How did US/NATO threaten Russian sovereignty in Ukraine to the point where it justifies invading a sovereign neighbor under false pretenses?

It’s not. A lot of people here seem to confuse anti-western and anti-captialism with pro-russia and pro-china and will on one hand decry the evils of western hegemony and imperialism, while simultaneously using the other to jerk off autocratic, authoritarian, capitalistic regimes elsewhere. The idea that one can be anti USA imperialism and anti Russian/Chinese imperialism simultaneously is completely unfathomable to some.

Never said you specifically did. I was using it as an example of why I don’t believe that all conversations and discourse have inherent value and validity. I can see where my use of the generic “you” would be confusing though. Apologies for the misleading language

That’s why I rely solely on post thumbnails now as the source of truth. :P

But real talk, you’re not wrong. Most of the shit I run across is nothing but slams, clapbacks, and random Twitter screenshots for some reason.

Huh…TIL about how weather satellites actually work. No comment on the rest of your post, but that was a cool little side-journey you led me down. Thanks!

Misleading title. The SC didn’t leave anything in place, they just refused to take up the appeal. Big difference legally. One comes with a holding, clarification on law, potentially new legal standards/tests…etc. The other is equivalent of a null value.

I think the reason there are a lot of walls in the thread is because you keep saying you’re not bringing bias to the table, then proceed to run the classic western conservative playbook of biased talking points. It comes off as disingenuous.

I do agree that discussion is important, but as stated in my previous response, certain things I personally have zero desire to entertain as valid discussion points, among them topics that impact basic human rights of others. Going back to my original example of non-cis-hetero-normative individuals, I don’t care to have a discussion with anyone who would propose anything other than full acknowledgment of their rights to live, love, exist, and pursue personal goals without need for justification. There is no “middle ground” or “compromise” on the topic. Either you believe them to be humans like yourself and deserving of all rights you would reserve to yourself, or you don’t and frankly your opinion on the matter no longer has any value for me. It’s ok to snuff out oppressive bullshit in the cradle without needing to justify it.

But are you not doing that very thing with your comments in this thread re: left leading ideology and progressives? I don’t mean that as an attack, just pointing out that it’s extremely hard to break out of that habit/mode of discourse even for the most well-meaning

Everything you’ve said could apply to the opposite side (i.e., non-left). The argument you’ve posited betrays bias toward more conservative ideology and politics which I’d argue is in contrast to some of your other comments in the thread where you’ve claimed to have no agenda necessarily one way or another.

Also, I’d argue that certain things do not need discussion or nuanced review as they are prima facie absurd/anti-social/harmful…etc., so while i do agree that all peolple engage in bandwaggoning and reactivity in social discourse (including myself above), I don’t necessarily agree that this is a bad thing when it comes to ideologies that aim to oppress, suppress, and otherwise disenfranchise individuals or groups of individuals based on immutable characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin…etc

It does not help that NATO loves weaponising trans people for neoliberal white power agenda.

Expand and explain further please.

…we are getting closer…

And therein lies the problem with your post imo. You decry the supplantation of “traditional” values but fail to acknowledge the reason for it is because the systems they’re built on are inherently oppressive, unjust, and built for the benefit of the few. “Getting closer” to accepting someone for the characteristics they exhibit that in no way impact others is not good enough. The systems that insist on slow rolling out human rights in order to preserve the comfort and avoid cognitive dissonance of “traditionalists” deserve to be torn down to the root

There are traditional gender norms preferred openly by all…

Hard disagree.

Also, who in your opinion is demonizing all traditional practices? Seems like you’re starting with a conclusion (progressive movements are trying to throw all traditionalism out of the window) which 1. is tautological, and 2. is reductive and makes a lot of unfounded (imo) leaps in logic

Why do you consider it absurd?

Let’s put the question back to you since you claim everyone else is misunderstanding: what do you consider to be good and bad “traditional” things? And how is progressivism, in your opinion, impacting both?

You’re conflating two separate things: capitalism as a system and progressivism/traditionalism/conservativism as an ideology. The “traditional” way of making products was capitalism as well, just a less efficient form. And progressivism can be applied to capitalism as an economic system as well (i.e., globalization or automation).

Equality and right to exist for everyone who does not ascribe to “traditional” cis-hetero-normative values for one.

That’s exactly what the outfit was modeled on

Voting for Biden is voting for a Zionist Fascist enacting Trump’s policies to a greater degree.

Truly one of the most brain dead takes I’ve seen

Gender self-identification is politicized in the US because a not insignificant percentage of the population believes those who self-identify and orient themselves as anything other than strictly hetero-cis-normative are deserving of legal subjugation, otherization, and dehumanization.

That’s gold embroidery on his daughters dress

Looks reminiscent of Devault covers (and fits the mood too)