Belopolye

That's a social credit score for businesses, not individuals.

It's weird being a 90s/2000s anti-war, anti-globalization, and pro-labor Democrat in a 2025 world.

It's a simple question in my eyes.

Do people indigenous to a land have the right to defend their lives and property from a foreign, occupying force with violence, if necessary?

It's a shame that one's answer to this question is entirely dependent upon a bronze-age claim.

I've followed The Cradle for a couple of years. For what it's worth I've been able to corroborate much of what is published against other sources, and I believe it's entirely funded by donations.

Rather biased against NATO and Israel, but I suppose that could be a good or bad thing depending on one's perspective.

>Human breast milk is very bitter

Aggressively incorrect.

I believe it was Germany's constitutional court, which given the experience of East Germany is understandable.

The boomers ate the seed corn.

You mean to tell me the dirt ISN'T magic?

My grandfather was tenured, published voraciously up until he retired at 73, and was sorely disappointed when I chose not to follow in his footsteps and go into academia. Why? Primarily because I had to hear him gripe about how poorly the school administration treated him and his colleagues, culminating in him having to sue the university several times for the same reasons (and him winning every time in arbitration- he basically tripled his retirement savings).

I have a lot of respect for academics, but the culture around the administration of higher learning is putrid.

No fellow citizen- as long as it's in the name of Liberal Democracy and the Open Society™, the means in question are rather ephemeral.

My wife enjoys telling the story from her time living in the Hague of watching drunk girls in mini skirts all attempting to ride side-by-side to keep each other upright, and...somehow managing to do it.

"Protectionism for me, but not for thee."

I don't think there can be a resolution on a fundamental level, unless you count some therapeutic attempt at "we're going to pretend like we can grasp truth for the sake of convenience, or because the alternative is too uncomfortable" as a resolution.

The consequence of what it means is that we can't have any justified claims or knowledge at all. If you can't even count on the law of identity you've lost all intelligibility.

Alternatively, objective truth does exist and humans can comprehend it, and the issue of truth versus the development of how we come to understand it is a semantic one (I rather like the distinction between historie and geschichte in German).

To my mind, where we've gone wrong is that we began by assuming transcendentals, holding certain axiomatic, a priori metaphysical assumptions that make the scientific method possible, and then turned around and denied that transcendentals exist in the first place- undercutting the foundation rather than really questioning our tooling or our capacity to understand the data.

All you've accomplished here is to repackage the tired "there are no absolute truths" meme

>"I think the majority of these people joined to uphold law and order or to protect all people in-general"

What delectable naivete.