Obviously. The point the person was making was to say that even if we buy into the bullshit narrative that this was consensual, it still doesn’t make sense. They didn’t use incorrect terms to skirt around it, they were making a specific point about their claims.

At risk of misreading, I think they might be parodying the usual IDF line. The ‘runs into shrapnel’ bit is a little over the top.

Good to know! I’ll have to go back to it. I was really enjoying it, but I just had some annoying bugs that turned me off.

I haven’t played it in a couple months, but I remember the quality and polish taking a serious nose dive as you got deeper into the game. Is that still the case?

Yeah that’s a perverse incentive if I’ve ever heard one

Pardon?

Bang on. You don’t make someone your bodyguard without trusting them, so this guy is a good pick from the perspective of maintaining power as an autocrat.

Eh. Brilliant is maybe a stretch. Acknowledging the abject horror of the situation and putting it aside for the moment, this isn’t the first war where civilians have been targeted intentionally by bombing, and it certainly won’t be the last. Historically, the response to terror bombing such as this has been mixed, as such things are highly dependent on the population in question. Generally, however, the balance leans toward it being mostly a waste of resources. I’m sure the Russians think they’re doing some 4D chess maneuver, but from my perspective they’re just wasting valuable weapons systems (the missile that hit the hospital costs well in excess of one million dollars per and was part of a barrage) on targets which provide little or no military utility.

If I had to guess, this is more about domestic propaganda than anything else, but that’s just conjecture.

Jesus, your perspective is just toxic and hateful. How is this any different than any other incident where people are trampled (see: Travis Scott)? Why is religion at fault here suddenly? Or is this an objective reason that you are a fool for liking Travis Scott?

I grew up religious, and I’ve distanced myself from spirituality for the better part of a decade now, so I’ve played both roles at different times in my life. Even so far removed, though, I can still objectively acknowledge that religion has played a critical role in human evolution and history. It’s not wrong for people to want to want answers about the universe and life, and the human experience is built around community. Religion can, for many people, provide for those needs, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Look, I acknowledge that religion is responsible for, or at least a justification of, a lot of human suffering. That is true of lot of human institutions - we are deeply flawed beings. I would also say, however, that in saying those things, you are adhering to your ideology and casting vitriol with the same fervor that a hyper-religious person would.

Please just try empathy next time. Such hateful statements do nothing to change minds, and are more likely to push people away from looking deeper at religion and objectively examining if it’s actually good for them as an individual.

Valid. I assumed they were talking about the political terms rather than parties due to the lack of capitalization in the original comment, though my own comment has them capitalized so I certainly muddied the waters further. Definitely my bad, I’ll edit it to be more clear.

I must say, though, you are quite an aggressive fellow. I wasn’t making any judgements or even really commenting on foreign politics in any meaningful way - simply making an observation.

Separate from the Canadian parties, it’s also worth noting that ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are not mutually exclusive ideologies.

Edit: clarified that this is not in reference to political parties in particular.

Fr. Leftists need to exercise their second amendment rights way more.

I agree, but it’s also worth noting the influence of police forces, riot police, swat teams, and the national guard.

The US basically has an occupying army to quell unrest in every county across the country, so it’s harder to properly protest without state retaliation. Not to say we shouldn’t do it, but I can understand people’s reticence.

We’ve all been there

Well said! My go-to example is ‘If someone calls and I’m not here, tell them they can leave a message’ because it covers both they and them in a singular usage.

Sidenote: I also hate the way that some people act like languages are static things, despite the known history of languages to shift and change over time. English is arguably a German creole; we don’t get to act all sanctimonious now.

Yes! My favorite example is the ASL sign for pasteurized milk, which is just the sign for milk, but moved ‘past your eyes’.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=KGprfOaUxsA

Edit: another comment reminded me that I should specify that this is American Sign Language.

Happy endings are banned in Slavic history

Yet another thing that woke moralists took from us smh

This is my manifesto.

I’m honestly not sure we can truly say that Hamas ‘instigated’ this situation in good faith, as this is merely the most recent flare-up in a long history of atrocities that goes both ways. That doesn’t excuse what Hamas has done either, but I also wouldn’t consider shelling civilian buildings to be a particularly defensive action.

People aren’t trying to ‘bind Israel’s hands before they can achieve meaningful military objectives’ they’re trying to bind Israel’s hands before they can commit more atrocities. These atrocities are being actively supported by US taxpayer dollars, and the sentiment among voters (at least the ones I know) is that US support means that we have blood on our hands by association. That’s not something I’m willing to support, and voters shouldn’t feel bad for not supporting it either.

Nothing about this mass casualty event should be considered a foregone conclusion. All we can do is try and stop this cycle of violence from being perpetuated.