The trouble is not everyone has an easy way to use an ad blocker - in particular iPhone users.
I mean, they should really just get an Android phone and install Firefox (or a hardened fork) then uBO, but try telling them that.
I think again that was one that was actually hijacked by the right wing. There is far more fearmongering about hardcore feminists than there are hardcore feminists.
It was an academic term for a relatively short period, it was never established in common language - not in the same way that socialism and communism were.
The renter has no real choice, though. The renter can either accept the price the landlord offers, or go to another landlord who offers the same price, or be homeless. This makes the renter open to exploitation by landlords. Sure, every landlord does it - but that doesn't make it any less exploitation.
This is exactly the type of thing where government should come in and regulate. I'm saying that such regulation should position rents as lower than mortgage rates.
Yeah I was a little bit speechless with that, it was one of those situations where all the right things to say came much later.
Hamas’s actions are pretty unambiguously war crimes
Yes, and they're also clearly terrorism.
But then, Israel have been reportedly and apparently focusing on "power targets", which are defined as those with little to no military value, where the goal is to destabilise the civilian population such that they put pressure on Hamas to enact change. "Using violence against civilians in pursuit of a political goal" is the dictionary definition of terrorism.
Both acts are horrific, and above the threshold of anything that could be considered acceptable. It frankly isn't even worth comparing the two to try and figure out which one is worse - to do so would only tarnish your soul. They're different, but they're both unequivocally wrong.
You wouldn't be able to hear anything as they crawl all over your face.
In Counter-Strike, you can still win the match even if you kill all the hostages.
They're right wing, but the factual score is Mixed, not Low. The rule states:
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Thus this post is absolutely within the rules.
If you want to challenge the post, you should do so on specific merits, not by trying to bend the rules to suit your narrative.
And what about people waving a white flag all by themselves?
What about Israeli hostages topless waving a white flag, only to be shot indiscriminately by IDF?
It wasn't labelled as "revenge for funding the UNRWA", what was stated was:
The Israeli assault has taken place after the Belgian Government announced not to suspend funding for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) on Wednesday.
It's merely an order of events, you're the one labelling it "revenge".
Furthermore, this order of events lines up with the Reuters artcile, which says:
It was not clear when the building was bombed. The spokesperson said Belgium had found out about it on Thursday evening and suspected it had happened on Wednesday.
So it would be right to point out that the Turkish source paints the timeline as a certainty when it is not certain, but if anything the Reuters article is perhaps a little too cautious in not pointing out the possibility that it was done shortly after the Belgian announcement regarding UNRWA, or even mentioning that announcement at all.
Damn, this broken record again? That sucks, and I'm sorry you had to see that.