@Mantergeistmann's banner p

Mantergeistmann


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:52:03 UTC

				

User ID: 323

Mantergeistmann


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:52:03 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 323

Now I want an effortpost on wines... I personally am only really familiar with the Niagara region, but would like to become more worldly.

Why would you do that? Announce it on twitter or tiktok or youtube or wherever normal people are.

You'd be surprised at how many people think that having an X account means you're financially supporting Nazism via ad revenue.

(Still not quite as ridiculous a take as the 20-something who complained about "anti-Semitic microaggressions" in a Mel Brooks movie.)

Is that more or less ridiculous a take than the people who complained that Blazing Saddles was racist?

Everyone knows (I say jokingly) that it's actually that JK Rowling expressed a bit of subtlety and restraint by not outright referring to them as gnomes instead.

I have seen people claim it's because the illustrations (which she approved) look like stereotypes of anti-Jewish propaganda (due largely to the noses), but I haven't done the comparisons myself.

I'm just so profoundly exhausted by it all. Why do these people have to make it so fucking hard to just enjoy things?

I've seen it described as gang tags, basically: if you can tag (or in this case, say) "Sharks Suck!" and make it clear it's a hostile environment to anyone saying "Jets Suck" or "Sharks Rule", well, it's demonstrably your space now.

I just don't think disproportionate violence is okay, even if provoked

Is there a (consistent) way to win a war without disproportionate violence? If you're better at fighting than your opponent, you will inflict more violence upon them than they do upon you (and if you're fighting in enemy territory/homeland, their civilians will suffer more than yours).

As a rule of thumb, international agreements never require states to do anything that would be to their strategic disadvantage. If they did then no state would ever agree to them in the first place.

Indeed, even the Geneva Conventions generally say things like "if your opponent makes use of this for their advantage, it loses protection under these conventions in that instance". They really wanted to discourage people trying to gain a strategic advantage by breaking the rules and hoping their opponent was too moral to then ignore said rules.

I'll go a bit further: if Hamas were white evangelicals wearing MAGA hats, rather than brownish Muslims, a large amount of the people claiming Israel is doing warcrimes would be calling for the IDF to take its gloves off and turn the land into a parking lot.