns well and precise enough, such as failing to make it clear enough that supporting Palestinian liberation has nothing to do with inherently supporting Hamas' ideology, and the reason most people (including those who'd be marginalized under them) are not condemning them right now is because they (alongside other armed groups of different ideologies) are currently the only effective resistance against Israel in Gaza. And I realize I might've made a crappy transition to that topic in the first place too, it started with me disecting the in-show argument "you're one of the good [members of an oppressed group]" and arguing that a people under occupation can't/shouldn't be separated into "good/harmless civilians" and "armed/evil terrorists", if the root cause of "terroristic actions" is oppression from an outer force and said "terrorists" are sometimes the sole glimmer of hope of their societies. And when I meant to say something in the sense of "Gaza is an example of that, where you can't separate the people based on their reactions to their own oppression, the 'peaceful' ones may disagree with the 'radical's ideology and methods but in the end they still share a common struggle and goal, the true big bad here being the colonial oppressor (for now) who created the conditions for violent resistance and religious fundamentalism to spread in the first place", it ended up coming across to her as "all of Gaza supports Hamas".
Eventually I just gave up arguing, on the basis that "hey, at least she supports a ceasefire too", and we continued our friendship and communication like normal. Though that underlying feeling of frustration and disappointment kept lingering within me...
Some time later, over the course of a few months, we watched some movies together... and some of these movies (e.g. "Wicked") also contained themes of oppression and discrimination, presenting fictionalized depictions of them in fantasy settings, and another one was about colonialism and it's effects on nature. Obviously, when watching these, my brain also inevitably made the connection with Palestine (among other things), but was frustrated knowing that I couldn't tell her that without having to argue again.
Over time, I opted to sprinkle in some political articles (not even just about Palestine specifically, but also White Feminism and other instances of colonialism and imperialism, including an analysis on zionist antisemitism) in my stories inbetween pics of my mundane activities, hoping she'd read them, without me having to shove it in her face directly. But it proves to have been for nothing...
Fast forward, and I share with her a leftist commentary&analysis video about Arcane ("Arcane has always been centrist", great watch btw). We discuss some stuff we agree and disagree on in a civil manner. Eventually I somehow couldn't help but mention Zionism and Palestine in a small side comment again (my bigger argument was not centered around it). She noticed, and got upset again, disagreeing and stating "uhm I disagree, Palestinians aren't oppressed, they are the ones who started it and are being racist towards Israelis". I got annoyed and replied something along the lines of "Bruh, Israelis are the indeed occupiers and oppressors here, how you still so ignorant?" and announced that I'll share some sources for once. She took great offense to being called "ignorant", and claimed she'll also share some from her side.
I took some time for research and sent her several long lists with sources covering several aspects (the beginnings and proof that this is indeed colonialism, casualties comparison, Hamas & PA and other factions, women (including female journ*lists and resistance fighters), greenwashing, ressource distribution...) with some of my own commentary in between (which for once was actually quite calm, objective (Edit: ok the first few messages were emotionally charged too), and non-accusatory). Though it didn't take too long either, because I have already semi-prepared myself for such confrontation. Then I waited. 1 week of silence. Then, her reply finally arrived. It was not as bad as I thought it'd be, but still disappointing. She essentially just wanted to retreat from the argument, refused to share her sources bc "it would only stoke the flames", once more insisted she was already well-informed long before receiving my links since she "has been keeping up with this war for a long time", and suggested we should just shift our focus away from this topic because she otherwise enjoys hanging out and talking with me. I took offense to that, since she essentially admitted to not even have bothered looking at anything I sent. And her offer just... rubbed me wrong. Having to avoid this one topic when it's reflected so often around us, in reality and fiction. And in general, how could she deny the plight of one people, but then preach how "all oppression is wrong"? If she's on a completely different page than I am? So I took only 24hrs to draft different responses, and sent some replies that could be dumbed down to this: "Sorry mate, but if I can't discuss stuff like this with you, we're not compatible" "Also, you mean you can't support guys who commit mass-r*pes, but yet you are fine with me 'supporting them'? (since according to your own logic, pro-Palestine and pro-Hamas are the same thing)" "I really don't want to do this, but I think it'd be better for both of us if we go seperate ways. Goodbye" and one pic with a cartoon saying "We can disagree and still be friends - yeah, on pizza toppings, not genocide". And before she had the chance to respond, I blocked her.
And now I wish I had taken more time to think, before doing any of this. Because now she definitly resents me for good. And it would've not ended like this, had I done things differently from the start. We had plans together, and I ruined them. I wish i could've either kept it alive but simply at arms length (like make it clear if she insists on these views, I merely can't consider her my closest of friends and that our relationship evolving into anything beyond platonic will be off the table), or just break it off much gentler, without blocking... The subtle contempt I felt before that point has abruptly transformed into much more debilitating shame, guilt and regret since.
To wrap this all up, I guess the main questions I derive from this experience and would like you to give your thoughts on are:
Was I justified in feeling the way I did (even if I might've overreacted?
What would you have done in my place?
Do you think we could've continued being friends like that, that it would've been ok?
And any advice on coping with the consequences of my actions and my grief overall? Surely I'm not the first to have been in this sort of situation, right?
General advice and sources on how to be more compassionate and come off as less zealous when engaging in debates like these?
Bc in left circles, we always argue about how friends can agree-to-disagree, except when it comes to human rights and genocide. Would this have also fallen into that? Since otherwise we're both very pro- any human right you could think of (except she isn't really pro-Palestinian rights, I guess... or technically she is worried about Palestinian women, but only in regards to the violence they suffer at the hands of domestic patriarchy, not recognizing the additional suffering caused by colonialism and that either source of gender-based violence does not justify the other). And isn't there at the same time a common complaint about how the left is so weak because we are so divisive over too many things?? (or does it apply here at all?)
Like do not get it twisted, she is not evil, she is not a zio herself (though one of her fave celebrities is one), she probably has her heart in the right place, she's just very stubborn and was unlucky to have received a half-assed and probably patronizing attempt at education from me, an equally stubborn plus impulsive and hot-headed individual. And now she's surely heartbroken too, maybe even more than I am. She is a very forgiving person, but I doubt we could ever get reconcile this time... or if we should even get reconcile at all. Bc now I know I won't convince her to consider a different perspective ever. And if her stance made my uncomfortable, mine probably made her uncomfortable too.
Ok thank you for reading my entire stupid yappery, I'm interested to hear you all.
You were a massive, ginormous peepee. You shouldn't apologize. She's better off without your endless diatribes, purity tests and holier-than-thou "learn or burn" link dumps. Poor girl was like, here's a dweeb who literally supports fundamentalists Islamist terror groups and think raping, mutilating and murdering girls at a music festival is "resistance", but I'm still gonna give his shmuck butt a chance. And you just kept blowing it over and over again. Leave her alone and go be miserable by yourself or with someone who does some useless Palestine virtue signaling street theater.
She didn't "engage" with your nonsense link dumps because she's a mature, emotionally developed human being who prioritized a relationship with you over political disagreements that neither of you have any actual influence over. She didn't need the validation of defeating your viewpoints or convincing you. She gave you the most precious thing she has, herself, her time, her attention, even as you kept insinuating that she was lacking because she didn't submit to your arguments.
I know you're a kid. Do whatever you want. She's better not being around a toxic person, and if you're not one yet, you're well on your way. As for her, don't you worry, she'll put a finger out and guys will line up around the block to give her attention and care and support and love which she deserves.
You didn't expect this on a leftist sub, but here we are. I hope one day you can look back and really see what an ugly person you were to a nice girl who went out of her to overlook areas of disagreement, try to make peace and be with you, something which is very rare in this world.
Neutral is complicit, frick her
- 2
- 10
I had a lot enjoyment laughing at delusional nafo types, their r-slurred piggy banks in the Whitehouse an most of all because redditors love Ukraine so my morality forced me to believe the opposite.
Now that establishment is anti Ukraine and slava ukraini shitlibs
are defeated, I decided to come out in support of Ukraine and hope we give 200 billions more of our tax money
And yes I base all my political views on contrarianism
- 23
- 41