No. Consult your pineal gland.

Gen Z my sides that’s pre-boomer stuff. You’re like 100-200 years behind the curve on absurdism and you’re not even doing it well.

Have you tried not being a cabbage?

The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.

• Julius Nyerere

Eris help us, the zoomers are here with lame humour.

Hence why post-scarcity is the natural death point of capitalism.

Your question is essentially the same as Freudians arguing among themselves about the existence of a death drive: How could it possibly benefit the individual? If it can’t in some way benefit the individual, how can it be a drive? How does it mesh with the pleasure principle? The answer is simple: It doesn’t benefit the individual. In certain circumstances it benefits the genome, that’s why us seed-pods can, in certain circumstances, enter states in which it is pleasurable.

And all-encompassing and all-powerful, indeed, religious, as capitalism may seem right now it, too, is a seed pod. It does not have to will its abolishment to bring about the material conditions abolishing it.

Of course there’s also nothing speaking against it not making things unduly nasty for us. But that’s mere politics, not fate.

And here we have a typical specimen exhibiting capitalist realism: Observe how the subject is analysing everything they come across on a “who works for who” basis, projecting human modes of production onto the universe. Applying it, even in vain, this reductive universality ensures that they will never think beyond it and, not thinking beyond it, not question either working for a capitalist or being a capitalist who is worked for, thereby in either case working for capitalism, a form of human cooperation in which happiness, well-being, yes even human connection (that necessitating eye-level communication) is traded for hastened advancement of the economy to achieve post-scarcity.

I wouldn’t mind smoking a joint now and then but under the current scheme, with either club membership or home-growing, I’d have to commit to buying a whole butt-load of weed.

Requiring residency to buy is perfectly sufficient to quell tourism, though I think there should be exceptions for people from countries with legal weed because they’re not going to come here to smoke. It doesn’t mean out-sourcing the distribution of small amounts to the black market.

A year? Feckless Americans holding back statements again, it seems. Europe is certainly in for the long haul. Also plenty of countries not ruling out boots on the ground. In fact the US not having a clear stance of “you use tactical nukes we’re going to put them onto Ukrainian soil” or similar is yet another instance of fecklessness.

You may think yourself smart and strategic but in the end you’re a salami, sitting there motionless, being sliced.

Attempted murder, which this was, regularly (as in in almost all cases) means you get a rebate on that life sentence in Germany. Depending on circumstances it’s going to be 3-15 years. In any case also a life-long sentence means parole after minimum 15, median 17, average, 18.9 years, only 13% >25 years.

People dying in prison is quite rare because, overall, unrepentant nasty pieces of work are rare… and Ali Bashar happens to be one of those cases: Murderer-rapist, court declared notable gravity of his guilt, meaning the minimum to parole is 20, also, even if he gets out on parole (most likely not after 20 years) courts reserved the right to put him in preventive detention, meaning he’d be out of the prison regime (bedtime and whatnot) but still in lockup. Essentially an asylum for the not criminally insane.

All three paragraphs are written by wikipedia authors summing up longer texts by various scholars. If you want to actually engage with the topic on a deeper level, read those scholars, not just the summary. It’s all linked (those numbers in brackets). Ignore the Christian if you please, noone will blame you.

So you picked out one non-Muslim (a scholar of comparative religion) among the many Muslims, with doctorates in Islamic Law from Arab universities and everything, to dismiss all of it.

I tried not to but I have to start to doubt your intellectual honesty. Not towards me, I don’t care, but towards yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#Alternative_views

“Clear and decisive scholarly consensus” my ass. There might be if you’re ignoring everyone who disagrees.

There’s no mention of Hijabs in the Quran and “dress modestly” is very much relative. You also may or may not see Turks drinking plum wine but they’re definitely drinking beer and most definitely Raki.

I’d be willing to introduce national backsides to Euro notes so they can put their King’s mug on it.

Because they went to Eton which teaches important skills such as talking utter bollocks with absolute confidence. People trust them.

Not to mention that the UK originally joined the EC in the early 70s precisely to fix its economical problems.

Joining the EU might indeed be a bit off because everybody is weary of a not actually fully committed UK but that doesn’t mean the UK can’t join the single market, or at least a customs union. Turkey currently is more closely integrated with the EU than the UK is.

The whole situation is BS in the first place, back in the days the concept of gender was introduced to allow some flexibility in the social aspects while keeping sex (as in phenotype) a binary which science already knew it wasn’t. Bimodal distribution, yes, binary, no. Things get complicated fast once you go past egg cells and sperm, that’s the only actual binary that exists.

English in particular uses transsexual because back in the days activists wanted to avoid associations with sexuality, to not get tangled up in people’s homophobic sentiments. Other language use precisely that term, transsexual. Hirschfeld coined “transvestite”, back then a catch-all term for behaviour not conforming to your sex assigned at birth (and you could get a transvestite pass in Imperial Germany to stop the police harassing you for “inciting public disorder”), Benjamin coined “transsexual”, in English, as a diagnosis separate to “just liking to dress up differently”, it got replaced later on don’t ask me for a source right now.

It’s not genocide for the same reason that straight-up euthanising, say, schizophrenics isn’t: Neither are a people, but a subset of every people.

I’d lump it in with eugenics but genocide is catchy so I’ll permit it despite better semantic judgement.

EDIT: What, y’all disagreeing with me about the use of “genocide” being politically opportune?