Bribes aren’t exactly a thing in Switzerland. I’m not saying there isn’t corruption but it’s not common.

Ba ha hahahaha… Thanks, I needed a good laugh…

Having you, a random citizen think there are no bribes and little corruption (I can’t even type it without laughing) doesn’t mean there aren’t any.

Switzerland, the country that claims “neutrality” but acts as the world’s best known financial, and physical, haven for not only the “anonymous” filthy rich like this family (who still have more influence on society as a whole than you can imagine), but actual dictators and war criminals, past and present, too IS corruption, in its entire essence. Its economical and political existence relies heavily on some of if not the dirtiest and most ill gotten money on the planet (the least dirty of which comes from wage theft on a global scale). Being discreet and polite about bribes and corruption is why. Maintaining favour with the evil people whose assets they protect will always be prioritised over anything else, including their local population (who are generally happy to look the other way as long as the dirty money keeps them in a relatively high standard of living, which is why they are kept in a relatively high standard of living), never mind the poor and or enslaved people overseas who are the ones actually paying the price.

That said they have to pay nearly a million dollars to the victims.

That IS a bribe, they’re literally throwing pocket change at the problem to make it go away. Going on their net worth of $70.8b, if they spent a whole million dollars a day, they wouldn’t notice it missing for nearly 200 years. And I say again - 4 of those years are categorically not going to be spent in prison, because they are never going to serve their entire sentence (and whatever part they might serve will undoubtedly be in greater comfort than they ever provided to those they enslave, and I deliberately use present tense because this isn’t going to stop them), which was already a corrupt and pathetic slap on the wrist to begin with.

This isn’t how you stop the filthy rich from enslaving people, this is how you put on a show for the poors to pretend to care while you continue to enable the exploiters and oppressors, because your government and economy depend on it (and because all of those “corruption scores” you see out there are based on perception, not fact).

And you’re buying the act.

While them getting a jail sentence is good, the term is a joke, especially since they’re not likely to actually serve it all or even any of it (house arrest, time served, “good behaviour”, bribes, they aren’t short of ways nor money to get around it), and are probably the most likely to re-offend out of anyone who has ever stepped foot in a jail…

I would be much more excited if they were made to pay their earnings for the duration that they kept slaves, to the people they enslaved (never mind all the other people they have and continue to exploit to get to be the richest people), and were then kept under constant supervision to make sure they don’t start doing it again as soon as they possibly can. (I am well aware this will unfortunately never happen)

Assuming you’re saying that you’re a woman who enjoys sex with men (not the only option of course, but probably the only one “milder” in the eyes of a bigot than homosexuals), answering yes to all of those still makes you an enemy of the patriarchy:

you shouldn’t love men - you should be subservient to them, you shouldn’t enjoy hobbies - you should be constantly pregnant and carrying at least one more child on your hip while making sure the house is tidy and your husband is fed, you shouldn’t enjoy sex - especially not the kind that isn’t for making babies, they save that for the “whore” (in their eyes) that they cheat on their wife with.

So not as scary to them as a potential cock up the arse (because they truly believe the gays are after their dirty buttholes), but really just about as threatening to their “traditional” way of life as homosexuals are… I’d wear it as a badge of honour lol

I’d say “dirt” is close enough to the reality…

Yeah, thanks, I couldn’t quite see what was under the other handwriting, but now that you mention it it’s obvious, as is the swastika next to it. There’s also some words above and bellow the sketch that I couldn’t make out…

Those, and I can also make out:

• They tried scratching out “anarchist” in the title and replace it with “homosexual”
• “Do you love men?”
• “Do you have feminine hobbies?”
• “Do you love dick in your ass and mouth?”
• a badly drawn hitler in the left margine

So yeah, definitely nazi alert

https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-the-gender-imbalance-in-top-level-chess-150637

Flu-galoo

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

(edit to be completely clear: being queer myself, this is not something I am celebrating, just pointing out that you have the correct answer)

What I’m referring to is the idea of allowing myself to believe that a people group are less intelligent than I am just because they don’t align with me politically or ideologically. There is no actual handicap for which they are being discriminated against

They might not have a disability, but using intelligence based insults isn’t ableist because of that, just like calling someone “gay” as an insult isn’t problematic because the person they’re trying to insult isn’t actually gay, but because it frames being gay as a negative term and something worthy of derision and mockery.

Just saying that that kind of thinking sets up a “we’re superior” mentality that can too easily lead to the same kinds of consequences as thinking you’re superior based on race or social status.

It already does, it’s called ableism and it has such deep roots in society it is everywhere no matter political leaning, which is why it is rarely addressed - because most of society still sees it as perfectly acceptable that disabled people are inferior (even though ableism impacts them too, not just because accessibility and inclusion benefit everyone, but because people just don’t like to think about getting hit by a car, having a stroke, or just growing old, nor about their child being born neurodivergent for example).

Seems to me like he said it again (E: or that the spin doctors are telling us about him saying it again now, I doubt it’s the first nor the second time he’s said something bigoted) because he can see that people are more focused on him using a slur, than they are on the context that it is being used in - excluding gay men from the church.

That isn’t to say there’s nothing wrong with using a slur, there obviously is and it all feeds back to exclusionary attitudes, but this is clearly a distraction, and it is working very well - I’ve not seen any comments about the actual discrimination.

I’m sad to say I hadn’t heard of her before now, what an amazing woman (and also fuck IBM).

Reading through her wiki I found her blog (journal?) and while I’m only halfway through part 1, I’d definitely say it’s worth reading (browser tried to stop me going through saying site was unsafe, but I clicked through anyway and it seems perfectly fine to me).

Ahahaha perfect 😂

Ew.

But as I said - “either way” so my earlier reply still stands, and your actual reasoning is in fact even more gross than if it was an attempt at a not all men (it’s paternalistic, condescending, even authoritative, and ableist too - other people’s health is none of your business nor is what substances someone might use to ease their pain, and you, or any other individual for that matter definitely shouldn’t have any say in what others consume or how they enjoy themselves as long as they aren’t harming others. And no, you considering others a “burden” on the health system isn’t actually harming you, that’s just more ableism with a pinch of eugenics on your part).

E: Giving you the benefit of the doubt I assume you’re pro choice which really makes me wonder how you settle that “my body my choice” stance with this nonsense… (I don’t actually care, that’s just for you to try to explain to yourself)

So frustrating isn’t it…

Is this some sort of reverse not all men or something?

Either way - I don’t think people having a glass of whatever at the end of a day to wind down (and harming no one but possibly their own liver in the process) are comparable to those who drink excessively and turn violent and even murderous all in defence of their toxic masculinity.

(E: and no, I don’t drink, I just couldn’t care less what others consume as long as they aren’t harming others)

Well done, you’ve provided some anecdotal effects and benefits, which I didn’t deny exist.

However none of them demonstrate necessity.

Breathing, sleeping, drinking, eating, shitting - those are necessities.

Having orgasms is not, no matter how much you try to convince yourself and others.

Imagine how much nicer a world we’d live in if toxic men avoided alcohol for its supposed testosterone lowering qualities in the same way they avoid soy for its supposed oestrogen heightening properties…

Orgasms are normal, healthy and necessary

Yes, yes, no.

While orgasms are normal and can potentially have some physical and mental benefits, there is no physical or mental necessity to have them (plenty of asexual and otherwise celibate people of all different kinds out there to prove it).