Estonia. Kale can still be picked from the field, but it's not growing since there's no light.
Some sea-buckthorn trees are still holding on to leaves. All other leaved trees have dropped theirs.
perestroika
joined 2 years ago
Attempting to make contraceptives expensive in the 21st century makes me grin. Let's try to make water expensive in a sea.
They might prevail by enforcing a 500% tax on the most effective contraceptive: smartphones. :)
However, more realistically - until people feel secure about their future and feel that having children is not a setback or big risk...
...and have time and tools to find likeminded partners and build relationships (current dating sites are miserable tools in the West, not sure about what they have in China, and participants in a corporate rat race don't have time)...
...and until people have education to maintain and fix those relationships...
...until then, hasta la vista government (try again after figuring things out).
Is it because it is not PC to call a culture primitive?
If you know its history and are absolutely sure that your evaluation is correct. But I have the feeling that you haven't checked Iranian history - because historians don't tend to put Iran in the same sentence with that.
So, I would add some notes. Islamic extremism has not been in power "for 1500 years" in Iran - it has been in power since 1979. Iran has political problems. And let me tell you, political problems can quickly bring down a society that might otherwise have its problems under control.
Did folks call Germany "primitive" when Hitler rose to power? Nope, they used other terms. Do we call Russia "primitive" because of Putin? Will we start calling the US "primitive" if Trump manages to become a dictator? Do we call China "primitive" because they have a one-party dictatorship? Nope, we don't.
They're advanced societies facing difficult problems of various sorts. They are also extremely unequal societies - some people in the capital have modern life, but some in the periphery don't even have jack s**t.
Iran could be spending its time selling satellite launches if it wanted, but has an Islamist theocracy in power. Any candidate can be disqualified in the elections if the grand ayatollah doesn't like them. Iran does various extremely shortsighted and I would really say... extremely stupid things. Like fighting proxy wars with Israel and then fighting real wars with Israel, depending on Russia for ammunition and then supplying Russia with ammunition against Ukraine...
...but "stupid" and "primitive" are not synonyms.
After islamic extremists came to power in the 1979 revolution, they broke down Iranian society in many directions. Executions were widespread, terror was used to subdue opposition, women's rights were trampled on, many things happened. Thing went wrong, got entrenched in the state of being wrong, and remain wrong to this day. :(
The regime before the islamists was the Shah (king). He had already been ousted and there had been parliamentary democracy in Iran, but the shah came back to power with UK and US support. He also terrorized the population through his secret police. The shah was hated and propped up by foreign powers - a ripe fruit for Islamists to pick and eat.
Before the shah, Iran had a problem with left-leaning populism and government-parliament relations, but I think this was their smallest problem. The last democratically elected PM (Mosadegh) was somewhat populist and wanted to nationalize the oil industries (wanted to hurt Western business interests), which would have been OK, but he also had problems with the Parliament, which was definitely not OK. With some Western assistance, he was couped out of power, which, in my books, spent Iran spiraling out of control.
That's a brief summary of what's been going on in the center of society, in the Persian speaking regions (I apologize for gross simplification, but I can't summarize Iranian history into a single post, they have so much of it and it's not simple - and not primitive).
In border regions, however, we observe different processes. Persians (Iran's majority population) have easier access to what little justice their system can ensure, while minorities (the Azeri, Kurds, Arabs and among smaller groups, the Baloch) are marginalized and cannot get just treatment.
Iran is a former empire and has a considerable number of people who've been conquered at some time. Some of them want independence (ask a Kurd in private and you'll hear). Society is neglecting them. If there was peace, and not islamic theocracy but democracy like in the 1950-ties, minority groups would likely have better living conditions. But as things are... sigh. Minority groups get the highest levels of poverty and oppression.
I would put it differently.
The graph represents immigration. That is another topic, if you read the title carefully (see: "public life").
Recent / notable incidents of violence against women in politics, in Sweden, can be fairly blamed on far-right actors who are (perhaps by coincidence or perhaps not) also failing to discuss immigration normally, because discussing things rationally is not their slice of bread. Some parties' ultra-fans have a culture of threatening and intimidation.
I know it first hand without being in Sweden. Here in Estonia, we also have a party of that sort, with all the bells and whistles (anti-vaxx, pro-Kremlin, anti-immigration¹ and of course pro-authoritarianism). And their supporters can't argue with a person much more often than an ordinary party's supporters. I sincerely hope that party goes below the election threshold soon. They already split because of internal culture (failure to tolerate disagreements).
¹ anti accepting Ukrainian refugees, since there is nearly no other immigration coming here, unlike Sweden which has been considered an attractive destination
P.S. I should note that Sweden has its share of integration problems (which they try to solve, and will likely pull the brakes if they cannot), but as a result of immigration, Sweden experiences less of the demographic problems which press Eastern Europe (read: our population pyramids in Eastern Europe are top-heavy, predicting serious issues with financing of public services in future, their population pyramid in Sweden is relatively square).
Out of curiosity, what does the diagram represent? I wonder what value has increased to about two thirds of 18% (and what is the 18%) between 1945 and 2015?
1945 - I can tell what happened over here on that year. Tens of thousands of Estonians took boats and sailed to Sweden, because they knew that Stalin's regime had extremely unpleasant surprises waiting for them. Without a clue about the context, I would guess that's the blue bar in 1945.
Also, I think your graph is missing the point. Lööf was sure as hell unsettled when psychiatrist Ing-Marie Wieselgren was killed at a political festival, by a guy who arguably intended to kill Lööf.
Wikipedia tells us a bit more:
After stabbing Wieselgren, the attacker was tackled by a pensioner and was shortly thereafter arrested by police.[5] The arrested perpetrator was a 33-year-old man who had previously participated in events organized by the neo-Nazi Nordic Resistance Movement and had written for the neo-Nazi newspaper Nordfront.
So, apparently the motive was political, but I don't think you expected it was this one.
Polarization is really stupid, it makes people talk, campaign and vote about identity issues (parties start to have ultrafans who want to beat each other up), when their best interest would be served by discussing other topics. Fortunately the Swedish electoral system does not support unhinged levels of polarization.
No problem, it was easy. :)
P.S.
I notice that some people (perhaps special rapporteur Mai Sato) have explained her situation to the office of the UN high commissioner for human rights, and the UN has published a call for Iran to intervene in her case.
Iran must halt execution of Goli Kouhkan domestic violence survivor: UN experts
I hope the word of the OHCHR suffices - that Iranian officials take note and prevent her execution.
If I were an Iranian official, no matter how conservative or stuck in old ways, I would remember what happened after Mahsa Amini / Jina Amini was killed, and would carefully steer away from repeating any similar chain of events.
There's a small legal step that Ukraine needs to do.
It needs to declare a blockade and declare which goods are blockaded, e.g. "all liquids transportable by ship".
Then, shipping companies will know in advance: "you cannot transport liquids to or from Russia, if your ship looks like a tanker, don't go" and dangerous drone strikes aren't needed.
It's fortunate that no sailors have been lost so far. But without a policy announcement, the discouraging effect is maybe too small and additional ships may try to run the blockade, which could lead to loss of life and environmental harm - which would be bad.
About the donation drive: it seems legit and I encourage people to help her.
I checked the background of the Qasim Child Foundation and they're a registered charity in Australia since 2020. Here's one of their letters from 2022 to the Australian parliament, asking Australia to use its influence on Iran. The director of the foundation, Mehdi Ghatei, is a real person living in Australia and originating from Iran.
What I think about the case: if a person has been "married off" as a child, not because of her wishes, indeed against her informed consent, has tried returning to her parents only to be sent away to an abusive husband, and has subsequently got into a fight with her husband after he harmed her and their child - a court should not convict of murder, but at most "provoked homicide" (if self defense is ruled out).
Extracting confessions without a lawyer present, getting signatures from a person who cannot read (what society fails to teach reading and writing?) - all of this is complete bollocks too, of course. But in the state of Iran, so many things are systematically borked that one loses count. :(
P.S.
Blood money might be a matter of negotiation. The family of her husband might even reconsider if offered a tangible large sum short of their demands instead of mere blood, which benefits nobody.
If you cannot provide a good source in your first post, screaming about others not believing you several posts later serves no purpose - you could have avoided that. If you want others to believe you, it's your job to convince them. Name-calling won't convince anyone.
Congratulations, I missed something - the article in "The New Arab" references the words of a medic and provides his name - dr Ghassan Abu Sittah. He is a reputable source.
This could have been your first post. Instead you posted a link to your own post on Lemmy, in which this was source no. 7 - which I, for some reason, missed.
You could have also posted a link to this article, but you have so far not done so.
Advise: learn to argue better. Drop the name-calling. Don't call a person a propagandist if they aren't. In the best case, you will stress yourself and the other person before getting to the core of information at hand. In a worse case, discussion will stop right there. Provide direct sources immediately. Prefer reputable sources. Don't provide a wall of links, but a relevant link.
You just spent 3 days to convince me that Israel could be guilty of organ harvesting. I am convinced, they could be guilty. But you could have used your time better, and could have convinced me with 30 minutes by providing direct links to relevant sources. For example, the below link might have convinced me of the plausibility of your allegations in even less time, maybe a mere 15 minutes - because it's from a reputable source (no background digging needed) and from a different period - not influenced by current events.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs
So, your claim is plausible. But don't claim to know the outcome of a particular incident if you don't know the outcome of a particular incident - people will think you're lying and ask you to prove stuff.
In reality, we don't currently know what happened to the remains of those 2 guys. What should matter more at this time - they were shot after surrendering.
You go do your research or choose to stuff your stinking propagonda you desprately try to spread despite the truth and hundrends of resources and testominies there up your brain and live with it.
Sure, get agitated and start name-calling me, that will help convince me and others.
Thanks for providing the link, however. I reviewed all the links you posted in that thread. Your claim does not have firm evidence.
Source 3 (trtworld): they suspect the possibility, but don't have firm evidence.
The Palestinian Prisoners’ Media Office also cited possible organ theft from some of the retrieved bodies. "Preliminary data indicates the possibility of human organs being stolen from some bodies, in a crime that transcends humanity and reveals a systematic criminal practice by the occupation against Palestinians both alive and dead," the office said in a statement.
Source 5 (Middle East Eye) includes more information about who made the claim. The damage reported to the bodies is not consistent with removing an organ for transplantation.
"When we examined the bodies, we found that large parts were missing. There were half bodies, bodies without heads, without limbs, without eyes, and without internal organs," he told Al Jazeera, adding that there was a high possibility that Israel stole these organs.
Source 8 (Al Jazeera) describes damage more vividly. It is not consistent with organ removal for transplantation.
Many appeared decomposed or burned. Some were missing limbs or teeth, while others were coated in sand and dust. Health officials have said Israeli restrictions on allowing DNA testing equipment into Gaza have often forced morgues to rely on physical features and clothing for identification.
Now I will say what I think of it. I think your claim is untrue. The condition of the bodies proves torture and executions, but does not prove organ theft.
I additionally note: stolen organs don't disappear, they are received by someone in a narrow timeframe (which can be matched up later), and there has to be a story told to the recipient. Transplantation has to be done by a team of people. If a crime is being committed, it's pretty hard to make sure every team member stays silent. Later on, the transplanted organ continues to bear the genes of the person whom it belonged to. If doubt arises about the origin of the organ, genetic testing can confirm or deny a specific person, or give an ethnic profile of the donor, which can be narrowed down to find the family of the donor and ask them about their fate.
Hundreds aren't needed, a reference to maybe 3 highest credibility reports that you have, would be good to look at.
Quick, bring out the bicycle meme.
The US has a president who's gone to great length in demonstrating that the US is unreliable and could be treacherous.
For example, why should Denmark or its allies (the entire EU and NATO) buy weapons from a country whose president has indicated that he dreams of annexing Greenland?
The situation currently is such: Ukraine needs weapons right now, and will happily use European money to buy US weapons. But purchases where multiple alternatives are viable, and there's no hurry? Countries have started preferring their own weapons, or those of countries that are in the same boat. Depending solely on the US is seen as a vulnerability now.
Here in Eastern Europe, if offered a choice between a hypothetic identical US missile and a Swedish missile, I would consider it likely that supplies of the US missile may be absent at a critical time, while supplies of a Swedish missile will surely increase at a critical time. They're under the same umbrella and will help patch it if someone tries breaking it.