Legal systems are a necessity as long as there are people willing to do violence to others. Ideally, they’ll constrain the use of violence on behalf of the collective to cases where it’s the only way to stop violence being perpetrated by individuals: To arrest them.

Practically, any human creation will have flaws, and nearly all systems will be biased in favour of the powerful. That doesn’t categorically make it useless for the people.

For once, it doesn’t have to be blackmail. The Zionists have Uncle Sam. Relations between the EU and the US are already not the strongest they’ve been. Risking the ire of a large power like that is not exactly smart diplomacy.

Would it have been the right thing to do? Absolutely.

Not against someone backed by the US

Does she always hold her breath and listen?

Þere’s a user around hat always writes like þis, substituting all “th” digraphs with the archaic letter Þ/þ (þhorn) or Ð/ð (eð). Þey were adapted and used interchangeably in Old English in place of “th”, before eventually being replaced by þe digraph again.

Þe user in question found it entertaining to use þem once more. Some people find it extremely annoying and tedious to read.

Xenomorph

Strategy vs. Operations

He was good at the latter, as far as I understand, but a General needs to coordinate multiple operations to support and build off of each other.

I always love when the people testing drums and guitars and such just jam a little. Sometimes it’s the band themselves, but often it’s just some stage hands having a little fun at work, and I’ll always cheer for that.

In addition to the other informative answers, the “serious” reply to the first question would be “no, not really”. I’ll summon up a “Tales of Time Forgotten” blog post on the matter, as best as I understand it, with the recommendation to read the original if you can.

The difficulty with understanding Ancient Greek sexuality from our modern perspective is that they didn’t strictly think in two genders so much as a scale of masculinity, or something close to it. Accordingly, sexuality wasn’t thought of in terms of hetero- or homo-, but as an act of the less masculine party receiving the more masculine one. The expectation then was that your role and choice of partners would evolve throughout our life and progress along the expected social hierarchy.

An adolescent boy in his mid-to-late-teens (~14-18) was expected to be courted by young men (in their twenties) and eventually choose a lover (although suitors did have to work for it and being “easy” was shameful).

It’s worth noting that there was a distinction between (adolescent) boys/girls and children, which were off limits. Obviously, adolescents are still vulnerable and the whole thing is still messed up by most modern western standards. “Not quite as bad” is still bad.

Eventually, they’d reach adulthood and thus become (young) men themselves and were expected to strive and even compete for the affections of boys.

In their late twenties to early thirties, men were expected to proceed to mature adulthood, losing interest in boys and seeking a girl to marry instead (with much of the same expectations as before, though arrangement of marriages typically gave girls much less choice).

Any significant deviation from that expected course would, of course, be considered shameful. There might have been some leeway on the age brackets, but the “direction” of the age dynamic was quite firm, and men seeking out or receiving other men was seen as unnatural and effeminate.

Female sexuality is much less well-attested, just as women in general are less “visible” in most sources, and somewhat contradictory. On one hand, Sappho of Lesbos achieved quite a reputation, but she was writing ~500 BCE. On the other, some sources written in the first and second century CE strongly condemn it. One woman is criticised for loving boys, which would fit with the expectation that both women and boys were to “receive” men.

This might have been a shift over time, but the scarcity of evidence makes it hard to pin it to that cause alone.

On the whole, it’s pretty clear that a male vers would not have been “fine” by any standard. Men were to be tops, boys to be bottoms and mature adults were to be interested in girls and women alone.

And only if you’re older than your top. Otherwise, you’re simply receiving some masculinity.

Replying to test. IDK what you’re testing, but just in case it helps.

Then we were talking past each other. My point was that we need both that online presence and a physical one to give it real-world visibility, but as I understand you now, we need something to give visibility to. It seems that our points are more or less the same and we’ve been arguing different nuances of the same opinion.

That just means we have to step up our game, not that we have to surrender

the ones that convince everybody to sit in a park clicking their fingers because clapping is too aggressive.

Or the people posting online to tell everyone else “Don’t you dare do anything!”

Online spaces are too easily segregated. Already we have no control over plenty of cuntservative “safe spaces”.

The point of protests and demonstrations is to give a physical, visible mass to demands and movements. The Suffrage, Civil Rights Movement, the various protests against Soviet rule, not to mention various uprisings against monarchies or dictatorships (Frances’s Storming of the Bastille, Russian deposition of the Czar), the creation of unions that did a lot for modern working conditions and other protests with less visible results in slowing down the encroachment of bullshit.

But their success hinges on numbers. Every scab that breaks strikes is a traitor to their peers. Every cunt discouraging people from participating harms the rest of the protestors.

Now more than ever we have the tools the Internet provides to generate the will and coordinate the execution of strikes and protests. Don’t participate, if you feel it’s hopeless, but don’t infect others with your defeatism. Best case, they’ll manage to win and improve things for you. Worst case, it’s not you that’s getting hit.

I believe change always needs a multi-pronged approach. If we were to dominate the online field of culture, but cede the control lf the offline world to them, they could arrest us, shut down the infrastructure we rely on, and so forth. We need cultural force online, peaceful activism offline and (unfortunately, in my opinion) also the threat of violence to make the option of peaceful change more appealing.

I would also call to mind the slow decay of the Western Roman Empire, where many of the elites just thought the death throes to be another crisis that would pass, because they never expected that the empire could even end.

Just because something has stood for a long time, that doesn’t mean it can’t come crumbling down. Whether slowly or quickly, whether quietly or violently, the world will change, and there is no telling whether the structures we took for granted will endure, or whether whatever change may come will be for the better. We can only guess, and my guesses aren’t particularly optimistic.

I think that’s satire, expanding the “Charlie Kirk = Superman” equivalency to the kind of shit CK would do, but Superman didn’t, showing the absurdity of the comparison.

There are more than one or two factors to the whole disaster, but leftist infighting certainly didn’t help in creating a unified, solid opposition, and it still doesn’t today. Focus on stopping the bigger enemy first, or we’ll both end up on the firing line.

Then you open it after flushing to check and potentially clean skidmarks?

Revisionist! That’s the word I was trying to think of earlier. Thank you for your contribution <3