"Remember, Na-Zi means National SOCIALIST, and that's that fascism is."
Remember, the Nazis literally called themselves socialists to fool stupid people, and you also don't know what either socialism or fascism is if you think one is a type of the other.
He wasn't a Nazi but George Washington did a genocide and was named "Town Killer" for it. And before someone points out that was his father, no, his father (who was also named George) ALSO did a genocide and was called the same thing for the same reason.
The U.S. was created out of the Enlightenment which rejected religion as being simply politics but with a mystical angle to fool the proles.
Nice one! Mar-a-Lago: where corruption is a sport.
"The US and the rest of the West as well as Russia are ruled by a set of ethics that have grown out of Christianity..."
False, but also irrelevant. Christian ethics have grown out of culture, so even if what you claim is true, the "Christianity" part can be entirely factored out.
That is unless you believe the absurd claims of Christianity, then you aren't even qualified to have the conversation.
"...why else do we regard human sacrifice and child abandonment as unacceptable?"
Indeed! Why else? You, in fact, are NOT qualified to have the conversation.
"There's a very legitimate argument that our present problems come from the fact that there is no overarching ethical structure that everyone will accept as the basis for decisions."
Except that there is, and it is extremist Christians who threaten it.
"In that context the commitment of Islamic countries to Islam is as reasonable. "
And what a context it is!
Leave Christian extremists in power long enough and the US will end the same way. It's not what the religion is, it's who the people are.
Neither of these things is true, but instead is Republican messaging toward these candidates. By "widely perceived" you mean what ignorant Republican voters think.
When will it improve? And chiropractic is healthcare advice?
Near as I can tell (I'm a Mac user), MS keeps business people on it by integrating their apps together. This is a godsend to the C-Suite who have other things to dork around with than their computer. Office contains just about anything they want to use. They do not know anything else and they do not want to know anything else.
I periodically have runins with Office on a Mac because the management really likes bullet points and needs to lift them from our docs lest they be forced to think for themselves. Their idea of a Pooperpoint window means a bloody mess of smaller and smaller type several layers deep (populated by bullet points) or with some diagram contains several different kinds of arrows. They feel this helps organize their thoughts. However, a well-constructed Pooperpoint slide deck can be done, it requires one do more than know Pooperpoint. Organizing one's thoughts so others can understand the flow is not easy. Pooperpoint gives the management the idea all they need is to slap bulletpoints and arrows on slides and Presto, Instant Pudding. If you go more than two layers deep in bullet points, your audience is lost. And only a sparse few on a window enough to guide your talk over. If you are using Pooperpoint for something else, you might want to consider using something else.
The rest of the apps to me seem like garbage, including the mechanics of Pooperpoint. I'm happy doing documents in Latex including pictures and diagrams. Word is just too painful, but requires no thinking as long as your formatting is simple. But then I only write math and logic and am not about to spend days poking symbols into fucking Word. Doing slide decks is then easy for Latex (using the Beamer package). I can just cut and paste from my other documents. Latex (and Beamer) makes making whizzy things in slide decks hard, but then whizzy things should not be in slide decks.
MacOS has its own barriers to calling itself a professional operating system. A good part of my job is forcing it to conform to basic enterprise system management practices.
NT existed when IBM brought out at least two major versions of OS/2 without such features while NT had them, so... No.
Calling them names and leveling false accusations at them is kind of the exact opposite of ignoring them in peace. Unless that's what brings you peace, in which case you're the mentally ill fuckup in that equation.
Demanding that people who are different from you to explain themselves to your satisfaction before you're willing to leave them the hell alone is peak conservative asshole.
I can manufacture outrageous events from my imagination and then extrapolate that fiction into a nation-wide systemic problem too!
Kiss your keyboard goodbye!
