Polite Politics

[Rubus Leucodermis]

49 minutes ago, Iceresistance said:

And apparently, Putin is Russia's H!tler as he is trying to exterminate Ukrainian Civilians. (I'm trying to avoid saying the German Leader of WW2.)

He’s not as bad as Hitler but that’s a VERY low bar to clear, and I have been saying for years that Putin is a fascist (he meets all the criteria of a fascist to a ’t’).

Of course, that’s Hitler in his total career. If people had been serious about standing up to Hitler as soon as he started forcibly annexing parts of other nations, Hitler would have been nowhere near as bad as he actually was; he would have been stopped before he managed to do most of his evil.

[SilverFallsAndrew]

1 hour ago, Iceresistance said:

The Kentucky Government is considering the Transgender Woman who shot up the Christian school a hate crime because it appears she targeted the school because they disagreed with her views as she's a former student there.

Kentucky or Tennessee?

[GHweatherChris]

14 hours ago, SilverFallsAndrew said:

Sounds reasonable to me. I know my kids are much safer living in a home without firearms. 

Why would you say they are safer living in a home without firearms?  Don't trust them or is it something else.

[Iceresistance]

1 hour ago, SilverFallsAndrew said:

Kentucky or Tennessee?

Tennessee, my bad on remembering states!

[SnarkyGoblin]

1 hour ago, GHweatherChris said:

Why would you say they are safer living in a home without firearms?  Don't trust them or is it something else.

Not that facts or information matter to you, but I'm sure he's referencing the statistics that show what happens to folks who have firearms in the house vs. those that don't have a firearm.  It's irrefutable by countless studies.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study

Quote

Most American gun owners say they own firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones, but a study published this week suggests people who live with handgun owners are shot to death at a higher rate than those who don’t have such weapons at home.

“We found zero evidence of any kind of protective effects” from living in a home with a handgun, said David Studdert, a Stanford University researcher who was the lead author of the Annals of Internal Medicine study.

The study followed nearly 600,000 Californians who did not own handguns but began living in homes with handguns between October 2004 and December 2016, either because they started living with someone who owned one or because someone in their household bought one.

It found that the absolute risk of living with a handgun owner was small, Studdert said, and that “the rates [of homicide] are low”. But it was important to consider the increase in a person’s risk of being killed, he added.

The researchers calculated that for every 100,000 people in that situation, 12 will be shot to death by someone else over five years. In comparison, eight out of 100,000 who live in gun-free homes will be killed that way over the same time span.

Those numbers suggest the risk rises 50%, but Studdert said it was actually higher: in a separate calculation designed to better account for where people live and other factors, the researchers estimated the risk was more than twice as high.

In particular, the researchers found, people who lived with handgun owners had a much higher rate of being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner. The vast majority of such victims, 84%, were women, they said.

[Iceresistance]

24 minutes ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

Not that facts or information matter to you, but I'm sure he's referencing the statistics that show what happens to folks who have firearms in the house vs. those that don't have a firearm.  It's irrefutable by countless studies.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study

Well, what if that study was flawed because it does not factor in gun safety?

[SnarkyGoblin]

11 minutes ago, Iceresistance said:

Well, what if that study was flawed because it does not factor in gun safety?

No idea what you mean by "gun safety"

As I said, study after study shows how how much more likely someone who is innocent gets shot when there is a gun in the house.

There are obviously cases where a gun saves an innocent life at home, but I'd rather play the odds on this one.

[Deweydog]

16 hours ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

Every American 18 years or older who passes a background check should be able to own the following:

1. Stock pistol

2. Stock hunting rifle

3. Stock shotgun

Mix or match up to three firearms.  Anyone wanting more than that has Freudian type issues.

I do not even know why this is still an issue.  This country is full of idiots.

If you don’t understand why it is still an issue, you might be one of them.

[Iceresistance]

43 minutes ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

No idea what you mean by "gun safety"

As I said, study after study shows how how much more likely someone who is innocent gets shot when there is a gun in the house.

There are obviously cases where a gun saves an innocent life at home, but I'd rather play the odds on this one.

Gun safety in terms of properly storing it and/or locking it (Using a lock around the trigger) to where it can't fire when loaded.

 

Or the most simple thing, just disarming it by unloading it.

[roadtonowhere08]

10 minutes ago, Deweydog said:

If you don’t understand why it is still an issue, you might be one of them.

Don't be literal, Mr. Spacey. 

The gun nuts are pathetic halfwits who think the government will go door to door and abduct their families and the other side wants to melt down every gun in the country.  I would rather have them all gone, but I respect the right of normal people to own them.

[Deweydog]

29 minutes ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

Don't be literal, Mr. Spacey. 

The gun nuts are pathetic halfwits who think the government will go door to door and abduct their families and the other side wants to melt down every gun in the country.  I would rather have them all gone, but I respect the right of normal people to own them.

There are plenty of pathetic halfwits with their heels dug in on both sides of the equation. We get to rehash the same talking points after big incidents, despite the fact incidents like yesterday’s are still MASSIVE statistical outliers in our deep-rooted, romanticized gun culture. In the end, a big chunk of the electorate conveniently doesn’t see a connection while another big chunk sees it as an over-simplified solution to a problem that has a ton of moving parts. Both are wrong and purposefully glib. 

Edited March 28, 2023 by Deweydog

[roadtonowhere08]

5 minutes ago, Deweydog said:

There are plenty of pathetic halfwits with their heels dug in on both sides of the equation. We get to rehash the same talking points after big incidents, despite the fact incidents like yesterday’s are still MASSIVE statistical outliers in our deep-rooted, romanticized gun culture. In the end, a big chunk of the electorate conveniently doesn’t see a connection while another big chunk sees it as an over-simplified solution to a problem that has a ton of moving costs parts. Both are wrong and purposefully glib. 

[Anti Marine Layer]

2 hours ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

Don't be literal, Mr. Spacey. 

The gun nuts are pathetic halfwits who think the government will go door to door and abduct their families and the other side wants to melt down every gun in the country.  I would rather have them all gone, but I respect the right of normal people to own them.

Something that has happened before in history. Like if Trump really wanted to do an insurrection, that's a strategy he could use.

I think guns should be used for self-defense but keep it simple. No guns that can shoot 50 bullets a second while the shooter moves around in a circle. Just simple BB guns, like in Home Alone.

[roadtonowhere08]

1 hour ago, Mr Marine Layer said:

Something that has happened before in history. Like if Trump really wanted to do an insurrection, that's a strategy he could use.

I think guns should be used for self-defense but keep it simple. No guns that can shoot 50 bullets a second while the shooter moves around in a circle. Just simple BB guns, like in Home Alone.

Abducting families door to door?  I think you give that melon far too much credit! 

[Anti Marine Layer]

24 minutes ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

Abducting families door to door?  I think you give that melon far too much credit! 

More like if the government wants to imprison you for speaking against them in a totalitarian regime or police state, it's much easier for them to do if you have nothing to defend yourself with.

[roadtonowhere08]

22 minutes ago, Mr Marine Layer said:

More like if the government wants to imprison you for speaking against them in a totalitarian regime or police state, it's much easier for them to do if you have nothing to defend yourself with.

"The Government"

You only want BB guns, but you sound like someone who has a few rocket launchers stashed away in his basement waiting for this man to show up to take your family and turn them into Black Panthers:

[Andie]

I grew up with guns. 
In my world they’re tools. Hunting rifles are used in my family.  
No one in my family would dream of using a firearm as anything other than hunting.  If pressed  to defend their life from an intruder that’s different but we’re old school.  
All this other madness is just that. Madness.
It’s a serious societal issue today.  Humans are the problem and recent shooters are very young. 
As a society we must address mental illness.  Won’t solve everything but it’s a beginning.  

[Reg]

It's getting very tiring watching footage from the war in Ukraine. While it is no secret that I'm on Russia's side, I take no pleasure from seeing so many dead Ukrainian soldiers. I had a battle buddy during basic training in the Army who was Ukrainian, his name was Chevchuk - this was only four years ago. I fear he likely returned to Ukraine after separating from the US Army and is probably no longer alive now. Ukrainians are some of the toughest people on the planet (along with Russians). They are both practically fearless Slavs, and with the help of Elon Musk's "Starlink" system deployed in Ukraine, we see videos of them in trenches and frontlines every day where internet access is otherwise non-existent.

I was reluctant to share information about the Ukrainian government's forced conscription of young Ukrainian men after the Russian invasion began over a year ago, due to the high probability of Russian propaganda and nothing confirmed by either side regarding the whole "Ukrainian men are being pulled from the streets, given only three days of training and then sent to the frontlines" rumors being spread around. But lately I have seen evidence of this from Ukrainian soldiers themselves, as well as massive resentment among Ukrainians towards Zelensky for his "fanatical" decision to attempt to hold the city of Bakhmut as Russian forces advance in and around it. The Ukrainian city of Avdeevka, very close to the frontline since 2014 (which pro-Russian Ukrainian rebels had actually successfully captured from Ukraine in 2014 for a few months before being recaptured by Ukrainian forces later that year and subsequently heavily fortified) is now under major pressure by Russian forces as Russia resorts to using "glide bombs" (allowing Russia to use bunker-buster bombs and advanced cluster munitions launched from Russian warplanes safely from Russian airspace without entering Ukrainian airspace, just like Israel does to Syria) - well, just watch: 

This is a sign of a military force under severe strain (along with all of the videos taken by Ukrainian civilians of military commissars quite literally yanking young Ukrainian men off the streets, especially in predominately Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine). This is very tiring. Ukraine is being used by the west and they seem to be becoming more and more aware of this fact.

[Anti Marine Layer]

Weather Blog

Required Faculty Diversity (DEI) Statements Undermine the Future of the University of Washington and Other Colleges

[Reg]

And to everyone here who supports President Biden's policy towards Ukraine, you should all watch videos like this one. I have seen over a thousand of these over the past year. Russian Wagner fighter storming Ukrainian positions in a forest attempts to force two Ukrainian soldiers to surrender, and there is confusion among the Ukrainian soldiers regarding the identity of their attacker (they seem to mistake their attacker as friendly at first), then when one of them realizes that he is enemy, he reaches for his weapon - both are immediately shot to death by the Russian attacker as a result. This is something I have seen actually shared amongst both pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian channels, referring to this war as a "brother war" (brothers killing brothers) as both sides have a difficult time distinguishing allies from enemies as they both appear to be the same people - again I do not take pleasure in sharing this. This is war, and war is hell. Biden could have single-handedly prevented all of this, but instead he deliberately goaded it on because he wanted to "weaken Russia". Everyone who supports Biden's policies should be forced to watch all videos such as this one. This is what you are supporting. And there are thousands of these videos, I know because I have watched them all.

Warning: GRAPHIC! (21+) Nothing is censored here.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Reg, I see what you are saying, but Ukraine should not have to roll over and let Russia invade just because war is ugly.  I am also certain that Ukrainians as a whole would be far angrier with the U.S. if we decided not to help them.

We're just not going to see eye to eye on this.

[Reg]

48 minutes ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

Reg, I see what you are saying, but Ukraine should not have to roll over and let Russia invade just because war is ugly.  I am also certain that Ukrainians as a whole would be far angrier with the U.S. if we decided not to help them.

We're just not going to see eye to eye on this.

We may not see eye to eye, but I want to make sure my stance is clear - while Russia may have pulled the trigger, this war was caused primarily by awful US foreign policy, and this was deliberate by our government. I don't believe Ukraine would be angry with the US because this war would not have happened in the first place if not for US meddling in 2013-2014. I started paying close attention to that part of the world as a teenager in 2008 when Russia invaded a part of Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and even more when the Euromaidan protests broke out in Ukraine in 2013, sponsored by our very own CIA as they have an established history of doing in many countries.

Hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved, but the US government decided that it was not in their interests to pursue this. Most evil government in the world, followed by Israel.

[roadtonowhere08]

34 minutes ago, Reg said:

We may not see eye to eye, but I want to make sure my stance is clear - while Russia may have pulled the trigger, this war was caused primarily by awful US foreign policy, and this was deliberate by our government. I don't believe Ukraine would be angry with the US because this war would not have happened in the first place if not for US meddling in 2013-2014. I started paying close attention to that part of the world as a teenager in 2008 when Russia invaded a part of Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and even more when the Euromaidan protests broke out in Ukraine in 2013, sponsored by our very own CIA as they have an established history of doing in many countries.

Hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved, but the US government decided that it was not in their interests to pursue this. Most evil government in the world, followed by Israel.

I disagree.  The majority of Ukrainians want autonomy and a western democratic government.  Russia does not fit into that equation.  Russia made themselves pariahs.

I'm not going to make excuses for the U.S.  We can be global bullies, but this is on Russia.  They need to let Ukraine go and focus on their own crumbling country.

[Reg]

1 minute ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

I disagree.  The majority of Ukrainians want autonomy and a western democratic government.  Russia does not fit into that equation.  Russia made themselves pariahs.

I'm not going to make excuses for the U.S.  We can be global bullies, but this is on Russia.  They need to let Ukraine go and focus on their own crumbling country.

Our CIA exploited what was essentially a civil war in Ukraine between pro-West Ukrainians and pro-Russian Ukrainians. Obviously the former tend to reside in western Ukraine while the latter reside in eastern Ukraine. This started over potential government reforms that would have allowed Ukraine to join the European Union (not NATO until months later), which pro-Russian Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych refused in favor of stronger ties with Russia at the time. People forget that Russia was not actually involved in Ukraine's initial uprising, Russia became involved in February 2014 and subsequently (illegally) annexed Crimea. Ukrainian soldiers even today complain that civilians who remain in battle-torn cities along the front lines are all pro-Russian, while all other civilians have either fled to neighboring countries or directly to Russia itself. People forget that in early 2014, all armed resistance against the Ukrainian government was entirely from Ukrainians whom sought closer ties with Russia along with ousted Yanukovych. The Donetsk and Lugansk Republics were all headed and militarily lead by Ukrainians who sided with Russia. Russia then exploited this and sent them military advisors, tanks and other equipment to push Ukraine back in the east.

Ukraine in 2023 is far closer to a failed state than Russia, which has since 2014 fortified its economy to withstand western sanctions and it has mostly worked.

[roadtonowhere08]

17 minutes ago, Reg said:

Our CIA exploited what was essentially a civil war in Ukraine between pro-West Ukrainians and pro-Russian Ukrainians. Obviously the former tend to reside in western Ukraine while the latter reside in eastern Ukraine. This started over potential government reforms that would have allowed Ukraine to join the European Union (not NATO until months later), which pro-Russian Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych refused in favor of stronger ties with Russia at the time. People forget that Russia was not actually involved in Ukraine's initial uprising, Russia became involved in February 2014 and subsequently (illegally) annexed Crimea. Ukrainian soldiers even today complain that civilians who remain in battle-torn cities along the front lines are all pro-Russian, while all other civilians have either fled to neighboring countries or directly to Russia itself. People forget that in early 2014, all armed resistance against the Ukrainian government was entirely from Ukrainians whom sought closer ties with Russia along with ousted Yanukovych. The Donetsk and Lugansk Republics were all headed and militarily lead by Ukrainians who sided with Russia. Russia then exploited this and sent them military advisors, tanks and other equipment to push Ukraine back in the east.

Ukraine in 2023 is far closer to a failed state than Russia, which has since 2014 fortified its economy to withstand western sanctions and it has mostly worked.

Amid pressure from Russia,^[10] Yanukovych suddenly changed his mind and rejected a pending association agreement with the EU, instead choosing to pursue closer ties with Russia and a Russian loan bailout. This sparked large protests by supporters of European integration, who occupied Kyiv's Independence Square and held rallies throughout Ukraine, in a wave of civil unrest dubbed the "Euromaidan".

Sounds like Russian meddling started this to me.  If they stayed out of it and let Ukraine sort itself out, some of the Eastern portions might have been ceded to Russia and this whole mess could have been avoided.  But no, Russia wants ALL of Ukraine because they can't let go.

[Reg]

3 minutes ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

Amid pressure from Russia,^[10] Yanukovych suddenly changed his mind and rejected a pending association agreement with the EU, instead choosing to pursue closer ties with Russia and a Russian loan bailout. This sparked large protests by supporters of European integration, who occupied Kyiv's Independence Square and held rallies throughout Ukraine, in a wave of civil unrest dubbed the "Euromaidan".

I don't understand, this seems to support what I said...?

Quote

Sounds like Russian meddling started this to me.  If they stayed out of it and let Ukraine sort itself out, some of the Eastern portions might have been ceded to Russia and this whole mess could have been avoided.  But no, Russia wants ALL of Ukraine because they can't let go.

Interestingly, Russia has not made clear its goals in Ukraine clear as of yet - they keep changing their possible intentions "Maybe we'll take half of Ukraine, if the West intervenes, we might take 90% or all of it" aside from the "Denazification and demilitarization" goals which are ambiguous at best. Right now I estimate their goals are to at least reach the Dnipro River, effectively splitting Ukraine right down the middle - but this seems prone to more changes as I said. But I'm sure we can agree that Russia at the very least wants Ukraine out of the hands of the West. Dangerous scenario under our warmongering government.

Ukraine is caught in a tug of war between Russia and the West. The West is willing to spend as many Ukrainian lives as possible, while Russia appears content on taking its sweet time grinding the Ukrainian Army down and also depleting NATO weapons stocks all going to Ukraine. Who has more "rights" over Ukraine; Russia (literal neighbor of Ukraine) or the West (imperialist powers almost entirely dependent on American hegemony)?

[Reg]

Pro-NATO propagandist is embedded with Ukrainian soldiers in Bakhmut a few days ago. Even the Ukrainian soldiers roll their eyes when the propagandist says that "morale is high" among other things in Bakhmut: 

 

[roadtonowhere08]

11 minutes ago, Reg said:

I don't understand, this seems to support what I said...?

Ukraine looked to head down the western route and Russia turned Yanukovych the other way.  I'm assuming that bailout might have helped grease the wheels.  Also, the dude came from Donetsk.  That was probably a factor too.

I don't like this war any more than you do, but I do not share your views on this.  I hope Ukraine kicks Russia's a**, gains full autonomy, joins NATO, develops a full western democratic government, and is free to pursue it's own destiny free from any outside interference, whether it be from Russia or the U.S.

[Reg]

15 minutes ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

Ukraine looked to head down the western route and Russia turned Yanukovych the other way.  I'm assuming that bailout might have helped grease the wheels.  Also, the dude came from Donetsk.  That was probably a factor too.

I don't like this war any more than you do, but I do not share your views on this.  I hope Ukraine kicks Russia's a**, gains full autonomy, joins NATO, develops a full western democratic government, and is free to pursue it's own destiny free from any outside interference, whether it be from Russia or the U.S.

Yes, that supports what I said  - eastern Ukrainians tend to support Russia as opposed to western Ukrainians.

Ukraine has applied numerous times since 2014 to join NATO, and each time NATO has quietly rejected every offer. Why? Same reason as why NATO has rejected Georgia's constant requests to join NATO since 2008: Nobody wants World War Three, not even NATO. And like it or not, there is no situation for Ukraine to be neutral in the current scenario. If you don't believe me, just ask any given Ukrainian.

Ukraine cannot legally join NATO as it would violate Article V of the NATO charter - your country cannot have any part of its territory under hostile foreign military occupation (see Crimea). Because then, all NATO countries (primarily the United States) would then be immediately obligated to fight Russia on Ukraine's behalf. Even the US doesn't want to do that. 

[roadtonowhere08]

3 minutes ago, Reg said:

Yes, that supports what I said  - eastern Ukrainians tend to support Russia as opposed to western Ukrainians.

Ukraine has applied numerous times since 2014 to join NATO, and each time NATO has quietly rejected every offer. Why? Same reason as why NATO has rejected Georgia's constant requests to join NATO since 2008: Nobody wants World War Three, not even NATO. And like it or not, there is no situation for Ukraine to be neutral in the current scenario. If you don't believe me, just ask any given Ukrainian.

That's great, they are not the majority.

Like I said, "If they stayed out of it and let Ukraine sort itself out, some of the Eastern portions might have been ceded to Russia and this whole mess could have been avoided."

I'll leave it at that.

[Iceresistance]

Well, Finland is now officially part of NATO.

[Reg]

1 minute ago, Iceresistance said:

Well, Finland is now officially part of NATO.

Still awaiting Turkey's imminent approval. Sweden has been more or less rejected on the grounds of housing Kurdish PKK sympathizers, which Turkey considers as terrorists.

[Iceresistance]

Just now, Reg said:

Still awaiting Turkey's imminent approval. Sweden has been more or less rejected on the grounds of housing Kurdish PKK sympathizers, which Turkey considers as terrorists.

Yeah, I have seen that Turkey has given Sweden one condition for them to join NATO and it's that.

[Anti Marine Layer]

Maybe this will do it

Marxism: The bourgeoisie claims access to a special form of property called capital. They create an ideology called capitalism (based on things like meritocracy) to justify this. This allows them to structure society with structural classism that advantages the bourgoisie and exploits, estranges, and disenfranchises the working class. People can be made aware of the Marxist theory of societal production and become class-conscious proletarians or a bourgeois vanguard operating in solidarity on their behalf. If they seize the means of production of society and Man, they will usher in socialism that will eventually ripen into Communism through the inversion of praxis.

Critical Race Theory: The whites (and their adjacents) claims access to a special form of property called whiteness. They create an ideology called white supremacy (based on things like meritocracy and racism) to justify this. This allows them to structure society with structural or systemic racism that advantages whites and exploits, estranges, and disenfranchises people of color. People can be made aware of the Critical Race theory of societal production and become race-conscious antiracists and/or “white allies” operating in solidarity on their behalf. If they seize the means of race-cultural production of society and Man, they will usher in racial equity that will eventually ripen into racial justice (a kind of social justice) through the inversion of praxis.

(Marxian) Feminism: Men claim access to a special form of property called maleness or masculinity. They create an ideology called male supremacy or hegemonic masculinity (based on things like meritocracy and sexism) to justify this. This allows them to structure society with patriarchy and structural or systemic sexism, enforced by misogyny, that advantages men and exploits, estranges, and disenfranchises women, as a class. People can be made aware of the (Marxian) feminist theory of societal production and become feminist-conscious feminists and/or “male allies” operating in solidarity on their behalf. If they seize the means of sex-cultural and material production of society and Man, they will usher in gender equity that will eventually ripen into feminist justice (a kind of social justice) through the inversion of praxis.

***** Theory: Straight people whose “gender identity” and sex match (and those who pass as such) claim access to a special form of property called normalcy (by declaring themselves the normal ones and defining normalcy to mean like themselves). They create an ideology called normativity (e.g., heteronormativity and cisnormativity) to justify this. This allows them to structure society with structural or systemic homophobia and/or transphobia (or, generally, *****-phobia) that advantages the “normal” and exploits, estranges, and disenfranchises “queers” (anyone different, especially gays, lesbians, bisexuals, the gender non-conforming, transgenders, and the mentally ill). People can be made aware of the ***** Theory theory of societal production and become *****-conscious (“proud”) allies operating in solidarity on their behalf. If they seize the means of normative cultural production of society and Man, they will usher in gender, sexual, and sex equity that will eventually ripen into gender, sexual, and sex justice (a kind of social justice) through the inversion of praxis.

Disability Studies: The able-bodied claim access to a special form of property called “ability.” They create an ideology described from the outside as dis/ableism (based on a belief that it is generally better to be fully able-bodied than not, and further based in ideas like “medicalism”) to justify this. This allows them to structure society with structural or systemic dis/ableism that advantages able-bodied and exploits, estranges, disenfranchises, and disables the disabled or “differently abled.” People can be made aware of the Disability Studies theory of societal production and become disability activists conscious allies operating in solidarity on their behalf. If they seize the means of ability-relevant cultural and material production of society and Man, they will usher in ability-based equity that will eventually ripen into ability-based justice (a kind of social justice) through the inversion of praxis.

Fat Studies: The “thin” (those who are not “fat”) claim access to a special form of property called “normal weight” or even “health.” They create an ideology described from the outside as thinnormativity (based on a belief that it is generally better to be at a healthy weight than not, and further based in ideas like “healthism” and “medicalism”) to justify this. This allows them to structure society with structural or systemic fatphobia that advantages “thin” people and exploits, estranges, and disenfranchises the “fat” (they cannot be called “obese” because that “medicalizes” them or “overweight” because that “unjustly” implies a normal or acceptable weight). People can be made aware of the Fat Studies theory of societal production and become fat activists fat-conscious allies (or fat) operating in solidarity on their behalf. If they seize the means of weight/health-relevant cultural and material production of society and Man, they will usher in fat-based equity that will eventually ripen into fat-based justice (a kind of social justice) through the inversion of praxis.

[roadtonowhere08]

4 minutes ago, Mr Marine Layer said:

Maybe this will do it

[Anti Marine Layer]

@SnarkyGoblin logic 

A non-liberal essayist writes an essay with a thesis that the sun is hot and water is wet. He gives references to prove his thesis.

Later the same essayist publishes some essays that support conspiracy theories. 

Therefore, the sun cannot be hot and water cannot be wet because the essayist supported a conspiracy theory and everything he says must be false and all references he quotes must be fake.

[Stormy]

If you want a peek at the life of Ukrainians then you might want to follow this channel that I've been subscribed to for a year or so. I think there's a lot of propaganda about this war and it's only in certain areas of eastern Ukraine. This is Pavlo's latest video, though he recently interviewed fellow Ukrainians asking what they think about the war and such. From what he shares you'd think there's no war, but Ukraine is a pretty large country. And why wouldn't a guy his age be helping, or required to help fight, instead of making YouTube videos with his pretty girlfriend which he probably kinda shows for clickbait?

https://youtu.be/tbgPyY0rXEY

[SnarkyGoblin]

14 hours ago, Sparky said:

If you want a peek at the life of Ukrainians then you might want to follow this channel that I've been subscribed to for a year or so. I think there's a lot of propaganda about this war and it's only in certain areas of eastern Ukraine. This is Pavlo's latest video, though he recently interviewed fellow Ukrainians asking what they think about the war and such. From what he shares you'd think there's no war, but Ukraine is a pretty large country. And why wouldn't a guy his age be helping, or required to help fight, instead of making YouTube videos with his pretty girlfriend which he probably kinda shows for clickbait?

https://youtu.be/tbgPyY0rXEY

You aren't really selling that channel very well.

[Stormy]

48 minutes ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

You aren't really selling that channel very well.

Who cares. I wasn't trying to sell it by sharing only his latest video. I actually don't watch most of his videos myself as there are more interesting things to see. Just thought someone might be interested in occasionally checking on the lives of some regular Ukrainians like I do, and I'm sure he'd like more subscribers. One of my nephews has a Ukrainian wife, but they live here in the Midwest. 

[Iceresistance]

3 hours ago, Sparky said:

Who cares. I wasn't trying to sell it by sharing only his latest video. I actually don't watch most of his videos myself as there are more interesting things to see. Just thought someone might be interested in occasionally checking on the lives of some regular Ukrainians like I do, and I'm sure he'd like more subscribers. One of my nephews has a Ukrainian wife, but they live here in the Midwest. 

Yeah, have you heard of RFU (Reporting from Ukraine)?