Rofl. That's rich coming from someone making wild claims, whose only citation was one sentence from a Churchill hit piece that contained zero justification for their assertion that Churchill was somehow responsible for India's famines. You then deflect with "read this persons work you ignorant simpleton" without any relevant citations.
Sure buddy. You can keep raging against this machine of yours, I've wasted enough of my Friday trying to reason with a dramatic husky.
Who is defending Britain's colonialism? I'm pushing back at some pretty extreme historical recharacterizations.
This is all some pretty ridiculous Captain Hindsight retconning. There have been tons of agricultural blunders in humanities history. Depletion of soils, monocultures extremely susceptible to disaster, etc.
We learn and adapt. That's humanity.
Resource mismanagement is certainly a factor, and colonies were obviously rife with it. And just as obviously, the conquerors historically didn't exactly care much about the damage they did.
In nature, species boom when there's abundance, and rubber band back hard when scarcity hits directly after a big boom.
At a glance, India's population was almost 10% of the world population during WW2.
Literally laying all the blame at the feet of British mismanagement is a pretty extreme take.
I read the article in your other post.
Ok, so Churchill was an imperialistic prick, debatable even for his time (though the wellknown history of centuries of atrocities commited by imperialistic Britain seems to contradict that...). Sure. I don't think many would defend those actions through today's lens.
But even that article just throws dozens of famine in Indias colonial history squarely at Britain's feet with zero evidence that they were avoidable.
Droughts, disease, infestations happen, and have happened throughout history. We are now better than we ever have been at addressing those crisis at a global scale, and there is still plenty of famine and food insecurity in the world.
This reads more, as I said before, a strawman argument that doesnt do anything to establish that Churchill is responsible for millions of deaths - genocide to be compared with concentration camps.
Also a very litigious society. Even if they mean well, going off the page and trying to figure out a "Haus" solution is just putting themselves at risk.
They have to check all the boxes for your insurance. They have to check all the boxes for their own malpractice insurance. Even if they followed procedure, they might get dragged through the legal system to defend themselves if a client feels wronged.
That turns you, the client, into a number in a dispassionated machine.
And I don't have a solution to it.
Edit - that was a bit too bleak. There are a lot of doctors trying their best to retain humanity in a system aimed at destroying it. The whole med school journey is aimed at weeding the people out who are just in it for the money. It's designed to gatekeep the industry to require a massive amount of passion to get your foot in the door. But the realities of the industry do their best to squash that.
Weight systems like Skyrim are pointless time sinks. They're not realistic, it just means you have to spend far too much time micromanaging your inventory as a basic game mechanic.
Yep, my comment was tongue in cheek. It's a useless result and only sort of makes sense as an overly reduced summary that has lost vital context.
The other reply is the obvious answer. Each answer is from a different viewpoint from a different user.
It's worth it if you accept the post pandemic, post crypto prices to be the new normal.
I'm still rocking my old 980ti because I refuse to pay $600 for an old, mid tier card.
Well, they're Republicans. Those Pollacks were just dressing too slutty. Hitler had to invade. And France? Come on now.
I don't see anything different about his rambling, tbh. I think the only notable difference is him working out nicknames while in front of an audience instead of ahead of time.
His talking points aren't landing, so he's fishing around for something that gets the reaction he's looking for.
I think he would have done the same if "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" was met with confusion.
He was always this incoherent, but he had "better" slogans to fall back on.
I'd say it's probably more due to him alienating most of his former team, and then surrounding himself with more incompetent yes men, than cognitive decline. His baseline of cognitive capacity wasn't high in the first place.
I consider it animal abuse, but I can understand that there's an argument that it's not. I think the distinction of requiring scientific evidence supporting their claim is a reasonable requisite to allow the discussion.
It seems like things worked out here. My knee-jerk reaction would be to classify vegan diets in carnivor pets to be animal abuse and probably would have reported. But discussion happened to allow for discourse, and they rolled back the decision to at least allow for transparency.
And to be clear, I still think it is hands down animal abuse and hope that others come to the same conclusion. Animals don't have the ability to make an informed choice. Subjecting them to a dangerous diet to satisfy your own niche moral compass is evil.
It's not about you, it's about the animal. Get over yourself.
But again, I think it's OK to have the discussion, and I hope the community buries their side into oblivion.
Trump argued that the legal actions against him set a bad precedent
Well, we finally agree on something.
The fact that he's a free man and the republican nominee 4 years after attempting to steal an election and then subsequently attempted a coup is a really fucking bad precedent and shows that the legal system is impotent to stop large scale corruption.
In true republican fashion, he didn't care until his own family was hurt by the MAGA cult. Typical.