russia and europe will exhaust themselves

then china will "discover" an old map that "proves" all of siberia used to be chinese territory, like the bullshit about the filipino islands china is stealing, or the territory it is stealing from india, vietnam, etc... all chinese neighbors are victims of han imperialism

there are 10 chinese for every 1 russian. the chinese economy is soaring while russia is tanking. china needs resources badly. every single russian hinterland town has more chinese than russians already. russia's military simply won't keep up, but military won't even matter. china will take siberia the way the usa took texas from mexico: enough population shift, and it becomes a fait accompli

congratualtions putin: you degraded georgia and ukraine, your slavic brothers, and ignored the far east. russia is the most obvious territory for china to take, not the tiny bits in other directions. despite the historical hesitation from cold war era aggression between the two, siberia will become chinese in this century

all hail outer manchuria, qing glorious chinese state reclaimed from barbarian eluosi ren!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

world governments to USA in public: "we are outraged about the NSA!"

world governments to USA in private: "everything is coming along nicely"

world governments, we-hate-USA-edition, in public: "we are outraged about the NSA!"

world governments, we-hate-USA-edition, in private: "so how soon can we have NSA style abuses to add to our extensive portfolio of abuses?"

americans should complain loudly about the NSA

but the rest of the world, you should clean up your own fucking house, your government is feeding you manufactured NSA outrage as a distraction while it does the same

why do we have unions?

because there is no balance of power in the workplace without them, and workers will be impoverished without that balance

this is not a theoretical assertion on my point, this is american history: the gilded age and robber barons, the birth of the labor movement because the working class was being fucking shafted

look at jobs without unions benefits, and they pay shit, with shit benefits. that's what you want?

unions indeed introduce a whole new spectrum of abuses, that is true

but i assert to you that whole spectrum of abuses is smaller than the bullshit the plutocrats got away with a hundred years ago, and want to get away with again, because morons like you believe "right to work" propaganda and lies in your ignorance of american history. you want us to learn the painful labor lessons all over again

i never understood conservatives who argue against unions and universal healthcare. unless you are a rich asshole. otherwise, you're basically arguing for your own impoverishment, and are too stupid to understand that. plutocrats call you "useful fools." they buy media channels to keep you adequately outraged over moronic half lies and red herring topics. fed bullshit, kept in the dark, unleashed on the voting booths, outraged over simpleton depictions of complex topics, voting happily for those who work hard to make you poorer so a few of their rich friends can make yet more than they deserve, weakening the american economy overall

you made your argument well

yes, the american way of thinking seems to be to desire everyone be a well rounded scholar in a wide range of topics

as an american, this idealistic to an extreme

the usa regularly fails legions of young students. so we're nowhere near the grandiose goal you have pegged as desirable. but, in actuality, is highly improbable except for a tiny fraction of students. such that you're probably failing more students in worse ways than finland or china

perhaps the usa should learn from finland and china, and stop trying to turn everyone into a renaissance man, and teach a fucking skill. yes, some people can and should become great scholars. but others would benefit much greater if you taught them how to just fix a fucking car, how to install electrical wiring, or how an HVAC unit works

you refer to the notion of a flexible society. but a flexible nimble tiny subset has always been the norm, and always will be. the rest get set in their ways, always were set in their ways, and always will be set in their ways, and never had, have, or want to have, the ability to be more flexible

you refer to jobs being made redundant. i don't believe plumber, carpenter, or surveyor have gone out of style since the days of the roman empire, and i don't see robots mixing and hauling concrete at the work site more cheaply any time soon

a skill someone someone can use to fund stable secure lower middle to middle class lives, rather than being english majors asking "do you want fries with that?" seems like a much more laudable and practical goal than what you have outlined

maybe then the son or daughter of the ably and stably employed machinist, raised in a modest, secure household, can become a great poet

i'm sorry, i didn't read any of that

this is tedious and stupid

the actual fucking topic is a very simple concept to grasp

and i'm just not interested in now in changing the topic and sitting with you and patiently arguing about how awesome and totally cool it is that you stalk me online because of this moronic argument

socially retarded thread over

oh i'm sorry

this is a terribly complex and deep concept that requires extensive hand holding

the popularity of DICSS creates the impression that github is the domain of immature men and teenaged boys, indicating a toxic experience, throughout, for anyone who isn't immature or male

am i piercing the veil of this horribly complicated and thoroughly mystifying idea for you?

good luck! you can do it! you can get it someday, i believe in you!

yes, in answer to your question, stalking is the next step in the continuum of aggressive asocial bullshit no one wants to deal with

the topic, if you would kindly read the fucking summary above us, is that DICSS creates a toxic experience for anyone who isn't immature or male

but thanks for that list of strawmen

are trying to tell me is that alcohol consumption does not increase violent behavior?

i'm not sure what your problem is, but if you're trying to deny a simple truth, you obviously have some sort of a problem

i drink. i'm not a prude or a fearmonger. but i'm not a moron either: enjoy alcohol. in moderation. that's the whole point of drinking: escape your worries for a bit, relax with friends

but to make believe alcohol doesn't impair, judgment, morality, or reasoning (when that's the whole fucking point)?

if you want to ignore what happens in every fucking bar every fucking weekend (bad behavior and often violence)?

then you might be a dangerous douchebag

does person {X} enjoy dick jokes?

then person {X} is probably an immature douchebag

any questions?

did i properly parse the deep and complex logic here for you?

i'm sorry, it's just not that complicated

nobody wants to hear dick jokes except socially immature douchebags

it's just not complicated

this is not deep complex philosophy here, oh exalted logician

although, if you are a socially feeble individual, the topic might appear deep and complex. but it appears this way to some only because they possess immature social faculties. teenage boys. adults with social disorders

and there you are

you keep using the term "strawman" like someone who thinks it is a witty rhetorical convention to constantly throw that out there, when you haven't even tried to understand the simple fucking point of what someone said. you can't just knee jerk parrot "strawman" "strawman" "strawman" all the time in response to an argument and not look like an idiot. it just makes you look like a simpleton who doesn't even know what a strawman is

if you actually thought about what i was writing, it would lead you to realize there isn't a strawman in anything i said

what i am doing is called insulting you. because i don't respect you. you're commenting on a topic you don't understand

the simple fucking point:

nobody wants to hear dick jokes except immature douchebags

it's really not a complicated, deep realization

unless... you happen to be socially immature

and there you are

the /s denotes sarcasm

do you not understand this common internet convention or are you not familiar with the concept of sarcasm?

how old are you?

your wife is trying to sell stupid (are you buying?) if she is suggesting that aggressively sexual bombast doesn't put women off

i'm not talking about bedroom sweet nothings with your dearest

i'm not talking about some cool guy a woman is trying to impress so she puts up with a certain amount of bullshit sniping from random male douchebags around nearby

i'm talking about a social setting of a large anonymous group of obviously socially immature males you don't know, all cackling with moronic glee

identify yourself as a woman, and you will get hounded and harassed, guaranteed. no woman has time for that shit. ask your wife if that's an absurd suggestion

dude: part of if not most of "that type of person" exists in the area of the brain you just dimmed with alcohol

inhibit the prefrontal cortex and we're all just powerful, violent monkeys underneath. there's no such thing as inhibiting executive function and moral, ethical, benevolent behavior still exist by magic

you can't blot out the part of the brain that governs morality and depend upon moral reasoning to still function

have you ever been around a room of drunk people in your life? more booze = more violence. you're really going to try to suggest otherwise?

we all need a release in life, but don't try to sell stupid and say there's no increase in violent behavior associated with alcohol use. that's just a profoundly willfully ignorant thing to say