Just a smol with big opinions about AFVs and data science. The onlyfans link is a rickroll.

~$|>>> Onlyfans! <<<|$~

  • 0 Posts
  • 283 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: October 11th, 2023
  • Warl0k3@lemmy.worldtoWorld News@lemmy.world•U.S. has violated ceasefire agreement, Iran parliamentary speaker saysEnglish
    41·
    59 minutes ago

    Three parts of Iran’s 10-point ceasefire proposal have been violated, Ghalibaf said. The violations are Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon, the entry of a drone into Iranian airspace, and the denial of the Islamic Republic’s right to enrich uranium, he said.

    As far as I’m aware, the ceasefire was to negotiate the terms to end the war, which was what the 10-point plan was a part of - nobody has agreed to anything yet beyond a cessation of hostilities pending the reopening of the straight. This is difficult to follow, because Iran’s own reporting has been incredibly inconsistent about the contents of that plan and what they are saying the ceasefire actually entails, and to complicate it further the US/Israel have said barely anything about the negotiations or terms of the ceasefire (including as far as I am aware listing any terms beyond “reopening of the straight”.)

    I can’t find any reports of the US or Israel attacking Iran directly during this ceasefire, though - the only mention in the article of a direct slight against Iran is that a drone may have violated Iranian airspace - so… there’s that? It sounds like the US still hasn’t started blowing Iran up again, which is… god…

    IDK. To my armchair-geopoliticing-ass, this feels like Iran attempting to force the idea that the US/Israel agreed to their 10-point plan as terms of the ceasefire - something which seems extremely unlikely given that the terms (depending on the source) include “allowing Iranian nuclear enrichment” which seems like something that would be negotiated at a much later part of the process. Which is weird because they already have the whole “Israel still blowing up lebanon” thing to justify this.

  • Warl0k3@lemmy.worldtoWorld News@lemmy.world•People of Burkina Faso should forget about democracy, says military rulerEnglish
    2·
    3 days ago

    You’re asserting that because a person is a highly respected academic that we should accept their conclusions are relevant here - you are not synthesizing their work with applicability for your claim that the current regression on LGBTQ rights is the result of colonialism.

    For an example of what I mean:

    We are making the claim that Burkina Faso has been an independent country for 65 years. For most of that time, while LGBTQ people were not broadly loved, there was no outright oppression - arguably (from one [edit: one very important] perspective) they were better about homosexual relationships than many western countries in the same timeframes. This recent shift is a regression primarily from internal pressures - it’s been too long to reasonably claim that this shift in attitude is singly the result of a reaction to having been a colony.

    You have not done anything to refute that claim, or present evidence or reasoning that your claim (that this is the result of colonial and imperialistic pressures) is at all applicable, beyond citing a well known and well respected academic who has not talked about this specific situation. You are instead insisting that we cannot argue against your argument because your argument cites the work of a respected academic, and are shifting our criticism of your claims to criticism of Fanon’s claims, which is unfair. I have not addressed Fanon’s thesis here because I am questioning the applicability of that thesis to these events; that is a claim you have made, and which you have not supported.

    This is absolutely an appeal to authority - you claim that your argument is based on respected works and therefore has standing on that merit above the claims of others.