Are we having an argument? Most likely I’m not trying to be a meanie, but I’m just struggling to understand / effectively communicate with yah.
This whole thread is pure brainworms
1992 was an incredibly optimistic time. The Cold War was over … everyone had happily realised that Western liberal democracy was the final form of human government
The treaty doesn’t even ban all mines, just the fucking stupidly dangerous kinds.
Well, 1984 was quite deliberately more closely based on Orwell’s life in the UK. UK has ministries (and its “Ministry of ‘Defense’” was constantly engaged in overseas war), Orwell was employed as a propagandist (like Wilson), UK secret police regularly opened his mail, Room 101 is based on chat in the BBC etc.
Despite libs liking to claim it’s a perfect replication of Stalin’s Russia, it was substantially moreso a criticism of totalitarianism as already existed then in a capitalist state.
“now”. I did a paper round 20 years ago, and the Telegraph was an obvious sack of lying shit then, too. Literally just a Daily Mail tabloid except in more serif-y font and the editors own a thesaurus.
It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub-section of the Music Department. The words of these songs were composed without any human intervention whatever on an instrument known as a versificator.
Anti-Russian sentiment still has good stock prices at the moment, break out a few more front pages and ‘balanced BBC coverage’ calling him out as a Russian spy… again.
Even this is a bit too unkind - When he was being called a racist and anti-semite, he DID call them out on their BS, repeatedly, to anyone who’d listen. Thing is, the media never actually broadcast those responses - you had to dig deep to find them. He spoke to loads of people and did his best to confront the dumb shit, but it’s pointless if it’s not reported on. e.g. the EHCR report clearing Corbyn of any antisemitism, but no matter how ‘confrontational’ Corbyn was in pointing this out, the headlines just lied anyway.
You can’t meaningfully call out BS accusations without a meaningful platform that will listen to you and effectively share your message.
Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. … The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse.
Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man.
I won’t argue that Dr King was big on it. But he absolutely supported and understood violent protests. The very violent protests that preceded actual, if minor, concessions.
Two closely related points on this -
When your messaging is limited, I think there’s a lot to be said for emphasising a position over a label. “SUPPORT COMMUNISM (plus let’s make life better)” has a very different vibe to “LET’S MAKE LIFE BETTER (Communism can help)”.
Secondly, relatedly, there’s a compromise between ‘hiding it’ and ‘blaring it without context’. If you just say “I’m a communist” and then leave, people will ascribe whatever they want to you and you’ve probably done your credibility a disservice in the public’s eye. If you contextualise that with some relevant position or two, then it becomes a lot more obvious and helps normalise the term.
Lies, Long Corbyn obviously originates from Corbyn being really long. He’s full of socialism, but the long legs are where he keeps his electoralism treats.
Cool to see though.
I do think AI is good for what I’d term ‘ideation’, ask it for suggestions and it can bring up a lot of disparate and or related concepts in one space for you to think through and consider as options. Names would be an obvious example, so I dig it.
Is he trying to argue in support of de facto Ukraine or the Eastern regions + DPR/LPR? This argument could so easily be used to justify supporting either side. Because they’re both sides with long-standing languages, hatred of the other side’s president, and mass foreign military support.
I think “100% assembled” is probably the more accurate term they mean. Not to downplay the importance of that, though - assembling components means you have colossally more control over where you import from, the tariffs you’re subject to, and the countries you want to deal with. Aside from the obvious value increase in assembly.
The only respectable thing for protestors to do is applaud while being gunned down in the street while an arbitrary lengthy court process works out just how illegal this might be 
This is civil justice all we libs laud above all else, after all!
Oh so just because it’s proven to significantly cause cancer at basically any amount it’s somehow bad?! WOKE 
Absolutely not a problem and no need to apologise, though I appreciate it.
Even as someone who posted and got over-invested in both struggle sessions, I think it’s 100% funny you asked. 
Well, maybe one of us is misremembering/misinterpreted, but I posted in both struggle sessions and I completely disagree with your representation of the sides.
This is the most succinct definition and dismissal of the concept.
Spreads like wild, I gave Mint to a group of kids and now they’ve all got it and are distributing it elsewhere.
I mean, I think this description is pretty strawmanny and not a fair representation of the struggle session, but I’ll say no more because this thread is already 
enough.
Teletext / Ceefax was the coolest, honestly the best thing I remember about owning a TV