Yeah committing genocide on a people has been known to stop them from hating you and participating in asymmetric warfare against you.

Truly peak understanding of fundamental human group psychology.

Yeah, that’s true, but super fucked that women get the innocence of children and men are assumed to be not innocent in any situation.

Life is harsh when you’re a guy.

What country has a system where SOLDIERS IN THE MILITARY can’t be forced to invade another country?

Like it’s a nice ideal, but considering your idea is novel and radical maybe start with countries that aren’t at war.

Second of all, once you’re at war, you’re at war. There is no “just defend your territory” because that means there is no reason not to invade you and no loss scenario for your invader, the worst outcome they lose some soldiers and your borders are unaffected. Once you are attacked you have to seek every legal advantage (see the Geneva convention) to obtain victory and repel your attackers. On that basis I’m not even sure your idea is sound or reasonable in the first place for a defending country. And in this specific scenario it’s just helping Russia.

I’m marking you as a Russian troll just to see how often you’re on here defending Russia by “just asking questions” about the actions of Ukraine while not holding Russia to any standard at all .

Yeah, everyone knows that when white people do it they’re “expats”!

What evidence do you have that she’s intersex? No one anywhere has come forward to share test results that show she’s intersex or anything but cis female. Sure some Russian guy who got fired for corruption said it to a reporter ONE TIME after Imane beat a Russian boxer, but that’s literally all you got.

Based on nothing… You spent 20 severely downvoted comments to say “I don’t have any evidence but in my heart I feel like she’s not a real woman and shouldn’t be allowed to box at the Olympics”

I’m glad you’re not in charge of anything, fuck, this shit’s wild!

“it was bad before so no point fighting now”

That’s what you sound like. Not to mention it’s undeniable that Twitter has more hate speech after apartheid emerald mine oligarch Musk bought it with Saudi money.

https://phys.org/news/2023-04-analysis-speech-significantly-twitter.html

That’s not what I said. In neither situation does the deal enforce that the person HAS to use the loudspeaker for hate speech. I wish I could blame your reading comprehension but it’s painfully obvious you’re arguing in bad faith since this is the pedantic detail you’re stuck on instead of the rest of my argument.

Every Twitter user makes a deal with Twitter to get an account. This deal includes what’s acceptable behaviour. If Twitter’s policy allows hate speech then it’s Twitter’s fault their platform is spreading hate speech. If Twitter’s policy prohibits hate speech then it’s still their fault because they’re not enforcing their policy. This is something Twitter had no problem with before their degenerate new owner fired the enforcement team.

Now let’s see what pedantic detail you get stuck on this time instead of facing the fact Twitter is liable for enabling hate speech to spread faster than ever before!

What’s confusing you?

If you make a deal with someone to come on your front porch every day yelling hate speech into your loudspeaker I think you’ll find it’s pretty easy to be held accountable for what other people say.

Second, if you’ll remember, Twitter makes money from showing adds on this speech. It’s not like they’re doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Profiting from hate speech isn’t going to be looked at kindly.

Oh shit France runs things WAY faster than us Canadians. Probably for the best. The longer the campaign is, the more politicians can use bullshit populist fearmongering. Good luck to the French for defeating the fascists… That just won in France for the EU elections…

Corporations can’t be victims of victim blaming

So you agree that they can be victims of victim blaming

That user that tagged you as “purposeful idiot” was fucking spot on.

A snap election isn’t instant lol. An election committee gets formed, a date is set a few months ahead, politicians register and campaign, polling stations are formed and staffed. It’s a lot of work. It’s like the US but faster and less predictable and therefore not 18 months nightmare of propaganda.

I think each Korea just sent the best of their culture!

I like what you’re saying and I agree with it fundamentally. I wish it is possible to have the majority of crops be direct to consumer. I KNOW everyone is happier when they have a real personal relationship with the products they consume. That’s even part of what marketing abuses when it anthropomorphises brands.

I’m personally pessimistic on that front though, I think it can’t happen in modern capitalism for two major reasons. Number one, I don’t think the majority of the population of Western nations, let alone the world, can tolerate even a moderate increase in food prices without creating massive instability. I know what the “middle men” jack up prices considerably on almost everything, but the staples: wheat and meat in my part of the world, simply cannot be sold cheaper by smaller operations than grocery store prices (in part due to the regulatory capture so prevalent in modern capitalism). Number two, of the people that CAN tolerate the increase, I don’t think modern capitalism would allow their profits to be undercut by a significant shift towards small producers selling direct to customers. They have a few tools that I just don’t think most people are prepared to live without like comfort and consistency. I can get plums, cauliflower, tomatoes, broccoli ANYTIME OF YEAR at reasonably consistent prices. The idea that people will have to pay more AND change to seasonal eating habits where they just can’t get certain things most of the year? I think we’re too far into the comfort of bourgeois decadence, excuse my communist language, to tolerate the change.

I will say I have enjoyed this discussion and I certainly agree that I mischaracterised you by initially latching onto a throwaway “ew bugs” comment.

Using sustainable practices “they only eat a little” is totally valid. The way we farm now… A pest outbreak will ravage a monoculture crop.

I know there are great alternatives, but they all have higher labour requirements. Modern capitalism can’t tolerate that. If we can find a better solution now we can mitigate the damage before we end capitalism. After that we can definitely switch to more labour intensive sustainable practices. I’m not an accelerationist so I’m not rushing to end the current world order before trying to make all the improvements we can.

It was a wild guess and I was hoping someone smarter than me would correct me ❤️

In my defense the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park came from wildly different eras so Carboniferous super bugs can still fit in!

I’m not fighting you. It’s just you’re acting as if the reason we research pesticides isn’t because we need it to protect our food source.

I’m not even saying that there isn’t some possible alternative, I’m just saying monoculture grains is how humanity gets most of its calories right now. It’s how we currently survive. That requires pesticides. These pesticides are far less damaging to the world than the current ones in use right now. It’s in the research phase too, so it’s not like we’re committing to this specific idea. Everyone knows there are pros and cons, the scientists doing the research do too. You’re not the first person to realise that this will trap all small insects. Just a reminder that our current solution kills all insects and this one is better. The fact it doesn’t harm bees is already a massive improvement.

Everyone should be welcome and encouraged to research any idea that’s better than our current ideas in any way. Any knowledge is good knowledge.

As for your preferred ideas? There are lots of ways to help be part of a future that includes what you feel is the best solution. That being said, none of them include being disingenuous about why we use pesticides in the first place. I don’t know why that was contentious to you. We don’t kill bugs because they’re gross, we kill them because they eat our food.

In the Jurassic period there were giant insects like dragonflies with 4ft wingspan. Turns out THIS is how we get to Jurassic park

It’s not because they’re gross, it’s because they eat our food. And we grow monocultures so it’s a perfect breeding ground for pests. Also if you read the article the new pesticide is physical and doesn’t harm large predatory insects.