Red Frostraven

...'konkrete' problemer som stort sett alltid viser seg å være disinformasjon eller vrangforestillinger om hva som faktisk har skjedd eller foregår, i absolutt beste fall misforståelser eller forvekslinger -- som når kapitalister ansetter DEI-lag for å oppnå større markedsandeler hos grupper som konsumerer for lite. Eller når disse gruppene oppløses fordi de ikke hadde effekten selskapet håpet på -- som demonstrerer hvor grunn 'ideologien' som ble klaget på faktisk var. --- Jeg har til gode å se ett eneste eksempel på at en woke ideologi har ødelagt verdien på et underholdningsprodukt. Det er stort sett alltid rasjonelle forklaringer, som jo det alltid er ved vrangforestillinger. Det betyr selvsagt ikke at ingen faktisk gjør noe slemt med folk som lider av vrangforestillinger, det finnes helt sikkert noe obskurt hvor noen har gjort noe galt.

Å fortelle noe som er sant er ikke skittkasting, med mindre det har gått lang tid og personen åpenbart har forsøkt å gjøre opp for seg og har endret seg til punktet hvor man kan tro at det ikke er fare for gjentagelse. Ville det vært skittkasting å nevne hva Hitler gjorde mot jødene om han overlevde krigen og deltok i et nyvalg i 1946? Nei? Det hun gjør er å etablere verifiserbare faktum og oppsummere situasjonen, for så å beskriver sin erfaring med opportunistisk gjengangerkriminelle og overgripere som Trump, som jo er relevant for å slå ham politisk. All den tid det faktisk er en del av pakken man får om man stemmer på overgriperen og serieforbryteren Trump.

Fikk du med deg delen hvor forestillingen deres om hva 'woke er', i negativ kontekst, er fundert på og formet av disinformasjon fra autoritære høyre om hva menneskene som kalles woke faktisk står for? Det var delen jeg likte best av alt vi har fått fra AI-en, personlig. Fordi det er en en ting som finnes utallige kilder på, utenfor, slik at vi faktisk kan stole på det.

Og der har du en liste som beskriver hva som regnes som elementer i det å være adjektivet woke. AI-en kan lage en ideologi av hva som helst. --- Bare for å ta ord nær Woke først: Her er "Clever ideology": Clever ideology refers to a set of beliefs or frameworks that are characterized by their complexity, novelty, and often a lack of empirical grounding. These ideologies tend to be embraced by individuals who prioritize intellectual sophistication and originality over straightforward or empirically supported ideas. The term is often used in a critical context to describe theories or perspectives that may appear intellectually appealing but are fundamentally flawed or based on unprovable assertions. Characteristics of Clever Ideology Complexity Over Simplicity: Clever ideologies typically involve convoluted arguments and intricate reasoning that can obscure their fundamental flaws. This complexity can make them attractive to those seeking to demonstrate their intelligence. Fashionability: These ideologies often gain traction within academic and intellectual circles because they align with contemporary trends or social movements, making adherence to them socially advantageous. Intellectual Posturing: Advocates of clever ideologies may engage in intellectual posturing, using complex language and concepts to showcase their intelligence rather than focusing on the validity of the ideas themselves. Resistance to Criticism: Proponents may dismiss critiques as simplistic or uninformed, reinforcing the ideology’s appeal among followers who value perceived depth over empirical accuracy. Psychological Traits of Adherents: Research indicates that those who champion clever ideologies often possess specific personality traits, such as low impulse control and high empathy, which can lead them to prioritize social acceptance over rigorous intellectual honesty. Distinction from Empirical Ideas: Unlike genuinely original ideas that are grounded in empirical evidence and logical reasoning, clever ideologies often lack this foundation, making them less reliable as frameworks for understanding complex issues. In summary, clever ideology represents a blend of intellectual complexity and social desirability that can lead individuals away from more straightforward, empirically supported truths in favor of fashionable but ultimately flawed beliefs. For sannhet som ideologi: Truth ideology refers to the belief systems and frameworks that shape how individuals or societies understand, interpret, and prioritize truth. It encompasses various philosophical, cultural, and social dimensions that influence what is considered true or false within a given context. This concept can be explored through several key aspects: Philosophical Foundations: Different philosophical theories of truth—such as correspondence theory, coherence theory, pragmatist theory, and deflationary theory—provide foundational ideas about what constitutes truth. For example, the correspondence theory posits that truth is determined by how accurately beliefs correspond to reality. Cultural Context: Truth ideologies are often influenced by cultural narratives and historical contexts. Different cultures may have varying standards for what is accepted as true based on their traditions, values, and collective experiences. This can lead to divergent views on issues such as morality, science, and politics. Social Constructs: The way truth is perceived can also be shaped by social constructs such as power dynamics, media influence, and institutional authority. For instance, in some societies, certain truths may be upheld by dominant groups while marginalized perspectives are dismissed or ignored. Psychological Factors: Cognitive biases and psychological mechanisms play a significant role in how individuals perceive truth. Confirmation bias leads people to favor information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs while disregarding contradictory evidence. Political Implications: Truth ideologies can have profound political implications. In contemporary discourse, terms like “alternative facts” highlight the contentious nature of truth in political contexts where competing narratives vie for acceptance among the public. Impact on Discourse: The ideology surrounding truth affects public discourse and debate. When different groups adhere to conflicting truth ideologies, it can result in polarization and challenges in reaching consensus on important societal issues. In summary, truth ideology encompasses a complex interplay of philosophical theories, cultural influences, social constructs, psychological factors, political implications, and its impact on discourse. Understanding these elements helps clarify how societies navigate the concept of truth in various contexts. Her er det samme for anti-rasistisk ideologi: What is Anti-Racist Ideology? Definition of Anti-Racist Ideology Anti-racist ideology is a framework that actively identifies, challenges, and seeks to dismantle racism in all its forms. It emphasizes the importance of recognizing and addressing both individual and systemic racism, advocating for policies and practices that promote racial equity and justice. This ideology asserts that racism is not merely an individual problem but a societal issue deeply embedded in institutions and cultural norms. Core Principles of Anti-Racist Ideology Recognition of Systemic Racism: Anti-racist ideology acknowledges that racism operates at multiple levels—individual, interpersonal, institutional, and structural. It highlights how these layers interact to perpetuate inequities. Active Opposition to Racism: Being anti-racist requires individuals to take proactive steps against racist policies, behaviors, and attitudes. This includes challenging discriminatory practices within institutions such as education, healthcare, and law enforcement. Commitment to Racial Equity: The ultimate goal of anti-racist ideology is to create a society where all individuals have equal opportunities regardless of their race or ethnicity. This involves advocating for changes in laws, policies, and social norms that disadvantage people of color. Self-Reflection and Education: Individuals are encouraged to engage in ongoing self-reflection about their own biases and privileges while educating themselves about the historical context of racism and its contemporary implications. Collective Responsibility: Anti-racist ideology posits that combating racism is a collective responsibility shared by everyone in society—not just those who are directly affected by it. It calls for solidarity among different racial groups in the fight against oppression. Intersectionality: Recognizing that race intersects with other identities (such as gender, class, sexuality), anti-racist ideology promotes an understanding of how various forms of discrimination overlap and compound each other. Empowerment of Marginalized Voices: Central to anti-racist ideology is the amplification of voices from marginalized communities. This involves listening to their experiences and perspectives in shaping policies aimed at achieving racial justice. Conclusion In summary, anti-racist ideology is a comprehensive approach aimed at identifying and dismantling racism through active engagement at personal, institutional, and societal levels. It advocates for systemic change while promoting equality for all individuals regardless of their racial background. Her er AI-en sin beskrivelse av ateistisk ideologi: Atheistic Ideology Definition of Atheism Atheistic ideology fundamentally revolves around the absence of belief in gods or deities. It is characterized by a rejection of theistic claims, which assert the existence of one or more gods. This lack of belief does not necessarily imply an active denial that gods do not exist; rather, it signifies a position where no sufficient evidence has been presented to justify belief in any deity. Core Principles Skepticism Towards Religious Claims: Atheists typically adopt a skeptical approach towards religious assertions, demanding empirical evidence and rational justification for beliefs about deities. This skepticism extends to all supernatural claims, leading many atheists to embrace naturalism—the view that everything arises from natural properties and causes. Emphasis on Rational Inquiry: Atheistic ideology promotes critical thinking and scientific reasoning as tools for understanding the universe. Many atheists argue that knowledge should be based on observable phenomena and logical deduction rather than faith or tradition. Ethical Frameworks Independent of Religion: Atheists often advocate for secular ethics, suggesting that moral principles can be derived from human experience and reason rather than divine command. This perspective posits that ethical behavior is possible without reliance on religious doctrines. Humanism and Secularism: Many atheists identify with humanist principles, emphasizing human welfare, dignity, and the importance of individual rights. Secularism is also a significant aspect of atheistic ideology, advocating for the separation of religion from governmental affairs and public policy. Diverse Perspectives within Atheism: While all atheists share a lack of belief in gods, they may hold varying views on philosophical questions such as morality, purpose, and existence itself. This diversity reflects a broad spectrum of thought ranging from existentialist viewpoints to materialist philosophies. Critique of Religion’s Role in Society: Atheistic ideology often includes criticism of organized religion’s influence on culture and politics. Prominent atheists argue that religious beliefs can lead to dogmatism, discrimination, and conflict, advocating instead for a society based on reason and mutual respect. Personal Autonomy in Belief Systems: Atheism encourages individuals to explore their beliefs independently rather than conforming to societal or familial expectations regarding religion. This autonomy fosters personal growth and self-discovery. Community Building Among Nonbelievers: Despite its non-theistic foundation, many atheists seek community with like-minded individuals through organizations that promote secular values and provide support for those who may feel isolated due to their lack of belief. In summary, atheistic ideology encompasses a range of beliefs centered around skepticism towards deities, reliance on rational inquiry for understanding reality, ethical frameworks independent from religious influence, diverse philosophical perspectives among nonbelievers, critique of religion’s societal role, personal autonomy in belief systems, and community building among atheists. --- Men bra forsøk, det skal du ha.

Det er mer som å sammenligne med noen som ikke spiser verken dyr eller planter, da fostre i ukene abort faktisk skjer er mer som planter enn dyr, som egg.

Og hva beskrev AI-en nettopp om disinformasjon sin rolle i DERES forståelse av Woke som ideologi..? Jeg har gjentatt det lenge. Og det er demonstrerbart sant. Forestillingene deres er en vrangforestilling indusert av disinformasjon.

Hvem har sagt hva du tror noen i akademiske miljøer for samfunnsvitenskap sier om årsakene til denne formen kriminalitet da..?

Det ligner jo like mye på hva vi sier som om jeg skulle påstå at dere tror at semittiske folkeslag er genetisk disponert til å begå kriminalitet, it fra hva dere skriver.

Det er et positivt ladet adjektiv for de fleste mennesker i verden, som beskrevet gjentatte ganger Vet du hva et adjektiv er..?

De følger forklaringsmodellene til punkt og prikke, og oppfører seg eksakt som forventet. Les kilden før du uttaler deg; Dem beskriver eksakt hva som foregår, når man eliminerer mulighetene som ikke er gjeldende. Straff vil ikke hjelpe.

Det er jo dere som definerer woke som ideologi... Men er du enig med kilden din i at din forestilling er skapt av disinformasjon..?

Med sunn fornuft, så mener du idiotiske forestillinger fra dine personlige erfaringer og livets harde skole..? Alle forklaringsmodellene i kilden jeg presenterte er gjeldende muligheter. Mangel på straff er dog en ekstremt lite sannsynlig årsak til kriminaliteten, men står som mulighet i kilden. Kultur står også som mulighet, men ikke i forstanden asylkritikere liker å innbille seg.

Rasistisk og woke er ikke forenelig. Se hvordan AI-en beskriver måten du bruker woke som et resultat av ondsinnet misbruk og disinformasjon, av autoritære aktører i innlegget mitt over. 'Conclusion: A Result of Disinformation? In summary, while the negative version of “woke” may not solely stem from disinformation, it is significantly influenced by it. The transformation from a term representing awareness and activism into one associated with ridicule or disdain is largely facilitated by disinformation campaigns that seek to undermine progressive movements by distorting their messages.' --- 'Venstreradikal' må du nesten definere, for Høyre er venstreradikal for republikansk disinformasjon i tema som LGBT, abort, og anti-rasisme. Du kan gjerne også lese definisjonen av radikal, og fortelle hvilke store endringer personen ønsker fra status quo. --- Drittsekk er subjektivt. For nazistene var antifascister og jøder drittsekker. For jøder og alle andre var nazistene drittsekker. Du må beskrive hva de har gjort som er galt, så blir stempelet opp til meg; Jeg er forsiktig med ord, og bruker ikke sterke ord uten at de er nødvendig. --- Når dette er avklart kan jeg svare. Et foreløpig svar; Jeg ville vært mer redd for å bli trampet ned av ville hester enn enhjørninger.

Og du forstår ikke svaret. Woke er et adjektiv, ikke en ideologi. Fra din AI; Is “woke” an adjective? Yes, woke is an adjective. It is primarily used in informal contexts to describe a state of being aware of and actively attentive to important societal issues, particularly those related to racial and social justice. The term has evolved from its original usage in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) to encompass a broader awareness of various social inequalities, including gender discrimination and LGBTQ+ rights. Men det finnes viktigere ting enn det, som neste svar; --- Altså, ikke en ideologi, selv om folk forsøker å være smart, opplyst, kunnskapsrik og moralsk. Som adjektiv som smart og engasjert, så brukes Woke nå om en bredere gruppe enn anti-rasister som har satt seg inn i fakta og politikk. Som adjektivet 'samfunnsengasjert', så er det politisk, fordi det referer til det å være kjent med fakta om samfunnets problemer. AI-en forteller samme historie som jeg gjør, bare uten å nevne at det er autoritære høyreradikale kilder som står bak, selv om det egentlig er gitt av konteksten, grunnet konservative høyre i USA sin nåværende posisjon, som er på autoritære høyre. Fra din AI; Is the Republican Party Authoritarian? (...) In summary, while not all members may subscribe fully to these authoritarian tendencies, the prevailing trends within the party indicate a significant departure from democratic norms towards an autocratic model centered around strongman leadership. --- Is the negative version of woke a result of disinformation? (...) 3. Disinformation as a Tool for Redefinition Disinformation plays a crucial role in shaping public perception around the term “woke.” Conservative media outlets have frequently framed “wokeness” as synonymous with radicalism or authoritarianism, suggesting that it threatens traditional values and societal norms. This framing is often devoid of nuance and relies on sensationalism, which can distort public understanding. For instance, figures like Ron DeSantis have positioned themselves against what they label as “the woke mob,” creating an adversarial narrative that simplifies complex social issues into binary conflicts between “good” (traditional values) and “bad” (wokeness). Such rhetoric not only misrepresents the original intent behind being woke but also fosters division by painting advocates for social justice as extremists. 4. Conclusion: A Result of Disinformation? In summary, while the negative version of “woke” may not solely stem from disinformation, it is significantly influenced by it. The transformation from a term representing awareness and activism into one associated with ridicule or disdain is largely facilitated by disinformation campaigns that seek to undermine progressive movements by distorting their messages. --- Is Woke Positive? The term “woke” has evolved significantly over the years, and its connotations can vary widely depending on the context and the audience. To determine whether “woke” is viewed positively, we can analyze several factors, including public opinion, historical context, and its implications in contemporary discourse. 1. Historical Context of Wokeness Originally, “woke” emerged from African American Vernacular English as a call to awareness regarding social injustices, particularly those related to race. It encouraged individuals to be conscious of systemic inequalities and to advocate for social change. In this sense, being “woke” was inherently positive, promoting empathy and activism against oppression. 2. Current Public Perception Recent surveys indicate that a majority of Americans view the term “woke” positively. According to a USA TODAY/Ipsos poll, 56% of respondents associate being woke with being informed about social injustices rather than being overly politically correct. This perspective is particularly prevalent among Democrats (three-fourths) and even a significant portion of Republicans (over one-third). This suggests that many people see wokeness as a valuable awareness of societal issues rather than a negative label. 3. Political Polarization Despite its positive roots and current favorable perception among many Americans, “woke” has become a contentious term in political discourse. Conservatives often use it pejoratively to criticize what they perceive as excessive political correctness or an overreach in discussions about race and gender. For instance, Republican leaders have framed their opposition to wokeness as part of broader culture wars, suggesting that it threatens traditional values. This polarization complicates the understanding of whether “woke” is positive or negative. While many individuals still embrace the original meaning—awareness and advocacy for social justice—others reject it due to its association with perceived extremism or censorship. 4. The Role of Language in Social Justice Language plays a crucial role in shaping perceptions around wokeness. Terms like “political correctness” have been weaponized by some groups to dismiss legitimate concerns about discrimination or insensitivity. As such, when people dismiss something as “woke,” they may be rejecting not just the specific practice but also the underlying issues it seeks to address. Conclusion: A Nuanced Perspective In conclusion, while there are strong arguments supporting the idea that being woke is fundamentally positive—promoting awareness and action against injustice—the term’s usage has become polarized in contemporary society. Thus, whether “woke” is seen as positive largely depends on individual perspectives shaped by political beliefs and cultural contexts ... Og; Who Shaped the Alternative Negative Meaning of the Word Woke? The alternative negative meaning of the word “woke” has been shaped primarily by political conservatives and right-wing commentators. Over time, these groups have appropriated the term to criticize and ridicule progressive movements associated with social justice, particularly those related to race, gender, and identity politics. Cultural Appropriation: Initially rooted in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and used within Black communities to signify awareness of social injustices, “woke” began to lose its original context as it was adopted by broader audiences. This shift became pronounced when it was co-opted by white individuals and mainstream culture, leading to a dilution of its significance. Weaponization by Conservatives: The term gained traction among right-wing figures who began using it as a pejorative label for progressive ideologies. For instance, politicians like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have publicly criticized “woke ideology,” framing it as a threat to traditional values and societal norms. This political rhetoric has contributed significantly to the negative connotation associated with being “woke.” Media Influence: Conservative media outlets have played a crucial role in shaping public perception of “woke.” By framing discussions around social justice issues in a derogatory manner, they have reinforced the idea that being woke is synonymous with being overly politically correct or self-righteous. Public Discourse: As debates surrounding social justice intensified, terms like “woke” became shorthand for dismissing complex discussions about race and inequality. This simplification has allowed critics to undermine legitimate concerns about discrimination by labeling them as merely “woke” or excessively progressive. Social Media Dynamics: Platforms like Twitter have amplified this transformation through viral memes and hashtags that mock or deride woke culture. The rapid spread of these narratives has solidified the negative implications of the term in popular discourse. . --- Så. Ja. AI-en sier det samme som meg, bare uten kilder til eksakt hvilke høyreradikale/rasistiske drittsekker det er som står bak. Jeg regner med at dere må kaller AI-en venstreekstrem.

Dere er ironiske og latterliggjør samfunnsvitenskapen, sosiologi, psykologi, kriminologi og bevisbasert forskning -- men jeg har et seriøst spørsmål; Vet noen av dere hva disse feltene sier og anbefaler, og hvorvidt de har rett eller galt..? https://ndla.no/subject:1:fb6ad516-0108-4059-acc3-3c5f13f49368/topic:1:e47486fd-1c96-4e58-a0a2-d520d3950013/topic:1:980f3495-9ccc-4d95-bed1-8b82962484e2/resource:c482e826-bf38-4c72-bb5c-994233a58cb7

La oss sammenligne. Var skytteren var en del av en ekstrem organisasjon eller terrororganisasjon, som Proud Boys, og Oath Keepers eller 3 percenters... https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-jan-6-proud-boys-prison-sentence-58173200af1664716cbaec8ed2c2a145 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/25/oath-keepers-far-right-stewart-rhodes-sentence https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/judge-locks-three-percenter-militia-members-jan-6-obstruction-case-rcna148456 ...som hadde møter eller kommuniserte med presidenten sine medsammensvorne... https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/1111132464/jan-6-hearing-recap-oath-keepers-proud-boys https://www.businessinsider.com/oath-keepers-sorelle-giuliani-2020-election-text-messages-2022-9 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-associates-ties-to-extremists-probed-by-jan-6-panel Og med hverandre... https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/24/politics/oath-keepers-proud-boys-video-meeting-released/index.html “While in the parking garage, Tarrio told another individual that he had cleared all of the messages on his phone before he was arrested,” prosecutors wrote, in a filing urging a federal magistrate judge to detain Tarrio pending trial. “Tarrio further stated that no one would be able to get into his phone because there were ‘two steps’ to get into it.” Prosecutors say that after Tarrio left Washington, D.C., that night — part of a court order that he stay away from the city while facing charges related to his conduct during a December 2020 rally — he traveled to Baltimore. “That evening, Tarrio used the phones of associates to make a number of phone calls, and to log back into his encrypted messaging accounts,” prosecutors say. “After having regained access to his accounts, Tarrio assured his men that his phone had not been compromised.” ...og var en del av en organisert mobb fulgt av tusenvis av mennesker bedt om å marsjere til det aktuelle stedet..? --- For referanse, så er Oath Keepers leder dømt for kuppforsøk, og de hadde håndvåpen, de møtte bare aldri motstand de kunne bruke dem mot og fant aldri kammeret med kongressmedlemmene før de stakk av med halen mellom beina... "Prosecutors successfully made the case that Rhodes and his group prepared an armed rebellion, including stashing arms at a Virginia hotel, meant for quick transfer to Washington DC. Other members of the Oath Keepers, some convicted of seditious conspiracy, are due to be sentenced this week and next. Members of another far-right group, the Proud Boys, will face sentencing on similar convictions later this year." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/25/oath-keepers-far-right-stewart-rhodes-sentence --- De hadde med tyngre våpen, men turte ikke ta dem med på tidspunktet kuppforsøket startet, sannsynligvis fordi de fryktet mer væpnet motstand enn tidligere forestilt på grunn av arrestasjonen av Proud Boys sin leder dagen før angrepet... --- I møter etter de feilet, så har lederen for Oath Keepers uttrykt at han angret på at de ikke tok med langvåpenene de hadde tatt med til hotellet: "During opening arguments Monday, the Justice Department played a recording of Stewart Rhodes saying his group "should have brought rifles" to the Capitol." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/oath-keepers-leader-regretted-not-guns-jan-6-prosecutors-say-seditious-rcna50244 --- Står du fremdeles for at det er mulig å sammenligne?

Han forsøker å begå kupp... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot --- Forsøker å få generalene til å lystre ham som Hitler sine generaler, spesifikt som de tyske generalene under andre verdenskrig... https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/15/inside-the-war-between-trump-and-his-generals "It turned out that the generals had rules, standards, and expertise, not blind loyalty. The President’s loud complaint to John Kelly one day was typical: “You fucking generals, why can’t you be like the German generals?” “Which generals?” Kelly asked. “The German generals in World War II,” Trump responded. “You do know that they tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off?” Kelly said. But, of course, Trump did not know that. “No, no, no, they were totally loyal to him,” the President replied. In his version of history, the generals of the Third Reich had been completely subservient to Hitler; this was the model he wanted for his military. Kelly told Trump that there were no such American generals, but the President was determined to test the proposition. --- forsøker å få sivile skutt og elsker ideen om vold utført mot motstandere... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/25/donald-trump-general-mark-milley-crack-skulls Trump also reportedly told law enforcement and military leaders he wanted the military to “beat the fuck out” of protesters and said: “Just shoot them.” Bender reports that in the face of opposition from Milley and the then attorney general, William Barr, Trump said: “Well, shoot them in the leg – or maybe the foot. But be hard on them!” Milley is also reported to have told Stephen Miller, a senior Trump adviser, to “shut the fuck up”, after Miller said “cities are burning” amid protests prompted by the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis last May. Throughout a tense summer, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, a historic piece of legislation regarding domestic unrest, but ultimately did not do so. Bender reports that at one stage Milley pointed at a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president who led the Union to victory in the civil war, and told Trump: “That guy had an insurrection. What we have, Mr President, is a protest.” --- ...forsøker å starte krig, men mangler rett og slett evnene til å finne på gode nok grunner til å få til bombingen av Iran han hadde håpet på siden 2012, og må nøye seg med svake forsøk på å få konflikt med Iran, som blir reparert av diplomatiet fordi begge sider vet at Trump er en fjott... https://jacobin.com/2023/06/donald-trump-indictment-intelligence-documents-war-iran https://www.reuters.com/article/world/middle-east/trump-asked-for-options-for-attacking-iran-last-week-but-held-off-source-idUSKBN27X025/ https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/youre-gonna-have-a-fucking-war-mark-milleys-fight-to-stop-trump-from-striking-iran --- Forsøker å få militærparader i sitt navn... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-marching-orders-to-the-pentagon-plan-a-grand-military-parade/2018/02/06/9e19ca88-0b55-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html --- Forskjellen mellom dem er at Trump er kunnskapsløs, inkompetent, uten visjoner (1) og fremfor alt, ekstremt dum (2) og lat (3)-- kun hjulpet av frekkhetens nådegave og personlighetsforstyrrelse (4), og psykopatiske / torpedo-aktige advokater (5) (1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States (2) https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/04/trumps-insults-idiot-woodward-806455 (3)https://www.axios.com/2018/01/07/scoop-trumps-secret-shrinking-schedule-1515364904 (4) https://www.change.org/p/trump-is-mentally-ill-and-must-be-removed (5) https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fall-of-donald-trumps-fixers-11578669496

I mean, if they only voted for Trump once, its forgivable, sure -- if they have a good reason to not be interested in important facts about society and politics. Even if they were trying to be informed, a blunder can be forgiven, for as long as they've learned. Knowing you've made a mistake and not repeating that mistake is an essential foundation for being a moral person. --- Losing faith in serious journalism and academia is also not easily forgivable, as its an irrational prejudice, comparable to racism: Falling for anti-academic anti-journalistic propaganda is exactly like believing a group of people have lower IQ because of their skin color or that jews, as a group, are greedy and prone to scheming, or that your muslim neighbours wants sharia law instituted. The belief that objective journalistic and scientistic institutions are unfair, their standards not high enough, or biased, is easily disproved for the most part: https://batten.virginia.edu/about/news/not-fake-news-major-study-finds-no-liberal-bias-media-there-are-other-problems# Its also obviously an irrational fear: You dont presume your dentist will do a worse job if hes a republican, and you're a democrat. The trust issues are founded in extremely immoral, unfounded prejudice, as evident by the lack of trust in the most serious journalistic institutions: Two wrongs doesn't make one right, thus having prejudice against journalism and/or academia makes the person even less moral, than, for instance, an uninformed person without prejudices against those institutions would be, when voting Trump, for the first time due to a lack of insight. --- Repentance starts with admitting ones mistakes, forgiveness starts with correcting them. Trump voters have to do both to be back to 0. Anti-journalism anti-academia Trump-voters need to crawl and repent even harder to be back to 0. I'm not seeing the tens of millions of people repenting and apologizing to journalism, science and academia -- while trying to make up for the damage their unfounded prejudices, that I need to see to stop judging the republican party Trump voters. --- You could argue they're victims of disinformation. That puts part of the blame on someone else, but infantalizes the personal responsibilitiy and moral integrity of those people.

Men hva vet vel en japansk historiker om japansk historie..? Man må jo heller høre pådrn amerikanske rasisten som er bak forestillingen om at Woke eksisterer ikke utenfor hodene deres i virkeligheten, i den formen dere tror -- det er regelrett en en vrangforestilling, i form av massepsykose. Vrangforestillinger er oppfatninger som ikke samsvarer med virkeligheten. Forestillingene en person som sliter med vrangforestillinger har, er urealistiske, åpenbart urimelige og deles ikke av andre. For at en feilaktig oppfatning skal bedømmes som en vrangforestilling må den representere en fast overbevisning som vanskelig lar seg korrigere. Vrangforestillinger kan variere fra å være vage og lite utkrystalliserte, til alvorlige former hvor forestillingene er stabile og systematiserte og klart påvirker tenkning og sosiale relasjoner. Vrangforestillinger kan forekomme ved en rekke psykiske lidelser (schizofreni, alvorlige depresjoner og bipolare lidelser). --- Det eneste som skiller seg fra vrangforestillinger, er at den deles av flere mottagelige personer. Som også er vanlig i kulter og religioner. Kultlederene er jo åpenbart eksisterende, all den tid man bruker ord og uttrykk på samme måte som kultlederene, i stedet for på samme måte som er normalt utenfor kulten. Egen lingo og en delt alternativ, fiktiv, verdensforståelse er et kjennetegn på kulter.

Det er England og Wales. Det er ikke lov med abort med mindre det er strengt nødvendig, som nevnt tidligere, og det å avlive fosteret er ikke dårligere begrunnet. Hvor mange av de 51 handler om mental helse..? Det er heller ikke normal praksis å avlive fosteret over uke 25, som går klart Som beskrevet er det av og til et nødvendig tiltak for å sikre helsepersonellet mot søksmål om barnet dør under eller like etter fødselen i kompliserte tilfeller, på grunn av konservativ lovgivning. ... Minner også på at fosteret ikke har mer følelser eller tanker en gulrøtter og kålrot før absolutt tidligst uke 32. Det er ingen som lider mer enn om foreldrene brukte kondom.

I tilfeller hvor leger vurderer det nødvendig fordi både fødsel og kirurgi er umulig? Rundt 51 tilfeller mellom 2012 og 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10827943/

Og igjen siterer du statistikk for England og Wales, hvor der er strenge krav til disse tiltakene, som beskrevet, hvor det er mors liv og helse eller problemer med fosteret sin levedyktighet som er årsaken til tiltakene.

I uke 21-23, sjeldent 26, i hovedsak for fostre som ikke er levedyktige. Finn kilder som beskriver at dette skjer i tredje trimester. Jeg har til gode å se noen beskrive prosedyren feticide utenfor rammene 23 uker og andre trimester for friske.

Diablo 2 hadde dog fremdeles bedre spillmekanikk, historie, kvalitet og innhold for sin tid og for sitt budsjett. Oppskaler ideene og budsjettet til Diablo 3 eller Diablo 4, ta med lærdom fra manglene ved mekanikkene sin for raske og høye skalering som gjorde PvP sin skalering for skade nødvendig, og det ville vært det beste spillet i sin sjanger i dag. Det definerte allerede Roguelike-sjangeren på den siden av Rogue. Diablo 3 og 4 burde bare vært (World of) Warcraft, som det vitterlig er under panseret, mekanisk. De som liker D3 ville vært fornøyd, da de ikke forventet Diablo uansett. Men vi som liker Diablo-serien før D3 ville hatt en spillserie fremdeles.

Til deg og de som stemte deg opp, så sier skaperen av Godwins Law at sammenligningen er helt grei. ‘Trump Knows What He’s Doing’: The Creator of Godwin’s Law Says the Hitler Comparison Is Apt “Trump’s opening himself up to the Hitler comparison,” Godwin said in an interview. And in his view, Trump is actively seeking to evoke the parallel. Trump made almost identical comments in an interview with the far-right website The National Pulse in November, around the same time Trump also called his political opponents “vermin” — all rhetoric that Hitler used to disparage Jews. “You could say the ‘vermin’ remark or the ‘poisoning the blood’ remark, maybe one of them would be a coincidence,” Godwin said. “But both of them pretty much make it clear that there’s something thematic going on, and I can’t believe it’s accidental.” --- ... Samfunnsvitenskapen er også enig, han er mer autoritær enn partiet sitt, som allerede er svært autoritært, til punktet hvor man kan forvente udemokratiske taktikker. Merk at Trump er langt mer autoritær enn partiet, og dette er partiet hans, ikke Trump selv. "The Republican Party has lurched towards populism and illiberalism Its rhetoric now resembles that of Europe’s most extreme parties" https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/31/the-republican-party-has-lurched-towards-populism-and-illiberalism Dette er ikke mEnInGeR, dette er kopiloten på flyet ditt og flygelederene på radioen som sier at kapteinen tar flyet til feil flyplass, i fiendtlig territorie. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/31/the-republican-party-has-lurched-towards-populism-and-illiberalism