I've been here for a month now, and I am happy to be here. I came here because I wanted to find ways to be useful to the Iranian people, and I found that, and I have found a lot more! Because I have holidays I was here a lot during the past weeks. I like the people here and we have good conversations. You people are smart people here, and good people who want good things for Iran and the world. I respect that a lot. I also love the humor here. However, I've seen people behave towards each other in ways that I believe are not good for the community and for maintaining unity for the causes we align on. I've seen quite a bit of drama and fights already in the calls, and people acting angry and controlling towards others and even towards the host. I know some people already stay away and I worried that this is not good for the movement. I have been told that before I came there was less drama, that there is a lot now, perhaps it is me hahahaha but I do not see how, feel free to practice your feedback-giving on me if there is anything. I just want to say to everyone: if you recognize this, I want to ask you if you could see ways you could do better. I am not telling you what you have to do, just giving my perspective and everyone can decide for themselves if this is relevant or not for you, and if what I write makes any sense at all. I have no authority here, I just care that things keep going well. I believe this is a great way to contribute - your words and your vibes matter. So here's some advices or thoughts I want to share to whoever finds them relevant: - Remember these are all real human being with real lives. Your words (including the tone) may affect them beyond just the discussion you have at the time. People also may sometimes be stressed or tired and so less sharp or easier to irritate, so be gentle with each other. - So try not to insult people. Take a breath. Even when you (think you are) 100% right. Think about it for a bit, and then if it's useful calmly tell the person what's bothering you. If you insult people it builds tension, not just in that person but also in other people. It's pretty destructive, because you are not discussing on a topic anymore, but you make it personal towards the other, you attack the person. This is not okay for anyone here, no matter what role you have. - See if you can de-escalate after getting angry (and perhaps insulting someone). We are all human, so we can all sometimes lash out. That doesn't make one a toxic person (I think we nowadays label each other with harsh labels way too quickly). Errare humanum est. It is human to make mistakes. But the saying continues "perseverare autem diabolicum" - to persist is diabolical. But I would say even if you persist for a while, better change your ways sooner rather then later. - I would suggest to apologize if you insulted someone instead of doubling down. Even if you still think the other has done wrong, be graceful and take responsibility for your own behavior. - Be open to feedback. I also do not love it always to get feedback (we're all human), but feedback is not an attack but an opportunity to grow. - Give people feedback in a kind but clear way when there's an issue. Or just ask why they said what they said. It's all an opportunity to learn. A good percentage of the hurts are misunderstandings. - Be considerate how you speak about others in their absence. - Personal advice (OK all of these are haha so please let me know if you disagree with any of these points): ignore trolls. They are lowering themselves. Do not lower yourself as well. The rules of Liberty Politics clearly state that we should engage in good faith, so the bad faith interactions don't belong here and should not be rewarded with time and attention in my opinion. - Please do not mention any names of others in this discussion. I do not want to encourage finger pointing. This is just for normal humans who recognize what I describe (a bit) in themselves. I also reflected on these questions myself, because relations are a big part of life and challenging from time to time for all of us, so for me too.

Ladies who dress up as mermaids for Halloween or as a hobby: be warned, you are formally on the menu. When the Grand Muftie of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Saleh bin Fawzan al-Fawzan, was asked whether mermaids exist and whether they can be eaten, he answered in the affirmative. Because it is a creature from the sea, according to the school of law, it simply falls under the seafood and you can therefore eat her. The question is: Your Eminence, may Allah grant you success: Some fish experts claim that there is a fish with a head like a woman's, with hair and a face like a woman's. Is it allowed to eat these? It is called a mermaid. The answer: There is a kind of fish in the form of a human, a sailor/woman. All sea creatures are allowed to eat, even if they look like a man or a woman. Yes. He seriously believes that such creatures really swim through the ocean, and even worse, he puts them on the Halal menu! For the Sunnah, Al-Fawzan has a status comparable to that of the Pope for Catholics. Source: https://shorturl.at/W4lF4 (from 1:06:01)

Something is wrong with me. Or with the world. Because the only reason I opened this video was to see how much hate it got in the comments. LOOK AT THESE BEAUTIES 🥹🥹 I can't believe I live in the same country as them https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Gda5T1e6VfU

Israel’s judicial debate is usually framed as a struggle between right and left, between the government and the courts, or between supporters and opponents of judicial reform. But beneath all these disputes lies a far more fundamental question: Who has the authority to exercise power in a state, and from where does that authority come? This is not a technical question for lawyers. It is a question at the heart of democracy. The state holds the monopoly on legitimate force and must therefore be constrained by law, while the individual stands in the opposite position: he is free to do anything the law does not prohibit, whereas the state may do only what the law authorizes it to do. This is the crucial distinction between power and authority. Power is the ability to do something; authority is the legal right to do it. Once the ability to exercise power becomes proof in itself that the power may lawfully be exercised, the rule of law begins to collapse. The problem begins even before the courts, in civic education and in a culture of deference. A citizen who does not understand the limits of governmental authority will tend to accept almost any demand from an official, a police officer, an administrative agency or a court, rather than ask the most basic question: Under what law are you doing this? In a free society, the citizen does not need permission in order to be free. The government needs legal authorization in order to restrict him. Holding an official position does not, by itself, create authority, just as the fact that an agency has acted in a certain way for years does not give it powers the legislature never granted it. The issue becomes concrete in the case of the Second Authority, where, according to the account presented in the discussion, Radio Galei Yisrael was fined 5,000 shekels. When the station’s legal counsel asked for the statutory basis for the fine, no clear provision could be found granting the authority such power. He was then referred to a Supreme Court ruling, but, according to his account, that ruling concerned a different matter and did not supply the required source of authority. The principle is simple: when the law requires explicit authorization, the first question is whether such authorization exists, not how creatively one can interpret the law to manufacture it. Once a court fills the gap and grants an agency power that the legislature did not expressly grant, the legislature is no longer the sole source of legal authority.

The central argument is not simply that multiculturalism has failed, but that Western societies may have gone so far in rejecting their own historical narratives that they are losing the cultural foundations that once held them together. The problem begins when young people are taught to understand history primarily through the categories of oppressor and oppressed. Slavery, racism, colonialism and discrimination must certainly be studied, but when they become the dominant moral framework through which an entire civilization is understood, something changes. If children are repeatedly taught that their ancestors were primarily oppressors, it becomes increasingly difficult to expect them to develop a strong sense of belonging, gratitude or responsibility toward the society they inherited. Schools are only part of the process. Universities, museums, social media and popular culture all shape how young people understand their countries. A culture saturated with narratives of victimhood can gradually produce a generation that sees the world in binary terms: oppressor or oppressed, guilty or innocent, privileged or disadvantaged. Complexity and historical nuance disappear. That creates a deeper problem. A democratic society cannot survive indefinitely without some shared sense of identity. Citizens do not have to share the same ethnicity, religion or political opinions, but they need common reference points: a shared history, civic principles, cultural traditions and an understanding of what their country represents. This is where immigration and multiculturalism become especially contentious. Immigration can bring enormous economic and cultural benefits, but the question is whether newcomers should also be expected to integrate into a common civic culture. A country can welcome people from around the world while still expecting them to learn its language, understand its institutions, respect its laws and develop a genuine attachment to the society in which they live. Without such integration, diversity can gradually become fragmentation: different communities living alongside one another without becoming part of a common national story.