Yeah fair enough, maybe Lemmy.world shouldn't defederate from Lemmy.ml, when people can just block Lemmy.ml in their account settings if they want.
GeneralInterest
"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.
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.
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.