this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
27 points (100.0% liked)

World News

1036 readers
36 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] theodewere@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Russian psyops in full swing baby

[–] zephyrvs@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Not unlikely.

[–] TokenBoomer 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I mean in this case it's a secular group attacking a religious group though?

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Burning a piece of paper that you rightfully own is not "attacking a religious group" and should never be construed as such. Objects are not people.

Any sort of law that prevents you from doing something just because a specific religion doesn't want you to do it is inherently forcing their religion upon you. That should never be allowed.

[–] vd1n@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Yeah but usually it's just a dumb "eDgEy" thing to do. It's the same as maga psychos burning books. Fuck all that shit.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

If someone wants to buy a book and then burn it I simply do not care what their reasoning is, It's their book they can do whatever they damn well please with it as long as they aren't literally using it to hit someone.

I see a reason to ban burning ALL books in public, because it's a safety hazard, but banning the burning of one book because they don't want you to is a very slippery slope to enforcing other rules the religion wants. Two men(or women) kissing offends some Christians, should that action also be banned? FUCK that.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I mean, when the maga types burn books, I roll my eyes and chuckle that they still paid the author for a copy. I remember video one maga book burning where a gay(?) man throw a bible in and drove off when the chuds realized what had happened.

Let them burn books. You can't destroy ideas that way in the 21st century.

[–] TokenBoomer 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don’t care. Religion is cancer.

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

until you get cancer.. then cancer is cancer.. and then most people get religion..

[–] eskimofry@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And then people die.. because religion can do fuck all to cure cancer.

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

thanks for that info.. i'm gonna write that down for myself so i don't forget..

[–] TokenBoomer 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] interolivary 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I could have chosen, I would rather have gotten religion than tumors. Usually slightly less radiation and surgery involved in religion, at least in the boring mainstream ones

[–] TokenBoomer 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The secondary complications like oppression of women and death of thousands is way worse than a cell tumor.

[–] interolivary 3 points 1 year ago

Heh, true. Plus it's not like you can just surgically remove religion

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

the circle of cancer

[–] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Halp. I'm being attacked.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm always disturbed when Muslims actually are baited by this. They know the guys that set it up this way are not their friends, right?

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The government’s line is increasingly that both the Quran burnings themselves and the outrage over them are being fuelled by foreign agents provocateurs and disinformation efforts – including from Russia - which is enraged at the prospect of Sweden joining NATO.

Ministers have so far ruled out amending Sweden’s freedom of speech law or banning Quran burnings outright, with Kristersson insisting that there is a place for responsibility as opposed to state restriction.

Starting this month, border guards are being given enhanced stop-and-search and electronic surveillance powers, a move that Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer says will allow them “to identify people coming into Sweden who could represent a threat to security.”

Earlier this year, ex-prime minister and Social Democrats leader Magdalena Andersson told national broadcaster SVT that those burning the Quran in protest are “useful idiots” doing an unwitting service to those seeking to divide Swedish society, and that they had a duty to consider the consequences of their actions.

With ideas like these front and centre in its platform, the party has risen to become the second-largest in the Swedish parliament, and it is now sustaining the current coalition government via a confidence and supply agreement, meaning its voice in public debate is louder than ever.

After at least a decade of notoriously harsh comments about Muslims, he tweeted last week that Islam is “an anti-democratic, violent and misogynistic religion/ideology”, describing the prophet Muhammad as “a warlord, mass murderer, slave trader and robber”.


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] milo128@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

fyi this summary is nonsense and gets multiple things wrong. great example of ai getting confused.

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

FYI, it cannot get anything wrong, it takes sentences directly from the article. Sure, it might not be a good summary (I haven't checked), but it definitely doesn't contain any falsehoods (unless the article does as well).

[–] milo128@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

specifically, the context for the 5th paragraph is replaced, making it seem like it's talking about the social democrats when in reality it is talking about the sweden democrats. Your logic is flawed, falsehoods can be and are introduced despite each sentence being taken straight from the article.

[–] interolivary 5 points 1 year ago

Reich-wingers saying that Islam is an "anti-democratic, violent and misogynistic religion/ideology” is just hilariously hypocritical. Not that I necessarily disagree 100%, but it's not like SD's values are really too different from your average islamist's.