That absolutely tracks. Acid and mushrooms make you aware of all the sensory noise your brain usually filters out in my experience. I always figured sex would be incredible while tripping dick, but always felt the other party would also need to be tripping, so it was never in the cards for me
Nope! My wife experiences a “contact high” when I’m tripping, and we’re just cuddling for a couple hours in bed listening to our favorite music. She’s super empathetic so that may be why she gets the “contact high.”
I’m giving it a 50/50 based on my sample size of two. I sure felt like I wanted to make things work more but spouse still marched right for divorce so 🤷♀️
You’re allowed to not like a particular terrorist group without supporting a different one.
It’s not that difficult to say, for example, “The State of Israel is committing atrocities, in response to Hamas committing atrocities which was in response to The State of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people. The Houthis are also committing atrocities, and are also awful people.”
All true, but in honesty this article does read like a propaganda piece.
Despite the sensational headline, the “executions that are on the rise” consist of two people arrested years ago under conspiracy charges and went through the court system. There is no further mention of public flogging beyond the headline. A Yemen official provides almost all the details, and the other accusation was “we found four bodies. Must have been Houthis”
The only credible person interviewed in there only said “Houthis are responsible for human rights abuse” without any elaboration.
I’m not defending any sides or anything, but I’m pretty sure this is a bias or propaganda piece. Could all be true, I don’t know, but it is not a great article.
I feel you and what you’re saying is correct but this is undoubtedly propaganda. This is not to say that there is zero truth to it, there very well could be but it’s primary purpose is not to expose an injustice for moral reasons. Rather it exists to sway your opinion regarding a particularly powerful and useful ally to the people of Palestine.
Bossdj elaborates on the credibility of the article better than I could so see their comment for more info
Overall, we rate The Telegraph Right Biased based on story selection that strongly favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing of information and some failed fact checks.
Western governments would still have to be doing something to proactively prevent the genocide in Gaza to take the moral high ground from them.
If you’re looking to vent moral outrage, many of the things described in the article aren’t too far from stuff that takes place right here in the states.
I fully expect to get downvoted for this but as much as im anti-dictator (like any normal person) you cannot deny he has objectively been a good thing for the country so far. He has decimated the gangs which has caused a 70% decrease in the homicide rate, going from the highest in the world to the lowest in Latin America. And him being talked as a “dictator” isnt really accurate either. He was elected Mayor of the capital at fist, was extremely popular so ran for president and won, democratically, in a landslide. And his policies, specifically with that gangs has kept him at a mind-boggling 90% approval rating, making him the most popular leader of any country, and he is running for re-election fairly and democratically, because why would he even need to rig the results when hes so insanely popular?
Yes there is Plenty you can criticise him for (being anti-aborition and anti-gay marriage for example) but in that regard he is no worse than any previous leader of the country.
We do need to eliminate the Republican party but that’s far from the only problem with US politics. Honestly, moving away from a first past the post voting system would force both Democrats and Republicans to do better, or get replaced by parties that better represent their constituency.
Research the Weimar Republic. Getting rid of first past the post, can have the opposite effect, giving the crazies more power than they would under first past. Fringe groups, especially left leaning, always want transferrable vote or proportional because that way they’d get more representation but they always seem to ignore it can backfire.
Protip: Your argument has more weight if you use modern examples if you can find them, rather than the Weimar republic. Sounding like you are escalating to the end of Godwin’s law does not help your point.
Which is annoying because I agree that it can backfire if done wrong.
Oh look, the socialist doesn’t like a working knowledge of recent history. Transferable vote systems and proportional aren’t all that that common. and an example of the possible results less than a hundred years ago isn’t irrelevant. I’ve looked at the systems before, and quite often the result of the formulas used is a majority of someone no one really wanted.
Bunch of people in this comment thread have no idea what they are talking about. I have family in various parts of el Salvador and ever since bukele came into office politics is all they fucking talk about. It’s actually quite annoying but the people there absolutely love him and his party. Maybe I am biased as I also have family that hold positions in nuevas ideas. Either way I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a Salvadorean that didn’t love the direction the country is going.
He’s not a dictator yet, but he’ll have the opportunity to rewrite the constitution with the numbers his party will get in the next election. He seems to have signalled this is what he plans to do. Given his economic policies and the fact that he runs a police state (even if it was temporarily needed to get rid of gangs I doubt it will stop), he looks a lot like Pinochet which gives some people pause.
That said it’s up to the people of El Salvador to decide if it’s worth the risk to hand one party all the power.
You can deny it. He has been arresting thousands of people with zero evidence they are involved in gangs. Police have quotas on how many “gang members” they have to arrest to make him look good so they arrest random people to fulfill the quotas.
He’s a fascist and the fact he gets so much support because he’s “arresting the criminals” with so little pushback is scary
No, you really cant. You can do what you’re doing which is criticising the method and thats very fair, but the results are undeniable.
Police have quotas on how many “gang members” they have to arrest to make him look good so they arrest random people to fulfill the quotas.
Thats an unsubstantiated claim and the couple of reports thats based off claims its orders from specific regional police chiefs, not the government, you can argue his government should do a better job monitoring those things, but you cant pin that on him personally.
He has been arresting thousands of people with zero evidence they are involved in gangs.
This claim has more evidence but independent organisation (HRW and Cristosal) only had 200 complaints in the first couple months after 25,000 arrests (its difficult to find more recent figures). So even if we assume all those complaints are valid and those people were wrongfully arrested then thats <1% of arrests being innocent, which is pretty good honestly.
he gets so much support because he’s “arresting the criminals” with so little pushback is scary
Because you dont have the context. Its easy to think of it as scary when you live in a relatively peaceful developed country, but for the people actually from El Salvador that had to deal with extremely violent gangs that could murder you for basically any reason at any time with no consequence and a government that was making deals with those gangs to keep the citizens organised, its an incredible relief, and yes he is actually arresting criminals and massively reducing the homicide rate. The fact that any time he is brought up, even on that Youtube video you linked Salvadorian people come out universally in support of him and point out how your “journalist” can only go around the country making her documentary without being murdered is because his policies, just goes to show how much good his policies are doing.
and again, dont get me wrong, im opposed to a lot of right wing populist policies and im against undemocratic dictators (which I think he is only on the borderline of) but human lives are more important to me than political principles.
You can have good dictators, even if they are rare.
If you can’t comprehend this, then you are a victim of propaganda and indoctrination.
Sometimes, it’s easier to convince the masses to vote against themselves than it is to convince a dictator to sell them out.
For example, Mexico vs. El Salvador.
15 years ago, nobody thought Mexico would have a worse gang problem than El Salvador. Without Bukele’s heavy-handed approach to suppressing gangs, they would still be running rampant like they are in Mexico.
Most of society throughout history has been ruled by dictators. There are probably a few who would pass for decent rulers, statistically speaking. A few, out of thousands.
But even if you’re lucky enough to get one of the good ones, some shit bag will inevitably take their place and everyone is absolutely fucked with nothing they can do about it. Even rebellion is less and less of an option as militaries becomes increasingly efficient vs. armed citizenry.
It’s a losing bet every time. Not ever worth considering in any modern society.
Dictator didn’t mean back then what it means now: It was a time-limited emergency position, then oligarchy resumed. The Romans would call our current-day dictators tyrants and they tended to go the way of Caesar: Stabbed in the back (literally) by the senatorial power they usurped.
You can have good dictators, even if they are rare.
Hard disagree there.
But it really depends on what you value as good and bad.
For instance, if you think that people have an inherent right to have a say in how they are governed, then a dictatorship can never be good because it infringes on that right in the most serious of ways.
If you think a stable and sustainable system of government that will last beyond the life of a few leaders is important, then dictatorship is not a good system, because one good dictator creates no guarantee that the next dictator will be good, and establishing a system of dictatorship affords a bad dictator that much more power to ruin lives.
If people vote against their own interests, it is solely their fault, there is no way around it, deal with the consequences and do better next time. Saying that people must be protected against themselves means that you believe that your fellow human beings are inherently inferior to you and that they are not rational beings, akin to animals.
If you believe that you have intellectual superiority but you are not able to communicate that to your fellow countrymen, then you have failed thoroughly at being a politician, or you are not as superior as you think you are.
Results? If you want to talk results let’s talk about millions upon millions of dead Jews, political prisoners, and homosexuals.
That’s just one bad example, right? How about the millions that starved because of bad management in a single party regime, I’ve got two of those to pick from.
Read a fucking book and try not to choose Mein Kampf.
The absolute best case scenario is a Francisco Franco. Absolute best case.
And yes, it’s an inherent part of human nature. The more consolidated power is within an organization, the more vulnerable it is to abuse. Dictatorships are on one end of the spectrum, direct democracies on the other.
Have you ever heard a parent say “eat your food, there are starving children in China”? The children were starving in China because Mao decided that sparrows were eating too much of the grain harvest and launched a pest eradication campaign. With nobody in a position of authority with the ability to stop the campaign (or even question the wisdom of it) and sparrows were killed en masse.
Sparrows eat grain but they also eat insects. With the sparrows gone the bugs got out of control and sparked a famine. It was the worst man-made disaster in human history. As many as 55 million people died because a dictator tried to do a good thing and was able to act without restriction or oversight.
One bad decision - even if made with the best intentions - can end in disaster. That’s why checks and balances matter. Do they slow things down? Yes. But the chart-topping governmental fuck ups are all put there by totalitarians.
You said that they are rare, so what do you do if the ruler is bad and has the power to ruin the country for decades and can pass the rule to his song who may be bad too?
One good dictator is one thing but what happens after him? What are the chances he’ll be succeeded by another supposedly benevolent dictator? It also increases the chances someone gets tired of the dictator and coups him which may turn into yet another bloody civil war.
Democracy sucks but it’s the best system we have,
One can argue for his emergency decisions to handle the gangs but democracy should be restored once the dust settles.
Europe tried it. Ended up with guillotines and the Great War. After that they tried it again but without the royalty branding and we got World War Two.
But thanks to your comment now I see that my history books indoctrinated me. My belief that the enlightened despot of Germany that pulled their economy out of the Great Depression, built up a modern infrastructure, and was a champion of animal rights was a bad guy is clearly just propaganda influencing me. I should get redpilled and cheer for people’s power over their own government being taken away.
God Lemmy has the biggest whack jobs on the Internet.
“Del mundo mundial” on Spanish is a common phrase (mostly used by children) to say “of the world”. If you want to translate literally, it would be more like “of the worldly world”.
ITT: People who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. If you’re not Salvadorean, or have no understanding of how politics in El Salvador have been for the past half-century, kindly shut up.
Yes, they voted in an authorstarian after being subject to some of the worse violence rates in the world, do you have any idea about whats going on at the US Southern border? Because one of those places has and has been for years now utilizing detention camps. Which is why it’s funny you bring up detention camps when talking about them.
telegraph.co.uk
Active