Oh man you're going to love revisiting this post this time next year. Smile for the screenshot!
TheOctonaut
joined 1 year ago
He's a WWE Hall of Famer. I would not be surprised if he was blading.
So just to be clear, because there is a situation where literal fascists might win (which you believe is bad... right?), you feel aggrieved at the not-actual-fascists for this scenario arising. Which is understandable! As a person in a country that is a real democratic republic, I would hate for the less-bad option to be able hold my vote hostage or be punished for a third party vote.
But to follow the logic then that as a result you are motivated to let literal fascists win (which is... bad?)...
To what end? To see the establishment DNC face another humiliation, which will make you feel very vindicated for 3 months... before an actual fascist assumes more power than any American president has ever had before?.. To destroy the capitalist American empire with the expectation that the American people will forget 100 years of propaganda and suddenly realise collectivism is the way to go?
The issue is taking a broad concept and making it mean a very specific one instead.
(Please note I am an atheist that lived for years in a "Muslim country". I don't actually agree with any of the below, but understanding what words are intended to mean is important when you are surrounded by their use in 2 different contexts).
Fatwa: a Sharia law ruling by an imam
Fatwa (western): a ruling by an imam that a person is not protected by the law and therefore a target for assassination
Hijab: men and women of Islam should maintain a sense of visual propriety in order to avoid devaluing what can be seen in private.
Hijab (western): that cloth Islamic women wear on their head.
Jihad: the righteous struggles that each human faces to choose a difficult path for good reasons.
Jihad (western): a holy war of aggression against infidels
As opposed to the person with diametrically opposite views to you, yes.
These are not new laws. They are "guidelines" to the old ones. DemocracyWatch and one activist are the ones panicking. The article itself is at least balanced enough to have a voice that pretty explicitly says nothing has changed and this is just the usual theatre.
That's the crux of it. This repeated desire to make scary headlines out of political theatre when both sides play political pretend - that one of these days the Mongolian representatives will show up to Taiwan's parliament; that China doesn't recognise Taiwan when as you said they literally do every day. All to be forgotten in 6 months when none of it comes true but by then there'll be another story to replace it. Not only that but you're not even the target audience - it's for American readers, who need to be reminded that intervening in a civil war on the other side of the planet is Good and Freedom and Worthy.
Your suggestion that that is the "modern position of Taiwan" fails to mention that that is the position of one political party that's had power for less than a decade and whose leader got 6.5% more than a party with a different view back in January.
I am sure you worry about your safety - I would suggest that being told you are a pawn in a geopolitical game for a dying empire should be pretty scary.
The citizens of the world's exceptionalist democracy when the government tyranny their guns are supposed to be for don't represent them:
Loads more content and still nothing to do after 2 hours