I’ve always had the opinion that anyone who can’t handle those being free to love who they want must have repressed feelings - I don’t see why that should apply any different depending on what country you live or whether you grew up in a society where the first repressed person made the original rule

TIL about Italy’s shunning of their past in contrast to the “collective guilt” felt by Germans after WWII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italiani_brava_gente

Italians embrace their cultural and gastronomic exports while shunning certain parts of their history - I wouldn’t say that’s racist… In fact I would call that humanizing

I wonder what their response would be to a bunch of lemmings outside the reach of Germany’s laws doing the same?

This is so much better and more effective than throwing confetti at Wimbledon for attention

I’m as progressive as the next guy and generally love the nanny state (who hates their nanny!?!) but this seems like something I’d like to have the choice to control - plus every appliance will just change to say ‘dont place in areas that are light sensitive’ or will just remove all functionality (a la “oh crap my phone hasn’t been charging cuz the plug died and I had no idea”)

Yes dude (or dudette) exactly what I’m saying is that it can’t be proven one way or the other until “you have the possibility of some information being made public”.

I mean clearly there is a third option - being a knob and claiming you’re always right no matter what the facts say

The false dichotomy? Id argue that’s you not believing someone can be concerned about an issue that affects everyone (global issue) regardless of location… but okay

Edit: A regional issue being more pressing for countries in that region does not justify saying a global issue does not need attention

I’m just seeing you agree in different words?

If government is the only one with the knowledge then it can never be proven to those who are properly skeptical

TIL Ukrainian lives are only a European concern

I personally think it is worth investigating these allegations

And you hit the nail on the head about why an elected representative won’t say one way or the other unless it’s objectively proven or shown to be false - anything else doesn’t need a response. Further any rep who does claim the matter to have been solved, one way or the other, only opens themselves up to criticism for something they probably didn’t get into politics for in the first place.

When scientists and experts (plural) start getting involved then it’s interesting however, imo, your focus on government being the ultimate truth-finder is flawed

Fair enough - just adding to the idea having an upset army isn’t helpful for those in power

Russia just gave a 10% pay rise to the army

I think what you say is fair if not true - one difference (and I’m sure there are more) is these weren’t lands acquired by conquest/military subjugation, but rather by agreement with the landholding populations to live in peace. What actually happened was the indigenous populations were lied to in one way or another such that the European nations never held up their side of the bargains because of ambiguity in the agreements in addition to Europeans plainly lying about what was being agreed to.

I think this is evident in the ways the Canadian Reconciliation Calls to Action use language such as “call upon the Government of Canada…to jointly develop with Aboriginal peoples a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation…[which] would build on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaty of Niagara of 1764, and reaffirm the nation-to-nation relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown”

Essentially these lands were never legally taken which is why the indigenous groups can/should lay claim to them. That makes this scenario different than a group being displaced by military conquest (which is technically recognized as a legal, albeit cruel, mechanism for displacing people).

Not sure why the cultural differences between us and ‘ancient’ peoples is worldnews

What’s the reasonableness standard? (to me that’s just a standard of review in appeal courts)

This is the one I thought of

https://youtu.be/7hFAv8z8xmw

observations from like a century ago

So it’s likely (imo) that differences in race, gender and location were unlikely to be top of mind, let alone factored into the average

Make a public spectacle that people write news stories on and then the public talks about it.

See this is where I disagree… if all they want is publicity then start a website or buy ads on tv.

If they want to make a difference then take a page from the indigenous groups blocking logging roads and railroad tracks across Canada when necessary