Landlords will complain every time any government, local, regional or national, attempts to regulate their bullshit, and plenty of people will rush in to take their side because they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed ghouls. Tax them to hell and back.
There, the tourists “violently intimidated one of activists, who is a racialized woman, calling her ‘fascist’, ‘monkey’, telling her to go back to Africa and even threatening to kill her.”
Sounds on par for ethnic supremacists.
Sounds like the BBC’s explanation on their use of language regarding Hamas is relevant here:
John Simpson responded to the criticism in a post on X. “British politicians know perfectly well why the BBC avoids the word ‘terrorist’, and over the years plenty of them have privately agreed with it,” he wrote.
"Calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.
“The BBC’s job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting.”
He said: “It’s about making sure that all audiences trust the information that we’re giving them, that they don’t think the BBC is coming at this from one side of the conflict as opposed to the other, and that we steer a course though this in very difficult circumstances in which our journalism can continue to be factual, accurate, impartial and truthful.”
The corporation’s editorial guidelines say the word “terrorist” can be “a barrier rather than an aid to understanding”.
They say: "We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened.
"We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as ‘bomber’, ‘attacker’, ‘gunman’, ‘kidnapper’, ‘insurgent’ and ‘militant’.
“We should not adopt other people’s language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.”
Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism. Now, if you use this standard, the Israeli government also uses violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism, therefore the Israeli government is also a terrorist organization. Would David Cameron be okay with the BBC maintaining their neutrality and describing both sides as terrorists?
Only Flying Squid and Margot Robbie have profile pictures and I refuse to acknowledge anyone else’s.
Thanks a lot for the effort put in your message. It’s going to take me a while to process it all.
I wonder what goes on the minds of the abusers.
One bad day you decide you’re going to commit the rest of your life to God, and reach a compromise to avoid sex forever. Another day, much, much later, you begin having urges, and they get so strong that the idea of abusing a child passes through your mind. If your initial intention of dedicating the rest of your life to God has led you to this point, wouldn’t it be just truer to your initial vocation to renounce your vows so that you can have sex with consenting adults, rather than harming a child?
Then again, the Catholic Church treats abusers better than it treats resigned priests.
How about policing the boys’ damned behavior for one fucking time in their lives, then?
deleted by creator
Probably not the best moment in that country’s history to make that claim
This term, the Supreme Court decided two cases involving religion: Groff v. DeJoy was a relatively low-profile case about religious accommodations at work; 303 Creative v. Elenis was a blockbuster case about the clash between religious exercise and principles of equal treatment. (The legal question was technically about speech, but religion was at the core of the dispute.)
In both cases, plaintiffs asserted religiously grounded objections to complying with longstanding and well-settled laws or rules that would otherwise apply to them. And in both, the court handed the plaintiff a resounding victory.
These cases are the latest examples of a striking long-term trend: Especially since Amy Coney Barrett became a justice in 2020, the court has taken a sledgehammer to a set of practices and compromises that have been carefully forged over decades to balance religious freedom with other important — and sometimes countervailing — principles.
Abayas don’t hurt anyone
Enforcing Muslim girls and women to hide their hair does definitely hurt someone: those who want to leave religion. It is a very common problem for ex-Muslim women and teenagers to suffer harassment both at home and elsewhere from bigoted Muslims who think they do not have the right to apostate. As soon as you stop complying with an enforced form of clothing, you’re signalling those people that you’re a sinner.
old.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/9cnyvl/help_muslim_security_guard_at_work_told_my/
It’s been part of France’s political culture that religious signification has no place in public institutions. Given that Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Britain offer ways to religious groups to punish others through the legal system for not accepting their criteria regarding what constitutes legitimate criticism [*], but France doesn’t, I’d argue that France is doing something right.
This event emboldened fanatic religious organizations, which sought charges against an actor for saying “I shit on God and Virgin Mary!” in a restaurant. Fortunately he wasn’t declared guilty, but he suffered a judicial process of 2 years. This doesn’t mean they didn’t achieve their goal: they sent everyone the message that you should think twice the next time you consider you have freedom of expression.
If you let religious people think their beliefs must be protected from any criticism, many of them will start to see their privilege as the norm, and eventually encroach the freedoms of everyone else.
Jassy told his employees that he spoke to scores of other CEOs and that “virtually all of them” preferred having their employees back in the office.
CEOs try not to think they’re the center of the world, the challenge.
I always think of that meme with a women in full body coverings and a women wearing a bikini and they’re both thinking about how awful it is that society pressures women to dress like the other.
Equating the pressure of society, at large, when you’re an independent adult, and the pressure of your parents, when you’re still under their authority is not fair.
Imagine marking the goal that seals the championship, and even right before your mind fully assimilates the celebration you have ahead, some idiot with authority over you comes and ruins it without absolutely nobody asking for it.
Media saturation can make us forget that even ghouls accompanied by PR teams 24/7 are humans too, and humans generally look quite imperfect.
deleted by creator
It wouldn’t surprise me if artillery barrage had fallen on unintended targets. There is plenty of artillery that is simply not all that accurate. The important question here is: What would Ukraine have to gain from attacking that university? It’s their city, and it’s not like the Russians are going to be conducting cutting edge research at a civil building some ~300 kms away from the battlefield.
This feels like the meme equivalent to a dad joke.