Good choice, no point in deleting it. This one doesn't need it, but sometimes I add an edit to my comment if I've been corrected deeper into the replies.
the trend of everyone i don’t like is a nazi
Yes, that's a real problem, when some people carelessly throw around "nazi" as a generalized slur against bigots. It's tactless and does trivialise the specific threats that neo-nazis pose, as opposed to the different threats posed by those more imminently harmful politicians (Gina et al is involved in policy making, just indirectly).
We, all of us, need to use more specific ways to describe politics than "nazi commie fascist liberal" buzzwords, because real neo-nazis love to utilise the overuse of "nazi" as cover - if someone who is clearly contradictory to Nazism is called a Nazi and experiences that non-Nazis are called Nazis by "the left", then actual self-identifying neo-Nazis will exploit this and say "yes, pink-hair SJWs also called all these normal people Nazis too!" when they're talking about actual crypto-fascists promoting actual neo-Nazi ideology. As part of this tactic, they also like to exaggerate how common this phenomenon is through memes/social media, but it does happen.
But with all that said, it's not a tough one for me. Someone being legally charged for that is ridiculous, and it's very clear in context that they are not promoting or glorifying neo-nazi ideology or its persecution. If we charged everyone who used political symbolism poorly, the entire continent would have to be a prison colony again. They're being harassed for insulting certain politicians, and whether the charge is technically legal or not doesn't change this.
Normally I wouldn't judge or care about such things, but when a grifter self-styles themselves as a "thought leader", "alpha male" or whatever other ridiculous nonsense, it's open season.
The US especially have a reputation for sending ignorant people to be ambassadors as political favours.
Just checking, I came across an article published a couple of days ago about Dr. Anjani Sinha, President Trump’s pick for U.S. ambassador to Singapore, being "grilled" (quoting article) in the senate. So you might have been reading about a different senator (and I don't mean that to say "haha wrong" but rather "this happens a lot")
Speaking of which, there's a protest against various F-35 component manufacturing companies starting about now in Sydney:
https://www.stopwaronpalestine.info/posts/sanction-israel-protest-tour/
https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/protest-tour-genocide-collaborating-companies
Today, if you’re a bad dancer, you could be filmed without your knowledge or permission, and become a viral sensation for millions of people to see.
Eh, to be honest, I don't see why I should care what internet dwellers have to say about me. I don't live on (mainstream) social media and it's not like I'm doing anything harmful. I cared too much in my teen years and hit the elderly-tier 'idgaf' phase early in response.
Someone below mentioned bullying, and that is a real problem, but really, bullies (as opposed to casual trivial banter) don't have many entries into my life now that I don't have to sit in a classroom every day.
What a knob. Hopefully SA can push themselves to a better premier.
Theft? He had every right.
You're right, I misread that line very poorly and was looking for car industry groups. Thanks!
For companies that repeatedly breach, criminal prosecution of the people doing so is probably better than fines.
Absolutely. A pharma company had a representative (either C-level or legal) say in court something like "just give us the fine, we can afford it". I suspect these companies have that kind of money.
Sometimes I want to live in this horror world that conservatives have conjured up to whine about. Socialised medicine, now that's a lovely idea.
I know we have some subsidies and medicare and all that, and that's a start, but oh just imagine if it were everything!
1
Behind Trump’s spiralling tariff war: An interview with Marxist economist Michael Roberts
(www.greenleft.org.au)
view more: next ›
What part of the article is this responding to?
Having been involved in the Palestinian movement, I'm well-aware of how censorship has been abused for political ends (such as attempts to falsely conflate critique of the Zionist Regime and its ongoing genocide project with 'antisemitism'). I also support critiques of all the religions you listed. So I understand how these anti-bigotry laws could theoretically be abused to curb legitimate critique of religions, your concerns about that are reasonable and I agree that these laws are a crappy approach.
However, it's clear that this article is addressing racial bigotry (as opposed to religious critique) and nonsense neo-Nazi conspiracy theories which are not based in evidence. These people don't really care if an Yemeni immigrant is Muslim or not. Nazism doesn't care if a person with Jewish ancestry believes in Judaism. To the neo-Nazi and other racial bigots, these people could be atheist and it would make no difference. But mainstream society still use the words antisemitic and Islamophobia to describe that bigotry, despite neither of those terms being accurate.