Nah, see, some people would like to return to the time when saying “terrorist” would get people foaming at the mouth and approve whatever the military wants.
Nah, see, some people would like to return to the time when saying “terrorist” would get people foaming at the mouth and approve whatever the military wants.
She’s stealing the planet’s cool! Stop her!
Best for the job, sure, but not randomly.
I… get the feeling you’re not trying to have a conversation about the particular incident in the OP article. Which is fine, and good, but don’t overproject.
Simple, we wrrie down the information on how to read the discs!
No, it’s from a news graphic giving a detailed, annotated breakdown of the “compound” he was hiding in, the compound being an actual, literal hole in the ground, but presented as if explaining some piece of high-tech military hardware, with Saddam himself presented as if he were a component.
For a good reason, quite a number of these are wrong.
Nah, blinking when done. It’s a call to action of sorts.
“I don’t approve of political jokes; I’ve seen too many in office.”
Oh, it’s not the concern that’s funny, if they had that selfawareness it would be admirable. Instead, you have people pat themselves on the back for how aware they are every time they encounter a validating piece of propaganda they, of course, fall for. Big “I know a messiah when I see one, I’ve followed quite a few!” energy.
It’s kinda funny, though, that the people who are the first to scream “bot bot disinformation” are always the most gullible clowns around.
I’d sooner guess “ban evader”.
I believe “gnosticism” is the term, though I’ve heard them also called “dualistic” heresies.
Welcome to post-structuralism, enjoy the ennui. And the cognac.
I meant that the money donated isn’t that much, compared to the existing endowment. I think it was Adam Tooze’s argument, that IIRC Columbia could basically afford to lose most if not all donation streams and just fund itself from the stock market. And his interpretation as to why they reacted so violently is either fully ideological on behalf of the admin, or because Colombia is actually underperforming as asset management, a panicking reasserting of who runs the place, which is in a way also ideological.
It’s not unaware. It’s a policy that allows protest as an abstract idea, as long as nobody actually ever does it. It’s reminiscent of Zizeks visiting grandma joke.
From what I understand it’s not even that much money. The logic seems to be that the idea of democratic money management must be stomped out regardless of the cause it’s advocated for.
Consider it backwards: Israel sees this attack happening so valuable, that they were willing to forego using the pagers for spying.