the fact this is even being suggested shows a lack of familiarity with Australia's position on asylum seekers.
People from war-torn countries or fleeing genocide are held in international-law-violating limbo for decades, there's no chance in hell that somebody from a developed country is getting political asylum here, especially with the current poisoned rhetoric on immigration.
do you have hypoxia or something? Jesus christ
absolutely. I had tried Linux on various machines long ago but was one of the people that was put off by older distro's learning curves - I'm now daily driving Linux on both my laptop and desktop and the main push for the switch is microsoft fucking around with settings, installing candy crush after updates (on a paid OS), adding more and more dumb, unsolicited, privacy invading AI bullshit with every feature update, and running like shit on a perfectly adequate machine.
Modern Linux, with flatpak support? I haven't looked back once - had to help a friend fix something on a win11 desktop recently and was reminded of every reason I made the switch. Even if I had to jump in the terminal every day like long ago, it would still be worth it to not have bing, copilot, and edge rammed down my throat, whether I want them or not.
Windows is getting so shitty that completely non-technical users are tired of it.... as soon as somewhat open minded users start to experiment and realise that Linux feature and UX parity has been achieved - I hope microsoft fucking collapses and we can all finally walk into the sunlight that open source OSes and software represent.
96% of perpetrators are men. It’s a statistic that goes against their “women are abusers too!” defense they have to protect their own egos from the reality that one of their friends is likely an abuser.
literally rape apology from you here.
The provocative and stupid sign in the article has completely derailed a potential discussion about fixing this problem and the exact nature of the problem - because it says something that denies anybody experiencing something outside it's narrow statement their lived experience. It's also not a men vs women issue - there are women that are assaulted by other women, who are equally silenced by this stupid sign. If you believe that a single rape is one too many (as any person on the fucking planet should), then explain to me how 4% of all rapes simply don't matter - and how it isn't offensive at a movement which is borne of abuse victims fighting against the system that facilitates it, and silences victims - to not only completely disregard men that have been victims of women (or women which have), but to then say that anybody who highlights the fact that rape can be perpetrated by a woman, even if it isn't the majority of the time - must therefore be a rapist or friend of one. Fuck that noise.
stop making dumbass generalisations that paint those of us who make active choices to support women and act decently, being an ally as "probably having rapist friends" because of our gender - like seriously what the actual fuck is wrong with you?
Nobody is denying that the majority of rapes are men against women, but the disgusting attitude you have here that all men are automatically rapists, when there are people that want to fix this culture and stop the problem - but stupid nonsense like this pushes so many people down the alt-right pipeline and sets the entire movement back decades. Literally all you have to do to defuse this entire fucking issue is acknowledge male victims instead of pretending they don't exist, and then link arms with them when they support the same reflections and changes to society and behaviour - instead it's been turned into a stupid 'men vs women' fight by people that assume all people of one gender are perpetrators and all of another are victims, instead of the much more simple universal truth that rape is evil and you should just be able to accept that without adding qualifiers.
Whether they were condescending or not "militant athiesm" is a ridiculous hyperbole - people are free to believe whatever they want, just as anybody else is free to comment on that belief system when theyre not a part of it.
I mean, technically - the most secure option is irrevocably destroying the laptop everytime you have a break.
absolutely fucking insane - imagine suggesting a pet could "leave if they don't like it" for any other form of animal abuse.
I'm not saying that all the women need to wear 'skimpy bikinis', I'm just making the point that the teams that are wearing the 'sport hijab' aren't doing it because they have any kind of freedom, but because there is enormous societal pressure and political/legal/religious oppression, that extends beyond the games into their daily lives. Calling that 'freedom' is unreasonable, because the choice is either 'wear these specific clothes (men-excluded) or face social outcast/death'
I completely agree that the frequent sexualisation of women's sporting outfits is something which is still shitty and I'm not defending the objectification of talented athletes who want to be seen as skilled, rather than oggled for their body - but claiming that because the voluntary admission sports-team outfit is more revealing than necessary, doesn't mean the athletes were forced into wearing it, and in the broader society, people in those same countries actually have the freedom to wear whatever they please, whether it's 'skimpy' or not.
Sure, the women on the western team are perhaps pressured into the bikinis from decades of objectification and commercial sex-appeal underwriting womens sports, but in their daily lives outside, they aren't beholden to a religious dress code, and consequently have much more 'freedom'. The argument can also be made that even though the 'skimpy' outfits are objectifying, the athletes would have known what the prevailing dress code at the sport was before they signed up, and were 'okay' with it - at least to the extent that they still participated.
well nobody is forcing anybody to wear anything in the western countries - the huge difference is that outside of the sporting environment, women can choose to wear or not wear 'skimpy bikinis' - but in a sharia observant country, there is no such allowance made, so the sports team outfit actually is indicative of the dress standards forced upon women and expected by society.
Some cultures allow women to cover their bodies. While others allowed them to show as much as they’d like. Oh they're allowed to cover themselves? They're forced to wear it.
A truly insane way of phrasing repression - I guess Jews in nazi Germany were allowed to wear a star of david? No, I don't care how liberating some women say the enforced coverings are, when there isn't a choice - it's repression. Plain and simple. Try being a woman in saudi wearing normal clothing in public and see how permissive the regime is.
I don't think anybody is expecting Wikipedia admins and contributors to directly affect the outcome of conflict in the middle east, but deliberative discussions of how the events are documented can only be a good thing.
The site acts as much of our 'record' in the modern age - and is ideally less eager to throw out hyperbole or speculate too readily.
Arriving at that title and nomenclature needs to be seen as a reasoned approach, and not "crying wolf" so that the impartiality of the articles can be upheld - by being careful about their decision, it is a better outcome for everyone.
do you need to condescendingly question other people's freedom of expression? if you pearl clutch over seeing a comment which says 'fuck', maybe the internet is a little much for you to handle.
...