Botond173
1yr ago
It's still not advisable though. Getting lost or suffering an injury can have grave consequences in such a situation, especially if there's no cell phone signal.
Botond173
2yr ago
The people of Odessa seem to hate Russian imperialism more than they are grateful for the one time she demanded a city be built on their soil.
So I reckon they'd prefer to live in village shacks as barbarians (also in the original sense of the word) - i.e. not in a city - than to suffer that statue to stand?
Botond173
1yr ago
The simple truth is that nobody, either man or woman, should ever go hiking in the woods alone, with or without bears inhabiting those woods, period.
Botond173
2yr ago
Let's keep the trivializing within limits.
The Roman myth is from antiquity. I need not say more.
Eagles, snakes and cactuses are mundane creatures that very obviously exist in Mexico.
Botond173
2yr ago
Let's not get carried away. Almost(?) the entire cast of Dallas was White. Most characters in Latin American soaps are White, and Black/Indigenous characters are there as essentially exotic tokens.
Botond173
2yr ago
You underestimate how recent the whole woke/proimmigration bent is.
Not towards African or Middle-Eastern immigrants.
Botond173
2yr ago
A bunch of suburban, socially isolated, well-off, middle-class women decided that their husbands, for no good reason, basically have it better in life than themselves. This simple sentiment was the main driver behind it, I think.
Botond173
10mo ago
This assumption probably won’t count as anything new, but it seems to me that the overall leftist strategy in the current culture war over (in essence) MtF transsexual boxers in the Olympic games hinges entirely on the following unstated assumptions: a) TV viewers generally aren’t that interested in women’s sports in the first place b) the sort of sports where these particular MtF athletes seem to predominantly want to excel at are generally seen as low-status in the eyes of suburban middle-class Blue Tribe normies c) the relative number of cissexual women genuinely interested in such sports is insignificantly low.
Botond173
2yr ago
You do know that Slovakia and Croatia entirely owe their existence to Hitler's legacy, don't you? Without him and his decisions, neither country would exist.
Do you still hold their independence to be legitimate?
You also know that Poland signed a nonaggression pact with the Third Reich, and took part in the partition of Czechoslovakia, don't you?
Botond173
2yr ago
Can we put this argument to rest?
We shouldn't, because expansion doesn't necessarily entail the use of force. Applying to join NATO doesn't automatically mean membership. On the part of the governments of NATO members, there needs to be a political will and decision to, technically speaking, invite those countries, and decide that they should join. That's still expansion.
Botond173
2yr ago
I suppose there'll be trans activists digging up all sorts of 'evidence' that the adult victims and the parents/grandparents of the child victims were/are horrific transphobe garbage humans who ridiculed/harassed/mocked/tormented the shooter.
Botond173
2yr ago
Yes, but that's not the point. My argument is that the whole woke/proimmigration bent is certainly not new a) in Western Europe b) towards African or Middle-Eastern immigrants.
Botond173
2yr ago
That'd just be a copout, for multiple reasons. One: the difference has existed before the founding of the Soviet state as well, and doesn't originate from Soviet politics. Two: the same argument suddenly becomes Nazi rubbish when applied to Africa and the consequences of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade (even on the the old subreddit, very few people dared to raise it), or to the Black population of South Africa during Apartheid.
Botond173
15d ago
If one considers the same overall phenomenon from what I assume is women’s usual perspective, I’m sure one can’t help but roll the eyes at the recent discussion on Aella’s degeneracy, for example. Shaming and punishing e-thots can only work when alternative life paths are broadly accessible for average women.
The norm of enforced monogamy (heh) in the old days of Christian patriarchy (heh) basically functioned as a life insurance policy for women. Someone was surely going to marry each woman, with a few extreme exceptions, no matter how stupid, ugly or fat she was. The same path for heterosexual women today, on the other hand, is largely up to chance and luck, something that is pretty much optional – it may happen and may work out well, but there’s a significant probability that it won’t. Just listen to women’s usual complaint about men, which is usually that attractive men refuse to commit to an exclusive relationship. Of course we see the massive proliferation of e-thotting, sugar-mommying, gold-digging etc. when the social consensus is that a happy marriage is by and large off the table.
Botond173
10mo ago
You're aware that the male attributes that gain the respect of other men and those that sexually attract women are normally rather different, aren't you?
In another type of society ignoring your sexual desire and doing something else might be workable as a last resort, but in a modern welfare state it is for many reasons a humiliating and degrading proposal. It’s well-known that women (at least in Europe) receive far more money from the state through welfare, maternity care and health care than they pay in tax, and that means all tax-paying men inevitably support women with their hard work.
I'm sure Western societies are already close to the point where women pay more than 50% of all taxes.
EDIT: looking back I think it's easy to interpret this comment as feminist or pro-feminist. It was never intended as such.
Botond173
2yr ago
Yes - "distinct parts" i.e. administrative areas and not nations, which is what they currently are, and claim to be.
Their independence after 1991 was, disregarding foreign help for a moment, only possible because they had a bygone legacy as independent states that was possible to resurrect, and they only existed as independent states pre-1945 due to Hitler's decisions and the Third Reich.
Botond173
2yr ago
England was still the only nation willing to care about them i.e. she was willing to annex them, at least.
Botond173
2yr ago
Within reasonable limits. Because trivializing is, at the end, normally just a cop-out.
Botond173
2yr ago
You're comparing apples and oranges. The original comment way above concerns male-on-female harassment on public transit. You're talking about stalkers following and threatening women when they're alone. These are markedly different issues.
Botond173
2yr ago
Good catch regarding G, I forgot about the Russian immigrants completely when drawing up that scenario (I guess it’s obvious at this point that I’m not from Latvia). But again, I think whoever starts the game of gotcha in this case is justified – in other words, I think it’s fair to argue that there should never have been a huge influx of Russian immigrants to Soviet Latvia, or that the settlement of Russians was deliberately implemented to change the ethnic composition of Soviet Latvia and erode the foundation of Latvian nationhood (although there’s supposedly no documented evidence of that), but that very obviously comes across as a double standard if it comes from the promoters of Wilkommenskultur, open borders and ethnic diversification through immigration.
Again, I don’t think the main theoretical question here is how it all could have been worse for Latvians, or minorities in Latvia. Of course it could’ve been worse, that’s not the point. The reality is also this: people compare their past to alternative scenarios all the time; after all, it’s the only way to evaluate the past. It’s normal, and certainly not something that should be seen as a waste of time. And demolishing a monument of this size in order to denounce actions in the past is a big deal for certain, so I think it’s fair to ask questions in case they aren’t asked yet. (I can understand if local Russo-Latvians, if that’s even a word, aren’t currently inclined to do that. But either way, I don’t follow Latvian media.)
For example, to expand on my original post, the monument-topplers certainly don’t object to the Red Army re-entering Riga and pushing the Germans out. Right? Or some of them do, but don’t want to express it?
Judging by the media commentary on this event, it seems what most locals objected to were the regular Victory Day celebrations organized at the monument, and attended by members of the Russian minority. If that’s the real issue, can’t the government simply ban celebrations of May 9th instead of tearing down the whole obelisk and the accompanying statues? Or was that done already? Or is it something they never decided to do?
Is it just me, or is there a rather obvious historical parallel between Gorbachev and the impending Kamala Presidency?
More options
Context Copy link