asthfghl: (А бе къде е батко?)
[personal profile] asthfghl
Time for some mega LOLs. See, the general story is that cops don't tend to be very bright folks. The latest confirmation came the other day in Sofia, when a police unit were sent to disperse some protest rally in front of the government headquarters. What happened there has left people laughing and making all sorts of jokes.

They forgot to check where the wind was coming from. So, the moment they released the tear gas, it blew right into them. You can see the result.

kiaa: (devil)
[personal profile] kiaa
There are several claims that we frequently hear from conservative homophobes, so let's see where they lead us:

1) Gays are depraved, pervert and degraded, they are comitting a sin.
2) Gays shouldn't be allowed to raise children, because they'd spread their depravity to the next generations.
3) Gays don't procreate, therefore they don't contribute with anything to population growth, which is a violation of the main function of the family that God gave us.

If we're to follow the logic in these three statements, I'd ask why would anyone want such depraved, pervert and degraded people to procreate, and spread their depravity to the next generations. You can't both have the gays contribute to population growth AND eliminate the spreading of depravity, can you?

So, what do conservative homophobes really value more - piety, or procreation? If it's the latter, then aren't they encouraging the spreading of debauchery? If it's the former, then aren't they mocking God's intention for the union between man and woman?

Of course, all of what I'm saying would be valid, unless we assume gays can't change and become "normal" (!?) again. But, unlike the reversed (the actual coming out of gays as such), I've yet to see any gay woman or man turning straight. Have you?

Homophobes aren't too bright, are they?
kiaa: (Default)
[personal profile] kiaa
"I hate those black rats. And anyone who doesn't have Aryan blood". You'd seldom hear such words from a black man, right? It's unthinkable even. In the 70s, black criminalist Ron Stallworth managed to sneak into the mighty KKK, and his testament became the basis for the BlacKkKlansman movie, Oscar winner in 2019.

Can't say if black activist James Hart Stern was inspired by that movie, but it's clear that his story is also worth being filmed. Because, as we learned last week, he managed to become chairman of one of the biggest neo-Nazi groups in the US, the National Socialist Movement (it's got nothing to do with socialism, I suppose you've guessed by now).

The NSM is mostly known for its staunch antisemitism and Hitler worshiping. Their annual summits feature visitors in Nazi uniforms, wearing the swastika on their sleeves and all that. In 2005 a NSM rally in Ohio ended with street brawls with the police. In 2011 one of their leaders was shot dead by his own son.

Read more... )
dreamville_bg: (Default)
[personal profile] dreamville_bg

I see Bernie people split into 3 camps and this only applies to 1 of them.

The first are the Bernie or busters that are instantly and automatically dismissive of any other candidate. They are cancerous to the left.

The second camp are the people that want change for change's sake because they don't see any way of climbing the social pecking order within the the current system. They'll vote for whoever they see as giving them the most hope to climb the ladder or change.

The 3rd are reasonable progressives that like Bernie's policy stances but will seriously consider backing other progressive candidates.

To say this applies to all Bernie voters is disingenuous. The ratio is more realistically in the 10:30:60 range. Bernie or busters are just louder than other 2 camps, obnoxiously so.

Which makes them quite similar to the MAGA lot.
johnny9fingers: (Default)
[personal profile] johnny9fingers
So, in my perusing of the interwebs I came across this wonderful phrase; stochastic terrorism.

Now stochastic terrorism is defined (by Wikipedia and others) as:

Stochastic terrorism is a recent term describing speech that can be expected to incite terrorism as an act of stochastic terrorism, with the word "stochastic" describing the random nature of the targets. The "stochastic terrorist" does not direct the actions of members of a group, rather, they are an ideologue speaking over mass media to individuals with whom they are not affiliated as part of any form of organization. According to an anonymous blogger posting on the Daily Kos, the speaker, whether intentionally or not, incites those with a combination of personality traits that leads them to violence. Since the speaker only focuses animus towards the victim instead of directly participating, they may escape culpability and the perpetrator may be labeled a lone wolf by law enforcement. The term has mostly been applied to domestic American incidents of violence.

In my day this was propaganda designed to incite violence, and part of a general culture of political propaganda. But although it appears to have been weaponised well before Julius Streicher published Der Stürmer, the internet has turbo-charged its effectiveness. And now we have Christchurch, a blameless New Zealand city, hosting a gun-toting madman from Australia, who was radicalised or assisted in radicalisation by folk in the US and UK, as well as in Oz.


Does the panel think stochastic terrorism is a real thing?

And if it is a real thing, is there any legitimate defence that democratically aligned polities can use against it? After all, you can't imprison folk for stating an opinion; or for other folk re-enforcing that opinion, no matter how narrow, stupid, or evil it may be.
airiefairie: (Default)
[personal profile] airiefairie
Christchurch, NZ, has had a rough couple of years. A devastating earthquake, and now the mass shooting in the mosques. Praying people were the target in those temples, places where people are supposed to be feeling secure. Instead, they were most vulnerable there. Those are the easiest targets one could imagine, praying people in a temple, hoping for peace and happiness. What they got in return was death and horror.

We say we are equal before God, and that includes equality in suffering, in terror as well - those are things all people share. The attacker had meticulously planned his actions, including the way he would announce them on the Internet. But he omitted an important moment: terror may be meant to divide people, but it could unite them just as well.

Read more... )
luzribeiro: (Default)
[personal profile] luzribeiro
'Science is like when I see stuff, and then say it on twitter, right, Kelly Ann?'

Trump once again requests deep cuts in U.S. science spending

This feels like more the very right wing Christians at work. These are the ones who think Trump has been sent by God. They think NASA was created to destroy religion. They are usually flat Earth believers as well.

Science is logical, religion is not. Religious leaders want control and power. Something Trump wants as well. They will do anything for it. If there was a Jesus and he is the loving person they claim he was, he would be angry at these people.

May all those religious right-wing nutjobs go to the hell they believe in.
airiefairie: (Default)
[personal profile] airiefairie
You know Eurovision? That pageant that many now argue has become a freak show of posh kitsch and tastelessness? Well, seems like some would go to extreme lengths to get noticed.

My country Iceland's latest entry for this year's Eurovision has stirred a debate (which was its stated intention, by the way). The band is called Hatari (i.e. "haters"), a self-described BDSM performance art group. What is more shocking than the title of their piece, Hatred Will Win, is the video to the song.

Read more... )
kiaa: (soundkitteh)
[personal profile] kiaa
Much better than Mitt Romney's dog on the roof, no?

See more )
mahnmut: (Albert thinks ur funny.)
[personal profile] mahnmut
In light of the recent shenanigans in the British parliament...

nairiporter: (Default)
[personal profile] nairiporter
Others do it, so why shouldn't Russia? Their political and economic invasion in Europe, the Middle East and cyberspace is no surprise, and neither is their assault on Africa. Although it didn't use to be as pronounced until recently.

Much of what Russia is doing in Africa reflects on Putin's desire to restore his country's status of a superpower. Firstly, it's got a geopolitical dimension. Africa is a huge potential market, with enormous population, and naturally Russia isn't the first country to try to build a political bloc that would serve its interest at the international stage, including the UN and other institutions.

Read more... )
dreamville_bg: (Default)
[personal profile] dreamville_bg
According to information provided by FBI/DoJ officials in the press conference aired live on CNN, the parents, on average, paid between $250K and $400K for Singer's services. (I can't find the live coverage online, only an article.) The maximum sum spent was ~$6M.

The NY Post reports that one parent paid $500K to have "their two daughters designated as recruits to the USC crew team — despite the fact that they did not participate in crew — thereby facilitating their admission to USC." Other parents paid to have an associate of Singer's to obtain a given SAT exam score.

What I find most astounding about this cabal of college entrance corruption is that it appears a fair quantity of the parents who participated in it spent sums that, were they done the way wealthy folks have for ages ensured their academically mediocre kids admission to prestigious institutions -- by making a generous donation -- they'd have spent about the same sum and not be facing prosecution.

I mean, really. If one's got half a million or more to "blow," donate it to help fund a teaching award, endow a chair or help renovate a wing or hallway or something. The school will admit one's child in return.


12/3/19 23:49
luzribeiro: (Default)
[personal profile] luzribeiro
Here’s the foreign policy question of questions in 2019: Are President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, all severely weakened at home and with few allies abroad, reckless enough to set off a war with Iran?

Could Trump try to Save himself by Wagging the Dog with an Iran War?

The short answer is yes. The Saudis and the Likud have wanted to do this for many years and the US has been holding them in check. This administration has little motivation to keep them in check. What I think all three fail to understand is that going to war with Iran would be like knocking down a hornets' nest - they might "win", but they are going to get hurt doing it, and that hurt is likely to last for a very long time.

Of course, Americans do love their war presidents. If this one starts a war there's a good chance he'll get re-elected. He had his eye on NK, but China told him in no uncertain terms they would not allow it. That leaves Iran. He's trying to get the rest of the world involved, but Iran is sticking to the nuclear agreement so there's no reason to put pressure on them. If the US tries something they'll be doing it alone. Iran is considerably tougher than Iraq. It will take far longer and require far more money than Iraq did. Likely 5 times as much money. Didn't work via Saddam as proxy, won't work this time either.

It's on!

11/3/19 21:32
fridi: (Default)
[personal profile] fridi

My goodness! It's on now!

I've always thought that the second wavers were not much different than the men they say they wish to replace and or compete with equally.

How do you hate the guy who paid for your college tutition and paid for your braces and bought you your first car and walked you down the aisle?

Culturally speaking the second wavers, just like most of us, were shaped by and are partially defined by those who raised them. They don't seem to want to actually change the system as much as they wish to drive the bus.

That means their fathers are as much a part of who they are as their mothers are... no matter what they may say to the contrary.
fridi: (Default)
[personal profile] fridi
The West is rotten. We're surrounded by enemies. But our moral foundations are sound! They'll resist the pressure from Gayrope!

A bunch of worn-out tropes, right? You'd hear them daily if you watched the Russian state TV channels. The brain-washing goes on for years. The propaganda machine in Russia is trying to convince their people that the whole world is against them, and Russia has traditional values that the West doesn't, therefore the rotten West wants to destroy Russia by destroying those values. You get the logic? The West envies Russia for those values. The Young Russians (Putin-jugend?) recite these talking points daily. But somehow, the majority of their generation fails to heed the "Great Mother Russia versus rotten Gayrope" slogan to the intended extent. Are they too stupid? Hmmm.

Turns out, 40% of the polled Russians (Levada research) aged 18-24 want to leave Russia for good. How unpatriotic! How traitorous!

Read more... )
asthfghl: (Слушам и не вярвам на очите си!)
[personal profile] asthfghl
Let's talk EU. Angel Djambazki, an EMP from the nationalist party Ataka, recently had some thoughts to share at a session of the European Parliament (ironic, I know, that he's part of the EU bureaucratic machinery now, being a staunch Euroskeptic, but I suppose he's one of those who prefer to change the system from within, as they like to say).

So he voiced some opinions shared by an increasing number of voters all over Europe. First, it's evident the EU is at a crossroads, and the upcoming elections for European Parliament will be key. He argued that urgent change is needed unless we want to see the whole EU structure crumble, probably even faster than anyone thinks (or hopes) it might. The reason? There are some systematic flaws that endanger its very existence. In a nutshell, things can't go on the same way they've done so far - and the Brexit is a red light loudly signaling that.

Read more... )
dreamville_bg: (Default)
[personal profile] dreamville_bg
Here's a question I recently heard. If I criticize the Likud does that make me antisemitic? What if, like Carter, I refer to Israel as an apartheid government - also antisemitic? (Some may argue that calling Israel an "apartheid state" was bonkers, since Israeli Arabs have the vote, they serve as MPs, etc).

If I complain about the influence, financial and otherwise, of the very conservative AIPAC, am I being antisemitic? I am not Jewish, and quite frankly the current climate in the Democratic party is giving me the willies (a WASPish phrase.) I was therefore somewhat intrigued to run into this article by someone who is Jewish.

"I’m Jewish. I’ve worked against anti-Semitism, in the context of working against white supremacy, racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and beyond, for decades. And I heard nothing—nothing—that smacked of anti-Semitism, overt or coded or otherwise. Ilhan Omar simply didn’t say it."

The Democratic Party Attacks on Ilhan Omar Are a Travesty

Read more... )

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.
A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


Utopian and Escapist Societies


"Nobody ever said having a shitload of money equaled having a shitload of sense to go with it."

March 2019

     1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 2324