Seattle, Portland, Atlanta and Denver famously being uninhabited wasteland right?

“Inspired word of God” differs by denomination though right?

I could be wrong, but I thought some viewed it as the exact word of God, others as the word of God as interpreted by the prophets

Counterpoint: London.

It’s easy to complain, with it being £2.80/$3.70 for a single zone peak single, the frequent strikes, the noise, etc. but the trains are at worst every 5 minutes or so, they have the most frequent rail service in the world (Victoria Line), they’re constantly making improvements (Elizabeth Line, Battersea extension), it has fairly good coverage (when including national rail for south London), overnight service, and the busses are absolutely amazing.

Is it on par with Seoul & Singapore? No. But it’s certainly significantly better than most cities worldwide.

Or they just don’t know if they’ll want to raise children later…

Sure you could say they should adopt, but they may see some value in the experience of supporting their partner as they go through childbirth in forming a bond to the child.

The flags are the nationalities, he gave germany as an answer

that’s the joke

Same energy as “how can you claim to be tolerant if you don’t tolerate fascism”

I went to four different cities in China and at least a significant proportion of people seemed very selfish and out for themselves across the board, I’m not going to say never but it’s definitely at the bottom of my list of places to return to.

I don’t think it’s ok.

I think it’s not the state’s job to dictate whether people can do it. I have the exact same opinion for cheating.

Yeah nah.

People (normal people) like having their messages, facebook comments, whatever else coming up somewhere even more accessible than their phone in their pocket.

It depends how you define “racial hate” and how you define mental or social harm. I also do mean social harm, not societal, meaning to catch things like sunset communities (ie restricting where people can live, or where they can go), rather than “society is worse off because of people’s opinions.”

Again, in my opinion, it depends on intent. If you make a post on your blog with 200 followers saying “I’m tired of X race moving to my city,” I don’t think that should be illegal, even if it is disgusting behaviour. If you post it to (eg) a community group for those people, I’d say it should be illegal.

That said, I’m very liberal on policing, so believe that the state shouldn’t be responsible for policing morality, which people may not like when they realise it involves making things that are pretty much objectively immoral legal, regardless of what they are.

I would say intent matters and while it’s impossible to truly determine it, we still have a distinction for murder/manslaughter and negligence.

If a politician lies or hides something for personal gain, that should be illegal, but there’s so much stuff the state does where it’s best if the general public don’t know, public order would probably break down pretty quickly otherwise.

Same with racial hate. If it’s just stating an opinion, fine, I probably don’t agree but go ahead. If you’re actively trying to harm (mentally, economically, socially or physically) that group, or inciting others to do the same, then that’s not fine.

Everyone has a different definition, but yeah generally free speech in an ideal sense extends to just before you start causing what a reasonable person would concern harm to someone.

I agree that authoritarian governments’ versions of events usually vary from misleading to downright false, but I used a direct quotation from the article linked in the post, so if you have issues with the veracity then take it up with the post author or Wikipedia editors.

I haven’t disputed the indiscriminate slaughter post-insurgency, or that there were some instances of it before the insurgency, it’s just that it wasn’t a direct causation, and if you have time in the title to specify cause and effect, then you should do the most direct cause and most direct effect, not the one which makes your favoured group look the most innocent.

Taken directly from the linked article:

A general strike was later organized by the Workers’ Party of South Korea (WPSK) from February to March 1948. The WPSK launched an insurgency in April 1948, attacking police and Northwest Youth League members stationed on Jeju who had been mobilized to suppress the protests by force.[1]: 166–167 [6] The First Republic of Korea under President Syngman Rhee escalated the suppression of the uprising from August 1948, declaring martial law in November and beginning an “eradication campaign” against rebel forces in the rural areas of Jeju in March 1949, defeating them within two months. This resulting campaign has led to the event being called the Jeju massacre.

The escalation by the government came in August, after the insurgency had been launched, and I don’t think it’s up for debate that after this point the government forces were slaughtering indiscriminately.

Thanks once again for proving my point that you’re being disingenuous, in this case by incorrectly representing the timeline, when once again the facts are on your side and you don’t need to make an unjustified slaughter of a country’s own people look any less justified.

I haven’t once defended Rhee Syngman, all I’ve done is say you make yourselves look untrustworthy and suspicious by misrepresenting the truth, even when you don’t need to.

“for the crime of organising a general strike”

It wasn’t for the general strike, it was following violence against the regime who tried to suppress the general strike.

Once again, the violence was completely excusable given the circumstances, but to say that the regime’s actions were even mostly due to a simple general strike is incredibly disingenuous.

I’m not looking to villify the workers, I’m saying that tankies have a long history of hiding parts of the truth that show any form of wrongdoing by leftists, even when that wrongdoing was excusable or necessary, and that doing that is worse for your image than accepting history as it happens.

You realise you’re not helping your image by attacking viewpoints I don’t even hold, right?

I responded to a comment asking why the post asking why details were omitted when the truth was on your side anyway, and you instantly take that as an attack on your beliefs, because posting the full truth or in any way acknowledging shortcomings of your comrades is actively discouraged, as you’re very kindly demonstrating for me.

For full clarity, the actions of the old RoK government were inexcusable. The actions of the protesters were excusable given the context, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t happen or that we can call them something they weren’t.

I’m not defending anyone, I’m saying that it’s unsurprising that the title is a part-truth given the instance.

It’s also unsurprising that you get attacked for pointing out that the victims weren’t entirely innocent: a general strike and a revolution are not the same, regardless of the cause, because the full, accurate, truth is discouraged here even when it paints the same picture you were originally trying to.

A pint or large glass of wine a day is about 10L per year, so yeah, given someone who doesn’t drink alcohol is cancelled out by someone who drinks two pints a day I’m very surprised these numbers aren’t bigger

Removed by mod