![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/cd7879c3-cd1c-4108-806e-f9ca45e9b22a.png)
Could somebody explain this to me (I’m from Belgium, so we have proportional representation)? Is it similar to the USA with each state going to a single party?
Could somebody explain this to me (I’m from Belgium, so we have proportional representation)? Is it similar to the USA with each state going to a single party?
This is extremely well put, especially the penultimate paragraph! Thank you for taking the time to put this in words.
There is indeed no moral equivalence, but where does it come from?
This culture of extreme jihadist violence is not something that suddenly came to being.
He talks as if both sides are equal, except in the way they commit warcrimes, but that is not true. One is a massive state that has money and military power that eclipses that of the other. The other is a country that has been losing land, homes and dignity with every passing year.
Being disgusted by warcrimes is the privilege of an army that is able to still do war without commiting them. With the massive power imbalance comes a genuine desensitization of the underdog to violence, as they feel no other way to fight and have a chance at winning or making a difference.
I feel like the author is choosing exactly what part to compare in both groups (the morality of their war tactics) while silently hoping that the reader forgets any other differences between the two parties.
Do you know any old people? Lots of them still have joyful and valuable lives. Also, quit talking about people in terms of “usefulness”. Sick people aren’t “useful”, disabled people aren’t “useful”, but they most certainly have a fucking right to live.
I agree that artificially keeping a person alive while they no longer have any joy or value in their lives might be wrong, but this is a very difficult assertion to make and is certainty a lot more complex than your “just kill everyone at 65”.
Also, the problem is not population, it’s how consumer focused our society is, constantly throwing away sustainable and ecological solutions for the sake of more profit.
While I agree with the sentiment, I feel that this kind of direct ad hominem is not really relevant. Especially since there is enough substantially bad stuff to say about Greene that does not equate her appearance to that of a cave person from 40 000 years ago.
The family of the 4 people that died on Jan. 6 were also given “HORRIFYING NEWS” that day.
“I think that there are some conservative content creators who are unhappy,” said Kris Ruby, a conservative influencer and president of Ruby Media Group. “It doesn’t seem even across the board. I don’t think the playing field is level.” She said some on the right who weren’t included in the program, despite meeting all the criteria, are venting in private. “Most conservatives don’t want to go up against the wrath of Elon and what happens when you criticize him,” she said. “We’ve seen that he’s not really applying the terms of service equally across the board.”
This part is just so ironical given Musks claims about the original twitter being a non-level playing field. I think his version might be a tiny bit worse, and even conservatives are getting angry about it.
Thanks, this is very clear and also insane that it’s still that way. I thought the US was the only place where popular vote differed from the actually elected officials!