GojuRyu

I get that non-violent crime has a specific meaning in law, but calling the selling of children, causing massive psychological damage non-violent really rubs me the wrong way. Not a criticism of you but of the system that conciders it non-violent just because it was done with the stroke of a pen instead of the wave of a gun.

Dave McKeegan isn’t who offered to fund a flat earther. He was himself funded by the guy who arranged the whole thing, same as the flat earther was. Dave McKeegan was simply a prominent debunker with skills as a photographer who accepted to take part in this venture.

They basically did the same thing the Satanic Temple often does. Use the rules republicans make thinking only they will benefit. When they are used by the other side as well it has a funny way of causing a reevaluation of if it should in fact be legal after all. My understanding is that CAH made a sort of parody of Musks trick although doing it in a slightly more careful way to make sure that any legal action against them would apply more broadly. I don’t think it’s good that vote buying is a thing, but equating the satirical protest campaign with the actual thing being pushed against is unfair in my opinion. You can argue if they go about it the right way or not but legitimizing the original offense by pointing out people cheered at the counter campaign opposing musk using the same tool and humor feels disingenuous.

If you look her up you will see that this is one of her more tame takes unfortunately. At least this is not about her views on women’s place in marriage or the rights a husband supposedly has to their wives body, regardless of consent. I can’t help but feel a little sad for her though. From her recounting of her life it sounds like she married a man she didn’t love because that’s what she was supposed to do. After over a decade of miserable marriage she broke and saw it as her duty to be servile in all things to a man she was never really attracted to and convinced herself that happiness is to live that submissive life in deference to a man in all things. If it was the story of someone who got out and found a life outside those oppressive beliefs it would be a cautionary tale, but she sees it as the recipe for a good biblical life.

Yeah I was very ready to disagree with it being most people as that is far from my experience. I also come from one of those northern european countries that others describe as cold and closed of because we have a much more introvert aligned culture. And the fact that I’m someone who gets drained probably also biases my sample to more like minded people.

Jeg er mest til co-op strategispil. Jeg synes meget godt om spil som Pandemic, Zombicide og elder sign. Der er dog også Small world og Arkham Horror som altid er godt selvom det ikke lige frem er co-op som regel.

Non native English speaker here with a genuine question; wouldn’t “telling the students whom I married” mean that the teacher married the students instead of telling students about their spouse?

I mean being romantic or sexual carries some other connotations and meanings making them ambiguous in many situations if used as the antonym to the asexual and aromantic label.
I don’t really care what words are used for it but I find the allo ones useful as they are the most commonly understood ones and are unambiguous.

Unfortunately I am still unable to find any stories that tells what happens to the Hamas members after their surrender. I’m unsure if they get treated well or are sent to the same facilities in which there are reports of human rights violations amounting to psykological and physical torture.

I did find some examples of successful surenders, but nothing where hostages were explicitly mentioned to have sweetened the deal of surrender.
I do believe you may be right but I have been unable to verify it myself.

Are there any examples of it being used successfully and the aftermath of it? This is a genuine question stemming from my own ignorance on the subject. I would really like for that to be a good way of handeling situations where hostages are released, but I could easily understand why a member of Hamas might have reservations if they do not have reason to trust the system.
If there is good reason to trust it I will agree that that would have been a viable and good way out and should have been used.

To me it sounded like they were specifically pushing against a claim that Hamas offered to free everyone. They pointed out that they only said civilians and as not all hostages would be considered civilians not all hostages would have been freed as another commenter claimed.

I still see it as them pushing back against an “Hamas was good actually” sentiment, arguing that Hamas was not as good as implied due to a careful reading of the statement and an assessment of the hostages and whether all were civilian or would be considered civilian by Hamas.

There is a greater context, but the thread in which this was written the context was a push back against claims portraying Hamas favorably.

Do you really believe that any member of hamas would be safe just because they let some hostages go? How would that work? Should they surrender themselves to the IDF while delivering the hostages, just notify them of where they are so they won’t be bombed or how would that all work?