When we do it, it's only a "pseudo-occupation"

When Nazi Germany occupied France, was it only a "pseudo-occupation" because the Panzers then "protected" the occupied territory from the British? What a ridiculous line of logic.

I stg y'all are just ridiculous. Let me explain this at a very, very basic level.

When you eat animals, those animals either ate a bunch of plants, or they at a bunch of other animals who, if you go down the food chain, ate a bunch of plants. It requires more plants to be grown to provide someone the nutrition they need through meat than it does if they ate the plants directly. That means that pointing out that harm is caused by the production of plants is just another reason to go vegan.

Since you're very definitely arguing in good faith and not just trying to use whatever bullshit you can as a gotcha, I'm sure that you'll realize now that the best way to address your concerns about pesticides and fertilizers is to go vegan, thereby reducing the amount of them that are needed. Or, coming back down to planet earth, you'll seamlessly move on to the next talking point, abandoning this tact the moment you realize it doesn't actually support your position.

Lemmygrad.ml and Hexbear.net

Then I can't imagine what kind of worries reading Jonathan Swift would give you.

Huh didnt you beginn the whole comment by telling you “have bunch of cats”?

Woosh.

Maybe you misinterpreted what I meant? I'm not asking for evidence that Trump isn't pro-genocide, I'm asking for evidence of posts claiming that Trump isn't pro-genocide.

What "context" am I missing here exactly, or what "conclusion" have I come to that I couldn't have come to unless I was trying to start shit? Seems like my interpretation is extremely straightforward, the person claimed that there are posters saying that Trump isn't pro-genocide, despite the conspicuous absence of any such comments in this thread, or linked to in their comment. So, they made it up, and are lying.

Name one time when that's happened.

It's much more likely that they're ordinary people acting according to well known psychological patterns of tribalism. People can hold different beliefs or values without being paid actors.

I am not a soulist. In fact, I consider it to be an extremely dangerous ideology. If you're successful in undermining consensus reality, we're going to have dragons and vampires running around terrorizing people. The moment reality becomes mutable enough for someone to turn themselves into something with mind control powers, like a mind flayer, we're all fucked.

I am trans and neurodivergent, and I take offense at this statement:

Obviously, soulism is more attractive to any trans person than realism, because it offers faster and more complete transition than any realist ideology.

Trans identities are not a rejection of reality. I don't find your ideology appealing in the slightest. I believe in objective science, and the science is 100% on the side of trans people.

I don't doubt that there were some cases of the government overstepping, or that you can find a couple people out of the hundreds of millions who are dissatisfied. But the figure of hundred of millions refers to people who were living in extreme poverty, which is defined as less than $2 per day, some of the poorest people on the planet. That's not a lifestyle that's worth preserving.

Coming back from that tangent though, am I correct that the general economic system and the existence of billionaires are not the problems that you have with China?

It's like when Republicans call everything to the left of them "woke," but the Democrat version.

Ranked Choice only matters when you’ve got a third position that successfully triangulates between the other two positions.

Hold it!

Uhh...

What on earth are you talking about?

they will take it as an insult if you call them socialist.

Do you have any evidence to support this testimony?