I agree - and it’s also a language problem. Many of the words that nowadays are core parts of the left wing message can easily be portrayed as hostile to them due to their historic genesis and literary meaning~

A simple vocabulary update would help a huge amount, simply switching to more gender neutral terms that carry a sufficiently equivalent meaning. Feminism -> Gender Equality; toxic masculinity -> misogyny + internalized sexism; patriarchy -> oligarchy + egalitarianism etc.

This has become a huge weakness that can be (and frequently is) exploited to portray it as hostile towards these groups.

Hamas has consistently struggled to articulate an achievable long-term strategy for alleviating the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza.

The author operates under the fundamentally flawed assumption that the terrorist hamas leadership cares about the well-being of the Gazan Arab population. They don’t - and either never have, or haven’t for a very long time. The primary interest of the political leadership, who live in other countries - far removed from the suffering of the people they supposedly lead, is to line their own pockets.

However, the fact that much of hamas upper echelons on the ground in Gaza was wiped out when hostilities resumed does imply that they misjudged the situation.

Planetary Annihilation, Warcraft 3 (at least pre-reforged if you can get a hold of an old copy), Unreal Tournament, Killing Floor, Battle for Middle Earth (1 & 2), OpenTTD, Simutrans, Settlers: Heritage of Kings, some of the older Wolfenstien games, Battle for Wesnoth, Warzone 2100, Teeworlds, Widelands

It was only a matter of time when it became clear they couldn’t agree on the terms for phase 2 of the ceasefire and phase 1 came to an end.

Yeah I actually listened through (almost) the entire 50 minute thing during breakfast - and all things considered the atmosphere was mostly okay up until the last moments. Things were starting to wrap up, journalists asking questions, and then Vance jumped in with an entirely different attitude - and after that Trump completely changed his tone also.

So tragic to see how Z was doing his utmost to be friendly or at least respectful even when T made clearly incorrect statements or when some of the journalists asked insulting questions. He literally thanked him (and the american people) multiple times during the press conference, and then V jumps in, runs him over and turns the entire thing upside down.

I’m honestly not sure where I stand myself on this. It’s a difficult issue and I’m not sure there can be “only one correct answer”.

as long as it does not support or provoke harm to other peoples

Who decides what is harmful or provocative?

A priest may find that the colander makes a mockery of religion, others might see a hijab as a symbol of oppression of women and others still may find that a certain slogan remind them of past trauma?

How do you strike a balance between dress code and preferences?

Should the state be free from religions, or free for all religions?

Does it even make sense to have the same rules in every country?

I myself am certainly biased in this context, given that I trust in science, evolution and the empiric process. Furthermore, I myself have been permanently negatively affected by religion, and all the ones I’ve encountered so far have been anti-scientific to a certain extent, regressive and denounce my own personal views. Does it not make sense then that I am anti-religious?

If I had to quickly codify my stance at this moment, I would say that I’m fine with freedom of religion to the extent that it intersects with the other personal liberties (Freedom of thought, expression, personal autonomy) that I think everyone should have the right to. However, I don’t think religion should give anyone preferential treatment in any context - religious organizations and religious folk should be subjected to the same regulations as a person of another (or no) belief or organization.

For instance, that might include exemptions from dress codes. In this case I would be against it unless the dress code would be equivalently relaxed for everyone, which I certainly wouldn’t support in some contexts. Some examples from healthcare for instance (since I’ve experience in the field) - it is imperative that what you wear is hygienic for the safety of the patient, and some of your duties might go against the personal beliefs of some people (abortion for instance). That doesn’t mean that you should be exempt from those duties or regulations because of your personal convictions. Suck it up, or go find another job.

From what I’ve read on the topic, this take seems misguided at best or outright wrong at worst. Historically, secularism in France has been a primarily liberal/socialist/anti-monarchist pursuit.

French secularism has its origin in the French revolution, half a century before Algeria came under French control. Religious institutions were viewed as a part of the aristocratic establishment and the concept of laïcité was introduced under the revolutionary era and entrenched (along with concepts such as freedoms of thought, expression & conscience) during the Napoleonic era. Further progress in this direction was not made by imperialists, but rather revolutionaries after bloody conflict (the French commune for instance) and generally steps were taken to repeal them when conservative/monarchist governments dominated.

To start off, you could write entire essays delving into this topic. Everything I’ve written in my reply is very condensed, so if you feel something lacks nuance, it’s probably to keep it brief rather than because I thought it is “THE ONE AND ONLY ANSWER”. Here goes.

Religious freedom has two key parts: freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Which of these holds prominence is different depending on the secular country you’re in, and usually has a lot to do with the historic path that the nation and dominant culture took to become secular.

In France organized religion had an authoritarian position in society, dominating it for more than a millenium. It took literal centuries of bloodshed and more than one revolution to put an end to that dominance. That is the origin of those laws. The lessons behind their making were learned at the cost of many lives, and personally I don’t think that such laws should be ripped up without proper consideration.

Religion, particularly the organized kind is designed to spread and exert power over people and societies. Furthermore, unlike many other things such as ethnicity, sex or disabilities, it is a strongly held personal belief, which is a choice. Yes, there is some nuance there, but it is mostly based on convictions and antiquated traditions, much like the old republican laws themselves perhaps.

A question follows, should a person based on an arbitrary strong personal conviction be granted special treatment?

If yes… then I argue that this should not be limited to “religious” beliefs. The only thing that makes those particular sets of beliefs special, after all, is tradition and mass adoption, much like our own cultures. So, lets consider some other minority beliefs. Should a furry who “needs” to wear wolf ears be allowed to wear that? A sikh their turban? A pastafarian their mandated colander? What if someone strongly believes that they can’t go outside without wearing a CocaCola branded cap (mmm delicious ad revenue)?

Yes. In this case it’s a left wing gov:t pondering removing citizenship for a right wing individual.

As “good” and “evil” are subjective, in both cases it will be the “good” gov:t revoking the citizenship of a treasonous “evil” person.

There’s a fundamental reason why I very much dislike these kinds of things. When you’ve set the precedent that citizenships can be removed it legitimizes that same action when it is applied in the other direction.

What is considered “treason” is very much subjective - the state simply should not have the power to remove citizenship.

It’s not particularly surprising when left wingers are first movers to other platforms. The remaining people are a demographic where the left has filtered out, and with content being a product of the user base it gets a similar bias.

Regarding important economic issues such as healthcare, welfare, taxes, consumer protection & industry regulation this is certainly the case.

The part where the European right mainly differs from the US left is on more recent additions to leftist ideology - such as identity politics & intersectionalism.

The reuters article is rather sparse, CNN has a more in depth one.

This is the worst mass shooting in Swedish history to date.

Minister of State Ulf Kristersson held a press conference a few hours ago, and the King has issued a statement also.

It’s honestly quite draining with the constantly escalating violence. Many here didn’t initially react or realize the magnitude when the initial news hit after lunch citing five people shot.

Right now though one of our most prolific Swedish online forums (flashback) is down due to excessive traffic, and last I saw the news have blown up on mainstream platforms too.

I’ll get back to you on that. If you like you can contact me via email Iceblade02@proton.me.

This is, as a matter of fact, incorrect. There is only one law regarding what in english might be called “hate speech”. It refers to “agitation against a population group”, and is the only exception to freedom of expression relevant in this context, mentioned in “brottsbalken”, our criminal law.

Brottsbalken, Kap. 16, 8 § Den som i ett uttalande eller i ett annat meddelande som sprids uppmanar till våld mot, hotar eller uttrycker missaktning för en folkgrupp, en annan sådan grupp av personer eller en enskild i någon av dessa grupper med anspelning på ras, hudfärg, nationellt eller etniskt ursprung, trosbekännelse, sexuell läggning eller könsöverskridande identitet eller uttryck, döms för hets mot folkgrupp till fängelse i högst två år.

Criticism of religion however is raised in other, more important parts of law, namely the Swedish form of Government (our constitution). It is there, specifically and repeatedly, mentioned as a kind of speech and expression that is protected. As such, in the case of Salwan Momika it’d have been necessary to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended to target muslims by burning quran books, rather than (as he himself claimed) to openly criticize islam. Nobody has as of the posting of this comment been deemed guilty of agitation for burning any religious texts in Sweden under the current law.

This is part of why the trial of him and his companion ended up taking so long. It was one of the first high-profile cases of its kind and likely to set precedent on the topic. As such, I consider his assassination on the night before the verdict of his trial to be not only a barbaric act of violence, but also an explicit attack on the Swedish legal system, our constitution and our freedom of expression.

Not surprising in the slightest. Greenland has to varying extents been affiliated with the Scandinavias for more than a thousand years now, whilst the connection to the US is… nonexistent.

Personally I don’t like it either, but at the same time the situation is devolving completely. Apartment buildings being subjected to bomb attacks on a daily basis, and in such a sparsely populated country as Sweden.

This isn’t new. Violent crime has been getting worse year by year here in Sweden during the past decade, and right now I’m quite thankful to be living in a rather rural town.

Nuclear isn’t dispatchable.

This statement is false.

“A dispatchable source of electricity refers to an electrical power system, such as a power plant, that can be turned on or off; in other words they can adjust their power output supplied to the electrical grid on demand. Most conventional power sources such as coal or nuclear power plants are dispatchable in order to meet the always changing electricity demands of the population. In contrast, many renewable energy sources are intermittent and non-dispatchable, such as wind power or solar power which can only generate electricity while their primary energy flow is input on them.”

Source: EnergyEducation.ca (Provided by the University of Calgary)

Either you don’t know what you’re talking about, or are actively deceptive. I sincerely hope it is the prior. As such, I suggest that you educate yourself on the topic before commenting further to avoid spreading disinformation.

The main argument for nuclear is not its individual cost, neither for remewables. The main argument is that we need to rid ourselves of fossil fuels.

When planning for a future global energy system w/o fossil fuels, nuclear power has a key role to play as the most reliable source of clean, dispatchable electricity. This allows it to punch far above its equivalent capacity by massively reduce the need for expensive grid scale storage solutions.

Source 1: IEA (2019), Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system, Licence: CC BY 4.0

Source 2: NEA (2019), The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables, OECD Publishing, Paris https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15000

Please do stay!

Yeah, a lot of the fediverse has an extreme left slant, and that’s coming from someone living in a rather left-leaning country.

As someone who jumped the reddit ship during the blackout protest and has been here ever since, mostly out of principle, it has slowly been getting better as more people filter in.