The more money the dod pays on bombing farmers in Yemen the less money it has for other things.

Also that money could have paid the salary of about 3.000 teachers for a year. The US being willing to spend in such a stupid way does not remove from it being unsustainable for society as a whole. Will it bring the US down by itself? No. Will it be one of the many cuts that is bleeding the US dry eventually? Yes.

Extremism is usually against the fundamentals of many religions. The whole terminology is wrong to begin with.

Take the example of American Evangelists. Do they go to the fundamentals of Jesus preaching according to the bible? Take everything you have and give to the poor? Rather an Elephant goes through the eye of a needle than a rich man reaching heaven? Tossing over tables of trade in the temples as the places of worship should not be places of commerce and greed? Refraining from violence wherever possible?

In the same wake the people quoted regarding Shiasm. The Quran says you should not bother with that. Also it is core to understand that noone except Allah knows what is in the heart of a person and noone except Allah will judge on who goes to hell and who goes to paradise.

English translation of the meaning:

[6:159] Surely they who divided their religion into parts and became sects, you have no concern with them; their affair is only with Allah, then He will inform them of what they did.

So being extremist shouldnt be called fundamentalist, as you need to violate some or many fundamentals to become extreme.

“Whenever you want to scam people as a company, just invent some fancy words that sound like innovation” odometer

No, MS just wants to expand their monopoly, but “MS buying most common browser, after antitrust laws already forbid internet explorer” doesnt ring so well.

Pretty sure geologists are also needed in many types of construction projects. Of course it is not that interesting to tell the 1224th project team that they need to dig their foundations at least 80cm deep and guard against rising humidity.

https://x.com/yemenimilitary?lang=en

The check mark is provided by Twitter.

The account has a blue checkmark. Musk be real.

The https://x.com/yemenarmyeng musk be a fake account. They dont have blue checkmark

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?

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.

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.