Skip Navigation

𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

@ ChairmanMeow @programming.dev

Posts
0
Comments
2045
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • I don't universally support all sanctions. I don't support sanctions on Cuba for example, but I do support sanctions on Israel. If you want to consider me monstrous for that, go ahead.

  • It doesn't, he's explicitly allowed to withdraw enough money to cover basic needs. Dogru confirmed this in one article on this, but he's also dishonest about it in his tweets where he suggets he's not allowed to withdraw anything.

  • Her husband is a pro-palestine journalist and she gets her bank accounts frozen because of it what else would you call it?

    Apparently the husband tried to (perhaps unwittingly) circumvent the sanctions placed on him through the accounts of his wife. That will get your accounts frozen alright.

    I also don't quite buy the whole narrative that he was sanctioned strictly for being pro-Palestine. There's loads of journalists telling the Palestinian side of things, hell even a lot of state media is pretty critical of Israel these days.

    I've seen the "evidence pack" that Dogru published (even though we have no idea if that's a complete story). There's definitely some stuff in there that I'd classify as pro-Kremlin falsehoods.

    There's also definitely some dishonesty going on from his side: he publicly claims he has no money left and can't withdraw anything from his accounts (or his wife's). But that's simply not true, as he and his wife are both allowed to withdraw enough money to cover basic needs (not even to mention the social safety nets that Germany has, there's no reason for his kids to go hungry).

    He's also stated he believes the invasion of Ukraine to be an illegal act by Russia, yet simultaneously promotes the viewpoint that NATO started a proxy war in Ukraine. There's also some very precise wording going on, e.g. stating he's not involved with Red anymore after Russia invaded Ukraine, but Red was controlled by AFA Medya, which he was still very much involved with. That same Red was also taking on employees who were also involved with RT.

    I think there's some very good reasons that unions and NGOs, which historically have taken on loads of cases of journalists being unfairly censored, aren't touching this guy with a 10ft pole. The appeals process here is imo too nebulous, but regardless I doubt that he'd actually win the appeal.

  • Freezing accounts is a preventative measure. The German government must have evidence that there's likely criminal proceeds on these accounts, plus a real risk that these funds would be transferred elsewhere. A court case usually follows fairly quickly.

    If a billionaire is accused of fraud, you wouldn't want to allow them to transfer all their wealth out of the country before you can fine them, right?

    • We don't know if this is collective punishment, you've assumed so but we have no proof of that.

    • I don't mind protecting people's privacy and publicizing what crimes someone has been accused of, since just the accusation can have serious consequences. Imagine someone is accused of terrorism, this gets out to all the neighbours, and finally the judge clears their name; will those neighbours still trust them?

    • The people whose accounts are concerned will receive the reason why the accounts were blocked. They too haven't publicized it.

  • We don't know, as far as I know it hasn't been publicized.

  • IIRC he was considered a viable candidate for pope as well.

  • I have zero problems with the Pope retconning the bible into a more peaceful, anti-war version.

  • Does a mother become immune from judicial persecution just because she has a child? Kids aren't a get-out-of-jail-free card.

  • Loads fine for me. It's someone sitting in front of a desk with 15 large monitors surrounding them in a semicircle, 3 monitors stacked on top of one another in 5 columns.

  • https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574

    EPP and ECR voted against extension, but IIRC the reason is that they wanted stricter controls instead. Most other parties were largely in favour of extending the current chat control mandate.

  • IIRC (but could be wrong) the EPP wanted stricter chat controls, not an extension of what was already there.

  • If you actually looked at the statistics, you'd know that's not the case. Defensive gun use is not horseshit, but being a privileged liberal is.

    I did, did you? Crime victims who respond with a gun are 2.5 times less likely to get away from the offender than those who respond without one and 10 percent less likely to avoid injury.

    Guns are a tool of equality for all manner of marginalized and dispossessed people.

    This is an unhinged statement. Guns by definition are used to oppress the marginalized, weapons to force people to do what they do not want to do. To claim that they're "tools of equality" is bizarre gun-industry propaganda. Women in abusive relationships are 5 times more likely to be killed if their partner owns a gun. Women in the US are 28 times more likely to die to firearm homicide. "Shoot first" laws increase the odds that a minority is a victim of a violent crime (an anecdotal example is Ahmoud Arbery, who was shot and killed for the crime of jogging while black).

    You also mentioned that 69k is an "extreme low", but it's likely an overestimation since it includes non-legal DGUs. Even then, the statistics show that this is less than 1% of property crimes and in nearly 60% of those cases the perpetrators weren't even armed. The picture that the NRA likes to push, legally using a gun against an armed stranger in a home invasion, is so rare there's not enough reports to even find a semi-accurate number.

    Meanwhile, violent crime goes up if gun ownership does (when compensating for other factors like GINI): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094119025000269

    Your argumentation reeks of "Gun Culture 2.0", the project that the NRA is pushing to promote guns for personal safety in a dangerous world (as opposed to "Gun Culture 1.0", where the main motivation for owning a gun was hunting and recreational shooting). It's heavily pushed through a lot of propaganda in pro-gun magazines and commercials, ignoring all statistics showing owning a gun makes you less safe, and that the world around you in general is becoming safer overall over time.

  • "Defensive gun use" is horseshit. Statistics clearly show that owning a gun increases the risk that anyone in the household (including children) will die by homicide, suicide or unintentional injuries. The amount of successful defensive uses of a gun pales in comparison to the number of preventable injuries and deaths that gun ownership brings.

  • There's the PEGI complaints board where appeals or complaints can be lodged by consumers and publishers. Recently Balatro did so successfully, as the 18+ rating for gambling was overturned by PEGI.

    Note that PEGI is the games industry regulating itself (to avoid governments from having to do so).

  • I was not making any judgement about the socialists, nor was I only referring to that party.

  • In this case the rating agencies do, which Valve then follows.

  • I have a feeling the pope knows, but that he doesn't think it matters when it comes to matters of morality. Death from above is still death from above, pretty clear-cut for the (supposed) "thou-shalt-not-kill"-crowd.