e$tGyr#J2pqM8v

nope, people vote anti-woke candidates because the algorithm feeds them woke-gone-mad bullshit. I really wonder how people would think if much of our interactions and media consumption wasn’t based on algorithm blindly steering towards engagement.

I noticed that with Zelensky he’s been talking about ‘raw earth’ instead of rare earth. And not just a slip of the tongue, he did it consistently throughout the meeting. While with the meeting with UK prime minister Starmer, a few days earlier, he said it properly. So he knew the word, but forgot?

Their first, still very polite disagreement that evening was when Trump said that the US has given a lot more aid than Europe did, to which Zelensky very politely replies ‘they gave a lot’, clearly avoiding the obvious ‘they gave more’, to which Trump then replies ‘they gave a lot, but much less than we did’, to which Zelensky replies with a clear ‘no.’ and then they laugh. You could argue that Zelensky does not need to do that, but he gives credit where credit is due to the Europeans, and he doesn’t let a blatant lie about an ally slide. It’s the type of moment that’s beautiful and horrendous at the same time. Source: https://youtu.be/CSe0ntgfpq4?t=726

through precedent we know that A5 invocations can (and almost certainly will) trigger military aid.

I don’t see why this is ‘almost certain’. You rightfully point out that the EU clause leaves wiggle room, but I don’t see why you think that room is not there with NATO. I don’t know if the current US president cares much about any precedents. If he can wiggle he will wiggle. I don’t think Europe trusts US to honor A5 any more.

After decades long alliannce-building, the US don’t seem to value them anymore. It’s a strange phenomenon where someone works so hard for such a long time, only to throw it all away some day. Trump frames it all as if the US is being taken advantage of. The truth is that the US gets tremendous benefits from it’s central position of power. If the US breaks away from their alliances, they risk the tides turning against them. If the US is being taken advantage of by appararently all others countries in the world, isn’t it remarkable how it’s doing so well economically? That normal folks aren’t doing well is not a consequence of the economy as a whole not doing well, because by comparison it’s doing phenomenal. It’s because all the money goes to companies and shareholders.

saving them from what?

Interesting, care to explain?

I can only see ‘being a billionaire’ as ‘stealing from the population at large’. So you’re saying the biggest thief of society is still popular among 6% of democrats.

it’s a misconception that a decentralized service cannot be banned. In fact it’s not hard at all

Could someone expand upon this? I’m don’t know much about tech, but the idea that FOSS decentralized platforms can’t be banned does seem to make sense right? Ban one, another one will pop up, etc. What am I not getting here?

There’s a system in place for that. It’s called ‘verklaring omtrent gedrag’. For many jobs and positions you need this certificate of conduct in order to apply. The ministry of justice will not hand out the certificate if your crime is related to the position you apply for. This means he would probably never be allowed to work at a school for instance.

Formication is the sensation resembling that of small insects crawling on the skin, in the absence of actual insects.

Never asserted that notion. Of course you’re free to do so. I am just saying it’s self righteous and not helping any one.

I am not at all telling victims to shut up. You just made that up.

Dutch courts haven’t found him guilty of rape, but did find him guilty of having sex with a 12 year old. That itself is more than terrible but calling it rape despite this fact is in fact a misrepresentation of what happened. Sure it was terrible thing that he did and I am not defending his actions at all. I am defending his right to participate in sports events and pleading against trial by media/public outrage.

I’m not angry, just sharing my thoughts. How does it work? Like I said, I am against media-fueled public rage in cases like these.

He did serve his time, according to the Dutch rule. His initial sentence was longer because it was in the UK and over there they consider every sexual activity with a minor rape, where as in the Netherlands they differentiate between actual rape and misconduct.

It’s not at all about that and I never suggested it is.

I agree with most of what you say, including what you say about the alcohol involved. Ultimately though the point is that he should be punished by courts, which has happened, and not by public outrage because media and public aren’t well suited to judge people fairly.

I understand he’s isolated from the other athletes so that doesn’t seem to be the case. The word rape is a misrepresentation of what happened. He hasn’t forced himself on the girl, but it’s misconduct because any sexual contact with a 12 year old is obviously a crime. Still that distinction is important in Dutch law, and rightfully so because obviously forcing yourself on a 12 year old is even worse than consensual sex, and it’s rather bizarre that this is lost in English law and everything is ‘rape’. Again, not defending his actions, but all nuance is lost in this discussion. Yes, to be nuanced you sometimes need more than one sentence.

Fair point about the paragraphs. Other than that I disagree with you.

In the Netherlands you’ll need a certificate of conduct for many positions and if your criminal record is relevant to a position you won’t get the position. This is reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Ministry of Justice and Security. So if he applied for a job as a coach for children then he would obviously be refused because of his criminal record, given that there’s a direct link to his crime and logically a clear change for recidivism. But his criminal record is not relevant for his position as an athlete. There’s nothing that would stop someone with a criminal record to become famous in such a way. This is not a flaw in the system, it’s a choice that was consciously made. We choose to only limit peoples freedom where there would logically be a big chance of recidivism. We don’t want to ban people to the shadows where they should keep there head down in shame.

Also you seem to be missing the crucial point here: all of it should be decided by rule of law, not by self righteous media-fueled public rage. The media and the public aren’t properly informed nor equipped to weigh these things. The risk of misguided public hatred is immense. That’s not something we should want in our society.

Feel free to disagree but I think we should be very happy that this is the way it is, because this means people actually get a second chance.

So am I. Good luck with your self-righteousness.

People seem to find it terribly hard to find nuance when something awful like this happened. But losing sight of nuance doesn’t help in any way. Can he participate? Of course he can. Do you need to cheer for him? Of course not, boo as you please, but you’re not helping any one with it.

He was sentenced for his crime, first in England but ultimately he served a sentence according to the Dutch rule of Law, which found him guilty of sexual misconduct of a 12 year old, but not of rape, which in Dutch law is an important distinction. He served his time, he’s had his punishment. You’re more than free to disagree with the Dutch laws and the sentence that he got accordingly. But it’s not up to you. One should be judged by a court, not by the media nor by the public.

I read many people claiming that he has no remorse, quoting all sorts of media coverage. If you think you can judge whether there is remorse based on media coverage you’re awfully mistaken. I’m not claiming he has remorse, but obviously he’ll respond negatively to journalists, and quotes can easily be taken out of context. English media is renowned for being total assholes with zero interest in nuance.

People do horrible things, and this surely is such a thing, but that shouldn’t prevent people from ever participating in society ever again. If we would ban people, make them outcasts forever, that is not helping victims nor prevention in any way. What it will do is increase the taboo, people will refrain from testifying against suspects because even though they want them to be punished, they don’t want media and public going after them and ruining the rest of their lifes. Despite it emotionally being very understandable, this type of shortsighted public outrage is very counter productive and people should use their brains before they rage.