Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
User ID: 137

Why not? It's not like consumer boycotts, getting people fired etc. are tactics that haven't been used by whatever political sides long before we started to call them "cancelling".
Our carfree home's solution to this is simply ordering most of our groceries using home delivery. Big delivery once every two weeks, costs 10-11 € per delivery which is partially recouped by the greater ability to select offers and cheap goods when shopping online as compared to being distracted by shit in the store, small replenishments throughout the week when coming back home to work etc.
Isn't home delivery an option in a lot of places? One would think that Covid would have made it more common.
How is he adopting the culture and trapping of the left? Is the argument that he's blue tribe?
Nothing about a market this regulated can really be described as capitalist.
That's only if one believes that capitalism and regulation are somehow opposite to each other.
Insofar as "globohomo" exists, surely Russians are as "globo" as the West, considering that they have no compunction about there being, generally, global organizations, global treaties, global frameworks etc. that nations are supposed to obey - they simply want the whole constellation and governance of the system to happen on a different basis than now (ie. one that would favor Russia more).
Thus, it all would boil down to "homo", which I'm choosing to interpret as meaning, obviously, homosexuality (I'm aware there's an explanation of the term where it means "global homogeneity" or whatever - this has always sounded, to me, as credible as "No, officer, don't ya know that ACAB means All Cats Are Beautiful?")m, and that would then boil down to it being OK for Russia to bomb Ukraine's infrastructure to smithereens, occupy vast stretches of land, kill untold numbers of Ukrainians etc... just to prevent there being a Pride parades in Donetsk and Sevastopol. Forgive me for not considering that enough of a reason for, well, anything resembling Russia's current actions, really.
That's not true. They'd do it if they had no other choice, and had to wait for a better opportunity.
So how is this supposed to be falsifiable then?
What they want to do is clear from messaging sent to the public, which is still: immigration good, and skepticism of it is racist.
Literally the messaging sent to the public by EU is this:
Migration is a complex issue. The safety of people who seek international protection or a better life has to be taken into account, as do the concerns of countries who worry that migratory pressures will exceed their capacities.
To address the interdependence between Member States’ policies and decisions, the European Commission proposes a new EU framework that manages and normalises migration for the long term. This new system should provide certainty, clarity and decent conditions for the women, children and men arriving in the EU. It also allows Europeans to trust that migration is managed in an effective and humane way, fully in line with our values and with international laws.
Migration is context, you have to balance a bunch of stuff, the top message is that immigration must be managed - which by necessity means that the borders won't be open, which was the question being discussed.
When the threat is foreign governments - as it often happens to be in large stretches of the world - what you generally greatly would want is, in addition to guns, a strong goverment of your own to coordinate the use of those guns, ie. have an army. When it comes to the idea of Russians barreling to Finland Ukraine-style, I would much rather put my trust to the Finnish army than to civilians with guns to hinder the onslaught.
From the right of the party and from the left of the party. (Of course Sanders is technically not a Democrat, but in practice, he was and is.)
Or this:
In addition to being one of the top celebs confronting age with confidence, Oprah Winfrey made the personal decision to not have or adopt children, but has still expressed her admiration for those who choose to become parents. "Throughout my years, I have had the highest regard for women who choose to be at home [with] their kids, because I don't know how you do that all day long," she told People.
All of these are precisely framed in the sense of being a reaction to a society that generally expects women to have children at some point. I don't get why this would be much of an argument.
The closest comparison here is the influenza vaccine, and I don't recall anyone saying that the influenza vaccine makes you immune from influenza.
But they didn't leave it at that. They wrote a whole chapter about how it's racist to hate white people within a book where they could have easily not done that and where, indeed, one would expect many if not most of the potential readers willing to agree with the general thesis of the book to find the view that 'anti-white racism' is even possible to be highly controversial.
Yes, especially within the context of the book, the chapter is indeed an act of self-flagellation over having held views of the described sort in his youth. I'm not sure what sort of a further retraction than what was described you're looking for here.
Well, insofar as the original point that it's not just women who make the choice regarding fertility goes, QED?
I believe the prediction market swing started days before the Iowa poll, pretty much after the Hinchcliffe joke.
I can't remember, was there this much hubbub among election nerds over one particular poll in Iowa as a bellwether as there has been/is now? When I saw this first start someone had spelled it as "Seltzer poll" and I thought that it was like the bakery "cookie polls" expect with different varieties of Alka-Seltzer or something.
I'd guess I'd give current odds as 60-40 for Harris, but this is solely because the online American right spending the final days before the election losing its shit over some squirrel seems like losing type behavior.
But those were already taking place in 2021. Vaccination centres were getting burned as early as March 2021, and probably the most notable large-scale protests internationally took place around Summer-August 2021. Never saw particular evidence that they did much beyond heightening the anger the normies and the political class felt towards the antivaxxers.
"assassination biden", "assassination kamala" etc don't autocomplete either, which might imply they've simply removed a bunch of obvious phrases to avoid some other guy taking a pop at one of the candidates and the news stories being written about how the (potential) assassin had Googled this phrase before grabbing his rifle. (Yes, no-one's attempted to assassinate the Dem candidates, but you'd still expect them to autocomplete for people to find, for instance, reactions by Biden or Harris to Trump assassination or so on.)
I guess that the fluent use of IT systems would then require applying the designation of "birthing mother" to everyone who has given birth, which would mean that presumably you'd then have a lot of form with "father" and "birthing mother".
What, would it be more democratic to somehow force them to make coalitions with Those Awful People if they don't want to? Generally, no-ones misleading the voters about anything regarding such preferences and parties communicate at least their negative preferences clearly in advance.
Macron admin has pushed through a ton of reforms that the French left hates and its officials have regularly accused the left "Islamo-leftism" and what have you.
If one of them had, say, 5 % of African-derived ancestry, would you know it? That's what assimilation largely meant in the Latin American context.
Jos on kerran äidiksi syntynyt
Joka kerran on äidiksi syntynyt,
hän äiti on kaikkien lasten,
ja kaikkia maailman lapsia
hän on painanut rintaansa vasten,
ja maailman lasten itkua
hän on korvissaan alkanut kuulla,
sillä maailman lapset puhuvat
hänen omien lastensa suulla.
-Anne-Mari Kaskinen –
Isn't it rather more important that they have recognized the State of Palestine than whatever their exact motivations were?
I'm not sure that anyone is denying that such Telegram groups exist here. However, the history is full of examples of states in struggle against each other fomenting literally genocidal levels of fury aimed at each other turn, only for all of that to be turned to a much cooler variant of mutual distaste or even eventual careful friendship once a peace has been achieved and been in force for some years. Israel supporters tend to treat it as obvious that that couldn't happen with Palestine, that even a mere suggestion that it could happen is some sort of a gross form of la-la-land naivete, even though Israel and Jordan - the "state of Palestine that already exists", according to Zionists - are close enough currently for Jordanians to shoot down drones aimed at Israel.
This is not some novel status; it happens every time some separatist movement becomes strong enough to hold territory. For another current example, there's Somaliland.
Not getting to whether the "de facto" actually means that much insofar as international law is concerned, the obvious difference would be that Hamas has never actually claimed Gaza to be an independent state, unlike the Somaliland government.
The proper response to the Hamas occupation of Gaza should be the Palestinian Authority, probably backed by an international coalition, asserting its de facto jurisdiction over Gaza, by force if needed. Of course there is a great variety of reasons why that's not happening, but the clear majority of those reasons are, when it gets to the roots, "Israel".
It is quite risible for Israel supporters to refer to confusion and chaos in Palestine when it's obvious that Israel isn't in any way willing to have the internationally recognized authority of the State of Palestine act as states normally attempt to do when some group is occupying a part of their territory, or have the armed forces that could even theoretically attempt it.
So the answer is "the deniers don't have a coherent historical narrative that makes sense"? Considering the manhours of energy spent poring over minutiae in camp construction and witness testimony, one would think that there would be at least one attempt at constructing an overarching history of the Jews in WW2 Europe from a denier perspective, without being tied to just being commentary on the mainstream historiography (which has produced a wealth of such narratives).
At least according to Wikipedia, the official German estimate of the deaths from Eastern European expulsions of Germans is in the ballpark of a bit over 2 million (which has always been the number I've understood to be correct, before this) and the theories that the actual number is around half a million continue to be "challenger" theories. Even so, whichever the number is, we're talking about whether the amount of Germans dying in Central/Eastern Europe in the aftermath of WW2 is around 0,5 % or 2 %, not whether the amount of Jews dying in the same region in 1941-1945 is over a half or in low single digits; the sheer scales of population reduction in certain demographic group are completely different.
More options
Context Copy link