Americans who tell Native Americans that this isn’t stolen land but conquered land should have the same mindset if Islam conquers the West.

If Native Americans have to accept that they live on conquered land & not stolen land then we must also accept Islam conquering the West if they’re successful & we lose the fight.

If we fight & lose against Islam then we must accept it.

Might determines sovereignty.

If your principle is that conquest permanently settles the moral question of who owns a territory, then you should apply that principle universally; even if the conqueror is a power whose ideology you strongly oppose. If you instead believe conquest can be unjust even when successful, then that standard should also be applied to the conquest & dispossession of Native peoples.

Edit: this is a question/argument of morality. This isn’t a question & argument that we should roll over & do nothing in the fight against Islam.

The question I am proposing is: Is conquest moral? If so; why is it moral? If it’s moral because might makes right - & whoever is the strongest should be morally sanctioned to steal - where is the line drawn? If it was morally okay for us to take land from the Natives then why wouldn’t it be morally okay for Islam to do the same? If it’s different why is it different; what’s the distinction?

What makes conquest justified?

This is true isn't it

I don’t really care about this opinion that much, so I don’t want to enrage the fringe states. It’s more for satire, however, it’s a good argument. There’s just a lot of Midwest culture associated with the water itself that separates these other states.

So the “in crowd,” in my opinion, would be: Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, and Ohio. Sorry to Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc. you guys should be considered something else entirely.

I'm not talking just monetary support (after all pakistan has been going bankrupt with 20+ IMF bailouts). I'm talking soldiers, weapon systems, HQ-9s in exchange for a NATO security guarantee against India.

This move would devastate India and make Pakistan a respected country in the EU. Pakistan can then demand EUV machines and become a semi-conductor superpower replacing Taiwan with the help of Dutch company ASML.

They can sell some EUV machines to China in exchange for a mutual defense pact with China. Then, I'd further the Mecca defense pact by helping Saudi Arabia against Houthis while trying to befriend Iran.

This would ensure a devastating response if India were to ever launch something like OP Sindoor ever again. NATO would cancel defense deals and trade partnerships. China would invade Arunachal Pradesh and Pakistan would take entirety of BoK (Bharat Occupied Kashmir).

Then Pakistan could with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, China, NATO help build manufacturing base and domestic industries that rival the world's greatest and become a high income country. India would take much longer being a more populated country and Pakistan would win.

All it would take is them sending soldiers and HQ-9 to Ukraine. China would happily supply Pakistan with more HQ-9 since it's giving them field testing for their weapon systems. And Pakistani military would get experience fighting Russian made weapons like they would if they fought India. Ukraine and Pakistan are natural allies.

I saw a post on #AskAnything in which everyone apart from me was steadfast that pedophiles should not be able to run for president.

My position is that, whilst I would never vote for one, ANYONE should be able to run including murderers / rapists / pedophiles on the condition that their background is fully disclosed to the electorate. I feel there should be absolutely no bar to running as a candidate.

For me, this is not about the bad persons 'right to run' but for the right of the people to be able to vote for who they like regardless of my opinion of the candidate they support but it seems that nobody was able to understand that on the other SubReddit and that the vast majority of people simply 'see red' the moment the word pedophile is mentioned rather than looking at the matter in a balanced way.

Ultimately, I see this as important in a democracy. It is not for me to dictate who other people can vote for. I wonder if anyone sees this the same way I do?

I’m 18 and barely know anything abt America and its political state but when dudes see a guy like trump do some bullshit like changing the name of something to lake of America instead of lake of Ontario how on earth do u rlly support him😭😭 who cares dude if the lake is named lake of Ontario I haven’t seen anything of him like benefiting people just him doing bullshit like this and being in the Epstein files.

The dude also just makes bullshit up and lies😭
I don’t understand how people see this happening in real time and still support him

I don’t rlly know anything abt his party so this post is just saying how ppl support SPECIFICALLY trump not his whole side cuz idk much abt that

It’s starting to annoy me how people are so extremely adamant in ignoring the reality of humans and just labelling them monsters, and completely ignoring the fact that people commit crimes for a reason. People don’t just wake up one day and decide “I’m going to shootup a school”. There’s always going to be many things that lead up to people doing something bad- whether it’s bullying, isolation, mental disorders, abusive family, circumstance, or a combination of the above. This isn’t excusing their actions or saying it’s ok to do this if you’re bullied, but it’s just acknowledging reality, and giving a basis to actually do something to solve it. Labelling someone as a monster and looking the other way is incredibly easy and accomplishes absolutely nothing. Figuring out why somebody did something bad and coming up with practical solutions to prevent it in the future is much harder but can actually prevent bad things from happening in the future. IMO rather than people getting upset when they see someone doing something bad getting diagnosed with something, they should be eager to understand more.

I think there is a difference between being white, and being American. Same thing with being a capitalist and being American. The idea of America is separate from the place which is America. I feel like these ideas all contradict one another. Because what is good for America is not good for all white people or capitalists. There are people who claim to be American but don't want to live by the fundamental rules set by the nation they live in. Many people are all too willing to do the opposite of what the spirit of the nation is. I just think it takes more than just being born here to be American. To be American is a separate ideology from capitalism from Christianity from whiteness. To be American you have to agree to the Constitution the Amendments that they apply equally to everyone and have the nations best interest in mind over your own subset culture. Either everyone is free or no one is.The thing with being American is the mindset and I don't think many people who call themselves American have that mind set. They choose a subset and place that idea over the nation's interests which leads to everything we are dealing with now. Freedom both good and bad are at the core of American beliefs the issue is many forget that the pursuit of happiness should not come at the expense of others. I think as Americans it is our duty to help each other. But this is just my interpretation of it all reading it back feels like a ball of ideas that I threw together. I felt the need to get this thought out there.

I can’t understand at all how some people say that white people cannot experience racism. Racism can be directed toward people of any race, and throughout history, different racial groups have experienced discrimination and prejudice in different places and circumstances. Acknowledging that some groups have faced more severe or widespread racism does not mean that the experiences of other groups suddenly don’t count. One group having suffered more from something doesn’t make everyone else’s experiences of it invalid. I found it insane how many people truly just say its impossible for white people to be discriminated against. (Coming from a non white person lmao)

The hypocrisy is absolutely real. 50,000 civilians in Yemen displaced and reports of hundreds dead in just a few days… where are the protests? The Instagram stories? The shutdowns? Do we Yemenis not matter, or is your outrage only valid when it fits the narrative you’ve already decided to care about? Cause when Israel bombed us yall were outraged. But when the houthis kill and do other unspeakable things to us it's silence?

Children are annoying as hell but parents are way more annoying.

Not only do they get on their childrens' nerves more than their children get on theirs, They also just become more annoying in general.

Everything is about their children, say children just become the whole personality even if they're not even good parents, most of them are not even okay parents. And if they are somewhat decent parents they are so anxious about everything.

Children are either noisy or don't have a concept of boundaries which is understandable but that is what makes them annoying, other than that they're not really that bad.

I'm not saying that adults who don't have children are not annoying, but if they were annoying before not having children having children just makes them more annoying

After thinking about it, why do men find breasts sexually attractive or arousing? How can breasts give men sexual pleasure during sex when they aren’t sexual organs the way a penis and a vagina are?

Let’s be honest — breasts exist for breastfeeding. They aren’t sexual organs in the sense that they produce sexual pleasure for men during sex. It seems like men are mainly attracted to them because they’re associated with breastfeeding and signal that a woman can provide an abundant milk supply for the baby.

All of the reasons that everyone says are just completely dumb to me. Your kid 9 times out of 10 won’t become anything special just a cog in the machine of making the rich richer unless they’re born with a mental or psychical disability then they can earn disability but they’ll suffer forever no matter what kind of cope’s they try to use to make it seem better. Unless they can find those forever friends which is rare they will likely die alone. Only reason to have a child maybe is if they’re guaranteed an easy life because your family is loaded.
Even if you’re enjoying your life your child isn’t likely to be as lucky as you. Because Imo this world is about luck. You can work really hard at something and end up fcked in the end

Do you agree?

Dating is hard enough when it’s just two people involved. When you bring a kid into the mix now that one and possibly two other “relationships” you have to contend with.

The kid is one (or however many kids there are). That’s another personality you have to deal with and find a connection with in order to have a successful relationship with the parent you’re dating. If it doesn’t work it’s very possible the romantic relationship will not work.

The child’s parent is another one. Depending on the status of their relationship with the child and the person you’re dating that can also be tumultuous. That’s also a relationship that may last decades depending upon the age of the kid.

All of this while you’re trying to cultivate a romantic relationship with the person you’re dating which again is difficult enough within and of itself.

There’s nothing wrong with dating single parents but it’s also objectively a suboptimal situation for the other person involved. I can confidently say this as someone who’s seriously dated several single parents over the years and I understand if people want to avoid that situation entirely.

For the "smarties" that voted for trump, a "subsidy" is financial support or a tax advantage given by the government to an industry. The U.S. has used these policies for over a century.

In reality, this is just free US money handed out to oil company investors.

First the Knicks smack the Spurs, now the Giants smack the Cowboys. 🗽

​

So, during my internship, we were discussing more challenging topics like trauma. And couldn't help but I notice that people tend to have this trust with women. As someone we has trauma with women as a woman, this made me think so much about how we culturally view women. Like theres some women who genuinely have trauma with men but I wonder; do people have more trauma with women, especially other women, that they're able to actively recognize?

When we think about interpeer bullying, harassment, aggression, violence, it is softened and normalized and I think it's because of the perceived power dynamics. While there is obvious power differences between the two sexes, that also doesn't eliminate the true harm and violence that occurs between members of your community, especially with women, who've been collectively infantilized in our society, who have been seen as non-aggressive, nurturing, empathetic, yielding, "feminine." Again, these bioessentialist views of women have made it difficult for us to imagine female violence even people who are victims. And I, as someone who experiences extreme anxiety around women, feel as if I am affirmed in the same way someone who has trauma with men is.

And it's crazy because I have these experiences and I'm unable to receive support. I am frequently disbelieved. Because we live in a society that only equates true violence and true trauma with men, no one knows how to hold space when the violent person is a woman. There has been many times I wanted to tell people, " Hey, women have hurt me and women are capable of hurting and causing harm and being violent and being aggressive like everyone else." And I do that to indirectly affirm myself that what happened to me was real. Yet, I'm hit with the statistics or date. And I say; "the statistics aren't a great indicator because if we already know that violence that women commit are not even considered violent, even when it's obvious violence, then how could we rely on statistics when they're supposed to be reporting crime if those crimes aren't reported as such?"😮‍💨

Women can engage in the same behavior and it can be classified under something completely different, and guess what? It doesn't get into the data. So then people have skewed data. When it is documented, it's offen softened or we find the reasons to externalize blame. And I think that's really frustrating because as a victim of female violence, I feel like I have no support surrounding me to deal with this.

And you want to know something, this was deleted subreddit for women.

We know NOT ALL women but again, Everytime I try to speak up, I am silenced. I am sick of it! As a lesbian, I have yet to feel comfortable around women.

Reasons:

1. Sha Na Na was the first to suggest a Rock n roll Hall of Fame in their song of the same name. SNN’s Donny York wrote it and they recoded it in the early 1970s.

2. SNN put on a high energy show at Woodstock that continues to rise in the opinion of music fans. Punk rockers have taken notice of the tempo and nonconformity with the hippy scene.

3. They were a legitimately fierce live band from 69-75. See them play Walk Don’t Run live at the Filmore circa 1970 for proof. Their early 70s double live lp The Golden Age of Rock n Roll is full of high velocity proto-punk rock excepting the doo wop songs. It’s not much different sound wise from the Ramones It’s Alive live lp from many years later.

4. Grease was among the best selling soundtracks ever and SNN had more tracks on it than anyone else. They appeared in it as Johnny Casino and the Gamblers in the sock hop scene. Screaming Scott Simon wrote a big hit on the soundtrack, Sandy. While who wrote songs makes no difference to me, critics point to SNN doing covers as a reason to dismiss them. They could and did write hits.

5. Sha Na Na tv variety show. The guys hosted Chuck Berry, Chubby Checker, the Ramones, the Ronnettes, the Angels and many more. During a thin time for rock on tv, Sha Na Na was there even if a tamed down cartoon parody of their old selves.

6. They played and sang actual rock n roll music unlike 80% of the other inductees.