It’s a bit difficult to advise on such a thing without knowing the people and their situations, so I’ll keep it as general as possible and mention a few common traps. And it won’t be a clear yes or no, because in the end, only you two can make the decision and take responsibility for your own lives.

When people say, that you change a lot during your 20s (or longer for that matter), it’s because of several things, but I’d say the most important are:

First: Your ability to interpret and regulate emotions (the prefrontal cortex is the last part of the brain to fully develop and continues to do so in your 20s). And with that identifying subconscious emotional wounds and patterns driving your decisions, so you can take appropriate action to change your programming where it isn’t helpful. In a relationship context both of your attachment styles are very relevant here.

Second: Identifying and letting go of values and ideas that have been instilled in you by your vicinity (parents, religion, friends, TV, internet, or society in general) and identifying your own intrinsic values and drivers. Or in other words: Learning who you, yourself, really are. I know it feels like you already know, but that feeling can be deceiving. I for one don’t know of a single person who is let’s say 35 and would claim that they truly knew themselves at 20, let alone 17.

So when you say “It has always been my dream to have a family of my own, and that motivated me to propose: why wait if you know what you want?”, I hear some alarm bells going off. I would advise you and your fiancée to be very introspective, where this want came from and whether it truly aligns with yourselves and with your current situation, or whether it came from external influences. This is hard to do at your age, even if there is a chance that you are both already mature enough in that regard. Also be very aware, what marriage actually means. To you, to her, to others (e.g. is it a box to tick off, or is it a gate to real fulfillment?) and legally.

I read in one of the answers that you haven’t had a real fight yet. A primary predictor of relationship success is your way of conflict resolution. Now don’t go looking for artificial conflict to see how you react. But if you for example were to take things in steps, like moving in together before you get married, these conflicts will arise naturally and you would be able to see how that goes. And even if it goes badly at first, if you are both conscious of it and willing, you can both work on the way you react to and communicate during conflict (and in general) to make it succeed. A small word of caution and something to explore (not assuming it’s necessarily the case here): A pattern I see often in couples who “don’t have fights”, is that at least one of the two is avoiding it. Which can be ok, but not if it means always (consciously or unconsciously) abandoning their own boundaries or values.

What complicates all of that, is what people now seem to call “new relationship energy”. Basically the hormonal cocktail of your system that makes you feel so excited and in love with the other person. This leads people to ignore existing and potential friction and romanticize the idea of a future with the partner. While it is possible to “keep a spark alive” for your whole life, if you do it right, this “energy” for a lack of a better word, will wear off at some point. At which time other factors like communication skills, conflict resolution, the emotional depth of the relationship and value/need/want alignment become even more important.

I could go on and on (what’s your plan for education, jobs, place to live, kids, …), but I think these are the most relevant parts to make a decision with both eyes open. The journey can be magical as you get to know yourself and the other person together and witness and be part of the growth together. But it will get bumpy and how you two can navigate those bumps will determine where you’ll end up. No matter the success, it will be a learning experience. If you are willing to learn and act accordingly.

Good luck you two. And don’t forget to enjoy and experience your lives!

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.

It’s because how it came about and how the process works (which they make up for themselves btw) it needed unanimous consent.

That would be my biggest worry as well. Although this isn’t specified yet, I assume that they would develop the software for Google/Apple. IIRC the Digitale Gesellschaft, a privacy advocacy group, has mentioned this as feedback about a year ago. I don’t know what was done with that though. Other issues were included in the development plan though.

Also: With how this law is worded, no one is forced to use an eID. You can go the old fashioned way and e.g. go to the traffic office in person.

Please don’t jump to conclusions. A well implemented eID can even improve privacy compared to the alternative of accessing big parts of the internet by trusting private companies to handle sensitive information like photos of physical IDs.

There is something in cryptography called Zero Knowledge Proof. With it only minimal information is exchanged and no party can tell anything about the person accessing it, i.e. the website who you are or profiling your ID, nor the verifier or issuer what you’re doing.

Without knowing how the eID will be implemented, you can’t just make such blanket statements. Want to know the details? It is open source and you can look up any technical details as well as the software code publicly.

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

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.

Add to that ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan who has already been sanctioned by the US back in February for the crime of issuing an arrest warrant for a war criminal.

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).

Yeah I made a similar discovery after installing a Shelly Switch with Power Metering. The monitors and their brightness make a huge difference as well when in or near idle (for photography, so not a surprise). I’ve also implemented an “anti-standby” function, so the switch opens whenever the current falls under a specific threshold.

For the WoL, since I have a switch, I configured my BIOS so it would turn on after power loss. Now I can start to boot up from afar :)

You seem absolutely sure that this will materialize and that its implication means that you have no scope of action. Again, with enough institutionalists in important positions, even if he tries, it would be difficult for him to actually get rid of federal, let alone local and state elections. What is much more likely is that he will make it easier to skew or how he might call it “rig” elections. You know, like voter suppression and gerrymandering on steroids. So what I’ve written still holds: On a local and state level (or even federal level), pressure your elected officials and organize around the protection of voting rights. Be an active part of the legislative process. Democracy isn’t making a cross every four years. And she’s calling on all of us.

Sidenote: For everything that man says, you can find a clip of him saying the absolute opposite. So watch what he and his lackeys do, not what he says.

Decrying the persecution of crimes against humanity as antisemitic is quite something. It begs the question then, what these people see inherently Semitic about perpetrating these crimes.

The blatant misuse of this term is actually very harmful to Jews around the world, since calls of those actually suffering from anti-Jewish sentiment are not taken seriously anymore.

The OP did a quality reply already where he cites the article you’ve linked to debunk your own claims. But you could also have done with reading the OP’s article until the second paragraph.

The draft resolution was aimed at calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza and the release of all hostages held by Palestinian groups in the enclave.

At this point unquestionably spouting the official lies of the U.S. or Israeli governments is spouting genocidal propaganda and can only be seen as either hopelessly ignorant or bad faith.

The second paragraph in the article:

The draft resolution was aimed at calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza and the release of all hostages held by Palestinian groups in the enclave.

The second paragraph reads:

The draft resolution was aimed at calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza and the release of all hostages held by Palestinian groups in the enclave.

Outside perspective: It doesn’t have to be. It is the moment democracy, its values and its people are tested. The path towards open dictatorship and/or fascism is not set in stone. What is clear is that some setbacks, even catastrophic setbacks, are unavoidable. But as a whole the free-fall can be avoided and you can bounce back from setbacks, even if it takes time. This is actually somewhat universal, since it’s not only the U.S. which is sliding more and more towards fascistic or anti-democratic tendencies. It’s just that, like with so many other things, everything does seem to be bigger in the U.S. (and Texas).

Although I’m sure a lot are feeling economic pain and/or are generally under stress and uncertainty (IIRC 50% of households struggle to make an unplanned $1000 expense), and I don’t expect it to get better under the new administration, the U.S. is still a federated system. If you look at what affects your daily lives directly, a lot more is done on a local and state level, than on the federal level.

From where I’m standing, organizing with like-minded people in your community around issues is the most promising way to go. Unfortunately the issues are back to basics issues like human rights and democratic principles, but that’s where we are. This entails more than just protesting, but actively pressuring elected officials around legislation proposals. Suggest ballot measures (find out how such a measure gets to the ballot in the first place, because it’s very different depending on where you are). And of course having people run for office and for the others to support them to get in, and get the anti-democratic forces out, once it is time. Don’t succumb to the nationalization of local elections. People can be reached way better and more directly on the local level, when they can see it directly affecting their lives and talking to the people responsible directly than for anything happening in Washington D.C. Counter the anti-democracy spewing media outlets with true alternatives (maybe there’s an entrepreneurial-minded person wanting to found a cooperative media outlet).

It sounds like a lot to do. But you are more, than you think. Even the disillusioned might be good allies. Take yes for an answer. And more people than you might expect have been part of ‘the struggle’ for a long time. Welcome them. And yes: Coordinate with and support other local actions.

Another view on what will happen with the federal institutions: Although Trump will put more loyalists than ever in powerful stations, there will remain many (even among the loyalists) who profit from the system’s status quo. This includes the Supreme Court justices and ironically corporate goons. So in furthering their own advantage, they might resist things leading to an overall degradation. Of course they will go along with and actively lobby for anything that gives them more power at the expense of the general populace, but that is already the case. Again, if you make unlikely allies on single issues: Take yes for an answer.

Bottom line: Democracy and basic rights are ideas, made by humans. And they can only survive, as long as we believe in and fight for them. Always keep the belief, always keep on fighting. If you hit your head and fall down: Get back up. As the saying goes: This is a marathon, not a sprint. All the best!

No surprise there. Not too long ago they have given up their ‘neutral’ stance (wasn’t really when Wagner was involved with the RSF) and gained support from the SAF for the construction of a Russian naval base, while the Wagner group still fights with the RSF.