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/)TH
Posts
0
Comments
625
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Neither of these were written by the WaPo's editorial board. They are both op-eds meaning they're written by contributors and in the old print format would be placed opposite from the editorial page, hence the name "op-ed."

    Your comment shows a deep misunderstanding of how these things work and what function newspapers are trying to fulfill with them, but it's probably not your fault since media literacy tends to be pretty abysmal in the US.

  • I once got a temporary ban from one of the larger subreddits for calling someone a nincompoop. It was considered "abusive" language. At least that's what the mods said. I suspect it was more to do with me having an unpopular opinion though obviously I can't prove it.

  • Timothy Snyder makes a pretty convincing case for it in "The Road to Unfreedom." It was published in 2018 so probably written in 2016 and 2017 at the latest, and it looks ridiculously prescient now.

  • This seems mostly right, but I want to add a few points.

    The first is that the Ukrainians won't stop fighting if the west stops supporting them. They may suffer some severe defeats and the nature of the war may shift to being more of a guerrilla insurgency, but they won't stop fighting.

    The second is that even if the US withdraws support, it's not likely that European nations will necessarily follow, and between Germany and the UK and France, the Europeans can easily continue to support Ukraine at or above current levels.

    My final point is that Ukraine actually is making slow progress in pushing back the Russians, it's just not going anywhere near as fast as anyone would like.

    I also really dislike the term "stalemate" because it implies a static state of affairs as in a chess game where there are only so many pieces and moves, when in fact war is much different in the sense that additional pieces and moves can and probably will be added to the equation.

  • This is how democracies die. Fascists don't need a majority to win, they just need their opposition to be splintered. It's exactly what happened in Hungary, and now it's too late.

    You might want to think long and hard about how you triage your political decisions.

  • The SCOTUS needs to revisit the issue. Heller was wrongly decided on the basis of shitacularly poor reasoning. There is no other solution. Unfortunately it's not going to happen any time soon. The plus side is that as Dobbs showed us, the court has no problem overturning long established precedent when it suits them.

    I'm also not convinced that red flag laws can't work. They just have to be designed with a ton of safeguards in place. I think we should at least try them before deciding that they can't work. I believe there are already a handful of them in place at the state level, but I could be wrong as I don't follow the issue closely.

  • Or, you know, it's because nobody wants to immigrate to China? Ever notice that unlike Europe and Canada and Australia and the US, China doesn't have an immigration problem? I wonder why that is?

    In case anyone wants to know, there have been over 40k undocumented Chinese immigrants to the US this year alone, and the numbers are growing. Fortunately they are pretty easily able to claim asylum and are easily integrated into existing Chinese-American communities.

    It's so strange that we don't see any Americans immigrating to China.

  • Just so that you're aware, that's a bullshit definition of liberalism and no one is under any obligation to cede it to authoritarian liars and chumps. Any legitimate definition of liberalism has also to include a fundamental respect for basic human rights and the consent of the governed. Liberalism stands in antithesis to authoritarianism and that's precisely why the hexbear bozos hate it so much.

  • So they're not even consistent and you trot that out like we're supposed to somehow respect it? Call it what it is; intellectual dishonesty. Those people are intellectual contortionists because they don't actually have a coherent ideology that's defensible in the light of basic human rights. It's all authoritarian bullshit and the sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.