https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/circle
Bonus comic : https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/real-3
Godel proved you can't prove anything. Don't think about it too hard.
Je sais pas, j'ai juste souvent entendu parler de ce problème de compétitivité, avec notamment cet argument de la fuite des capitaux français, le voir balayé aussi simplement m'a donné envie de le partager.
Après, ça ne parle pas de l'investissement étranger, et davantage du manque de lutte contre les fraudes fiscales, sans aborder la possibilité d'un abandon de la nationalité française pour ne plus être taxé, ou du transfert de la localisation de ces propriétés, ce qui dans les deux cas peut engendrer des complications(, personnelles, pour continuer de vendre aux consommateurs français·es, ...)
Je laisse ce post car c'est vrai que l'on entend parfois avec défaitisme que l'on ne peut pas contraindre les plus riches à l'impôt, sinon ils partiront, prenez la peine d'un commentaire si vous me voyez dans l'erreur lorsque je nie cette difficulté technique.
suite :
I don't understand people like you.
For me, it's impossibly naive to believe that our disinformation( doesn't exist, or) will be censored as much as the disinformation of our opponents, yet that's apparently the new mainstream opinion.
And x.com is the only social media to have implemented Community Notes.
Your answer for the past is that Israel should have been allowed to take "back" these (holy )lands, important for all the "children" of Abraham, perhaps that the arabs are also attached to these lands and would prefer to see them ruled by arabs/muslims, and not israelis/jews, they also had/have an importance for christians(, crusades). If they ever agree to lose one of their "hearts", then fairness would require to give one of our "hearts" in exchange to palestinians(, with a lot of money, e.g. 0.1% of the g.d.p. of every country for a year, as well as the promise to leave the Middle-East alone, to lift sanctions, to ensure the security&'total separation' of both Israel and this state, etc.)
I think that it is the root of our disagreement, you're starting from their right to take these lands to explain that the sins done by Israel were necessary(, if so are they still sins ?,) since they had hostile neighbours who wanted their destruction. Destroying Israel would be awful, but destroying Palestine is justified because they didn't accepted Israel in the first place. Perhaps, i think that their desire to expand their borders is more important than their desire for security, but to get back to the "root" of our disagreement, you've seen that i'm not among those who want israelis to g.t.f.o., but i can't blame those who do(, would you have accepted if they took one of our "hearts" by force ? It's not Mecca or Medina but still).
You may think that it's not such a big deal to take/keep these lands, perhaps you're right, everything is relative, then perhaps that in the same sense it wouldn't be such a big deal to give them a territory as well(, it could be the occasion to seal an alliance).
If you'd like a one sentence summary : You probably wouldn't have accepted it either if islamists took a portion in the heart of our lands, not by might at least, but possibly if you/we were given something which would 'be satisfying'/'made it acceptable'.
Now that i think about it, i can't resolve myself to say that they don't have any legitimate right to revive their culture on their ancient lands(, still don't agree with their refusal to be christian or muslim as well though, John and Muhammad ﷺ were prophets, the disagreements aren't worth such profound schism, we follow Abraham, and more importantly (virtues and )God, christianity and judaism could be considered as sects of islam, or all of them sects of abrahamism(, that's diversity without unity here)), but i know that we(sterners) wouldn't owe arabs anything in exchange if it was totally just/fair to take these lands, so i'll stay with my conclusion : the problem isn't that Israel's existence isn't accepted by palestinians&muslims, but that we didn't made its existence acceptable, in other words it's up to us to make this right.
You'll probably say that we won't make their loss acceptable, then i don't see why they should accept it, or why they should care if Israel disappears, if it's the law of the strongest then they have a chance to win( for all i know).
Fair enough, i'll just point out that with such enhanced surveillance it'd be even more difficult than currently(, and ideally impossible,) for people loyal(, or hostile,) to Trump to cheat the election. Thanks for the chat
Jews started out legally buying lands in Mandatory Palestine until they were massacred and had war waged on them on when they declared statehood. Any lands annexed was a result of this.
The Ottoman Empire forbade them to buy these lands during the XIXth century, and would never have accepted the british decisions, were the arabs just supposed to let them declare statehood ?
Polling indicates Palestinians want intifada and a one-state solution where Jews are denied equal rights, and they outnumber Israelis.
And what do israelis want ? A two-states solution ? Why won't they put an end to the settlements then, and why is it anything else than a net gain for them and a loss for palestinians ?
What are the compromises that we(sterners) are making ?
Anger will not change their situation, it has led to it being this way.
The anger of israelis led to them killing thousands of people, no ?
But yeah, you're probably right, i don't really know what they expected, some kind of victory perhaps, they're at war as well, and seized an occasion.
If ummah were a factor here I suspect Egypt wouldn't be keeping Rafah closed, they clearly care more about using them as pawns with claims to land than they do the lives of Gazans stuck there.
If Egypt cared about palestinians they would help Israel in deporting them ?
While there is only one Jewish state there are many Arab/Islamic ones in the area and none of them seem willing to help Palestine, probably because those who did suffered for it with coups and terrorist organizations within their borders.
Most of them are still suffering because of their support/principles. Every single one of them is willing to help Palestine, but the more you're trying to put pressure and the more you're exposing your citizens for reprisals, so the extent of their actions may vary, i still think that they could win but what do i know really.
(And realpolitik don't look at morals, it is machiavelism, looking for what's fair/right/virtuous and then the realist ways to do this seems a better practice)
I have much to learn by talking with a pro-israeli, my sincere thanks for engaging.
[The claim that "if you kill their leaders they'll just elect new ones"] has yet to be established
As i said with Benjamin Netanyahu : killing him won't destroy Israel, just as killing their leaders wouldn't destroy Hamas.
We have to solve the root of the problem, because "Hamas"(palestinians) have the moral high ground here, « If israelis are unwilling to pacify themselves, the destruction of Israel seems like the most humane remaining option that keeps Palestine safe. », wouldn't you agree ?
« Palestine was annexed because israelis declared war on Palestine and won, funny how the Anti-Palestine crowd always conveniently forgets this and portrays the israelis as victims when they were absolutely the aggressors. »
« If israelis are reasonable, yes [killing them would be enough to deter them from killing more palestinians and occupying (more&more of )their land]. It would encourage them to find a path to peace. Perhaps they are not reasonable, their history of poking the bear, popular support of settlers and a one-state solution where they deny rights to palestinians certainly seems to indicate an unwillingness to compromise, which led to their present situation. »
I can't understand how you could paint the israelis as the victims here : they were the ones who stole the lands(, and are continuing to steal more of it), they're killed way less than they're killing, both before and after Oct.7, with less material destructions, yet i can't wish for them to permanently excuse themselves for existing, even if they should. There's a few solutions possible other than a two-state solution, i can only regret that public debates don't turn around this research of solutions instead of simply supporting one side, the anger of palestinians is legitimate, but what's the plan. Israel is asking for a lot and can't offer much in exchange, if i was arab i could consider that such weird locations could have a weird civilization different from the rest there, after all the muslims have expanded so much that they could accept to 'paint in another color'/~lose one of their heart, but not without consequences for israelis/westerners, it should result at the very least in a huge boost for the ummah, something deemed worthwhile by all of them, which won't happen since we(sterners) won't give any of our "hearts".
A crazy idea would be to plan for all countries to ally together in order to colonize and terraform Mars(, with commitments to certain realizations), from 2070 to 2177 for instance(, or longer if necessary), and our collective effort will be entirely done in order to give the whole planet Mars to countries claiming to be islamic. It's a good situation in the solar system, and despite many problems and uncertainties could be deemed a huge gain without being more than a financial loss for other countries. Other possibilities exist even if this one may seem/be far-fetched.
(i didn't know that, it'd require more researchs than i did on the claims of each side, they'd perhaps say that the coverage was insufficient).
In my opinion we don't have anything to lose by strengthening our electoral system, and every accusation is an occasion to improve it, unless you think that it is already failproof, i've seen long lists of arguments at the end of 2020, but John Oliver also made three videos on the topic of fraud prior to that, and our side didn't hesitate to have doubts twice on the results for Bernie Sanders, whether it happened or not, i do think that cheating is a serious possibility and that such claims should be solved by better measures to please the future candidates/incumbents, instead of only relying on censorship(, youtube, facebook, twitter, ...). To sum up, he did commit to a peaceful transition, and we don't have much to lose by implementing an even stronger surveillance of the procedure for the next elections.
You're evidently right, but many articles for the 2021 elections(, 1, 2, 3, ..., including the one cited), said that it has been 15 years since the EU sent observers.
In any case i would like to emphasised that this debate isn't useful : even if westerners systematically sent observers they would still claim that the results are illegitimate because of the overall process(, which deserve some explanations/debates because our own system is far from perfect, and we're blending the consequences&causes of the sanctions, etc.). I should have deleted this post like i intended at first once i realized that.
A few more minutes of research wielded these results :
I didn't write that we refused to send international observers to Russia, but that « i've read such suspicions about Russia and Iran, we even showed videos of a ballon in front of the c.c.t.v. for Russia », despite « the reasoning that when you're so overwhelmingly popular there's no need to miscount the votes in your favor ».
It appears that we did send international observers(, until 2021), but my point is that it wasn't necessary, yet we're still showing suspicions(, e.g. the balloon in front of a c.c.t.v. to take an example).
I'd just like to end by saying once again that this whole debate is pointless because it doesn't change anything in the end, whether we systematically refused to send observers, or always sent them while accusing the whole "democratic" process instead(, it's apparently in-between, but much more the latter than the former, contrary to what i initially thought).
I should have deleted this post from the start like i first intended once i realised, in the selftext, that « In the end sanctions would stay in place so it wouldn't be useful in any way, and doesn't matter, i should probably delete this post but i'm leaving it in the off-chance that some find an interest in it. »
Sorry if you felt that i wasted your time.
random tweets
He's the director of the World Health Organization, and many articles are talking about many U.N. schools, the most recent one has been linked to this video, and when you look at one of these schools, here, it's not hard to imagine it being bombed in regard to the surrounding desolation. It's more symbolic of their unwillingness to create safe zones than anything else, they even bombed refugee camps, and are used to kill innocent civilians in order to settle on their lands anyway.
You can't depose Hamas, even if they managed to kill all of their leaders(, who don't reside in the Gaza strip anyway), they'll just elect new ones, i thought that this was obvious to everyone else. Even if Hitler was killed the third reich would have continued existing, the same goes for Israel if you kill Netanyahu, or the u.s.s.r. if you killed Stalin, there are a few modifications but the state doesn't suddenly disappear, sry but i shouldn't have to explain such obvious things and i'm afraid that a lot of other people think like you even if it's so obviously delusional.
Game theory ? They were attacked because they stole these (holy )lands, and were continuing to steal more and more of them, committing atrocities almost every day(, or at least week,) in a complete silence from "the free world". What's the point, would killing 100 persons in retaliation deter palestinians from fighting back ? 1000 ? 3000 ? 5000 ? When does it stop ? I wouldn't think that someone really say that the more Israel kills and the safer they'll be, how could it make any sense, they'll only be hated even more, do you think that they're acting guided by their emotions when they're expressing themselves so calmly ? Are palestinians allowed to "deter" israelis from acting like they do by killing even more of them ? Westerners had even more attacks on their territories once they wanted to "avenge" the first attacks by killing so much more people, in truth it's obvious to almost everyone that vengeance wasn't our goal, but our objectives were geopolitical, and were attained by burning everything held by the islamists, and torturing&killing the prisoners. I hope that they're not thinking that their only way to prevent such attacks is to mass murder thousands of innocents, especially considering that their walls were effective for decades.
Netanyahu is already at the end of his political career, your explanation is awful if true, but i've already talked about the blinded desire for revenge without any aim, i can't think that they're only guided by emotions when acting so rationally, they're head of states not teenagers in a video game, if they're doing something like that it's in order to gain something that couldn't be obtained otherwise.
I don't agree with you because i can't see the point : is it really a blind/stupid desire of revenge ? Just killing innocents everywhere without any other goal than that ?
If the most recent death toll wasn't enough, here's something else showing that they don't really care about keeping an appearance, as well as another U.N. school, i don't know what to say or do, everyone knows that they won't destroy "Hamas" :
If their goal was only to send a message, then there's no point to be that extreme, the only reason left that i can see is that they want to keep the Gaza Strip, it's always a bet but they considered that they'll be allowed to(, in which case their security would indeed be increased by getting rid of all palestinians).
Their neighbours would have to be quite desperate to think that embracing Israel and the west is still their best option, but if they do it'd probably be for economic reasons, and/or perhaps fears of retaliations, i.d.k., we'll see how it'll evolve in the future, but i can't believe that they would kill all of these people and destroy everything without a real goal, sending a pointless message isn't one, nor is the unrealistic aim of destroying "Hamas", i find it hard to imagine them simply going back to their side as if they accomplished something by pointlessly mass murdering thousands of childrens&humans on the other side of the wall, awful that this senseless option of a useless massacre is the most desirable.
Previous title apparently :
Yup, Microsoft has made criticizable choices and i'm pro-Linux, but :
I'd have preferred if citizens, religious, or public organisations filled this role, but they're not powerful enough(, states excluded, and some humanitarian associations, who always lack donations), so i'm glad that some capitalists fight against preventable diseases/deaths in ~~poor~~exploited countries, it could be worse since our "morals" are celebrating the "virtue" of capitalists' selfishness, so double yay for B.Gates, W.Buffet, and other philanthropists, unironically(, because even if it's not ideal it could be worse and their donation/wealth/power is needed).
It seems like an irrefutable point of view to claim that you can rank humans/billionaires according to the virtue of their deeds, and that putting all of them on the same scale is dishonest, just take random examples like the Walton family among others, they're your typical billionaires, others are even worse since they're supporting political/media/educational/.. views increasing the economic inequalities in their favor, or even the so-called "anarcho"-capitalism, we're far from our previous ideals of equality(, social reproduction/determinism : private education, inheritance, ...). So yeah, i unapologetically rejoice that some of them are using their stolen wealth/power for greater causes.
One is a government punishing you for saying something. The other is a company saying, "not on my platform."
Oh, ok, i could eventually agree with this definition.
My own definition is that you can moderate without censoring(, kinda like you can neutralize without killing), even if most social medias aren't using things like warnings before censoring, or overall participation of the (unpaid )mods in the forums to guide newcomers, straighten flamewars by words, answer questions, register complaints and advices, create special events, bots on discord, and as many collective events than can be thought of, almost to the point of being more like a supervisor than a moderator. If such a distinction makes sense a moderator would be between a censor and a supervisor, a manager would be yet another word but i could mix these four into the same word, censorship is only the last resort of the moderator, it's usually enough to point out the mistake for the user to amend h.im.er.self by acknowledging h.er.is faults and leaving the community or keeping the rules more in mind, it shouldn't be a surprise ban but that's commonplace on reddit, it's not my philosophy but w/e, i've talked about it with 2-3 mods in the past and they don't agree, it's taking them a lot of time as well so they're not thinking twice nor engaging.
That was a long introduction, hope it wasn't too boring, i'll take your definition and say that unfortunately the government is using the word moderation in its speeches and is making laws to censor illegal speeches on the internet, like defense of what they'll choose to call terrorists, or denial of what they'll call genocide, or the counter-informations that they may falsely deem disinformation(, covid could be an example, some conspiracies as well), E.Musk is annoying because the Community Notes also debunk our disinformation, and i'll only mention astroturfing.
Do you want a short excerpt of my long list of examples of government censorship ?
Furthermore, what's the censorship by companies if not the censorship by the wealthy/powerful for written("legacy") medias ? Don't you think they have enough power like that. States should protect us from their censorship by allowing us some rights, like a proper explanation before being banned or the right to keep a copy of their data afterwards, or not i'm against government interference in one way or another(, except if our declared enemies can use this against us, but we're going beyond that and are clearly aiming to prevent people from speaking uncomfortable/convincing proofs, WikiLeaks is emblematic of a larger movement, and the "cancel culture" has destroyed careers of some people for false reasons, our governments don't trust the population to make their own conclusions.
Il doit être 'encore plus difficile'/'quasi-impossible' pour des associations nouvellement créées d'obtenir cet agrément, pratique pour lutter contre l'anti-corruption.
Et les gens ici n'ont pas réalisé que ces menaces/problèmes durent depuis plusieurs années, même si c'est de pire en pire, le gouvernement pourra faire disparaître Anticor sans aucune conséquence et nous oublierons rapidement.