‘There’s no point voting against Hitler right now because the opposition is right leaning and may one day grow into Hitler’
‘There’s no point voting against Hitler right now because the opposition is right leaning and may one day grow into Hitler’
I don’t know why you are using in person community praxis as a refutation of an online space being toxic
Real life isn’t online, the issue is an online space being shitty
In the UK, you can’t decide whether to ‘press charges’ or not, the decision is the CPS’s.
But in practice, saying you aren’t interested in pursuing a conviction often ends it, because:
1 - the prosecution must be ‘in the public good’ which is undermined if the victim isn’t interested
2 - a lot of the time the testimony and cooperation of the victim is key to the prosecution case
3 - the system is horribly underfunded so if they can justify dropping it they will
I read in the paper today that a bankruptcy court is going to take 40% of Katie Price’s OnlyFans income
When i saw this headline my brain skipped to Rudy Giuliani’s OnlyFans income
Has Rudy Giuliani considered OnlyFans?
In the UK you start school at 4
Hey man, he had bone spurs, you ableist (/s)
“Yes, I lost this election, but I’m young, beautiful, and rich as f**k,” she concluded. She lost her job at Purina dog food over her extreme rhetoric and her campaign was unable to purchase ads.
She came 6th. Its funny, but I think she was never a real candidate and hasn’t learned anything
I’d argue that TERF-ism, especially JKR’s brand of it, has both classist and racist elements ingrained within it
The whole ideology is based around gatekeeping ‘womanhood’ to a single shared demographic experience, denying feminism to those outside of it
There are ways in which trans women have had differing experiences of femininity from cis women. But the same is true of black women of white women, etc
It might be explicitly anti-trans; but it’s implicitly anti-in-group
So you’ve called me an ‘armchair genius’ twice in that comment - I’m sorry that I didn’t fight in WWI, but I am allowed to discuss the definition of Nationalism. You have no idea about my life or my background (or my chair), so leave that out.
Sure, Post-Colonial Nationalism as a movement played an integral role in establishing independence from European powers. That doesn’t change the fact that Nationalism is a European paradigm that contributed to the exploitation of these places in the first place.
The fact that Nationalism opposes foreign influence over ones own country - and therefore is an effective ideology of opposition in regions affected by European exploitation - says nothing about Nationalism’s inherent militarism and codification of heirarichal power.
So yes look at Nationalism as a factor in establishing independence, but then look at where Nationalism leads after that.
Lets take Nigeria in the 1960s. Nigerian nationalism helped oust the British, cool, that’s great. Then the Nationalist government inflamed ethnic tensions until Ahmadu Bello was assassinated in a miltary coup, and the following ethnic violence led to Civil War.
While you wait there for me to talk to “every nation state in the (so called) “3rd World””, maybe do some reading that isn’t an internet definition written by people Just like me (whatever that means…)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/45341491
And if you come back to me, do it with argument and not random personal attacks next time, thanks
Its the only way to make a living thanks to Kalus Schwab and the globalists (/s)
Nationalism is inherently concerned with expanding the State through the ostensible ‘reunification’ of ethnic groups, or more overtly at the expense of other nations. Like, yknow, Lebensraum
This idea that Imperialism and Nationalism are conflicting ideologies is just… so dumb
…what? Have you just assumed that words are the same because they sound similar?
Nationalisation of industries and resources refers to public ownership vs private ownership
Nationalism is an ideology that became widespread in the late 19th Century, that emphasises the codification of States on ethnic grounds
Nachos are a type of corn or potato chip, often combined with cheese and guacomole
All of these things are at risk.
Who is this mythical ‘Britain’ that is saying this? Is it the King? Is it Farage? Or is it the 8% of our population with South Asian heritage? We’re a multi-cultural nation. The colonial and imperial roots of that absolutely can’t be ignored, but they don’t erase the stake that BAME people have in this country.
Some British people originally came from the sub-continent; get over it
I’m not denying the fucked up colonial history. You seem to be denying that South Asian immigrants are British - they are
Well, they were British chefs with South Asian heritage who of course were indirectly here because of horrific Imperialism
But it is British, its very British. Despite what Farage and co want you to believe, we’re a multi-cultural nation and have been for centuries.
British-Indian cuisine is at this point distinct and diverse enough from traditional Indian cuisine that it is its own thing. And its super widespread - even the racists discuss how shitty they are over a curry
I think she does - the bill is about materials being sent home with kids from schools that include sodomy or grooming or the incredibly vague ‘lgbt agenda’
It’s designed so that instead of banning books individually, they can just sue for anything they don’t like.
The headline makes it sound ridiculous - and in a way it is, of course - but it’s potentially dangerous. I don’t know how much sway her organisation has, if it’s big or niche. Hopefully zero
“Simpon, huh? New man?”
“Actually sir, he thwarted your campaign for Governer. You ran over his son. He saved the plant from meltdown. His wife painted you in the nude.”
“Uh, doesn’t ring a bell”
Just in the spirit of pedantry, its not really true to say that the US system predated most parliaments.
Like, maybe its technically true now due to the expansion of democratic and republic systems in the post-colonial era, but parliaments in Western Europe were plentiful and long-established in 1776.
The first American government was notable in that is was completely divorced from a hereditary Monarch, and I don’t wanna downplay that, but a system in which a representitive body of land-owners is elected by an enfranchised class to decide policy and even pass legislation existed in, for example, Iceland since the 10th Century, Catalonia since the 12th, England since the 13th. It was arguably the standard during the enlightenment in Europe.
My two cents, the US system does seem to be remarkably inflexible. I guess it’s complicated to unpack why exactly, but a combination of myth-making, bad-faith originalists, and the sheer size of the country probably all play a part in it
A bungalow