I’m allergic to the sun :(

(like actually though, it’s really annoying to manage esp. at really high/low latitudes)
(ty for asking)

… Does it ever worry you that you have to turn once sincere conversations into sad attempts at trolling to save face?

Wait, were you claiming that was the solution you presented before? You… just have no idea what you’re talking about. That’s why you haven’t responded to any of the substantive points anyone has made, except with this baby-tier bait waggling. Good grief are you seriously so insecure you have to resort to this instead of admitting to yourself that you just don’t know enough about the topic to be considered an authority with a respectable position? Come on, have some self respect. When you’re downvoting replies in a days-old thread… You know nobody except us is going to see this, right? What’s the point of doing that except to take what petty victory you can, to cover for the fact you cant find success on the merits of your ideas alone? Please, reflect on your behavior.

Yeah, I wasn’t really sure how to respond to that which is why I tactfully glossed over it instead of saying something unhelpful (like “this is so dumb and wrong that I had to check Trump didn’t say it”).

Russia being able to end the world is the reality in which these decisions are being made and yet Ukraine has not surrendered, their allies are removing the concessions to russian nuclear deterrence they already implemented and the world is re-arming in response to the invasion instead of kowtowing. Like it is trivially easy to show how this is a stupid, hysteronic take because it is proved wrong every second Ukraine continues to resist the invaders.

No, it’s a genuine question because it was unclear. Do you mean “allow Ukraine to use all possible tactical and strategic options available to them” is your solution?

Because if so like… Ukraine has been doing that. The restrictions on direct strikes on russian territory is only for weapons systems provided by NATO member countries, and importantly we haven’t been giving them weapons capable of doing that (except arguably HIMARS, it’s complicated) for a number of reasons (the desire to not entrust sensitive equipment to a force we necessarily do not have direct control over who then would take it into territory controlled by the nation NATO exists in opposition to is one of the big reasons). Ukraine has and has always had the ability to strike deep into russia proper using their own equipment, and (to an extent) they have been doing that for the entirety of the war.

Okay, genuine question: what’s your solution to Russia blowing up the world? Because they can do that. So, what?

The reasoning in this case was that NATO backing of Ukraine could very easily have been seen as direct NATO involvement in an attack on Russia, and thus a justification for nukes to come out. By restricting the weapons given to things that could not be used in “an offensive campaign of retaliatory conquest” (i.e. short range weapons) Russia could not reasonably claim that NATO was doing anything other than helping Ukraine defend itself.

There are arguments to be made here that it was the wrong call to make, but the retort boils down to “russia can end the world” and its hard to argue against that. As the war has progressed over such a time frame, global attitudes towards the situation have strongly coalesced against the “NATO set this up to use their puppet to invade russia” line, as well as it becoming clear Russia won’t accept any end to this war except a military one. Accordingly, NATO feels comfortable with the point we’re at in the frog-boiling process and so the tools given to Ukraine are now ones that expand their options for achieving a military end to this conflict, which include strikes on viable targets in Russia itself.

So all that said, I feel pretty confident in saying the other commentator made that statement without a full appreciation for the situation, and searching for deep insight in their message might be a bit of a fools errand.

Teargas drones? They already use them to suppress miner strikes in the various 3rd world slave labor camps, wouldn’t be surprised to see them used on protesters soon

Is there some context for this?

If you look, you can see that its the cream sections which are blended on the bottom and left, its just much subtler than with the green.

I guess? The alternatives to capsaicin (mustard, garlic, horseradish, etc) are all pretty overwhelming flavors, so if you want things even moderately pungent they’re the only thing you’re going to be tasting in a dish. I personally loathe the taste of most hot peppers (but love spicy food) so the trend of "spicy everything" is getting pretty tiresome.

That the name of their unofficial national dish is in Persian/Hindi also suggets something, but I’m sure I don’t know what…

Americans are borderline obsessed with hotsauces and spicy food, though. IME, the pushback about english mustard is usually the same as with vegemite - its too easy to use way too much, and thus obliterate the flavours of the rest of the dish. (Plus it doesn’t pair super well with a lot of regional menus). In many restaurants (diners) there’s always at least tobasco sauce next to the salt and cracked black pepper, and nowadays most have a selection of hot sauces on the table to choose from.

Most american stereotypes I understand or even represent (fat white guy with too many guns here) but I’ve never understood the “american food is bland” thing - I can’t think of a region of the US internally known for bland food. Even the Hot Dish parts of the country strive for bold flavors. Why the hell do you think we’re all so fat, if not because we have so much good food to tempt us into excess?

Deep Fried Beer is a pretty good one, too. Not very tasty, though…

So just spitballing here, but which is more likely - nobody is doing anything at all to try and stop this, or that you’ve bought into a largely manufactured perspective given to you by the (spectacularly) captured international news media system?

(There’s been protests, many of them getting quite violent, every single day of this bullshit in the US. Just so you know.)

People are working damned hard to put it out - why on earth do you think they aren’t?

I think that’s been covered elsewhere.

So, why are you an atheist?

Not being churlish I’m genuinely a little unclear - what’s your thesis here? I don’t think it’s news that a secular organization can be involved with vile systems, but that appears to be the crux (sorry) of what you’re trying to say. I think we may be arguing past one another.