Yeah I am not super great at the rules in football, but I thought that too. The goalie had to defend against 2 instead of 1 because an offsides player was coming to try to score too. If he wasn’t there, the goalie had a much better chance to defend. Felt realllllly weird to allow it

This game is the worst I’ve ever watched. Australia trying to rush, diving everywhere from 2 physical teams, the ref had to take a stretch break in the extra time, every shot was at least 10m off, it seems like turnovers are happening every 3 touches. I wanted to stop but its the train wreck effect–I couldn’t turn it off.

I think the US probably deserved more harsh treatment, though, and likely AUS would’ve scored off of one of the free kicks or penalties they deserved.

In short, fuck em both but it was fun to watch

And the Italian chef Gusto hat? Wait the guy from ratatouille was probably French wasn’t he

Sorry, I’m not really ranting to you specifically, but I needed to say this which had been pissing me off recently

It’s a sign of a party incapable of having convincing enough debates and discussions. There are correct answers to many questions and otherwise are correct strategies to find the correct answers (testing one while enforcing centralism and going to another position if it is shown to be unsuccessful). When parties split, it’s because the debate didn’t convince them of the new position/strategy enough to even want to test it out (or the party dysfunctionally refuses to self-crit after a strategy fails and so the faction assumes that decisions are absolute)

I think a large portion of this comes down to the weird self-referential bullshit that communists do now–every debate is a literary debate about what Lenin etc said (not testable) instead of a debate about strategies where Lenin etc can be utilized to communicate the position more clearly. I genuinely dont give a fuck if a quote supports my argument or not, and I’m tired of being forced into that debate, and I see it lead to factions often. Debate the concrete, decide on the concrete, and let older theory stand as a communication tool after a decision about what current theory and strategy is used.

Stalin. He works in a more-dated way, but his content is very valuable and more easily consumed than many of his level of knowledge!

I agree with this. There is a real chance that the tailist tendency is hidden under this whole thing + a misplaced hope that leadership will be very flexible.

Also would love to read the response if it already exists.

Yeah this claim from the article has nothing to do with the resignation letter, which is much more reasonable (though I have no association with PSL and cannot say how large or non-existent these problems are–I am only discussing the content of the letter itself in a sort of vaccuum)

I’m just blown away at the method of learning just being a complete Unity with play and curiosity. Like the distinction is meaningless and thats so fun. If they are playing, they usually have something they don’t yet understand and are processing that info and curiosity pushes that. It’s beautiful!

2 obvious solutions that i couldn’t think of, wtf where was my brain at that moment

Goddammit what was I thinking lol

Is this ‘gays’??? I can’t think of what also begins with ga.

My Lil one is making so many fun advancements. It’s so amazing seeing a human gain very conscious thoughts and actions out of simple desires and observations. Love him

Do you really think it’s discouraging? I see it more like showing a weakness of the argument against, where it signals the stronger side being the ones who ignore insults (not really, but how its perceived) and the weaker side going to slurs. Registers the bullshit team mentality in some people and they will do the ‘I’m joining the war on clankers on the side of the clankers’ mentality. Idk, I think we just plainly disagree on the utility at basis. But I’m not plugged into the whole world so idk if the feel is different where you’re at. I’m mostly off the webs nowadays except niche Twitter and my favorite liberal site, hexbear

I was convinced once I saw an article about people basically just quoting westerners about indigenous and black people but saying ‘clanker’. Before that I couldn’t imagine why we should care. But the article cited some black creators (also definitely at least partially motivated by clicks, to be fair) describing how hurtful it was to see jokes about apartheid America being made light of by just saying clanker instead of rhe N-word in very specific things to anti-black pre-civil-rights-racism

I think it’s likely not near as harmful as slurs against humans, but there’s also no benefit to using it that I can see so it’s pretty easy to just not if theres even a tiny bit of meanness in it

I recognize the uses of it when implemented in some beneficial way, but understand the need to remove the enormous negative externalities. A sort of anti-luddite yet still sympathetic to hating the machine kind of person. I hope the bubble bursting destroys its use as a fact checker and fake-friend though. That shit is way worse than useless and the externalities are the greatest in those realms.

Latest?

This is the correct analysis. I had expected someone to poke holes in the above comment (things like “iran doesn’t project power through groups, it has shared religious characteristics with groups already existing and supports them materially”) which are sort of correct, but miss the much bigger point that the US power practice is failing miserably, so those states will, through only self-interest, shift to less aggressive and more accepting positions.

That is also the way international lawals (specifically, the collection of which Iran has implemented) requires outside of wartime. So this is just Iran saying “we will go to peacetime, lawful tolling instead of the vague tolling we started with” and changes little materially.