I know. Ironic, isn’t it? But as far as I am aware, only Google Pixels support GraphineOS.

I really want a pixel so I can install GraphineOS

Same. I don’t consider the sequels canon. There are too many plot holes that contradict the original trilogy. Sometimes the sequels even contradict themselves.

Same. I watched that Skeleton Crew show on Disney+. I enjoyed it, but I noticed a few plot holes. It also ended kind of abruptly.

There was once I time where I would have argued against your take on Star Wars. But now, I don’t disagree with you. The newer Disney Star Wars films have killed the franchise.

Can people not just install a VPN?

I once heard an analogy which is applicable in this situation.

“If people buy drugs from one dealer, and that dealer gets arrested and sent to prison, do all of their former customers just stop buying drugs?”

I agree with you. But at the same time, filming a tiktok promoting criminal activity is really stupid. Not telling people should be rule number 1.

Well em dashes existed long before AI or computers. Many humans use them in writing, so it doesn’t necessarily indicate AI was used.

Self-defense and protecting civilians are not mutually exclusive. That’s literally why the laws of war exist.

I didn’t say you supported deliberately targeting civilians.

My point was that attacking military targets inside heavily populated areas will inevitably kill civilians. That’s why civilian protection is a central principle in international humanitarian law. The rule has to apply universally.

So just to be clear, are civilians legitimate targets as long as they live in the “wrong” country?

We’re working from fundamentally different priors. I don’t think global politics reduces to a single economic contradiction. I’ll leave it there.

In realism, the opposing tendencies are expansion of one state’s power and balancing by others to preserve sovereignty. In institutionalism, it’s integration versus fragmentation. Neither requires framing global politics as capital versus labor.

Calling imperialism the principal contradiction is a theoretical commitment, not an empirical conclusion. Other schools like realism or institutionalism would identify state security competition or balance-of-power dynamics as primary.

Talk about cultural chauvinism.

The implication here is: “You people are detached, soft, and incapable of understanding real war.” That’s not an argument. That’s a moral superiority pose. It frames one group as hardened realists and the other as naïve spectators. Historically, that kind of framing is how conflicts get emotionally escalated. Dehumanization rarely begins with slurs. It begins with sweeping generalizations.

And the irony is thick. You’re accusing me of only conceptualizing civilian deaths, while simultaneously minimizing the reality that modern warfare absolutely does kill civilians. The idea that wars are cleanly fought “between armies” belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st. Civilian harm is a central moral and legal issue in contemporary conflict. That’s not Western fragility. That’s international humanitarian law.

Lenin’s framework is one influential analysis of capitalist imperialism. That doesn’t make it exhaustive. Modern geopolitics also includes state security competition, regional spheres of influence, and non-capitalist power projection.

Imperialism as a concept predates Marxism and isn’t reducible to Lenin’s model. We can debate which framework is more useful, but pretending there’s only one definition isn’t serious.

And what about the innocent people who voted against the fascist government? They deserve to die too?

Removed by mod