sweetpotato

I’m sorry I assumed that, people’s goal when making comments on semantics is usually to obfuscate the point

As far as I’m concerned, the 92-01 war had the support of the US along with Russia. But that’s way besides the point I’m making.

I didn’t mean that it’s 30 years strictly against the US, I am only saying that these people have been tortured by war for 30 years and all people care about is to call the Talibans terrorists, not the people’s suffering by the world powers’ interventions.

Instead of playing with numbers, we could just focus on the issue of portraying every enemy of the US as a terrorist and mocking anything these people go through just because someone the west doesn’t like prevailed. Of course they are religious fundamentalists and oppressing, especially to women, but they are a legitimate government as much as you don’t like it and the people have the right to sort their society morals on their own just like the west did - it feels stupid to articulate such obvious statements, but people don’t get it.

It’s funny cause they legit have a terrorism problem with the once US funded IS. If you people had ever cared to see what has happened to Afghanistan after the Talibans took over you’d know that the terrorists are constantly bombing public spaces, public infrastructure etc.

The Talibans may be extremists and fundamentalists but terrorists? That’s a CIA talking point - any violence against us, the west, is terrorism.

The US abandoned Afghanistan in ruins after 30 years of war, bombing people and infrastructure and now they have to rebuild their country on their own, forgotten by the world. They are starving, they are extremely poor and because they are so vulnerable, the IS was able to establish itself there and terrorise the people. So I don’t get the irony here, you people are just hypocrites and don’t remember who caused all this in the first place.

First Arab country to do so, sad

No actual humans are not glad, because this is not support for Palestine or anti genocide or anything like that. This is just talk to appease to voters.

Actual thinking humans can deduce that since Israel had the 100% of support from the democratic party no questions asked, not when bombing children, not when needing funding to attack Hezbollah in the north, this means that the person replacing the president from the same party, while also being the vice president of the current democratic government, will do exactly the same. As has been the case for every major foreign interest of the US.

There could have been some room for wishful thinking if she was someone new but like, she is the current vice president, the levels of gaslighting democrats are reaching is beyond me.

Yesterday 21th of July was the hottest day in recorded global history. This year’s February, April and June were the hottest respective months in recorded history. Just putting this out there

Or that you can’t actually tell who’s going to be regarded as a universally evil guy from our time…

My issue with nuclear energy isn’t that it’s dangerous or that it’s inherently bad. The world needs a stable source of energy that compensates for wind and solar fluctuations anyways. For the current realistic alternatives that’s either going to be nuclear or coal/oil/natural gas. We have nothing else for this purpose, end of discussion.

My problem is the assumption underlying this discussion about nuclear energy that it somehow will solve all of our problems or that it will somehow allow us to continue doing business as usual. That’s categorically not the case. The climate crisis has multiple fronts that need to be dealt with and the emissions is just one of them. Even if we somehow managed to find the funds and resources to replace all non renewable energy with nuclear, we would still have solved just 10% of the problem, and considering that this cheap new energy will allow us to increase our activities and interventions in the planet, the situation will only worsen.

Nuclear energy is of course useful, but it’s not the answer. Never has technology been the answer for a social and political issue. We can’t “science and invent” our way out of this, it’s not about the tech, it’s about who decides how it will be used, who will profit from it, who and how much will be affected by it etc. If you want to advocate for a way to deal with the climate crisis you have to propose a complete social and political plan that will obviously include available technologies, so stop focusing on technologies and start focusing on society and who takes the decisions.

One simple example would be the following: no matter how green your energy is, if the trend in the US is to have increasingly bigger cars and no public transport, then the energy demands will always increase and no matter how many nuclear plants you build, they will only serve as an additional source and not as a replacement. So no matter how many plants you build, the climate will only deteriorate.

This is literally how the people in charge have decided it will work. Any new developing energy source that is invented serves only to increase the consumption, not to replace previous technologies. That’s the case with solar and wind as well. So all of this discussion you all make about nuclear Vs oil or whatever is literally irrelevant. The problem is social and political, not technological.

Fuck them. I’d rather donate quadruple the money for premium to my favourite creators directly than give a single penny to this parasitic mega corporation.

The issue is not only the ads, it’s the stupid shit it throws you to keep you hooked, it’s the stupid shorts that literally no one asked for, it’s every stupid little thing that fights for your attention. Basically the app doesn’t work for you, it works against you. That’s not the case with third party apps, they have you, the user, in mind, not their profits.

Or better yet - this helped me more because I couldn’t get what you were saying until I saw it - is that you can think of either one of two faces that the cube can sit on. Before I explain which faces I am talking of, I have to note that a cube face can be described by its diagonal, which is what I have to do to explain this in words and the second one is that in a drawing of a cube there are six peripheral intersection points(three to the right and three to the left) and two inside points a right one and a left one. So these two faces the cube can sit on are:

The first is the face whose diagonal starts from the bottom left peripheral point and reaches the right inside point

Then the second face is the one that spans from the left bottom peripheral point until the right middle peripheral point.

This helps me change perspective instantly.

“promising to give two different groups”? You mean the natives and the colonisers? Tf is this “meme”?