Objection

Those conditions lasted for like three years before the Marshall Plan went into effect.

and this was a part of their (cruel) punishment.

Nobody was like, "Mwahaha, now we will devide Germany into two countries as punishment for doing WWII." The Soviets had occupied the eastern half and the rest of the Allies had occupied the western half and so it was divided along those lines (what else were they going to do, start WWIII over it?). It wasn't because Germany "deserved" it, if anything, the country was treated generously for fear of it going to the other side, and there was an understanding that the harsh conditions imposed after WWI only contributed to Hitler's rise to power in the first place.

If you're not in danger, "pacifism" is just a way to flaunt the privilege that you never have to get your own hands dirty. It's very easy to be a "pacifist" in a gated community protected by cops, in the same way that Jeff Bezos would never find himself in a situation where he'd have to throw a punch.

What's even worse is when libs call themselves "pacifists," but make exceptions for nations fighting "defensive" wars, as if virtually ever side in every conflict ever does not justify the war by claiming the other side is the aggressor. If you can travel a thousand miles away to kill people and call yourself a "pacifist," the term is completely meaningless.

Actual pacifists are fucking crazy, and I respect them for that. It takes either a lot of guts or a death wish to not defend yourself in the face of danger.

This is a fair point. We are quite far along on the brain drain already. I suppose I should take the fact that you think I'm too knowledgeable to possibly be an American as a compliment. There are, however, still some intellectuals with a basic knowledge of other countries' histories left here, the stereotype that we're all a bunch of backwards hicks and self-centered chauvanists is only mostly correct.

I used the phrase "century of humiliation" intentionally to draw a comparison between the two. If you talk to Chinese people (for example on RedNote) a lot of them will tell you that they care about science and advancement, not just for it's own sake, but because they have the cultural memory of what happened when they didn't. The century of humiliation is a big reason why the Chinese have got that dog in 'em when it comes to science, while Americans love toying around with antivax shit and similar anti-science ideas because we're so used to being on top and none of our actions having consequences.

China had the same kind of backwards traditionalists back in the Qing that we have today, and that traditional approach get steamrolled by guns and battleships. But we never had that experience. So why not fuck around with forcing Creationism into science textbooks? "What's the worst that could happen?"

Just as the Qing dynasty was committed to doing things their way and refusing to adapt to changing conditions or learning from other countries, you see similar tendencies in the US today. As your disbelief attests, people don't look to other countries to understand why they do what they do or to take any lessons from their history. And those who do are regarded as traitors or spies, just like those in the Qing dynasty who advocated for studying and adopting Western science were. Really, there are a lot of parallels between the two, imo.

Why did Cassandra go around talking shit about Troy's defenses? The only possible reasons are that she was secretly a Greek spy, or she was some kind of accelerationist who just wanted Troy to fall for some reason. At least, that's what people would say about her if she were here today. Truly, she was the first tankie.

The American brain drain is gonna suck for people living here but is also very justified and deserved at this point.

The Americans have gotten so complacent about being on top of the world that lots of people don't think there are any real consequences to anything and just wanna fuck around. We used to be at the forefront of research but now nobody with half a brain would want to come here. We're heading full speed into a century of humiliation and people are just gonna keep doubling down on ignorance and bigotry as things get worse

I guess it depends on how important you view the economic sphere. To me, ending the post-New Deal era economic consensus and ushering in a new era where the power of organized labor was completely crushed with bipartisan support is the defining aspect of his presidency. He marks the beginning of the "culture war" era, when the people would no longer have any real say over how the economy was run so all that's left is fighting over social issues. It seems to me that it's more like he did a few good things here and there but for the most part he was awful, the death knell for any hope of progressive economic policy for generations.

I’m just telling you that no normal (and by normal, I don’t necessarily mean good!) leader (i.e. one who is not a megalomaniac, a narcissist or a (wannabe) dictator) would demand a military parade for their birthday. Honestly not. And even if you don’t care because it’s “symbolic,” you should still care because it shows you the type of person he is.

So if you already have a negative opinion of his character, it reads as demonstrating a negative aspect of his character.

Don't get me wrong, you're right about his motivations, but it's still based on personal interpretation. He's not explicitly saying it's about himself. And it's a reasonable interpretation, but if someone doesn't see him that way already, this won't convince them. This sort of plausible deniability is part of Trump's MO, he wants to be criticized over such non-substantive issues, because it makes it look like it's the most severe criticism people have of him, and it allows him to control the narrative and draw attention to the parade, which the average person will probably not have a problem with, because people like parades.

Instead of taking the bait and freaking over every random, forgettable news cycle, it's better to keep criticism focused on things that have a material impact on people's lives, such as tariffs and deportations. Deportations in particular are much more of an indication of fascism than a parade is - people are being abducted off the streets and taken to black sites with no due process or oversight. If Trump wasn't doing shit like that that actually affects people's lives, he could dance around however he likes and I wouldn't mind.

Maybe I'm just a spoilsport, but my hatred for Trump is disciplined. I don't see any reason to freak out every time he sneezes. I'd rather focus on the important, unambiguously bad things that he's doing.

If you have an option that doesn't involve giving money to the US government you should probably do that. You're not going to own them by giving them cash.

It is a very important distinction. I can’t even imagine the prime minister of my home country insisting on a military parade for his birthday.

It's not even a real distinction because it's also the Army's 250th anniversary.

Even if that wasn't the case, it's a totally meaningless and purely aesthetic distinction. "Oh this kinda has the vibe of something bad people do," that's the only real objection to it that any of you have.

The legitimate reason to care is because it's glamourizing the US military, which is an incredibly evil institution. Even so, of the things the military does, a parade is one of the most innocent and innoculous. But between glamorizing a shitty president or a shitty institution, why should anyone give a shit?

Insane that there's people in this thread being like, "I should stop paying taxes." Really, this is where you draw the line? Hundreds of thousands of civilians murdered in illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but Bush never had a parade to celebrate himself so I guess it's fine! I'll never understand liberals' priorities.

Carter was more progressive than a typical liberal? He's the one who abandoned unions and the working class in favor of neoliberalism.