Being married usually bring very important rights.
A good example is legally being considered a partner if the other is in a hospital. In pre-same-sex marriage there have been concrere situations where partnes have been denied seeing their significant other on their death bed.
Funny that you compare YPG to ISIS. YPG/YPJ (alongside others in SDF) where some of the most successful militia in fighting back against ISIS (so much that there where some strategic co-operation with US forces in fighting ISIS).
They also generally fight for Kurdish rights and, ethnic pluralism in general (saved several Yazidi towns from ISIS for example), women's rights and democracy (including forms of local direct democracy seen few other places).
The reason PKK and/or YPG/YPJ is on some terrorist lists is mainly because Turkish government is against Kurdish rights in general. Turkey tend to claim any group fighting for Kurdish independence and/or rights to be terrorists.
So if they're ”terrorists” in the same way apartheid South-Africa saw Nelson Mandela, ANC and others fighting apartheid as ”terrorists”.
The PKK was formed in reaction to intense oppression of the Kurdish people by the Turkish State. The Kurdish language and traditional garb were banned, and Kurdish history was not allowed to be taught. The Turkish State also burned Kurdish villages and slaughtered many Kurds.
None of this is to say that the PKK has not committed acts which would surely offend western sensibilities, but simply slapping the "terrorist" label on them and calling it a day is not a nuanced way to approach the discussion.
> The Kurdish language and traditional garb were banned
How about nowadays? Nothing is banned yet we still see PKK bombing public buses in our cities. Seriously, when can we call these guys "terrorist"?
These problems were real, yes, Kurdish language was banned, people couldn't say they were Kurdish without any pressure back then but these days are no more. Does "cultural ban happened in the past" justify what PKK is doing now?
Given that I'm very far removed from these events, I don't think it's my place to make strong judgements about what is and isn't justified in what has obviously been a very long and bitter conflict.
That being said, I don't think the PKK explicitly uses these past offenses to justify their continued activity in the conflict. My understanding is that they continue fighting because the Turkish Kurds still lack any meaningful political representation, they oppose Erdogan's push towards Islamic national identity, and because the Turkish State continues to carry out military strikes against Kurdish targets outside Turkey's borders.
I'm by no means an authority on this topic so feel free to correct me if I've made any incorrect statements. It sounds like you're much close to this conflict than I am, in which case my heart goes out to you in wishing for a peaceful resolution to all of this.
Just to clarify, %20-25 of the population is Kurdish in Turkey. In elections, PKK affiliated legal party gets half of the Kurdish votes and other half goes to Erdogan roughly. So, there is no single Kurdish identity in Turkey, more like split between these two. Ofcourse, there is a few percent which is not among these two. So, if you ask is there any Kurdish people in the government, yes there are a lot. Erdogan gets half of the Kurdish votes, so we can say Kurdish Erdogan supporters have enough representation. PKK affiliated party is not in government, because they didn't get enough votes but they are in parliament ofcourse representing their %10 votes.
I don't think PKK cares about Erdogan's Islamic Turkey dream. You don't see PKK or it's legal party saying anything about it in Turkey, I think they mention it only when they are talking to western media :)
In Turkey, there is secular opposition which is rougly %40-50, they stand against Erdogan's Islamic push but they still lack of %50 + 1 votes to dethrone Erdogan unfortunately.
PKK says they want federalism for Kurdish cities, you can advocate for that, it's okay, their legal party is doing that, that's fine. But when you're holding guns and saying my way or high way, that's a big no. So, if they really care about democratic, secular Turkey, they can put guns aside, get together with opposition in Turkey.
> So, if they really care about democratic, secular Turkey, they can put guns aside, get together with opposition in Turkey.
On the flip side, learn the lesson from the iranian revolution. When religious extremists control the government and want to impose their religion on anyone, who holds the guns is the most important questions.
giving them up might be the surrender and death of democratic secular turkey, over time.
Terrorist is an ideological word, therefore it doesn’t always represent everyone’s views of a certain group.
Terrorist groups born as a reaction to heavy injustice. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians motivate a lot of members of the most popular terrorist groups today.
This has always been like this, we don’t live in a cartoon where the bad guy is 2 dimensional.
To try to understand these groups’ motivations is easy when you are immune to their actions. However, this behaviour is pretty off putting for the other side of the discussion, in this case Turkish people.
I think we need to draw a line somewhere. I don’t know where but this doesn’t feel right for me.
When you start the justification game, you need to do it for other groups too. Otherwise it would come off as hypocritical and dishonest. I don’t know you personally, maybe you do say this for all the “terrorist” groups. But I witness this behaviour online a lot when it comes to the groups that hurt Turkish civilians and I wanted to point it out, maybe this comment can give a bit of perspective to some people.
Also a separate note for the audience, not related with your comment, this is not an Erdogan specific issue as the people from the anglo-sphere tend to claim in this thread. It started before Erdogan, it will continue after Erdogan. If Obama could be the next Turkish president, the situation would still be the same.
> Terrorist is an ideological word, therefore it doesn’t always represent everyone’s views of a certain group.
> This has always been like this, we don’t live in a cartoon where the bad guy is 2 dimensional.
I completely agree and this was more or less the point of my comment. I'm not attempting to justify the actions of any group in particular, and I certainly don't endorse the use of indiscriminate violence against civilians for any reason.
I'm often bothered by the use of the word "terrorist" because I think it is often used as a means of putting us into this 2 dimensional world and creating a shortcut out of meaningful discussions. I will be the first to admit that my own government is guilty of terrorism under most definitions that people in my part of the world use.
I appreciate your comment, and apologize if mine came off as callous towards people who are suffering as a result of this conflict.
I always felt surprised how people are when they throw such "facts" very confidently. What's your source ? Have you been there yourself? How did you end up convincing yourself to know the truth so well that you can transmit to others without leaving any room for discussion? This reminds me something I quite dislike: the tone of fascism. It's widespread like a virus these days.
I've tried to find information about this, and all I can find is that Turkey claimed they committed war crimes, but when the US and UN investigated they couldn't find any supporting evidence.
You absolutely have to be conscious of reactivity and how that stuff works in React as well. This is complexity that you as a dev have to deal with in some way.
Svelte and React makes different tradeoffs in how they expect developers to deal with this.
Personally I think maybe Svelte makes a better tradeoff. I've seen so many people make variables instead of using useState, etc… because that's the kind of thinking they're used to.
In Svelte that would simply work for the simple cases, but you'd have to use $: someVar for the more complex cases. I think requiring having to deal with that complexity only when you need it is a more reasonable way to do it compared to React.
I have been using DDG full time for a month or so now but they really need to work on making their search results more readable. I might use a browser plug-in to customize the styling myself when I get some free time.
IIRC, DDG lets you configure fonts, sites and colors for results, somewhere in the settings. Works well for me, especially in conjunction with their "cloud save" feature.
It's frequently brought up in radical leftist discourse* (marxism, anarchism, etc…) or even center-left discourse (social democracy, social liberalism, etc…).
AFAICT it seems to be taboo outside these circles.
* I should mention that many people make big point that you shouldn't use economic points like this to ignore things like racism, i.e.: while racism intersects with economics you can't treat it like it's the same problem.
If you mean the stickiness of the upper-middle-class, then it's a fairly well-known phenomenon, and I don't think it's _taboo_ anywhere. Maybe some upper-middle-class people with upper-middle-class parents might take vague offense (on the basis that they believe they got where they are purely through hard work or whatever) but I can't imagine anyone thinking of it as taboo.
That's exactly how I feel. It's taboo to discuss that our economic system is just as rigged as (say) China's.
I also should have been clearer: racism is definately also a factor. Poor minorities fare so badly because they get both racism AND classism (or whatever the appropriate term is for the natural increase of both wealth and poverty).
I think one of the major upsides of the cold war was that western countries were very eager to show we could do better than those dirty commies. That birthed all sorts of programs to give people a chance of improving their lots. Most of those are dead now.
I really like the idea, but personally I got better results simply binding back and forward buttons to keyboard macros for 'ctrl -' and 'ctrl shift -' using Logitech‘s G-Hub software.
The shortcuts 'ctrl -' and 'ctrl shift -' are the default for 'go back' and 'go forward' being supported even in many apps (including that don't support the gestures), and since they are keyboard shortcuts you can usually add support for them in apps by rebinding the shortcuts for back and forward (or anything else you want to bind in that particular software).
Anarchist societies certainly have rules and means of enforcing them, but the process of how the rules are radically more democratic than any liberal democracy. Look up EZLN or Rojava if you want to see practicing anarchist-like societies existing today.
I don't mean to be rude, but it frustrates me that whenever anarchism is discussed so many of the counter arguments are (intentionally or not) strawmen.
Anarchists in general are quite negative to the prison system and often believes in alternatives, or at the very least tries to come up with alternatives (hard as that might be).
That being said, there are certainly situations where people with anarchism (or anarchism-like) beliefs have essentially jailed people. For example YPG/YPJ forces in Rojava certainly took IS/ISIL forces they won over as prisoners.
PS: Never ever heard of an anarchist that thinks the US prison system is anywhere near of justifying itself though, but that's probably something all radical leftists agree on.
> Never ever heard of an anarchist that thinks the US prison system is anywhere near of justifying itself though, but that's probably something all radical leftists agree on.
I don't think you have to even be left of the centre to realize the US jail system had serious flaws and need major reforms.
Just looking at the incarceration rates and the number of reoffences compared to international levels show that something is completely off.
That’s because all the other kinds of anarchism: anarcho-communism, left wing market anarchism, primitivism, syndicalism, individualist anarchism (unrelated to right-wing libertarianism), communalism, etc… they all agree that anarchism is fundamentally anti-capitalist.
Furthermore anarcho-capitalism has no connection to the wider anarchist movement (and is quite recent) and did not grew out of the anarchist tradition.
A good example is legally being considered a partner if the other is in a hospital. In pre-same-sex marriage there have been concrere situations where partnes have been denied seeing their significant other on their death bed.