Spyke

Replies

europe

Comment on

Sweden police grant permit for Qur’an burning protest outside mosque

They want to burn a Qur’an right outside Stockholm’s main Mosque. How is that not incitement to violence or racial hatred?

If I burned a copy of the Torah outside a Synagogue, would that just be an expression of ‘free speech’? Or would I not be giving a pretty unambiguous signal of both what I think of the people inside and the way that we should treat them?

This absolutely should not have been allowed to go ahead. It is incitement to violence and racial hatred.

agora

Comment on

[Discussion] Agora should have a community icon so I can find it easier when scrolling my communities list

I'd be happy to use up some of my Midjourney AI credits to generate something!

EDIT: I'm still having trouble uploading any images anywhere on this website so I'm uploading them to Imgur and I'll paste a link to the album here. I'm on mobile data (the bloody ISP is giving us the run around about fixing our connection) so it might take a few minutes but I like some of the ones I've managed to generate. EDIT2: Here's the imgur album. Any of them more or less catch people's eye? Obviously I can refine/improve from a starting point. https://imgur.com/a/p1FeMAz

agora

Comment on

[Discussion] Defederation does not do what you think it does

I think I agree. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of going too far, too fast in defederating from servers which have people whose views some users here find objectionable. There are some cases where it's fairly clear-cut, and I'd feel comfortable. Outright fascists and MAGA servers. Bot-farms. Ones designed to disseminate disinformation and fake news.

If their users are interacting with us in ways which are hostile, disruptive, etc. then we should defederate, obviously. Though that will only go so far given open registrations.

But this server is not, as far as I'm aware, intended to be of a specific political hue, nor primarily about politics. So, I think we should be cautious and careful, partly because I've seen 'tankie' used to describe such a wide range of views, often with very little in common between them.

Comment on

Supreme Court sets new limits on affirmative action programs in landmark ruling

The Supreme Court on Thursday set new limits on affirmative action programs in cases involving whether public and private colleges and universities can continue to use race as one factor among many in student admissions.

The court held, in a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that Harvard and UNC's admissions programs violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The blockbuster cases put affirmative action, which has been used for decades by colleges and universities to address inequality and diversify their campuses, in the spotlight. The Supreme Court had repeatedly ruled since 1978 schools may consider the race of applicants in pursuing educational benefits from a diverse student body, so long as they did not use a quota system.