Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)IT
Posts
0
Comments
292
Joined
5 mo. ago

  • No it doesn't. Taiwan is part of China, the PRC rules China.

    If Trump and most Republicans lost the next elections, and this led to a violent split between Democrats and Republicans rather than Trump and the Republicans ceding power, with the Democrats ultimately pushing back the Trumpist insurrection until they fled to Long Island, where they slaughtered most people living there then claimed to rule the entire US from the island.

    Trumps Republicans would not still have claim to the entire US just because he ruled for 8 years (and Republicans far longer), and wouldn't rightfully have claim to Long Island itself. It would be an occupation of American land by a far right nationalist faction, nothing more.

    You only disagree with regards to Taiwan because the west sides with the nationalist occupation in an effort to oppose the communist ruling party of China.

  • The ROCs(Far right nationalists) initial rise is inseparable from the PRC (Communists) as they were working together to Reunify all of China at the beginning.

    After the breaking of this alliance by the ROC, purging the PRC to establish their far right nationalist base, they only lasted about 20 years, before the PRC regained far more support, resorting to the ROC ultimately retreating to the island of Tawain while the PRC continued focus on the original goal of uniting the mainland, which it achieved, and has thus ruled far more of China longer than the ROC ruled the sections they held.

    By no stretch of the imagination can you claim that the ROC has rightful claim over the whole of China.

  • It seems to be a play on "horseshoe theory" where libs always place themselves in the middle and leftist and right wingers are on the ends, closer together. With the implication that leftists have "circled back" to facsism.

    There is also "Fishhook theory", Where the same principle is true, but more in line with this "stick theory" where the Fishhook places the far right beside liberalism/centrism.

    In this one, it's a stick, facsism is at the bottom, Dems and Republicans are just barely above that and communism is at the top. The main difference between this and fish hook is that fish hook relies on the curve coming back to make them close, while stick theory says they are just close period.

  • Obama literally built them as and used them as concentration camps wtf are you talking about. They weren't all encompassing resorts that Trump remodeled.

    Trump also claims he's only targeting criminals and human traffickers, the only difference is you rightfully don't believe him, but wrongfully believe the Dems.

    It's not the same as always, it's worse under Trump2 than it was under Biden, or even Trump1. If Kamala won, it would also be worse than Trump 1 or Biden, you just wouldn't care. Just like you didn't care when Biden was as bad as Trump1.

    The point is not that things are always the same, the point is that both parties serve the same donors and core system and will ultimately do what the system demands of them. That's why the Dems started pushing the same "immigration as a national security" issue, they were manufacturing consent.

  • The Democrats literally conceded immigration as a national security issue and changed the debate to who could solve it more efficiently in the 2024 elections.

    Even before they publicly accepted the Republican framing, Obama built the concentration camps Trump was derided for during his first term.

  • It's not the case...it just happens sometimes? It doesn't count when it does happen because it's capitalism? We have to ignore when it happens because if people realized, they would be too distraught?

    I genuinely don't understand what's doing on with this comment.

  • I took it as: The OP is about honking instantly.

    The top of the thread is trying to justify impatiently honking immediately. "I'm impatient and idk why you aren't moving immediately!"

    Hence my response that they could just have a slower reaction time to the light turning.

    So when you say "if the lights been green long enough"

    I reply about how "green long enough" is subjective and the thread is biased towards the an Immediate honk.

  • It's not changing the complete sentence, it's recognizing context clues and patterns of language.

    "This clearly has nothing to do with racial slurs or otaku culture" = the original intention wasn't about a racial slur and the change isn't about mocking Otaku culture. (This is supported when they go on to explain what the actual original intention would be)

    "They probably changed it because “coon” is a slur for black people and they didn’t want to cause any misunderstandings" = upon realizing the relation to a slur they didn't intend, they changed it.

    No need for forgiveness, or for passive aggressive condescension.

  • The original discussion is specifically about people who honk instantly.

    Obviously at a certain point it's not only acceptable but necessary as parking at a green light is a road hazard itself.

    You're just accepting the altered framing from the original example to the counter example while I'm trying to keep it grounded on the original example.