I tried ZorinOS, thinking it would be a nice transition from Windows to Linux, but it’s so nice i think i’ll stick with it for a while. Classic Windows-like recommendation is Linux Mint, and if i’m not mistaken both are ubuntu-based, so you would take advantage of that knowledge

I enjoy your enthusiasm but

I highly recommend […] to everyone

and

It’s not for the faint of heart.

are a bold choice of juxtaposed sentences.

From the Wikipedia articles of chess and shatranj (old middle-east/south asia ancestor of chess), without checking their sources :

• king, knight, rook and pawn move the same (except the initial 2 squares for the pawn, which were introduced later)
• queen only moves one square at a time diagonally
• bishop only moves two squares at a time diagonally (jumping over potential pieces)

I did not, can you give me a hint ?

Sadly i’d say both can be true at once, though there are less red flags that with Elno

My fault is not ignorance, it’s blatant stupidity because i knew it. It’s also part of israeli propaganda that i fell for to think of palestinian territories that way. That’s bad and im grateful for people pointing it out. I’ll try to think more next time.

The rest sill stands.

Zionism does not necessarily include exclusion, theft from, violence against, even less so mass murdering and genocide of Palestinians.

From what i know, and correct me if im wrong, Zionism at its root is the ideology pushing for Jews to live in the territory of Palestine and have autodetermination there. Ofc, a lot of the derivative include what i mentioned above, but not all of them : you can think of a country where both Palestinians and Israeli live peacefully, and it would still fall under Zionism, from what my limited perspective lets me know.

As you explained in your post, because of some bullshit german law and admin decision. It’s bad. We agree on this.

Your title should still be ‘bans calls for end of Israel and calling Israel nazis’ or at the very least ‘bans some criticism of Israel’.

Genocidal : again, genocide is NOT a nazi-only thing. And yes it’s bad to not be able to equate, yet alone compare Nazis and Israel government. But you can still say ‘Israel is genocidal’.

Palestinian territories : this is my bad, not an expert on the matter + did not think through. I meant territories destined to Palestinians in previous two-state solutions and at least recent territory annexion. From what the message says, you can still say that.

Military intervention : you can support the intervention without supporting people doing it. Also, you can support official interventions of other countries instead of guerrillas groups. The fact that most of those groups use terrorists methods, like targetting civilians (yes, those one that Israel and most states in the world also use) does not help with terrorism part, and i think we all agree that there should be no support for hamas or hezbollah directly, though they fight for objective we should defend. (and yes, Israel is doing worse for religious and racist reasons too, and they have a kind of immunity partly because of the anti-antisemitism rethoric partly because they are a state and states are rarely condemned for use of terrorist tactics, all of this is compatible).

Overall agreeing with you, you should at least be able to defend this pov.

But that should be the title instead of ‘bans all criticism of Israel’.

They still allow you to call out on the genocide, how are they supporting it?

They never said it’s not a genocide. They said its not the Holocaust. We all agree there is a genocide in Gaza carried out by a far-right Israeli government.

They never said it’s a matter of number. They halfly imply it though, i agree, but what they actually explicitly said is it’s a matter of it being systemic or not. It’s debatable, the use of daily bombing is both quite industrial and not as efficient as death camps, so it’s perfectly fine to target on that point. But do not hide behind the number things, which we all agree to be dumb, as a way to avoid considering the potential gaps in a comparison between Nazis and Israeli government.

I think it’s okay to say both have huge similarities that they never should have, but you don’t need them to be 100% the same for the point to be pertinent, so you can accept it when someone points out differences.

“they will ban criticism of Israel” : they will only ban calls for end of Israel and equating Nazis and Israel. You can still criticize Israel. Its like saying “They ban fruits” when they only ban oranges. It’s still a problem, but you’re making it larger than it seems, that’s on the path of clickbait/sensationalism (i do not think that this was intended of you though, it’s just what comes out of the way you wrote it).

It does not strictly punish antipathy towards a genocidal state, but rather antipathy towards a genocidal stage when they take the forms of call for an end of this state or equating this state with Nazis. It’s a problem, it’s bad, but please stop saying ‘they won’t let me say Israel is bad’ cuz that’s not the case (for the instance, don’t know about actual german state itself)

Calling a state criminal, expantionist, genocidal, brutal, saying that they should answer for their crimes, give back palestinian territories immediatly, be boycotted by the whole world, even be subject to military intervention is still perfectly fine, and that’s clearly not “slight discontent”. If you were conscious of this, you message is huge bad faith.

What they do not allow is calling for the end of Israel, in any way. That’s indeed a major crackdown on freedom of expression, but it does not leave you wordless for Israel criticism, unless your only goal is to be against Israel, and you don’t care being alongside Palestine.

Makes perfect sense, thx for explaining!

Oh yeah, sorry, the Telltale part. The flop chances are clearly increasing, im with you on this one.

Wow, that’s one of a take. I’m curious, what makes you think that way?

I was a bit confused too, but OPs answer to your comment clarified it quite well.

And after thinking a bit on it, and from my very basic knowledge of lgbt movment, here’s what i think they advocate for (pls correct me if i say bs) : sex and gender are indeed different, they aee not necessarily connected and both are spectrums rather than binary options. This means you could have a lot of options between what sex you are (male/female/intersex), what gender you are (a lot of options) and what gender you were assigned at birth (generally either male or female). Some trans people need their “physical” sex identity to match their gender, other don’t.

The problem in this case seems to me that she advocates for a strict binary conception of sex identity and that she pushed for it to be more important than gender in social situations such as sport. Part of the confusion also comes from the fact that she acknowledges parts of what the lgbt movment fights for but she fights against the rest, which happens frequently in TERF rethorics afaik

That’s fun, conservative friend of mine told me just this morning about how it was a huge failure with a ridiculous amount of simultaneous players.