houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

@Aether But we have to care about the environment! As long as other people do all the mining somewhere else, it is magically fine for us.

It just pisses me off that environmentalist libtards seem to think that they can demand to live a first world lifestyle with all the resources it requires while also thinking that any gathering of said resources on our end is unforgivable.

@sickburnbro Just what is abortion going to do, make women combat ready instead of being pregnant? Fat lot of good that will do, as women are not as fit to be soldiers as men. And besides, I am willing to bet that most women would suddenly be against murdering their own baby just to escape deployment. Because that already happens.

@Dwalrus Because the US wants to put its dick everywhere in the world it can and many countries (such as all the Eurofaggot ones) expect the US to intervene even when they talk about how the US spends too much on their military.

Granted, we do spend too much on our military, but the moment we decrease our spending the same Eurofaggots making that point also would beg the US to save them the moment there is a hint of conflict. They should build up their own militaries, frankly.

@Pain66 These portraits clearly are not from the year of 1776. At least not most of them, as Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall would be looking pretty rough if they were 20 and 33 and looked like that.

But still, I am not surprised that they were young men when the revolution happened, as they would need to be at the peak fighting age to make it through the war (regardless if they directly fought or not).

It does show that men were much different then versus now.

@ArdainianRight The idea that everything in the past was bad and awful and that we are "progressing" on the "correct path" so as long as we go against anything that was done in the past requires a very arrogant and naive mindset.

Horrifying possibility: Multiple timelines are not a work of fiction, but reality. And our timeline is the best one there is.

Anyone can say they do not like the current US healthcare system and say it should be improved. But when discussing solutions, if you have one person saying we should go full free market and the other saying we should have it fully socialized, then you are not going to find any agreement beyond "the current system sucks."

And besides, we see currently that both proponents think the presence of elements of each other's system is the problem while their own is the solution.

If someone I am conversing with says they also do not like what is going on with token gay characters in movies, it might seem like we agree when I say I do not like it either. But when I find out the reason they do not like it is because they think there is not enough emphasis on the homosexual character and that they should have more than a few seconds of onscreen homosexuality, then it is most certainly not the same thing as me not wanting it to be present at all.

I always cringe at the mention of "we want the same things"/"we agree on more than we disagree" when it is someone who has politics that are diametrically opposed to my own. When you want to go the exact opposite direction that I do, we are nowhere near "wanting the same things."

Having some vague "same" end goal is not the same thing as a fully implemented set of policies seen to their conclusion. Because of this, common ground is most often not found.

@Pain66 I have also noticed many YouTube channels that discuss urban planning becoming more prevalent. That is, I think there may be a not so subtle nudge by their algorithms to see that sort of content to promote content that is against car centric city design.

Granted, I do not have a problem with much of their ideas presented, though I am suspicious that it will be a foot in the door for tyranny down the road, just as you suspect.

@kaiservenom >spiritual virginity

That is quite a lot of extra syllables that can be said much more succinctly with the word "slut."

@WashedOutGundamPilot Some guys there do too much highlighting, but it does show what the OP thinks are the most important aspects.

@Tfmonkey you might want to look at Matthew 5:22

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

That is Jesus himself saying you are in dangerous territory. Maybe you don't believe, but it looks a lot like what you are referring to.

We will most likely see a much different world in the coming years with the decline of the United States. Many people are not ready for that.

We are not so special that we will be immune to the pattern of history where a once powerful empire falls. We too will follow suit.

So many people are not ready for the "bad guys" to win. They do not realize that it is a very real possibility. Nor can they contemplate that Russia is not being uniquely evil for "invading a sovereign country." Territorial shifting is something that has happened many, many times. It is just not something that they ever thought would happen now. Not with the post WWII and post Cold War world.

And this is where the prolonged period of relative peace has heavily skewed the perspective of those in the west. War is just something you see on a screen; either on the news or in a movie. And every time they see it, the US wins, because we are the best! And we are fighting for what is right (except when the media tells you otherwise).

But what if we are not as strong as we thought. Then what?

This is regardless of who is right or wrong in this conflict. Russia (or at least Putin) sees taking regions like the Donbass as a part of its interests. Most likely, Russia will keep this territory.

However, the counter offensive narrative wants to suggest otherwise. Because the "good guys" are supposed to win, just like all the WWII movies and history lessons have told us. But what happens when we lose? This does not even cross the mind of those with a Ukraine flag in their profile.

These same people also do not understand the history of borders. Countries all got their territory from conquest and violence. Where many of the current borders exist are a result of some violence at some point, even if it is not in living memory.

So when Russia has been claiming more territory for themselves, this may be shocking to those who never thought about the history of every other border in the world. Borders also change, and often as a result of violence/war.