Actually, the Finns already spend 2.4% of their GDP on defense, making them one of the highest defense spenders in Europe (relative to GDP). And they’re famously very well prepared for wartime scenarios.
Turns out sharing a border with Russia makes military spending look very appealing.
No, it isn’t. Acknowledging that a strategy is ideal for the people executing it isn’t the same as agreeing with that strategy.
In fact, the idiom “a perfect storm” refers to a disastrous situation caused by a combination of multiple problems. You wouldn’t argue that using that phrase means you support the disaster.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by web tech? I don’t know much about how matrix works
GIMP is really powerful, but goddamn its UX is abysmal, unfortunately
I’m flattered 😆
No, you didn’t lmao
Would you call them He if you found out?
Yes I would
if we were friends I might call them the way they want
You specifically said you would actively misgender them, unless they’re your friend, in which case you “might” not actively go out of your way to do so. That’s a dick move, simple as.
And no, you can’t pretend that answer isn’t real by adding “I would never interact with or see a trans person” because that’s not how life works.
Honestly, nothing much of value in that comment, just a long winded version of “labour=Tories=republicans=MAGA so Labour bad”
Despite how a lot of articles about this are worded, this isn’t just another tory-esque NHS cut. NHS England is an independent governing body for the NHS created by the Tories about a decade ago. It’s job was effectively to delegate responsibility for NHS management decisions away from the government.
So whether this ends up helping or harming the NHS will basically come down to how smoothly the important roles from NHS England can be covered by the civil service, and how well the health secretary is able to utilise the more direct control over the NHS that he’ll inherit.
Indeed, I’ve seen a lot of people thinking this is doctors/nurses/other hospital staff getting cut, rather than an arms-length administrative/bureaucratic body
So what you’re saying is that if you don’t know the particular person, you will actively go out of way to be an asshole to them, but if they’re someone you care about, then you’d pretend to respect trans people enough not to intentionally fuck with them.
Lovely.
Just because you don’t think there should be social characteristics associated with gender doesn’t mean that there aren’t
They’re pointing out the stupidity of your argument, since it depends on ignoring the fact that the remaining 5% exist, in the same way that classifying everything as those two elements requires ignoring the fact that the other 1% of matter exists
It’s not blocked because of the “Trump” bit though, right? It’s because it’s not a manifest V3 extension
Find hot Nicoles in your local Fediverse!
Well yeah, there was a deal on nuclear disarmament until Trump tore it up. Not surprising they’re not interested in going through all that again just so he can back out of it for a second time as soon as he wants to look tough.
In the British monarchy, the monarch (“the Crown”) and the person who is the current monarch are considered distinct “people” with their own separate possessions (i.e. King Charles as the Crown owns property separately to Charles Windsor the private citizen).
So these oaths are meant to be pledging loyalty to the Crown, in its role as the embodiment of the British state, as opposed to the king personally.
The commons library is a treasure trove of information about the UK’s fascinating and complex constitution, I’d strongly recommend giving it a read if you’re interested in this sort of stuff!
Commons Library: the Crown and the constitution
In particular, I’d recommend checking out The United Kingdom constitution – a mapping exercise, which is a document intended to be a reasonably thorough summary of the UK’s constitution and where it comes from. It’s ~300 pages so I wouldn’t recommend reading the whole thing, but it’s great as a reference for the parts you find interesting.
Jesus Christ man. All I said was “it’s possible there will be some form of peace treaty someday” and you’re acting like I shat in your cereal.
Stop being an arse.
Edit: and don’t call people mate before ranting at them. I’m not your friend.
Well that’s 20th century Europe for you
66% of wars end in some form of compromise (source), and it’s highly unlikely there’s a scenario where Ukraine causes the total collapse of the Russian government, or that the fighting just naturally dies down.
It’s all well and good to say “no peace with the bad guys” but that’s a position you’re taking because you don’t want to negotiate with Russia, not because doing so necessarily achieves the best outcome for Ukraine. “They’re mean so I won’t do any form of diplomacy” is, frankly, dogshit statecraft.
If you want to actually understand how wars do, and specifically the Ukraine war could actually end, I strongly recommend reading that CSIS report I referenced.
Oh no, a toggle switch! Whatever will we do?!