hubobes

If believing so makes you happy ☺️

Do not bring up too many arguments.

Nobody claimed that women are not capable. Where are all these weird claims coming from that nobody ever said a word about?

And nobody ever asked to maintain privilege. Claiming however that voting against this was in any way sexist is absolutely ridiculous as long as we maintain a system where women are not seen as equals but as unworthy of equal treatment.

No they should not? Nobody said that.

Also nobody who is in the army here actually believes they will ever see a war. Most people who serve just hate it and see it as a waste of time that will never amount to anything.

Am I in the wrong movie? Women are at a huge disadvantage in life (Gender pay gap, workplace representation, unpaid care and domestic work, education and job positions, healthcare, part-time employment, promotion and career advancement, violence against women, political representation) and we should work to solve that but for some reason we first want to force them to also serve in the military while leaving the current system in place that puts them at a disadvantage? Oh the heavens, men have to serve for a single year…yes that is super important, not all the things they get a huge advantage in life?

Not if said activity is forced upon you. Women can already voluntarily join the military or civil service.

Measure whatever you want but maybe first make it slightly more equal for the ones who have been disadvantaged for decades? But no, one party always focuses on the few things man have where they are slightly worse of.

Oh give me a break, women are getting away worse in so many facets of life. When we have fixed discrimination against women we can talk about them doing mandatory civil service.

Edit: Did not know that on Lemmy we have such an issue with women’s rights.

Most ads I see against it claim that our taxes will increase because all the rich people will simply leave. And that it is to radical, should have gone with a far higher number than 50 Million and a lower tax rate. Pretty sure they would still say that no matter what the numbers are.

We are trying 50% above 50 Million in Switzerland right now. It does not have the slightest chance to become law. A huge majority of the population is against it even though it would basically affect no-one.

At least some good news, back home in Switzerland our government is cowering before Trump, reassuring him that we will buy the F-35 even though they just put a flat 39% tariff on us…they even flew to Washington to improve our offer, whatever that means, fucking cowards.

There are 100k shares and voting rights for private shareholders are capped at 100 shares. So there would have to be 450 private entities each owning 100 shares all agreeing to enact what you propose.

As of the end of 2023, private sector shareholders held 26,559 shares, accounting for 26.9% of the share capital. Of these, 15,116 were voting shares, representing 22.8% of the total voting rights.

Just to be fair, the claim that “our national bank is 50% owned by private companies” isn’t entirely accurate—it’s actually 45%. The Swiss National Bank is designed to be independent, and that’s why it’s not owned solely by the federal government, provincial governments, or private entities. This mix ensures that no single group has too much influence over its operations, and the structure has proven to work flawlessly for decades. Private shareholders have limited rights, dividends are capped, and monetary policy is fully independent.

In 2021, France adopted the infamous definition of antisemitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which deems criticism of Israel and Zionism and comparing Israel’s practices to those of the Nazis forms of antisemitism

How does that make any sense?