Yes. It's obvious that you're acting smarmy to cover the gaps whenever you have nothing, to cover all the holes in your argument. It's like you think if you just act smug, people won't notice when you're cornered and have no actual response.
It doesn't work. It's transparent. You're not actually covering up the holes in your reasoning, you're just demonstrating that you don't care about how many holes there are in your reasoning, because you're intellectually dishonest.
I find it frustrating that so many communities are just for news articles. Look, I'm terminally politics-brained, but you'll never get anywhere if you're always just reacting to the current thing. There's not really a place for higher level discussion or for people to share thoughtful, original ideas. The result is thousands of the same arguments on the same three topics screaming the same talking points at each other over and over. And it seems like that's all people want.
Really more of a frustration with people in general. Wish people were more curious about the world.
Neo-Nazi Pulls of Surprise Victory in Long-Held KKK District - The Onion
Average day in the Republican party.
God, you're so smarmy when you can't think of an actual point. Do you not realize how transparent it is?
It was the only objection you raised at that point, so yes, it was your entire argument. Whether you had some super-secret argument in your head that you weren't saying isn't relevant to the argument you actually made.
I love how you simultaneously claim I'm strawmanning you and defend the positions I'm criticizing.
No, people don't have to be afraid for it to be terrorism, no, the location isn't relevant to whether it's terrorism (we've been over this, a bomb that goes off on a plane over international waters is still terrorism), no, the perpetrator doesn't have to take credit for it. None of those criteria are included anywhere in either your made up definition or the actual definition.
But again, it doesn't matter because you're a fundamentally unreasonable person. You don't care about logic or evidence or consistency. You'll just respond to this with another meaningless snipe like "oNlY iF yOu DoN't KnOw WhAt A t Is," because that's the highest capacity for thought that you possess.
You said "Terrorism is the use of violence against the general public to change behaviours or policies." Location is not in that definition. Whether people are terrified (which the Romulans were) is not included in that definition. Whether the perpetrator takes credit is not included in that definition. How on earth can you not see how completely full of shit you are when you keep adding new, arbitrary stipulations to exclude this one instance of terrorism??
Literally every single component of the definition I cited fits Garak's actions to a T. You kept insisting that I'm "expanding" the definition to include anything, yet completely ignored the question I asked you on every single example you brought up.
It doesn't matter. One comment you say it's not terrorism because people "didn't seem terrified." Another comment you claim it doesn't count as terrorism because of the location where it happened! I cut your arguments down again and again and you don't care. You will just shift your position over and over again, denying that you ever held the previous one even though the comments are right there. You're a completely shameless troll. You have to know how full of shit you are, I don't know who you think you're fooling.
Because The Atlantic cannot publish a single article without including a brain-meltingly awful take in it.
I already refuted like three of your positions. Every time you shift the goalposts and call it a "strawman" and if I refute your new position you'll do the same, because you're a clown.
McCarthyism to the tenth power
The main job of a conservative influencer is to come up with new ways of saying, "I think we should do the Holocaust" that are palatable to suburbanites.
What a shit take. That's like saying, "I don't know how the Church thinks the Inquisition will go when they've deviated so far from Jesus' teachings themselves," or "I don't know how Hitler thinks gassing the Jews will work when he has Jewish ancestors himself."
It doesn't fucking matter. They can pick whatever label they like, communist, heretic, immigrant, Jew, whatever, and apply it to whoever they feel like and not apply it to whoever they don't feel like. You are an absolute rube if you think this sort of "gotcha" will slow them down in any way, you're literally accepting their framing by doing that.
Obviously it's really about oil but this is a shitpost.
FFIV's great opening
This is an interesting little historical artifact I came across the other other day. The "Why We Fight" series was directed by Frank Capra (of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington") working for the War Department (as it was called at the time) as an attempt to counter the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will," and to explain to soldiers what they were fighting for, as well as familiarizing them with the basic conditions that allied countries had experienced.
The film has a couple of inaccuracies, and Chinese communists are completely absent from it, focusing entirely on the KMT. And of course, it's full of slurs for the Japanese (I think I actually learned a new one from it). The claim that China "has never once waged an aggressive war in it's 4000 years of history" seems, uhh, somewhat dubious, let's say. It cites the "Tanaka Memorial," a document which historians dispute the existence of. Otherwise, the film is fairly accurate and pretty interesting, if nothing else, because of how much it contrasts with narratives people have put forward in recent times where China was always some uniquely evil villain throughout it's whole history.
But there are a couple points that I found particularly relevant to certain modern discussions, such as:
"This vast area consists of China Proper and four outer provinces."
Tibet, a province of China? In 1944, before the PRC even existed? Huh. Wasn't 1944 during the period of time that people say it was an independent country?
"But how could Japan, only 1/20th the size of China, and with only 1/6th it's population, think of conquering China, much less the world?"
"Modern China, in spite of its age old history, was like the broken pieces of jigsaw puzzle, each piece controlled by a different ruler, each with his own private army. In modern terms, China was a country, but not yet a nation."
Why, that's certainly an interesting point, isn't it? Back when China was divided, with all these different warlords doing their own thing, it was certainly quite a bit more vulnerable to foreign aggression, compared to when it became more unified.
It kinda makes me wonder if the Japanese -or any foreigners, really - ever thought of intentionally trying to drum up internal strife within China, say, in Chinese provinces like Tibet or Xinjiang, for the purposes of weakening and exploiting the Chinese people as a whole 🤔
Anyway, to whatever time-traveling tankie went back and infiltrated the US government to add these things to the film, I just wanted to say, I see you.
This is an interesting little historical artifact I came across the other other day. The "Why We Fight" series was directed by Frank Capra (of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington") working for the War Department (as it was called at the time) as an attempt to counter the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will," and to explain to soldiers what they were fighting for, as well as familiarizing them with the basic conditions that allied countries had experienced.
The film has a couple of inaccuracies, and Chinese communists are completely absent from it, focusing entirely on the KMT. And of course, it's full of slurs for the Japanese (I think I actually learned a new one from it). The claim that China "has never once waged an aggressive war in it's 4000 years of history" seems, uhh, somewhat dubious, let's say. It cites the "Tanaka Memorial," a document which historians dispute the existence of. Otherwise, the film is fairly accurate and pretty interesting, if nothing else, because of how much it contrasts with narratives people have put forward in recent times where China was always some uniquely evil villain throughout it's whole history.
But there are a couple points that I found particularly relevant to certain modern discussions, such as:
"This vast area consists of China Proper and four outer provinces."
Tibet, a province of China? In 1944, before the PRC even existed? Huh. Wasn't 1944 during the period of time that people say it was an independent country?
"But how could Japan, only 1/20th the size of China, and with only 1/6th it's population, think of conquering China, much less the world?"
"Modern China, in spite of its age old history, was like the broken pieces of jigsaw puzzle, each piece controlled by a different ruler, each with his own private army. In modern terms, China was a country, but not yet a nation."
Why, that's certainly an interesting point, isn't it? Back when China was divided, with all these different warlords doing their own thing, it was certainly quite a bit more vulnerable to foreign aggression, compared to when it became more unified.
It kinda makes me wonder if the Japanese -or any foreigners, really - ever thought of intentionally trying to drum up internal strife within China, say, in Chinese provinces like Tibet or Xinjiang, for the purposes of weakening and exploiting the Chinese people as a whole 🤔
Anyway, to whatever time-traveling tankie went back and infiltrated the US government to add these things to the film, I just wanted to say, I see you.
No, you haven't. I have shown that it was terrorism, even by your definition though. You don't care and just keep adding on extra stipulations that aren't in your definition.
Nowhere in either definition, at all. Complete non sequitor.
Nowhere in either definition, at all. Complete non sequitor.
Just like the location is irrelevant. Just like every extra stipulation you pull out of your ass is irrelevant.