NationStates

Galloism wrote:In honor of Ever Given’s historic accomplishments in blocking progress, I propose we rename it The McConnell.

Insaanistan wrote:Defense: “Chauvin was doing what he was trained to do.”

Cultural Posadism wrote:"He's not an unusually murderous cop! He's a normally murderous cop!"

Ifreann wrote:Travelling to America needs to come with a dangerous wildlife warning for the cops.

The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
So English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish people all have the same culture?

If that means we have to claim Farage y'all can fly a kite.

Ifreann wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Remember, letting people drink water is how you get voter fraud.

100% of voter fraud is committed by people who drink water.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

Vassenor wrote:Also I find it funny that the conclusion the report went with for its whitewash was "institutional racism isnt real, ethnic minorities are just lazy".

As if that wasn't a hilariously racist thing to say.

My favourite part is the bit where the mecha corgi rides a sentient giant teacup out of Thorpe Park all the way to London City and mauls the CEO of racism.

Yes we have both definitely read this report.

Eahland wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:I never understood why 'w' is a double-u. It should be a double-v.

I'd've thought you'd be down with the double-ewes.

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Kowani wrote:what a headline
Swiss army to start allowing female soldiers to wear women's underwear for the first time

The Swiss army is set to allow its female recruits to begin wearing women's underwear for the first time in an effort to attract more women to the armed forces.

Armasuisse, the Swiss armed forces' procurement organization, made the announcement on Wednesday noting that two sets of women's undergarments for warm and cold weather will be tested beginning next month, CNN reported.

Women soldiers within the Swiss armed forces are currently issued men's underwear, Armasuisse told the news outlet. [P]revious army equipment and uniforms were too little or not at all geared to the specific needs of women," an Armasuisse spokesperson said, according to CNN.

The trial rollout of women's underwear will be part of a larger effort to update the Swiss military uniforms that were originally designed in the 1980s, CNN noted.

"During the development phase, the ergonomics of women, among other things, were taken into account," Armasuisse said.

Earlier this month, on International Women's Day, the Swiss Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport vowed to make an effort to attract more women to military service, saying that it wanted to create a "new service for women" and encourage "the reconciliation of military service, work, education and family," according to CNN.

Men and women soldiers in the Swiss army will continue to wear the same uniform, according to the outlet, however, updates, such as adjustable waistbands will now be included.

To be fair, the special forces never wears underwear.

They are going commando.

Xerographica wrote:Your greatest desire is for there to be a snow wildcat, just like how there's a snow leopard. You're the town's mayor, and you're a vampire, so you're going to live forever, unless you get staked through the heart.

Nakena wrote:

Kilobugya wrote:As I said in another thread, the Senate is mostly a club of 50+ rich white men. That they start saying to teenage colored girls what they should and shouldn't wear is oppressive, and doing that in the name of "laïcité" or "la République" is disgusting. But they do that for a single purpose: to move the public debate on questions of Islam and immigration, where the right feel they can attract votes, instead of questions of economics, healthcare, education, social welfare where their proposals are vastly rejected by voters.

Seems like certain american ideas are starting to gain a hold in france, too.

Electrum wrote:Rosalind Corby, WA ambassador: "Fellow delegates, thank you for waiting. We have rewritten this resolution after a slight delay. You see, I was giving a practical demonstration on ski jumping, because you know, I won several medals at the Olympics for nordic combined, when I accidentally sneezed mid-air, mid-jump, lost focus and crashed into a pine tree. I was then in a coma but now I'm back! I'm feeling a bit woozy so tell me if I haven't coherently addressed your feedback fellow ambassadors."

Neanderthaland wrote:

Nousa wrote:Chauvin did nothing wrong and I look forward to him getting off on his charges.

That would be a highly inappropriate thing to do in a courtroom.

Kubra wrote:

The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:It would be better to give food or usable items like clothes. As for drugs? Well, they are homeless and hungry, aren't they? They shouldn't be buying drugs when they could be buying things that will keep them alive until help can reach them.

Well uh dunno how to tell you this, drugs are a hell of a drug. It's only fear of the shakes that keeps me from full blown alcoholism, lemme tell ya.

Katganistan wrote:Would someone blindly defending Chauvin be a Chauvinist?

Blaatschapen wrote:I am not trusting random street pharmacists.

I take the pills and shove them in their mouth.

South Reinkalistan wrote:

Atheris wrote:Yes, it should. Free speech is one of, if not the most important, tenets of free society.

au contraire

>bursts into room
>"free speech is gay"
>refuses to elaborate further
>leaves

Mannixa Prime wrote:

Kowani wrote:is this a joke

right back at you

And you wonder why capitalism rules supreme

Fake leftists like your self

Senkaku wrote:

Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana wrote:America, in its national identity itself since its founding has assimilationist and colorblindness, not ethnic nationalism in any way.

This is a myth that the WASPs have tried sooooo hard to convince everyone of, but it simply isn't the case. Black and Indigenous people were treated as an underclass/alien other since the literal inception of the Anglo-American state, and although some immigrant groups have been assimilated into whiteness and American culture has been influenced by groups that haven't assimilated into whiteness, ethnic WASPs have essentially created a multi-ethnic empire with a color-based hierarchical caste system, and have allied with or co-opted some groups while subjugating others. Suggesting that a country whose entire economy was initially founded on race-based chattel slavery and whose realization of great power status was enabled by its subjugation of other ethnic groups (in the American West, in the Caribbean, in E. Asia) has been "assimilationist and colorblind since its founding" is possibly the most batshit thing I've read in my life.

Luminesa wrote:

East Blepia wrote:Salus Maior, if I may go off on a tangent, why do you describe yourself as a 'Traditionalist Catholic', 'distributist', &c., and campaign so fervently against racialism? You are a reactionary, which in and of itself pits you sharply against the status quo. You support humane economic policies and oppose usury. You must have had your fair share of run-ins with the system and its proponents. In your mind, is a normative Alt-Right society (i.e. one that is racialist, yes, but also traditionalist, distributist/socialist/similar, and which frames itself in opposition to the society that currently exists) really worse than the status quo, and worse enough to justify fervent opposition to racialism? You must consider that the people pushing degeneracy on our youth, driving wages lower and prices higher and the like are not hooting and hollering and stomping their feet in opposition to 'Traditionalist Catholicism'. They have said nary a word about 'distributism'. Their focus is on racialism, on Neo-Nazi ideology, &c., which must surely mean they see it as the pre-eminent threat. I am not trying to convince you of racialism - that is an entirely separate argument, though one I am prepared and willing to enter into if you wish - I am asking you why you are so opposed to it.

Because GK Chesterton wasn’t a racialist and Salus isn’t a flipping white-nat LARPing as a Catholic. Knock it off. You bring the Devil before my fellow Catholics like a cowardly little snake and I will show you what it means to fear God. To fear God is to know that His Gospel belongs to ALL children and His kingdom is for ALL people, and you anger Him by trying to lure Salus into darkness. You know NOTHING about actual traditional Catholicism and you bring poison among us. Go back to Stormfront and bring your white sheet and red armband with you.

Pan-Asiatic States wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:And I can call myself a god too.

ok but it's not in your name, since your name is Reformed American Republic

Greater Miami Shores wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
Ah yes, Prince Charles... the 'Red Prince' whose revolutionary march down Whitehall to set up the barricades to initiate the London Commune has been an inspiration to all Marxist-Leninists seeking to overthrow capitalism in the name of the urban proletariat. None of us can forget those amazing days.


What are you smoking?

lol, I am not smoking anything, I am the only person in the world who believes Bill Clinton when he said he did not inhale, because I did not inhale either. I am strongly against any illegal drug use.

...

Dowaesk wrote:Oh no. Black man throwing away the trash. GET HIM. THE FATE IF THE WORLD DEPENDS ON IT.
*What about the white man?
Forget him. A black man throwing away trash. Now das a bigger crime.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

Luminesa wrote:Because GK Chesterton wasn’t a racialist and Salus isn’t a flipping white-nat LARPing as a Catholic. Knock it off. You bring the Devil before my fellow Catholics like a cowardly little snake and I will show you what it means to fear God. To fear God is to know that His Gospel belongs to ALL children and His kingdom is for ALL people, and you anger Him by trying to lure Salus into darkness. You know NOTHING about actual traditional Catholicism and you bring poison among us. Go back to Stormfront and bring your white sheet and red armband with you.

Angry Lumi is based and crosspilled.

The Archregimancy wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:
You like the idea of an 18 year old boy romancing his 13 year old "niece" ?

The number of weird, slightly nasty misrepresentations you've been advancing in this thread.... Nor is this the first death thread that you've done this sort of thing in. It's almost as if you enjoy hanging around these threads just so you can make as many posts as possible that are ever so slightly unpleasant, sneeringly twisting situations into the most negative interpretation possible, and deploying snide winking smilies in the process, while falling just that little bit short of breaking the site rules.

You must be such fun at parties.

Anyway, in this particular case:

1) While Prince Philip and the future Queen were first formally introduced when she was 13, Philip had no romantic interest in her at the time, and didn't set out to pursue her. The Queen says that she fell in love with him, and she started writing him letters; but he didn't set out to 'romance' her - or even encourage her - for some years afterwards, not least because her parents were unsure about Philip's suitability. It seems that the relationship didn't really advance until 1943, at which point Princess Elizabeth was 17. They didn't get engaged until she was 21, which was by no means unusual in the 1940s (or even into the 60s).

2) They're third cousins (or at best second cousins once removed). The relationship was never constructed or considered as an uncle/niece one.

It would be fair to note that Philip's own uncle Lord Mountbatten played a key role in encouraging - arguably deliberately manipulating - the relationship between Philip and the future Queen, for example arranging for his nephew to chaperone the princess at that 1939 first formal meeting, and then likely intervening to get Philip a British naval posting when his sister Princess Alice (Philip's mother) told him some months later that she'd convinced her son to join her in resettling in Greece (hardly the actions of a young man deliberately 'romancing' his teenaged distant cousin). That's all fair.

But then you're never particularly interested in being fair; only snide.


And...

The Alma Mater wrote:Otoh, his family was mostly nazis (or married to nazis) and he himself got along splendidly with Hitler, saluting him numerous times in the wellknown manner.

And here you go again; and at this point you're just confused. Prince Philip's sisters all married Germans, including at least one Nazi Party and SS leader - which is why none of them were invited to his wedding. To the best of my knowledge, however, the teenaged Philip himself never met Hitler, nor saluted Hitler. The 16 year old Philip did march behind his sister's coffin when she was buried in Darmstadt in 1937, and walked alongside soldiers of the National Socialist regime during the funeral; but that was a family event, and he's never been shown - or accused of - making the Hitler salute at the time. His wife's uncle Edward VIII/the Duke of Windsor was, of course, a different matter.


There's plenty to criticise Philip for, but if we must criticise him, perhaps we should focus on criticising him for things he actually did.


Edit:

The Alma Mater wrote:Actually there are plenty of suspicions that he DID pass on state secrets to the nazis.
But since there is very little proof we can - ironically - also attribute those suspicions to good old British racism against "the foreigner"

That's at least the second time you've posted this in the thread.

Either produce some actual evidence for these 'suspicions', or perhaps drop your Fox News-like 'some say' tactics.

Atheris wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:
What shall we do with the drunken horsey?
What shall we do with the drunken horsey?
What shall we do with the drunken horsey, early in the morning!

Neigh-hay and up she rises,
Neigh-hay and up she rises,
Neigh-hay and up she rises,
Ear-lie in the morning!

Neanderthaland wrote:I really enjoyed that part of Revelations where Jesus and Fenrir killed each other in single combat.