Does that include a way for them to return after the conflict settles?

I agree with unpinning entirely, it’s an odd fit

That’s a good tip

Could we get a new pinned comment for this. Some of this is our of date now and it would be nice to discuss.

Apps, interfaces, browser extensions, scripts

atheists give you slack for being agnostic

I find that to be really odd behavior tbh. One of the issues with organized religion is when a group shuns or hates on someone for their religious/ spiritual views. That’s also something that can happen with atheism, even if it’s not really seen as a “religion”.

Just be accepting of other people

Yea that would have been a dealbreaker for me. I’ve used offline maps while traveling fairly often. That’s one of the main advantages of GPS, not needing to send any signals to determine your position. The device calculates it locally based the timing of info that arrives from GPS satellites

That is a current problem with Twitter as well:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/08/twitter-saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuses

Saudi authorities illegally requesting data from Twitter / flipping twitter employees to figure out who is posting opposing views. Some of which lead to arrests, torture, imprisonment, and death sentences.

al jazeera is a wholy qatari owned propoganda mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis

… yea lol what?

Al Jazeera is Qatari, and so I don’t go to them for content about Qatar in case there’s a bias. However it’s a pretty large organization and they do decent investigative work on stuff happening in South America, Africa, & Asia. New organizations pick topics they think the readers want to see, and so in Canada (and likely the US) there’s usually little to no coverage on stuff in these parts of the world. Al Jazeera puts out decent investigative pieces and documentaries about these places.

TLDR: Al Jazeera isn’t unbiased, and I avoid them on certain topics. However I DO go to them for other stuff. It’s definitely not a “mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis [sic]”

What happened in this article is a bad thing:

had his Facebook profile deleted by Meta 24 hours after the programme Tip of the Iceberg aired an investigation into Meta’s censorship of Palestinian content

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources. Overall, we rate Reason Magazine Right-Center biased based on story selection that favors Libertarian positions and High for factual reporting due to mostly proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.

Huh, good to know while reading the article. Would be nice to have a better source though

Yea especially when tourists often don’t know about the local risks. Warning signs are mostly for people who aren’t from a particular area

Don’t want a ‘boy who cried wolf’ situation

That’s the idea behind it, but it causes more harm to that cause than whatever the gains from it are. Other forms of protest/raising awareness are more effective in the long run.

While I don’t know much about the specifics of “culture is trying to force change in areas where people don’t want that change”, my gut says that the vast majority of people already oppose those changes. An inflammatory ‘burning’ protest isn’t helping much.

Another example that comes to mind are the different types of climate protests. A lot of the public already supports positive changes. So when certain climate groups block roads or access to hospitals, while it’s a loud and clear message, it might hurt the cause more than it helps.

Ehhh, letting a protest devolve into chaos and violence will only cause more protests/chaos/violence afterwards

Her defence team argued the deaths and collapses were the result of “serial failures in care” in the unit and she was the victim of a “system that wanted to apportion blame when it failed”.

What

I agree people should have the right to burn it.

What’s important I think is that burning ANYTHING that people like / consider culturally important is going to make them upset, regardless of what the contents actually are. People absolutely shouldn’t get violent over that, but I don’t like how some comments (not yours) on these threads are fanning the flames to the conflicts. Hoping for things to escalate just to prove a point is… a bad look.

This next bit is opinion on the burnings: I don’t think the burnings are that productive and they don’t get much of a meaningful dialogue. Instead they just escalate tensions, deepen divisions / resentment, and when it happens it undermines the goals of the entire thing.

That’s not the point of the recent discussions, which are around if it should be legal. I guess I’m trying to say “it’s legal, but the act still harms everyone involved”

related example: Burning the Canadian flag is a valid form of protest, and it’s legal to do / should stay legal. However, it’s usually not productive

do you think it’ll be enough evidence to convince

No, nothing ever will

You cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into

I don’t think this discussion is just about Lemmy

I agree that Lemmy (+ Reddit and other forums) by design are for anonymous accounts.

At the same time, things like Twitter / Facebook/ Instagram are more for personally identifiable accounts. I want to see photos from my friends on Instagram, not random people. I get the random people photos on Reddit/Lemmy

It’s different use cases. I use my real name on Mastodon and PixelFed, and I use this account on Lemmy.