I’m just saying you’re making a big deal out of nothing. Have a good night now.

again, gender-neutral wording like they/them don’t say anything about gender or her own identity. ‘They’ does not refer to a third gender. I’m not demanding anything from her. You’re the one who brought up using the correct pronouns. So I expect you to be familiar with English grammar.

I think your language-policing is ridiculous. You can’t expect someone unfamiliar with a situation to be up-to-date with how to affirm someone’s gender correctly. Gender-neutral language functions as a safe fall-back in such situations. You can rightfully expect people to not misgender people. You cannot be rightfully offended at people using gender-neutral language. The only person I’m making demands of currently is you, because you’re making this discussion unnecessarily hostile.

Yea, they seem to have a pretty short fuse…

Also, how do you even know her preferred pronouns in English? Did you ask her?

yea, nah.

Edit: Using a word is not the same as refusing to use another word in its place.

I’m sorry but no. Using gender-neutral language does not describe gender; using ‘they’ isn’t to misgender, it just leaves the gender unspecified.

You can correctly use ‘they’ for anyone. If they’d said ‘he’, now that would’ve been different…

(Edit: typo)

yep.

The US did not really try to negotiate with the Taliban regime. The US just demanded the Taliban hand them over, then refused a quite reasonable condition to show some evidence that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack.

At a news conference in Islamabad, the Taliban ambassador said he was sorry that people had died in the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon last week, but appealed to the United States not to endanger innocent people in a military retaliation.

“Our position on this is that if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in light of the evidence.”

Conflating a government or regime with an international terrorist organisation is the lie the propaganda told you to accept invading and occupying an impoverished foreign country that had just gone through a famine.

The US invaded Iraq under GW Bush on a lie about WMD’s. Killed Saddam and countless Iraqis, including journalists, for nothing.

The US invaded Afghanistan rather than negotiate with its ruling power to hand over Bin Laden, then didn’t get their hands on him for another decade even though the US won the war and took over the country from day 1. 20+ years of bloody occupation later you lost the war and the Taliban is back in power. Another pointess war started with deception.

Don’t get me started on Vietnam.

You guys have some twisted idea of democracy where the ‘Democrats’ don’t even elect their own candidates.

Please stop exporting democracy. The world doesn’t want your perverse version.

Hitler killed himself btw.

Ikr!

free world

lmao

I take issue with inaccurate language. This is how trains crash. A conspiracy is where 2 or more people plan something in secret. A conspiracy theory is where an outsider speculates about the nature of such plans. Also, without wanting to speculate myself, logically it was either a lone actor or a group conspiring, since it clearly wasn’t publicised in advance. I personally doubt it was some grand conspiracy.

How do you spread a conspiracy? I think you mean speculation.

‘backed by mountains of bodies’

is what I read initially…

yes.

The US tortures its dissidents. Just look at how they treated War on Terror whistleblower Chelsea Manning. Even the UN special rapporteur on torture spoke up about her treatment. She was driven to attempt suicide in prison multiple times. Including when she refused to cooperate with the secret Grand Jury investigating WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.

Julian Assange is about to be buried in a US prison and get a taste of that same medicine. Where are the Guardian outrage-articles on that? Oh, wait, that’s right. They threw him under the bus as soon as he’d given them access to the best scoops of the century (US diplomatic cables). The Guardian journos divulged the pass phrase to the unredacted cables in their book giving anyone who could locate the files online access. Cryptome published the unredacted cables before WL did while Assange called the State Department trying to warn them of the bad news. The Guardian then tried to make out like WL had acted irresponsibly in publishing the unredacted cables, when in reality the cat was already out of the bag and WL was doing harm-minimization. The Guardian’s blame-shifting makes my blood boil.

The ‘Guardian’ has no ethics and can’t be trusted on anything political imo.

This is a case brought by 4 US citizens against the CIA. They are attorneys Margaret Ratner Kunstler and Deborah Hrbek, and journalists John Goetz and Charles Glass. They all visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the relevant time period ~2017 and claim their 4th amendment rights have been violated. I can’t wait to see this trial unfold! The evidence that will come out of this could well mean the end of the DOJ’s pursuit of Assange.

This is a case brought by 4 US citizens against the CIA. They are attorneys Margaret Ratner Kunstler and Deborah Hrbek, and journalists John Goetz and Charles Glass. They all visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the relevant time period ~2017 and claim their 4th amendment rights have been violated. I can’t wait to see this trial unfold! The evidence that will come out of this could well mean the end of the DOJ’s pursuit of Assange.

It’s because they operate in secrecy.

Masha Gessen erspart der Böll-Stiftung, vertreten durch den Vorstand Imme Scholz und Jan Philipp Albrecht, an diesem Abend nichts. Dieses öffentliche Gespräch sei nicht auf Einladung der Böll-Stiftung zustande gekommen, enthüllt Gessen. Imme Scholz habe nach dem Eklat um den Preis eine private Einladung ausgesprochen. „Die habe ich abgelehnt“, so Gessen. „Ich habe ein öffentliches Gespräch vorgeschlagen, sie haben sich darauf eingelassen und das weiß ich zu schätzen.“ Doch um auch das gleich zu sagen: Ein wirkliches Gespräch kam nicht zustande. Nie fragte einer auf dem Podium: „Verstehst du, Masha …?“ Und auf die Frage der Verlegerin Katharina Raabe, die im Publikum saß, warum die Böll-Stiftung es in Kauf genommen habe, eine Autorin zu beschädigen, gab es keine Antwort. Imme Scholz und Jan Philipp Albrecht fühlten sich sichtlich unwohl, auch schon vor dem an sie gerichteten Einwurf des langjährigen Aufsichtsratsmitglieds der Böll-Stiftung Hartmut Bäumer, er habe sich noch nie so geschämt.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231218235218/https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/kultur-vergnuegen/debatte/masha-gessen-in-berlin-der-versuch-mich-mundtot-zu-machen-ist-misslungen-li.2169713

I think that’s debatable. I don’t get the impression that Gessen would have won the award if she had written her Gaza article before her winning it was decided by the jury. The fact that the original ceremony was cancelled from political pressure speaks to that fact. Credit to the Berlin crew to throw host another ceremony event albeit a small one.

Masha Gessen in Berlin: Der Versuch, mich mundtot zu machen, ist misslungen https://web.archive.org/web/20231218235218/https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/kultur-vergnuegen/debatte/masha-gessen-in-berlin-der-versuch-mich-mundtot-zu-machen-ist-misslungen-li.2169713 Masha themselve said at the event that

Dieses öffentliche Gespräch sei nicht auf Einladung der Böll-Stiftung zustande gekommen

transl.: This public forum today is not on invitation of the Böll-Foundation.

So I don’t think it’s at all obvious that Hannah Arendt would today qualify for the ‘Hannah Arendt prize’ in Germany, given her body of work that is critical of the creation of the State of Israel.