Will do.

Please tell me specifically what makes this qualify as news. Will you now publish every anniversary from around the world?

No, but this one is important because there are people on here who want to deny these massacres ever happened. Also, it’s an ongoing controversy.

Or are you just another person trying to antagonize Poles and Ukrainians? Because it clearly looks like the latter.

That’s kind of a strange perspective, isn’t it? If someone made a post about the anniversary of, say, The Trail of Tears for example, then I, as an American, would not be offended in the slightest. If I made a post about the Nazi German invasion of Poland, would you say I was “trying to antagonize Germans and Poles?”

Here’s another suggestion perfect for future anniversaries you could commemorate:

Whataboutism.

You’re right, Kamala wasn’t so much a centrist as she was far-right.

Immigration courts have always been kangaroo courts. For example, there’s no right to an attorney, and young children have been made to defend themselves against threat of deportation. That’s not due process by any stretch of the imagination.

To say “there was no accidental deportation of people there legally” is completely absurd. Are you suggesting that not a single immigration court ever made a single mistake?

The “disservice to everyone” is you trying to whitewash the system and pretending that courts that require 6 year olds to defend themselves with no council is somehow a legitimate, fair system, just because the orange man wasn’t the one in charge of it.

Here’s John Oliver talking about it.

US

My side should have guns, the other side shouldn’t. I don’t think it’s possible to generalize a principle beyond that, because policy should be adapted to specific conditions.

Currently, the right has tons of guns and the left doesn’t. Try to confiscate the right’s guns and you’ll probably have a civil war on your hands. So either add restrictions for new purchases, which locks in the current situation of only the right being armed, or don’t, and leave open the possibility of the left getting armed. So, better to have easy access to guns.

This sketch was about Facebook but it’s also relevant to Twitter

When centrists criticize leftists and refuse to endorse them:

Amazing that people in the same party would critize each other ain’t it? That’s called competition, having an opinion, not lining up in lockstep behind Daddy. Before MAGA that used to be the American Way. Try it sometime.

When leftists criticize centrists and refuse to endorse them:

I blame the millions of Dems who stayed home because Kamala didn’t meet their moral purity standards and they refused to be “complicit in genocide”.

I did try it sometime and you didn’t seem to feel the same way about it 🤔

I like how in this analogy, republicans are Hitler and democrats are the guy who brought Hitler to power. Very apt.

“Your strategy, eating less red meat, pales in effectiveness to my strategy, blowing up Jeff Bezos’ private jet” alright, go blow up Jeff Bezos’ private jet then.

How many oppressive world governments have you overthrown?

Makes sense. If we can trust 87 year olds to govern the country, why can’t we trust them to drive? /s

Yes, the real problem is a handful of academics writing esoteric stuff that most people (especially its critics) don’t read or understand. Pay no attention to the billionaires behind the curtain.

Agree with your overall point, but a “revealed preference” isn’t necessarily a lie or lake of self-knowledge. A recovering alcoholic might have a revealed preference for alcohol but that doesn’t mean they’re lying when they say they don’t want it or that they’re unaware of the temptation they have for it (insane as this may sound, people have actually made this argument before). The whole economic concept rests on massive philosophical and psychological cans of worms about what defines a person’s identity and wants, which economists are happy to oversimplify and ignore. The average person can’t really be expected to track entire supply chains for every purchase they ever make, which is why we have regulations. Instead of having every individual track every part of the production of every purchase, we (as a society) assign someone the job of investigating the production process to see if there’s anything that we would find objectionable.

If a lot of people say that they have a problem with sweatshops, but then purchase goods made in sweatshops, you could argue that their behavior “reveals” their true preference, but it would be equally valid to say that what what they actually consciously express is their true preference and their failure to live up to it is driven by ignorance, succumbing to temptation, or regulatory failure.

The math contributes some to this. Let’s say the correct answer is 1%, and out of ten people, 9 of them guess 1% and the other guesses 51% - that one guess shifts the average from 1% to 6%. And if it’s 1%, then there’s no room for people to underestimate and bring the number back down, and the same is true of numbers close to 100%. The numbers closer to the middle don’t necessarily mean that people were more correct on an individual level, but that some people overestimated and others underestimated and it came out closer to the right number. The graph ought to give information about the spread of errors and not just the raw average.

So true bestie.

Unrelated, but the other day, someone cornered me in an alley with a gun and demanded I hand over my wallet - but I didn’t lose to them! I simply put my hands up and abandoned my wallet, very different.

It’s a staging area for the US that’s very close to China, so there’s that reason strategically. But really, there’s not a lot of reason to which is why they haven’t done so already. China is, as far as I’m aware, perfectly happy with the traditional US approach towards Taiwan, a policy of “strategic ambiguity” that doesn’t officially recognize Taiwan as independent (while informally supporting them) and which has kept the peace for many decades. China does not gain much from provoking a military confrontation with the US, as things stand, China is winning the peace through economic development while the US is going all in on the military. By maintaining the status quo, China can leave the issue open and kick the can down the road, maintaining the possibility that someday in the future they may be in a strong enough position to press the issue.

Even still, China now has its own academia and engineering, and is larger than Taiwan. Hence, even without the corporate espionage mainland China is known for, wouldn’t investing in their burgeoning semiconductor industry make more sense, rather than spending that money on war?

That’s exactly what they’ve been doing. That article mentions that they’ve actually recruited 3000 engineers from Taiwan’s chip industry to help develop their own chips.

Yet while taking Taiwan would mean access to deep-water ports, it’s not as though Taiwan would ever pose a threat to Chinese power projection—their stance is wholly defensive. If China decided to pull an “America” and send a carrier to the Middle East or something, no one would stop them and risk a war.

Taiwan’s stance is defensive, but the same isn’t necessarily true of the US, which operates in Taiwan. The US has recently started throwing around rhetoric and shifting spending focuses towards treating a hot war with China as a serious possibility, insane as it may be. This is (hopefully) just bluster to justify defense spending, but I’m not at all convinced that if China sent a carrier to the Middle East, the US would not retaliate. If anything, they’re looking for a reason.

So a handful of people grew consciences and decided that they didn’t like the Nazis, but what was actually done to them while they remained loyal, or to others who never turned against them? “Some people grew disillusioned” isn’t the same thing as the Nazis actively turning on them personally.

When the Nazis seized property, it was generally the property of minorities which was then often redistributed upwards to the rich. Many bourgeoisie made out like bandits, so long as they were white and didn’t have a conscience.

Like, just google what happens to most oligarchs when they support any kind of authoritarianism. Whether it’s Mussolini, Hitler, or Putin, they always get shafted in the end.

What on earth are you talking about? The oligarchs who supported Hitler made a bunch of money, saw organized labor crushed, and then did fine after the war. Nazi war criminal Fritz ter Meer, who was a senior board member of IG Farben, manufacturing Zyklon B for the gas chambers, got a couple years in prison and then became chairman of Bayer.

The question you asked me before, multiple times, was “Do you believe all men are violent?” Which I answered. I will now promptly answer every single question you asked.

Do you think vaccines cause Autism?

No, obviously. Irrelevant nonsense.

Do you also have thought terminating memes about vaccines in that vein too?

No, and that logic is complete nonsense. Vaccines do not make people more prone to autism. Do you think they do?

Do you think everyone who got the COVID vaccine is also prone to death too?

No, of course not. This is all coming out of nowhere.

What is the difference between men who are violent and men who are not?

There isn’t a singular difference. Some men are more violent than others because of the conditions they’re born into, or the way they were raised, or different reactions and ways of handling testosterone (as you suggested). This question is largely unconnected from the point I’ve disputed, which is your claim that men are generally less prone to violence than women.

What is the difference between those who are vaccinated, and those who are vaccinated and have autism?

The ones who are vaccinated and have autism happen to have autism. What even is this question?

There you go. I’m not interested in responding to the rest of your rambling. I asked what question I haven’t answered and then answered every question you asked, if you have another question you forgot, I’ll answer that too. What did I have for breakfast this morning? Do I condemn Hamas? Go for it. You can say whatever you like about me, but I’m not afraid from answering questions or engaging with hard concepts, that’s just false.

Strange that Biden won in 2020 despite 2/3 of the country “effectively voting for Trump” by not voting for Biden🤔