Funny events in anti-woke world

[Ag3ma]

Yes, all of that is true, but do you not see why some people may not want to visit Mexico given this random regulation? If you want more people to buy electronics in Mexican shops, make the tariffs less for said shops.

Bluntly, no, I don't see why that regulation is going to dissuade a significant number of people from visiting Mexico.

Loads of people, unfortunately. Though I could see people tripping over some obscure law they forgot to check, something like what you can take over the border is a biggie. 2 months ago Gigi Hadid was arrested in the Cayman Islands for bringing in marijuana. Legally purchased for medical reasons where she departed from, is legal to have in the Caymans, apparently somehow forgot to check if it was legal to take from one to the other and got $1k fine.

I get your point, but not perhaps your example. Cannabis is something you absolutely should have the sense to check. It's very standard that if you want to cross a border with any medical drug that has abuse potential such as opioids, benzodiazepines, etc., you may be expected to produce a medical document clearly justifying your need for it.

Plus, in the case of cannabis, "medical use" all too often needs air quotes. I may be in favour of its decriminalisation for personal use in adults, but whilst it isn't, I'm skeptical about many people's claims of medical need.

 

[Baffle]

Plus, in the case of cannabis, "medical use" all too often needs air quotes. I may be in favour of its decriminalisation for personal use in adults, but whilst it isn't, I'm skeptical about many people's claims of medical need.

Cannabis, much like anything popular, is ruined by the fans.

 

[Absent]

North Korea Debuts Rocket Launchers That Appear As Civilian Trucks

Rocket launchers masquerading as civilian trucks are the latest sign of the times as concealment becomes more critical on the battlefield.

www.thedrive.com

Next step : ambulances.

 

[bluegate]

North Korea Debuts Rocket Launchers That Appear As Civilian Trucks

Rocket launchers masquerading as civilian trucks are the latest sign of the times as concealment becomes more critical on the battlefield.

www.thedrive.com

Next step : ambulances.

That seems like a great way to get every vehicle on your side shot to high heaven, if you were in an actual active war.

Seems like something a child would think of as being effective. What's next, they're going to announce their main battle tactic to be walking out waving a white flag with a knife behind their backs?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

North Korea Debuts Rocket Launchers That Appear As Civilian Trucks

Rocket launchers masquerading as civilian trucks are the latest sign of the times as concealment becomes more critical on the battlefield.

www.thedrive.com

Next step : ambulances.

A direct violation of Protocol I, Article 37 of the Geneva Convention, to which North Korea is a signatory. Great way to get your entire civilian infrastructure targeted and have no leg to stand on in protest.

 

[Gergar12]

All right I am about to rant about my City of Columbus Ohio. It sucks in a very special way. No high-speed rail or passenger trains of any kind, no overly trendy restaurants, no famous people are here, we get laughed at on the internet(and for good reason), the art scene sucks, the music scene is okay but still sucks, the Colleges are okay (with one being very good, and the others being meh), and there nothing to do. I can only imagine the horror in a small town right now of having even less to do.

We are the biggest undynamic city in America. Our industry is mainly logistics, banking, insurance, and some healthcare.

And it's only worse in the suburbs where there is even less to do. Could I move yes, but that's not the point. The point is that we need more density. More apartments, townhouses, and less single-family homes with lawns that don't get used 70-90% of the time.

And it seems like I am the only one who realizes it in the suburbs where you have to drive a car to get anywhere. Want to go grocery shopping; Get in a car. Go to a restaurant; get in a car. And it goes on. The American dream is not a lie, it's a sham. Why the fuck would anyone want to live like me. I get it my public school is in the top 5% of public schools, but I wish it wasn't so I could move to a more dense populated area in my city.

Why do people aspire to live like me/go to the suburbs? Why can't we just have good public schools in dense places in the city? I am miserable here.

William Levitt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fucking ****.

 

[Gordon_4]

All right I am about to rant about my City of Columbus Ohio. It sucks in a very special way. No high-speed rail or passenger trains of any kind, no overly trendy restaurants, no famous people are here, we get laughed at on the internet(and for good reason), the art scene sucks, the music scene is okay but still sucks, the Colleges are okay (with one being very good, and the others being meh), and there nothing to do. I can only imagine the horror in a small town right now of having even less to do.

We are the biggest undynamic city in America. Our industry is mainly logistics, banking, insurance, and some healthcare.

And it's only worse in the suburbs where there is even less to do. Could I move yes, but that's not the point. The point is that we need more density. More apartments, townhouses, and less single-family homes with lawns that don't get used 70-90% of the time.

And it seems like I am the only one who realizes it in the suburbs where you have to drive a car to get anywhere. Want to go grocery shopping; Get in a car. Go to a restaurant; get in a car. And it goes on. The American dream is not a lie, it's a sham. Why the fuck would anyone want to live like me. I get it my public school is in the top 5% of public schools, but I wish it wasn't so I could move to a more dense populated area in my city.

Why do people aspire to live like me/go to the suburbs? Why can't we just have good public schools in dense places in the city? I am miserable here.

William Levitt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fucking ****.

I would argue in regards to lawns, there should be less emphasis on the front lawn and they should be smaller. Any gains there should immediately be allocated to the backyard since that's where activity actually occurs.

However I am unconvinced about apartment or flat living. At least for anything more than either a share arrangement with singles or childless couples. And if US and UK television is even remotely accurate about what they're like in buildings where each one doesn't cost the same as a small house, fuck that (literal) noise.

And as for multi-generational homes, my dude, at some point we need our own space. I love my family but I don't want them living with me beyond what is required, and they feel the same about me.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Great way to get your entire civilian infrastructure targeted and have no leg to stand on in protest.

Like that ever stopped the US from doing exactly that, anyways.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Like that ever stopped the US from doing exactly that, anyways.

Not to mention what the US did to North Korea, Curtis LeMay boasted about destroying as many buildings and people as possible, regardless of who or what they were.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Curtis LeMay

Yes... well... US Strategic Bombing doctrine has always been borderline war crime-y...

 

[Baffle]

And as for multi-generational homes, my dude, at some point we need our own space. I love my family but I don't want them living with me beyond what is required, and they feel the same about me.

We seem to have growing numbers of multi-generational homes in the UK, but it's driven by people not being able to afford not to share the building rather than any desire to actually live together. I know it's more common in some countries and cultures, and that's great if it works, but we were too sold on individualism here and it doesn't work if you can't break the parent--child power dynamic once the children are no longer child-aged. It'd need to be an absolutely massive house for me to do it.

 

[Trunkage]

Yes... well... US Strategic Bombing doctrine has always been borderline war crime-y...

Borderline?

Sure, Nixon didn't kill as many as the Khmer Rouge (only about a quarter) but those bombings caused the Khmer to gain power in the first place. The exact opposite of what the US intended.

I don't know what idiot told Nixon that BOMBING someone would make them like you but it was one of the stupidest plans the US government has come up with (yes I know who the 'what idiot' is. I would put him up as a war criminal more readily than any president that has ever sat in office.)

 

[Gordon_4]

Borderline?

Sure, Nixon didn't kill as many as the Khmer Rouge (only about a quarter) but those bombings caused the Khmer to gain power in the first place. The exact opposite of what the US intended.

I don't know what idiot told Nixon that BOMBING someone would make them like you but it was one of the stupidest plans the US government has come up with (yes I know who the 'what idiot' is. I would put him up as a war criminal more readily than any president that has ever sat in office.)

Henry Kissinger?

 

[Eacaraxe]

Not to mention what the US did to North Korea, Curtis LeMay boasted about destroying as many buildings and people as possible, regardless of who or what they were.

Let's not forget LeMay is the near-exclusive reason the nuclear arsenal remains under the possession and control of the AEC, not the DoD, and why we have the two-man rule. He was one of the brain trust behind the US's backup plan of "nuke X Corps" in the event it couldn't break out at Chosin Reservoir, because the US wouldn't have a later, better, opportunity to deal a crippling blow to the PLA. Hell, he was so eager to nuke the Koreans, he apocryphally threatened to load, arm, and pilot the bomber himself if needed -- a story with a shocking level of believability, considering he sought personal access to the arsenal shipped to Japan on more than one occasion.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Borderline?

Yep, borderline. Strategic bombing sits in a really gray space when it comes to the laws of warfare.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Yep, borderline. Strategic bombing sits in a really gray space when it comes to the laws of warfare.

If by "borderline" and "gray space" you mean "we wrote the rules and we're the ones with the nukes, so we get to ignore them at-will while anyone we're capable of strategically bombing has to abide by them", then yes. Under the Hague and Geneva Protocol I conventions, military operations must be strategically necessary, limited to military or strategically-critical targets, and proportional to the measure needed to eliminate those targets. Strategic bombing is none of those, and in fact, intentionally designed to not be.

Indiscriminate targeting of infrastructure eliminates the first and second prongs of that legality test, and as an extension of overwhelming force doctrine, we can eliminate the third prong by default as overwhelming force doctrine is disproportional by definition. There's zero ambiguity or room for interpretation in this; strategic bombing is a violation of international law, period.

For example, in Iraq all three times ('91, '98, and '03) we conducted major aerial campaigns, we targeted water and sewage infrastructure. Critical civvie infrastructure -- it's an equatorial desert country for God's sakes -- but we targeted it regardless because "soldiers drink water and poop too, and water and sewage are necessary parts of chemical weapons production, lawl".

The first and foremost objective to strategic bombing campaigns is to erode populace's willingness and capacity to wage war, by destroying any infrastructure deemed necessary or appropriate, civilian infrastructure included. In other words, it's a psychological warfare doctrine posing as counter-logistics. To wit, between 1941-1945 it was specifically referred to as "terror bombing" by both Allies and Axis alike, including in official state records up to and including correspondence from both Winston Churchill and Joseph Goebbels.

But more than that, we can look at which munitions are used in strategic bombing campaigns for additional layers of illegality. Cluster munitions are illegal; we still use those. Incendiary munitions are illegal; we still use those. RCA's are illegal (in warfare); we still use those, against "illegal enemy combatants" and as "obscurant agents".

 

[Cicada 5]

When weebs are the worst advocates for their favorite hobby.

 

[BrawlMan]

When weebs are the worst advocates for their favorite hobby.

Probably a good amount of those same fans are the same one that cross-pollinate with the Castlevania "fans", that complain about a race change for a character that's minor and most people don't remember, and at the subject of slavery comes up in the show (with them being scared it'll be "shoved down their throat"). Here's some extra irony, the anime has a woman that's white giving them exactly what they wanted, yet they still whine and biatch like they lost something. These guys are unreasonable and will complain about anything just to feel special or get some attention. They can screw off as always. Don't even bother reasoning with these assholes. Because they will always be unreasonable.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

If by "borderline" and "gray space" you mean "we wrote the rules and we're the ones with the nukes, so we get to ignore them at-will while anyone we're capable of strategically bombing has to abide by them", then yes. Under the Hague and Geneva Protocol I conventions, military operations must be strategically necessary, limited to military or strategically-critical targets, and proportional to the measure needed to eliminate those targets. Strategic bombing is none of those, and in fact, intentionally designed to not be.

Indiscriminate targeting of infrastructure eliminates the first and second prongs of that legality test, and as an extension of overwhelming force doctrine, we can eliminate the third prong by default as overwhelming force doctrine is disproportional by definition. There's zero ambiguity or room for interpretation in this; strategic bombing is a violation of international law, period.

For example, in Iraq all three times ('91, '98, and '03) we conducted major aerial campaigns, we targeted water and sewage infrastructure. Critical civvie infrastructure -- it's an equatorial desert country for God's sakes -- but we targeted it regardless because "soldiers drink water and poop too, and water and sewage are necessary parts of chemical weapons production, lawl".

The first and foremost objective to strategic bombing campaigns is to erode populace's willingness and capacity to wage war, by destroying any infrastructure deemed necessary or appropriate, civilian infrastructure included. In other words, it's a psychological warfare doctrine posing as counter-logistics. To wit, between 1941-1945 it was specifically referred to as "terror bombing" by both Allies and Axis alike, including in official state records up to and including correspondence from both Winston Churchill and Joseph Goebbels.

But more than that, we can look at which munitions are used in strategic bombing campaigns for additional layers of illegality. Cluster munitions are illegal; we still use those. Incendiary munitions are illegal; we still use those. RCA's are illegal (in warfare); we still use those, against "illegal enemy combatants" and as "obscurant agents".

I mean, they might be illegal for the rest of the world, but the US doesn't typically sign those kind of treaties (and will invade the Netherlands if anybody tries to try us for war crimes over it)