What this woman did was a heinous hate crime. But this isn't the oppression Olympics. There has been a rise in antisemitism too. No need to diminish that in order to assert that hate crimes against Palestinian people is bad.

Was he good, or was he just grifting a different group before?

I haaate "equal rights means equal lefts."

These dudes fantasize about a woman picking a fight with them so they can beat the shit out of one and have it be socially acceptable.

I hate it. I'll still vote for the puppet with dimentia that's commanded by Democrats over the one commanded by Republicans if that ends up being my only choice to fend off fascists.

Its the equity stage. Certain socioeconomic groups have fewer educational opportunities earlier in life. We should really move on to justice and fix that. But first, we need equity to help people now and make up for that.

Riiight? Like, women shouldn't be hitting people for sure and there should be consequential. But men celebrating that women getting knocked out gives me the creeps. Honestly, if it was anyone substantially larger knocking out someone so much weaker of any gender or age it would be wrong. Imaging a body builder knocking out an old man or a small boy? Very wrong. I think everyine could agree there. But reddit just loves to celebrate this specific brand if violence on women.

I'm sound of mind and I'm on the 1000th time of swapping Tuesday and Thursday in sentencess. Every time. Brains are weird.

You can be Muslim (a religion), Arab (an ethnicity), and French (a nationality) all at once...

What a great way to justify never improving things.

Yeah. This is how I live life. I don't create demand for meat. But I'm not vegetarian.

you know this infographic isn't literally talking about trees, right?

I'm curious as to how they even define and abaya. Like... Other than being a loose fitting dress made of a square piece of cloth, theres not much to define it. Dresses that fit the description are also worn by "westerners."

I mean... He tocuhed a door knob and didn't know it was a crime scene to report.

The us literally distributed religious texts to extremists to encourage them to hate outsiders because communists were the outsiders we wanted them to push out at the time:

CIA and State Department have been criticized for publishing textbooks intended to indoctrinate children with racism and hatred towards foreigners and towards non-muslim Afghans.

In an effort to aid the anti-Soviet insurgency and inculcate a hatred of foreign invaders in Afghan children, the US government covertly distributed schoolbooks which promoted militant Islamic teachings and included images of weapons and soldiers. The Taliban used the American textbooks but they scratched out the images of human faces which were contained in them in keeping with their strict aniconistic and fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. The United States Agency for International Development gave millions of dollars to the University of Nebraska at Omaha in the 1980s and the university used the money to fund the writing and the publishing of the textbooks in local languages.

To be fair, this was in Pakistan and Afghanistan and I know less about Iran. But, yeah. "The west" 100% encouraged this behavior. And we backed mujahedeen extremist warlords in Afghanistan all the way until we pulled out.

If they actually cared, they would take the time to understand the actual situation and realize that puberty blockers aren't experimental or dangerous.

The student loan problem (and general debt problem) in the US is such a huge issue that any long term thinking politician would want to take drastic measured to reduce it, whether it's fair or not. The US put a lot of effort putting it's population into debt with each side of the political aisle having two very different mindsets:

1: Giving people money now will help them leverage themselves out of poverty. Their good investments will help them repay the loan and then make more than they previously could have.

2: Putting people in debt will make them unable to retaliate against anything that would inhibit their ability to make money to pay off debt (as in, no striking or protesting or anything like that because were all too financially insecure to get away with it). Those who do act out due to poverty can go to prison and be cheap labor there instead.

Not only was the second mindset more correct, the ultra wealthy also won out because, as people defaulted on their debt and markets collapsed, the ultra wealthy with extra liquid cash during recessions scooped up all the cheapened assets.

However, with a financial crisis based around student debt, there's no asset to even scoop up. You can't just take peoples degrees as they refuse to pay their student loans. This ones going to cause a global recession (because the global currency is realistically the dollar) for no real gain for even the ultra wealthy. People will have no money to spend on their products and there will be no assets to scoop. Anyone thinking ahead at all would really want to prevent this one from occurring no matter what.

I agree with the sentiment, some people won't be raising their sons right. And, while we need to push those people, we also need to be real about the world we live in otherwise girls and women are going to get hurt. There are bad people. telling them to be better won't make them be better, won't make them go away, and won't make you safe from them. Its about as useful as thoughts and prayers.

I tried voat. Waaaay too racist.

Ohhh, I go between Europe and the US a lot and own one of these. Hopefully this means US companies will offer more support for the fairphone 4!

Sure, they can try to come after your assets. My point is:

1. Having student loan debt doesnt guarantee you have assets like having a home loan does. You have a home. Many with student loans do not.

2. Because the debt is not linked to an asset, the failure of people to pay back student loans en masse will not inherently lower the demand and thus value of an asset.

3. Cheap homes have already been taken by cooperations. people with student loans selling their house probably won't degrade the housing market. Something else will probably tho cos that's also a shit show right now.

It's a loose dress. How is a generic loose dress preventing people from integrating? My american grandma has dresses like this.

It actually hasn't. The api hasn't been changed. Reddit is such a shit show they didn't make their own deadline. Apps that didn't take themselves down in advance still work.

Theres still a wave to come I think.

A rise in homelessness is great?

They commit crimes at a lower rate and improve the economy. Also, don't we have a labor shortage everyone keeps going on about? And if they're legal, they don't get abused. Which is why we should make an easier path to getting them work papers.

So I mean. The whole labor thing boosting the economy is a big deal.

Cis and trans are terms that came before their application to gender identity. I learned themin organic chemistry in reference to chemical isomers.

Wikipedia: The prefixes "cis" and "trans" are from Latin: "this side of" and "the other side of", respectively.

As applied to gender, "this side of" you are the gender of the sex you were born as. "The other side of" means you have switched your gender to the other side of the sex from which you were born.

Edit: to answer your question more directly, your gender is cis or trans of the sex you were born as. The question you ask for is: "is your gender cis or trans of your sex?"

Society needs to codify these rules into law though otherwise bad actors break those rules. When a right wing activist supreme court removes these protections, people get hurt. But, a store like this isnt doing this to hurt people, it's to make a statement that the far-rights own discrimination can backfire on them. It's a form of protest and a statement, not true bigotry. Its like using the flying spaghetti monster tactic to push legislation to be more strict on religion. These people are trying ro show that regulation on business to prevent denying goods and services is important for everyone, not just minorities the the right hates.

The people in the infographic are literally working for their own food.

Because money doesn't cover the whole issue. Two people starting at the same economic point, one is statistically more likely to have downward economic mobility compared to the other based on race. There are people in our society actively being held back.

Because "they go low we go high" has been working sooooo well.

Playing by different rules means the fascists win.

This doesn't fix jet lag which is fucking brutal.

They already banned the head scarf years ago. The abaya is just a dress. Please don't accuse me of bad faith arguments without even googling what an abaya is.

Weird. Several apps, such as infinity (plus others reporting ones that don't plan to go subscription based are working still - boost, stealth, rif when logged out, and relay and someone said their bot was still chugging along), still work fine with no subscription. That, plus this post indicating that changes will over over the best few weeks, makes me feel like it's not being revoked uniformly or smoothly.

https://www.reddit.com/r/redditdev/comments/14nbw6g/updated_rate_limits_going_into_effect_over_the/

The problem is, theres no definitive distinguishihg description of an abaya. It's a loose dress. How do you distinguish someone who wants to be comfortable in a loose dress from a girl being oppressed by an abaya?

Actually, many parks do allow drinking. If you check the cities bylaws, they often state explicit locations where open containers are allowed and it often tends to be the major town parks.

Infinity is not. Also, this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/redditdev/comments/14nbw6g/updated_rate_limits_going_into_effect_over_the/

The api changes will occur in the following weeks.

Also, apparently RIF works when not logged in from what ive read. Its actually an oauth thing.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/1/23781408/if-rif-is-still-working-for-you-when-youre-logged-out-heres-why

1. what shit even are you even talking about?
2. let's assume there's shit, they probably put up with it because up until 2015 many baby girls were murdered and that dating pool is slim.

There are better ways to prevent oppression than controlling what people wear (which is ironically exactly what their oppressors are doing). These girls and women should feel comfortable and free to wear whatever they want, without being forced by religion or the french government. The answer to oppression and authoritarianism isn't more oppression and authoritarianism.

All these “but my daughter wants to cover her whole body, its her choice!!”, its coming from their parents.

I think this is a very western take on feminism. There are many Arab atheistic women who write on the liberty of wearing clothes that cover their bodies without it having anything to do with shame or religion. Look into Leila Ahmed for example, a professor in Women's Studies and Religion at the Harvard Divinity School. She is very against women's oppression in Islamic tradition and majority countries. She's based an entire career on it. She once opposed veils on women as an oppressive symbol, but has further dissected it's role in western society where women are not oppressed by their religion and how it even represents freedom in a way. Because that's how some western Muslim women feel when they wear it. Its their choice to decide what these clothes represent to them.

Some girls are forced and I won't deny it. And I don't think we should be tolerant of it. I really think there should be a system of support for Muslim girls in western societies so they can deal with and navigate these issues on their own terms and with their own autonomy. I wish we saw more of that.

But, acting like a girl living in France choosing to wear an abaya in a healthy Arab family setting (Or any loose dress popular in any culture) is any different from a girl choosing jeans in a healthy western family setting is disingenuous. We are all shaped by our upbringing, but that doesn't inherently make it some kind of brainwashing or force or abuse.

Also, like... kids wear funky things to school. I don't know enough about unicorn costumes in France specifically to say anything. But, depending on the costume I assume it would be left alone or stopped if it impeded normal school activity. This seems like a strange example.

An edit for your edit:

Yes, authoritarianism is the answer to authoritarianism. You are not going to win to authoritarianism with kind words.

Part of me barely wants to entertain this. I already explained how anti authoritarianism could be violent and how I wasn't appealing to kind words or tolerance of intolerance. I offered tangible non authoritarian and even aggressive alternatives. Its scary that, even with this explanation, you think the answer to people behaving the way you don't like is to control those that they abuse.

It was clearly a strange example to give a point, to which you didnt make any comment.

What would I comment on when there is little to no relation between your example and the issue at hand?

So in your opinion, how are we going to help these girls that being forced into it?

i think, at this point, I will just re quote things I've already said since it seems you're just not reading?

" I really think there should be a system of support for Muslim girls in western societies so they can deal with and navigate these issues on their own terms and with their own autonomy."

"Offer these girls mental health resources and a way to escape their families and religion. Offer them a way out of their oppressive situation. Offer them the power to overcome their oppressors on their own terms. Have consequences FOR THE OPPRESSORS if you want to be forceful. "

why are muslims not fighting for that?

You're saying this like they don't? There are support systems in western countries too for Muslim women by Muslim women. People can be mad about multiple things at once. And, you will find that many Arab and Muslim women do fight as hard as possible for women in countries with Muslim governments that try to oppress them. Just like they fight the French government who tries to control them in the opposite direction. People don't like authoritarianism in either direction. I don't know what to tell you.

but I wonder if they are also enraged by the fact that some girls are being forced into it.

Yes. Yes they are.

The difference here is that there is not a group/religion forcing girls/women to wear jeans.

France is not Afghanistan. Girls are not being forced by religion in France the way they are in the middle east. You are not saving the little girls in Afghanistan by bullying the ones in France. Again, there's a lot of feminist writing on how these clothes have a very different meaning in the west compared to the middle east. These women often wear these clothes for different reasons.

If you actually care, please read this: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/immigration-law-journal/blog/the-war-on-muslim-womens-bodies-a-critique-of-western-feminism/

I mean, the Russians competed with the US space race at a much lower budget. Privatization of this stuff wasn't necessary to make it cheaper. The US government is just particularly inefficient with spending at times.