You're saying you're learning... seitanic magic? 😈

Replace every instance of "joining the military" with "becoming a police officer," or "selling crack," or "scamming the elderly," or "scabbing on striking workers." Do the same arguments apply? Yes or no.

Fyi, if you're using them for baking, a bag of egg substitute can last a long time and work just as well, just add water. There are vegan substitutes for fried eggs but they're kinda expensive so I can't imagine you'd be saving money, more for people who have a craving for them.

Trump ripped up the agreement***

That's true, but also let me just say this.

Whenever the US does something bad, you can't just blame it on the whole US, you have to look at the specific people responsible for it, right? But what about when another country, like Iran, for example, does something bad? Do we say, "Oh well obviously you can't blame Iran in general for it?" Very rarely. Often, people go so far as to not only paint an entire government negatively off a bad action, but to paint and entire culture and people that way, going back even to previous, unrelated governments that governed previous generations, completely different structures doing completely different things. Post-9/11, you saw people painting the entire Muslim world as warlike religious fanatics, even going back to Mideval times. People sometimes fail to make a distinction between the USSR and modern Russia. And likewise in China, I've seen people before trying to argue that China is inherently domineering based on ancient history.

When we're taught history in school, all of our country's decisions are taught with the full context and perspective, we're taught what people were concerned about and why they did it and who were the ones who actually did it, and the conclusion for bad stuff is that it was an unfortunate necessity, or a mistake, or the product of a few bad apples in an otherwise positive project.

You are right, of course, that it was Trump who pulled out of the deal. But I think it's important to understand that that nuance is only really seen from the inside, that from the perspective of Iran, for example, it's just the US being fickle, and that if we expect the world to be understanding of that sort of nuance to our government's actions, it's important to apply the same sort of nuance any time we look at the actions of other countries.

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

Lmao, you literally only know two events from all of history, don't you?

There were lots of little niche forums where you could find a lot of different perspectives. I remember as a kid going to nuklearpower.com, the home of the 8-Bit theater webcomic, and I found a thread in the forums about religion and it was kind of my first real exposure to ideas about it outside of what I'd been raised to believe.

Most early memes were lolcats or epic fails, and I remember going through pages and pages on cheezburger.com with my friends. There were also "demotivational posters," like this was the height of comedy.

4chan existed and was pretty bad even then but it was more common for somewhat normal people to go there, they loved their slurs and gross out humor but it wasn't full nazi, it was edgy teens. In general slurs and homophobia were a lot more common, but a lot of the edgy, "you can't tell me what to do" energy was directed at the religious right, the "moral guardians" who wanted to take away your violent video games. The left was very weak and didn't have the sort of cultural presence it has today, instead you had a lot of energy directed towards libertarianism, with Ron Paul being the anti-war, pro-weed candidate, and you had liberals with ACLU type values. Things weren't cut as neatly along party lines back then.

Fewer people were on the internet back then. Lots of young people used it but not as many boomers. There weren't as many big pillars like Facebook/Twitter/Reddit, there were more subcultures and you never quite knew what you'd find (for better or worse). Algorithms were a lot less polished and you didn't have as much SEO, Youtube looked and felt radically different.

The indie game Secret Little Haven captures some of the feel of that time period of the internet, from the perspective of a transfem, it gets heavy but it's good.

China has official death estimates so I don't believe that they deny that anything at all happened.

Now, it’s considered patriotic to protest poor government decisions.

Is it now? Would you say the student protests over Gaza are considered "patriotic" in mainstream American culture?

Funny how China and Russia combined spend a tiny fraction of what the US does on the military if the US only has it for defense.

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?

In this hypothetical, because I refuse to give him the satisfaction of cooperating in any way. If he knows that he can get me to do things by threatening to kill babies, then I'm just encouraging him to threaten to kill babies.

I'm not trying to "talk tough," there are situations where I would cooperate with a hostage taker, but murdering babies is a red line, for me personally.

If you want to understand, I can explain fairly simply.

Consider this thought experiment. We are getting $100 to split, but only if they can agree on how to split it: I get to make an offer, then you choose whether to accept. If you announce that you'll accept whatever deal so long as accepting is better than the alternative - that is, that you'll act "rationally" - then the rational thing for me to do is to offer you only $1, while I get $99. Researchers have actually tested this game in real life, however, and it generally doesn't play out that way. Why? Because the numbers don't tell the whole story of what you're giving up by accepting a bad deal. Once you've demonstrated that you'll accept a deal like that, then you're communicating something about your behavior for all future deals. It may be rational in the context of a closed experiment, but for the general case, our minds know better than what may appear "rational" at first glance. If you tell me, "I will refuse anything less than $30," then you are openly declaring that you intend to behave "irrationally" and trying to convince me that you will - and it would most likely produce better results than behaving "rationally."

The moment that you say, "My only condition for voting for the democrats is that they be better than the republicans, who are unimaginably horrible," you have sacrificed every ounce of bargaining power that you could've wielded. So the real calculation is not "Who's better between Trump and Biden," but rather, is the difference between Trump and Biden worth sacrificing all my bargaining power?" And for me, the fact that Biden is supporting genocide makes that decision very easy and straightforward. I'd rather at least try to leverage what power I have against genocide altogether, rather than supporting the "lesser genocide." If I cannot set even something like genocide as a red line, then I am very clearly communicating to politicians that they can count on my vote no matter what they do, and they have no reason to ever consider my political priorities.