• 0 Posts
  • 177 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 1st, 2024

help-circle
  • Ah, I see the confusion. I’m used to the modern critical definition, not the original.

    Exceptionalism as “exemptionalism”

    During the George W. Bush administration (2001–2009), the term was somewhat abstracted from its historical context.[104] Proponents and opponents alike began using it to describe a phenomenon wherein certain political interests view the United States as being “above” or an “exception” to the law, specifically the law of nations.[105] (That phenomenon is less concerned with justifying American uniqueness than with asserting its immunity to international law.) Critics argued that American exceptionalism was increasingly used to justify foreign policy decisions that placed the United States “above international law.” This perspective claimed that the U.S. invoked exceptionalism not as a model of global leadership but as a rationale for unilateralism and selective application of legal norms.[106]

    The new use of the term has served to confuse the topic and muddy the waters since its unilateralist emphasis and the actual orientation diverge somewhat from prior uses of the phrase.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#Criticism



  • Alright, let’s be realistic, a lot of competent high ranking officers are out of work since the purges of Trump. And a lot are still in work, that managed to survive the purges.

    And when I say purges, I mean redundancies and firings. Not like Saddam Hussein, taken out back and met with a bullet or rope. But just given their military pension and told to fuck off.

    I’m not expecting the average grunt to be able to do much. But an officer whose rank allows them the command of hundreds or thousands of people is capable of something.

    There has been not even a murmuring of mutiny, resistance, or rebellion, let alone a coup. Some sailors stuffed t-shirts down their toilets, likely more in rebellion at being at sea far longer than they were meant to than anything else. But that’s about it.

    Americans, until very very recently, have had freedoms and liberties that the Chinese and Russians have never enjoyed. Do you think Russian military courts are comparable to American? To compare them is disingenuous. Although in saying that, Xu Qinxian did refuse his orders at Tiannamen Square. He refused saying he’d rather be executed than be a criminal to history.

    But there’s always an exceptionalism, an excuse, for why America is incapable of thwarting fascism. No matter how much I argue here, somebody will come along with another excuse, another reason for why Americans can’t do what other countries around the world have done over and over throughout history.

    Land of the Brave Bollocks.




  • Depends entirely on the type of tree and type of vines.

    A local tree surgeon, hippy, or naturalist (not to be confused with a naturist!) will likely be of more help than randoms on the global net. They can look at it up close and see what we can’t.

    Generally though, nature is best left to do its thing. If the trees aren’t showing any signs of suffering because of the vines then just leave nature to do its thing.








  • Yeah but that’s because you’re using logic, reasoning, and commonly understood meanings of words. In Kid Starver’s authoritarian mind none of those things matter.

    The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre.

    • 1984, George Orwell





  • Aye but there’s only so much you can water down your sampling before it’s ridiculous.

    1,282 people is less than the amount normally polled in a country 5 times smaller.

    If they only polled 10 people would you be arguing the same or would that be deemed a ridiculously small sample size?

    Also bear in mind that they’ve claimed to have weighted the data for 8 categories, some of which have multiple variations within them. And they’ve managed to do all of this with such a small sample size? Utter shite.

    I’m not saying I’m opposed to the idea of Americans being against the war, what I’m saying is it’s disingenuous to make authoritative claims, like the headline makes, on such a small sample of data.