Are you telling me that multiple cameras didn’t just happen to fail at just the right time to miss what happened? What’s next, the two guards who abandoned their posts to take a nap together didn’t just randomly get tired?

“Why do these rich fucking white people always insist on seeing every socio-political conflict through the myopic lens of their own self-actualization?”

You joke but I did look it up before. I really would’ve preferred to use the 1852 election because the Whigs were still a thing, less antislavery than the Republicans (and funnier), and Franklin Pierce was worse than Buchanan. But the only election after Harper’s Ferry was Lincoln’s, so I reduced the anachronism as much as I could, and tried to make the Buchanan thing tied to the general abolitionist movement as opposed to the raid.

I’ll just call it… artistic licence

Holy shit, thanks. I’m so proud!

And that’s why I didn’t want to bother making a whole account.

At least a mod saw it lol

I was gonna but I haven’t logged into for years and I think I lost access to my account and I don’t really want to make a new one. Anyone who can is welcome to do it.

There is a 'don’t ’ in the sixth paragraph which should be ‘do not’ and therefore isn’t funny.

(Fixed)

Here you go

I had the same thought but I was thinking of making it about slavery/abolitionists, I might make it after work.

They did also use grenades.

One of the organization’s founders later said she felt like they turned to these international terror attacks because the left’s lack of success domestically made them feel desperate, and that as radical students they probably should’ve just gone back home to their communities and advocated for their beliefs. The classic, “I’m ready to die for the revolution! But talking to people? No thanks!”

Good to know. I just learned about it today, mostly from NATOpedia.

Well, you got #2 right at least! But way too limited in scope. The sun never sets on the set of countries involved in this, lol.

The theoretical roots of the US political divide goes back to: “We should kill all the natives because they’re racially inferior” vs “As a progressive, the natives are only culturally inferior, and if we destroy their culture and force them to adopt ours at gunpoint, we can make them civilized.” Underneath it all, that’s who they each are.

In my experience they don’t even bother making up a source, they just ban/block you for committing the sin of heresy.

the “intellectual father” of the administration’s family-separation policy

“I don’t see my family very much. My wife’s living separately from me right now.”

I thought he liked family separation?

Also I don’t think Zohran’s opinions on Israel would’ve swayed this election one way or the other. I still probably would’ve voted for him if he said the generic pro-Israel democrat talking points because of the material things he was offering, and I imagine a lot people who are pro-Israel but aren’t completely rabid would’ve done the same the other direction.

It’s absolutely wild to me how much foreign policy seemed to be focused on in a mayoral race. Sure, it’s a particularly important mayoral race, but it’s not like the mayor decides whether to send arms to Israel or not. The only point they could raise in the debate was whether the candidate would visit Israel - a completely symbolic gesture. Should I be interrogating my local dogcatcher about their thoughts on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

I believe Franz Fanon made the argument that in some developing countries, the domestic class divide is less significant than the international class divide, and that there can be a logic to persuing a class truce. If a country becomes colonized, the domestic bourgeoisie stands to lose their positions (at least potentially) so there’s a greater degree of shared interests. This is in contrast to a more old school perspective, which would argue that a class truce isn’t really possible, that the bourgeoisie will never let up, and that attempting to persue that course is reactionary and opens the door to opportunism.

I don’t have a strong opinion on it because I’m in the imperial core, I think either approach can be valid depending on the circumstances.

At this very moment, Iran could be in possession of dozens of atoms, maybe more.

Dirt_Owl is two weeks away from developing nuclear pission.

but rewatching the presidential debates of 2000, it’s really hard to find a place where Bush and Gore actually differ on foreign policy.

I distinctly remember seeing a clip from those debates where Gore took a more interventionist position, but idk if I could find it. It’s a real thing though, it’s a big part of why Bush was all like, “This is not about nation-building” and stuff like that at the start.