The announcement of what could be Julian Assange’s final hearings – on 20 and 21 February before the British High Court – has sparked a flurry of speculation about what could be the final fate of the now 52-year-old Australian journalist and publisher, who has been imprisoned in London for four years while awaiting extradition to the United States where 175 years of supermax almost certainly await him.
But how is it possible that Assange can be jailed for 175 years, just for doing what any responsible journalist and editor should always do – that is, disclose war crimes and other wrongdoings he or she learns about by way of spontaneous witnesses? Especially since the US Supreme Court ruled in 1971 that it is permissible to reveal state secrets if it is in the public interest to do so?
Yes, I’ve had several posts that humanize Palestinians removed near the start of the conflict on Lemmy.World, though things have improved there. I’ve never seen censorship of Gaza reporting here at BeeHaw; I have a lot of admiration for @alyaza who has beaten me to the post several times.
I’m not the one you were replying to and haven’t read the comments you referenced but couldn’t let this stand unchallenged:
It’s not censorship when they’re removing posts by both sides.
Yes it is censorship, it could be censorship with reduced bias, it might even be appropriate censorship. But it is literally censorship to censor speech.
If you read who I was responding to, they are asserting that this is political censorship of pro-Israel content. It may be censorship, but not towards a certain political viewpoint, just towards assholes.
you literally just had a protracted argument with me, an admin who determines what gets removed or not, in another thread over Israel and that was not removed. you have another pro-Israel set of comments in this thread that have not been removed even though i personally think they’re even less defensible than what you were arguing with me. i don’t know how you can seriously attempt to make this point.
Czecholslovakia already had a significant far-right demographic, I don’t think this is something that can be blamed on the US, this is just the result of conservativism anywhere.
Protecting mass shooters is a right wing thing, which their right wing may or may not do as a consequence of this. Mass shootings themselves outside of terrorism were first popularized by the Columbine shooting which inspired many copycats hoping to become as notorious. Thankfully the article calls this POS “the gunman” instead of giving them the infamy they may have wanted.
This is kind of an absurd take, Americans didn’t invent mass killings. There have been shootings and killings far longer than the US has even been around. Whatever problems the US has you can’t just lay every problem at their feet. It reads more like you’re trying to force some kind of political narrative than anything else.
I specified non-political mass shootings by individuals, not mass killings in general. Obviously mass killings in general existed prior to that, and there were a few mass shootings prior to them becoming extremely common. The event that caused them to become common was Columbine, not the Charles Whitman mass shooting or any other historical mass shooting which had occurred rarely and sporadically until that point.
What the hell is a “non-political mass shooting”? Columbine wasn’t “political”, it was a couple of assholes who literally just did it because they thought it’d be ‘cool’. They didn’t make political demands or say “this is because gay people have rights” or whatever. You hear about more mass shootings in general starting around Columbine for the simple fact that that is when mass media and the Internet were becoming established.
But there were mass shootings before that, just because they didn’t go viral on non-existent social media doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. The whole reason Europe has the modern gun laws it does is in no small part because they’ve had mass shootings of their own.
You’re trying too hard to try and pin this one on the US and the more you try to defend the notion the more clear it becomes that this isn’t about shootings, it’s about some kind of weird agenda.
I’m not sure you’re understanding me, so let me try my best to clarify what I’m saying. Please approach my arguments in good faith rather than assuming I’m automatically wrong because I hold a motivation you’re assuming I have. Most mass shootings in history have been done for political reasons. Most of the time it’s the government acting through use of their militaries against other militaries and often against civilians, and also often by individuals or non-government groups committing acts of terrorism to affect some kind of political change. Some mass shootings, such as the one committed by Charles Whitman, were committed for other reasons but did not inspire others to follow their example.
The Columbine shooters were inspired to commit an act of violence by Timothy McVay not because they agreed with the radical libertarian political ideas he committed his act of terrorism for, but because they saw it made him notorious in the media. The Columbine shooters were inspired mainly by their desire for infamy and fame. This is clear from mountains of evidence of the shooters claiming that this is the inspiration for their act of violence. Since the Columbine shooters, an additional category beyond political violence has become common for mass shootings which is the desire to become infamous. Since Columbine this category of non-politically motivated mass shootings has been significantly more common than prior to Columbine mainly in the United States but also elsewhere such as Australia. There may have been mass shooters with the Columbine shooters’ motivations prior to Columbine, but they were rare and did not inspire the trend which Columbine inspired. It is extremely likely that since Columbine, the desire to become infamous is the motivation of a mass shooting which is committed for non-political reasons.
Media groups including the BBC have decided no longer to name and reveal information about mass shooters to deter this inspiration from possibly being fulfilled, hence why this article gives no details of “The gunman.” I am relieved whenever I see this and support it.
The US right wing protects mass shooters which the Australian right wing did not which is among the reasons why Australia does not have the same amount of issues with mass shootings as the US does. Because the Czech Republic has a strong right-wing element it may be possible they take measures to protect future mass shooters as the US has.
No one is blaming US here. It was obviously the murderer’s fault. I don’t know how’d you come to the conclusion I’m blaming US. I was just mentioning the fact that it’s pretty common in the US while it’s not at all common here (or in Europe in general). And I always said that I’m quite relieved that these things are not happening here and that no one’s getting inspired by the US shootings. I think this sentiment is quite common among Europeans.
Because it’s quite common there? I’m not really sure what’s the confusion here. Is it common enough in the US that it’s infamous for it? Yes. Does that somehow make a shooting in a different country their fault? No.
Not attributing the particular mass shooting, but attributing mass shootings as a phenomenon, yes.
Don’t try to play dumb about your choice to call it a “lifestyle”. No one calls stabbing attacks “the British Lifestyle”, or anti-Muslim legislation “the French Lifestyle”, despite those things being common to those places, and them being infamous for them.
Every politician and military leader worth their salt knows that oppression creates terrorism. The way Israel has been treating Palestine made Hamas inevitable, and everyone making decisions in Israel had to have known it. So why intentionally create terrorists? Because theoretically, the existence of terrorists justifies violence. Hamas was created by Israel with the intention of accelerating the genocide under a sympathetic justification.
Hamas is a Frankenstein’s monster. A creation, deliberately made, which grew out of its creator’s control. Hamas’ cause is more sympathetic than Israel bargained for, because at the end of the day all that rage and violence is motivated by a desire not to be oppressed. And just like in the original Frankenstein, all the creator needs to defeat the monster is a little bit of love. If Israel passed laws guaranteeing the equality of Palestinian citizens, Hamas would have no new recruits and no international support. Its legitimacy and power would evaporate in a day. Israel continues the “war” because it believes it can still control the monster. That it can still use Hamas to justify further violence.
Yep, there was a reason why until 2019 i believe Israel publicly funded the Hamas with the intent to weaken the formation of a Palestinian government. Israel’s far right needs someone they can try and look strong against so people stop looking inword ar what thier government is actually doing.
I'm honestly interested to see how this goes. Usually when someone is elected who claims to be "libertarian" they don't actually adhere to the philosophy or just pay lip service. I lean socialist myself, but one size never fits all and Argentina is in bad enough shape that maybe this will help.
It looks like he’s trying to heal a patient with bloodletting. I think it might help to revive the economy, but also may be a disaster. Also I think that the social guarantees should at least be in force after things get better, if not the whole time. Trying to work things out for the country by putting the citizens in even worse position does not seem like a humane thing to do even if it works :(
Same here. Milei as an experiment could go either way, but staying the course would have led to certain disaster… and to be frank, the country as a whole doesn’t have a lot to lose at this point anyway.
Could go either way fucking lol, the man is an insane cunt - what fucking possible way could it go except to shit? He might become a normal dude after a stroke? What the fuck
I think that’s a bit oversimplified. Milei’s no doubt a knob and there’s a good chance he’ll screw up, but the alternative would have been the former minister of economy doing four years of the same, which would have been a 100% chance of screwing up. So before you make any more oversimplified statements, consider the alternative to Milei.
Milei has inherited a country on the brink of economic collapse and hyperinflation, caused by a government that has financed its overspending by just printing more money for decades, and borrowing whatever foreign currency it could. This is obviously not sustainable.
He wants to link the peso to the dollar (so the government can’t print more money at will anymore - not to mention the fact that many transactions are already half-legally done in dollars anyway) and do away with some of the many regulations that the Peronists have been promising for decades will help the economy, but which most experts agree have unsurprisingly crippled it further, and in many cases facilitated corruption.
His opponent’s political program can be summed up as “introduce more subsidies”.
Which one makes more sense to you?
It probably depends on what you want to achieve. At the moment it’s probably to avoid hyperinflation, another national bankruptcy and poverty levels climbing to new all-time highs. Massa (the other guy) is known for trying to counter the effects of the current massive inflation by printing more money for government subsidies (let that sink in for a moment), so one could argue that whatever Milei actually does, it can’t be worse than that.
His (to put it mildly) over-the-top rhetoric, homophobia/misogyny and the suggestions to sell your organs to make ends meet etc. are different beasts altogether, but I can’t blame the voters for ranking having food on the table higher than strengthening LGBTQ+ rights. I’m grateful I don’t have to make that choice in my own country.
You are talking about a guy who takes economic advice from a “psychic medium” who he believes is in turn talking psychically to his dogs, who he believes are clones of resurrected jesus-dog.
Just makes me wonder how many Palestinians they’ve murdered in similar circumstances, and we just didn’t hear about it because they weren’t Israelis, so it was treated as if it didn’t matter.
I mean, the answer is loads. There was a hospital where they had to move all patients away from the outer rooms because the Israeli army were using snipers to pick off staff who came to attend to them. Uniformed doctors who were engaged in treating their patients were shot with no warning.
Just based on the article, these “reforms” are clearly aimed at harming the working class. I’ll give you one guess as to which other class of people will benefit from them.
That’s very dismissive of the failures the former ruling party had. It’s hard to drum up votes for the guy considered responsible for tanking your county’s economy and spiking the poverty rate.
Like I agree, him winning is unfortunate and short sighted, but I think blaming the victims isn’t going to do anything other than help asshats like him win.
I’m not attempting to victim-blame; nobody is completely immune to propaganda and it’s not the fault of the working class that we’re bombarded by it constantly. Often people have no clue they’re being lied to all their lives. When they make decisions based on faulty information that’s shoved at them for decades by the rich and powerful, the working people are not to blame; the people who make the propaganda are.
The IDF said it had received a report regarding an “off-duty police officer and a civilian who fired toward a Palestinian individual suspected of hurling rocks” in the area. It confirmed an IDF soldier was also in the area and said it was investigating a claim that the soldier fired at the Palestinian.
Jesus. The lying and gaslighting is insane, the paper thin justifications. Absolute scumbags.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.