Mohamed

joined 4 years ago
[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

That's me. I'm that person.

[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

Well, it did start with Israel says. Theres at least that

[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

What is this, pre-pre-emptive strike?

[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago

In addition, while hatred for Iran is high in the Arab gulf, there is very intense hatred for Israel, amongst Sunnis as well. Given that Israel started this war and after what they did and continue to do to Gaza, I dont expect joining the war on the side of Israel would be very palateable to the public in the Arab gulf.

[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 13 points 5 days ago

Yes. The war is definitely not going to embolden pro-government sentiment in Iran in a rally behind the flag effect. /s

[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe more transparency would be good in the Nobel Peace Prize process. One thing is clear to everyone except maybe one person though: Trump definitely does not deserve it.

[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's satire from Elijah Manley.

[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago

But the DOW! Think of the DOW!

[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

Omg that was hilarious, thank you.

[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago

Its not like its easy for the people to stop. Person À and Person B are both involved in a scuffle. Cop or whatever tells them to stop. If A stops but B doesn't stop, A just gets his ass kicked as a best case, or might get killed as a worst case if B has a weapon, for example. And vice versa. They have to both stop at the same time, which means expecting coordination between them which is ridiculous.

There's also the very real possibility that the homeowner did stop and freeze, but person B kept attacking, and so the cop still shot at them since they didn't both stop.

It's ridiculous that this needs explaining to a supposedly trained cop.

[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It baffles me that it is even possible to summarily strip citizenship like that.

Like, it would be a lot more reasonable if people born on US soil, only in the future, no longer get citizenship.

But how can it be legal to remove citizenship by redefining the law, and then retroactively stripping people of it that no longer fit the definition? Like, isn't this the same as making a law in 2026 banning smoking, and then going back and jailing anyone who has ever smoked?

[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago

It is surprising and Im sure it reduced the performance, but plastic still conducts heat and sounds like it was a thermoplastic and it didn't melt.

 

This survey is nuts. Here are some quotes:

  1. Pierre Poilievre will lock up the worst criminals for life. Do you want safer streets?* Yes – Jail, not bail! No – I want dangerous criminals terrorizing my streets
  1. The Carney Trudeau Liberals have FAILED our military. Pierre Poilievre and Canada First Conservatives will strengthen it. Do you want a stronger military?* Yes - Warrior culture—NOT woke culture. No – Woke culture is more important

The * just means its a required field, if you are wondering.

 

I am genuinely curious. Some of my passing thoughts are below, if some context is needed.

I strongly believe that PR is a much better and fairer system than FPTP, and I hope it passes in Canada at least at the federal level.

The question. Are there any real disadvantages to PR compared to FPTP?

PR is obviously not a peefect system, and it has downsides compared to other forms of representation, such as Direct Democracy. But i cant find any real downsides when compared to FPTP.

I heard about:

  1. PR allows extremist ideas to be represented. This is maybe true, but I think it is blown out of proportion It is also probably not a negative. Allowing their representation means that these ideas can be challenged in public, rather than simply censored. It also could reduce feelings of not being represented among the public, feelings which might be a strong contributing force to the rise of authoritarianism.

  2. PR could effectively freeze government by not allowing anything to pass. This could be a negative, but in many cases it isn't. In case the majority is the extremist party, PR allows a sort of damage control.

view more: next ›