Why such a heavy downvote?

Could be the case.

For a year the Biden administration has given carte blanche to a genocidal zionist who is the head of an apartheid regime that the US has been supporting for so many decades, regardless of who was in power. What did they expect from Netanyahu? Loyalty to the party?

Thanks for sharing this cause what he says and what AP reports are quite different. And I'm saying that not being a fan of him, on the contrary.

I don't understand this logic. You claim that the US is supporting by all means a genocide because it's election year and out of fear of being called antisemites by the republicans? Therefore, after the elections this genocide will not be supported by the democrats anymore?

I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense to me.

I think that if the democrats win this election there is a decent chance the US could start slowly pulling support.

Why do you think that? Did I miss something perhaps? I haven't seen a hint from democrats during the past year up to now to support this claim. On the contrary, they actively send Israel tones of bombs and money to genocide Palestinians, and no matter what "red lines" the Biden administration puts on the matter, soon after they forget about them. And Harris (if I remember correctly) she said she will continue the same policy.

We must face the hard truth in Gaza: Israel has lost its moral authority - The Hill - 07/18/24

I reviewed thousands of incident reports and tens of thousands of individual data points from several dozen credible organizations, as well as the Israeli military itself, as a part of a nonpartisan task force analyzing Israel’s campaign in Gaza.

Our report, submitted to the Biden administration and briefed to Congress, establishes compelling and credible evidence of Israeli violations of international humanitarian law and U.S. military best practices, utilizing U.S.-provided munitions. It shows how the Israeli military has demonstrated a “systematic disregard for fundamental principles of international law, including recurrent attacks launched despite foreseeably disproportionate harm to civilians.”

It's the Zionists who are killing children, and what you say is totally antisemitic.

It seems to me you are missing the point.

This is a political suicide. I cannot say that I am for this approach but what I see is a form of protest (and maybe what I think about it is another topic). What is striking to me is that this US-backed Genocide is taking place for almost a year, and due to despair americans are even killing themselves as a form of protest.

And of course there are other forms of protesting. People try to influence politicians in so many ways so the US stops providing guns and arguments attempting to justify it.

Looks like the article was removed. I suppose this is a great reminder why it's important to archive a link before posting it, and share the archived link as well.

I agree with your take on many levels. Maybe the percentage looks like it's a quite higher than 0.05% [Nestlé reports full-year results for 2023], but still not enough to really hurt them. I also agree with what is mentioned at the end of the article:

"It's a scandalous decision which sends a very bad message about a climate of impunity: Nestlé Waters can deceive consumers around the world for years and get away with it by pulling out its checkbook,"

I think I understand what you mean, but I see things quite differently.

The problem on this planet is this specific form of capitalism we live under.

Humans are the solution to this systemic problem.

Great you mentioned this, so I just edited the title so the point is clear.

Just finished the first episode and I find it very interesting. Crossposting it to Podcasts.

Partially archived link of the article

So you choose to ignore that Israel for almost a year has been committing Genocide towards Palestinians. That this Genocide takes place in OPT (Occupied Palestinian Territories), occupied by Zionists that is, for over 75 years. You choose to ignore that a huge part of this Zionist society is totally supporting the Genocide, and many of them even make fun of it on podcasts and social media while plenty of Israeli support this material.

Instead, you want to shift the topic from Genocide and the support it gets, to Hamas.

Please, don't overestimate the power of Hasbara / Zionist propaganda.

This article does use more specific language than "southern hemisphere", so not too sure what you mean. It also includes several links for further reading in relation to this topic.

Thank you for pointing me towards the right direction, so I found the following link:

Precise, gentle and efficient - The cleanup system has been specially designed and tailored for this purpose. It is four meters deep and designed as a funnel with an opening at the bottom to ensure that fish and other marine life are not trapped when trawling for marine plastic.

Thank you for pointing that out, this part really does not make any sense. Not to sure what I had in mind, so I thought of making an edit with a strikethrough so that the sentence does make sense.

To be honest, I don't know who's in the right here, ...

The way I see things, it's pretty clear. In the global south are the countries that suffer the most from the economic activities (to say the least) that come from the global north. Giving these badges to the global south NGOs is important as an effort to balance out how underrepresented these part of the world typically are, even tho they are most affected by actions of others ,namely the countries that got upset, or companies that come from there. Admittedly, I don't expect too much out of this specific climate conference due to the intense lobbying that takes place there. I'd love to be wrong on this one and be pleasantly surprised, for sure.

...but the article definitely feels like it’s taking a side, and the editorialized title makes that bias worse.

I believe it is important to accept that all media is biased, even if they try to portray themselves as neutral or objective (an easy example would be fox's fair and balanced sloggan). So I don't think that bias is a problem by itself, but performing impartiality totally is, and mainstream media do that for several reasons.

Still, I think a journalist or an outlet can be trustworthy, and this relies on their processes. They need to be honest and meticulous in their research (and perhaps something else that I didn't think of right now).

Edit: The strikethrough

Archived link of the article