Hatfort

Trump has now threatened to destroy Iranian cultural heritage. There is a consensus among different countries and civilizations of the world that some monuments, for their historical or cultural value, belong to humanity as a whole and are worth to preserve even in times of war, for future generations to inherit them. The most radical groups like ISIS don't respect that and make such monuments their target, isn't it funny that Trump behaves just like them? Well, funny is not the word, but it is an interesting coincidence that I wanted to point out.

But that wouldn't be unique to the Middle East. I mean, if you had decided to establish your piece of land in the middle of the USA, Russia, China, Brazil, to mention some of the big ones, they would have crushed you with all their power for violating their borders and sovereignty. You could only do that in an underdeveloped land, being more violent that they have ever been to you, Israel has not been a nation of peacefull angels, as it's been said. There is also the thing that you people have a very deep religious identity, as the natives of that land have. If we can learn something from history, that is usually a recipe for clash. But don't act like this is not on you, they were there before you and you are the ones that came last, at least you could admit your part on this and stop blaming entirely others.

There was probably a part of that too, but you forget the part of the protests and riots that took place in the country. The dictator couldn't calm his citizens even with hard repression. I have not seen anything like that in Iran, have you? Their citizens probably are going to defend their retrograde government even more now. This is not the same by any means. What the US has done is closer to a terrorist attack. Are you going to address it or maybe we can open another threat about Libya, it is very interesting too.

That's not true. This general has been killed by a US surprise attack. Gaddafi was captured by the rebels of his own country after a period of protests and a siege, and violently killed by the mob. Dissidents of Libya had international help then, NATO intervened, but circumstances are totally different from what has happened now. But why are we speaking about this now, what's the point?

I don't think so. Americans would get defensive if their leaders were attaced, so will Iranians, this won't moderate them, it will make them hate America more, maybe with reasons. Of course Iran won't ever attack American soil and will be very cautious on attacking their forcers internationally too. That was true before and after this attack, what changed? How much are American militars going to tense the situation? What if the next general is more radical? That would be ideal for the military industry, business goes first. In the meantime, we can turn our heads from other issues like healthcare, inequality, environment, etc. A win for them. But what about the lifes lost? Very irresponsible and very selfish.

Wouldn't it that be like a foreing country striking against the secretary of defense of the US? Wouldn't that be seen as an act of war? Wouldn't the people in the US react by going even more radical? So how do you think Iranians will react now, going more moderate or more radical? They are justifying this attack saying this man is responsible of hundreds of deaths of american soldiers. I don't know exactly how, but when you go to war, isn't that to be expected? How many Iranian deaths have happened because attacks like this, soldiers and civilians? They also justified this attack as preventive. It's very convenient, when you are preventing something, you will never have to prove that indeed was going to happen, who the Hell knows, the man is dead. In the past America used to retaliate after being attacked, like in Pearl Harbor, now just they say they are preventing attacks. This is crazy. I think Trump wants another war, the millitary industry has to make a living once again. I'm sorry for the loses of Iranians and american soldiers that will be if they get what they want.

There are different ways of discussing ideas, valid in different ways. I don't like the term safe space and even less the negative connotation that they have taken lately, but the truth is they have existed since always. For example, a church or a mosque is a safe space for those religous people, where they can discuss and develop their beliefs and ideologies. Would it be constructive to have a religious fundamentalist telling scientists on a lab that they are wrong about whatever they are doing or maybe it's better to keep it as a safe space from those unnecessary confrontations? Democratic or republican party offices, where people interested in certain type of policies discuss about them and maybe make them better, aren't they safe spaces too? A meeting of fans of Justien Bieber would be a good place for them, but what would be the point of a heavy metal fan going there to tell them he doesn't like their music? Sometimes a group of people with a minimum consensus is the best setting to develop ideas in a positive way, someone just disagreeing all the time would not help and would only sabotage their efforts. But sometimes is good to confront opposite ideas on debates, to see how they hold against each other and having to defend them can also help to develop them in some ways. So you could go for both. Sometimes find your similars to discuss your ideas, maybe others you could try to debate with people with different ones. Don't try to change the views of others, but express yours without shame or fear. Sometimes you agree about some things, but disagree about others, you can point both things. If a discussion becomes uncomfortable for you, you have no obligation to continue, it's true some people can get quite offensive. Edit: I think as safe space you meant a place where feelings are taken more in consideration, even when disagreeing. Well, wouldn't be bad, but don't count wiht that. in some cases it's good to give certain people some of their own medicine, so they taste a bit of it too and, who knows, maybe reconsider some things.

The universal basic income seems very advanced to me, in fact, it's probably too soon for our society to digest it, for that reason I don't think is the best policy for a candidate to present as his signature. I like it though, I think we as people and our economy would flourish with it. Jobs would still make us earn more money than what the basic income covers and people are not as lazy as the right thinks, we tend to find things to do that fulfill us, sometimes to earn more money, sometimes for other reasons, it would depend on each individual anyway. But I don't understand how he can be so conservative about medicare for all. It's so obvious healthcare is a basic human right, meaning should be accessible for all, and there are so many countries that have already implemented it.

Poor snowflakes, they get triggered by people saying Happy holliday instead of Merry Christmas.

Have to be very cautious with money. But never ever? Nah... A friend lend me some money short ago and I have all the intention to give back as soon as I get my income again.

An interesting analysis and contextualization of the recent UK election results, by Abby Martin (rightist's favourite journalist) and a british guy known as Lowkey, I didn't know him.

There are different ways of looking at the same thing. This binary / non binary gender identity debates, I honestly think both visions can be valid in their own way, even if they contradict each other. I don't think Rowling or anybody is necesarilly transphobic just for having a strict binary gender view, in fact many trans people do as well, and I agree with her that firing someone for expressing that is not right.

I agree, but I think is also a bidirectional influence. I mean, laws and conditions established by the politicians mold the game society plays, even for those who don't like or agree with it.

That is not true, he recently called out against a fake book announced as Jordan Peterson's in another thread in the forum, obviously done by some leftist troll. I remember because I had not been in the forum for a long time and that caught my attention for some reason. The problem is or should be information being false or erroneous, not right or left. In this case it's at least erroneous, he did fine calling it out, for a moment I thought that was legit.

Indeed, I'm from Europe and I live in Africa now, people are as religious as my grandparents were 75 years ago, as a society even more, very blue. There's no conflict or violence per se here, but very poor and economically basic individual survival oriented red state, I would even say they need to get more into blue yet. The most advanced are already at state orange, very business oriented. There's almost no green, just a few signs in some young people. I don't perceive it as you do though, of course people have their opinions, but in a sense it's like everywhere else. People are friendly here, that I can tell too and I honestly like that very much.

I think a good approach would be to not be too judgemental towards them and be compassionate if they are in a lower development state as a society, so they probably have had less privileges than you in life. Get to know the people in person and don't force your ideologies on them, just genuinely accept where they are and maybe you can learn some valuable lessons too.

Trump got impeached, but considering the Republican majority in the Senate, this won't end with his Presidency. I read some comments saying this benefits him, as he will be perceived as a victim by his voters and will defend him even more, and I think there is some truth on this. But this will be a big stain on his persona and history will remember it like that, as it does with the two other Presidents that went through it. Who knows, he may win next year and considering Presidents get more, let's say intense, in their second term, he may be the first one getting two impeachments, I wouldn't be surprised. I think this had to be done whatever happens in the future election, which we don't know what will be. Democrats did what they had to do, let's see how the guy defends himself. Putin has already declared his support to Trump on this issue.

Well, we can see some soldiers saying some things and others saying others. We have one side with military, economic, political, judicial and media system working for them and the other has stones and are being harassed in every possible way. The two sides have harmed the other, but one much more, sorry but this is not an equal situation. Look, this one against the other has to stop. Palestinians and jews have to live together in the same land, you can't see each other as enemies and this means you cannot harm each other, with violence or further colonization. Saying that the other side is not cooperating, so I do whatever I want against the other is the worst thing any of the sides can say. Because in that stupid cycle both get the excuse to keep harming the other. Israel: I harm palestinias because they harm me. Palestina: I harm jews because they harm me. Israel: ... Palestina: ... The never ending stupid story. Looks to me that Israel is very comfortable in this situation where has the most power, all the power really, so colonization continues expanding to this day very conveniently for them. Palestina as a land and palestinians need to be officially recognized somehow too, as Israel is. Every people in the country need to have equal rights, no matter who they are, an apartheid situation where some live fine and others are treated worse than dogs by the state can't be. I'll also link the video I mentioned before with Abby Martin asking people in Jerusalem about the conflict and continues with another man from Israel, which is very interesting to hear too. Abby Martin is an independent leftist journalist from the US, she is probably banned from all media in her country and I totally understand she charges for the documentary for a while. Would be good if she released it for free in time though. Now I'll speak for both sides, just put yourselves in the place of the other, then return to your side, then go to the other side again and then go back. Listen to each other and make it work, live together, don't harm each other. Actually make cool things together with the good people you can find on the other side, sure there are some and if you can't see that, well, you are wrong, there are. We are all human beings in the end, differences are quite supperficial actually and it's not a bad thing there are differences, it's a good thing. I leave here.

Even if Trump is not totally aligned with Putin in geopolitics, it's possible that Russia prefers a regressive leader heading the United States, so they would gladly interfere in his favour in the elections. Just a thought.

This woman interviewed random people of all ages and profiles in Jerusalem and the number of Jews advocating for ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians is frightening, it's on YouTube, much less than the other side, by the way. She is forbidden to go to Israel again, like any other journalist who is critical to Israel's government approach to the conflict, freedom of speech my balls. She doesn't even advocate for the two state solution, that's kind of impossible at this point of massive colonization, she just asks for equal rights and treatment for all the citizens in the country. What they are doing to Palestinians is plain terrorism. Her documentary Gaza fights for freedom is a must.

Green is not the best, but is the next step in the ladder, which makes it the best right now. Yellow is better, but you can only reach it from green. As human kind, we are yet in red - blue - orange. Only the most developed countries are implementing some green. Younger generations are more open to it, with a generational change of about 40 years we'll be seeing a lot of green. Beware of triggered oranges, they will yell a lot and project it into others beside.

Between USA and North Korea, in just a few months, we had two leaders saying literally that they would turn each other countries, plus South Korea, into living Hells, to that bizarre meeting where Trump joked about Kim Jon Un's body figure. I don't know what happened off camera, but I'm glad the tension deescaleted. Each country is in a different level, North Korea is obviously in red- blue, USA is blue - orange. World geopolitics inevitably require relations between countries with different development. That means sometimes democratic leaders have to meet with dictators. It's not like democratic countries don't use totalitarian policies either. People can vote and that's good, but that alone does not make a democracy, at least in my eyes.

A turquoise president would understand that this moment in history requires a green president to advance, so he would appear as green and implement green measures. However, would be essentially turquoise, so I guess he would also be feeding higher or more conscious agendas. But who knows, I don't understand turquoise very much.

Thanks, I will try it, it looks cool!

I know how to detox heavy metals from the body. You get a witch girlfriend and she makes a potion for that. Unfortunately Leo never showed us how to get a witch girlfriend. Now seriously Leo, make the video about evolution at least. I'm very curious about your view on this since you mentioned it.