The enshitification of search engines also doesn’t help with finding answers directly.

Not getting blastoise out for that job?

Can you tell me precisely what Ukraine did to provoke Russia into invading, other than just historically being part of the Russian empire?

And snakes

nazi invasion in 1941

Not commenting on '39-40?

everyone wanted them to collapse

This changes what exactly? Even if everyone wanted it to collapse for purely imperialistic reasons, that doesn’t actually say anything about the government being good or bad.

Don’t expect funny from jankforlife. The best you can get is “America bad therefore soviets good”

Fritz Haber has entered the chat

advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers

I am advocating for using your vote to reduce human cost as much as possible. What that means depends on the context.

If you’re in America, the decision right now is between one genocide, two genocides, or refusing to have an impact on that decision with how impossible the system is for third parties. One less genocide is the least bad option, unless you have a better one.

If you’re in New Zealand (where I live, so I’m more familiar with the politics here than anywhere else), there are multiple options because of MMP voting. That means I won’t be advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers.

citation needed

Labour coalitions have historically been the governments that have had the best impact on workers rights. At least far more than national coalitions.

Also, don’t think I’m saying you should vote for labour next year. Labour is shit, vote for someone better

And here is an even more cursed version

“Very cheap” in terms of time, effort, money, and opportunity cost for each individual involved

OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read “electoralism” as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change.

But if the definition of “electoralism” is using voting in addition to direct action, I don’t think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It’s a good statement, but it needs more backing it up

Mate, I read the whole thing. The only claim I saw as to why voting is counter productive is that “voting convinces people that they’ve done all they need to” idea, which I think is flawed. All the other arguments are talking about voting having low impact and it can’t fundamentally change things.

Please, if there is another part that I missed, tell me what it is, whether that’s something backing up the complacency claim or another claim entirely. I’d love to be proven wrong here.

Nowhere in that does it really explain why voting is counter productive. Voting is a tool, and a very cheap one. It only costs at most an hour once every 3 years and requiring knowledge of current events and politics, which is stuff you will know about anyway if you’re involved in any kind of direct action.

The only potential argument there is the psychological one, where people are lead to think voting is enough to do their part, but I don’t think that’s a strong enough argument to pass up choosing your opposition. As shit as Labour is, National and Act are worse, and by any logic other than accellerationism (which is a terrible idea of you care about the human cost), Labour will make fighting capitalism that little bit easier.

I understand not running for office. That article gives good reasons that actually joining politics is a wasted effort. It takes a lot of time and money, and almost always ends up making people slide towards the “reasonable politician”, not the radical that they promised to be.

Solution: more blankets. Where I grew up we had regular frosts all through winter, but I never really went with anything more than 18. 2-3 blankets and a thick duvet does a lot for keeping you warm.

Kiwi is also the nationality

SCOTT STERLING IS BACK

Does your dick hang low

Does it wobble to and fro

Can you tie it in a knot

Can you tie it in a bow

It’s also in large part Trump’s fault that any attention is on the files. He was the one pushing the conspiracy theory, and running on the promise of releasing them. So anyone who’s name is in the files can blame Trump for them not getting away with it.

I don’t like that line of logic, but it works out

There’s probably less editorializing than you’d think. At least less that was successful in being hidden. There are verses that we know we’re added in later that seem like they fit in perfectly. Example: “for yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, now and forever” at the end of the Lord’s prayer. That verse feels right at home there, but based on early copies and differences between copies as Christianity spread, we know that wasn’t original.

He would and did quote the old testament. The prophets books were written at least a few hundred years before he lived, and those were the latest of the old testament to be written.

The new testament was written about 100 years after he lived, and canonized a few hundred years later.