Also, no offence, but the quote “Actually the books say this and not that” is, actually, a near perfect example of the ignorance I mentioned.

That’s my point. The people who are ignorant of what those books say are the religious people, not the queer people who are targeted. You can easily find atheists who know a lot more about the Bible than religious people, often because religious people will force atheists to debate what the books say, when they themselves don’t know what their book says, and atheists end up having to do all the research to prove them wrong. It’s the old joke “how do you become an atheist? By reading the Bible.”

Not to mention that in the first place, queer people and atheists not knowing what the Bible says is completely fine, they’re not at fault of anything, it’s not their job to know and educate religious people. It doesn’t matter to them what it says - only that religious people persecute them by claiming their book tells them to.

Propaganda can mean you don’t have a sense of scale compared to a conceptual strawman defense you’ve been fed your whole life with vague undefined terms. “Terrorism must face retribution? Yeah that makes sense. Wait, how many did you say??” It took someone in my family seeing a graph comparing the number of dead Israelis to dead Palestinians by date back in late 2023 to question and drop the “right to defend themselves from terrorism” ideology.

“Actually the books say this and not that” has zero relevance to what people actually do to others, so queer people are absolutely in the right to be wary of religious people, because religious people are those most likely to harass them, even if it means they didn’t read their own book. That’s not ignorance on the part of queer people, that’s doubly on the part of religious people who are also ignorant about what queer people might do to them.

After the introduction chapters, the story has been splitting each chapter with a past section and a modern section. The two are very different in mood, the modern part is more slice of life with a little mystery here and there, the bulk of the story is in the past part. I didn’t know this was getting an anime so I’m curious to see how they’ll get to that, worse case scenario is they don’t do the dark stuff at all and just make it SOL. Actually I don’t remember when the past arc started, so the entire first season could be SOL.

Then, you slide in with “I don’t understand why you think it should be more expensive if it’s locally made.”, and I genuinely don’t know where you got that from.

You literally said it was “worse” that they’re willing to pay, but not more, for a local version?? That is a judgement call you made about the people’s answer, those fabulous 33%, the weirdos who “can’t be bothered enough to be willing to pay for it.” If “not paying more” is worse, then how are you not, in fact, saying that they should be paying more??

Well, my French may be exceedingly rusty, but the thing I’d read here is that “surcout”, “plus cher”, and “basculer vers un fournisseur” all refer to the 49% who would pay. The 83% response is to the question about the EU.

I still don’t understand what you’re reading wrong here. 100% of the people they asked are paying something, they’re all using the EU’s services, which is currently not deGAAFed enough. 49 of them are ready to pay more if the EU goes local. The other 51 are not ready to pay more for the EU services they already pay. Everyone has a fournisseur / provider, everyone uses EU services, everyone pays for them. 83% of all the people they asked think it should be local, and 49% of all the same people would pay more to make it happen.

Does it help in any way if I point out that there was a stink up not long ago about French health services storing data on Microsoft clouds? About the DGSI (national security stuff) having a contract with Palantir ? (which they dropped fortunately) Google, Microsoft, Amazon, are everywhere, in France, in the EU - in things that we pay for right now, through taxes for France and for the EU, and then there’s the other stuff like Internet providers that we individually pay for, some of whom do or did use stuff like Amazon’s services. And the general sentiment is that they should fuck off, and half of the people would be willing to pay more. This is what it’s about.

…And from that, you assume the 83% are all paying customers?

No, you are assuming they are not.

“83% want to reduce their dependence” does mean that they are dependent on American systems. And half are ready to pay more than they already are. That is, in fact, what the whole article is about. People who use those systems.

What do you think “pay MORE” means? More than what?

Somehow you’re introducing the notion that, what, they’re all pirating it? You’re just making up nonsense.

Un Français sur deux serait prêt à payer plus cher pour une alternative souveraine

près d’un Français sur deux se dit désormais prêt à payer un peu plus cher

83% des Français pensent que l’UE devrait réduire ses dépendances numériques vis-à-vis des pays tiers

le marché mondial du cloud reste très largement dominé par des acteurs américains : AWS, Microsoft Azure et Google Cloud en tête

49% des sondés se déclarent prêts à basculer vers un fournisseur de services numériques basé en Europe, même si cela coûte un peu plus cher

Nuance à ne pas effacer : le sondage précise que le surcoût envisagé reste léger, pas un chèque en blanc, et il s’agit d’une intention déclarée, pas forcément d’un comportement d’achat. C’est quand même le genre de chiffre que les institutions européennes vont citer dans leurs discours pendant la prochaine décennie.

By the way, “basculer vers un fournisseur” does explicitly mean they currently pay for something, but that they’re ready to move to something else. And “surcout” does explicitly mean an increase of cost compared to the cost they currently pay. And so does “payer plus cher” (the “pay MORE” that I’ve been underlining for you over and over since the start).

I don’t understand how you could possibly be dumb enough to read this any other way.

I don’t know what the fuck you think you’re trying to do here.

It literally says “83% want an alternative, and 1 in 2 are ready to pay more” . You’re the one making shit up about people not paying at all for no reason.

Are you an LLM? Is that what’s happening?

Dude, look around you. Everyone’s telling you that you’re reading this wrong.

The title is “one in two would pay MORE” and “83% want an alternative.”

No one is saying that the 33% difference don’t want to pay. You are claiming that. You prove it.

but aren’t willing to pay to get it.

No, you are reading that wrong.

Those 33% do want to pay for it. Just NOT MORE. But they do want to pay. Why do you keep saying they don’t want to pay for it when the text says 83% are ready to pay for it? And somehow you still insist that it’s everyone else who’s wrong.

Here:

83% want a domestic alternative, one in two (50%) would pay more for it. 83-50=33. 33% is one third.

“…So, a full third want a domestic alternative, but not to pay for it?”.

Those two statements are contradictory.

I don’t understand why you think it should be more expensive if it’s locally made.

?? They are willing to pay for a domestic service, presumably to people doing it domestically, just not more than what they’re currently paying to non-domestic people. I’m not sure how you are reading this.

Pay more

Well yes. As opposed to what? No one is starting a war in another country for anything else. That’s the thing, you say it’s a war for survival, but that’s one side of it. The other is, indeed, in it for the profit. Border war is profit, even most of the times when one side says it’s for their security. Random land grab is profit. Religion, ethnic cleansing, is profit by influence - some will believe in it, but the ones in power usually don’t - they just want the thing that’s over there and they don’t want others to control it. There are revolutions and wars of independence where people will fight back to free themselves from oppression in their own land, but historically, those are the minorities.

And no one starts a war because “somebody over there is being insane on their people or others and needs to be removed from power”. Not now, not historically.

Was this war about profit? I think you will find most wars aren’t.

I feel like you’re forgetting about Russia. Russia started the war for profit, Ukraine fights back for survival. Most wars are, in fact, started for profit - for one side anyway.

Other way around, the Scot / Benandonner is the one who tore up the causeway when Fionn tricked him.

That’s a cool opinion, let’s look at Hormuz to see what Iran thinks of it.

No, i would say it’s very similar. Pilgrimages, a priest class, specific buildings to worship in and “sunday school” of some form or another. If you disapprove of modern religions but like the old ones then it’s really the content of the religion you have irks with.

Early “shrines” in Mesopotamia were about making a landmark to find and return to and rebuild each time they came by (which isn’t necessarily a “pilgrimage”, just knowing where to return), and then building large storage rooms for all the grain that could be redistributed to the people. We don’t have any particular trace related to sacrifice or teaching worship, or even any mark of distinction between priest and non-priest class, as this was before writing. Source is “the invention of the city” by Gwendolyn Leick.

Google the text “未来戦隊” “ミライス”