chillhelm @ chillhelm @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

108

Joined

2 yr. ago

"credible reports" (but low confidence) of some employees of UNRWA participating in the attack. No evidence at all that UNRWA had partnered with Hamas or supported the attacks.

What that means is "somebody said that some people that work for UNRWA also participated in the attacks but we have found no proof either way."

Ich hab dich hochhewählt, weil ich dir nicht zu stimme. Du drückst aber eine Meinung aus, die ich schon länger Mal ausfragen wollte.

Wenn ein Täter zu einer (deiner Meinung nach) zu geringen Haftstrafe verurteilt wird, welches Recht der Opfer wird damit eingeschränkt?

It makes perfect sense. It's not constructive, effective or helping to move towards any kind of resolution of this conflict, but on a personal level, it does make sense.
I think, as far as regular people go, at this stage both sides in the conflict are primarily motivated by revenge. We can dress it all up with fancy words of occupation, injustice, national self defense or whatever your chosen flavor of ideology is in this conflict. But for regular everyday people in the region the primary reason why they want to see the other regular people die is revenge.

He said "looks maxing" in the first 2 minutes. That's a nope from me dawg.

Luckily, you can just pick your uniform and wear it daily. It's pretty much what I did. For everyday wear I have like 3 different pants, 3 different sweaters and a bunch of T-Shirts that go with them. So while I personally am basically in uniform daily (and many people wear identical or near identical clothes every day) I'm strictly against society encouraging uniforms in any way shape or form.

For many people wearing a uniform is obligatory at their work (retail and gastronomy workers, construction and maintenance workers, facility staff at larger buildings or events, Any kind of service person that will be seen by the public (e.g bus drivers, cleaners,...). And that is even without counting people who have to follow a strict dress code at work to the point where it might as well be a uniform (white collar office work, e.g).
So overall I dare say a majority of people actually wear uniforms in their professional lives. And even if you aren't as liberal with your interpretation of "uniform" as I was in the paragraph above (where I considered a hard hat and a high vis vest as a uniform), it is still a significant portion of the population wearing uniforms regardless.

And in a professional context I can see a point to uniforms: They remove individuality and emphasize the belonging to a larger group/organization. This can be helpful in situations where cohesion (e.g construction work, policing, school uniforms etc...) or uniformity of standards (gastronomy, public services) are more important than individual competence/style.

However, in a private context, I object to any kind of uniforms being worn or even worse, any kind of societal encouragement (which always turns into pressure) to wear uniforms. Uniforms are by their nature a limitation on your most basic form of freedom of expression. History has shown that any society that encourages uniformity over individuality in a private context will sooner or later enforce not just clothing standards but other behavioral standards too, usually to the detriment of marginalized groups. (What I'm saying is, it is a short step from "You should wear this." to "You shouldn't wear this." and from there to "You should(n't) do this" and "You can't do this.")

There is rather to many societal norms around what is "correct" or "appropriate" clothing already and I think your phantasy about uniforms comes partially from that pressure. I'd rather a society where no one gives a fuck what you wear, than one that "encourages" dress codes. And uniforms are IMHO a step in the wrong direction.

Being a democracy has nothing to do with committing war crimes.

They both approximate perfect representation close enough. If the difference between one government or the other comes down to variations that are basically explained by the weather being good or bad on voting day, you can't really claim that the government isn't representative.

Just because it didn't represent YOUR opinion, it doesn't make it less representative. A truly representative government will make decisions that align with 10% of the population 10% of the time. So if 10% of the population want to bomb Canada a perfectly representative government will make it happen every 40 years or so.

Don't actually tear down church buildings though.

Many of them are beautiful and even if the morals of the Organisation(s) that built them are, to put it mildly, "outdated", it is still a huge part of our cultural history.

Use the spaces to open "sexual health centers" (like Planned Parenthood on steroids), libraries, and in like 1 or 2 per continent you could create memorial centers to keep alive the memories of the suffering created by organized, doctrinal religion.

Moving past a phase of our cultural development has to include remembering that phase. The church buildings turned to useful purpose will be powerful monuments.

Because a Nation (and I know this sounds crazy) is not a person. You can do many things a country can't and vice versa.

For example, you can make a rule that in your house black people do not get sweet foods. It's a dick move but not illegal. A country is not allowed to make a law that says black people can't eat sweet foods, because that would be racist discrimination (which is illegal for the government to do in most countries).

Another example: You can poop (like you did when posting that question). A country does not have a digestive tract and in fact does not eat and can therefore not poop.

What is the hoopla around Palworld?

As a Berliner, it doesn't match my memory either. I don't have historical data other than my own shitty memory, but I remember vaguely getting upset at Döner prices during the Pandemic being above 3,50€ (so in 2020).

It gets better. He resold one of the paintings in question for a profit of 320 million$. He is suing because his speculative profit wasn't big enough.

No. Metal Dragons are so GOOD so LOUD at all times that the resulting tyranny is as bad as a chromatic dragons. You stole a loaf of bread because you're starving? Still theft, you die.

Shit or get off the pot.

Huh. Cool stuff. Today I tee-totally learned something new.

For me it was kind of the opposite. I care less about getting shit faced and more about flavours. Getting buzzed is just a pleasant side effect.

Fair enough I can see that.

War gaming can be fun, but I don’t think DnD is especially geared toward it

Isn't like 90% of the rules for DnD just rules for combat and treasure? Literally every single class in DnD is a combat class. And when people talk about their DnD characters they say "I played this Dragonborn Cleric..." or "Multiclassed Tiefling Mage/Rouge" and not "I played this Dwarf that had really good proficiency in Persuasion and 'Use Rope'". [Btw is 'Use Rope' still a skill in newer DnD editions?].

Also beverages when hosting a party. No need to buy name brand when store brand is half the cost and will get drank the same anyway.

People will drink it, but they may also remember. I have a cousin at whose house I turn tea-totaller, because the beer & wine they offer at parties is literally the cheapest stuff available and it's fucking horrible.

Presumably there is a way to challenge this decision in court. And tbh I like this way of handling it better. Trump does not meet the basic requirements of being a president, which are:

• Must be over 35. ✔️
• Must be born in the USA. ✔️
• Must not be an insurrectionist. ❌

If a 32 year old was frontrunner to become the candidate for either party, you wouldn't expect a court proceeding to disqualify them. Same here.