Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

THIS GOES BEYOND NASHIK, TCS. IT'S A PATTERN. The very tolerance that defines a democracy can, if unchecked, be used against it. SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE DEEPER QUESTIONS, THE MORE UNCOMFORTABLE THE BETTER. What NASHIK case exposes, just like AJMER did is not just crime but... a pattern where belief is weaponised through grooming and deception. A secular democracy cannot allow faith to become a tool of coercion. Hindu tradition is a univeral truth. Hindus don't convert. But it is up against aggressive proselytisation that blurs the line between consent and exploitation. India already has anti-conversion laws. They exist. And yet cases like this keep surfacing. Which raises a blunt question. Are these laws failing, or are they inherently incapable of policing intent and coercion? Besides laws don't change mindsets. So the debate must now move beyond law to first principles. Can coercive or induced conversion ever be cleanly regulated? Or does the very act of proselytisation in vulnerable settings create conditions for misuse? Can a society that permits conversion also guarantee that it remains truly voluntary? Liberals may resist the question. They will chaffe and troll. But what is the alternative? And is the current model strengthening social harmony or steadily eroding trust in a plural society?show more

Rahul Shivshankar

318,528 subscribers

133,915 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Elon Musk: 𝕏 is simply trying to adhere to the law. If the people in a country want the laws to be different, they should make the laws different. "What we're trying to do is simply adhere to the laws in a country. If something is illegal in the United States, or if it's illegal in Europe or Brazil or wherever it might be, then we will take it down, and we'll suspend the account because we're not there to make the laws. But if speech is not illegal, then what are we doing? Now we're injecting ourselves in as a censor. And where does it stop? And who decides? Where does that path lead? I think it leads to a bad place. So, if the people in a country want the laws to be different, they should make the laws different. But otherwise, we're going to obey the law in each jurisdiction. That's it. It's not more complicated than that. We're not trying to flout the law. We're trying to adhere to the law. And if the laws change, we will change. And if the laws don't change, we won't. We're just literally trying to adhere to the law." From: The All-In Podcast, September 9, 2024

Elon Musk: 𝕏 is simply trying to adhere to the law. If the people in a country want the laws to be different, they should make the laws different. "What we're trying to do is simply adhere to the laws in a country. If something is illegal in the United States, or if it's illegal in Europe or Brazil or wherever it might be, then we will take it down, and we'll suspend the account because we're not there to make the laws. But if speech is not illegal, then what are we doing? Now we're injecting ourselves in as a censor. And where does it stop? And who decides? Where does that path lead? I think it leads to a bad place. So, if the people in a country want the laws to be different, they should make the laws different. But otherwise, we're going to obey the law in each jurisdiction. That's it. It's not more complicated than that. We're not trying to flout the law. We're trying to adhere to the law. And if the laws change, we will change. And if the laws don't change, we won't. We're just literally trying to adhere to the law." From: The All-In Podcast, September 9, 2024

ELON CLIPS

5,539,295 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Asmongold explains why forgiving a criminal doesn't matter "These people have no empathy because they don't understand what making a decision for people beyond yourself truly looks like." "Even if somebody says it's okay that you committed this crime against them, there's still a greater duty. The governing body has to protect everybody else from the probability of this threat happening in the future." "When you commit a crime like that, you are committing a crime against society. You're committing a crime against our laws, our culture, and our country. The person just bears the brunt of it, but it is a crime against the culture. It's not relevant whether they forgive them or not."

Asmongold explains why forgiving a criminal doesn't matter "These people have no empathy because they don't understand what making a decision for people beyond yourself truly looks like." "Even if somebody says it's okay that you committed this crime against them, there's still a greater duty. The governing body has to protect everybody else from the probability of this threat happening in the future." "When you commit a crime like that, you are committing a crime against society. You're committing a crime against our laws, our culture, and our country. The person just bears the brunt of it, but it is a crime against the culture. It's not relevant whether they forgive them or not."

Asmongold Updates

18,243 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

Deutsch Explains

72,475 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

It is such a tragedy that in India, a person who is falsely accused of a crime, cannot file a case against the person who falsely accused him under laws meant to punish false accusers once he is declared innocent It is only courts or police which can initiate proceedings under these laws and they rarely ever do Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay has filed a PIL regarding this in Supreme Court and notice has been issued I really hope we see a fruitful outcome of this PIL. IT IS NEED OF THE HOUR

It is such a tragedy that in India, a person who is falsely accused of a crime, cannot file a case against the person who falsely accused him under laws meant to punish false accusers once he is declared innocent It is only courts or police which can initiate proceedings under these laws and they rarely ever do Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay has filed a PIL regarding this in Supreme Court and notice has been issued I really hope we see a fruitful outcome of this PIL. IT IS NEED OF THE HOUR

Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj

91,914 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Corrupt but Nationalist, or Corrupt and Anti-National? That's the Choice! Corruption is everywhere - be it with BJP or Congress leaders. We all know that! 🤔 But the speaker in this video raises a very important point about the bigger choice we have to make: • Do you want the Corrupt leaders who are Nationalist? OR • Do you want the Corrupt leaders who are Anti-National? When a party refuses to accept that India is a 'Desh' (nation) and only calls it a 'Union of States,' what are their intentions? They are trying to break the country! If you give power into the hands of those who question the very existence of India as a nation, what will happen? You can think about that! Choose wisely, because this election is about more than just corruption.

Corrupt but Nationalist, or Corrupt and Anti-National? That's the Choice! Corruption is everywhere - be it with BJP or Congress leaders. We all know that! 🤔 But the speaker in this video raises a very important point about the bigger choice we have to make: • Do you want the Corrupt leaders who are Nationalist? OR • Do you want the Corrupt leaders who are Anti-National? When a party refuses to accept that India is a 'Desh' (nation) and only calls it a 'Union of States,' what are their intentions? They are trying to break the country! If you give power into the hands of those who question the very existence of India as a nation, what will happen? You can think about that! Choose wisely, because this election is about more than just corruption.

Arpit

91,293 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

1. I've seen some pushback from a few monarchists, or possibly fans of KC, who complain that people will never be satisfied, or that people are 'wanting blood', or 'wanted things to change yet are still complaining'. My issue with all this is not only that Andrew was the one to make the statement, and frame it the way he did (including speaking for His Majesty), but also that these changes aren't changes. Not really. Yes, people can explain the semantics of titles and abeyance and wherever else, but what is clear to many people is that nothing more will be, or can be, done. That the 'status' the gave him the opportunity to carry out these immoral (and possibly criminal) decisions and actions cannot be taken away. He was born a prince, born with a place in the LoS, and that will remain. He has status afforded to him that cannot be removed. The rest is just shuffling words around in press releases and conflicting headlines. And because of the very public actions of the Californian celebrities, we know how meaningless it is. 🤷🏻‍♀️ so we're told nothing more can be done. Or doing more involves parliament, which beings some risk for the monarchy. Which means, to protect itself the institution should not push any further. And that we should be satisfied with press releases that suggest change but we know don't actually mean change. 🤷🏻‍♀️ The problem I have is that this goes against my own views and values. About people in senior positions of power in any institution or dynamic, whether it be a family, a local supermarket workplace or a monarchy, using that position to exploit or victimise others. Yes, this is Roya. But most commentators are acknowledging it.

1. I've seen some pushback from a few monarchists, or possibly fans of KC, who complain that people will never be satisfied, or that people are 'wanting blood', or 'wanted things to change yet are still complaining'. My issue with all this is not only that Andrew was the one to make the statement, and frame it the way he did (including speaking for His Majesty), but also that these changes aren't changes. Not really. Yes, people can explain the semantics of titles and abeyance and wherever else, but what is clear to many people is that nothing more will be, or can be, done. That the 'status' the gave him the opportunity to carry out these immoral (and possibly criminal) decisions and actions cannot be taken away. He was born a prince, born with a place in the LoS, and that will remain. He has status afforded to him that cannot be removed. The rest is just shuffling words around in press releases and conflicting headlines. And because of the very public actions of the Californian celebrities, we know how meaningless it is. 🤷🏻‍♀️ so we're told nothing more can be done. Or doing more involves parliament, which beings some risk for the monarchy. Which means, to protect itself the institution should not push any further. And that we should be satisfied with press releases that suggest change but we know don't actually mean change. 🤷🏻‍♀️ The problem I have is that this goes against my own views and values. About people in senior positions of power in any institution or dynamic, whether it be a family, a local supermarket workplace or a monarchy, using that position to exploit or victimise others. Yes, this is Roya. But most commentators are acknowledging it.

mrc 🦇

20,926 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Emily Blunt on the plot of Disclosure Day “What can you tell us about the plot of the movie itself?” “The big idea of it is that question that sparked the fires of human imagination for years. Are we alone or are we not alone? And if we aren't, why are the people in power hiding the truth from us? And so the movie is like a life or death race against time for those that believe the truth belongs to 8 billion people and those who believe that it doesn't and they want to keep it secret.”

Emily Blunt on the plot of Disclosure Day “What can you tell us about the plot of the movie itself?” “The big idea of it is that question that sparked the fires of human imagination for years. Are we alone or are we not alone? And if we aren't, why are the people in power hiding the truth from us? And so the movie is like a life or death race against time for those that believe the truth belongs to 8 billion people and those who believe that it doesn't and they want to keep it secret.”

Red Panda Koala

195,682 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Viktor Hovland made 8 birdies to close with a 5 under par 67 at the Masters. After the round, he went deep on the ball flight laws and the importance of matching up the club face to the swing path: “It's a good question. It's just tough to answer. First of all, that's why I like TrackMan and understanding the ball flight laws are very good to have because you can start a ball left, more left than you would like, but if it's curving back, who cares. That just means you're -- granted, if you're hitting it in the center your club path is just maybe creeping a bit more left, but if your face is in the right spot you're just hitting a bigger curve and then you can adjust that accordingly. “If you're starting the ball left and it's going left, is it a face issue, are you striking it off the heel and they're not coming back? There's a lot of minutiae involved with that. “If it's just a face-to-path issue or a club path direction, you can solve that pretty easily by playing a bigger cut or playing a bigger draw or moving it a bit more forward or back in the stance, simple stuff like that.” This is a great explanation that a lot of amateurs can learn from. The Masters

Viktor Hovland made 8 birdies to close with a 5 under par 67 at the Masters. After the round, he went deep on the ball flight laws and the importance of matching up the club face to the swing path: “It's a good question. It's just tough to answer. First of all, that's why I like TrackMan and understanding the ball flight laws are very good to have because you can start a ball left, more left than you would like, but if it's curving back, who cares. That just means you're -- granted, if you're hitting it in the center your club path is just maybe creeping a bit more left, but if your face is in the right spot you're just hitting a bigger curve and then you can adjust that accordingly. “If you're starting the ball left and it's going left, is it a face issue, are you striking it off the heel and they're not coming back? There's a lot of minutiae involved with that. “If it's just a face-to-path issue or a club path direction, you can solve that pretty easily by playing a bigger cut or playing a bigger draw or moving it a bit more forward or back in the stance, simple stuff like that.” This is a great explanation that a lot of amateurs can learn from. The Masters

Flushing It

667,750 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

This is chilling and uncomfortable. But, I get it. In a weird but compelling way, I get it. As a people, we move on. We move to the next headline quickly. We are shocked, we lament, protest, etc but eventually ... WE MOVE ON. This AI rendering of a story is morbid and uncomfortable... And even triggering. But, dammit, maybe this is what is needed. Evil gets shielded and protected by our need to not want to be confronted by truths that make us uncomfortable. How many stories of families hiding traumas and crimes of familial culprits because they don't want to expose the shame of umdeni? What does that do but protect perpetrators? Our discomfort about our reality can be a hindrance to accountability. The shame and discomfort should be reserved for the culprit. We are surprised how recidivism is so high in Mzansi, but we forget that we protect criminals' dignity more than the victims'. There is a lot that is cringe-y about AI and it should be regulated. This, though chilling, I feel it is a necessary evil if it will make Olorato and many like her not to become old news because today we have moved on to a new shocking headline. Remember her and live with the reality that you or someone you love and/or know may be next.

This is chilling and uncomfortable. But, I get it. In a weird but compelling way, I get it. As a people, we move on. We move to the next headline quickly. We are shocked, we lament, protest, etc but eventually ... WE MOVE ON. This AI rendering of a story is morbid and uncomfortable... And even triggering. But, dammit, maybe this is what is needed. Evil gets shielded and protected by our need to not want to be confronted by truths that make us uncomfortable. How many stories of families hiding traumas and crimes of familial culprits because they don't want to expose the shame of umdeni? What does that do but protect perpetrators? Our discomfort about our reality can be a hindrance to accountability. The shame and discomfort should be reserved for the culprit. We are surprised how recidivism is so high in Mzansi, but we forget that we protect criminals' dignity more than the victims'. There is a lot that is cringe-y about AI and it should be regulated. This, though chilling, I feel it is a necessary evil if it will make Olorato and many like her not to become old news because today we have moved on to a new shocking headline. Remember her and live with the reality that you or someone you love and/or know may be next.

Kgopolo

67,351 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

It is not a question of whether an act is legal or illegal, but whether it is just or unjust. Torturing an animal in a laboratory in the name of what they call "science" is legal and unjust, and sneaking into a laboratory to rescue that same animal is illegal and just.

It is not a question of whether an act is legal or illegal, but whether it is just or unjust. Torturing an animal in a laboratory in the name of what they call "science" is legal and unjust, and sneaking into a laboratory to rescue that same animal is illegal and just.

★𝐀𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧★

52,824 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

🚨 WOW! Stephen Miller just exposed it: "Some people might not like what I'm about to say, but it has to be said. You have the Left continue in its professional associations like nursing and doctors and education — people who casually CHEER ASSASSINATIONS." "Their conversation is: 'I'm glad that so and so was shot,' or 'I'm mad that so and so didn't finish the job.'" "This is common now in white-collar professions that are controlled by Democrat credentialing bodies, is it creates this kind of person." "And it's SICK, and when you see it online, you see it also in left-wing comedy where they cheer and they laugh and they joke and they all have a good time talking about our friends getting m*rdered!" "It's really fundamentally the normalization of assassination — and if we don't deal with this, we're in for a world of pain and a world of HURT." "It's just, it's sickening and it's heinous and it's just repugnant in every single way. But this gets back to the theme that I'm presenting today, which is that the third worldification of American politics is the normalization of assassination." "It's the normalization of the idea that assassinations are a common expression of disagreement. It is one of the most vile, horrible, evil society destroying things that can possibly happen to a country." Stephen Miller Will Cain

🚨 WOW! Stephen Miller just exposed it: "Some people might not like what I'm about to say, but it has to be said. You have the Left continue in its professional associations like nursing and doctors and education — people who casually CHEER ASSASSINATIONS." "Their conversation is: 'I'm glad that so and so was shot,' or 'I'm mad that so and so didn't finish the job.'" "This is common now in white-collar professions that are controlled by Democrat credentialing bodies, is it creates this kind of person." "And it's SICK, and when you see it online, you see it also in left-wing comedy where they cheer and they laugh and they joke and they all have a good time talking about our friends getting m*rdered!" "It's really fundamentally the normalization of assassination — and if we don't deal with this, we're in for a world of pain and a world of HURT." "It's just, it's sickening and it's heinous and it's just repugnant in every single way. But this gets back to the theme that I'm presenting today, which is that the third worldification of American politics is the normalization of assassination." "It's the normalization of the idea that assassinations are a common expression of disagreement. It is one of the most vile, horrible, evil society destroying things that can possibly happen to a country." Stephen Miller Will Cain

Eric Daugherty

100,938 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Culture is genetic because behavior is genetic. This beaver never saw a dam in its life. No beavers or anything else ever taught it to build a dam. It wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Many beavers together build a big dam. That is beaver culture. Humans are not different. Nothing is different. This is what life is. This is how life works. Your body is your mind. A caterpillar wants to build a chrysalis. A bee wants to build a hive. A lion wants to build a pride. You are not special. You are not above your nature. you are INSIDE of it. The thoughts that we think are genetic thoughts. The crimes we commit are genetic crimes. The art we create is genetic art. Just like this beaver, you can give the animal different sticks and it will build a different dam, but it will always build a dam. And you can give humans different "education," but the human will always use it to do what its genes tell it to do. This is the first big answer that you need. This is the biggest piece of the puzzle. This is how to understand people 90% of the way. You just... notice what they do, and get out of the way, and watch them do it. And if they need sticks, you give them sticks. And if you don't like what they do, you have to get away from them. You cannot train dam-building into them or out of them any more than you can with a beaver. A beaver wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Whatever you see people build, that's what they wanted to build from the sticks they got in the river they were in. Stop pretending you can change it.

Culture is genetic because behavior is genetic. This beaver never saw a dam in its life. No beavers or anything else ever taught it to build a dam. It wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Many beavers together build a big dam. That is beaver culture. Humans are not different. Nothing is different. This is what life is. This is how life works. Your body is your mind. A caterpillar wants to build a chrysalis. A bee wants to build a hive. A lion wants to build a pride. You are not special. You are not above your nature. you are INSIDE of it. The thoughts that we think are genetic thoughts. The crimes we commit are genetic crimes. The art we create is genetic art. Just like this beaver, you can give the animal different sticks and it will build a different dam, but it will always build a dam. And you can give humans different "education," but the human will always use it to do what its genes tell it to do. This is the first big answer that you need. This is the biggest piece of the puzzle. This is how to understand people 90% of the way. You just... notice what they do, and get out of the way, and watch them do it. And if they need sticks, you give them sticks. And if you don't like what they do, you have to get away from them. You cannot train dam-building into them or out of them any more than you can with a beaver. A beaver wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Whatever you see people build, that's what they wanted to build from the sticks they got in the river they were in. Stop pretending you can change it.

hoe_math = PsychoMath

1,189,824 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Prof PLO Lumumba LAUGHS OFF the cramps that France will be offering to Nairobi in the DISGUISE of a partnership and wonders whether Kenya understands the complications of a relationship with an imperialist or is is just happy over nothing. "But the question is, does it empower Kenyans or it weakens up? By the time they are done with us, will we be stronger or weaker? Have we defined what we want? Or we are just happy that we are the first English speaking country to host France Africa Summit and that 39 heads of state will be present in Kenya?

Prof PLO Lumumba LAUGHS OFF the cramps that France will be offering to Nairobi in the DISGUISE of a partnership and wonders whether Kenya understands the complications of a relationship with an imperialist or is is just happy over nothing. "But the question is, does it empower Kenyans or it weakens up? By the time they are done with us, will we be stronger or weaker? Have we defined what we want? Or we are just happy that we are the first English speaking country to host France Africa Summit and that 39 heads of state will be present in Kenya?

THEE ALFA HOUSE

22,376 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

🚨 JUST IN: Senate Leader John Thune says he will FORCE a vote on the SAVE America Act, but he can NOT guarantee it will pass because that needs 60 votes "That debate will happen. But like I said, I can guarantee the debate. I can guarantee a vote. I just can't guarantee an outcome." "There are a lot of optimistic views about what Democrats may or may not do. We all know, because we deal with them every day, that the Democrats are not all of a sudden going to decide that this is something they want to be for." "I think you have a lot of optimists out there, and I appreciate that, and a lot of passion and energy behind getting an outcome here." "But getting an outcome would require Democrat votes." "And, you know, we'll give them a chance. Like I said, they'll have that opportunity to vote one way or the other on this. But I would be very, very surprised."

🚨 JUST IN: Senate Leader John Thune says he will FORCE a vote on the SAVE America Act, but he can NOT guarantee it will pass because that needs 60 votes "That debate will happen. But like I said, I can guarantee the debate. I can guarantee a vote. I just can't guarantee an outcome." "There are a lot of optimistic views about what Democrats may or may not do. We all know, because we deal with them every day, that the Democrats are not all of a sudden going to decide that this is something they want to be for." "I think you have a lot of optimists out there, and I appreciate that, and a lot of passion and energy behind getting an outcome here." "But getting an outcome would require Democrat votes." "And, you know, we'll give them a chance. Like I said, they'll have that opportunity to vote one way or the other on this. But I would be very, very surprised."

Eric Daugherty

304,540 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Obama: America has always had competing stories about who we are and what the nation stands for. The first story says that even though we got rid of a king, there is still a caste system in America, a pecking order of who makes decisions That if somebody doesn't look like or think like you or practice religion the same way you do, they must be a threat to your way of life, and they need to be put in their place. That is how Donald Trump thinks about America. Make America great again by putting the people in charge even if they don't know what the hell they are doing. But here is the thing. That story is not new. It is the oldest story in the book. It is not even uniquely American. For most of human history, that is the way society has worked. For somebody on top and somebody on bottom. There were lords and peasants. For a long time, that story of caste and privilege and concentrated power was the law of the land here in America. If you look like me, you were likely treated as property. If you were a woman, or a white man who did not own property, you could not vote. But from the very start, there was another story, born of this nation's true revolutionary spirit, a story that says, we the people means what it says, that all of us are included, that we are not subjects, but citizens, defined not by race or religion or gender or sexual orientation, but by our commitment to a common creed and a willingness to accept not just privileges, but responsibilities that come with that citizenship.

Obama: America has always had competing stories about who we are and what the nation stands for. The first story says that even though we got rid of a king, there is still a caste system in America, a pecking order of who makes decisions That if somebody doesn't look like or think like you or practice religion the same way you do, they must be a threat to your way of life, and they need to be put in their place. That is how Donald Trump thinks about America. Make America great again by putting the people in charge even if they don't know what the hell they are doing. But here is the thing. That story is not new. It is the oldest story in the book. It is not even uniquely American. For most of human history, that is the way society has worked. For somebody on top and somebody on bottom. There were lords and peasants. For a long time, that story of caste and privilege and concentrated power was the law of the land here in America. If you look like me, you were likely treated as property. If you were a woman, or a white man who did not own property, you could not vote. But from the very start, there was another story, born of this nation's true revolutionary spirit, a story that says, we the people means what it says, that all of us are included, that we are not subjects, but citizens, defined not by race or religion or gender or sexual orientation, but by our commitment to a common creed and a willingness to accept not just privileges, but responsibilities that come with that citizenship.

Acyn

188,709 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

The debate about #IstanbulConvention is not just about combating violence against women (all sane people oppose violence against women), but redefining what a woman is. According to this Convention, "gender" is not related to a biological sex anymore, but "the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men". To claim that womanhood is not a reality in itself, but something so fluid, relative and uncertain so others – ie society – have to agree on what is or "considers appropriate" to be is simply absurd. If this is not the biggest threat to womanhood, then what is? Based on this aggressive gender ideology non-sense, a man can claim that he identifies as a car, and the society should give him a license plate, instead of an ID card. You can find below the exchange of views between myself and the socialist MEP Evin Incir debating this issue on May 9, 2023, in the European Parliament.

The debate about #IstanbulConvention is not just about combating violence against women (all sane people oppose violence against women), but redefining what a woman is. According to this Convention, "gender" is not related to a biological sex anymore, but "the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men". To claim that womanhood is not a reality in itself, but something so fluid, relative and uncertain so others – ie society – have to agree on what is or "considers appropriate" to be is simply absurd. If this is not the biggest threat to womanhood, then what is? Based on this aggressive gender ideology non-sense, a man can claim that he identifies as a car, and the society should give him a license plate, instead of an ID card. You can find below the exchange of views between myself and the socialist MEP Evin Incir debating this issue on May 9, 2023, in the European Parliament.

Cristian Terhes MEP

49,064 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

ELON: WE NEED TO RESTORE FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE OF GERMANY “The current government [of Germany] is suppressing speech very aggressively. When you suppress freedom of speech, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have a true democracy, because freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy. People cannot be expected to vote in an informed manner if they are not able to know the truth. So this is why it is so important to have freedom of speech so people can make an informed vote and it can be a true democracy. But this is not what the current government has been doing. They have been suppressing freedom of speech and putting people in jail for even mild criticisms of politicians or social media posts. This is crazy. This is frankly, a totalitarian approach. It is not a democratic approach. We need to restore freedom to the people of Germany and have freedom of speech and have less government oppression in general.” Source: AfD Meeting, January 2025

ELON: WE NEED TO RESTORE FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE OF GERMANY “The current government [of Germany] is suppressing speech very aggressively. When you suppress freedom of speech, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have a true democracy, because freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy. People cannot be expected to vote in an informed manner if they are not able to know the truth. So this is why it is so important to have freedom of speech so people can make an informed vote and it can be a true democracy. But this is not what the current government has been doing. They have been suppressing freedom of speech and putting people in jail for even mild criticisms of politicians or social media posts. This is crazy. This is frankly, a totalitarian approach. It is not a democratic approach. We need to restore freedom to the people of Germany and have freedom of speech and have less government oppression in general.” Source: AfD Meeting, January 2025

Mario Nawfal

83,619 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Here is the official explanation of what the different classes mean in the Taliban penal code (lower class, middle class, elite, scholars): Some people are deterred by a single warning because they have status and strong self respect, others, however are repeat offenders and require physical punishment. There are also people who are deterred merely by being summoned to court and they will not repeat the act. Those who possess self respect, once they appear before the court, they will not repeat the act again. This shows that society is diverse, and laws are applied differently, according to people’s conditions and circumstances. Another important point is that these laws were not created by us, rather they are derived in detail from Hanafi jurisprudence. Question: it is possible that among ordinary people, what you refer to as the lower class, there are individuals who listen to advice and properly observe the law, perhaps even better than those from the elite. In such a case, that person can no longer be considered part of the lower class, but rises to a higher social standing. A “lower” person is someone who is a repeated offender, someone who has been caught stealing multiple times, has repeatedly committed wrongdoing, and has not been deterred. In such a case, the judge is obliged to consider the circumstances, and the extension of corruption cause by that person in society, based on that, order imprisonment. However, if the person is of high status, understand admonition, is a community leader, and possesses social credibility, it may be sufficient to inform him that he has committed the act, and that it must not be repeated. If he does not repeat the offense, then punishment may not be imposed.

Here is the official explanation of what the different classes mean in the Taliban penal code (lower class, middle class, elite, scholars): Some people are deterred by a single warning because they have status and strong self respect, others, however are repeat offenders and require physical punishment. There are also people who are deterred merely by being summoned to court and they will not repeat the act. Those who possess self respect, once they appear before the court, they will not repeat the act again. This shows that society is diverse, and laws are applied differently, according to people’s conditions and circumstances. Another important point is that these laws were not created by us, rather they are derived in detail from Hanafi jurisprudence. Question: it is possible that among ordinary people, what you refer to as the lower class, there are individuals who listen to advice and properly observe the law, perhaps even better than those from the elite. In such a case, that person can no longer be considered part of the lower class, but rises to a higher social standing. A “lower” person is someone who is a repeated offender, someone who has been caught stealing multiple times, has repeatedly committed wrongdoing, and has not been deterred. In such a case, the judge is obliged to consider the circumstances, and the extension of corruption cause by that person in society, based on that, order imprisonment. However, if the person is of high status, understand admonition, is a community leader, and possesses social credibility, it may be sufficient to inform him that he has committed the act, and that it must not be repeated. If he does not repeat the offense, then punishment may not be imposed.

The Sure Path

11,506 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten