Seems like your reading comprehension is lacking, so I’m going to encourage you to reread the entire exchange up to this point. If you can’t figure it out, you’re not someone worth discussing with.

WAHHHHH THE (non atrocity causing civilians of) COUNTRIES THAT COMMIT ATROCITIES ARE CALLING OUT MY TEAM AND I FEEL MORALLY OBLIGATED TO DEFEND MY TEAM FOR THEIR ATROCITIES.

-you

I’d argue the dragon age series died with dragon age: origins and everything since then has been a pale imitation. A “good dragon age game” is a solid CRPG with branching quests and story decisions. Which we haven’t had since DA:O.

“I didn’t read the article.”

Okay then read it or don’t participate in conversations that you’re walking blind into? What the fuck lol

I’m not going to argue this, but no.

Okay, I want to dicuss this more later. It’s interesting to me to think about something as taboo as limiting free speech, but I get what you mean. The power the bourgeoisie have to control the news and media and therefore public opinion is crazy. My first thought was limiting their twitter usage, which I do think would be wrong. But limiting their ability to manipulate twitter with money or other, similar tactics would fall under the same umbrella. (Hopefully Ninja edit: but should be prevented, I mean! They shouldn’t be allowed to use their wealth to influence. But I don’t think their literal speech should be restricted! Unless they break the rules or something and get banned or something ykwim)

I know, I see the .ml 🤣

I think the morals of it are important for the sake of optics in the least. If oppression implies a cruelty and injustice (at the very least in some minds, mine included, and probably most people given the dictionaries I read/bing search results) which is not associated with the movement, it might be better to not use those words. Fair?

Okay, so what I’m saying is that the definition I’m reading cites “injustice” and “cruelty” as prerequisites.

“prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control” (oxford)

“the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control” (oxford)

“mental pressure or distress” (oxford- but this is the third definition and seems like a much more general word that isn’t really useful in these conversations when trying to define systems)

“unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power” (merriam-webster)

Merriam-webster then also has 2 more definitions similar to the oxford counterparts.

“a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom” (Cambridge)

I stopped looking after that, but I think that’s fair, no? So then if we DO agree about these definitions, do you really consider it cruel or unjust towards the hoarders of capital?

But, and maybe this is a semantics argument then, I don’t think we are in agreement by what oppression means. I’m just using the google definition. Are you using a different definition that makes more sense in the context of theory/academic circles? I am a layman, after all

I guess I understand that, but separately I take issue with the use of the word oppression? The bourgeoisie cannot be oppressed, really. If they were ever in a position to be oppressed, they would no longer be considered bourgeoisie. No? But yeah the rest of what you’re saying makes sense.

NOT A DEFENSE OF ISRAEL

They won’t violate shit. There is no ceasefire lmfao.

How is the proletariat oppressing a non existent class? Under socialism, wouldn’t everyone be considered proletariat?

Well, equality is sometimes referred to in the vain of “everyone is equal” rather than “everyone is treated equal”. I think that might be what it’s saying. When the social idea of equality first emerged, I cannot imagine even for a second that they were like “yeah, everyone should be given exactly the same things regardless of their personal situation”, because nobody striving for an idea LIKE equality would come to that resolution. Like, equity is just what equality should have been in the first place.

Reminder that we are talking about teenagers being groomed and targeted by adult military recruiters.

Reminder that we are talking about teenagers that are almost completely politically unaware because they can’t vote yet and have no reason to know what’s going on.

Reminder that we are talking about teenagers who can’t vote, can’t smoke, can’t drink, at 16 maybe can’t drive yet, but are old enough to be recruited by adults who are introduced to them as trusted government officials, usually through our own education system.

No one said otherwise.

The original commenter said they hadn’t seen anyone fuck up this bad since Bush. The responder is simply implying that they think the covid response was an equally bad fuck up.

Interesting.

Anyway, skill diff! See ya!

The potential coverings would have to be exactly the shape of the dress because of the sleeves, no? We would see the shade passing underneath? Like onto the obvious clothing rack underneath the left sleeve?

for sure bro, you’re really trolling me 😎

My arguments haven’t even touched on those areas 😭 can you stop being annoying? I’m not gonna fall for your troll bait, so if you keep being annoying, I’ll just block you lmao.

Which goalpost did I move?

Maybe I’m just an elevated being but I can clearly tell that the righthand side is a mirror on a wall and that the tan below it is where the floor meets the wall. Because of that, I can roughly make out the angle and know that we should be seeing some shade on the side if any existed in the first place.

Does that make sense?