They’re obviouslt just spitting vitriol in response what is perceived as a threat to their identity. Which apparently is the notion that someone somewhere might beattempting to live free and joyously while also being reflexive about past mistakes.
The audacity of those darned European! If I’m not happy, then nobody should!
Careful, your complexes are overspilling.
So you’ll be conditioning yourself ahead of time?
Great read, thank you for sharing.
Take your own advice and “think critically”.
As long as we assume that OP’s primary info source is social media. It very well might be. But it also might not be.
I didn’t use to, and I am generally against limiting access to any sort of source of information. But the last few years have convinced me otherwise - the owners of these platforms are willing to destroy our way of life for their own personal benefit. Fuck Zuck. Fuck Musk. Fuck all of these charlatans and conmen.
Edit: oh, and the EU isn’t a country (yet), it’s a supranational organization which presents unique challenges in terms of policy. Def not a country
Not sure anyone has ever presented solid evidence that Kamala would have won if not for the Gaza issue. Most agree it was a contributing factor, but not a determening one. Which is scary when you think about it - the real reasons she lost appear to be more nuanced and more deeply related to general cynicism, ignorance and apathy.
I don’t want any followers or believers. Calling it as I see it. That is all.
Not to worry, you’re simply confusing freedom of speech with obliging private actors to consume content they don’t want to consume or disagree with. The first is a fundemental principle of democratic legal systems and recognized as a perempotry norm under international law. The second is authoritarianism.
There’s a growing number of legally illiterate people who think freedom of speech is absolute and even affords one the right to oblige others consume their speech through the government. That is fundamentally wrong and a complete misunderstanding of how these key principles of freedom work and have always worked in modern democratic systems.
Newsflash - freedom of speech is not absolute. Never has been. There are very specific, explicitly codified limitations. Why? Because words are the most powerful weapons and can be used to target and threaten the freedoms of other people, including their freedom to life. Which is why rights and obligations are always balanced against each other, following the principle of proportionality.
If you feel so strongly about not being able force others to consume content they don’t want to consume, then I have bad news for you - you are opposing democracy. But it seems like you, and many other like you, are just confused, rather than actively promoting anti-democratic standpoints. The truly sad part? The impact is the same regardless of intent.
Edit: Want to know more? Details at 6.
What field was it? I like to think every field contributes to your knowledge in a meaningful way even if you don’t end up working in it
Yo, did they change the photo? I’m only seeing it in the thembnail
You have a highly idealistic perspective on China. This isn’t to say that things are lerfect in Europe or North America - they most definitely aren’t. But it is to say that two things can be true at the same time, i.e., there are growing issues in the West and China has a highly oppressive regime.
There is a natural temptation to whitewash and exxagerate the good in other times and places, especially ones that are directly juxtaposed to the one you are inhabiting and are critical toward.
However, we must resist these temptations lest we doom ourselves to repeat the same mistake over and over.