OBJECTION!

Four bars is already too many, adding a big red line down the middle is not helping, and tbh if you took away the star it’d at least be symmetrical.

If your flag is gonna be busy, at least be creative and put like a dragon or something on it.

Sorry CAR.

Sure, I can’t know if there are bots that are really good at imitating people. But it’s my choice to go them the benefit of the doubt.

I think the most likely case of encountering a non-obvious bot would be if there’s a human behind it copy-pasting responses, which means there’s still some degree of engagement. If you don’t tailor it to the specific context and don’t double check it, it’s likely not going to be that convincing.

Funny thing, I actually got banned from Twitter ages ago because I just made an account lurk and follow some political accounts and I didn’t Tweet anything or customize my avatar, so it looked exactly like I was a bot follower to boost numbers.

I believe in live internet theory. Bots are rare and relatively easy to detect, nearly every account I interact with online is a real person.

People just use the bot thing as a way of explaining away contrary views. I don’t need that explanation, because I have this crazy idea that actual human beings can believe different things and even be wrong.

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

And the US has done the same to other countries. And there are countless billionaires and corporations that influence US politics just as Israel does.

Maybe we should focus more on the general problem of class conflict rather than looking at it in terms of nations. If you got all the Israeli money out of US politics but did nothing about the other corporate money and corruption, it’s hard to imagine much would change.

We’re talking about blackmail material. If AIPAC is sufficient explanation for why congress supports Israel, why do we need all this conjecture and supposition that Trump is being blackmailed, when we know for a fact that he takes AIPAC money too?

Even if that’s true, they are still in the US sphere of influence just like Saudi Arabia, and that’s all that US politicians care about. They will happily overlook Israeli crimes just as they overlook Saudi crimes, and I don’t see people suggesting the Saudis have blackmail material.

What do people mean by saying the US does whatever Israel wants? Sending them weapons to kill brown kids in Palestine, Lebanon, etc? The US wants to do that. Bombing Iran? The US wants to do that. Either you have to take the theory further and say that the whole reason the US wants to dominate the region is for Israel’s sake (I don’t know why they can’t just want to dominate it for their own sake), or you have to ignore all the conflicts the US has gotten involved in in the region that aren’t directly related to Israel, brushing them off as coincidence.

Either way, the simplest explanation is that the US is simply a militaristic state hellbent on domination and expansion through conquest, motivated by the same things that have always motivated imperial conquest, from Rome to Britain.

No. Of course it’s possible, but if the only evidence is that he’s doing everything Israel wants, then does Israel also have something on the vast majority of Congress? Did they have something on Biden, Obama, Bush, etc?

The simpler and more likely explanation is that all these politicians support Israel for other reasons, because Israel serves as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for the US and a staging ground to conduct it’s campaigns of terror and conquest across the MENA region. Look at how many countries in that region the US has destabilized: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iran, and of course the Israelis themselves are attacking Palestine and Lebanon. Virtually every country that isn’t already in the US sphere of influence. This is a consistent campaign of conquest that goes across decades of different administrations.

You don’t have to blackmail US politicians to get them to bomb brown kids in the Middle East, it’s what they all want to do anyway.

The first step to finding a solution is to recognize that the existing tools are woefully insufficient. Suppose we didn’t have elections at all, suppose all we had was a monarchy where the only recourse within the system was to petition the king, to ask him nicely to act on our behalf. Should we still rely on that? Should we drop other approaches because they might sour the king’s mood?

With a little imagination, you can find that there are inherent mechanisms for asserting power that are not provided by the system and which exist regardless of the system’s best efforts to take them away. All systems are manmade and can be changed and dismantled if enough people stop cooperating with it. This does not have to look like a traditional revolution, with pitched battles and whatnot. Strikes, protests, development of mutual aid networks and dual power structures, even targeted boycotts can be more effective than voting for a candidate hand-picked by the ruling class.

The electoral system keeps people disorganized and divided, it directs energy away from those tactics instead of towards them. The idea that non-disruptive tactics could possibly someday produce change makes people unwilling to engage in tactics that are more disruptive, because nobody really likes being disruptive, taking risks, creating tension, but that tension is necessary to effect change.

The effect that electoral politics has on defining people’s political identities cannot be overstated. The moment you cast your vote, no matter how reluctant it may be, there will be a part of you that wants to justify and defend your choice and before you know it you’re now defending things that you never would otherwise. Nearly all political discourse becomes colored by this question of who to vote for. Again, think about how you would read news stories differently if you had no mechanism within the system for expressing your voice. But that is essentially where we’re at because the mechanisms provided by the system are ineffective, but while we have this idea that they could be effective, people still define themselves along those lines.

Let me give you an example. I live in a solidly blue state, previously, I lived in a solidly red state for most of my life. At no point has my vote for president had any impact on the outcome whatsoever. This is true for the vast majority of Americans. And yet, when I talk about my refusal to vote Harris or Biden, people yell at me, a lot. Why? It has no material impact. It’s because it’s primarily a cultural signifier, a way of defining a political identity, and any material consequences are of secondary consideration. So long as people are allowing bourgeois parties to shape and define their political identities, that’s going to dissuade them from engaging in direct action.

That’s completely ridiculous.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

Put it this way: I don’t think PJ is a fed, but I think the fact that he’s the feds aren’t paying him is wage theft.

Hmm? I think you’ve got that backwards. Ukraine is the one trying to reclaim lost territory that’s currently under Russia’s control, is it not? What year exactly should we revert world borders back to and why?

I wonder if you can see the problem with the naive solution of trying to “lock in” whatever the present borders are. If a country seizes territory, even without any justification, that territory is now part of the present borders, and therefore would be “locked in” by that standard, suggesting that anyone who tried to take it back is the aggressor (until they succeed in reclaiming it).

I think that what you’re asking is a very complicated and valid question, even if you didn’t mean it in earnest. The question of what makes a country legitimate is quite complicated. I would argue that the “north star” of legitimacy is what outcome is best for the people. In the case of Taiwan, I think the best outcome is to maintain the status quo of de facto independence without rocking the boat with things like formal independence. It’s not worth starting world war 3 over a formality.

But when you have a “country” like the Confederacy or Tibet, which keeps people in bondage under horrible conditions, then obviously the best outcome is for them to be defeated and taken over by someone else. Slavery and serfdom are automatically delegitimizing.

There’s also another reason why reunifying Tibet was justified, which is explained very succinctly by the 1944 US War Department film, “Why We Fight: The Battle For China:” (around 8:20)

But how could Japan, only 1/20th the size of China, and with only 1/6th it’s population, think of conquering China, much less the world?

Modern China, in spite of its age old history, was like the broken pieces of jigsaw puzzle, each piece controlled by a different ruler, each with his own private army. In modern terms, China was a country, but not yet a nation.

The part of China’s history where it was broken up into these warlord states was part of what they call, “The Century of Humiliation,” when Chinese people were subject to imperialism and aggression from many different countries, worst of all being Imperial Japan. Because the country was so fractured, it was difficult to mount an organized, collective defense. This was understood by basically everyone, by the US, by the communists, and by the nationalists. That’s why the communists and nationalists were willing to form a unified front against the warlord states despite their major ideological differences, because it was obvious to everyone at that time that a unified China - a “One China Policy” - was important and necessary. Even today, both the PRC and ROC formally agree on the idea of a One China Policy, and the US has (in the past at least) as well.

But again, today, I personally believe in maintaining the status quo, where Taiwan is de facto independent. There’s significant precedent that this can maintain peace and keep everyone relatively satisfied. The same precedent did not exist in Tibet or in any of the other warlord states. Furthermore, Taiwan has significantly better human rights and conditions in general than Tibet where you’d die a serf at age 30. The whole “Free Tibet” thing is pure propaganda, only followed by people who are completely ignorant of the actual facts of what life was like there before, and of the history in general.

several other countries by force, including all of Tibet.

Tibet has historically been part of China for a long time, which is probably why Taiwan claims it along with the rest of China (in fact, Taiwan’s claims go further and include Mongolia). Tibet broke away along with a bunch of other warlord states in the chaos following the fall of the Qing dynasty, and was never internationally recognized as an independent country. Its people were freed from the tyrannical, slave owning theocracy and rejoined the country, which led to the doubling of their average life expectancy (along with the rest of China). China’s claim to Tibet is about as valid as the US claim to the Confederate States.

All of that happened over 70 years ago under Mao, before the country shifted focus with major reforms in the 80s. Though to be fair to you, there aren’t exactly a lot of recent wars involving China for you to choose from, are there? Not your fault you have to go back 70 years.

Source? It’s in their constitution.

Yes, as they have since the war, just as Taiwan claims China. Your point?

Peace with Taiwan has been maintained for nearly a hundred years, with a mutual understanding that nobody would try to force the issue too hard (look up “strategic ambiguity”). In recent years, the US has been recklessly deviating from that understanding and now people treat the status quo as “Chinese aggression,” because of propaganda.

B-b-b-b-b-but China might, possibly, at some point in the future, try to reclaim Taiwan! Both sides! Two things true at once! Me speculating about something possibly happening is the exact same as the thing actually happening!