I'm talking about Americans that don't like what the government is doing (there's a lot to criticise the American right for, but unwilling to act they are not). There's plenty of gun ownership among American liberals.
You can't assume a correlation from one data point. If it's the guns, then that'll show up in data from other countries too. When's the last time you heard of a mass shooting in Yemen?
I mean obviously, but with popular will you'll want everything to give your cause an edge—hence the guns. It's possible to have popular will and still fail, so factors that give the rebellion (or just plain old resistance, see: Black Panthers) an edge are going to be necessary. In recent history, the Houthis definitely benefited from having guns when they rebelled against the then-government.
I mean the US is too lax with access to guns, but they also have many other problems that lead to this. I mean it's telling that mass shootings don't really happen anywhere else, even in places with effectively no gun control.
Because there's no political or popular will to do anything about it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink; that doesn't mean water is useless.
I doubt anyone here particularly cares about the details, but the only crime whose punishment is stoning in Islam is extramarital sex for married people caught in the act by four valid witnesses, and it's not gendered (and also vanishingly rare even in the past), so I'm not sure what you mean by "stoning a woman."
Yeah that's the thing: This was basically all legal (war crimes aside). The US political system has been shifting towards this being acceptable for at least two generations. The president gets to wage war wherever he feels like it in America.
As soon as you tell me the number of instances where the peaceful overthrow of a repressive system did resulted in it being replaced by another one, but also: Ireland, both times. Also Italy, again both times. Almost as if violence or the lack thereof isn't actually the deciding factor.
That must be quite the surprise to people who only enter romantic relationships with the sex they're attracted to.
More seriously, sexism is specifically prejudice based on sex, and it's bad for obvious reasons (the fact that it causes harm to the sex suffering from such prejudice). If you want to expand the definition to include "choosing to do or not do something with someone because of their sex/gender" (we'll call this sexism+) you'll have to argue that sexism+ is rooted in regular sexism. This isn't something you can just assume (well you can, but what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence).
They are routinely using terrorism and supporting Russia and authocraths.
I mean, not really? Neither Iran nor its most prominent proxies (Hamas excluded) use terrorism on a regular basis; Western media just loves calling all anti-Western violent dissent terrorism. As for supporting Russia, I mean, it's not Russia that sanctioned them to death. That one is a pure self-own by the West; Iran has made it clear multiple times that it doesn't like the status quo but it needs to trade with someone. If America and co. weren't so committed to having Iran as a vassal state those Shahed drones could've been going to Ukraine instead. Iran has many skeletons in its closet (Assad being the most obvious), but not these. Finally, which autocrats?
I mean, if there's bribing going on there's no guarantee it's Messi doing it. Given his long career and the fact he's (as far as I hear; I don't watch football) the only one not playing like a thug, I'd say it's much more likely someone is bribing them for him.
About the fascism thing: That's how this place always was. It's particularly obvious on European instances (at least from the perspective of this 2023 Reddit refugee).
I'm talking about Americans that don't like what the government is doing (there's a lot to criticise the American right for, but unwilling to act they are not). There's plenty of gun ownership among American liberals.