Thrillhouse @ Thrillhouse @lemmy.world

Posts

14

Comments

397

Joined

2 yr. ago

No one deserves rape. No one deserves to be kidnapped. No one deserves to be killed.

Of course Israel’s people shouldn’t be raped or killed. We also can’t deny that unfair killing of Palestinian civilians is also happening.

Both things can be true.

This conflict makes people (not connected to either side) feel uncomfortable because of the disproportionate number of Palestinian civilians that have been harmed/killed in comparison to the initial attack by Hamas.

It is hard to justify and support the scale of the IDF’s response. I fear that it will further radicalize the next generation by causing so much widespread trauma to children and youth. I saw a kid on the news crying that his brother and father had been killed in shelling on a refugee camp last night. It’s hard for western civilians to watch because it simply doesn’t seem fair that the civilians have to go through this. And to add to that, there is a contingent of people who attack others on the internet if they don’t agree with all of the actions of the IDF.

I thought Bernie Sanders’ NYT op-ed had the best and most even-handed take on the situation.

I’m child free by choice and would raise an adopted child like my own, but there are so many barriers to adoption.

Maybe it’s Hugo ???

It’s for cut fruit - whole fruit is fine!

The conservatives in Canada have been going wild over carbon pricing.

The current government recently removed carbon taxes on home heating oil for the Maritimes, where home heating oil is used a lot, to make things more affordable during the cold winter months.

The conservatives are collectively screaming that this should be evenly applied to everyone and that home heating carbon pricing (but really all carbon pricing) should be removed. And that the PM is only doing this to retain votes in the maritimes.

Because this is a hot button issue, the conservatives are trying to claim that this legislation makes Ukraine agree to implement a carbon tax, but as is often the case with conservatives, this isn’t reality at all. In reality if I recall correctly, Ukraine needs to put in measures to reduce carbon emissions. This is something they have already agreed to do to be part of the EU.

Fascist Milhouse, the opposition leader, just wanted to spin the issue into a culture war topic that touches on a lot of things he’s been yelling about like affordability (he has no plan to improve this).

The last part is purely my conjecture: I would not be surprised if he is cozy with Russia. He was cozy with the “Freedom” Convoy in Canada that conveniently spun up right as Russia invaded Ukraine. The troll farms on Reddit were heavily commenting/ arguing/ advancing the cause of the Convoy, and Facebook groups/propaganda about it was thick. I notice that conservatives in Canada use Facebook groups like “Canada Proud” and “Ontario Proud” to advance their causes and these spin up like crazy around election time. These groups have dubious ownership at best and I suspect are foreign influence operations. Interestingly for a while the conservatives were chomping at the bit to investigate foreign interference in Canada’s election but hmmm oddly wanted to ignore Russia and focus on China instead. If you’re squeaky clean wouldn’t you want to focus on all foreign interference, no matter the source?

This, imo is also why they were trying to tie the previous speaker of the House’s dumb decision to honour a Ukrainian war vet (oops he fought on the side of Germany) to = Ukraine supports Nazis/the PM supports Nazis. That’s not reality and it was a dumb oversight by the speaker of the house and his office who has nothing to do with the PM. But I do recall that one of Russia’s favourite attacks on Ukraine is that they are Nazis so this line of attack by the conservatives here in Canada seems questionable at best.

TLDR send help, Canadians are falling for the lies of a fascist shitbird

Thanks for introducing me to these guys. Checking them out on Spotify they’re sick.

Crime is absolutely an invented concept.

Drinking and driving used to be legal. Now it is a crime. Nothing changed except our society via our elected representatives opted to enact punishments if an individual is caught drinking and driving.

It is illegal for me to purchase or possess a firearm in Canada unless I acquire a license to do so. If I don’t meet these requirements and am found in possession of a weapon, I will be prosecuted and face jail time if convicted. However, in American states pretty much anyone can own a gun. The guns are the same; the difference is the values each society places on gun ownership and the contexts under which owning guns is a crime.

Canada has no stand your ground laws / castle doctrine. It is almost impossible to mount a defense here if you severely injure or kill someone trespassing in your home unless your life is at risk and even then it is difficult to prove that. Many US states allow people to use lethal force to protect property and there isn’t even a trial. The act in question here is the same; the difference is how our societies have invented and constructed our laws.

I am technically not allowed to cross the border into Quebec, 15 minutes away from my home, purchase a case of beer where it is cheaper, and then bring that beer back across the border to Ontario. The beer itself is not illegal. Consuming the beer is not illegal. The act of transporting the beer across provincial borders is technically a crime.

My friend has a house in Quebec. I have a house in Ontario. Cannabis is legal in Canada at a federal level. It is a crime for my friend in Quebec to grow their own cannabis for personal consumption on their own property. In Ontario, 15 minutes away, I am permitted to grow 4 plants per adult who lives in my household for personal consumption. The pot plants are the same; the social constructs surrounding the plants are not.

There are so many current examples throughout history and throughout the world of things that used to be legal or illegal in different countries, cultures, and societies that are now the opposite. Slavery, segregation, discrimination, gay marriage? Nothing has changed with these acts - society has changed their definition of what is a crime and what is not. That makes crime something that is invented by humans, the nature of which constantly changes.

If you were one of the last 2 people on earth and the other person killed all of your livestock, has a crime been committed? How can a crime be committed if there is no social contract which dictates what the consequences should be for that act?

Crime is ABSOLUTELY a social construct. Why was it legal several months ago to have an abortion across the US but now several states are criminalizing the same? Have abortions changed? No - politics did, I would argue spurred on by the desire for capitalists to keep a steady supply of low wage uneducated exploitable desperate workers.

Why is it suddenly criminal in the state of Georgia to give food and water to people lining up at polling stations? Because one class wants to make it uncomfortable and inconvenient for another class, and I would argue race, of people to vote.

For more, from Harper’s Magazine “Legalize It All” (How to Win the War on Drugs):

At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. "You want to know what this was really all about?" he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

Same as it ever was - criminalizing social classes to disempower them is the name of the game. If you aren’t wise to this you haven’t been paying attention.

Adding - it’s illegal in Japan for me to possess and consume cannabis but perfectly legal in Canada for me to do the same.

It would be illegal for me to walk around in certain countries without a headscarf, how is that not a social law?

It’s illegal in Russia to speak against the war, and people have been imprisoned for the softest infractions of this. In North America I have free speech in this regard.

Not familiar with the laws of California but I think the spirit of the post is that the cops will be on your ass immediately and you will be put in jail if you walk with $100.

If your boss steals $100 from you it then becomes a matter for the courts before anyone in the company faces even the slightest threat of jail.

I’d add Wilhoit’s Law: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect”

But I’d adjust: “North American Democracy consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups (the rich) whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups (workers) whom the law binds but does not protect

I might not be up to speed but didn’t Grusch say that AARO hadn’t contacted him? I don’t understand why Kirkpatrick feels the need to call out Grusch so extensively in this interview.

It’s such BS - I agree the first one that China claimed credit for was a balloon. However the next two certainly were not. Canada’s Defence Minister was asked whether the UAP shot down over Yukon was a balloon and she repeatedly said she was going to refer to it as an object.

I’m not opposed to that - it’s in the “do something” category

I get that it’s hypocritical for someone in his role and he wasn’t allowed to refuse the drug test but goddamnit how dumb is it to be grilled over smoking pot when other countries have fully legalized. It’s fine in Canada. The problem is fentanyl. Do something about fentanyl instead of wasting time on weed ffs.

It’s only infidelity when women do it. Boys will be boys /s.

When Trump says “our Country” or “America” he almost always means “ME”. He does this a lot if you pay attention. He thinks he’s a damn king.

Same in Memmy I’m glad everyone else is noticing this. Also I can’t set favourite communities anymore in the sidebar?

This is what I’m saying below and being downvoted for, thank you.

There’s plenty of evidence of the government obstructing inquiries into UAP since the 1950s, yes. You can start with Project Blue Book.

This is a puff piece by CNBC to distract from the actual work being done by Reps Luna, Gillebrand, Burchett and others and the recent assertions by Dr. Lacatski and Dr. Kelleher that the government DOES have craft in their possession and that they have been authorized by DoD to divulge that.

By claiming “AARO and NASA just want to look at the science!” they’re appealing to people who would take the recent poor excuses for “reports” by those institutions at face value.

The assertion that UAPs haven’t been studied by scientists and have been relegated to conspiracy theory only is such bunk and is truly offensive. They haven’t been studied by the broader scientific community because the government doesn’t share what they know. What about the work of Dr. Hynek, Dr. Kelleher and Dr. Lacatski?

They’re gaslighting us when they’re claiming to be fully transparent when anyone who pays attention to this topic can see they’re really not.

lol I don’t understand why this is being downvoted but ok.

“It can be used to retrieve with "near perfect accuracy" data from Safari, as well as Firefox, Tor, and Edge on iOS.”