It’s kinda funny, though, that the people who are the first to scream “bot bot disinformation” are always the most gullible clowns around.
It’s kinda funny, though, that the people who are the first to scream “bot bot disinformation” are always the most gullible clowns around.
Welcome to post-structuralism, enjoy the ennui. And the cognac.
I meant that the money donated isn’t that much, compared to the existing endowment. I think it was Adam Tooze’s argument, that IIRC Columbia could basically afford to lose most if not all donation streams and just fund itself from the stock market. And his interpretation as to why they reacted so violently is either fully ideological on behalf of the admin, or because Colombia is actually underperforming as asset management, a panicking reasserting of who runs the place, which is in a way also ideological.
It’s not unaware. It’s a policy that allows protest as an abstract idea, as long as nobody actually ever does it. It’s reminiscent of Zizeks visiting grandma joke.
From what I understand it’s not even that much money. The logic seems to be that the idea of democratic money management must be stomped out regardless of the cause it’s advocated for.
Yeah, but the move there is to sear the bun insides while making the patty.
And hold back sea level rise!
Nah, CoD2 switched to health regen and dumped the health bar before them. It was partially to adapt to the console gameplay pioneered by, IIRC, Bungee with Halo.
This. Otherwise op-eds get a free pass to launder opinions the paper wants to publish, but can’t.
It’s actually hooked up to the Iron Gate hydro plant, so it’s half Romanian.
I hope lessons were learned in gaza
Ah, yes, if only the newborn babies had condemned Hamas as their first cry, this could all have been avoided.
Unfortunately, instead, they switched to LNG.
Research about human history and you will know what I’m talking about
I would turn this right around and suggest you yourself look up the “Fremen mirage”, it’s very readable, and more or less a direct dissection and dismantling of the precise interpretation of history you present here.
Exactly what i said in the first place - “ITT: a disturbing but unsurprising amount of people who think war crimes are good when the good guys do them.”
See, you start making a valid argument, but can’t even make it to the end of the sentence before you stop pretending. Here, let me help you:
Uhm… if he dresses like a soldier, moves with the troops and is in no way distinguishable from
the hordes of orcs that have to dieother soldiers*,he is a valid targetthe drone operator cannot be held responsible for not distinguishing him.
Wearing camo is not enough to make you a target, even having a weapon doesn’t necessarily make you a target. The responsibility of keeping civilians safe is not on the defender, it’s on both sides. The take that doesn’t defend warcrimes is that his death is an unfortunate accident caused by his failure to wear appropriate markings. Instead, the thread has his face crossed out as if he was on a hitlist.
Like, I get it. You finally have an outlet for your repressed chauvinism that won’t get you called racist and you’re letting yourself blow off some steam. But for fucks sake have some decorum about it, you’re acting like Americans.
ITT: a disturbing but unsurprising amount of people who think war crimes are good when the good guys do them.
“Mr. President, we cannot alOow a tankie gap!!!”
It does when he’s the guy you’re currently supposed to be negotiating a ceasefire with.
How about we just kill everyone you, personally, find annoying, would that work?
She’s stealing the planet’s cool! Stop her!