Fine! Good! Why are we criticizing this, this is the right move. This article has “hitler did terrible things; he made tactical errors” energy.

Here! I’m here! Doing good things gets you praise, doing bad things gets you boos.

If a doctor operates on someone and saves their life: yay! Good job doctor! If the same doctor then prescribes opioids to drug dealers: boo, no! Bad doctor!

Maybe you missed this class in kindergarten, but the morality of an action is not determined by its actor, but is inherent to the action.

A protest that impacts no one negatively is not a protest, it’s a parade.

The court literally ruled that there MUST be a practical alternative to those that do not wish to use the bathroom designated for their biological sex.

This is not a solution to the problem. As I stated, and pretty much everyone else here, the problem is that people are barred from the bathroom OF THEIR SPECIFIC GENDER. How dense can you be? I’m blocking you, this is ridiculous and pointless.

Single-sex toilets and changing rooms in England, Wales and Scotland must exclude transgender men and women

That’s the problem. It’s legislation aimed at the erasure of trans men and women. It feeds into the deep transphobic fearmongering that the terfs do. It legitimizes the idea that trans men and women are predators waiting to pounce in the toilet of their proper gender. And that’s about as many words as I’m willing to waste on this. You seem to have been in this space long enough to have picked up on these ideas, and you spouting nonsense AKIN (emphasis added so you can’t ignore the word AKIN that I just wrote) to “but gay men can marry women, so we already have marriage equality” is just you being obtuse.

But the toilets are a part of it. Hence the thread. You want to do some gender segregation shit for locker rooms? Fine I guess. But the toilets are a part of this. Expecting people to ignore that is really fucking silly.

What you seem to call “information hygiene” most others call “bias in favor of Israel”. Do you earnestly use the term “sterile street” too?

This is satire right? This is the same sky news that, when the pissraeli hooligan thing happened in Amsterdam, posted a video of pissraeli hooligans chasing some locals with pipes, correctly identifying the assailants as pissraeli, and later changed the description to say that the assailants were the locals.

Just remember that “But it’s a democracy”, is not an argument for anything

It’s also good to remember that not only is this not an argument for anything, but also the precondition of being a democracy is simply not met for pissrael. You cannot do apartheid and legitimately call yourself a democracy. There’s a couple million people within the dominion that pissrael rules over who simply cannot vote for the bodies that govern them. That’s not a democracy.

Jewish state in the middle of a muslim area

The problem isn’t really the muslims here, nor the jewish supremacy. If you kick 700,000 people of any religion, creed, race, whatever off of the land they’ve lived on for centuries so you can start living there, you’re going to have a problem.

Jews can live anywhere

In the context where zionism was conceived (late 19th century Europe), this is false. Actual antisemitism was rampant in all of Europe. They were being lynched in the streets, and discriminated against on levels that are unimaginable today. And it was completely normal too! It is impossible to overstate what an awful place Europe was for the jews. And this is before the holocaust!

There were some brave jews who organized and armed themselves and fought back, with the motto “here, where I live, is my country”. This was the bund, and they were like the jewish version of the black panthers before the black panthers were ever a thing. Organized schools and mutual aid and all that, too. Truly heroic people.

The other solution is to run away, to colonize some other place (maybe Uganda, maybe Argentina, maybe Palestine) and become the master race there. This is zionism. You know which solution the antisemitic western governments preferred. And it makes sense, right? Imagine you hate jews, imagine you’re an actual antisemite, and a member of british parliament. And now the jews come to you to say, “hey we’ll just move to another country, get out of your hair”. That’s cause for celebration! Not only are you getting rid of the jews, but they’re volunteering to leave! And that’s how you get the Balfour declaration.

Anyway fuck pissrael.

Oh shit, did they make false claims in this article?

Or do you just object to their biased reporting? Because then we can exclude everything from AP news (“Israel ‘’‘’‘‘tests’’‘’‘’’ ceasefire”) to fox news.

I’m saying other hypothetical systems would work better

Do you have an actual system in mind and a reason to believe it is more capable of handling a flood of junk reports? Otherwise this claim is a bit of a nothingburger that you can say about literally anything.