Found an article that pinned an update - she was suspended for 45 minutes. Weird.

https://meduza.io/en/news/2024/02/20/x-formerly-twitter-suspends-yulia-navalnaya-s-account

Though not as high risk as being a logger, a fishing worker, a pilot, a roofer, a general construction worker, any job driving a car or semi, any agricultural laborer, and certain types of maintenance work, among a few others.*

Surviving in a "hard situation" resembles suffering much more closely than it does strength.

That flower is not surviving pinned under rubble for the sake of inspiring the flowers that are not, nor for the sake of "becoming stronger" - it is surviving because until someone bothers to remove the boulders that are crushing it, its options are to survive or to die. And plenty of flowers in that same situation would die, and its actually not out of the question that this flower's eventual death will be due to these conditions that it is forced to endure.

Knowing that, would you still compliment the flower on its strength, on the fact that it has not yet been killed, before considering that maybe, just maybe, you and the other flowers might want to find a way to do something about those boulders that would have already killed any weaker flower?

One should not prioritize complimenting the systematically abused for surviving their undue suffering above working to prevent that undue suffering from continuing. Their suffering and tragedy should not be repurposed as inspiration porn.

Pretty sure there's an ocean of difference between Jesus Christ rebuking the literal devil and a politician traveling across state borders to illegally deface a statue as a publicity stunt to fundraise and get an interview on Fox about how he totally "decapitated Satan." Even if his conviction was somehow driven by religion and not pure vanity (it wasn't), any form of religious supremacy has no place in society at large, let alone a government building. The law recognizes this, "freedom of religion" is the backbone of this in the US, and I'd hope people understand why it might be a worthwhile and important protection to have and uphold.

Additionally, I have a suspicion that anyone who favorably compares a person who postures as a Christian supremacist to Christ is less the sort of person with an understanding of their religion and more the sort of person who knows how to search for the word "Satan" in their YouVersion Bible app.

I feel like I might've gotten a little off topic with this, but I just see this sentiment of "both parties are the same (so let's completely abandon electoralism)" so often online right now and I find it so exhausting and unconstructive.

Well, people did stop this in Ohio, specifically. Local organizers recently successfully petitioned to put abortion rights (which Republican representatives had been threatening) on the ballot statewide - voters got it passed, alongside marijuana legalization, all while facing (and continuing to face) significant antagonism and legal backlash from "elected" Republicans in the 2nd most gerrymandered state in the union.

Both parties suck, I'd go so far as to say both parties frequently do outright evil shit, but they are not the fucking same, and even if they were, that has yet stop people from coming together to get involved and improve their communities themselves. Observing politics near exclusively at the federal level tends to obscure that reality. I accept that this sort of doomerism can come from a place of ignorance, so I offer you suggestion: if you want things to get better, go help. Go find out what groups are actively working to induce local- or state-level government reform, or who are working to directly improve the lives of marginalized people in your community, and go help them. You can't exactly stop fed-level Dems from being useless hypocrites, but you can get involved with groups in your community to help with the work of bringing about positive change - and while that is harder than stewing about the state of things, it actually gets results.

I don't understand the replies here - this bill was drafted in response to multiple events where ethno-nationalists burned the Qur'an in front of audiences with the implicit intent to incite violence against Denmark's Muslim minority population. If you read the article, the bill bans the only the public burning of any religious book, not just the Qur'an. This bill would not "limit freedom of speech," it would limit a form of hate speech and arguably stochastic terrorism being employed by the far right in Denmark. I do not see a problem with this bill.

Well for one, Jews and specifically Israelis don't have to go anywhere for Palestine and Palestinians to be free?

Like the slogan just does not at all necessarily imply what you're imagining (or what the US congress claims) it does. That slogan's been around longer than Hamas.

A bit of a tangential question, but one I know a little about. Mostly correct, but I'd phrase it differently: up until the civil war, the Republicans were generally left-leaning and Democrats were generally right-leaning.

In terms of what lead to the switch, after the civil war, there weren't a whole lot of politicians in the south from either party who supported abolition. A solid number of those politicians likely saw a need to work together if they wanted white supremacy to succeed in a nation that just rejected their racist bs so hard that they fought and won a war with them over it.

Initially, the Democratic party was to remain the bastion of right wing regressivism, but the lines weren't firmly established until democrats started voicing their support for civil rights. Most majorly, Truman voicing his support for civil rights began the redrawing of the lines, and LBJ passing the civil rights act cemented the switch. All remaining Democrats who opposed civil rights switched to the Republican party, where they would cultivate and appeal to voters who shared their opinion on civil rights by developing and implementing the southern strategy.

This is the foundation of the modern Republican party - they were the party formed to oppose and undermine civil rights, a role they've maintained to this day.

Wish I could find a clip to post, but there's a Garfield special ("Babes and Bullets") themed as a black and white detective movie, and the line "Being a private dick isn't easy with a name like Sam Spayed" is forever burned into my memory.

I think the claims I've heard irl are something along the lines of "can't trust Google search results, they're censoring 'em!" I figure the things they're mad Google "censors" are probably literal or borderline fascist content - and I also tend to assume they're probably misusing the word censor. I think the tenuous connection here is just that yeah Google is probably doing some shady stuff with their search results.

Not directed exclusively at me, but I had a math teacher throw a temper tantrum directed at a classroom of 4th graders about how much of a personal injustice it was to her that our parents kept sending her complaints, and that has got to be the worst thing she did.

To give you a picture as to why she might've been getting so many, when my Mom sent in one of these "complaints," she received a response in the form of a metaphor about how coal must be put under immense pressure in order to become a diamond... I think my Mom responded that something like a flower might serve as a better metaphor for a fucking 9 year old, though I doubt it did much to change that jerk's mind.

Anyway, having her as an instructor set me back at least a year in math, and I've had other people who were in that class say that that's where their issues with anxiety started.