I'm happy to criticize China on its actual faults, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions based on inadequate or inaccurate information. The standard for evidence is much lower when it comes to criticizing China, most of the media we consume comes from Western sources, and people just don't have firsthand experience and will believe just about anything, and so I may push back more simply because there is more bullshit to push back on.

You accuse me of "mindlessly endorsing" everything they do, but there is stuff I criticize and when I don't, I explain my reasons quite thoughtfully. What I don't do is mindlessly criticize everything they do (or are accused of doing, or assumed to be doing, without evidence) which is pretty much the standard that people expect from me. There's countless accounts on here that only ever criticize China and do so without providing explanations or justifications for it. They don't even come up with any original quips, it's all just lazily repeating "haha Winnie the Pooh" to each other with zero thought or analysis. Generally, these people could only name one or two events from Chinese history, and have no interest whatsoever in learning about or understanding their perspective, which makes having an intelligent discussion on the subject impossible.

What do you mean "that's not a thing?" I don't believe he's ever explicitly called himself a Marxist but he has cited Marx as an influence on his works, as a professor of economics.

One of Harris's most notable contributions to economics is his 1978 monograph Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution, which is a critique of orthodox economic theories that provides an alternative, synthesizing the work of David Ricardo, Kalecki, Marx, Roy Harrod, and others. Harris employs mathematical modeling to explore the relationship between the accumulation of capital and income inequality, economic growth, economic instability, and other phenomena, arguing that typical theories fail to adequately consider power, class, and historical context.

It seems basically true that he's a Marxist professor of economics. It's just not really relevant to Kamala since she's an entirely different person.

If they were optional, your boss would fire you for taking one.

Tianmen square (sic)

Never been. US News and World Report rates it as the #6 thing to do in Beijing, so I will defer to their take on it. Apparently, the square itself is just a big concrete area but it's nearby some other tourist attractions.

Uyghurs

Never met one.

This isn't the most quintessential 90's movie, or even a good movie, but the fever dream of Romeo+Juliet (1996) is the most 90's thing I've ever seen in my life.

Yes, that's what I said at the end. The US didn't get involved until directly attacked.

It's notable that the US decided to get involved and to focus on the European theater, despite being attacked by Japan. But that doesn't really tell us about motivations. It could be that the US considered Nazi ideology more dangerous than Japan's ideology, or it's possible they were more interested in Europe for the sake of their allies, or it could've been a purely strategic decision.

I don't have a map handy, but South Africa's case was supported by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Countries along with many others so your "193" number is obviously way off.

Do you mean to tell me that the guy who spent his entire decades-long career unwaveringly supporting the apartheid state currently committing genocide, who sent them billions of dollars of military equipment while they were performing a genocide, who redefined criticism of the government committing said genocide as hate speech, who threatened international courts for trying to hold the genocidal country accountable - are you telling me that person failed to provide an ounce of material support to the people being genocided? No way. I mean, when was the last time an American politician said something that was purely performative?

Right but it is happening on federal lands.

Unironically yes, obviously I would refuse to participate in this baby murderer's game. I'm not going to say, "Please only kill one baby," I'm going to spit on his face and tell him to go to hell. And then he's going to murder as many babies as he wants, as he was going to do anyway.

Any "military aged male" killed by a drone strike is counted as an "enemy combatant," even when there's not a shred of evidence.

Thanks for your advice, but just to be sure it actually works, may I ask how many people you have convinced to go vegan?

Surely your advice is based on actual experience, right? You're not just saying this because you disagree with veganism and want vegans to phrase their arguments in a toothless and ineffective way, right?