I’m just saying you’re making a big deal out of nothing. Have a good night now.

again, gender-neutral wording like they/them don’t say anything about gender or her own identity. ‘They’ does not refer to a third gender. I’m not demanding anything from her. You’re the one who brought up using the correct pronouns. So I expect you to be familiar with English grammar.

I think your language-policing is ridiculous. You can’t expect someone unfamiliar with a situation to be up-to-date with how to affirm someone’s gender correctly. Gender-neutral language functions as a safe fall-back in such situations. You can rightfully expect people to not misgender people. You cannot be rightfully offended at people using gender-neutral language. The only person I’m making demands of currently is you, because you’re making this discussion unnecessarily hostile.

Yea, they seem to have a pretty short fuse…

Also, how do you even know her preferred pronouns in English? Did you ask her?

yea, nah.

Edit: Using a word is not the same as refusing to use another word in its place.

I’m sorry but no. Using gender-neutral language does not describe gender; using ‘they’ isn’t to misgender, it just leaves the gender unspecified.

You can correctly use ‘they’ for anyone. If they’d said ‘he’, now that would’ve been different…

(Edit: typo)

yep.

The US did not really try to negotiate with the Taliban regime. The US just demanded the Taliban hand them over, then refused a quite reasonable condition to show some evidence that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack.

At a news conference in Islamabad, the Taliban ambassador said he was sorry that people had died in the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon last week, but appealed to the United States not to endanger innocent people in a military retaliation.

“Our position on this is that if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in light of the evidence.”

Conflating a government or regime with an international terrorist organisation is the lie the propaganda told you to accept invading and occupying an impoverished foreign country that had just gone through a famine.

The US invaded Iraq under GW Bush on a lie about WMD’s. Killed Saddam and countless Iraqis, including journalists, for nothing.

The US invaded Afghanistan rather than negotiate with its ruling power to hand over Bin Laden, then didn’t get their hands on him for another decade even though the US won the war and took over the country from day 1. 20+ years of bloody occupation later you lost the war and the Taliban is back in power. Another pointess war started with deception.

Don’t get me started on Vietnam.

You guys have some twisted idea of democracy where the ‘Democrats’ don’t even elect their own candidates.

Please stop exporting democracy. The world doesn’t want your perverse version.

Hitler killed himself btw.

Ikr!

free world

lmao

I take issue with inaccurate language. This is how trains crash. A conspiracy is where 2 or more people plan something in secret. A conspiracy theory is where an outsider speculates about the nature of such plans. Also, without wanting to speculate myself, logically it was either a lone actor or a group conspiring, since it clearly wasn’t publicised in advance. I personally doubt it was some grand conspiracy.

How do you spread a conspiracy? I think you mean speculation.

Read Craig Murray on this:

Craig Murray: Something Changed in the Assange Case

Mentioning “what is at stake here” was the first real acknowledgement of the major issues in this case from the judiciary in over a decade of proceedings. It did feel like something had changed.

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/05/22/craig-murray-something-has-changed-in-assange-case/

Also, the Hill headline is slightly wrong. He can appeal the extradition. Not he can petition to appeal. Full appeal hearing coming up, not sure if the date’s been decided on yet. He won the right to appeal on the grounds that he has a case that he will be discriminated for his nationality and denied first amendment protections as a non-US citizen. This comes after the US failed to provide satisfactory assurances that this won’t happen.

A young and talented photo-journalist, Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, both Reuters employees, were gunned down by a US Apache on 12 July 2007 in the Al-Amin neighbourhood of eastern Baghdad, along with a number of other people on the street. Saeed was wounded and tried to crawl away, only to be shot dead along with the passer-by who stopped his van to help him. Two children in the vehicle were severely wounded. WikiLeaks revealed what really happened that day when they published the Apache footage in 2010 under the name of Collateral Murder, along with the Rules of Engagement in use at the time. Julian is charged with publishing the Iraq RoE (count 14) but not the video. This means the video won’t be shown in court as evidence. It would presumably be too embarassing to the US government to show the footage in court.