Cigars and beer? Eugh. That's like a really nice, high percentage dark chocolate and marshmallows. Or a big, beefy red wine paired with chicken breast. A cigar needs something equally strong and complex to punch back against it.
I mean, maybe like a really good stout at room temp or something might be decent with a mild cigar. Really though, I'd want an oak-ey liquor of some sort.
I think the term ethnic cleansing is underused. It's a strong term with a clear, unambiguous meaning that people can still stand against. It does not run afoul of the fact that when many people hear "genocide", they don't think of formal definitions, they think of WW2, trains and gas chambers, and attempts at thorough extermination at a large scale.
Ethnic cleansing, on the other hand, begs simple questions, like, what is the ethnicity being cleansed from? Simple answer: their land. How are they being cleansed? Killed, driven away or assimilated into another culture. What, exactly, is being cleansed? That group of distinct people right there, their name is whatever.
It's clear, concise, and very hard to argue with from any sort of semantic position.
A fabrication to manufacture outrage? But ... who would possibly be willing to do something like that?
NATO is based around its Article Five provision: An attack on any one NATO member becomes an attack on every single member of NATO.
Is Ukraine a member of NATO? Would they perhaps like to be?
... I don't care how you try to strap that thing to your body, it's going to be annoying.
Correct. I was not arguing that anonymity is required for bad things to happen. Only that it can encourage certain behaviors. Think of it in terms of percentage.
There is one feature of the internet that inherently encourages toxicity, and that's the barrier anonymity grants between online actions and real life consequences.
In real life if you walk up to someone and start talking shit, you can experience consequences from that. Online, you can do something very similar and seldom suffer anything. This allows the internet to be used to vent bottled-up emotions that are otherwise difficult or problematic to express. It also gives young'uns a chance to fuck around without really getting in trouble for it, which can be somewhat intoxicating at that age.
These two factors contribute to an enhanced toxicity that would not be commonly seen just walking around some town somewhere. Most towns anyway. That said, it similarly depends on where you are online. Communities, both online and irl, are unique in their environments and cultures, so one should not expect standardized behavior beyond the very basics when going from place to place.
A private mercenary army I can use to conquer my own kingdom.
A historical context helps out with this. They're just us from 500 years ago. Even this divinely ordained stuff is straight out of history textbooks, the divine right to rule that medieval kings claimed.
Have to admit, 7-2 surprised me a little bit. But I'll take it.
It's really not that complicated. Russia today lacks the forces. Russia in two years, after the economy is pushed further into wartime measures and further mobilization of troops, may not.
I don't recall NATO officials ever saying Russia was going to attack the Baltics tomorrow.
Not necessarily, no. You don't reduce recidivism by preaching right and wrong, you do it by cultivating healthy behaviors. Criminals, or republicans for that matter, are not afraid of punishment, and don't really care about right or wrong.
So, you need to kind of help them grow more healthy practices and adaptations, kind of like re-parenting them, since somebody screwed it up initially. It's ultimately selfishly beneficial to be a good person, and this can be taught. This is more effective than simply leaning on right/wrong like they're a young child or something.
I mean, do you not do bad things simply because "they're wrong", or do not do them because they would make your life worse in ways you can consider, and you have better alternatives?
Afraid so. I believe in rehabilitation over punishment for criminals, with the goal being the eventual cessation of the behavior.
edit: Side note, not because I like it, but because it is necessary to fix our criminal justice system. We have a very abnormally high recidivism rate, where convicted criminals frequently go on to commit more crimes. Also, while relying on severe punishment may make us feel better, it does not actually work to reduce crime. It is also expensive.
So, as uncomfortable as it may sound, it's about treatment of the core problems with the goal of eventual release back into society. Even for animal abuse. It's a challenging issue, unfortunately.
Sure, but I think improvement is worth acknowledging. We should not limit reward to just some kind of good enough.
People do not have to learn or grow, it is in no way required to be a live American citizen that exerts power in our system. If we want people to do it, it needs to be supported. Even if that is sometimes distasteful.
Personally I think we should always applaud learning if we want to encourage it further.
Don't let a thirst for justice get in the way of finding allies. It's about the school districts and their future, not the individuals trying to fuck them up with religious indoctrination.
So, it's not "good for her" as much as "good for those kids". And what she deserves or not is less important than those kids futures of being brainwashed or not. She's just one person, and punishing her would accomplish nothing helpful, you're not going to scare off her old friends that way or anything.
Uh... moral in what sense? Though perhaps asking for common sense from religious zealots is a little unrealistic.
Hey, you think there might be 40 virgins waiting for each of them?
It has its uses, helpful for remembering a short sequence of numbers for instance, or practicing a specific dialogue line that is going to be important, like for a job interview or something where you want a solid and confident delivery. But generally speaking I prefer it quiet, makes it infinitely easier to pay attention to my surroundings.
Meditation is basically the practice of learning how to turn it off at will. Can take awhile, it doesn't always seem to like being quiet. It also turns off other times though, like when you're suddenly startled for instance.
One minor detail that the brain is not homogenous. I don't know where the sample came from, but you'd probably get different results from grey vs white matter, or the cerebellum vs cerebrum, etc.
Still going to be a gargantuan amount of data though, no matter how you slice it.