FlowVoid @ FlowVoid @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

466

Joined

2 yr. ago

Because people think there is a real risk that China will invade Taiwan. Which is not unreasonable, given that China said it considers Taiwan to be part of China and occasionally makes vague threats about ending its independence. Hence their military maneuvers are a potential escalation.

In contrast, the US came to its senses about 50-60 years ago and finally realized that invading Cuba would be stupid and pointless. Since that flash of insight, the US hasn't "escalated" anything when it comes to Cuba. Nowadays Americans can barely remember that Cuba exists.

See how easy it can be to get urinals and silence?

If turnaround time is still a problem, get your prostate checked. Help is available, even for old geezers.

The funny thing is that Kerry did actually commit America to a UN program that sends money to people affected by climate change. It's just not called a "reparations" program.

Many other countries will join the US in funding this program. But not China. In fact, Chinese leaders couldn't even be bothered to show up to the climate change conference (COP27) where this was discussed.

Consider who was asking the question: a Republican legislator with an axe to grind.

Now for the plot twist:

At last year’s COP27 climate summit in Egypt, the U.S. joined other nations in committing to a “loss and damages” fund for developing countries affected by climate change. However, unlike a reparations program, that fund is not considered compensatory and does not involve specific countries conceding legal liability

When Kerry said "No", he meant "Yes, but technically no." Which is the best kind of No.

Consider who was asking the question: a Republican legislator with an axe to grind.

Now for the plot twist:

At last year’s COP27 climate summit in Egypt, the U.S. joined other nations in committing to a “loss and damages” fund for developing countries affected by climate change. However, unlike a reparations program, that fund is not considered compensatory and does not involve specific countries conceding legal liability

When Kerry said "No", he meant "Yes, but technically no."

You can do a lot of damage by hitting a car stopped at a light. In this case, more than just the fender was damaged.

The accident damaged more then just the fender:

A key reason is that the accident damaged a sleek panel that extends from the truck’s rear to front roof pillars. Repairing and repainting it set off a cascade of pricey work, including removing the interior ceiling material, known as the headliner, and front windshield.

The US submarine is in territory that it legally rents from Cuba.

It's not violating Cuba's rights any more than you violate your landlord's rights when you invite someone to your apartment that your landlord doesn't approve of.

How long would it take to convince you that you were trans?

They can put urinals in a unisex restroom.

In fact, there are all sorts of things in public restrooms that are unused. For example, the last restroom you visited had a sink where you could have washed your hands.

Progressives saw through climate change legislation and student loan reform in the last two years.

The latter was shot down by the SCOTUS, which serves as a reminder that progressive policies can easily be undone.

In this situation don't think it makes sense to oppose cluster munitions simply on principle.

I think it would be correct to oppose them only if using cluster bombs would cause more harm to Ukrainian civilians than the alternatives. I assume Ukrainian leaders would use similar criteria.

And since Ukrainians are actually at the front lines, they are the best informed and will suffer the most from an error of judgment. Under those circumstances, I am comfortable with trusting them to make the best decision either way.

And if you change it to "Delhi rebels threaten to detonate nuke in Delhi, Modi responds by dropping cluster munitions on rebels" then it's not so clear any more.

Ukrainian civilians are at risk no matter what happens. The ones who are ultimately responsible for deciding the fate of Ukrainians are Ukrainians themselves.

You may think you see a better option, but they don't have to agree with you.

That's not really the same thing.

If Ukrainians use cluster munitions, they are putting Ukrainian civilians at risk not Russian civilians. They are free to accept that risk for themselves. Particularly because Russian troops also pose significant risks to Ukrainian civilians.

I would oppose Ukrainian use of cluster munitions in Russia, for the same reason I would oppose use of Pakistani nuclear weapons in India.

The people who should weigh the risks to Ukrainian civilians are Ukrainians themselves.

Minefields pose the same sort of risk to civilians, but I think it would be inappropriate to insist the Ukrainians can't use mines to defend themselves.

The Oscars are actually one of the holdouts, for now they are still using "best actress".

That website recently stopped using "actress", which is considered sexist.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/smallville-actor-allison-mack-released-prison-early-rcna92592

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/-horror-dolores-roach-latina-actor-justina-machado-discusses-role-rcna92624

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/jacklyn-zeman-longtime-general-hospital-actor-dies-70-rcna83888

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/actress-anne-heche-critically-injured-los-angeles-crash-rcna41824 (an older article, note the revision that occurred from this url to the actual article).

Personally, I don't see how YouTube can be abusive. It is their platform and they can do whatever they want with it. It is your choice if you use it or not. If you think the ads are out of control, you can pay for their subscription or use free services.

Personally, I don't see how people using adblockers can be abusive. It is their computer and they can display whatever content they want with it. It is their choice whether an ad plays on it or not. If YouTube thinks the adblockers are out of control, they can start paying people money to watch content on YouTube's computers.

An orc is a violent and backward representative of a people ruled by a corrupt, power-hungry dictator.

I do not defend orcs, whether in Tolkien's books or the Russians who currently resemble them.