Those are multiplayer games. Totally different.

Here’s the ACTUAL definition of racism:

“prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”

Please get out of here with that “Only people in the dominant group can be racist” mumbo jumbo. That may be the more typical case, but it’s not the only one. You (and the author of the sociology textbook you quoted) are EXACTLY the type of people OP was talking about, and that’s why you’re being downvoted here.

Exactly. One in every six Wehrmacht troops fighting on D-Day was a non-German, many of which were prisoners who’d been forced to fight for the Nazis. You might actually be pissing on the grave of a Korean POW who’d been shipped to the German frontlines by their Japanese captors.

Source: https://militaryhistorynow.com/2014/06/02/germanys-foreign-volunteers-helped-man-the-atlantic-wall/

“In one more memorable encounter, members of the American 101st Airborne stumbled upon a group of surrendering Asiatic troops in German uniforms. Despite repeated attempts, Allied interrogators were unable to communicate with their curious Wehrmacht prisoners. Only later was it discovered that the soldiers originally hailed from Korea and had absolutely no interest in fighting for the Third Reich. How they ended up in German uniform is one of the Second World War’s most outlandish sagas.”

Only on Lemmy could “pissing on the graves of child soldiers isn’t cool” be a controversial take.

Maybe you missed the point of my comment. I agree with you that Confederate statues erected during the civil rights movement are an affront to everything we stand for as a nation. I agree that they should be torn down wherever they exist.

I also don’t understand what any of that has to do with a photo of unmarked Confederate graves. Or how it would in any way justify pissing on them.

Would you include literal child soldiers who had no idea slavery was a cause of the war in that “slaver scum” category?

https://youtu.be/IBMcYCb9NDA

If you watch that video, you can hear from someone who fought in the 26th Virginia Cavalry. Towards the end of the video, he celebrates the end of slavery, and blames the politicians for bringing them into the war. Many of the folks buried in these cemeteries were uneducated, rural children who only knew they were “defending their homeland from invasion”.

Do we really need to piss on their graves?

Take a few minutes to hear from a man who fought in the Civil War as a 16 year old boy for the 26th Virginia Cavalry.

https://youtu.be/IBMcYCb9NDA

He wasn’t old enough or educated enough to even realize slavery was one of the causes of the war. At the end of the video he blames the wealthy/politicians for getting them into it, and celebrates the end of slavery.

I don’t see any statues in this photo. Nobody here is talking about celebrating the Confederate soldiers, only suggesting that their graves shouldn’t be pissed on.

Thanks for reminding me of yet another reason why Star Trek: Discovery is not canon.

Congratulations! You just fell for the “Genetic Fallacy”, one of the more common Logical Fallacies. Please do some research and try to do better in the future.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Let’s just say that, hypothetically, the OP didn’t hold a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli viewpoint. In that case, would they have to lie and add those disclaimers in order to be “well mannered”?

My point is that anyone should be able to ask a simple question about why South Africa are the ones filing this case at the ICJ. It shouldn’t matter what their overarching beliefs are, nor should they be required to submit their liberal bona fides before they are allowed ask the question.

That’s not good manners, that’s an echo chamber.

Only on Lemmy would you need to add all of those disclaimers before asking a legitimate question.

I mean… even the Harvard Crimson has been posting op-eds from folks on the Academic Integrity Committee and student government calling for her resignation.

She fucked around (50+ instances of plagiarism) and found out (forced to resign).

Isn’t this a pretty standard practice across the world? If someone has extensive ties to and/or sympathies for a specific regime, they’ll be more susceptible to coercion and compromise by that regime. Why purposely put them in the place where they are most likely to be coerced and/or compromised?

You have to weigh the benefit (their familiarity with local perspectives and customs) against the cost (increased risk of counter-intel failures).

There’s a reason Starfleet sends Captain Picard far away to the Romulan border when the Borg are attacking Earth. Or am I missing something?

There are only five sentences of text on that page, with the last one explaining that this sort of marriage was not common at all. Where did you get the idea that the textbook is suggesting that this was the norm?

There’s an amazing alternate timeline somewhere where Jared Kushner and Hunter Biden are cellmates in a Federal Prison somewhere, and nobody can question whether the DOJ is politicized because folks from both sides frequently go to jail when they commit crimes.

Please don’t put words in my mouth, or assume that I’m a conservative. Personally, I don’t see how a president could be impeached for something he did as a Vice President, no matter what past transgressions the Republicans end up finding related to Hunter Biden.

I wasn’t suggesting that Clarence Thomas not recuse himself because his wife wasn’t the judge, I just didn’t understand how her involvement in the insurrection had anything to do with a court case about interpreting the 14th amendment. And I’ve changed my mind on the recusal question after reading some of the good faith replies folks were nice enough to post.

Fair enough, you convinced me. I was originally only thinking of this as a limited case regarding the 14th amendment. But if the supreme Court rules against Trump in this case, they’d be ruling that there was an insurrection, which could open his wife up to legal liability on that front. Based on that new understanding, I’d agree that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself.

Would this ruling in any way affect his wife? She hadn’t sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, nor is she running for office. So how exactly is she relevant to a case about the 14th amendment?

I had no idea. I use SponsorBlock to avoid seeing sponsored segments like that one. Thanks for the heads-up.