It’s looking pretty catastrophic, the future. The climate catastrophe, the AGI singularity, and techno-feudal fascism are all imminent. Then, less imminent there’s the altered nuclear threat, antibiotic resistance, societal collapse (due to all of the above, plus unprecedented wealth inequality) to name a few.
Revolution in some form is inevitable, but it’s not guaranteed to be effective in making things better.
We’re about nine historical turning points deep already, but I think the big ones are yet to come and I hate it.

deleted by creator

Also my dad is a billionaire

The only dogshit I see here is your over the top aggressive name calling.

History didn’t start on October 7th. “Hamas was the aggressor” is a false statement. Hamas is one of the belligerents in a war of occupation that’s been going on for a long long time.

I cannot believe that hatred disgust toward Jews anyone who supports the genocidal regime of Israel is celebrated here… It’s disgusting

Fify

A lot of GB isn’t either, to be fair.

“brevity is the soul of wit”

~Shakespeare

“Um actually, wit is actually a subjective phenomenon, with everyone having a different idea of what it actually means. How could such a construct actually possess a ‘soul’? And that’s not even getting started on the assertion that souls actually exist in any real way”.

~Obinice

rude

I’m on the spectrum so I can neither tell nor give a shit! The soundness of what you’re saying is most important to me.

Oh yeah, agreed 100%

I’m not sure I follow you. Can you explain

In fifty years, people will be writing essays about why this comment makes sense and is hilarious.

\\ Hello future essay writers, I hope you have accrued enough credits to keep your crate cool tonight!\\

Yeah I feel this. “Failed experiment” implies, to me, that we should forget this avenue of thought and go back to what we had before.
“Outdated concept” might have been better?
Either way we’re all in agreement fundamentally

Why though? Why is it assumed that people will boycott a show/movie if it has a known paedophile in it, while brands/political parties with a mass-sex-offender at the helm are just peachy?

Is that Northern Ireland? Could well be where “geg” comes from if so!

This same site reports that Baby is dead: https://sportlines.co.uk/spice-girls-star-emma-bunton-dies-at-48-world-mourns-loss-of-baby-spice/

The Scouse British dialect has a nice term for this: “Geg out”. As opposed to “Fred is gegging in”, used when someone is trying to implicate themselves or become part of the group/conversation.
Someone involving themselves when they shouldn’t be? Two syllables: Geg. Out.
No idea where it comes from but I heard it a lot in my youth. Forsomereason.

The nuance here is that they’ve been proscribed as a terrorist group. They are a direct action group but they don’t hurt people, just damage property. That’s a crime, but it’s not terrorism. They can and should be tried for criminal damage, B&E, damage to government property etc, but this is a freedom of protest issue, and now freedom of speech, too, since I can no longer say things like “I think Palestine Action went too far, but they’re fighting for a just cause”, for example, because I’d be expressing support for a terrorist group and therefore committing a crime.
Compare to e.g. the suffragette movement who bombed buildings and all kinds to get the vote for women: they’re now lauded by the same person who proscribed this group. Or more recent examples like just stop oil or the protesters that threw the Edward Colson statue into the River Avon. They were tried for criminal damages. Then recently, some protesters have been starting to get tried under the far, far harsher anti terrorism laws, usually when it involves protesting Israel’s war crimes. These are the laws that allow things like extended detention in solitary without charge or phone calls, massively longer sentences and all manner of nasty punishments. It’s clearly a power grab to reduce the will to protest.

I didn’t mean to say say sabotage could not be terrorism in general, I’m agreeing that this is absolutely sabotage, but in this case it is not terrorism. The govt do not have a valid reason to proscribe them as a terrorist organisation. There are other available methods of opposition.
Terrorism is generally linked with a risk to personal safety at the very least, not mere property damage. These people are criminals, not terrorists.