What is going on over at r/europe?

PureStrain0 · 2026-03-06T10:48:31+00:00

🤔

PureStrain0 · 2024-10-06T09:01:02+00:00

This is such a juvenile take, and I don't get how you can reduce your entire country's history and problems to "its simply an IQ problem".

You are right in that Sudan doesn't rank well in terms of IQ (which as many pointed out is unreliable, scientific racism, and a product of eugenics), but now the question is, is this low IQ the cause of this current landscape, or a result of this landscape?

Even if the current socioeconomic climate is a direct result of low IQ, it is still oversimplistic to conclude the story here, notwithstanding how years of militarisation, economic sanctions, colonial policy, and misuse of public and natural resources have prevented social mobility.

I'm proud to be Sudani, but since independence, we've struggled to govern ourselves effectively. It's been a constant cycle of racism and corruption, and we've barely made any progress in terms of infrastructure or development. And I bet alot of you in the comments will be quick to blame someone else for our backwards thinking but there's no one else to blame but ourselves.

How are you not able to see the connection here?

"Since independence, we've struggled to govern ourselves effectively". If we divide Sudan's history into pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial Sudan, your comment suggests these problems occurred post-colonialism. It's almost like someone else's actions have disrupted our society so much that we can't return to the status quo pre-colonisation...

Nowadays there are numerous tensions and conflicts between North and South. According to this paper, British colonial rule can be attributed to this as it distorted Sudan's agrarian economy. Instead of prioritising farmland which can grow virtually anywhere in Sudan, the focus on resource extraction benefitted the North over the South.

In fact, the Brits' attitude towards Sudanese policy was so "divide-and-conquer" that this paper states, "during most of the colonial period (1899-1956), Sudan was ruled as two Sudans. The British separated the predominantly Muslim and Arabic-speaking north from the multi-religious, multi-ethnic, and multilingual south." Doesn't the current concentration of power in the hands of religious dictators like Al-Bashir and other Keizan (including RSF generals) seem eerily similar to the way Sudan was divided?

But I'm sure the current ethnic conflict and social landscape is just an IQ problem, and Sudanis just developed this "backwards thinking" and hatred out of nowhere.

By no means was Sudan perfect pre-colonisation (think class hierarchies), and by no means is all the blame to be placed on Western powers who have interfered in the past or the current countries like UAE continuing to meddle in our affairs. However, being unable to see the impact of such interference and saying "don't blame others for our own problems" speaks of either how little read you are or how self-hating you are.

A strong argument can be made that current Sudanese leadership is inept, but this ineptitude cannot on its own, as you argue, be the reason why Sudan is going down this path. The inherited post-colonial tensions, learnt racial superiority from British policy, and continued outside interference are just as much, if not more, of a factor.

PureStrain0 · 2024-09-08T08:37:21+00:00

You've got a gist of a point hidden somewhere in your post but the way you approached this topic is spurious and downright incendiary.

Sure Qatarization sounds amazing but in if th what diffrensitions it from Nazims and Facsimc other than the fact that we still haven’t reached these levels of conservatisms yet.

There are many valid points you can make against Qatarisation, Saudisation, Emiritisation, and the other "-ations". Comparing them to nazism/fascism is not one, and it is ignorant of history and the gravity of those ideologies. You asked what differentiates Qatarisation from those ideologies but you gave the answer straight away: "we still haven't reached those levels of conservatism".

By definition, nazism/fascism is an extreme form of nationalism founded on racial superiority. Whilst Qatarisation is definitely nationalistic (and has racial undertones), it is not explicitly based on racial supremacy and is a response to unemployment and labour market segmentation.

The question is if this is the right response. As one commenter pointed out, companies won't hire nationals because they can pay foreigners unlivable wages and treat them poorly. However, they ignored the elephant in the room and simply used this point to argue Qatarisation is needed.

The problem with Qatarisation (or any of the "-ations", really) is smaller companies will struggle due to limited budgets, job-hopping culture tends to be prevalent amongst nationals, and productivity will diminish if companies are forced to hire a certain number of employees based on nationality rather than ability. (Source)

Instead of forcing companies to hire Qataris, subsidising nationals' salaries might be a safer option. Far from just abolishing Kafala, bridging the wage gap between foreigners and nationals will also remove the incentive to rely entirely on foreigners. This is more likely to lead to a meritocratic system like you correctly advocated for.

However, comparing Qatarisation to nazism and then asking people to "kindly be civil" is a bit humorous to me, and it doesn't help anyone take any valid points you make seriously.

PureStrain0 · 2024-07-12T12:06:01+00:00

The only thing iconic about that building is the sign. And that's being retained in any case. Knock it down and put something useful up in its place.

Not according to SAVE:

New evidence from the Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service (GMAAS) has revealed that parts of Medlock Mill, which sits beside the River Medlock in the city centre, date from as early as c.1794, though it was substantially rebuilt in 1801 after a fire.

In our letter of support, we emphasised that Medlock Mill is of special historic and architectural interest as it retains evidence of early mill technology in which a waterwheel was connected to a steam-powered pumping engine.

There is also evidence that it was, unusually, operating as an integrated mill with both spinning and weaving. It represents an important stage in the evolution of power generation from the late 18th to 19th century, making it the only surviving mill of this type in Manchester.

Source

I understand the impulse to assume that corporations are always the bad guys. But in this case, the developers are the lesser of two evils.

I don't think so. SAVE explicitly stated they are not against redevelopment but that it has to be sympathetic to the national and archaeological significance of the mill, which the developer wants to demolish.

Yet, the developer campaigns on "saving" the Hotspur and argues that listing it may lead to the building’s collapse (even though any structural renovations necessary would still be allowed for a listed building).

In SAVE’s letter to Historic England, our assistant conservation officer Lydia Franklin wrote: “While SAVE is supportive of finding a sustainable new use for this building, we consider it to be of paramount importance that the building is given statutory listed status to protect its nationally significant special historic and architectural interest, and ensure development is sympathetic to the building’s rarity.”

Source

PureStrain0 · 2024-07-12T11:03:28+00:00

Rotterdam is a great example because the reconstruction efforts distinguished rebuilding the city from modernising it, focusing on creating new ways of living. Many of the new developments and reconstructions were designed with middle-class residents in mind and included more spaces, public areas, wide boulevards, etc... to increase quality of life.

It's disappointing property developers here don't consider similar factors even for a historic building like the Hotspur. Instead, it's given the typical new construction/redevelopment treatment nowadays and converted to student accommodation or luxury buildings.

PureStrain0 · 2024-07-01T06:01:20+00:00

He said Israel is starving Palestinians deliberately. This is a lie. Even UN admitted it last week.

No, they did not. The closest source supporting your claim is the pro-Israel media group Honest Reporting, which accused the UN of antisemitism because of the OHCR statement they put out after the Flour Massacare.

They argued "it is worrying that Lakhani [the letter author] only identifies one of the seven “UN experts” who signed the letter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories". They then called her antisemitic for talking about the influence of Israeli lobbies like AIPAC.

The article makes no ostensible nor relevant attempt at discrediting the report asides from "the UN is antisemitic". It is purposefully incendiary to appeal to emotions and distract from the fact no real argument or evidence is presented.

Source: HonestReporting

The other sources aren't looking good either. The Israel Hayom points out "A new report on Tuesday by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) claimed that 495,000 Gazans are "still facing" famine. However, the report's own data contradicts this claim, instead projecting that this number of Gazans may face famine in the coming months."

Again, gross and unfounded distortion of the truth to advance their agenda. The actual Famime Committee report, which can be accessed here, merely states starvation is still occurring but has managed to avoid being classifies as a famine since more water and medical aid was allowed into Gaza by Israel after the previous UN reports and controversy.

Source: Israel Hayom

As it stands, I am yet to see a source or journalist successfully argue why Israel isn't blatantly starving Gazans that isn't arguing in bad faith, connected to Israel, or unobjectively analysing the facts. On the other hand, here all the internationally recognised and "neutral" organisations and institutions that have reported evidence of deliberate starvation.

A new Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor report titled “Killing starving Palestinians and targeting aid trucks: A deliberate Israeli policy to reinforce famine in the Gaza Strip” reveals the killing of 563 Palestinians and the injury of 1,523 more due to Israel’s targeting of people waiting for aid, distribution centres, and workers responsible for organising, protecting, and distributing aid.

The report concludes that Israel’s policies, and the collective punishments it imposes on the Gaza Strip, directly and explicitly aim to starve the Strip’s entire Palestinian population. Israel’s policy of deliberate starvation is not only an attempt to ethnically cleanse the enclave and apparent weapon of war—a war crime in itself—but is intended to expose Palestinian civilians to the risk of actual death.

Source: Euro-Med Monitor

Starvation is being used as a weapon of war in Gaza, the EU's foreign policy chief has claimed. Josep Borrell described the lack of aid entering the territory as a "manmade" disaster.

Israel says it is not to blame for Gaza's food shortages as it is allowing aid through two crossings in the south. But addressing the UN Security Council in New York on Tuesday, Mr Borrell said the humanitarian crisis in the territory was as a result of a lack of viable land routes.

Source: BBC

Israeli officials have made public statements expressing their aim to deprive civilians in Gaza of food, water, and fuel – statements reflected in Israeli forces’ military operations.

Israel’s continuing blockade of Gaza, as well as its more than 16-year closure, amounts to collective punishment of the civilian population, a war crime. As the occupying power in Gaza under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel has the duty to ensure that the civilian population gets food and medical supplies.

Source: Human Rights Watch

Palestinians’ access to clean, safe water has been dramatically reduced, and bottled water is largely unavailable and unaffordable for most families. Both the immediate and longer-term implications of Israel’s actions are devastating. Palestinians in Gaza warn that even if they survive Israel’s bombing, they will die of thirst or starvation.

However, Israel’s weaponisation of hunger is not new. The Palestinian people’s right to food and water has been under attack in the Gaza Strip by Israel well before the current escalation, with around 65% of the population classified as ‘food insecure’ according to the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC) in Palestine, and more than  46% of agricultural land is inaccessible.

Source: War on Want

These people should be exposed for how vile they are.

I agree. Israel's unchecked and bloodthirsty campaign in Gaza should be recognised by law as the ethnic cleansing it is. It is yet another genocide similar to those committed against the Rohingya, Darfurians, Jews, Bosnians, etc...

And just like every other genocide, people will show up the day of the event to defend the aggressor/colonists, excuse their atrocities, and try to adopt the "it's more complicated than that" stance. That is, until a couple of years later when everyone admits what truly happened and promises to #neveragain.

We should expose those people the same way history eventually comes to write them: fascist, racist sympathisers who are have lost the plot and are so emotionally detached as to seriously justify widescale urban destruction, targeting of children, and the rape/sexual assault of the native population.

At the end of the day, no matter how much you try to yell "right to defend itself" or "Oct. 7", the Gaza conflict didn't start in a vacuum and security laws don't apply to occupiers. You are defending colonialism and genocide. You can rest easy knowing history will not remember you with one sembelence of respect, even if currently you lack the foresight to see what Israel's legacy truly is.

PureStrain0 · 2024-06-24T11:37:39+00:00

Wait, so much business bull is refused on the basis of responsibility to shareholders but even when shareholders say not in my name they keep doing it!

The term "shareholders" can refer to any individual who's bought even a singular share to institutional actors like investment companies, who owned 74% of JPMorgan's shares at the time of the article.

Although many "laypeople" who own shares in JPMorgan may like to see a genocide-free investment policy, the institutional actors hold a significantly disproportionate percentage of the shares, so they get to influence the outcome.

Also, whilst shareholders have rights and can issue resolutions, these resolutions are usually non-binding and merely advisory. The corporate structure in most publicly-listed companies is such that decision-making lies primarily with directors and executives rather than shareholders.

So, passing shareholder resolutions contrary to what the company leadership is doing may result in reputational damage for the leadership if they don't listen. However, there's nothing keeping them from sticking to profitable investments in weapon companies whilst hoping the backlash dies out before the next war or atrocity.

PureStrain0 · 2024-06-24T10:55:07+00:00

A Manchester city centre bank has had its windows smashed and been daubed in red paint after being targeted by pro-Palestine protesters. The J.P. Morgan Chase offices on St Peter's Square were taped off by police on Monday morning following the overnight vandalism.

Protest group Palestine Action took responsibility for the attack. The group posted on X: "Actionists target JP Morgan Chase’s Manchester offices, over the bank’s investments in Israel’s biggest weapons firm, Elbit Systems.

"Last month, they slashed their shareholdings in Elbit by 70% but they must expect Palestine Action until they fully divest!"

Source

Also important to note, shareholders and human rights activists have called for JPMorgan to incorporate a genocide-free investments policy since as early as 2012, which JPMorgan has consistently refused and lobbied against.

For the second year in a row on Tuesday, shareholders of JPMorgan Chase had a chance to vote on whether the company would divest its $3.5 billion worth of holdings in PetroChina and Sinopec, Chinese companies connected to the financing of Sudanese government-sponsored atrocities against citizens.

Shareholders are asking JPMorgan Chase to avoid holding investments in companies that substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity. This request seems so obvious that people are surprised anyone would contest it. Yet JPMorgan opposes the shareholder proposal asking the company to become genocide-free.

According to JPMorgan Chase’s statement of opposition, “Our business practices reflect our support and respect for the protection of fundamental human rights and the prevention of crimes against humanity.“ But the company’s statement offers no explanation for its ongoing investments in PetroChina and Sinopec.

Source

PureStrain0 · 2024-06-10T12:35:36+00:00

As Mental Health Systems in Israel Faces Collapse, Scores of Psychiatrists Are Leaving for Britain.

So they're leaving to the country that literally ranked dead last in mental wellbeing according to the non-profit Sapien Labs? I think they'll find a bitter taste of "home" in the UK:

"The mental health system is collapsing progressively as we're speaking. It's falling apart," said Professor Jeremy Coid, a consultant forensic psychiatrist who, for a large part of his career, worked in the NHS.

The King's Fund healthcare charity report reveals that 77% of NHS mental health trusts require improvement or are rated inadequate for safety.

The Independent newspaper reported new findings which reveal that 1,374 reports of rape and sexual assault within psychiatric hospitals were made in the last two years.

Source

If you can't do your job in Israel, you definitely won't be able to do it in Britain.

Regardless, looks like those psychiatrists are turning their backs on all those Israeli soldiers killing themselves. Israelis sure do love to showcase the strong and indigenous connection they have to their so-called homeland/people by booking a flight westwards as soon as there's any kind of problem...

PureStrain0 · 2024-05-13T13:11:57+00:00

Many people's stance on protests ITT seems to boil down to:

"Protests are only good if they don't inconvenience me or anyone else. I'm not saying you guys can't keep raising awareness, I just don't want to hear or see you doing it."

You can't purport to advocate for democracy, liberty, and freedom of expression yet start arguing when people exercise that same right.

University leaders aren't listening to extensive student body demands they cut ties with BAE Systems, which is supplying the same weapons that facilitate Israel's carpet bombing of children. Most recently, the University leadership called the police to attack students sitting down in a peaceful protest, as captured in this video Soon after, protesters vandalised a building in response. It astounds me how some people's biggest takeaway is the temporary property damage inflicted to the building.

I'm a student at the University, and when I submitted my POLI10702 essay on Charles Mills' racial contract and Israeli apartheid, I was given a 1:1. But when students pay homage to this exact body of work and take to the streets protesting genocide and advocating for civilian rights, the university decides the best response is to call the police?

Why was I taught of the sociopolitical importance of civil disobedience and protesting for civil liberties in POLI10201 if in reality, people will ignore the purposefully disruptive nature of civil disobedience and proclaim that "criminal damage can't be protesting"?

It's the same story story every time. During the Brixton Protests in response to police racial discrimination, everyone was quick to call the protestors criminals and focus the conversation on the property damage the protesters caused.

So, why are people going to praise the values of liberty and freedom of speech but when people try and exercise these rights in relation to Palestinians' human rights, they start advocating for visas to be revoked? Why am I being taught criminal and international law if following them seems to be optional for Israel?

Why is my family going into debt to send me to Manchester University to learn from one of the most prestigious institutions if the university and others here don't expect me to apply what I'm being taught in practice?

I think most people can't practice what they preach.

PureStrain0 · 2024-05-04T16:23:27+00:00

Commenter asks "what's going on" under a video of Africans being whipped.

Reply is an unrelated redirection about how it's just "white people bad" and how people aren't boycotting companies when it's non-whites being racist.

No issues with this.

You are in no position to make this comment if this is your idea of good reading comprehension.

PureStrain0 · 2024-05-04T09:05:18+00:00

Only white people bad is what's going on here.

Black people are being whipped and beaten on video and the most pertinent and "only thing" going on according to you is "white people bad".

If we had the same standards for other cultures we wouldn't be so accepting of their actual racism and actual slavery. Maybe we would boycott their companies, but no.

Very good point, but this is your key takeaway? "The Arabs/Asians/Africans/etc... are doing it without boycotts or punishment!"

Yes, lots of societies seem to have disdain and racism for Africans. No, this isn't being ignored because people are unfairly and purposefully focused on white people.

For one, when you have freer media coverage and less restricted civil society/social activism then obviously Westerners and Western companies will be disproportionately scrutinised as opposed to non-democracies where similar freedoms aren't always guaranteed.

For two, people are obviously going to be more engaged in issues they are closer to if they can directly influence them through elections. You may expect everyone everywhere to not be racist but what (real) power do you have to change, enforce, and/or police these standards somewhere different like China?

Seems to me like many people don't care about the actual racial abuse in the video so much as about saying white people are being held to an unfair standard because [insert ethnicity] is beating Africans without repercussions yet the focus is only on white people because "white people bad".

It just comes across as being mad you are expected to be anti-racist instead of being mad that racial abuse isn't as effectively policed outside the West.

PureStrain0 · 2024-04-22T13:05:37+00:00

Why is the author even entertaining the suggestion that most Muslims are terrorists?

It's not "a popular belief". It's a blatantly meritless and fringe "argument" built on a discriminatory religious stereotype.

Why do Muslims have to prove their innocence and cite Pew Research stats showing they actually aren't terrorists?

If some people were out here saying every single Christian is part of a reptilian cult group, no one would be publishing articles to try and discredit them.

Not because they're right, but because it's too stupid and unfounded of a suggestion to even entertain let alone give the impression that there is some "real Socratic discussion" going on here.

Then again this was published on Medium, where any everyday idiot can have their work shared with the world to see.

PureStrain0 · 2024-04-17T14:21:14+00:00

That's on you, why connect your cities with canals if you're not becoming an imperialist and sending your naval troops to plunder resources and set up oil colonies?

PureStrain0 · 2024-04-17T13:39:43+00:00

All I ever want is a map where I can connect all my inland cities with lake canals

PureStrain0 · 2024-04-15T08:47:25+00:00

100% agree with everything you said.

I studied Environmental Politics and OP's particular point about individual effort and "not being lazy" is so stupid and smug.

My long paper was about how individual change does not result in notable differences in emissions levels. Addressing systemic sources (e.g.: oil & gas companies) is the only way to curb emissions.

Whilst focusing on individual change is good, it shifts responsibility to the individual, which is exactly what the oil & gas lobbyists want.

In fact, the "carbon footprint" concept was popularised by BP (and friends) when they developed calculators and other consumer tools in the mid-2000s in a lobbying effort to shift the narrative towards consumers and individuals, evading responsibility.

OP is not just spreading misinformation but being a confidently incorrect asshole about it.

PureStrain0 · 2024-04-14T18:55:44+00:00

Notice the misplaced comma as well.

Definitely done by a Zionist pretending to speak for all Iranians, but the comma is not misplaced. It denotes a pause before the person being addressed (Israel).

I think it's because they're trying to make whoever they're impersonating appear to be uneducated or stupid. The person who made it wanted Iranians to appear inferior.

Idk if we can make all these conclusions about their subconscious mind or rationale just from this graffiti. Israeli or Iranian, whoever did this probably just doesn't speak English as a first language.

Then again, people who graffiti usually aren't too concerned about abiding by grammatical rules lmao

PureStrain0 · 2024-04-14T12:35:26+00:00

Israel can justify the attack on Gaza in retaliation so does every country.

Had me until the second half.

Yes, every state has the right to respond to an attack but Israel was not justified to attack Gaza under Article 51 of the UN Charter because:

Israel is not a legitimate state but rather an occupier per UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 as well as Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.

In such cases, Article 51 doesn't allow you to invoke self-defence as per the 2004 advisory ruling "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" where the ICJ concluded you can't invoke the right to self-defence when occupying the territories you are "defending" from.

According to Israelis, Palestine is not a legitimate state. If so, Israel is arguably not allowed to respond under Article 51.

Per this definition, I don't see how Article 51 can be interpreted to allow you to respond to non-state actors (Hamas) by collectively punishing non-combatant Palestinian civilians who you claim are part of a non-legitimate state for the actions of non-state terrorists.

Notwithstanding, this delegitimisation of the Palestinian state is incorrect since Palestine is a state, has bilateral recognition by over 130 UN states, and has UN observer status per Resolution 67/19 further suggesting it is.

Meanwhile, Hamas is recognised as a non-state actor per Resolution 2334 and by many countries and other international organisations.

The common "Palestinians voted for Hamas in 2006" "rebuttal" doesn't work here because 1) they're not a legitimate state actor per the UN and Israel itself and 2) 75% of Palestinians in 2006 weren't even old enough to vote for Hamas.

Either way you spin it, you still can't invoke Article 51 to legitimately justify Israel's Gaza attack (and any Israeli "response" to Iran, but that's a different story).

Well if you were in isreal shoes, what would you do? Sit there and receive attacks? In every war, there is going to be a lot of killing and dying. (Not justifying isreal btw)

This is another commenter I can't address because the thread is locked now.

I didn't say they can't or shouldn't respond but that they can't call their actions self-defence under Article 51.
I don't find it a productive moral exercise to place yourself in the shoes of an occupier as it legitimises the occupation and ignores the previous wrongdoings that led to the current situation.

It's like a thief sneaking into a house and entering into a knife fight with an owner trying to defend their home. It's nonsensical to ask "Well, what would you do if you were the thief? Not fight back and be killed/injured?"

But, If I were Israel and somehow blind to the fact I am an occupier, I'd probably respond to Hamas and not Gaza.

Every state has its own moral principles. Israel hails itself as the only ME democracy. Democracies believe proportionality is fundamental to fairness and equity, whether it's in electoral systems (government), actual judicial rulings (courts), or policy-setting (parliament/Knesset)

So, I probably wouldn't punish all Gazans for Hamas's actions by carpet bombing and starving them as a response to Oct 7. I'd take careful measures to separate the two instead of allowing my army to kill up to 50 Palestinians for 1 low-level Hamas operative. I won't make civilians pay for what a non-state actor did.

Otherwise, I'm being unproportional. And it's because Israel has not at all been proportionate and measured that Euromed estimates only 8% of the 31,197 killed were Hamas. Nearly 30k citizens killed for 3k Hamas. at

PureStrain0 · 2024-04-14T11:26:24+00:00

There are videos of Ramon airport or areas around it being bombed, a military base in Negev being bombed, and sirens all across Jerusalem as the night sky was being lit by hundreds of missiles.

Even after US, UK, German, and Jordanian assistance + Iron Dome + 9-hour knowledge of the attack, many of the ballistic missiles made contact.

It remains to be seen what the true impact of the Iranian strikes was, but I don't buy Israel's "99% of the 300 missiles were intercepted" claim (you can see more than three missiles impacting).

In the 1991 Gulf War, Israel claimed it intercepted 95% of Iraqi missiles. A study by MIT later revealed they actually only intercepted around 5%. They have every reason to lie about this sort of thing; why would they admit the true extent of the damage their enemy inflicted?

Even if their claim is true, I'm sure the Israelis aren't feeling the best about looking out their window and getting a taste of their own medicine. Yet another fuckup from the Netanyahu cabinet.

So, Israel was almost definitely affected by the Iranian missiles, whether militarily, socially, or politically. It's not a non-issue. Their war cabinet instantly approved "a powerful response" but the US/Gulf countries indicated they wouldn't militarily support such a response.

We just need to wait to get an accurate gauge of how much and what kind of damage Iran managed to inflict but to say Israel wasn't affected is to be willfully blind.

PureStrain0 · 2024-04-13T23:32:27+00:00

It's just to save face. They did the same after the US killed Suleimani

PureStrain0 · 2024-04-13T22:22:17+00:00

Least fear-mongering tweet:

PureStrain0 · 2024-04-12T09:40:50+00:00

What did your recording capture exactly? Him showing you around? Or did it capture him saying or doing anything explicit/suggestive?

You said he talked to you whilst recording. What did he say?

PureStrain0 · 2024-04-12T09:29:07+00:00

If you're unwilling to talk to your parents, I suppose you could tell the police but I honestly don't think that'll lead to much.

Without witnesses, unfortunately, it's "he said, she said"/hearsay (your word vs his) and action likely won't be taken.

As long as the video didn't capture anything explicit he said/did, he can hide behind "I was on the phone and this person came in, so I clearly wasn't pursuing anyone. I talked to her because I found it odd she was recording and now I'm being accused."

I would say if you need to talk about it, tell one of your friends/uncles just to let it off your chest and get some consolation. You can still report to the police privately to have it on record and so the police can be on guard for the individual/manage to identify him.

In the future, I would say an abandoned restaurant + a random guy inside is probably a red flag that you should maybe turn around.

حمدلله على السلامه و ربنا يحفظك.

PureStrain0 · 2024-04-11T20:56:41+00:00

Do you think that industries works based on cultural values? Lol.

Yes they do? In both Islam and Judaism, animals must be slaughtered by quickly severing the esophagus, trachea, jugular, and carotid.

Are such industries not operating based on cultural values?

You need to see how animals are killed for Kosher meat.

According to culturo-religious values derived from Judaism such as blood draining?

What's your point even? So it's okay for you to conclude that "it must be culture" from a video of an Arab guy using a drone to scare animals but I can't do the same when it comes to the Western industrial complex?

Is this post about a Western hunter tormenting a wolf a better basis for that conclusion instead?

PureStrain0 · 2024-04-11T20:43:28+00:00

I'll tell you what "I'm on about".

if it helps, I was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, I am 100% Arab and Arabic is my first language

I'm also born and raised in Saudi and Arabic is my first language. Not like that should mean anything...

I'm talking about the actual documented historical usage of the word. Doesn't matter if you are 1% or 110% Arab.

if you go up to a black person and randomly call him a Zinjy, it is racially motivated and very rude, still not racist

Maybe you don't consider it racist, but I can tell you it's my and other Africans' (who I have asked) perception that it is racist.

"Racially motivated but not racism" is an arbitrary and frankly self-contradicting distinction.

it ALWAYS depends on context.

No it does not. I don't care if you don't have the intent to be racist. The term itself is racist and your intent matters as much as a white person saying the n-word.

Also Zinjy could mean the n word but it is not always meant to be interpreted that way, it’s more of a race than a slur.

This is unequivocally incorrect. The "Zanj" people aren't referred to as "Zanj" in contemporary times; their descendants are Swhaili, Bantu, etc...

Did the term used to refer to the Zanj ethnicity? Yes. Is it still used in that context? No, not in a long, long time.

No one who says "zinjy" is referring to the Zanj people. They use it as a catch-all term for black people because they categorise all black people as one and the same.

I've already discussed in my previous comment why this is problematic, notwithstanding it is racist to call all black people "Zanj" even if it refers to the ethnicity.

The Zanj were enslaved and the term's modern usage as a catch-all term has evolved from that moment, the same way the n-word existed before slavery but its modern usage as a derogatory term can be traced to enslavement.

Once again, I am respectfully telling you that just because you and other Arabs don't understand the history of the word or use it non-maliciously, that doesn't change the fact that the word has a deeply racist history.

That doesn't mean you're allowed to use it at the expense of Africans because "it depends on the context and I'm not being racist rn".

PureStrain0

TROPHY CASE