zazen

From “Mowing the lawn” in West Bank, to settlements over the bones of Palestinians in Gaza, to declaring Lebanon non sovereign and in need of a coup or else… Israel has no shame.

I read and watched a lot of Osho before and became very anti-religion myself. But then I started to look into things deeper and actually through learning about non-duality via Osho, Alan Watts etc it helped me realise the validity in religion. The issue I think everyone has when it comes to religion is in the literalism and absolutist attitude when approaching it. But that literalist and absolutist attitude can be applied to secular ideologies too. A cartoon villain version of Islam has been propped up via the petro dollar and arming of jihadis which means unfortunately a particular strand of Islam (Wahhabism) has been exported across the region. When we think of Islam thats the face of Islam we picture now, as if its a monolith. The prophets were definitely onto something, they had a glimpse of the eternal. Religion was a attempt to organise around that glimpse, in a lot of cases completely missing it and suffocating it with dogma, and weaponising the nuggets of wisdom that resonated with people but which were then co-opted for other means. But to think we can entirely dismiss the prophets of the eternal and elevate the prophets of empiricism is faulty. As you say, theres nothing that can prove the claims made in those books - but how can you prove love, dignity, the feeling of honour? Thats what science and empiricism misses because it looks at the surface of life, the material, and misses the depth. The deepest truths of life can't be reduced to numbers in a spreadsheet to be proven. As for other practices within religion, those aren't so much about spirituality and more so about the functioning of society that often get conflated with the spiritual. No ones supposed to be the best, but people try their best.

This is the perfect video for you, namely because I've seen your other posts where you seem to have a negative bias towards religion, especially of Islam - yet, this video seems to answer your question pretty well. Paraphrasing from the video: You can repel greater evil with lesser evils. The goodness is in discerning and making the right choice. It doesn’t have to result in a utopian outcome of an absolute good, but these ideals of absolute good paralyze us in our actions. The practical application of morality is towards better outcomes, not perfect outcomes. Address reality realistically, not idealistically. Move towards the should be, through means of the can be.

Plot twist: Kamala wins, and the moment she steps into office, the house of cards starts to fall. The inflated economic bubble bursts on her watch, the Ukraine war winds down without the West getting its “victory,” and Israels itching for a war with Iran that would light the whole region on fire. Not to mention ethnic cleansing of their closest ally. Who has to take the blame for this, or mismanaging it? This enrages the far right further. They fester in their resentment, feeding on the narrative that they were robbed, that this chaos is divine retribution. They come back even harder in the next cycle - angrier, more extreme, more organized. Maybe Kamala is the catalyst for an even darker wave of reactionary fury.

I”m still perplexed after a year of this, of seeing the double standards of Western media clearly on display and the recent example of Germany’s foreign minister justifying the targeting of civilian centres in order to get Hamas - after seeing a young man burn alive with IV drip cords still attached. Mind boggling. I asked Chat GPT what attitude most represents the West: “The attitude that most represents the West, in broad terms, is one of individualism intertwined with entitlement. This manifests as a belief in the primacy of personal freedom, autonomy, and self-expression, often elevated above collective responsibility or moral constraints. It is an attitude rooted in the Enlightenment ideals of liberty and self-determination but has, in many ways, been twisted into a form of exceptionalism—both for individuals and for Western nations as a whole. This entitlement can be seen in the West’s approach to both domestic and global issues: a sense that its way of life, its values, and its systems are superior, and therefore, must be upheld at all costs. Whether it’s consumer culture that demands unlimited choice and comfort, or the geopolitical stance that assumes the West has a unique mandate to impose its will—economically, culturally, and militarily—on the rest of the world, the same core attitude remains. This outlook often allows for justifying contradictions: speaking of freedom while supporting oppressive regimes abroad, or upholding democracy while suppressing dissent at home. There’s a tendency to turn a blind eye to the moral costs of maintaining this way of life, whether it’s exploitation, environmental degradation, or war, as long as it preserves a particular sense of security and superiority. In this sense, the West’s prevailing attitude is one of self-serving idealism—clinging to the image of moral righteousness and progress while frequently acting in ways that serve only its own interests, often at the expense of others.”

Trying to get over the election line.

Conquest was normal but not all conquests were the same. Conquest has been the norm up until sovereign states and international law came into place. Before the pre-modern world - tribes, kingdoms and empires expanded as borders were fluid and determined by the strength to take and hold territory (which in todays world and by todays standards is completely wrong - no one should take what isn't theres). The difference is in how that power and strength was used - how expansion was conducted, the conquered were treated and the new territory was administered. Of course the very nature of conquest means violent clashes are inevitable. With Spain, theres no dominant narrative of brutal conquest as compared to other empires. There was elements of pragmatism and diplomacy. Beyond the the initial conquest and violent battles further expansion took place by making agreements with local rulers and even allowing local elites and nobility to keep their lands and status in exchange for loyalty and protection. Contrast this to Western colonialism which had genocide, plunder, exploitation and practiced a racially based form of the most degrading slavery. Viking raids were known for plundering and leaving, the Franks force converted the Saxons or they faced execution, the Byzantines expelled Orthodox Christians and Jews - I haven't even got into detailing colonial times but I won't go there. Meanwhile, Islamic expansion allowed for diversity of faiths, they didn't raid places into destruction, and they allowed a degree of autonomy to local cultures without expelling or erasing them from existence. Expanding to Sub-Saharan Africa and the Sahel which were huge regions was done largely through merchants trading and sufis spreading Islam. The point is they operated differently and not everyone acts the same way when in the same position.

Tech is the only sector that can be double downed on to come out of the economic bind the global economy is in. Three main ways economic growth happens is: - Pumping out babies ie Demographics (bigger population means larger production/consumer pools) this is as most know in rapid decline. - Pumping cash into the system ie Debt (which is becoming too unsustainable) excessively inflationary and volatile amongst other things. - Pumping up productivity ie having a larger output for a smaller input. The first two are no longer viable options. Technology and cheap energy are the modalities we have access to that can increase productivity. The economic can just keeps getting kicked down the road until some breakthrough happens in tech and energy. They can't let the world financial system go bust so they'll keep printing and injecting to keep it afloat. It's a bumpy ride.

Yeah theres definitely differences within Israeli society. Like you said, their seems to be agreement on who the enemies are. I think this is the problem, Israel dooms itself by who it defines as their enemy, and how much of a threat that enemy really is. For example Iran isn't a actual threat or enemy to Israel but they are a threat to Israel's domination and occupation. The IDF were treating Syrian Jihadi fighters in hospitals because they were being used to overthrow the Syrian government along with the US - yet these same sharia loving jihadis are also the enemy of Israel and the West. Netanyahu funnels money via Qatar to Hamas and Hezbollah's existence came out of Israel going into Lebanon. Israel literally creates its ''enemies'' (even treats and funnels them money lol) by the way it exists - as a occupation and dominating force in the region, and then propagandises its own population of a ever lasting threat from these same enemies. Bibi calling for the Lebanese to kick out Hezbollah from power is literally a declaration of war against Lebanon. The problem is Israel can't view who their enemies are with any clarity - Hezbollah is portrayed as just some rogue militant group in Lebanon rather than a deeply embedded political player who along with its allies won 70 out of 128 seats in the Lebanese parliament in 2018. Forget Muslims solidarity with Hezbollah (many Sunnis are angry for them killing Sunnis in Syria in fact) even Christian leaders within Lebanon offered condolences after Nusrallahs death by saying - ''The symbol is gone, the legend is born, and the resistance continues''. Ex Mossad head talking about treating Syrian jihadi rebels: Like Leo says below, the paranoia of Jews in part due to their history plays a big part in amplifying threats and dictating how they act, but this backfires and only puts them more at risk. True.

The issue clearly isn't just extremist politicians or Bibi, Gvir and Smotrich who are used as scapegoats. The IDF display that a systemic issue of dehumanisation is prevalent in the society - its just hard to pin point to what degree, but its enough to be a issue. The excuse that these people flaunting their war crimes are just extremist settlers serving in the IDF doesn't even hold as settlers only make up 5% of the population. Not to mention genocidal music tops the music charts of Israel:

That’s the problem. Threats to survival empower warrior archetypes to secure the peoples safety. Outsiders see these types in the spotlight of politics and leadership then equate the society as such. When people’s safety is at risk they’re going to select for leaders that exude strength regardless of them having other extreme views they may oppose. But the problem with Israel is that the way its set up assures continuous threats in the form of resistance to occupation. This continuously tilts politics into a politics of fear that calls for the strong man types ie to the right. Also, to maintain the occupation and domination of the Palestinian people with a clear conscience, many Israelis are driven to dehumanize them as a coping mechanism. But the more you dehumanize a people, the easier it becomes to justify oppression. That escalates the violence and further entrenches the need to see the oppressed as less than human, creating a vicious spiral of dehumanization and brutality. This is why blaming Netanyahu, Itamar Ben Gvir or Bezalel Smotrich is like scapegoating and skirting away from the major issue. The root of the problem is deeper - it’s embedded in the structure of permanent occupation where survival politics reinforce extremism and further dehumanization, locking both Israelis and Palestinians into an endless conflict.

Amazing work by Elon. A hopeful comment by Devon Erikson: This is what will matter 1000 years from now. Not your politics. Not your stupid tantrums about who platformed who on some website. Not your incomprehensible desire to send NASA's entire budget to the third world. This guy reignited the Space Age. He spent his own money, hired a bunch of dudes, and reignited the Space Age. And together, they underbid and outdid NASA and its pet dinosaur corporations on every conceivable level. This is history happening before you. If you are a puddlefish, if you think this is a wasteful showpiece or science project, then you don't understand physics, economics, astronomy, or in fact the basic layout of the universe you live in. We live in a tiny puddle at the bottom of a well. Out there is an entire universe, full not only of stuff to explore, but full of stuff to build things out of. Big things. Wonderful things. Things that are going to make all of the cool stuff you have today, all of human civilization to date look like early Assyrians writing stuff down on wet clay with a reed. Infinite resources. Infinite energy. Infinite space. Instead of fighting over little patches of land, we will have an infinite 3d volume. Enclose it in steel, pump it full of air, spin it, and it's a habitat. Instead of scratching tiny scraps of metal out of the crust of one planet, we will break down entire asteroids and smelt them. Instead of drilling for hydrocarbons and turning water wheels, we will harness entire suns, split the atom, and eventually draw our fuel from the substance that makes up 99% of the entire universe. None of your local, temporal Earth politics matter compared to this. This is more important than pride parades and abortions, more important than tribal conflicts in eastern Europe and southwest Asia, more important than tensions with Russia and China. More important, in the long run, than the United States of America. America's most important function, its one most vital purpose, is to serve as an incubator for this. Because this changes everything. All of our arguments about conditions on this planet become obsolete, because the whole planet becomes just one suburban neighborhood. All of our wars over resources and territory become obsolete, because no one has time to brawl when we're all sitting on top of a dragon horde with sacks and shovels. Everyone who was alive at the time remembers where they were when Kennedy died in Dallas. When the towers fell. When the Eagle landed. When the Wall came down. But this... this is the real moment, one of the first of many. They are what every child will know about a thousand years from now, even if they have four arms and are genetically engineered for zero-g, or are sentient blocks of code running on a sphere of computronium enclosing an entire star. You may not live to see that, depending on what we do or don't invent, and when. But it will happen, and you will live to see wonderful things. If the puddlefish don't get in the way. Don't be a puddlefish.

Netenyahu and Ben Shapiro used this to influence Jordan Peterson lol. I kind of get it at a glance but we have to zoom out whilst not missing depth and distinction. This is propaganda at play which can easily deceive us, including me when I first saw it. Imagine suggesting that a European country should cede land or sovereignty for the benefit of another group based solely on shared European identity. It’s illogical and un-ethical particularly to the people who have deep rooted historical ties to that land. This conflation is used to dilute distinct identities into one big grouping of “Arabs” to then make it look like they’re unreasonable in not just giving a slither of their “collective” land. Imagine Portugal had to give up land to a persecuted group and they were told it’s fine because they’re European and there’s plenty of European states.

Homogeneity is sameness, but theres plenty of diversity within eastern cultures. When speaking of civilizations we're talking broad strokes to make general observations on a macro, geopolitical level. Not all non-westerners or westerners are intelligent loving actors. We're referring to the state level (you could say deep state), not necessarily the societal level. But there are many misconceptions about non-Western countries that could be dispelled. There's an argument that goes, "If you or any other society were in our position, you'd act the same," but that's simply not true. I've seen many right wingers use this case of projection and universalizing of bad behavior as a way to excuse it because it's just a ''inevitability'' of human nature - an ''externality'' of a ''system of perverse incentives'' (moloch) that absolves any one party of blame. Many civilizations throughout history, despite possessing the military and economic means to engage in aggressive territorial conquest, chose other pathways to spread their influence. Through religion, culture, trade, or diplomacy. Theirs a distinction to be made between colonialism, settler colonialism, imperialism and influence. The Islamic Golden Age, the Mauryan Empire under Ashoka, and the Tang Dynasty are just a few examples of civilizations (on different continents) that exercised restraint or focused on cultural diffusion rather than outright domination. They demonstrate that violent conquest is not an inevitable result of power. It's a choice that's been resisted by some of the greatest empires in history. These civilizations recognized that expansion and influence don’t need to be built on the corpses of their enemies. The imperial mindset - that to be powerful means to dominate, is used by imperial apologists in the West to excuse the blood soaked history of their own empires. They conflate wealth with worth - any means that helps them to obtain and accumulate wealth/resources is glorified and justified. This is where the 'might makes right' mentality stems from. Watch the following and let me know what you think:

There's an argument that goes, "If you or any other society were in our position, you'd act the same," but that's simply not true. In the other thread about Western imperialism, a similar claim is made: "If another country or civilization had the wealth, power, and tools that the West has, they'd also exploit it through global conquest and domination the way the US does today." I've seen many right wingers use this case of projection and universalizing of bad behavior as a way to excuse it because it's just a ''inevitability'' of human nature - an ''externality'' of a ''system of perverse incentives'' (moloch) that absolves any one party of blame. Many civilizations throughout history, despite possessing the military and economic means to engage in aggressive territorial conquest, chose other pathways to spread their influence. Through religion, culture, trade, or diplomacy. The Islamic Golden Age, the Mauryan Empire under Ashoka, and the Tang Dynasty are just a few examples of civilizations (on different continents) that exercised restraint or focused on cultural diffusion rather than outright domination. They demonstrate that violent conquest is not an inevitable result of power. It's a choice that's been resisted by some of the greatest empires in history. These civilizations recognized that expansion and influence don’t need to be built on the corpses of your enemies. The imperial mindset - that to be powerful means to dominate is retroactively used by imperial apologists in the West to excuse the blood soaked history of their own empires. They conflate wealth with worth, and so any means that helps them to obtain and accumulate wealth/resources is glorified and justified. This is where the 'might makes right' mentality stems from.

That's what makes the West stand out, in particular the US. They are not at risk of survival, yet act out barbarically across the planet as if they need to stamp out some existential threat. Bombing regions into the stone age whilst calling people in those regions primitive and backwards - when they act primitive and backwards. Acting out impulsive and violent like stage red, but with all the gadgets and tech that stage orange offers, justifying it through stage blue and green morality. American exceptionalism is a form of barbarity with a face lift of utopian ideals. As far as Israel is concerned, they literally create their survival challenges by their very own policy. No country or group is actually a existential threat to Israel, yet they amplify them as threats to their ''survival'' to justify their policies of ''defense'' which happen to be settlement expansion and further land grabbing now to create buffer zones between them and their ''enemies''.

America also is a great example of terrorism working, but that is now waning in its effectiveness against rising regional powers. This time stamp on Israel 5:48sec is on point.

Link to the below clip: https://x.com/im_pulse/status/1845933130890481804?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ Those who argue that Israel cannot be committing ethnic cleansing because it hasn’t happened all at once in 24 hours misunderstand how such atrocities unfold over time, sometimes over years or even decades. Historical examples, such as the Rwandan genocide or the Holocaust, began with gradual dehumanization, escalating violence, and legal or political measures that stripped away rights bit by bit, often disguised under the cloak of “security” or “self-defense.” Previously unacceptable acts like targeting civilians or hospitals suddenly being “justified” is part of the process that normalizes violence against marginalized groups. The world has seen this pattern repeatedly in history, where a slow escalation of justifications and exceptions leads to the complete abandonment of legal and moral standards. Then we look back in horror, but only when it’s too late.

The Associated Press delivers this as if it’s just another mundane political decision. Netanyahu is “examining a plan” to seal off aid, as if he’s thinking over what to have for lunch - when the reality is he’s depriving Palestinians of their own via starvation. Western journalism’s sterile, detached language betrays the gravity of what’s happening in Gaza, so that their own populations and political elite don’t have to reckon with their own complicity, hypocrisy and self image as a civilisation that prides itself on a “West is best” attitude. This is the playbook of the supposed “developed West” - sanitize the language, make it digestible for the global audience, and erase the humanity of the people being systematically targeted. Strip the situation of its moral context so that starvation, displacement, and suffering become mere “collateral damage” in the eyes of Western readers. They package it as “security” or “self-defense,” when it’s actually a calculated move to eradicate an entire people’s will to live. The fact that we can even talk about cutting off food and water to hundreds of thousands of people with this level of nonchalance is a reflection of just how dehumanized Palestinians have become in Western discourse. It’s ethnic cleansing with a press release. It’s apartheid with a polished headline. And the so-called “developed” world stands by, either complicit or distracted, while it’s passed off as some kind of pragmatic military strategy. This is the modern face of Western imperialism - wrapped in clean language and never questioned for what it really is: a slow, deliberate extermination of an entire population under the guise of “security.”

Bro its the thread you started lol. Let this thread focus more on Israel. For anyone sharing lengthy Youtube videos or documentaries it would be helpful to add a small description of the video if you can, especially those that don't have timestamps. @Leo Gura For a lot of Westerners they think its deep because it cuts deep initially as a shock to their world view and perception of the West. Being lost in the sauce marinating in the heart of the empire and its propaganda - for some its cold water thrown on their face which gets them riled up for feeling betrayed.

This is the point of @Some dude on the net , though hes bashing the point in too much as if you are unaware of the facts. The US has a interest in Israel's existence. They need Israels existence to justify their existence in a critical region. That's how they view it and speak of it in their own terms - as a 'investment', in terms of the material and less of the moral. Less ideological alignment and more an alignment of interests. Zionism to them is just a euphemism for Western supremacy and domination - US hegemony. The nuance is that campaigning elects candidates, whilst lobbying influences what policies those candidates select. The fact that Israel and the US both serve each other symbiotically is why AIPAC isn't even in the top 20 lobbyist contributors. They don't need to be as much when Israels interests align with the US political elites interests.

At its best, religion is not an echo chamber of dogma but a pathway to transcendence. At its worst, religion is dogmatic but atleast dogmatic about the right thing - the infinite. Modern echo chambers lack the transcendental orientation that religion has and cater to the lowest common denominator of human consciousness. Echo chambers created by modern media are far more restrictive because they are built on the finite. These systems are designed to manipulate human psychology by amplifying biases, playing on emotional triggers, and creating self-reinforcing loops of information. Unlike religion, which at its core aims to lead believers to transcend the ego and connect with the infinite, the echo chambers of the internet are often designed to keep users locked into narrow, polarized perspectives for the sake of engagement and profit. Perhaps the goal isn’t to escape echo chambers, but to operate within a good one. If we consider form - whether it’s words, structures, or identities - as an inevitable aspect of the human experience, then echo chambers are not simply prisons of thought to be escaped, but the natural byproduct of living within any kind of form. What matters is the quality of the form, the chamber, or the echo. The difference between a “good” echo chamber and a toxic one is its willingness to engage with ideas from outside its own walls or to be so all encompassing and transcendental that it contains smaller chambers within it. While the quality of the echo chamber (container) matters, it is secondary to the consciousness that inhabits it. This doesn’t mean we should neglect the importance of creating better, more refined containers- more accurate, flexible, or inclusive systems can certainly support higher consciousness. But a sophisticated form on its own doesn’t guarantee higher consciousness. You could engage with the most nuanced philosophical system or the most elevated mystical tradition, but if your consciousness is closed off or unreflective, that form won’t have the transformative power it could. The ultimate primordial echo we are all after is that of God, the divine echo. The echo of the Divine is not just another chamber in the endless cacophony of human constructs. It’s the transcendental echo, the one that transcends and encompasses all other echoes because it is not bound by the limitations of our finite, fragmented understandings. The echo of God reverberates through all of existence, from the smallest particle to the furthest reaches of the cosmos, and yet it transcends it all at the same time. It is both immanent and transcendent. Other echo chambers are narrow by nature. They trap us in small minded paradigms, limited by the walls we ourselves build. These walls could be political ideologies, religious dogmas, cultural identities, or intellectual frameworks. They may serve a purpose for a time, give us comfort, or a sense of belonging, but they are inherently constricted. They lock us into a particular worldview that we start to mistake for reality itself. Religious chambers orient towards the transcendent, though even among them some are more accurate than others. Take Islam for example - in its essence, it's one of the most profound echo chambers precisely because it emphasizes the infinite - the oneness and transcendence of God (Tawhid). That focus on the infinite, the eternal, and the formless reality of God sets Islam apart from many other frameworks, particularly those that might rely on more complex theological structures like the Trinity. While the Trinity involves a kind of multiplicity in the divine, Islam's emphasis on the absolute oneness of God is, in a way, a more direct alignment with the notion of transcendence. The problem is not the chamber of Islam itself, but whether an individual is attuned to the divine echo within that chamber. Islam can be approached at different levels of consciousness - its not just the container (chamber) but the consciousness within it that matters. For those who are spiritually attuned, who seek the infinite echo of God, Islam (and religion more broadly) can become a profound path toward union with the divine. It becomes a chamber that amplifies truth, goodness and the beauty of the ultimate reality. But for those whose hearts and minds are closed, even the most perfect chamber will ring hollow. What holds back other chambers compared to Islam is their tendency to either fragment the divine (as in polytheism or the Trinity), focus too much on forms (as in Hinduism), or deny the transcendent entirely (as in secular humanism or Marxism). Islam’s strength lies in its focus on Tawhid, which points directly to the infinite oneness of God, an idea that is both transcendent and inclusive.

What gave rise to the Mullahs in the first place? How did Iran get to where it is: Kim Dotcom: ''Iran is a victim of decades of injustice perpetrated by the US and the UK in an effort to control Irans oil. They couped the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953 and installed a US puppet until the Iranian revolution in 1979. Over 500,000 Iranians have died in the US-Iraq war against Iran. Even more died because of US sanctions. Iran is not a terrorist state. Iran has been forced to defend itself against regime change efforts and colonial aggression from the US and their satellites in the Middle East. The Iranians should be applauded for aiding the Palestinian people in their struggle against the illegal occupation by Israel and decades of injustice, theft and dehumanization.'' From Chat GPT: The rise of European colonial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries had a profound impact on the Muslim world. Many Muslim-majority societies were colonized by Western powers, leading to a deep sense of humiliation, loss of sovereignty, and cultural dislocation. Colonialism introduced foreign systems of governance, education, and economics, which often clashed with traditional Islamic structures. In response, some parts of the Muslim world turned inward, rejecting Western influence and emphasizing a return to "pure" forms of Islam as a way to resist colonial domination. This reactionary response led to the strengthening of conservative and literalist movements, which sought to protect Islamic identity from what was perceived as corrupting Western influences. Movements like Wahhabism (which emerged in the 18th century) gained prominence as a defense mechanism against foreign domination, advocating for a return to a strict interpretation of the early Islamic practices. A Uniquely Early Expression of Green Qualities While many societies and religions have moments where they display Green qualities, Islam's early history, especially during the Golden Age, stands out as a unique and early example of a civilization that, despite being deeply rooted in religious tradition, managed to exhibit a high degree of cultural sophistication and intellectual freedom. In some ways, it could be said that Islam was ahead of its time, incorporating Green values long before the West reached the same stage during the Enlightenment. The Oscillation Back to Blue and Orange However, after the Golden Age, many Muslim societies shifted back toward the more rigid, hierarchical structure of Blue (traditional, law-and-order-based thinking), particularly with the rise of imperial powers and the need to defend the Islamic world from external threats (e.g., Crusades, Mongol invasions). These circumstances led to a more insular interpretation of Islam, focusing on the preservation of tradition and the defense of religious orthodoxy, which is more characteristic of Blue thinking.

The West is oriented around autonomy (individualistic) whilst the East is oriented around harmony (collectivistic). @PurpleTree A lot of Chinese who have recently come out of poverty and moved up the economic scale haven’t as yet become accustomed to certain practices and mannerisms. In fact China has programs that teach to help a lot of the country folk with this - at least their investing in their people. Would America invest in programmes to teach Americans public twerking or naked pride parading is bad manners lol Some prank clips of people taking the whole plate isn’t relevant to your point.

@DawnC What are your thoughts on the conflict, flesh them out if you have the time and desire? As for geopolitical context I have commented on it a page back, and there are videos being shared here which delve into that. What's biased is the expectation that critiques must be watered down with endless context to be considered valid. This demand for exhaustive background serves more to obfuscate than illuminate. Highlighting harmful ideologies or policies doesn't require an encyclopedic account of every societal nuance.