Allah

i have nothing against wealth distribution, but most progressives exist just in name only

Activists from developing nations demanded Western taxpayers fund premium, sparkling-water medical facilities this week, completely dismissing the far easier, common-sense alternative of just having fewer children.
"We deserve sterile surgeries and chilled misting stations," explained one local community organizer, speaking over the deafening noise of his eleven younger siblings playing in the background. "It is the West's moral obligation to pipe filtered spring water directly into our delivery rooms."
Critics note that while birthing a small country’s worth of citizens remains a top regional priority, the concept of basic PVC plumbing continues to completely baffle local urban planners. Western progressives immediately championed the cause, arguing that clean medical water is a basic human right, whereas practicing basic family planning or self-restraint is a literal war crime.
UN experts have helpfully suggested trading just one toddler for a single industrial water filter—a simple math equation that remains entirely ignored by locals. Until the math clicks, Western taxpayers are expected to subsidize the endless cycle of massive baby booms and empty wells, ensuring every single newborn enters the world with a personalized lawsuit against the first world.

Hamburg's Pride parade went ahead under heightened security, one week after a 21-year-old drove a van into crowds at Berlin Pride. The attack killed one person and injured 29 others.

Abstract page for arXiv paper 2604.03136: StoryScope: Investigating idiosyncrasies in AI fiction

According to the video:
American model of free speech, which largely rejects hate speech laws, is essential because governments and institutions should not have the power to decide which ideas are acceptable. They argue that restricting speech does more than silence offensive opinions, it shapes what people are able to think, discourages open debate, and makes society less resilient by suppressing controversial or unpopular viewpoints. While acknowledging that hate speech laws are intended to protect vulnerable groups, the speaker contends that in practice such laws mainly protect the authority and narratives of those in power. They conclude that true intellectual freedom requires allowing even offensive or unpopular ideas to be expressed so they can be challenged rather than censored.