Before global warming, their "solution" to the idea of a supposed overpopulation problem in their heads was ideally war, or just straight up starvation of the working class. But it was mainly war, because it established a pecking order among the rich, and did the job of killing poor people well enough.

Also overpopulation has been a "problem" to these fucks for a really long time.

The factory I had worked at before had an actual rule on their books saying that you can't say anything negative about the company on socials or you'll risk being disciplined or terminated, same goes for drinking while wearing anything with the company logo. Which btw part of the dress code there was that you had to wear a shirt with the company logo on the floor.

They left the gates open for this group to worm their way in

I don't buy this, considering the recent history of using anti-porn levers as anti-LGBTQ levers, I think this would've happened either way.

Is this the point where we tell you that the levers used to toss LGBT content out of schools, libraries, and elsewhere in the US are the exact same levers used against sexual content as well? They don't even bother to relabel the levers when they do so either. All in the name of removing said content to protect women and children. Hell, you're actually doing what they want you to do by going after anyone against this under the very veil of protecting women and children.

That's why they do it like this here US, so they (and anyone who doesn't investigate) get to attack anyone against it with some form of "think about the women and children" to shut down any criticism and pushback against it, and to make it look like from the outside looking in that anyone who is against having this happen are just a bunch of '[you know exactly what word these people would intend goes here]' looking to exploit women and children.

So... they lied?

Eh, yes and no, like this is a longstanding thing with reporting losses/kills in military engagements, everybody over reports kills and underreports losses. A known example is that during WWII in the Pacific, japan zeroes that retreated would throw the throttle to a bit of a overload max in a way, and doing so would cause the engine to smoke a lot. The thing is that to the US pilots a plane smoking that badly was as far as they knew was going to go down, and so they reported those smoking retreating zeroes as kills, then at the end we find out that the US navy killed significantly more planes then what Japan had.

So even without any ulterior motive of propaganda, over/underreporting tends to happen a lot if not all the time in any military conflict.

Edit: If you want a funnier example, how many Tiger Is did the US army see and engage on the western front in WWII? If we take the words of tankers as truth, nearly every time they saw and engaged a german tank (especially if there was a long gun Pz IV in the fight), in actuality it was only three times.

Because I just want to eat in peace without having to hear anyone's bullshit, and if I do confront their shit I know I'm going to be an irrationally angry motherfucker if I do, probably enough to get tossed.

Edit: Also like, I live in a rural area, i know I'm very much outnumbered.

Besides bad geopolitical takes, it's kinda just on cruise control at this point.

Trick question, stealth fighters were never completely invisible to radar, the point is to trick the guy manning the radar to think the blip showing up isn't a hostile plane. Essentially once someone figures out what your stealth fighter looks like on the radar, you no longer have a stealth fighter.

That's generally how I've heard it described to me.

The thing here is that the guy murdered here oversaw the company that he was in charge of was effectively in a sense condemning people to death, and as such in a sense he has a lot of blood on his hands whether he knows it or not. Did he personally deny claims that condemned people to death? Certainly not, but anyone who thinks that he had absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances that led to claims being denied that could've saved lives would be a naive fool at best, to a corporate bootlicker at worst.

In an ideal world, he would be in a courtroom facing a trial, but we're not in that world and quite frankly until we come into an ideal world this is the closest we're going to get to that.

This is what I said to someone who has the ideal of there should be zero reason to enact the death penalty on anyone, and to someone who also seemed receptive to more leftist thought. Reading it again, I know I definitely libbed it up in places (sadly, I'm just really used to having to really watch what I say), though I was trying to keep it concise and get the point across.

I guess we're going to have to go over this, so both parties working policy on rural areas pretty much comes down to "go fuck yourself, lol". Neither party will say that out loud, but the slight difference in their marketing strategy in rural areas has been that the Republican party heavily implies an offer to spite urban liberals as much as possible. Which one of the many reasons why election maps tend to end up looking like the above.

Now I'm pretty sure we all know big city liberals are very infuriating, let's just say they really don't do themselves any favors the farther away from a big city they go. Like we're talking full on detached (much more than normal) from reality, to the level that if asked a lot of rural people would love to have them shoved up against a wall. Also to be nice and blunt about this, some people here on hexbear tend to exhibit the same thing as the "big city liberal" a bit at times.

In actuality it was always about maintaining a legal and socially acceptable avenue for continuing this country's legacy of racism and slavery.

Sorta, in actuality it was created with the intent to get around the 1st amendment protections and silence the civil rights and anti war dissenters of the time, the relevant quote about this is below. After the Vietnam War ended and the Civil Rights Act got passed it turned into what you describe it is today.

"You want to know what this was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

Which is funny since if that scenario happens in the US (which is very rare as it would likely be 'sorted out' long beforehand), the construction company/developer will more often than not just run to city when they get fed up and next thing you know the holdout is being served papers for eminent domain.