God(&gods)( in the material world, but also) in the world of Idea(l)s(, and probably other worlds inaccessible to humans as well) :

The u.s.a. was already condemned in the case of Nicaragua and nothing changed and nobody knows that, in the very improbable offchance that Israel was condemned, they would just act like Russia when the International Court of Justice ordered them to leave Ukraine.
Let’s say that our medias talk about this improbable success and, even more improbable, support the ICJ and condemn Israel, everyone would just forget a month later. Sure, there’s nothing to lose by trying, but not much to gain either, it’s not the beginning of an effective solution, it’ll be the exact same shit as before.
And the ICJ wouldn’t even need to be considered the bad guy, the contradiction wouldn’t raise an eyebrow, but let’s say i’m wrong, have an hope in this if you want.

edit : That’s an exaggeration, those who hate Israel won’t forget such judgment and would remind us when they got the chance, that’s the difference i’m seeing, so you’re right to say that it’s not nothing to be able to label them officially as genocidal, it’d add a new argument/insult of choice.

That’s ~two every three years :

Somalia needs some support with Somaliland, and https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Biden-Approves-Redeployment-of-US-Troops-to-Somalia-20220517-0003.html

Jamaica doesn’t give any certainty either : https://globalvoices.org/2023/10/30/jamaicans-express-disappointment-over-their-countrys-no-show-un-gaza-vote/

And i don’t think Brazil would want to expose themselves as much as South Africa did(, nor China for that matter), more to lose than to gain, that’s justice. Bolivia probably only supported the case because Luis Arce has forbidden Evo Morales from being reelected and is trying to show that ~‘he’s not a traitor to the movement’ despite that.
Let’s say that they have a chance if you want though, it doesn’t matter because that’s not what would make a change, do they only have the option of a full-scale war with unknown consequences to do what’s right ? We’re just supposed to watch and then it’ll be as if nothing ever happened, ok.

The title isn’t exact :

Moreover, their relations were only re-instaured after the western-supported coup by J.Añez :

(Here’s Colombia’s president 6 hours ago b.t.w., among other examples)

(no need to point out that it would be safer for them not to take position for//against any side. The article also spoke of Argentina, here’s an interesting 2mn-long point of view)

deleted by creator

They claim to fight disinformation yet speak about a “technical glitch”, classic, just like cops lying on their depositions, what a way to set an example.

Unless the creatures, overall, would prefer to have never existed in the first place, then the Creator isn’t evil and should be praised(, that’s only one reason, for example an other one would be our search for Absolute/Greatness/Good/…)

I take it as a natural reaction to overload of stress/emotion/pain. Being able to cry is physiologically beneficial (you get rid of cortisol) and psychologically it can help you process the things you’re going through more quickly. Trying to appear though by not crying seems counterproductive to me, but I understand in some cultures it is not socially acceptable to cry, especially for men.

To me, if you’re crying you’re admitting that something is stronger than you, that you’re powerless, and i still find it useless, i guess that i just have a bad image of it(, it can be beautiful though, like tears of joy, or of an emotion which isn’t defeat). But i clearly(, and subconsciously,) don’t treat men, women, or children, in the same point of view in regard to crying, i’d never think of saying “man up” to a woman hurt to the point of tears, yet i find it admirable when a man swallow his pain, and straighten his profile in order to act after whatever happened, that’s the common thinking, i’m not the weird one here(, even if my descriptions are very imperfect), but since modernity changed so many things they may end up suppressing the differences between men and women, or not, w/e.

If I suppressed my emotions, I would still be influenced by them, but I would have no conscious control over them, which would again result in limiting my rationality

On the contrary, suppressing your emotions helps to act rationally without being overwhelmed by them, and i.m.o. there’s no real difference between emotions and reason, since our feelings can be explained rationally, we’re often saying that “reason ignore the heart’s own reasons”, but that’s not true, we are indeed influenced by subconscious feelings that we would be unable to analyse, but that’s a minor side and i don’t make a distinction between the cold reasoning and the hot emotions, i’m deciding with both a’d i think almost everyone does the same.

I find the terms inner strength and beauty to be also very vague.

100%, i realized it when i was writing the examples, and the example you gave me is another very good one, you can indeed find effeminate/weak persons who are “tough motherf*ckers”, i didn’t give enough thought behind what “internally strong” may mean, and it also depends on the situation, it’s not because you’re weak or ugly internally at one time of the time that you can’t act beautifully or strongly at another time.

I agree with you that it’s reductive to stop on two adjectives.

Well, it doesn’t come from me and i have a story and some good memories from it. But in a few words, i asked someone special(, ~9 years ago,) if he had a motto, and he told me that the masonic triangle is “Strength · Beauty · Wisdom”, i still haven’t checked if it’s true(, but discovered a few years later that it’s in the Kabbalah). It stayed in my mind and i naturally decided to apply it to men and women and divide it in internally//externally. Just to say that somewhere.
While reductive, i think it has a lot of truth in it.

I don’t see any reason to propagate just one way for men and one way for women.

Men have testosterone, have sexual fantasy when they touch women, and read comics when they imagine themselves fighting.
Women have estrogens, in their fantasy they imagine themselves being touched, and read romantic novels when they’re preparing themselves for the unavoidable desire they’ll attract.

Yeah, i’ll need to edit this message, if you’re reading this line give me 30-40mn i want to do something first.

Not that i care but i’m sure that your comment made sense in your mind, would you mind sharing it with me ?

Do you interpret relieving your emotions by crying as being weak ?

Yeah, obviously, would you say that it’s a sign of strength ?

Or perhaps feeling emotions as being weak ?

“Emotion” is a vague term. Some emotions like bravery(, often a borderline foolishness,) are assimilated with strength. Some emotions like the feeling of defeat, self-pity, the lack of resilience, the fear of authority/punishment that makes you betray others/ideals, that’s weak. Always interesting to see how Chelsea Manning is stronger than a lot of men in this regard. Men love to fight, so kinda appreciate to be hurt in a way, and are proud of their scars.
Some emotions are beautiful, such as the one expressed in poetry, others are ugly and you don’t need examples to get what i mean.

It’s easier to exclude men from external beauty and women from external strength than it is to exclude them from internal beauty and strength, respectively.

And do you find women more flawed, because they’re physically weaker than men ?

We have our qualities and flaws, some women are stronger than some men and some men are more beautiful( inside&outside) than women, and it’s reductive to stop at these two adjectives, as well as obviously erroneous to draw conclusion on an individual from generalities.
Here’s what i answered to a previous comment if you’re interested :
Admittedly, beauty is more useful in times of peace than strength, if i count the benefits(, women can give birth and that’s the most important thing in Nature), women have more of them than men, but if we can keep some of our qualities i won’t say no.

Why would it be better if there were no distinction between men and women ? Or between countries, or citizens ?
What’s the use of showing your vulnerability, is that something that others like to see ? And it’s not difficult, what’s difficult is to take upon yourself and desire the struggle.
We’re men, alike rocks, people/life hit us and we don’t move, this has advantages and inconvenients, we generally appreciate women’s sensibility, and i suppose that most of them appreciate to be able to rely on men when they’re needed.
Admittedly, beauty is more useful in times of peace than strength, if i count the benefits(, women can give birth and that’s the most important thing in Nature), women have more of them than men, but if we can keep some of our qualities i won’t say ‘no’.

That’s how things are in general.
Diversity is good, but cry if you want to, i won’t support weakness on my part, and i will keep being annoyed if i encounter a weak man(, just as women may be annoyed by “ugly” women, i.d.k.).

Lol no, you can be both, and both can be wise/smart, etc.
But in general, women are more beautiful than men and men are stronger than women, perhaps that people nowadays see egality as uniformity, i.d.k.
But weakness(, inside and outside,) is a flaw/defect, as is (internal&external )ugliness, and other flaws.

As a general “rule” : women are beautiful(inside&outside), while men are strong(inside&outside).
Promoting weak men is a mistake in my opinion.

One post and zero comment from criitz.
Ideally a fusion of Reddit and Lemmy’s content was what your bot is aiming to do, first thought it’d be illegal, but since we don’t have human reposters i’m glad there’s at least a bot instead.

I don’t entirely agree with my comment either, because there’s multiple interpretation of Hell.
One of them is interesting, it says that if our consciousness survives after our death, our mind will finally think clearly, we’ll remember our past better than if it happened today, and we’ll be overwhelmed by shame, this hell would be created by ourselves.
Another one would talk about a real place, but not in the afterlife but right here, on Earth(, it combines perfectly with this talk of afterlife if you believe in reincarnation), and says that if we all live our lives ‘searching for’/‘aiming at’ God, then our descendants/reincarnations will live in Paradise(, or in Hell if we don’t).
There’re other interpretations, as well as the thought that we’re not free since we’re determined, so God decided before our birth whether we would end up in Hell or in Paradise, a thought discussed in the Middle-Ages and rejected in favor of free-will(, i don’t think Spinoza would disagree with the conclusion that God predestined us for Hell, if he believed in Hell).
Obviously, the most common explanation is that police(wo)men didn’t existed back then, God-fearing people was the equivalent of virtuous people, even when nobody can see/stop them.

They merely said that being separated from God means suffering, while following H…er.im means walking towards the establishment of H…er.is Kingdom/City unto Earth. They talked more about Hell as a state than as a physical place, but, well… who cares nowadays, right ? Parabola never taught us anything about the real world, the spirit doesn’t exist, and morals are relative, they were simply naive ignorants who never had anything to teach us, embrace modernity and reject 100% of the past.

anyone who worships God is also good by default, and of course this logic follows that anyone that doesn’t worship God is evil by default.

If that was the case they wouldn’t put an emphasis on hypocrites.

Justice≠Revenge, otherwise Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the rest, would be justified.
If every evil was stopped though it would be the end of ‘our trip’/‘any possible progress’.

Hordes of drones flying over the city in order to find any possible infraction, don’t you want to feel safe ? (/s obv.)

In any case, we don’t get to decide, it’s our so-called representatives who’ll take the decision, with or without campaigns of communication.
At least in a real democracy, if the whole population agree to it, then i’d conform more readily to our choice even if i personally disagreed, but we’re not in a democracy, in which the demos has the cratos.
We’re in a constitutional republic, and our representatives are democratically elected, once they take the power from the people to decide in their stake it’s not a democracy, such as the one that once existed in Athens(, only for citizens, but the logic is the same).
Having the possibility to cancel any decision with a strong enough popular petition would be a first step, yet it’d be unimaginable for our “democratic” leaders, because the population needs to be directed, and shouldn’t be listened to. We’re ignorant while they know(, whose fault is it since we follow ? we obtain the population we deserve), people are stupid(, but we never include ourselves, we all have the same potential), we have to trust our leaders, etc.
In truth, we know what’s desirable, and anyone is apt to debate on whether or not this aim is indeed desirable. We only need to have experts and do experiments to test their predictions, because we don’t know anything about the technical details, almost as much as our leaders who trust these experts without obtaining the promised results sometimes(, preliminary experiments won’t prevent all mistakes, but at least it’d be our mistake, not theirs, we rarely can’t go back on our decisions).
Well, whatever, just to say that the decision isn’t up to us(, and consent is manufactured).