Yeah, there's some weird signal crossing in these quotes.

This is the propaganda that's just a straight lie:

A covert Russian network sought to exploit last month's riots in France by using social media to blame the unrest on uncontrolled immigration and portray authorities as having lost control of the situation, according to an internal European Union (EU) assessment seen by Reuters.

A separate internal assessment by the French Foreign Ministry ... found that social media accounts linked to Israel and the US MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement were also spreading "hostile narratives" about the riots, linking them to radical Islamism and migration.

An EU analysis found that a covert Russian network known as "Operation Overload" was spreading videos falsely posing as Western media content, targeting French audiences. Some of them falsely claimed that migrants were raping protesters or that terrorist attacks were imminent.

This assessment here is factual (French leadership is weak and increasingly authoritarian, this is the conclusion that the French people are drawing), but it is presented as part of the propaganda:

The EU analysis, covering the period from October 7 to 21, found that Russia sought to "portray the French leadership as weak and increasingly authoritarian."

However, this part here may make sense of that, if this is a different propaganda stream that is aimed at making other allies view the weakening position of the French government as tied to the support for Ukraine:

The EU report states that "Operation Overload", active since September 2023, is directed against Western "public figures, institutions and media", with the aim of "discrediting these actors and their support for Ukraine, while promoting content aligned with Russian interests".

The network's activities "also aimed to undermine European support for Ukraine by claiming that European governments were prioritizing Ukraine over domestic problems," the report said.

So it is exploiting 2 different threads of propaganda, one stoking fear on what the riots include and the need to quell them with violence and curb immigration, and the other on the position of the French government for risky partner in war as a consequence of their real actions.

You're not supposed to see both propaganda axes, only one of them is aimed at you, and this EU report is putting to light the fact that both threads come from the same sources.

Harambe was in May, the elections were the result of the curse.

I have seen the other comments disagreeing with your take that handling a bully who happens to be a girl goes back to misogyny, yes, because you focus on "teaching a boy to use violence against girls is bad" while refusing to deal with the initial violence and are also completely blanking on the self defense part. How should a boy protect himself against a girl who's hitting him? And no, I am not saying "punch back duh". I agree that actually karate classes will teach a 4 year old to avoid getting hurt and keep control and will, in fact, boost his confidence, just not the way the other asshole person you were responding to thinks, and punching back won't go well, short term or long term. The other person may be an ass thinking "they're kids, it's totally fine to hit a girl", but learning how to handle a violent bully, girl or not, is not misogyny.

The person who is pictured in the OP is not encouraging someone to take karate lessons and learn peaceful means of self defense or self discipline.

And I'm explaining that that person is wrong and the lessons will do the opposite of what they think. They think the kid will be taught to hit back, I'm saying they will be taught actual defense, not to hit back.

We can see your other comments clearly supporting teaching children to hit back.

I said "hitting back means getting hit first", and then I talked about defending yourself when you talked about unnecessary violence. You quote the part calling for both self defense and hitting back and you're focusing on the hitting back part calling it unnecessary violence. You are ignoring half the sentence you quoted, I'm pointing out the part you tossed away. I'm sure you can see my other comment explaining what the karate classes will do in opposition to what the person quoted thinks, I'm not changing anything.

I characterised self defense as self defense. The person in the quote thinks taking karate lessons involves punching back and it'll boost the kid's ego, I'm pointing out that's not real and what martial arts lessons really are. Self defense and martial arts lessons will teach the opposite. Don't teach kids self defense means hitting back.

Perhaps you look inward and consider why you think DEFENSE means violence.

Don't tell kids that self-defense is violence.

Right, the violent ones are always the ones defending themselves, not the ones who attack them, aelf defense is never necessary or justified, it simply doesn't exist. Ask Israel.

Hitting back implies getting hit first, but apparently context is for losers, so who will ever know what we aren't told.

We already know how Revelation starts, they're skipping the entire ascension to drop us right in the crater border and you descend the slope, fight big shoes and Jenova, then the Nibelheim flashback. Icicle inn and the entire ascension will be done later, when you return. The snowboard minigame will be seen at the Saucer first.

The silliness in the remakes is fine.