I'm not vegan but I respect people for wanting a space to discuss.

https://sh.itjust.works/c/veganrecipes

https://slrpnk.net/c/vegan

vegantheoryclub.org is defederated from most of lemmy, but these communities are accessible and they are located on other instances.

@Beaver@lemmy.ca what communities do you prefer?

Well that's one way to see it.

The company has attracted controversy for reports of political corruption, cronyism, fraud, financial manipulation, and exploitation of its customers, Indian citizens, and natural resources.[11][119][13][14][120] The chairman of Reliance Industries, Mukesh Ambani, has been described as a plutocrat

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_Industries#Criticism_and_controversies

8 subsections for 'Criticism and Controversies'

The statement was that Jewish people would not be safe anywhere without Israel

There are Jewish people living safely in many parts of the world, and those people are protected and loved by the communities they live as a part of.

The irony is that the statement was made to Jewish people in such a community outside of Israel. The other bit of irony is that statements like this are further divisions. Divisions that make life unsafe for everyone

I'm not American and not the commentor, I'm observing from far away.

I agree, people should vote for the best possible candidate. Even single issue voters. The alternative is worse for this single issue. If I was American, I'd vote strategically like people on this thread are saying.

However

There are Americans that had friends, family members, and colleagues killed in this conflict, and they can't stomach going to the polls and voting for Biden after how he's acted throughout this conflict. I won't hold it against those people for not voting.

I can't even imagine what it would be like to have that happen and be told "go vote for him anyways". As true as it might be, it's not my place.

Which parts of it?

I don't think Netanyahu orchestrated it if that matters. Same idea as Bush

We should investigate when leadership benefits from a tragedy. We should investigate the decisions that allowed a tragedy to take place. That's how we prevent future tragedies

Sorry, I will highlight the important bit

Removed from power through legal means, by the people they state they represent. Removing either group with violence will beget more violence. A new entity with the same ideology will fill the gap.

Hamas as an organization has its own problems, and they share a lot of the same issues as Likud. They both hold on to power through violence and fear.

There are a few well known concentration camps in history, but those aren't the only concentration camps we've seen.

Look up what the term actually means

Even if it wasn't intentional

• he directly stated in a speech that he approved funding transfer to Hamas to help them grow in power to keep the people divided

• they moved soldiers away from the border to the west bank to help with settlements

• as this article suggests, they had a lot of warnings

Those 3 points alone should be enough to send him and his party away, and until that happens (and until Hamas is also removed from power), that region won't see peace.

We need to let the legal system do its job, and for both Likud & Hamas to be removed from power through LEGAL MEANS by the people they say they represent.

I've seen this posted elsewhere, and while it's a valid thing to talk about it distracts from the bigger issues

Others here have explained the difference between someone who's taken as a prisoner (they are being held because of something they allegedly did) and someone who's taken hostage (someone who's held as security for some other purpose). From what I can tell, even Hamas isn't saying the hostages are guilty of anything. It seems like those involved in the situation agree that the terminology is appropriate.

The more important discussion imo are:

• Whether the charges against the prisoners are appropriate, or if there's a history of charges, arrests, and detention without justification or evidence. I think this is the point people are trying to make when they bring up hostages vs. prisoners, but if you aren't specific about it you end up going in circles and arguing about the wrong thing.
• Whether those are being held (both hostages and prisoners) are being treated with respect and dignity. If their needs are being met and if they are being tortured / otherwise suffering unjustly.

There is also some more important discussion around terminology, such as one group being called "women" (implies humanity) and another "females" (more formal, scientific, and a term that's also used for animals).

however wrong you may think that is.

I don't think it's wrong, what gave that impression? The people living in that region all deserve peace, fairness, and equitable treatment from the governing body

Also there's a lot more to this article than just the Palestine line

This might just feel like confirmation for those that have been watching the coverage in recent weeks. The CTV journalists and newscasters themselves look uncomfortable too, so it's good that they're now able to share what's going on

The journalists said senior producers and senior editors across the platforms of CTV’s parent company Bell Media have disparaged Palestinian guests, told employees that protests calling for a ceasefire should not be reported on, and blocked or delayed stories that included too much contextual information about Israel’s military occupation and regime of apartheid in Palestine.

The journalists, who are not being identified for fear of retribution, described a widespread bias at the media conglomerate against Palestinians that’s resulted in one-sided, incomplete coverage of the violence in Gaza that does “a huge disservice” to Canadians.

The bit that stood out to me was

We have zero tolerance for antisemitism or the incitement of hate in any form, including false references to genocide, ethnic cleansing, Holocaust distortion

It sounds like they threw in "Holocaust distortion" as an extra thing to make their stance sound more legitimate, since otherwise it sounds awful. Why would anyone ever get in trouble for "false references to genocide, ethnic cleansing" even if we assume it was "false"

End of the century is so far away lmao. We'll see a lot worse than a poor economy by then. Even financial costs of environmental issues will be felt long before then.

People don't care about what will happen to them in the next decade, companies don't care what will happen to them in the next quarter. We need to highlight the changes that are real and immediate too

Could the bigger issue be that him and his party are inflaming the conflict in order to hold on to power and avoid prison?

Likud and Hamas need each other to exist. The party doesn't have a future if there's peace, and now more than ever they benefit from more conflict. That's part of why they were ineffective during the initial attacks by Hamas, the other being they moved troops to the West Bank to support settler initiatives there.

But time for that is yet to come, right now war is going on and bigger issues need dealing with.

This is the bit I have a problem with because that's the exact rhetoric he's using right now. He's said it himself, he'll face responsibility but only after the war. He's also said the war will be long.

It's pretty easy to see what he's doing here

Does that include a way for them to return after the conflict settles?

Could you explain more about how the "statement is one sided"?

That's the thing

Hamas is awful for putting military installations near civilian infrastructure, and the Israeli military is awful for bombing indiscriminately despite their advanced military tech and resources.

We don't need to pick one or the other

I agree with that Hamas needs to go, and with the general idea in this article, but we could use a better source for the story

In what seems like the slightest of signs that the BBC has decided to veer away from its near-constant anti-Israeli narrative, it conducted an interview with [...]

What even...

This one is weird because source selection is important, like how hard we should work to limit public funding going to cartels that are causing legitimate harms in those communities.

Sometimes it's more expensive to source the substances ethically, but it's worth doing. I'm sure there are also groups trying to take advantage of these programs for their own gain.

Cartels don't like progress either, they profit off the violence and addiction

Ah I think I misunderstood which part of the comment the /s was referring to, not sure why

That's my bad, I guess I can't read

How about we don't bomb things based on ideology, even if the ideology is atheism...

It's a bit ironic to call out the issues with organized religion, and then go "I'm ok with bombing the buildings of those I consider 'other' "

Yes that's true, bad wording on my part when trying to talk about how much things should actually cost

This shouldn't be a controversial take either. Even WITHIN Israel, the majority of Israeli's want Netanyahu and his administration gone. There were massive protests over months over the years of corruption. There are criminal charges filed against him and his family. Right now after the attacks, there are widespread calls for his resignation and an investigation into why the response to the initial attacks were so bad.

Given all that, it doesn't make sense for any world leader to continue to support his administration. Especially if countries are meant to be allies of the Israeli people.

Agreed

What about now after thousands of people have been killed in bombings, is now a good time to call timeout or do we wait another round?

A ceasefire goes both ways, and it stops more innocent people from dying on any side. This weird "oh they should be able to get some revenge" line is so fucking stupid and it's surprising that officials and news anchors are repeating it.

The US spends more than any other country on healthcare, on TOP of what individuals pay for things like insurance.

The reason it all looks so expensive is because of how much money goes to shareholders and corporations. So yep, it could be a whole lot cheaper

Statement and subsequent apology

The motion comes less than a week after the rookie MPP posted a statement on social media calling for a ceasefire in the region while also demanding an end to “all occupation of Palestinian land.”

In the statement, Jama did not address the Hamas attack on Israel, which spurred the most recent violence in the region.

About 24 hours later, Jama issued a written apology for her comments after a lengthy discussion with NDP Leader Marit Stiles—who asked Jama to retract the post. Related Stories

“I heard many voices yesterday raising concerns about my post. I hear them - and above all, I understand the pain that many Jewish and Israeli Canadians, including my own constituents, must be feeling. I apologize,” she wrote.

The motion calls comments made by Hamilton Centre MPP Sarah Jama last week “antisemitic” and “discriminatory.” If passed, it would call on the Speaker not to recognize Jama in the House “until the Member retracts and deletes her statement on social media and makes an apology in her place in the House.”

Didn't she already retract and apologize?

It also demands that the MPP “desist from further conduct that is inappropriate and unbecoming of a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.”

From what I saw, the issue with the statement in the first place was the timing and that it didn't call out every group that needed to be called out. That's what the issue was. They're also saying the NDP is an "antisemitic party" and that 'Jama is not fit to be premier'. The statements are all wild, it almost makes me think they're trying to use this as a distraction.

They're intentionally making wild controversial claims to direct attention away from the greenbelt controversy

I saw a comment saying that both Hamas and the Netanyahu administration need each other. It's the only way either stays in power

Both aren't good for their own people, and both need to go before we can get peace in the region

Isn't that the other side of the truck, which does have it?

We do need more information to get proper justice, but in the meantime we also need things to quiet down so things don't just keep getting worse

Yep, news sites also post about Canadian's killed or harmed in Gaza

https://london.ctvnews.ca/london-ont-doctor-trapped-in-gaza-volunteers-at-hospital-urges-entry-of-medical-aid-1.6599751

CTV News has its issues, but they do report on both

There was also this from CBC, which is generally better for coverage

Canadian shot in Gaza says he was 'clearly marked' as a doctor (CBC)

I agree with unpinning entirely, it's an odd fit

I'm not sure if slack has a new meaning, but it might be one of those misspellings where the person really means "flack"

"To give flack" fits the context here

That's a good tip

Could we get a new pinned comment for this. Some of this is our of date now and it would be nice to discuss.

Apps, interfaces, browser extensions, scripts

atheists give you slack for being agnostic

I find that to be really odd behavior tbh. One of the issues with organized religion is when a group shuns or hates on someone for their religious/ spiritual views. That's also something that can happen with atheism, even if it's not really seen as a "religion".

Just be accepting of other people

Yea that would have been a dealbreaker for me. I've used offline maps while traveling fairly often. That's one of the main advantages of GPS, not needing to send any signals to determine your position. The device calculates it locally based the timing of info that arrives from GPS satellites

That is a current problem with Twitter as well:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/08/twitter-saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuses

Saudi authorities illegally requesting data from Twitter / flipping twitter employees to figure out who is posting opposing views. Some of which lead to arrests, torture, imprisonment, and death sentences.

al jazeera is a wholy qatari owned propoganda mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis

... yea lol what?

Al Jazeera is Qatari, and so I don't go to them for content about Qatar in case there's a bias. However it's a pretty large organization and they do decent investigative work on stuff happening in South America, Africa, & Asia. New organizations pick topics they think the readers want to see, and so in Canada (and likely the US) there's usually little to no coverage on stuff in these parts of the world. Al Jazeera puts out decent investigative pieces and documentaries about these places.

TLDR: Al Jazeera isn't unbiased, and I avoid them on certain topics. However I DO go to them for other stuff. It's definitely not a "mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis [sic]"

What happened in this article is a bad thing:

had his Facebook profile deleted by Meta 24 hours after the programme Tip of the Iceberg aired an investigation into Meta’s censorship of Palestinian content