Indeed, you are correct. This one is talking only about dysfunction. There are others (like this one or that one ) who look at factors like sensitivity/pleasure and can’t find an adverse effect, but I didn’t mention them, because I can’t see how they came to that conclusion and how the initial data was generated. So I can’t really say, whether that’s a sufficient result. Then, there’s studies like this one which asked males about their function and pleasure and compare between then and before circumcision, but again, that’s based on self-reports, which vary.

Phimosis is a congenital issue

That’s the primary type. There’s also the secondary type, that can evolve through inflammation for example. Which can be part of the pathology with insufficient hygiene.

To preface this: The science seems a bit inconclusive on the exact effects on sexual function or sensitivity. This review paper from 2023 in the Journal “Sexual Medicine Review” suggests that: “Despite the conflicting data reported in articles, the weight of the scientific evidence suggests there is not sufficient data to establish a direct association between male circumcision and sexual dysfunction.”

Unfortunately most papers are paywalled and we’d have to weed through the source papers to judge methodical weaknesses as well, since a lot of it is self-reporting. (I remember reading but can’t find a paper right now, where they tested a more objective pressure threshold that could be felt in circumcised and uncircumcised males and found some difference. But I can’t remember how significant the difference was.)

I’ve met a guy who was bullied in high school so bad for it he got a circ as an adult. (…) I don’t want to make him feel like something’s wrong with him his whole life because I was uncomfortable with the idea.

It’s a value judgement. But if you ask me personally, I would not try to avoid potential (not ensured) bullying by doing a lasting medical procedure. Especially considering that like with every such procedure there is a risk of complications (3.84% overall). Much rather I’d try to be there for him, if there is bullying and see to it, that he doesn’t feel shame around it.

Apparently crazy painful recovery.

That sounds like complications. Generally there’s more complications when it’s for therapeutic reasons and with higher age.

I’ve also talked to women who are generally grossed out by uncircumcised men. And I know women who prefer it the other way round. Again, you know your cultural environment better than me, but I don’t think you should make a decision like this on subjective opinions of some limited anecdotes. Also: Even if these opinions were objectively prevalent, they can change geographically or over time. And: Think about the kind and quality of a relation that falls apart because of something like that.

And last but not least, we have a view of a clinician in this topic who highlights the necessity of teaching him good hygiene to avoid phimosis (or general build up of smegma and its risks) and the role you think you can and want to play in his upbringing. There’s a lot of people around the world who are uncircumcised and I don’t think there is any prevalent medical downside from it. And I would absolutely add as a precaution, that such a procedure, if you chose to do it, should absolutely be made in an appropriate medical facility by qualified doctors.

Yes indeed, that’s true. The difference is that now, they don’t even want to be part of a future “unity government” like in 2014. The only thing they demand now is that the government body consist of Palestinians. Or in other words: Palestinian self-determination.

The first offer from Hamas to let go all the hostages to Israel was on the 09.10.2023. The Israeli government rejected it then and has rejected it ever since: https://www.timesofisrael.com/no-doubt-netanyahu-preventing-hostage-deal-charges-ex-spokesman-of-families-forum/

In fact, Hamas has stated that they are not interested in any future government in Gaza about a year ago and instead wanted a Palestinian technocratic body to take over. You know what happened? Israel murdered the diplomatic leadership of Hamas in November 2024. And then Israel and the US came out and said, that they had no one to negotiate with. And just a few weeks ago, they tried the same.

In negotiations early this year with Witkoff and others, Hamas even put this in writing - again with the offer of releasing all the hostages - contingent on a stop of Israeli aggression, the continuation of humanitarian aid and the Israeli troops to withdraw from the strip. That treaty was then changed by the US and Israel in May this year before it was rejected.

This has been modus operandi from the beginning from the US and Israel. After they had a deal, change it, make it look as if Hamas is rejecting the deal and capitalize on it. In fact, if you go back in history, you’ll find the same strategy over and over again, to make it look like “Palestinians rejected peace”.

And last but not least: You are telling people to lay down their weapons, that have been under a brutal siege for over two years, while ignoring the side that put in place the siege and genocidal aggression.

That is not entirely true. Italy and Japan for example have just a few weeks ago said, that they are thinking of recognition of a Palestinian state making it contingent on several changes of Hamas.

But this is neither here or there. If among a whole people, the only organization that is invited does represent only a minority of the people, which can be seen from their low approval, then this meeting is a farce. In the case of the PA, if you read the linked article, they have actively focused on cracking down on anti-occupation groups in Jenin, while Israel has forced around 40000 Palestinians out of their homes during ‘Operation Iron Wall’ early this year. Instead of opposing, they colluded. This is not the Palestinian people deciding their own fate, but colonial powers imposing their will on them.

Leaders from all over the world are making a show of it in honor of the reality-TV-star-US-president. They only invite one Palestinian representative (Abbas) from the PA to their talks. The same PA that controls only parts of the West-Bank and is highly unpopular with the Palestinian populace because they are seen as collaborators with the occupation. The “peace” “deal” came about without involvement of Palestinians. Just like 100 years ago, the fate of Palestine is being decided by colonial powers.

All the while, militant groups (if they were fighting against Israel they would be rightfully called terrorists) are continuing Israels’s tradition of killing journalists in the strip and are fighting Hamas for control.

Now we don’t know which groups these are, but back in June Netanyahu has admitted to backing militant groups in Gaza. Occam’s Razor would imply, that these would be among them.

It’s good that the bombings have stopped, that humanitarian aid has started to reach a population under a medieval-style siege for so long, offering a bit of - even if incomplete - respite. But I fear for the population once the show in Cairo is over.

EDIT: And no one is looking at the horror that is going on in the West-Bank. Nor is anyone including any points in a “deal”.

That particular Venezuelan woman was one of the leaders of the coup attempt against Chavez in the early 2000s and has been an opposition leader ever since. What makes this complicated is that she welcomed sanctions and coup attempts by the US, including during Trump’s first term and she even pleaded to Netanyahu to liberate Venezuela with military force (wasn’t able to find a better source since search results are very award focused right now).

She has close ties to Israel’s Likud party, and wants to open the Venezuelan embassy in Jerusalem after Chavez ended diplomatic relations after their assault on Gaza in 2009 and likened Venezuela’s struggle to the one of Israel.

From the will of Alfred Nobel outlining who is to receive the prize:

and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.

I’m wondering how the committee is squaring this requirement with her calling for “the use of power” by external forces.

Oh! So is that what bloatware is?

Zionists are their own kind of evil. They deserve their own label.

Reminder, that the Ultra-Orthodox parties in Netanyahu’s coalition, didn’t break from him because they oppose anything that is being done in Gaza or the West Bank, but because he plans to end the exemption from conscription for Ultra-Orthodox Jews. In fact they still back the coalition in the legislature, but pulled their ministers.

“I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to pay for genocide in a foreign country against a foreign people for a foreign war that I had nothing to do with,”

It’s consistent from the viewpoint of not wanting to pay for what happens to those children abroad or at home, no matter the nature or morality of the action. Also: Look at the use of the word ‘foreign’ and think about, who she means with each use. Not with the ‘right’ intentions, she ends up at the correct policy.

Not too long in the future:

The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.

Also from 1984 by George Orwell

If Data and witnesses or in other words verifiable reality “disagree”, there’s a word for that. It’s called “lying”. A word that should have been used a lot more often, because they’ve been doing so from the beginning. From 40 beheaded babies in ovens to now claiming there is no starving, they’ve been lying and lying and lying, without being called out by so-called journalists or leaders, so they lie again.

All the while the world can see what’s happening in this best documented in history, televised in 4K genocide. We should not forget, who kept denying this atrocity for so long. The western world seemingly forgave the media for lying the West into a war with Iraq 22 years ago and forgot. Now the so-called free press are proving to be as disgraceful today. No one should take any word they say seriously, if they blatantly go with the lies. Remember them. We have to hold them accountable.

P.S. There’s a broader point about not holding people accountable (e.g. Obama not wanting to prosecute the Bush administration) leading to today’s situation in the first place, but that’s a story in and of itself.

There do exist things resembling that a bit. Usually done on the local level and mostly concerning some street/development design, where people are invited to actively participate in a workshop style event with experts and vote on the results. But yes, these are not mandates. And as soon as you go onto the state or federal level, such structures become virtually non-existent.

The others are parliamentary commissions which can be instated by parliament and are formed of mainly external experts around a certain issue. These are often used on state and federal levels of government.

I would love if representation was spread wider over the population and that involvement was higher. I also am baffled at how bad general civics education is here in school, especially at the obligatory level. I would welcome a far more detailed and engaging civics education where they could already get some experience right at the school. Or go and participate at some local event. This way they also see the importance of a truly democratic process. Alas, as long as they can’t vote, nobody seems to want their opinions.

Another part that needs addressing is finances. There’s a lot of intransparency yes, but the way it works now, it is also very hard to get your message across without being big in a main political party or having some big private sponsor. Which limits your actual freedom before and after you’re elected. If we’re thinking radical we might severely limit campaign budgets or think about public funds allowing the same restrictive scope for everyone, no matter their background and finances. This would also limit the imbalance in outreach between capital-backed candidates and others.

A third huge problem lies within the judiciary, where judges on many levels effectively also have to be party-associated to get elected. If that sounds completely compromising their necessary impartiality, yeah, it’s because it does. (Although I don’t have data on how that influences their work)

And lastly: The structures of accountability for politicians. I know that some steadiness or stability is necessary, but without the fear of accountability, far too many misuse their positions without repercussions. As we see from around the world, this invites more and more brazen figures to do more and more brazen violations. Just a brain-fart: 100k signatures to force a vote on relieving someone of their immunity so they can be tried in court. And to not just wait it out. Right now, it’s parliament that has this exclusive possibility.

This is not law yet. The Federal Council (the executive) has started a consultation process at the beginning of the year which ended in May. They are now looking at all the feedback that came in, that was - unsurprisingly - exclusively negative from all sides. If the responsible minister wants to go ahead with it, it goes to the Federal Council for a vote. If they approve it, this would be a decree to change an existing decree and that would come into effect next year or the year after.

And this is where direct democracy comes in: If this is the case anyone can start getting signatures for a public initiative which would change the constitution to prohibit such practices. In fact anyone can start doing that now. If it succeeds, then it’ll come to a popular vote. Threema (a secure chat provider) has already announced that they would do that and I’m sure that they wouldn’t be the only ones to band together in this.

The process might take long, but this is in no way “not good enough to counter a campaign for legal change with a goal” and in fact has happened multiple times in the past. Hence why Switzerland has a direct vote on issues every few months because of something called “Referendum”, whereby a popular vote can be forced on an issue passing through parliament. I might have my criticisms of the political system, but this ain’t it.

its system encourages it to have politicians as a thing

Well yes, there is some level of representation, so over 8 million people don’t have to decide every little detail on 1000s of changes of law. The system is built upon a “milita” system. I.e. politicians usually have a job. So people have the possibility to vote in experts or their vicinity and know that they won’t solely be career politicians. Unfortunately the laws around financing and propaganda are rather lax, giving an advantage to the rich, which leads to an over-representation of the capitalist class with occupations such as lawyers and business-owners and a clear under-representation of classical working-class jobs such as craftspeople or office workers. This is amendable though to correct the mismatch, if people realize their class interest and don’t fall for the same right-wing propaganda of a party whose playbook has been inspired by the US GOP for decades and who is inspiring Germany’s AfD now.

The main downside of the system imo has to do with people with no knowledge on an issue having to weigh in on them and therefore how powerful propaganda campaigns can be, which means that money buys power, as in every other existing so-called democracy - direct or not. Especially with how money shifts power away from the populace, this is inherent to capitalistic systems and it would be on the populace to protect itself from it. With enough propaganda though, people keep voting for more power of capital unbeknownst to them or not, just as they might vote against their interests on other things. The fact that you have to convince so many people, who hopefully do have some degree of education, makes it a lot harder though, for big capitalists to reach their goals, compared to less direct systems. And I know of several examples, how such a vote did not go in favor of big capital. What usually makes the difference is whether they succeed in portraying their advantage as the advantage of all.

Let’s reverse roles for a second. You’re the employer. What reasons would there be, for you to advertise an opening? Could your primary motivation possibly be paying people money? (Rhetorical question) Considering you already have a team, what kind of person do you want to fill the position? What profile should they have? And how would their motivation reflect on their expected performance?

P.S. I’m not saying, not to talk about money, but there’s a time for talking about that vs. finding out, whether you’re a fit. And answering a question about your main motivation on why you want to be part of their team with money, doesn’t reflect well on you or any expectations of you.

lol yeah. They didn’t edit out all the flirting though or all the embarassed or indignant reactions by the characters around them, which presents those “cousins” in a really interesting light ;)

The US version of Sailor Moon was also censored and edited in different other ways. IIRC:

• All Tokyo references were changed to New York. So they’ve changed where the whole thing took place.
• They changed all Japanese writings (Hiragana, Katakana, Kanji)
• Multiple characters had their gender or sex changed as to avoid homosexual relations.
• The music was completely changed for some reason
• They took out many scenes or even whole episodes if they thought, they might vaguely get into conflict with the FCC.
• They scrapped a whole season, because the Sailor Starlights (I think that was their name?) changed gender in their magical transformation.

The most infamous would be South Park episodes S14E05 and S14E06 named “200” and “201”. The central theme of the episodes: Censorship. Something South Park had been subjected to ever since its inception. And this time, they centered around the limits of what is allowed around depictions of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. For context: These episodes aired after controversies around such depictions in media around the world had people killed.

So in an attempt to protect themselves, the network engaged in censorship of the episodes and it is sometimes unclear, what was intentionally in there as a plot point from the creators and what was added by the network. Although some egregious examples are clear, such as the complete bleeping of Kyle’s “I’ve learned something today” monologue at the end. While Stone and Parker inserted clear plot points like characters like Moses of all people asking, whether something was OK to show or say. I’m still uncertain whether the huge censorship bar over the Prophet is a plot point, or censorship or both.

The kicker: Prophet Muhammad had been shown in earlier episodes already, without sparking controversy and in “200” and “201” they even reference those episodes. As expected, they received death threats after the airing of the episodes and later pulled all five episodes with Muhammad depictions from their streaming sites (Super-Best Friends, Cartoon Wars 1+2, 200, 201).