She means died for this country in the Nazi imperialist Christian way, not as the filthy colored victims in one of those shithole countries.

Sure but in this case there are numerous gun related phrases that have persisted in American culture because of this particular affinity.

A quick look at American history and I don’t think babe has ever touched liberty and justice for all.

Considering this guy got re-elected, there may be some overlap with American qualities here.

Yes, thats part of the why but it’s still odd culturally from the perspective of the rest of the world especially since what you’re describing occurred 100+ years ago and the terminology has likely only persisted because of the US’ gun obsession.

Sounds like the US’ chickens coming home to roost. After creating those conditions with their CIA elsewhere for decades.

Not necessarily. If doing that is against a persons value system, it’s perfectly acceptable for them to choose not to enter a relationship with that person. It doesn’t have to be related to control.

If my partner started doing that without telling me, I’d tell them it’s not consistent with my value system and see if they’d reconsider. If not, we’d go our separate ways.

The implication is that China is a serious military threat so being allied with the West (not sure if the West as a whole is that strong militarily, moreso the US [perhaps the UK and France] specifically) is necessary for India.

China and India were friends long ago, throughout much of human history actually. The attitude between both regions was one of “you got your good thing going, and we got our good thing going”. It’s how both civilizations coexisted for thousands of years.

Things changed in the colonial era and after. Britain needed to bankroll their industrial revolution to, in their view, push humanity forward but really it was mostly for themselves. They turned India into a resource mining machine and pumped China full of opium (often grown in India) mostly so that they could… purchase tea?

Shortly after the end of WW2 and both nations were free from the shackles of Anglo tyranny, China was not happy with the borders the British had drawn and wanted to take control of a region, given to India, that connected Tibet and Xinjiang called Aksai Chin. This led to the Sino Indian war in 1962 which China won with a suprise attack, reasserting its presence as a major regional player and putting India in a position to more closely ally with the Soviet Union for military purposes.

Since then, India and China have not really been close, even if they are both BRICS nations. China also went on to help Pakistan procure nuclear weapons so its going to be quite some time before this relationship is mended.

Thats one way to see it. India and the West see each other as strategic allies in a mutually beneficial arrangement given Indias proximity to China and Russia. I don’t see it as one sided as you’re suggesting, especially since historically India and Russia have been friendly to each other.

They’ve gotten friendlier with the West in the past few decades. The distrust is for good reason given history of Western foreign interference (colonialism) and the US having a close relationship with Pakistan pre Bin Laden.

I take it here is not in the US.

But even if you’re in Sweden or Norway, it shouldn’t matter. People are people. And I can also confirm that there are black families that go to IKEA 🤣.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I see it now. Yuck. Thank you.

This sounds like a misrepresentation of left wing politics.

It sounds more like how the right defines the left which brings us to the real issue.

Outrage narratives have grown increasingly popular with social media and the right spends endless time blaring sirens on representing the left a certain way.

The left has in response, done little, to influence the narrative.

I personally have not heard the left as a whole admonishing individual men simply for being men.

I think an honest assessment of society, historically and now, should lead to the conclusion that we live in a male centric society that is gradually becoming less male centric. This is a good thing if you believe in fairness and egalitarianism (ie. not fascism).

It was a little more than 50 years ago that women could not hold credit and were expected to be subservient to their husbands or else be institutionalized for “mental illness”.

I think many women see this backlash / desire to go back from conservative men as a skill issue so I’m not suprised they’re looking elsewhere.

Believe it or not, black people exist. Maybe not where you live specifically but I can personally confirm they’re real.

I’m not here to tell you to buy American Eagle jeans, and I definitely won’t say that they’re the most comfortable jeans I’ve ever worn or that they make your butt look amazing.

Why would I need to do that?

But if you said that you want to buy the jeans, I’m not going to stop you.

Just so we’re clear, this is not me telling you to buy American Eagle jeans.

Sydney Sweeney has great jeans— you see what I did there, right?

Where is the implication that genes are related to personality though?

I think we can agree that believing blonde hair and blue eyes are ‘good genes’ is a hitler-approved ideology. Whether this was meant in a malicious way in this ad is what’s unclear here.

Consumer use of private vehicles and air conditioning / heating absolutely have a non-negligible impact.

Nah it’s time to hold Boomers accountable. They were too busy focusing on hedonism, selling out future generations for a tax cut and buying pickup trucks they didn’t need, to care about big picture concepts like climate change.