That's very explicitly what the author of the manga was doing when they named it, by the way.
This isn’t any worse than manga misspelling words to show a character has an accent.
So, to provide some context, a couple of years ago, this specific manga got really, really popular on reddit's r/manga subreddit, and a bunch of fan translator groups picked it up. It was released on Twitter one page at a time, and at a certain point the number of translations got so out of hand that people eventually started making parody translations of it. This is one of those parody translations.
That article is straight dog shit. The author is basically saying that Ted Kaczynski is the stylistic precursor to a particular brand of white nationalist terrorism because he 1) killed people and 2) had a manifesto. That's it. The article even states:
Effectively, Tarrant followed Kaczynski’s eco-terrorism but reinterpreted it to employ white supremacy and Islamophobia.
Brenton Tarrant was the Christ Church Shooter. He hated non-whites and Muslims. Saying he "followed [Kaczynski's] eco-terrorism but reinterpreted it to employ white supremacy" is, at best, misleading, and at worst a bald-faced lie. Tarrant had virtually no ideological connection with Kaczynski. He described himself as an eco-facsist because he was a dimwitted 4chan kid who blamed overpopulation on Muslims. For all of his flaws, Kaczynski was an incredibly intelligent and well-educated anarchist and would have despised Tarrant. He didn't "reinterpret ecoterrorism as white nationalism." He just labeled himself something he thought sounded cool without understanding it.
maybe the author is also a white supremacist.
What does white supremacism have to do with Ted Kaczynski?
I can't imagine being 20 years old and being anything close to enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. I also have to wonder how many of them were caught up in the moment of "Oh, are we clapping now?! She said a thing about...pokemon? Weird, but everyone's cheering and since I'm a Hilldog stan and going with the flow is pretty much my entire personality I'll clap and cheer too!"
I think I initially read that on a Vox article, but I looked again today and it looks like I must have read that somewhere else. They're also saying that's not the case and that there were false reports going around about that. I guess the rumor mill got me this time. Which is good, because no one deserves to be fired for talking openly about sex.
Maybe it's supposed to imply that boyfriend is an attribute of the particular girl. Like saying she isn't someone's boyfriend. It's probably a holdover from the original data architecture and nobody ever bothered to modify the table later on in case there's a select somewhere that expects that field to exist.
She also got fired from her teaching job over it.
Edit: Luckily, this was not true and she did not get fired for talking about oral sex. Which is good.
Sure, and they still managed to pass the alien and sedition acts. Saying they weren't a monolith is a way of dismissing the mountain of evidence that suggests that, for most of them, participation in the democratic process of an inchoate American republic was intended only for a small segment of the population - literate (i.e. wealthy) white men. I'd suggest A People's History of the United States if you want a better perspective on that.
As much of a Berniebro that I was, I've come to realize that the Democratic party is horrifically balkanized. There's this expectation that the progressive wing of the party is supposed to hold its nose every year and vote for the neoliberal candidate. The problem is that this is not a two way street. Your hardliner party supporters that wanted a Clinton presidency wouldn't have voted for Bernie. I knew some of them in real life. The DNC actively and aggressively poisoned that particular well early on. Bernie wasn't a "potential candidate" - he was an enemy of Clinton. Plain and simple. They all said that if Bernie had gotten the nomination, they would have stayed home on election day.
a grand tradition of what to do with tyrants.
America as a nation was created by a subset of landed gentry who didn't like paying taxes. They wanted to make Washington king. The founding fathers were basically the Megamind meme where Tighten (yes, it's spelled Tighten, not "Titan") says to the Mayor of the city: "More like under new management."
The machine of neoliberal imperialism has created global instability and climate crisis, and the rich are locking down their spoils with right wing nationalism.
I want this on my tombstone so the alien archeologists that eventually visit our ruined husk of a world can know what happened.
I don't know if that's a part of the problem or just a separate problem altogether. We expect people to partner up, when we should normalize people being alone. When people don't or can't, we might be hardwired in our monkey brains to see them as outcasts from the group.
It's a bitter pill to swallow, but the truth is that some people just aren't meant to be loved. I think accepting that is, for some people, a bit part of growing up and becoming a more mature person. You gotta stop being envious of others who possess something you never will and just kinda...get on with your life. Find a cause you care about. Put your energy elsewhere. Maybe stop watching romcom anime.
I read enough to recognize a bullshit strawman argument. At least don't be so lazy you're unwilling to type it out yourself.
So you’re solution is to give Republican’s majority? Sounds to me like you’re on the wrong side, mate.
First of all, it's "your solution," not "you're solution." Learn to spell. Second of all, I am not telling anyone to "not vote" for Democrats. I'm saying that the argument that if Democrats are given control over both the legislative and executive branches of government that it'll result in positive legislation getting passed is simply untrue. The only real reason you can give for electing Democrats is to prevent Republicans from getting elected, because Republicans will actively pass legislation. Horrible, comically evil legislation. As such, presenting the choice as between "good" and "bad" political forces is simply wrong. The choice can only be honestly presented as between "neutral, fundamentally ineffectual" and "absolutely heinous" political forces. Optimism in the Democrats is ludicrous and comes across as disingenuous at best and deluded at worst. If you want to court leftist voters, the only real talking point you have is that it's not a vote for the Democrats, but one against Republicans. Because that's at least nominally true. Both parties want to preserve the political status quo of the country. Republicans just want to do it while hurting minorities, and Democrats don't care as much about that. Minor distinction, but that's the most we can get.
Oh, it's not that both sides are bad. It's that there's two sides, and the powers that be are all on the same one, and we're all on the other, and we just happen to have "some people *ahem*" too dim to realize it.