More strange and/or foul reactions

[Mik]

@bachophile said in More strange and/or foul reactions:

That’s it. no more a-whoring for me.

Pussies.

[jon-nyc]

Is it even real?

[Renauda]

[jon-nyc]

Apparently it’s just a misunderstanding. They seem to think Hamas is on the plane.

Some of the signs held by demonstrators read “Child killers have no place in Dagestan”

[jon-nyc]

$2Billion dollars. Maybe we’ll see a house committee investigate. lol.

[jon-nyc]

[Jolly]

Oh, I think Jared's program was doing better than most, before The Resident fucked it up

[jon-nyc]

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/youth-football-club-launches-investigation-after-child-refuses-to-play-against-jewish-team/

[George K]

In 3 ½ weeks we went from "You can't have hateful speech" to "Kill the Jews."

ETA:

"Remember 2016-2020 when leftists claimed Nazis were everywhere, under every rock, it was just a matter of time til they were all revealed?

After the 10/7 attacks in Israel, it turns out they were right."

[jon-nyc]

Makes you wonder if/when the MAGA crowd will realize that being anti-Hamas and Iran while being pro-Russia isn’t really a sustainable combination.

[Copper]

[Horace]

"Pro Russia" is a tribal strawman anyway, obviously.

[Renauda]

@Copper

The MAGA crowd is generally occasionally very well educated and well or even somewhat informed.

FIFY

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in More strange and/or foul reactions:

"Pro Russia" is a tribal strawman anyway, obviously.

Ok, replace with “support pro-Russia policies”. The point stands.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in More strange and/or foul reactions:

@Horace said in More strange and/or foul reactions:

"Pro Russia" is a tribal strawman anyway, obviously.

Ok, replace with “support pro-Russia policies”. The point stands.

It's not much of a point if the policy is intended to be pro-USA.

[jon-nyc]

That seems nonsensical. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt if you’d like to explain. Maybe I’m missing something.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in More strange and/or foul reactions:

That seems nonsensical. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt if you’d like to explain. Maybe I’m missing something.

You can be specific about the pro-Russia policies you're referring to. If their intent is to support the usa, with an incidental side effect of being advantageous to Russia as compared to an opposing policy, then a framing that the policy is pro-russia, would be rhetorically disingenuous.

[jon-nyc]

I conceded your point and changed ‘being pro-Russia’ with ‘supporting pro-Russia policies’. The former implies motive the latter just effect.

Again the point stands.

[Horace]

Your implications serve your technically standing point, but they are not a generally accepted interpretation of how that language works. If a policy drafted by a politician is said to be "pro-something or other", the intent will fairly be inferred. Your point stands, as long as we limit the audience to people who don't make the common assumptions that topple it. Fair enough.

[Renauda]

Okay.

Policies that serve or play into the interests of (insert name of country) that are detrimental to US ______ interests.

Now, move along.