Cethin

It’s also weirdly similar to Trump’s posture. Both horrible and I don’t know how they stand like that. It looks both ugly and uncomfortable.

And people in the Netherlands call themselves Dutch…

I don’t think intent is required. Behead’s definition says “cut off the head of (someone), especially as a form of execution.” The especially part means it isn’t exclusive to that.

Both Be-head and De-capit(ate) = Off-head

No, you said:

There’s absolutely no reason this video should be 4 hours long.

If some people enjoy it as a 4 hour video then there is a reason. You can not enjoy it without telling other people they’re wrong for enjoying it.

Your extreme insecurity does explain your little tantrum though.

LOL. You’re in this thread calling people simps for enjoying something.

Have a nice day. Goodbye.

Lol. Dude, I just said I enjoyed the video and I’m fine with the length. You came here to say it’s bad and wrong. Go do something else. I’m not mad about anything, but you seem to be for some reason.

Anyway, I’m done here. This isn’t going anywhere and you just keep telling me I’m wrong for enjoying something I enjoyed. Bye.

You’re the one who brought up research papers. I just made sarcastic fun about how stupid the comparison is. It’s your own strawman you have issue with.

Oh, that’s great! Some amazing papers can be finished in even shorter times, so nothing should be longer than those either! Wow, that’s so enlightening. I’m glad the only reason something can be lengthy is because it’s a research paper. That’ll save so much time. No more long movies or TV series for me!

I watched it and enjoyed it all (at 2x speed though), so there absolutely is a reason for it to be 4 hours. I don’t feel like it dragged or was extended for arbitrary reasons. Honestly, it feels like it could be longer reasonably. There’s a lot to cover.

Yeah, I’m not the one who said peaceful protests are the only way to do things. I disagree with that. Most effective protests are called violent even when they’re not. The state will use violence against them and then claim they were violent. Peaceful protest can be a useful tool, but it isn’t the only tool. Storming that capital building is not a useful tool though. It’s only useful if you want to destroy a movement.

Coups however do often include physically storming buildings (or having access to it by default) to seize the legislature powers & using some sort of “official” pathway to power (just to have a basis for the administration & military to now follow the new regime as if technically nothing changed).

Sure, but it’s rarely, if ever, control of the building itself that gives that power. If you can control the people who wield it and force them to grant you power, that’s how it happens. That or kill them all and become the de facto controllers, but that requires a large military presence around the nation and that’s what gives power. That’s probably required in the case of any coup for that matter. Some people are going to turn against you and you have to be able to stop them.

Wait … you think … Jan 6th was … a protest?
Im not Murican, but that doesn’t seem right.

No. I tried rereading my comment to see how you got that, but it seems fine. It was a very stupid attempted coup. You can’t do a coup by taking over the capital building though. That’s not how that works.

I may see how the confusion came. By “march on the capital as a protest”, there’s been many protests that use that term to refer to marching on Washington D.C., not the capital building itself. The comment before used that phrase to also include “to occupy the capital” referring to the capital building like Jan 6. That is not a protest, nor would it be achieve anything.

Man you’re fucking stupid if you’re anything but a troll or this is a bad joke. The capital building is just a building. Taking control of it does nothing. It’s just a good way to destroy a movement. You don’t put all of your biggest followers into a group to do something illegal in a way that makes them easy to track and follow, especially when achieving victory still does nothing except getting you arrested or killed a little while after and doing nothing.

Congress can operate operate out of any building. They operate out of that one by tradition. It doesn’t hold any power itself. If you take it then now you have control of a perfectly normal building, not something powerful.

Even if you think a revolution is the way to go, you don’t do that by marching on the capital. Control of a building doesn’t give you control of the government. The Jan 6th people were fucking stupid. How you would do it is dispersed action that can’t be broken up or tracked easily. I don’t know how people are so stupid to think taking over a building would do anything. What reality are you living in?

A march on the capital as a protest could be good though. It won’t change anything itself, but it could motivate people and show there’s interest in the movement. Not an actual invasion of the capital, but a large group showing up to demonstrate.

It’s hard to say who’s keeping it alive in reality. Media is covering it because they can make a culture war thing out of it. The police are there because the media is there. The counter-protestor are there because of the former culture war thing. Then the media is also there to get images of the chaos they fomented.

People should really start linking images directly, or at least link to screenshots of that site instead of linking directly to it. I can’t view this, and I won’t bother if it’s on that site.

Hey, you didn’t denounce the genocide in this post either! How dare you!

I denounce the genocide.

Sure, if a collision happens (unlikely while under control) then another collision happens (also unlikely, space is big) then sure some debris could go into a non-decaying orbit. That’s true for all satellites. Should we just not launch any because it could make things harder for other satellites?

Starlink is very unlikely to cause debris, and any debris it may cause, if any happens at all, is unlikely to cause any future problems because odds are it’d decay even faster. In the unlikely event everything goes wrong, it could cause minor issues, the same as any satellite.

It also happens to provide a service at what is almost certainly a loss, considering each satellite only lasts a few years and thus requires a constant stream of replacements to be launched.

OK, so you do get they’re in decaying orbits. Good.

It also happens to fill the sky with a bunch of garbage that will inevitably hit something and lead to a spray of even more garbage.

What garbage? You just said they decay. Be consistent. There’s plenty of reason to not like them. Kessler syndrome isn’t one.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize Starlink. Kessler syndrome isn’t one. All of the satellites are in such low orbits that they will decay relatively quickly without maintanance. As long as they have fuel they can move out of the way, and when they don’t they will burn up in the atmosphere.

Them ruining astronomy sucks. Them fucking with Ukraine suck. A lot of other things they’re doing sucks. They aren’t actually polluting orbits in any reasonable interpretation though.

“Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims.” I believe every definition of terrorism will be similar. Nothing about that definition has anything to do with morality though. Terrorism can be acceptable. It’s only people who have bought into the mainstream ideas that think terrorism is always wrong. I would say you need to re-evaluate your ideals if you think Hamas can be correct but terrorism must be bad. One of those does not follow from the other. Terrorism can be used for good, and there’s no reason to think otherwise.

And sure, terrorism can be used to defeat terrorism. You can have counter-terrorist terrorists. I would personally argue they always are, and I think it’d be difficult to argue against that.

Resistance to colonization is not terrorism.

It is literally, by definition, terrorism in this case. What you meant to say, if you put any thought into your position, is that terrorism isn’t always bad. A significant weaker force using gorilla tactics and politics to fight a stronger force is the only hope they have to succeed. No one can expect Palestine to resist using conventional warfare.

Terrorism is a tool. The US engages in terrorism constantly. The police enforce their rule (in the US) by using terrorism. Just about every government uses terrorism. It’s just only ok (as decided by the elites) when it’s state sanctioned and by a stronger force against a weaker one.