My best guess is that it originally was “fucking,” someone censored it to something like “hecking,” then someone else censored the censor back to “fucking”
Ghandi abused his wife regularly and ended up killing her by way of refusing to let her go to a doctor. I’ll not be accepting any of his quotes, thanks.
“Blimey Harry! This panzerfaust looks wicked,” Ron said. “Come along you two. We need to hold this bridge for three hours,” Hermione barked from the Tiger tank. Harry had never seen such bullshit before, and thought this whole magic business seemed rather bothersome.
Moderating a subreddit is a choice, not a personal characteristic. Attempting to dilute the meaning of the word by pretending that criticism of moderators is “bigotry” is itself abusive reactionary rhetoric.
At this point in time that conflict has been going on for so long, I have no clue anymore who started it. So all I can do is judge both sides by their current actions without historical justification which, to me, results in fanatical religious fascists fighting fanatical religious fascists with neither side caring for civilian casualties. Not exactly a situation in which I’d support any side tbh.
no historical context needed. History is not useful at all to understand current actions. Do your own research, but i can tell you The british supported jewish militias, to occupy that territory (under british control). That started the ethnic cleasing of palestinians in 1948, displacing millions. I dont know how to link stuff pls help me
Also just looking at history isn’t going to solve anything. If that was the only solution we can just get any map remove all borders everywhere and discus how to draw them based on history. We all know this is just going to be a never ending discussion because it just depends on what snapshot in time (of the world) you take as your truth.
At this point in time that conflict has been going on for so long, I have no clue anymore who started it.
You know very well who started it. You just want to pretend that historical facts are lost to the sands of time because they’re damaging to your centrist bullshit.
Just out of curiosity what do you think should happen? Should Israel just give up the land to Palestinians? Should Palestinians give up the land to Israel? Should they coexist and if so how do you see that happening? I really am asking because I really don’t understand how “how it started” is going to make a peaceful ending. I also don’t understand why anyone who isn’t from the locality and impacted by it should be stepping in for either side of what amounts to civil war. Especially not America who has a habit of doing so all over the world which usually ends badly for the people who live there when our puppet regimes tank.
Israeli settlers should return to the country that they or their family came from originally. This is not like settlers in the America’s where we are talking 200+ years of families living there. This started after WW2 when the bigoted west could not bear to live with jews even after the holocaust, so they had to send them off on a settler project to other lands. Palestinian lands. Israelis should go back home, and the places they came from should pay for the reestablishing of their families. As well as paying reparations to Palestine. Isreal is not a legitimate nation. It is a colonial project occupying the nation of Palestine and the settlers must leave if there is to be peace.
“Israeli settlers should return to the country that they or their family came from originally.”
Oh? How far back are we going here? What if their family originally came from Palestine? What happens then?
“This is not like settlers in the America’s where we are talking 200+ years of families living there.” This is an interesting point that is literally under contention right now because those people came from somewhere and we don’t even know who was here first because it changes every few years. How many years of settling constitute the land belonging to you?
Where did the Israeli people actually first come from. Go back far enough and crazily enough I think you’ll find that these people do have historical roots in this locality before WW2. This conflict spans probably close to a thousand years. Picking and choosing which bit of history supports your narrative doesn’t invalidate the rest of it.
You are being ridiculous by pretending that Israel in antiquity is at all relevant to the current colonial project that was started within living memory. If the families originally came from Palestine then the people are Palestinian regardless of whatever ethnostate bullshit the settler government might have spouted to blur the lines. I am saying that any settler families who have gone to occupy Palestine in the last 80 years should return to their home nations. Anyone else is Palestinian, whether muslim, jewish, or otherwise. And would stay to live under the Palestinian nation.
Why do you think this is a peaceful resolution? Why do you think those other countries will just open their arms and take back Israel’s? They don’t have home nations if they were born in Palestine.
This war is fueled by what amount to a religious disagreement. Pretending it’s not is kind of a garbage take and pretending it’s as easy as just send those people home is also garbage. You don’t see it that way because you’re looking at historical context of the last 100 years on purpose.
This is the equivalent of the movement in America who want to end birthright citizenship. It doesn’t make sense and it’s specifically tied to anti-immigration sentiment that ignores that essential the US is made up of immigrants. It’s similar to pretending Columbus discovered America when we know the Vikings were here before him and the Natives before them and so on.
Like. I’m not pro Israel. I actually think this is a conflict that can’t be one and both sides are wrong. But you seem to have drawn your line in the sand and therefore this conversation is over.
The current status quo of apartheid and genocide is not exactly leading to a peaceful resolution is it? Why must Palestinian survival and liberation be entirely bloodless? And why can settlers not leave without bloodshed?
Why do you think those other countries will just open their arms and take back Israel’s?
Luckily the settlers have had decades of looting Palestine, so they could afford to leave if necessary. An option that the Palestinian people have been denied by the exploitation and literal encirclement under apartheid.
They don’t have home nations if they were born in Palestine.
They have settled within living memory and know very well where they came from.
This war is fueled by what amount to a religious disagreement.
No the war is fueled by the continued expansion of a colonial ethnostate which is genociding the native population. You are the one spewing ahistorical garbage. You said as much in your top comment when you admitted to having no knowledge of the situations history. Edit- Sorry, I confused you with the first person, who claimed memory issues to pretend history started on Saturday. The rest of the point stands.
You don’t see it that way because you’re looking at historical context of the last 100 years on purpose.
You previously wanted to dilute the issue by examining things as far back as antiquity. Now you want to throw out historical analysis from the relevant time period because it’s inconvenient? Do you have any ideas at all or will you simply say whatever is required?
This is the equivalent of the movement in America who want to end birthright citizenship. It doesn’t make sense and it’s specifically tied to anti-immigration sentiment that ignores that essential the US is made up of immigrants.
This is not equivalent at all. Israeli settlers are currently genociding the native population. Whereas in America the current population are settlers who have nearly finished their genocide. Current immigrants to America are not genociding the population. How is that a take you just seriously put forward? Are you a white supremacist buying into great replacement theory?
Like. I’m not pro Israel.
You support the status quo that ends with the eradication of the Palestinian people and the dissolution of their state. How are you not pro Isreal?
But you seem to have drawn your line in the sand and therefore this conversation is over.
Yes it’s called having an actual position. But sure we can be done now that I’ve had a fair chance to speak.
God damn… It must be hard having more chromosomes than brain cells. Is there freedom of religion in Palestine? Are women equal to men in Palestine? Are gays allowed to openly exist?
Will you get murdered for drawing a cartoon of Abraham or Moses in Israel?
Poor them, they were open to peaceful coexistence or a two-state solution but those evil Israelis said no… Oh wait.
Speaking of history and genocide, ever heard of Amin al-Husseini? There’s a pretty clear reason why he and Adolf got along so well.
I harbor mostly equal disdain for all religions but I’ve never heard of Jews giving people a choice between conversion or being executed.
PS, don’t bother replying, I’ve wasted enough time on your smooth-brained bullshit already.
Thank you. There’s way too many people claiming one or the other side is justified or worse and frankly at this point they’ve both committed so many atrocities against one another that it’s hard to have an emotional or subjective response other than, they’re both pretty shitty.
I’ve been fined on German highways for going too fast. Memes like these are myths. It is based on fact that there is no default upper limit on highway. But there are speed-limit signs on German highways.
I think it’s based on the (fahrt fahrt fahrt auf den) Autobahn. Now, I’m not german so I could be wrong, but here’s what wikipedia says regarding speed limits on the autobahn:
Much of the system has no speed limit for some classes of vehicles.[1] However, limits are posted and enforced in areas that are urbanised, substandard, accident-prone, or under construction. On speed-unrestricted stretches, an advisory speed limit (Richtgeschwindigkeit) of 130 kilometres per hour (81 mph) applies.[2] While driving faster is not illegal in the absence of a speed limit, it can cause an increased liability in the case of a collision (which mandatory auto insurance has to cover); courts have ruled that an “ideal driver” who is exempt from absolute liability for “inevitable” tort under the law would not exceed Richtgeschwindigkeit.
So, it certainly seems there is a basis for the jokes, even if they aren’t 100% historically accurate.
You can totally go 250km/h on the A5 from Frankfurt to Darmstadt, if traffic allows it. That wont always be possible, but typically if it isnt during work traffic, 160-200km/h is doable comfortably, even on other parts of the Autobahn
The longest unrestricted part that ive driven should be the A71, where you can go longer passages without restrictions, save for the tunnels.
An Autobahn has per default no speed limit for cars, except when there is one indicated by a speed limit sign. But there are many parts on any Autobahn without speed limit signs, so in reality you can very often drive as fast as you want.
There are many opportunities to drive with 200km/h or more if you want, but often the traffic prevents going with this speed for longer than a few seconds or minutes.
Plus, anyone who has traveled in South Asia or South America knows that Germany is much, much more safe to drive in than most of the rest of the world.
Holy fuck the “everything I remotely disagree with is communism” shit in this website is seriously annoying, did I time travel to 1950s America or something. Like I think lemmy might legitimately be the worst for it. it’s putting me off coming here.
Maybe branch out to another instance, I got here through lemmy.dbzer0.com, instances other than lemmy.world seem to be much more tolerable if you are tired of those sorts of comments.
Yes, successful land reform movements have historically been lead by angry communists, thank you for pointing that out for anyone who might be interested in a little land reform that their best bet is to look into communist strategies of land reform.
Care-washing: the greenwashing-adjacent pretending to give a shit about anything other than sloppy blowjobs for your board, top executives, and large shareholders.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.