Awww, what a sweet baby. Thanks for sharing.

Mean! I was just coming to comment how cute they are 😍

As I said, the song was a really big deal when it happened, there was a massive outcry. I believe the incident took place in 2013, the year Malema founded his party. His platform absolutely runs on hatred of white people, and this was a way for him to gain political relevance.

The objections to Malema singing the song went through the courts, as they should, and Malema had to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Appeal. (The final judgement is from 2024.) I would assume that he sang it again after that but honestly try to ignore him as much as possible.

However, there was no point in Trump showing videos of Malema to the South African delegation. They had nothing to do with it. In fact, the ANC promised in 2012 never to sing that protest song again (it was originally one of their protest songs).

More importantly, this video is not evidence of a white genocide, past, present, or planned.

Edit to add: The reality is that there is a notable segment of the population that is angry. The economy is bad, unemployment is crazy high, electricity is insufficient (load shedding is a disaster), violent crime remains high, etc. It’s easier for them to keep blaming white people than acknowledge that it’s been 30 years of black rule now. Malema is a symptom of these issues. A meaningful discussion around this topic would have been valuable, but that’s not what Trump did.

The one was a picture of a large number of crosses which Trump said was a burial site for 1000s of white farmers, when it was in fact a memorial following the death of 2 farmers. The memorial was intended to represent all farm deaths of all races. Farm deaths are an issue but the victims are of all races - they kill the farmers, their families and the workers.

There was a video of a political leader singing a song that translates to “Kill the Boer” i.e. kill the white Afrikaans farmer. This video is: a) more than a decade old, b) from a rally of a minority opposition party i.e. not the political party of the people Trump was meeting, c) from a political party that has been losing votes in recent elections, led by someone who was expelled from the ruling party, d) is of a historic protest song from the apartheid era i.e. more than 30 years ago.

This video resulted in a court case, where the court concluded that a “reasonably well-informed person” would understand that when a protest song is sung “even by politicians, the words are not meant to be understood literally, nor is the gesture of shooting to be understood as a call to arms or violence.”

This video was a big deal at the time but it’s not current, not representative of the government’s view, and the person depicted in it is increasingly being sidelined in South African politics.

Thanks for the summary, very helpful.

To my knowledge, the words man/woman are not originally a social construct - they’re the biological terms for human males and females (like a bitch is a female canine, and a rooster is a male chicken). However, as science has advanced, it’s become increasingly clear that biology is not as binary as male and female.

On the other hand, we have binary gender roles, which are a social construct. Since external genetalia generally form the basis for assigning gender roles, there is a very close but not exact overlap between gender roles and biological sex. The argument is that since gender roles don’t always match biology, the words man/woman are social constructs. Effectively, they’re trying to adapt the original definitions, but are not unexpectedly meeting with resistance.

Going back to this specific law, my immediate question would be: what determines whether you’re biologically male or female? Is it your current genetalia or the genetalia you were born with, i.e. what about trans people that have transitioned? If it is the genetalia you’re born with, then what about hermaphrodites? If it’s your genetics, then what about intersex people? Etc.

The law wasn’t written to account for all these complex biological possibilities. So it sounds to me as if the scottish courts were trying to simplify by effectively letting a dr. make that decision. I assume as a next step the UK will face court cases challenging the definition of “biological”.

Adding to the complexity, in my opinion, is that this particular case is about equality. This raises difficult questions about privilege, and nature vs nurture. The chess example comes to mind, where trans women have been excluded from the women’s only tournament. The main tournament is open to all genders, so they can still play, just not in the women’s only tournament. The argument is that due to gender roles, cis women are likely to have faced much higher barriers to learning chess as children than trans women. Those disadvantages from enforced gender roles is why the women’s league even exists, as an attempt to encourage more women to participate, and trans women wouldn’t have had to overcome the same barriers.

So, coming back to equality, what is more important, your current gender presentation, or the gender role in which you were raised? The answer to that question depends on so many factors in each situation, that I’m not convinced trying to force people into existing definitions make sense. It feels to me as if we need new legal definitions with more categories, but it is going to be extremely difficult to create definitions that adequately address the issues.

The 2nd half of the article also mentions an AI generated song released by China’s state run media.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2025-04-03/-Liberation-Day-or-a-price-to-pay--1CgrB0bz7by/index.html

Wow. You have issues mate.

Um, you’re taking my comment way too seriously. I replied to a cartoon picture. I literally just made up a silly explanation that would fit the photos. Please take a deep breath and go touch some grass.

Personally I’m betting on Nessie having camouflage skills like an octopus, and instead of squirting ink they can create the equivalent of an underwater dust cloud. That would absolutely explain these photos.

Edit to add: /jk since apparently that wasn’t obvious 🙄

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain, I really appreciate it.

Tissue Resident Macrophages hang out in the area of initial infection, waiting for “that guy” to show up again.

This is specifically the bit I’m struggling with. How will they know it’s “that guy”?

It’s a bit like saying “We know this criminal uses disguises. We’ve given everyone copies of his mugshot, which they’ve used for target practice. Now if he wanders in wearing a disguise, people will recognise him.”

As I understand it, “hidden” is a relative thing.

I guess this is the answer?

Going back to my analogy, you’re saying his disguises are pretty simple. So he might wear glasses or a fake beard, but he isn’t likely to turn up in a full clown outfit, with multi-coloured hair, make up, and a big red nose.

This didn’t answer the question for me.

I get the 1st part: They’ve unhidden a stable spike protein hidden by sugars and used it to create an immune response.

The long-term effectiveness is where I’m getting lost. How will the immune system know when to use these particular anti-bodies in the future? If, say, 5 years after being vaccinated I’m infected, surely the relevant spike proteins are hidden by sugars. So how can my body recognise them as the same protein and make more of the correct anti-bodies?

Oh please.

If the USA hadn’t destroyed Iran’s democracy, the houthis wouldn’t have Iranian funding and would be a non-issue, and that’s just touching the tip of the mess the USA caused in the Middle East. There’s a reason the Houthi slogan says “Death to America” and not “Death to Europe”.

How about taking responsibility for cleaning up your own mess? Also, feel free to contribute to the costs of all the refugees the USA created for Europe.