Dead but not counted: Hidden victims of Pakistan’s latest political clash
Islamabad, Pakistan – Anees Shehzad’s death certificate says he died from a pelvic injury and gunshot wound.
He was killed while protesting alongside thousands of supporters of former Prime Minister Imran Khan in the capital, Islamabad, on November 26, following clashes with security forces. Khan’s party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) insists that he was among a dozen civilians killed in police firing that day.
However, according to the government, no protester was killed, not even Shehzad, 20.
A week after PTI members laid siege to Islamabad and were subsequently dispersed in a late-night operation by law enforcement agencies, the government and the PTI are locked in a tense standoff over conflicting accounts of the number of casualties during those clashes.
While some PTI leaders initially said hundreds of supporters had been killed, party chairman Gohar Ali Khan later said the number of dead protesters stood at 12.
Attaullah Tarar, the federal information minister, mocked that discrepancy in a message on social media platform X on Tuesday. “These bodies will only be found on TikTok, Facebook and WhatsApp. They are playing politics of jokes and lies with the nation,” Tarar wrote in his message in Urdu.
Dead but not counted: Hidden victims of Pakistan’s latest political clash
Al Jazeera spoke to family members of PTI supporters whose deaths last week were denied by the government.Abid Hussain (Al Jazeera)
Rongke Power completes grid-forming 175MW/700MWh vanadium flow battery in China, world's largest
World's largest vanadium flow battery in China completed
Rongke Power has completed a 175MW/700MWh vanadium redox flow battery project in China, the largest of its type in the world.Cameron Murray (Energy-Storage.News)
How would I know, it hasn’t happened yet. You think you’re asking an ethical question, but you’re basically asking a historical question about the future. One can’t predict how violently the capitalists will react to a socialist revolution in an indeterminate future moment that becomes ripe for one.
How many people will die if US monopoly capitalism—otherwise known as imperialism[1]—continues? Because lately it’s been killing by the millions.
- Promoting murder
- Planning homicide
- Call for violence
- Given the timing with a murder of a health insurance CEO, the OP appears to be supporting murdering.
- advocating violence
Think of it this way: Systems vs Demographics
We as a society should never condone a system (government/CEOs/billionaires) killing a demographic (individual or group), like the death penalty. Because the system already has greater power and control.
However, the demographic should be able to kill or dismantle systems, especially when they feel threatened by those with power.
So "the people" can take the lives of the rich into their hands, but the rich can't take the lives of "the people" into their hands. Ideally.
Which is why it's okay to be pro assassination of a CEO, but not pro death penalty of a serial killer. Government (system) sanctioned murder (of a demographic) should never be okay.
And the occasional lenses for my eyeballs.
I know I'm asking for a lot because adequate vision is positively absolutely a luxury, and not at all necessary for doing the vast majority of work or existing in society...but y'know.
My comment was going back to the original question: if it's ok to kill this CEO, who decided who else it's ok to kill.
My problem is that, while I fully agree that capitalism is the principal cause of injustice in the modern world, taking justice into one's own hands through violence will only lead to more violence. The day citizens as a whole are ready for a real social revolution, I might re-evaluate my position on violence, but the majority of US voters have just elected, again, Epstein's closest friend as president so I doubt that what they want is a way out of capitalism.
Which is why it’s okay to be pro assassination of a CEO,
So would you kill one?
Like, if it's okay, and apparently the right thing too do, why don't people do it more?
It's difficult to understand much of anything when everyone has a different name for everyone else.
IMO shooting CEOs will just bring more repression and give an authoritarian government a sens of legitimacy
I agree. That’s what I said on Wednesday: lemmy.ml/post/23216334/1533915…
<davel>As cathartic as it may be, assassinating CEOs will do nothing but embiggen the police state.
<xxxxx>So centrist of you.
<davel>This is not coming from a centrist position: en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Adventur…
Nationalize:
- insurance
- hospitals
- prisons
- public transit
It's perfectly possible to have your capitalist desires and still have a nice socialist structure to protect the people.
From my experience living in a very socialist country; fair housing can be handled by rules instead of 'nationalizing'. So the rules and pricing around them would be handled by the government, but not the houses themselves.
A big one I'm missing is schools.
Because one school will be better than the other. Most likely the private school, because they charge money for parents to send their kids there in addition to the money they (unfairly) get from the government. So families with more money are more likely to send a kid to private school, which immediately creates social stratification between the private school kids and the public school kids.
The private school kids will perceive this inequity, even subconsciously, and internalize that they are better than the public school kids on some level. Often the private schools are religious too which is another can of worms.
I could keep going but I think that's enough to get the point. Private schools shouldn't exist. All the money given to them should be given to public schools so they are better for every kid no matter how much money their parents make.
I'm mostly talking in the general sense.
In my country there are a few private schools but employers don't care for them. They need to follow the official curriculum and the students will have to do the same official tests at the end of the year.
wich is not national socialism or communism btw. and yes i do because, as i said, you can have a social base for your country and still habe a capitalist economy structure.
This is why an actual democracy - not an oligarchy masquerading as one - would reduce overall violence.
This dude saw a bunch of rich people unilaterally deciding who would die, and he did the same.
I can hold two ideas at the same time here, where I understand why it happened as a consequence of rampant evil on behalf of the ownership class, and it's a natural comeuppance after pushing the wrong person too far. (I think we're all shocked it took this long to happen.)
But also, unfortunately as much as we love a good revenge story, planting 3 slugs into another human being, even a nasty one, in cold blood, is not self-defense. The goal of self defense is the reduction of an attacker's ability to cause direct and imminent harm to the defender.
This was assault, and it was murder, and we can reason about the justification behind it, but I sadly don't really know what it will change, besides the bourgeois getting allocated even more of our money to have protection detail and hold their board meetings in walled enclaves or yahts away from the populace.
Violence begets violence. Blood begets blood, and those who live by the sword will die by it also. I think any sane rational person can agree this guy reaped what he and his ilk sowed every day, but still be against slaying human beings on the streets to make a point.
Edit: Knew I was just asking to get ratio'd for not 100% full-throttle stanning the trending narrative, but the actual responses (that I saw) were thought-provoking and well reasoned, so I appreciate that.
Sometimes it seems people forget the value of discourse and only care about "how popular is my opinion right now."
I agree with you somewhat and I don't like how much downvote spam you're getting. You bring up some good points we ought to be mindful of.
Right now it seems very clear who the oppressors are, but the scary thing about reactive movements is that even if they accomplish their goal, they tend to seek to justify themselves indefinitely before everyone gets bored and it dissolves.
Everybody wants a revolution on paper, but things get messy and blurry once the powder keg goes off, and people en masse would be looking for the next enemy, the next oppressor, that must be hunted down to finally secure Utopia.
While I'm an anarchist and want the "ownership class" to answer for their wicked ways, I also don't think a bunch of independent actors picking targets and gunning them down based solely on their own justification is an ideal solution. Even if I understand why it happens and don't defend the perpetrators that push people to such extremes in the first place.
Bourgeoisie is the middle class though. Not the rich
Wow, downvoted for using the definition of a word smh
Maybe define your terms, “bourgeoisie” and “middle class”, and explain where you’re getting these definitions from.
- en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Bourgeoi…
- en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Middle_c…
The term “middle class” has been so hopelessly redefined in so many disparate ways that it’s best to avoid using it altogether. All it does is muddy the conversation.
The Bourgeoisie was the "middle class" when the aristocracy were the upper class. The majority of the world is under Bourgeois rule, not aristocratic rule, any longer, ergo the Bourgeoisie is the upper class.
Bourgeoisie does not simply mean "middle class," it refers to a class of Capitalists. You don't adjust what the word means, but its context.
Cigna has a new policy, starting 2025, that you can only get your medications covered at either CVS or Walgreens. Not both. So now I have to move two prescriptions to CVS which is way farther away and I prefer Walgreens. This Walgreens is always out of stock on two of my prescriptions, so they forced my hand.
They didn't even send a letter, just an email about it. A bunch of people are going to get a very expensive surprise.
I know it's not on the level of murder, I'm just kinda surprised they went through with it after what happened.
None of those things seem particularly terrible.
and your accusation is pathetic.
Do you think UHC is going to change its policies in any major way because of this? If it was self-defense, it was not very good self-defense. Like any other employee in a giant corporation, the CEO is easily replaced with someone else who will do the exact same job. Possibly an even better (from the company's perspective) job.
This does nothing to help all of the people who are being destroyed by the for-profit insurance industry.
I would say revenge makes more sense.
I have no idea why you think any corporate employee isn't kleenex, but they are.
A CEO can't decide to put people above profits because they will be replaced if they do.
CEOs are not emperors. The problem isn't individual CEOs, the problem is capitalism.
Idk how you can take such a strong stance against police for being police but not CEOs. If a cop stops doing their job, they too will be replaced with someone who will.
Please stop defending executives causing harm.
I don't condone the murder of the CEO of a healthcare insurance company who reject 32% of claims.....
But I understand.
Because for the majority of the world, the average American is a selfish bourgeois with a big house and two cars, who thinks oppression is when the gas price rise.
I mean I fucking live here and that's pretty much my assessment as well to be honest. Maybe not your average american if we're working on like, who's right just based on home ownership statistics, but certainly, that's not really an invalid perception.
Please explain how calling CEOs replaceable kleenex and hating capitalism is a defense of CEOs.
Am I not hating capitalism the right way?
(Gotta love getting downvoted on .ml in the last comment for calling capitalism the problem, BTW. Guess you all became conservatives.)
There is a lot of hate in that article. It's basically just bashing Islam and pretending it's news. If these are the kind of authors defending him, he probably deserved the fine.
Just copy paste "religion of peace" for like 5 paragraph instead.
Wild, its almost like both people got in trouble for their respective crimes.
Just crazy.
It is though, so.... Too bad?
Edit: and its quite a bit more than criticism, if you would be honest about things.
Now that's a take.
Seems like people associate fascism with far right beliefs and behaviors rather than authoritarianism or nationalism. I was wondering earlier this week if that's what people have been doing the way that the word "fascism" has been bandied about, I guess this answers my question.
Ah yes, the "free speech absolutist" take. Where yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater is totally cool. Thats what you're saying right? That all speech is acceptable? Even if the intent is violence? Terror?
Fascism is dictatorial control, violent suppression of opposition, belligerent nationalism and racism, etc.
If you think that describes the far right, then there you go. If the far right has these characteristics, there you go. You figured out why people associate the far right with fascism.
Well I mean inciting imminent violence or mayhem isn't covered or protected by the First Amendment from what I can remember. I'm not saying that all speech that leads to violence should be illegal, but like, if you tell people to slash up folks with knives and they do that, yeah you should be liable for that.
People associate the far right with fascism because of desperate attempts to make the right wing in general unappealing, not because the right tends to support fascism.
For clarity, when I refer to "far right", I'm speaking in terms of social values. So, things like white supremacism/segregationsim, misogyny, supporting the installation of a theocracy, etc.
Stuff like dictatorial control, violent suppression of opposition, etc. are pretty bipartisan positions. Folks on both the left and right support using such powers to meet their own ends. You yourself are doing so here, cheering on someone being jailed for criticizing Islam.
Microsoft’s Electricity Use Has Doubled Between 2020–2023
Microsoft’s Electricity Use Has Doubled Between 2020–2023
Microsoft aimed for carbon neutrality by 2030. Now its electricity use and carbon emissions are on the rise.Visual Capitalist
Ingenting blir bättre med fler övervakningskameror. Det fnns inte ett enda belägg eller bevis fö ratt fler övervakningskameror ger minskad brottslighet eller bättre uppklarning av brott. Visserligen kan kameror underlätta en del brottsutredningar men det handlar då i allmänhet om utredningar av brott som polisen skulle löst ändå. De brott som de inte löser idag kommer de inte heller att lösa med fler kameror.
Billionaires' wealth more than doubles in 10 years: UBS
Billionaires' wealth more than doubles in 10 years: UBS | ABS-CBN News
Billionaires have seen their combined wealth shoot up 121 percent over the past decade to $14 trillion, Swiss bank UBS said Thursday, with tech billionaires' coffers filling the fastest.Agence France-Presse (ABS-CBN)
Billionaires' wealth more than doubles in 10 years: UBS
Billionaires' wealth more than doubles in 10 years: UBS | ABS-CBN News
Billionaires have seen their combined wealth shoot up 121 percent over the past decade to $14 trillion, Swiss bank UBS said Thursday, with tech billionaires' coffers filling the fastest.Agence France-Presse (ABS-CBN)
No matter if its a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Jinping, Putin or Netanyahu (or some political conglomerate), and no matter where the injustice and moral corruption began or what once was, the people have to stand up against a corrupt system at that point. Of they don't they are indeed complicit, every single time.
The great majority of adult Israelis are militant settler-colonizers
link: Conscription in Israel
Since the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948, fixed-term military service has been compulsory in Israel.
I don't see how your statement and the hyper-texted link are relevant. I went through the sections but it's just their basic military service that a lot of countries require?
This is not in defense of a government, just want to make sure we're not making vague blanket statements on a populace.
like this
Dessalines likes this.
Israel is guilty of genocide and will be held accountable. I understand this is the Israeli flag, but this meme is treading a line dangerously close to antisemitism. There are those who will not see a flag. They will see a symbol, The Star of David, many peaceful people display.
The Star of David globally represents millions of Jews who are among those most against the Israeli occupation. Not only do they have the same abhorance of the unspeakable violence committed against Palestinians, Israel has hijacked their religion, cultural heritage, and the symbol representing their their passivist philosophy.
Memes like this have the potential to create hardship for Jews in the same way Muslims were persecuted in the aftermath of 911. I have personally seen the defacement of mosques. The same has already happened to synagogues. A jokes may seem innoculous, but they can beget additional violence. Take caution when making ones such as this.
(Before someone fronts Reductio ad Hitlerum, the swastika and Star of David are not even remotely the same thing)
The Incredibles (2004)
like this
originalucifer and Dessalines like this.
Reason: Given the timing with a murder of a health insurance CEO, the OP appears to be supporting murdering.
your Ivy's who are doing a net positive for the world but the methods are technically illegal.
All vigilantism is technically illegal
Also you ever notice that the most common crime that superheroes fight is robbing of banks, jewellery stores, etc? And they cause TONS of collateral damage to the surrounding city while doing so?
Oh you're a struggling worker living in a run down studio apartment next to the bank? Fuck you, a plasma bolt through your window incinerating everything you own is absolutely worth the banker oligarch losing the tiniest amount of capital in the eyes of this city's supposed saviour!
Oh you're riding the train on your way to your dead end wage slave job? Hope you don't mind the fighter for all things good using that train as a projectile to launch at the villain! Just pull your broken legs up by their bootstraps and crawl out of the wreckage of your train to work, peasant.
Oh you're the bank teller working minimum wage? You wouldn't mind if we turned this already dangerous holdup you're caught in into a literal fucking warzone with lasers and missiles right? After all, it doesn't matter if you die horrifically as long as the money is safe!
All popular depictions of super"heroes" were always in the best interests of the bourgeoisie, not the citizens. They're even depicted to have largely replaced the police in their cities. They're not superheroes, they're just supercops.
The Incredibles isn't Randian propaganda by any stretch. This interpretation is wildly missing the film's messages about society. Brad Bird, the director, called the "Ayn Rand" interpretation of the film "nonsense" and "ridiculous" in multiple interviews when this interpretation started getting parroted by people who didn't get the point of the film.
I think it got misinterpreted a few times. Some people said it was Ayn Rand or something like that, which is ridiculous. other people threw Nietzsche around, which I also find ridiculous. But I think the vast majority of people took it the way I intended. Some people said it was sort of a right-wing feeling, but I think that's as silly of an analysis as saying The Iron Giant was left-wing. I'm definitely a centrist and feel like both parties can be absurd.
I'm definitely a centrist and feel like both parties can be absurd.
is he thinking of the dems and the republicans? lmfao terminally american.
So, can you tell me in your own words what scene(s) in the film makes you think this Randian interpretation is valid?
I've seen this film more than most people (it's my favorite movie; I've seen it probably two dozen times since it released), and I am comfortable discussing any scene wherein you think the viewer's takeaway is meant to be that "the unexceptional are intimidated by exceptional people and force them to perform inadequacy for the comfort of others and how this is a net loss for society."
corsicanguppy
in reply to realcaseyrollins • • •ACTUALLY DITCHING my apple account was the hardest thing ever -- because they made it ridiculous. I don't have an iphone, imac, ipad or ibook. The process of leaving appleTV was so unbelievably onerous that I'm never coming back.
I hope Severance can come to a regular network some day.
realcaseyrollins
in reply to corsicanguppy • • •