First off, the donbas is not majority russian. While it has the largest group of Russians in the country it is still majority Ukrainian.

Second, the ICJ and international association of genocide scholars investigated Russia’s claim of massacre and genocide and found them to be entirely baseless and fabricated to justify invasion.

Third, if this was about liberating the donbas, then Russia wouldn’t have gone all the way to Kyiv at the beginning of the invasion. Even still Russia occupies far more than the donbas.

I swear the way some of yall rush to defend Russia. You guys realize it’s not socialist anymore, right? That the country is ruled and controlled by capitalists? That capital interests like the oil in ukraine are what drive them?

No, I’m pointing out your hypocrisy in recognizing that Iraqi nukes and the war on terror were largely overplayed to justify the invasion of the middle east for oil but not recognizing when Russia does the same shit in Ukraine. But it seems like you’re the type to decide who to support based on a vague tribalist conception of “east vs west” rather than actually having any moral principles to rely on, so I apologize if my criticism of certain eastern and western actions simultaneously is too much for you to handle.

Right, and the oil is just a coincidence, that just so happened to be there. And the US invaded Iraq because of terrorists and nukes that weren’t there, the oil was just a coincidence.

You’re really gonna say the attempts to distance themselves from the culture of their previous colonizers and current invaders is genocide?

Right, because drawing an allegory to the actions of the United States in the middle east as an example of doing something bad is the best way to praise the states

“No guys, it’s ok when Russia unapologetically invades a foreign country for oil, because you see that country is part of the west and west = bad”

The comments that already exist are pretty good but I’d like to bring up that I dont think it’s all that unique to Europe. Look at imperial Japan, for instance. I haven’t witnessed this myself, but I hear Korea has some cultural resentment towards Japan (particularly from older folk) thats not unlike how some affected cultures feel about their former European colonizers.

Experiencing certain forms of violence and harassment and having low-moderate social support from any source was associated with higher prevalence of suicidal ideation. Social support from family moderated the association between experiencing certain forms of violence and harassment and suicidal ideation (p interaction = 0.01); however, even in the presence of high family social support, experiencing certain forms of violence and harassment was associated with higher prevalence of suicidal ideation.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/su/su7301a7.htm

n = 1608 on this one.

Every study I’ve ever seen that looks at the link between social support and depression/suicidal thoughts in trans people shows a very clear link. Given the prevalence of transphobia in our society, this can entirely explain the increase in suicidal thoughts in trans people.

Yeah I’ve felt similarly before. I agree with the other though, drinking more water helps.

Lower self-reported transphobia was associated with a 66 % reduction in ideation, and an additional 76 % reduction in attempts among those with ideation

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2.pdf

An increase by one context in which a chosen name could be used predicted a 5.37-unit decrease in depressive symptoms, a 29% decrease in suicidal ideation, and a 56% decrease in suicidal behavior.

https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(18)30085-5/fulltext#intraref0010a

Socially transitioned transgender children who are supported in their gender identity have developmentally normative levels of depression and only minimal elevations in anxiety, suggesting that psychopathology is not inevitable within this group.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26921285/

So yes. Increased depression and suicide among trans people is, according to the research, entirely correlated with social factors like how much they are accepted by friends/family and chosen name use.

omg she looks like my first cat

The same day, a school in Colorado got shot up by someone who had fallen deep into the alt-right pipeline. It was known that this student was viewing white supremacist, extreme right content. Not a word from the president about that radical right wing rhetoric being to blame or anything of the sort.

Edit: kid also shot himself after. Alt-right pipeline hurts those that fall into it too.

deleted by creator

So let’s look at these requirements:

• violence: not really. Vandalism and destruction of equipment aren’t violence, to my knowledge PA has not harmed or attacked anyone.

• non combatants: they targeted weapon shipments and military equipment. While I suppose you could argue the UK military aren’t combatants as they aren’t part of the war directly, but honestly that point is entirely moot given that they didn’t target people.

• political and ideological aims: sure, they are a political activist organization. Obviously that alone doesn’t make them terrorists.

So, even by what Wikipedia defines as the “broadest” definition, not terrorists.

I mean, at an absolute minimum, terrorism requires violence against people, which they did not do. They targeted planes and other military equipment. That’s not terrorism no matter how much damage they caused.

Im not saying what they did isn’t illegal. I’m saying it’s not terrorism. This is like if someone was charged with murder and punished for it only to turn out all they did was rob a store and you’re like “well akshually ☝️🤓 they’re a criminal so it’s fine”

Then the UK’s legal definition is fucking stupid. Terrorism is when a group attempts to strike fear and terror into a populace to coerce them. It definitionally requires violence and fear.

So they vandalized some planes and snipped some cables? And this got them declared as terrorists?

I’ve noticed a pattern where “terrorist” is often used as a stand in for any group that opposes the government.

Sure they did something highly illegal, but anyone who thinks that illegally trying to stop a weapons shipment is terrorism is insane. If “using force to achieve a political goal” is terrorism, then nearly every country on the planet is a terrorist organization. Idk if thats like actually the UK’s definition or something but that is a ludicrous definition for terrorism.

Terrorists use terror. Its why they are called that. Not the use of force, but specifically attempting to strike deep fear into a civilian populace. At no point was PA trying to make people fearful. They were trying to stop people from dying.

What’s acts of terror has Palestine action committed for it to be classified as a terrorist organization?

The middle class still works to make a living. So they are part of the working class.