bonjour,

Je suppose que c’est non populaire vu le nombre de gens qui s’en plaignent sur Reddit.

J’ai travaillé 6 ans en grande surface en parallèle de mes études, et en effet, la politique de l’entreprise était que les parents avaient la priorité sur les jours de congé à poser. Nous les étudiants en CDI/les employés sans enfants on pouvait choisir après selon les dates disponibles.

chaque année même scandale dans l’équipe : les étudiants qui se plaignent que c’est pas normal, que c’est eux qui ont choisi d’avoir des enfants et ils devraient pas en subir les consequences, etc.

je n’ai JAMAIS compris pourquoi ça posait problème. Pour moi c’est de la galanterie (?) ou juste de la décence. Ca me paraît évident que Nathalie, 45 ans et 3 enfants à plus de contraintes que moi et à moins de créneaux pour ses vacances. Je trouve ca presque méchant de s’en plaindre….Bref j’avoue que ça me choque à chaque fois de voir des topics sur le sujet

In real life, on reddit & on various social media sites: maximalist trans activists have disproportionate influence over lesbian spaces.

Major lesbain subreddits are largely controlled by maximalist trans activists. Lesbians are often canceled if they state they are not open to dating trans women.

Lesbians had more social spaces & more free speech 15 years ago, that much is clear. I am a trans woman and I have seen this happen for years. I speak about it frequently.

It needs to stop! Lesbians should not be shamed if they disagree with maximalist trans activism. Discourse is the solution, not censorship.

Andrew Tillett

While thousands die in the Islamic Republic’s bloody crackdown, the progressive left remains silent, exposing a stark double standard.

London | No freedom flotilla with Greta Thunberg on board has set sail for the Persian Gulf. No protest march has gridlocked city centres. No uni student has pitched a tent. No celebrity exhorted “Free Iran” at an awards show.

As Iran’s hardline Islamic rulers tottered, conspicuous has been the lack of encouragement among the political left for the brave protesters standing up to a brutal regime, or condemnation that thousands have been killed in a bloody crackdown on dissent.

It stands in contrast to the industrial-scale protest campaign levelled against Israel for more than two years since the October 7, 2023 terror attack by Hamas militants that killed 1200 Israelis and saw another 250 taken hostage.

This is not to say that the ferocity of Israel’s response, which destroyed much of Gaza and left tens of thousands of Palestinians dead, is beyond reproach, but simply that activists invite scrutiny for double standards.

Yasmine Mohammed, a Canadian author of Egyptian and Palestinian background who at 19 was forced into marriage with an Al-Qaeda operative, says progressives’ silence on Iran is a case of mutual convenience.

“They see Iran as anti-Israel and anti-Trump, so it’s like the enemy of my enemy [is my friend],” she says. “This is extra vicious and inhumane, as they can see how brutally the regime is murdering people, and they shrug.”

“They don’t care about Iranian lives. They don’t care about Yemeni lives. They don’t care about Nigerian lives. They only care if they can blame America or Israel. Their allegiance is to whoever is against them, not to supporting innocent people being killed.”

Mohammad, who describes herself as a campaigner against Islamic fundamentalism and antisemitism, believes many pro-Palestinian protesters never knew what they were protesting.

“They scream about anti-colonialism and then support the ideology that colonised a quarter of the planet. It’s absurd,” Mohammad tells The Australian Financial Review. “What about the fact that Iranian people were colonised by this regime? That Iranian people are fighting to decolonise their country? They are inconsistent with every assertion.”

“They scream about queers for Palestine, not realising homosexuality is punishable by death under sharia. They are even happy to support sharia, clearly, as they chant support for Hamas and the Islamic regime in Iran.

“The only consistency they have is to always be on whatever side is anti-West, anti-America, anti-Israel. They will never condemn a regime that kills thousands of its citizens in a matter of days if that same regime also chants ‘Death to America, Death to Israel’.”

Alastair Campbell, the former spin doctor to Tony Blair and now co-host of the popular Rest is Politics podcast, makes a similar point about the reluctance of the left of politics to denounce Iran.

“I’m a progressive. I think that because Israel and Trump are so voluble about Iran, I think sometimes my side of the political fence finds it hard to come and actually [say] ‘This is a truly awful regime, and we should be standing up for the people of Iran,’” he says.

“There are people on the left that kind of … you know, basically, you sometimes feel they’re standing up for the regime in Iran rather than the people.

“I think the one thing that might turn this into a different place is if the Trump-Netanyahu approach is matched alongside it by more progressive political voices, saying these guys have got their days numbered.”

Masih Alinejad, an Iranian journalist who has been targeted by the regime’s assassins, argues that the suffering of everyday Iranians does not fit the narrative of the left.

“The silence of the left and liberals in America, in Europe, is not an accidental silence,” she said in a US media interview this week. “It is an ideological silence because they believe the suffering of Iranian women, Iranian men, thousands of people being killed or injured, it is not something they can talk about because it will expose their hypocrisy, it will expose how they sympathise with our killers, Islamist terrorists.”

Casey Babb, a Canadian security and antisemitism expert, is blunt.

“It was over six weeks into Israel’s war with Hamas that the death toll in Gaza reached 12,000 – of which thousands were terrorists,” Babb says. “It’s taken the Iranian regime 16 days to kill that many people – all of whom were civilians. Where’s the genocide crowd now?”

Even when the killing gets too much for even the most ardent leftist to ignore, the criticism of Iran degenerates to both-sides-isms.

Jeremy Corbyn, the former UK Labour leader, said while he was appalled by the killings in Iran, interference by external powers must also be resisted.

“The US president’s latest threats of military intervention against Iran – following last year’s attacks by the US and Israel, on top of years of crushing sanctions – can only heighten the risk of bloodshed and a wider regional war,” he said on social media.

But the lack of condemnation from the left on Iran cannot be wholly tied to events in Gaza. Left-wing activists and politicians have long given Iran a leave pass from criticism, despite its abysmal record on human rights since the mullahs seized power in the 1979 Islamic revolution.

In a column for the UK Daily Telegraph this week, English author and journalist Jake Wallis Simons pointed to the support prominent left-wing intellectuals Michel Foucault and Edward Said gave at the time to the revolution, which deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and ended Iran’s monarchy.

Said framed the revolution as a product of postcolonialism, the theory he devised in which the Euro- and US-centric West had exploited and suppressed the Middle Eastern, African and Asian East countries that had been colonies or vassal states.

“If Iranian workers, Egyptian students, Palestinian farmers resent the West or the US, it is a concrete response to the specific policy injuring them as human beings,” Said wrote in Time magazine in April 1979, several months after the revolution.

The Shah was seen as a juicy target for the Iranians’ ire. He was pro-American and regarded as heading a corrupt regime that ruled with a repressive secret police force, the SAVAK.

But Said’s thesis ignores the religious dimension to the Shah’s overthrow. The events of 1979 are recorded in the history books as the Islamic Revolution just as much as the Iranian Revolution.

The regime’s enforcers are known as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. And Iran’s two supreme leaders at that time have been clerics – Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and, since 1989, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

While the left-wingers may be keeping mum on Iran’s abuses, what is also telling is the lack of support for Tehran from other countries.

Durham University Middle East expert, Professor Anoush Ehteshami, says Iran has not made many allies outside the Shia Muslim world, and even Shia-majority countries such as Azerbaijan have little solidarity with Tehran.

“Global South countries have no desire to risk the wrath of US for the sake of rhetorical support for Tehran,” he says. “In Western circles, its regime is not popular. Its allies in China and Russia have no interest in agitating on its behalf. In the region, the Arab countries don’t have much love for it. So, Tehran is genuinely lonely.”

Lonely Iran may be. But silence can be golden for a regime with its back against the wall.

1. Announce that you are going to reduce prices of pvp gear to actually let people have fun + tell people to not buy gear

2. Randomly announce honor increase from 100% to 150% of already bad honor gains, btw this change is very minimal like 30% as , which makes your 500 average games to 600 average, in the long run meaning nothing at all or one extra game if you needed 10 game per item.

3. Dont say a thing about cost reductions and let people guess

4.Dont reduce the cost of the gear at all, giving middle finger to everyone

PS: to all blizzard defenders, this is not how you communicate, they are misleading their players and dont care about anything they say or do

Okay, I get it, I would also be upset if one of my favorite books that turned into series changed or shifted one of the love interest or relationship one of my favorite characters, but that does not mean I would not like it or hate it before it came out, what I would do is that wait for a while so the episode would come up, so I can try to be less prejudiced and more open minded. I mean of course not every book series that turned into is going to be %100 accurate about every aspect. The plot can change, the backrounds doesnt have to be exactly I imagined, characters can change. But the most importantly, the characters gender can change too. Also, if you are going to hate a show just because of this, there is a simple thing you can do. Do not watch it. You can hate personally, but that does not mean you can make it worse for people who are liking it, or a fan of it.

Can't wait for Shyvana's rework!

- I created the poster from Google Gemini

Anybody who ships her with Shinji I hope you rot in hell. If Shinji was a girl and she was an older man people would see it VERY differently but no it’s ok because she’s “hot” 🥺🥺

Pitié, arrêtez avec ça.

Sagesse populaire : l'histoire est écrite par les vainqueurs.
Réalité : elle est écrite par ceux dont le récit survit et/ou est reproduit par les générations suivantes.

Exemples de traditions historiographiques établies par les vaincus/perdants :

- Défaite romaine à Cannes : histoire écrite par les Romains.
- Défaites de la Grèce face à Rome : histoire écrite par un Grec (Polybe).
- Répression des révoltes en Judée : histoire écrite par un Juif (Flavius Josèphe).
- Chute de Rome : histoire écrite par les Romains.
- Défaite de Napoléon : histoire écrite par les Français.
- Échec de la révolte des Boxers : histoire écrite du point de vue chinois.
- Défaite des USA au Vietnam : histoire écrite par les Américains.
- Échec de la Commune de Paris : histoire écrite par la gauche.
- Front de l'Est durant la SGM : histoire écrite par les pontes de la Wehrmacht.

Dans la même veine...

Sagesse populaire : l'histoire ne se répète pas, elle bégaie. Ou pire : l'histoire est cyclique. Voire : ceux qui ignorent l'histoire sont condamnés à la répéter.
Réalité : chaque contexte est unique, tout événement est le fruit de décisions prises par des acteurs en fonction de leurs intérêts et des informations dont ils disposent à un instant T.

Exemples de parallèles historiques qui sont souvent établis à tort et à travers :

- Guerre du Péloponnèse / Guerre froide
- Invasions barbares / Vagues migratoires en Europe
- Chute de Rome / Fin de l'hégémonie occidentale
- Croisades / Ingérence occidentale au Moyen-Orient
- Contre-croisades / Djihadisme
- Invasions de la Russie par la Suède / la France / l'Allemagne
- Krach de 1929 / Crise de 2008
- Peste noire / Covid-19
- Montée du nazisme / Montée du trumpisme
- Crises menant à la Grande Guerre / Crises actuelles menant à... ?

Je ne détaille pas tout mais on peut discuter d'un point en particulier si vous le voulez.

Réflexion subsidiaire...

Pourquoi est-ce que les médias "mainstream" laissent-ils n'importe qui dire tout et n'importe quoi sur l'histoire, alors qu'on laisse la physique aux physiciens, la médecine aux médecins, l'économie aux économistes, etc. ?

Est-ce parce que l'histoire est, à l'origine, non pas une science exacte mais un genre littéraire ? Est-ce parce qu'elle est exploitée à des fins idéologiques ? Pourtant, n'apprend-on pas au collège/lycée que l'histoire requiert une discipline de fer dans l'étude des sources et l'application d'une méthodologie scientifique ?

Alors pourquoi laisse-t-on des Zemmour, des BHL, des Onfray et l'ensemble du monde politique nous présenter des mythes comme des récits historiques valides ?

Edit : Co(q)uilles

Dont wanna do sob stories as its against the rules so ill just say i dont like how i look due to some things that happened. Nice words, advice, suggestions welcome. I tried to show unedited pictures, but they are still flattering.