Hatfort

I think this 'believe all women' approach came from a real problem that may not have any good solution. Sometimes women couldn't provide proof of their mistreatment by partners or other men to the police, so nothing was done to help them, and that would backfire on them when their partners found out they were being denounced, so that would lead to more mistreatment and sometimes even death. This was and is a real problem. Some of these new approaches would seek to protect the women who denounced to the police, even without enough proof, with things like restraining orders. But some women can lie, and use those systems to screw their partners, who may be innocent. Things get more complicated when there are children in those marriages or partnerships. That's why I don't think there's any absolute good solution. One way you can screw women who really need protection, the other you can screw innocent men. Which bad is worse?

After years of exile, lies fabricated about him, and torturous isolated imprisonment, the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange has been released from prison and will fly to his homeland Australia now. The news is good, his life was in danger and he deserves freedom after so long. But there's a bad part. They have crushed his existence until he had no other choice but to take the deal of pleading guilty to espionage, which is absurd. He is a journalist who was sent information of crimes committed by the USA and its army, a country that isn't even his. That's the precedent we are setting? So if a journalist finds out about crimes in any country, is this country allowed to imprison this journalist as a spy? That's crazy, and more so coming from a country that constantly claims the importance of freedom of speech and press as a high value, which it is. But they don't believe it. Seems like a warning to journalists in general. Don't publish our secret crimes if you find out about them, or we'll go after you.

Good question. The answer is no. Yeah, Putin is pissed now. He gave an offer recently, and I understand Ukraine had the right to reject it, but what's to negotiate now? Russia seems capable of stopping those attacks on the border and continuing the expansion in Ukraine.

This was the title of Matt Walsh's documentary. I've seen some clips, one of his interviewees tried to explain to him the distinction between biological sex, and gender as a social construct or identity, but he totally ignored it. He wasn't willing to even listen to anything that would explain the nature of trans people. This a pretty good one-line short answer anyway.

A 17-year-old guy committed a horrible crime, the system should get him and punish him for it, which I don't doubt will do. He is a direct descendant of immigrants, although born and raised there. In any case, I don't see why the whole immigrant population should be blamed for what he did. A lot of racism and xenophobia emerged last days, targeting innocent people for the color of their skin or origin. But I was glad to see counter manifestations against those attitudes in all cities. Most English people are tolerant.

I don't know the process she went through. She says she is happy about it though, she doesn't regret it. You are anticipating some negative results that haven't happened and may not happen, and not considering the positive ones, she's living a more authentic and fulfilling life. Your intuitive feelings mean nothing, you are not in her head. Trans people are not pushed as much as it's said they are. If it felt better for her to live her life as, let's say a man with some feminine traits, that is what she would do, like many men do, and with less social repercussion in their lives for that. But that's not what she has opted to do. Are you in her head to say she is wrong? No. Just, let her be. You have no base to say what you say.

Even if he has a strongly different position about transitioning, it's still his child, saying publicly he is dead is crazy, Musk is awful. She is not dead, I'll call her she, and is living her life as it feels good and authentic to her. She is fine, doesn't regret transitioning, doesn't want to live as a man, let her be.

Walz is a hype for Democrats, and compensates for some of Kamala Harris's flaws. He is natural, approachable, speaks well, and defends his positions strongly, not defensively. Rogan endorsed RFK, that will deduct from Trump more than from Harris. But the race has to be run, a good campaign is crucial.

Yeah, this is true. But it shouldn't be a surprise that they yet oppose this domination, which is too often violent. They only want to exist with their good and bad things as we do, and they have the right to do so. We of course can criticize what we don't like from our point of view, but yet we shouldn't impose our ways on them, that's not acceptable. Also, this sometimes causes them, or anyone, to double down as a defense mechanism. What's fair for the West is to defend ourselves if we were attacked, and even counterattack. But we are not attacked, they are, by our governments and armies.

It's not that much about the imperfections or the development level of Arabs. It's about the warmongering actions of the West over them that cause literal deaths and destruction they suffer. We rightfully get angry about the terrorist attacks that happen within our borders, but our armies attack them in much higher frequency, and put sanctions on them when they do not do what they are told to. They respond to the harm that's caused to them like we would do. They're level of development, sexism, and other considerations are another interesting discussion, but that's not what's happening here. In the case of Israel, it's literal colonization, ethnic cleansing, violent population replacement over decades, sometimes slower, sometimes faster, and the current genocide in Gaza is another step in Netanyahu's and Zionists' agenda. They pushed as much as they could so Hamas would eventually attack, which they funded initially, then get the pretext to do what they are doing. What's disappointing is the weak international support for those being butchered, and worse the actual support, mostly from the Biden administration. But I think there is a dissonance between most people in the West, who oppose this, and the more powerful spheres. However, Hamas is resisting, Israel doesn't have control over Gaza yet. If their soldiers stay, they will continue being killed. It's not on them when Israel deliberately shoots at children or bombs civilians gathering in schools or whatever refuge they can find after their homes have been destroyed, as it's on Hamas the civilians that they killed in October last year, although the ones that Israel killed with the Hannibal directive not. Each side has to own its actions. But, again, when you dig enough, what you find is that Israel started this, and the West was interested in having a piece of this land that was inhabited and invested in it.

Nah, this good versus bad guys doesn't work in the real world. Accords have to be made between different powers, and respect mutual coexistance. One big power ruling the rest of the world doesn't work anymore, for the US, those times are gone.

Ukraine has its rights for an army, but they are part of an international context, and joining NATO is breaking a minimum neutrality Russia, NATO and themselves agreed in the past, which other countries like Poland, Estonia, Letonia, and Lituania broke in the past, and Russia said not this time. Some of Russian's actions are justified, NATO has to stop messing in neutral countries. In LOTR I cheered for the human, elf, dwarf, hobbit, alliance, like everyone else. If anyone is trying to control the rest of the world like Sauron with the rings, that would be the US empire and NATO. About this book of Tolkien, George RR Martin gave some interesting thoughts. What did King Aragorn do with all this ugly orcs, goblins, and trolls after winning the war against Sauron? Did he give them equal rights like everyone else in the middle Earth? Did he inprison them in Mordor? Who knows...

No, it's not correct at all, those are not my words. Go up in the thread and you will read what I said clearly, in more than one line, obviously. I don't have a personal agenda for either side. I can acknowledge both sides have their fair claims, that happens in most conflicts in history. But NATO is the one pushing the war in this case, this didn't need to happen, because they want hegemony, and the ones doing the dying part are Ukrainians, which they don't give a fuck for.

The war wouldn't have happened if NATO wasn't arming the Azov battalions to the teeth. Russia wasn't asking for the Donbass to be Russia then, that wasn't in the Minsk Accords, it was asking for Ukraine to remain neutral, meaning no undercover NATO training the Azov battalions, and respect for their cultural brothers. But Ukraine and NATO were doing the opposite of what they signed. They thought any threat of Russia attacking would be a bluff, and that if they did, that could collapse Putin, Russia, their military power, and their economy. They were wrong in everything. Now it's just stupidity, and the US military-industrial lobby pushing forward, the only ones benefiting from this war short term. In the long term Russia will get an expansion, which is good, but with a big human soldier cost. Ukraine has that cost too, but they will lose the East and perhaps the whole connection to the sea if Russia decides to invade Odessa too. This defeat will harm NATO too, it was perceived as unbeatable before, but now it's not. The EU is getting a bad deal too, it lost its gas source from Russia, now they have to get it more expensive, and that increases the prices of everything. China and India got stronger from this. By the way, you know who is not losing their independent country status or territorial integrity? Belarus. Yeah, they have accords and dependency with Russia, but they are surviving as a nation 100%. If you tell me they are not really independent for this, no country in the world is completely independent then. With all the flaws their regime has, which I won't object, but there they are.

Absolutely not, the Donbas region was being attacked by Ukraine, you can call it a civil war, but it concerns Russia too, because the minority being attacked (minority in the country, not in the region) was from their nationality too. From that the Minks Accords came. This was being reported, to the ones willing to listen, nothing in the West, of course. The thing was getting worse for them in the whole country, with an only Ukrainian nationalist approach growing. I told you, if it was a Moldovan minority in trouble, that would be bad for them, but Russia is the big brother, and if you hit someone's little brother, you know what happens next. In the context of the Ukrainian war, NATO used the chance to expand in Finland and Sweden. Indeed, Russia can't do shit about that now, they have their most capabilities in Ukraine, which is much more meaningful to them for historical and cultural reasons. It's a bad deal for these two countries because they've lost their neutrality, and in a hypothetical case of an escalation, they would be hit fast too for their proximity, so they are not safer now, and they gotta pay big, it's not free to be in NATO, you gotta buy US manufactured weapons, equipment, and let them put their bases on your territory. An awful deal, if you ask me.

Good faith negotiations between Russia and Ukraine are possible. You paint Ukraine like Mother Theresa of Calcutta, but after the coup of 2014, they've been at war with the Russian-speaking population in the Donbas and other regions, and they opened a the facto red carpet to NATO, and NATO armed the most radical Ukrainians they could find as they always do, the Nazi Azov guys in this case. Crimea was annexed via referendum, it was over 90% Russian people in there. I know sometimes big countries get to ask more than small ones, if it was Moldova asking to anex a part with 90% of Moldovans from Ukraine, it wouldn't have happened. Is this fair? Not for Moldova, but in this specific case, for Crimeans, absolutely yes, because they don't want to be Ukrainian, they want to be Russian. Is it fair for Chechnya? Probably not, but after a bloody war, they finally sat, and agreed on some terms both sides could accept. In any case, Russia took the path of annexing Crimea when Ukraine took its Antirussian route. A war was prevented in 2015 with the Minsk Accords, to calm the conflict in the Donbas, with both Zelensky and Putin signing. Russia could have attacked then, but opted to sign an accord. But that's why I say negotiations have to be in good faith, in this case, they were not on the part of NATO and Zelensky, because the hostility or war against the Russian-speaking minority continued. The NATO-founded militarization continued in the whole country, specially in the East, and after having to accept Poland and the Baltic countries joining NATO before, even if that was agreed that wouldn't happen in the 90's, Russia saw where this was going. If Ukraine is so stupid to join the EU, that's their decision, but if they want to break their neutrality status with NATO, that's Russia's business too. So what have we got now? Russia got Crimea before, and most of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson now, and they are not going to leave them, that's a no-return situation, because in the eyes of Russia, Ukraine had the chance to negotiate before that didn't take, and that had a cost for Russia too. Zelensky and NATO refused these terms, they want the whole of these five regions back. Trump said he would concede Crimea, but ask for the rest back, laughable at this point, and he has his own race to win first, if he can. It may go slowly, but Russia seems to be able to get the full of these regions by force, and maybe some more. Ukraine's capabilities to sustain the war get worse with time, not even mercenaries want to be butchered when they have a much safer job in Gaza killing unarmed civilians, instead of facing a well-trained and equipped army in Donetsk, for the same pay. The USA is not going to send its troops to Ukraine, and neither is France, not that France would make a difference, but since Macron said it, I acknowledge it.

Good faith negotiations are to achieve permanent peace, as far as possible. If both sides respect the terms, there's no reason Russia would attack again. Previous accords weren't respected, probably because nobody thought Russia would ever attack, and not only they did, but they are winning. There have been chances to sit and negotiate. Before the war, right after the first incursion, before the counteroffensive, and the last offer was two months ago, each time it got worse for Ukraine. Putin said next time terms will be worse for Ukraine. Even if Russia is winning, war has costs, human lives for start, so it's in their interest to negotiate too, but it's much more in the interest of Ukraine right now, and Russia knows this, so if Zelensky and NATO refuse to sit, then be it, that seems Russia's position. How do you make sure anyone doesn't do anything you don't want? You can try to finish them, if you can, or you can sit and agree to some terms acknowledging mutual harm is bad for both sides. A hint, the first option is not working in this conflict.

Ukraine found a weaker point in the Northeast border and decided to attack it, even if it's Russian territory they are not really interested in, let's say they want it for trade. It's war, Ukraine should try its possibilities. Invading is hard, but maintaining what you invade is even harder though, I don't think Ukraine will be able to hold it for long. They keep losing in the East, which Russia intends to invade and annex. Ukraine took a win where they could. Will they celebrate for long? I don't think so.

From what I'm hearing, Walz sounds like a good pick to please the whole spectrum of the Democrat party, from left to right. Shapiro was the other that was sounding with the best chances, but there were some issues with him that part of the base wouldn't like. First big decision of Kamala, good one.

Yeah, that's recognized from today's perspective as a wrongdoing to the native Americans. There can be reparations, but there's no going back, that's the reality of history. The occupation of Palestine is current history and it's right now when it can be opposed.

Palestinians don't hate Jews for their religion, and they don't want to exterminate them. If there's hate is because of what the Zionists have done to them, ruthless murder, ethnic cleansing, and a current ongoing genocide. I don't know you, but if someone did that to me or my people, I would hate them too. Right now, in a globalized world, they distinguish between the Jewish religion and the Zionist project, which are not the same. If anything, Jews should be thankful to the Arab Muslim world. For example, a lot of Jewish people who were expelled from what's now Spain found refuge in the majority Muslim lands of North Africa. There they lived in peaceful coexistence. In the Middle East, lands like Iraq, Egypt, Syria, or Palestine, majorly Muslim as well, Muslims, Christians, and Jews were coexisting fairly well too. Obviously, the Muslim perception changed when Zionism started their murderous project in one of their lands, Palestine, and in some cases that led to Jews experiencing hostility towards them and having to leave to Israel. Something the Zionists wanted, to increase their numbers in the occupied land.

Exactly, Palestinians have not responded in a way any other group of people wouldn't have in the same situation. Not only in the last 20 years, but this goes decades earlier, a constant violent ethnic cleansing and murder towards their people, literal replacement of entire regions, villages, and cities that were cleansed of its native group of people, to be replaced with a mostly foreign one. In some cases, some US presidents put a stop to them, Reagan for example did it, but there were more, I don't remember whom now. AIPAC hasn't been asleep, its influence in US politics has been growing. It's a loop because they take money from the US taxpayers and they put it back in having favorable politicians, most of them are sold to different degrees. The opposition to any of Israel's demands, no matter what they do, a genocide in broad light right now, is zero. They get free weapons, and money as much as they want. Let's say Hamas surrenders, they give up their weapons and agree to go to prison. What will Israel do? A two-state solution? Or what they are already doing in the West Bank, slowly but steadily adding more and more violent settlers with their own military presence to ensure an apartheid until they dilute any Palestinian existence? The second, for sure, we just have to see what they have been doing since they got there and what they are doing right now. Hamas is resisting that as they should, and any other group people would do if they could.

I understand Israel killed a Hamas political leader. But if the two sides were in a pre-dialog situation for a ceasefire, it is a dangerous escalation that can perpetuate the war more and more. Maybe that's what Israel wants, even if it doesn't say it clearly, because that way they keep killing more Palestinian population and worsening the conditions of the ones left to do what they please with them, their true objectives. The thing is, Hamas as a military force is resisting, causing enough casualties on the opponents to prevent them from taking full military control of Gaza, and some Israeli officials have said they can't defeat them. It's also dangerous that the attack on Ismail Hanuyeh was made in Iran, which could retaliate according to law. There's also the risk of a full war with Hezbollah, some analysts say they have a missile and ballistic power that Israel could not defend from, although the ongoing restrain is understandable because Israel is capable of destroying Lebanon too. The risk of a bigger war is growing, and I think Israel is the one adding the most gas to the fire with those international attacks.

An interesting interview of a former Zionist and his journey.

Trump in the interview with this association of black journalists was so funny, beautiful moments, the crowd was laughing. I think the best was when Trump said Kamala is not black, that she is Indian, but she has decided to be black now for the elections. He is trying to alienate Kamala from black voters, like she is not one of them, but I don't think that will work. She is ethnically mixed, that's not such a rare thing, and of course black people understand that, and she is definitely not white. Another pearl was when he said black jobs. That's a pretty racist way of framing the labor issues. Because with gender at least you can argue that there are some biological differences like average strength or similars. But with race, what are you arguing? If there is a disparity, you can then analyze the hows and whys of this, and maybe try to offer some kind of route as a public political servant, or you are just racist.