Can't be accused of being racist if there are no other races in your country.
I’m pretty sure the genocide necessary to achieve this will raise much more vocal and far longer lasting accusations of racism than anything you’re bothered by now. And that’s assuming it’s an even remotely likely possibility, which it thankfully isn’t.
While I can’t answer the other two questions, for 2. you might look into paternalistic conservatism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalistic_conservatism).
Maybe it was a type of unleavened bread? Those are usually shelf stable for a long time, and if they could make anything akin to hardtack, I could see that lasting longer than unbaked grains.
God I loved Galaxy of Fear as a kid. I always thought Uncle Hoole was one of the more interesting characters introduced in Legends canon. I'd love to see another book take a crack at him in a less "for kids" narrative, or really any of the Shi'ido.
You might be surprised! At least according to this article, it looks like their strategy is to try and provoke their potential targets into trying to ban them, then sue them for 1st amendment violations and regularly rack up tens of thousands in court fees. It's not a bad racket when half your family are lawyers.
Edit: whoops, link was borked.
I think if we specify the church as the Westboro Baptist Church, then yeah, that actually sounds a bit like what they do.
But for now I guess I will just sit back and watch the left-authoritarians and the right-authoritarians fight each other as usual.
You'd think after a couple hundred years of doing this since the French Revolution we'd have run out of authoritarians by now, but they just keep making more of them.
Again, I'm not an authority on progressive thought, but my best guess is that their argument would be that it's unfair to judge others on what they consider inalienable characteristics like gender identity, race, sex, etc. but that beliefs and behaviors are relatively more choosable and thus fair game.
I'm no authority, but I think at least a part of the progressive project is to encourage language that's less exclusionary. The idea here is that by having neutral-valence terms to describe each other without resorting to the kind of implicit judgment a term like "normal" contains. There's an implied acceptance or tolerance when labeling something normal that I think most humans probably have some psychological need for. Certainly, it's at least preferable to being sorted into a category that's implicitly abnormal, and thus much more likely to be subject to ignorance, misunderstanding, and prejudice.
Agreed, which is why I tend to be against both capital punishment and long prison sentences. I'd really like to see the US move away from a retributive model of justice to something more restorative. Less prison, more wage garnishment, and community service.
I personally am not, but I'd argue that at least the false prison sentence has a chance of being proven as such and ended early. You can't really take back a false execution.
A shame he isn't the executive anymore.
Since I dislike both the left and the right, one of my political goals is to keep the two stalemated.
Does this not also lead to some pretty awful outcomes, as we're seeing? I'd argue political deadlock has left the US incapable of crafting effective policy, has bred a lot of the vicious polarization we see today, and ultimately just empowers the radicals on either side.
I mean, isn't this one of the reasons we have and regularly deploy the National Guard during domestic unrest? Because they're empowered to act as law enforcement, up to and including shooting citizens?
I don't know, I think the original definitions are useful in at least giving specific terms to a constellation of related characteristics. To borrow from someone else's 3-year-old comment:
If (for example) someone never attends church, lives in a city, tries to be vegetarian, doesn't watch football, doesn't own any guns, uses cannabis, listens to "everything but country", has a master's degree, and works in academia or technology, they are not part of the Red tribe, no matter how many times they vote for Republicans or write Reddit comments critical of progressives.
I'll confess, I don't know a more succinct way to articulate that divide than Red Tribe/Blue Tribe, but that might be a lack of imagination on my part.
I think most liberals likely wouldn't see a contradiction, since their guiding principle in both of these cases would be that the pregnant woman's agency is paramount. If Hamby's confident she can play basketball around her pregnancy, then by all means, let her. By that same vein, if hypothetical girlboss terminates her pregnancy for her career ambitions, well again that's up to her. Hence the whole "my body, my choice".
I want a border that is fully hardened against incursions and to turn away every single person with a bogus asylum claim from south of the border, which in my view is every single person with an asylum claim from south of the border.
What makes all asylum claims originating south of the border bogus? I'd have thought at least Venezuelans would get some benefit of the doubt.
I've seen most of them go a step further and "critically support" Russia against Ukraine, citing Putin's denazification justification and the existence of the Azov Battalion. As best I can tell it's motivated largely out of a worldview that sees the US as the arch-imperialist power in the world today, and that anything that weakens its influence is a good thing, regardless if they believe Russia's motivations are pure or not.
I am no expert, but I got a food handling certification when I worked for Domino’s. I can’t speak to standards of cleanliness in East Asia or relative strengths of immune systems, but the reason we’re required to keep food that isn’t shelf-stable either refrigerated or hot is because ambient room temperature is a perfect sweet spot for bacterial growth. I’m both unaware and skeptical of there being anything on the food producer side that would so thoroughly sterilize the food as to completely remove those pathogens.
- Prev
- Next
The Korean War would qualify, I’d argue. South Korea is likely our most significant and closest partner in the region after Japan, and we absolutely still have major, ongoing security commitments there that we’ve held to for the better part of a century now.
More options
Context Copy link