New Iran videos show bodies piled in hospital and snipers on roofs
'I saw people getting shot': Eyewitness tells of Iran protest crackdown
An Iranian who got out of the country describes scenes of chaos as security forces opened fire in her home town.
Photos leaked to BBC show faces of hundreds killed in Iran's brutal protest crackdown
What I understand is that the Mollahs are hated by most Iranians, and that they have even managed to make the Persian population actually hate islam. Well done, bassij !
So to summarize, they were wrong to move away from nuclear.
They were wrong to ban fuel vehicle at the EU scale.
They were wrong to welcome 1 million Syrian refugees.
They were wrong to cut off gaz from Russia.
At what point does that political class that has destroyed Europe, gets voted out for good, if not prosecuted ?
They didn't even. They announced a time-plan to stop buying Russian gas eventually. Russia weaponized gas deliveries and stopped delivering. In fact, even before the war and any "unfriendly" action by Europe, they underdelivered to keep the gas storages (which they owned) low and drive the prices up. This alone should make anyone not want to buy Russian gas again.
The fact that these threads are always full of lies with all these twisted narratives show you who's doing the talking in all of them really. This thread was a few minutes old when someone had to mention that "The US blew up the pipeline" and this shit doesn't even collect downvotes or gets flagged, it rises to the top.
I clicked on two accounts posting lies and saw Russian software companies mentioned in their scant posting history, which in itself is not a crime, but also a fitting signal.
Europe has roughly divided by 5 its imports of Russian gas.
As to the Nord Stream, German prosecution services have arrested a Ukrainian national, Serhii Kuznetsov, in their ongoing investigations. The NY Times, the Spiegel, and Washington Post (all very well-known KGB mouth pieces), strongly point to Ukraine as well.
So my question is, are you really in a good position to lecture everyone about "fake news" on those topics ? I guess you were also telling us all that Trump was a KGB agent, before that got debunked in court ?
X have clips and videos posted as the few social networks that have it. This content is not suitable for instagram or facebook.
SVT (my swedish news) have had segments on this with reporters, not in the country, but she is in Lebanon. She is arab biased, but they are reporting on it.
Asmongold (worlds largest youtuber right now and an Elon fan) is one of the few having long 45min-2h segments about the Iran protests on his stream right now?
But you are so blind your kneejerk reaction is to blame Elon Musk lmao
You misunderstood my message. I am genuinely thanking Elon, because without X and now Starlink, we indeed would have 0 knowledge of what's going no. At best, we would have the BBC and Skynews echoing Khamenei's statements.
Sorry, I assumed you were sarcastic. That type of Reddit-tier “kindness” is so common and annoying across the internet that I just assume people are sarcastic now. Sorry =￣ω￣=
I know you hate it, but X and Starlink are the only channels giving us information on Iran right now. If X was censored (like many leftists are advocating), we wouldn't know anything about those riots.
People rising against a regime that the left sympathizes with, obviously.
Iranians describing how Isam destroyed their country within one decade (the UK establishment is very unconfortable with that truth, for some reaslon...).
Iranians calling on Trump and thanking Elon. That tends to make leftists mad.
Being mad is one thing, but demanding X censor that speech is another. I'm not really involved in this debate so I haven't seen anything like that. Can you provide some examples of any prominent people on the left calling for X to censor that speech?
Starmer, T.Breton (former EU commissioner, the one who got denied VISA to the US going forward), google them with "X ban" and you'll have all the results you want.
Similar with many other EU political figures.
I see news articles about Starmer wanting to ban X for allowing deepfakes and sexualized images of children, which seems reasonable to me. Presumably if X took steps other companies have to prevent those images, the ban would be off the table.
As for T. Breton, it seems they're wanting X to abide by the EU's Digital Services Act, which requires transparency in how a company tries to combat disinformation among other things (protection of children's exposure to dangerous content being one of them).
Why is it so difficult for you to understand: we don’t want your x shit in Europe. Since when is the American president so concerned about the business of a single man, who’s an immigrant himself? Anna Paulina Luna, she’s a fucking immigrant too, or a daughter of one. You have all lost your mind there in the US. Why should we be even concerned with what you want if your leader is ready to send tanks because someone said “no”. Fuck people who think like you. Take your propaganda and kindly fuck off.
"We" ? The 100 million active users in Europe, making X one of the most downloaded app on the continent, probably beg to differ.
Again, typical socialism reflexes: you dont like X, so instead f just not using it, you feel like you need to send us the police to make us not use it...
PS: do you have short and blue hair ? Just a question, don't get too triggered.
You know, not everyone on this site has an absolutist binary opinion on the Elon. Some people can give him credit for what he gets right, while simultaneously calling bullshit on his bullshit.
That can block some trackers, but does not block ads or “suggested” content. There are also some devices that have hardcoded DNS settings that bypass any local network DNS settings.
I guarantee you that the vast majority of people talk about "pregnant women", not "pregnant people" like the BBC. I could quote many other small indicators like that which demonstrate that the BBC is NOT unbiased at all.
Focusing on their attempt at inclusive language seems a bit trite, and certainly exposes your own biases. It's not perfect, and we'll see how it evolves, but I'm pretty sure their only "agenda" here is to be inclusive. You're welcome to be offended by that, but it seems like a silly thing to be offended by.
Biases towards scientific and biological accuracy?
>I'm pretty sure their only "agenda" here is to be inclusive.
Assuming anyone other than biological women can get pregnant is not "being more inclusive". Who exactly are you being more inclusive towards here? The masses of previously excluded pregnant men out there? What is that if not an agenda?
You see, this is why people hate and distrust the BBC and left leaning MSM in general and swung a lot to the right. Because they're picking the weirdest purity test hills to die on when people have other way bigger problems right now they want covered.
What people want from media is to poke politicians on how are they gonna fix: the economy, their jobs market, their housing market, their public health system, inflation, immigration, public school and childcare spots, rising CoL, addressing corruption scandals and false political promises, not to focus on making the word pregnancy more inclusive.
> They're picking the weirdest purity test hills to die on.
There is no "purity test" hill. There are simple reporters who are trying to use words that are inclusive. You're turning this into a "purity" discussion about who is or isn't a "real woman".
> What people want from media is to poke politicians on how are they gonna fix: the economy, their jobs market, their housing market, their public health system, inflation, immigration, public school and childcare spots, rising CoL, not to focus on making pregnancy more inclusive.
These things are not mutually exclusive, and I'm not sure why you seem to think they are.
Woman = all members of the female sex of reproductive age capable of child bearing in the context of pregnancy discussions, no need to be pedantic about the age and turn it into a girl versus woman argument, since if someone says "pregnant women", the pregnant teenage girls out there won't feel excluded and request to be addressed by "pregnant people".
Why you are so offended by the term "pregnant people" that you insist it extends to pregnant minors?
I assume you are aware that anti-gender and gender-critical people assert that "woman" means specifically "adult human female"? Where have those people said that pregnant girls are also included as women? Which law says 16 year pregnant girls and mothers are adults?
For example, Trump's Executive Order 14168 declares that women and girls refer to "adult and juvenile human females, respectively"? Following EO 14168, in the US federal bureaucracy, "pregnant woman" only refers to "pregnant adult human females". A military doctor following this EO, in the scenario you described elsewhere here, is supposed to refer to a pregnant 15 year old in ER as a pregnant girl, not a pregnant woman, even if the treatment is identical.
I don't know about you, but "pregnant people" sounds better to me than "pregnant females" as the latter seems to strip away humanity, while sounding like a bad science fiction film.
The bad faith argument is to insist that "woman" means "adult female woman" while also insisting that "pregnant woman" also somehow includes pregnant 15 year old girls.
This applies very narrowly. A GRC allows "acquired gender" to replace sex when sex is ascertained by birth certificate, which is only done in limited circumstances. This is distinct, in law, from actually being that sex.
Irrelevant, we are talking about gender, which is distinct from sex. It remains that “pregnant people” is a plainer and more accurate way of talking about people that are pregnant.
Socially it depends on how well they manage to disguise themselves as male. Being visibly pregnant is a very obvious indicator that a woman who is attempting to present herself as a man is not actually a man.
Who would go to the trouble of transitioning, against the vicious judgement of some people, if not to try to live a more authentic life? I am (visibly) non-binary, and I can tell you, I don’t do this just for the hell of it.
Are you having a nice time repeatedly misgendering one of my trans siblings? I see what you’re doing. A bit of basic social respect costs nothing, you know.
And “visibly” as in I get funny looks and sometimes shouted abuse from passing cars. Is that enough for you?
So is looking unusual in some undefined way is what "visibly non-binary" means? I genuinely do not have any reference point for this description, and certainly couldn't tell if someone is or isn't based on looks.
My male colleague who self-describes with a "non-binary" identity has no obvious visual markers of this.
Discussion was about the made up pregnancy "inclusivity" bs, when only owners of a functioning uterus can get pregnant, and those would be biological women by an overwhelming majority.
You are free to call yourself whatever made up gender you want in public and social life, but to the doctor treating you at the ER or to the forensic specialist examining your skeletal remains, you are still a biological woman according to science.
No such thing as a “biological woman”. I’ve only ever heard medics in the UK use careful and restricted terms when discussing sex - “male” and “female” at most, and only when relevant. Clearly it is sometimes relevant and no-one is disputing that. The whole purpose of inclusive language is to cover everyone, not just an “overwhelming” majority. It harms no-one to say “pregnant people”; it is a plain and clear term.
>The whole purpose of inclusive language is to cover everyone, not just an “overwhelming” majority.
Science and medicine deals in absolute details, not in blankets covering everyone. When a doctor needs to treat you, they need to know your sex, weight and age, since the dose or treatment is highly specific on those variables, there's no such thing as an inclusive thing to cover everyone the same. Inclusivity here would get you killed.
> It harms no-one to say “pregnant people”
It also helps no-one now, and it also harmed no-one in the past to say "pregnant women", since no-one other than women can get pregnant. So why did it have to be changed other than for virtue signaling?
“Woman” is not a biological sex, it simply isn’t. You are ignoring that trans men (legally and socially not women), along with some intersex people (neither biologically male or female, by definition, and legal gender varies), and cisgender girls of a sufficient age can all get pregnant. Not to mention some non-binary people. So there are plenty of people other than women that can get pregnant.
> Biases towards scientific and biological accuracy?
Why do you care so much about someone's biological gender?
Seriously, it comes off with the same sort of creepy vibes as someone who cares way too much about someone's skin color, or height, or some other biological characteristics.
Again: that's not how people speak. So just own it and assume your bias. Don't make up words or expression, to then say that people NOT using your stuff are the one with the bias...
You're basically getting offended at BBC reporters speaking too politely. Next thing you're going to expect them to talk like run of the mill chavs because that's how people actually speak, innit bruv?
Again, don't turn the table. You are offended by "pregnant women", and you push for subtle dictionary changes. Changing the words, to change ideas (i think Lenin created that concept).
Just assume it, instead of constantly doing psychological projections on others.
You claim inclusivity but it comes at the expense of women. Men aren’t women. Men aren’t able to get pregnant. What this type of language is doing is erasing women and excluding them.
The presenter was quoting a report which had written "pregnant people", and decided to change that to "women" - which is not what the report said.
Even worse than the Trump edit (which was bad -- for want of a flash of white to make it clear the second part of the quote was from later in the same speech, not directly after)
reply