First off, the donbas is not majority russian. While it has the largest group of Russians in the country it is still majority Ukrainian.

Second, the ICJ and international association of genocide scholars investigated Russia’s claim of massacre and genocide and found them to be entirely baseless and fabricated to justify invasion.

Third, if this was about liberating the donbas, then Russia wouldn’t have gone all the way to Kyiv at the beginning of the invasion. Even still Russia occupies far more than the donbas.

I swear the way some of yall rush to defend Russia. You guys realize it’s not socialist anymore, right? That the country is ruled and controlled by capitalists? That capital interests like the oil in ukraine are what drive them?

No, I’m pointing out your hypocrisy in recognizing that Iraqi nukes and the war on terror were largely overplayed to justify the invasion of the middle east for oil but not recognizing when Russia does the same shit in Ukraine. But it seems like you’re the type to decide who to support based on a vague tribalist conception of “east vs west” rather than actually having any moral principles to rely on, so I apologize if my criticism of certain eastern and western actions simultaneously is too much for you to handle.

Right, and the oil is just a coincidence, that just so happened to be there. And the US invaded Iraq because of terrorists and nukes that weren’t there, the oil was just a coincidence.

You’re really gonna say the attempts to distance themselves from the culture of their previous colonizers and current invaders is genocide?

Right, because drawing an allegory to the actions of the United States in the middle east as an example of doing something bad is the best way to praise the states

“No guys, it’s ok when Russia unapologetically invades a foreign country for oil, because you see that country is part of the west and west = bad”

I’d argue they do make strategic decisions, its just that the strategy is always increasing quarterly earnings and their own assets.

Experiencing certain forms of violence and harassment and having low-moderate social support from any source was associated with higher prevalence of suicidal ideation. Social support from family moderated the association between experiencing certain forms of violence and harassment and suicidal ideation (p interaction = 0.01); however, even in the presence of high family social support, experiencing certain forms of violence and harassment was associated with higher prevalence of suicidal ideation.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/su/su7301a7.htm

n = 1608 on this one.

Every study I’ve ever seen that looks at the link between social support and depression/suicidal thoughts in trans people shows a very clear link. Given the prevalence of transphobia in our society, this can entirely explain the increase in suicidal thoughts in trans people.

Lower self-reported transphobia was associated with a 66 % reduction in ideation, and an additional 76 % reduction in attempts among those with ideation

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2.pdf

An increase by one context in which a chosen name could be used predicted a 5.37-unit decrease in depressive symptoms, a 29% decrease in suicidal ideation, and a 56% decrease in suicidal behavior.

https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(18)30085-5/fulltext#intraref0010a

Socially transitioned transgender children who are supported in their gender identity have developmentally normative levels of depression and only minimal elevations in anxiety, suggesting that psychopathology is not inevitable within this group.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26921285/

So yes. Increased depression and suicide among trans people is, according to the research, entirely correlated with social factors like how much they are accepted by friends/family and chosen name use.

Power brick, power adapter, or USB charger are what come to mind for me.

I gotta say I disagree heavily with your fiancee on dongles. IMO dongles are adapters for data of some kind, not just power from the wall. But to each their own I guess.

I find it very promising. As much as I love meat, its pretty undeniable that raising livestock is super inefficient. It takes so much food to raise livestock that, iirc, more farmland in the US is dedicated to growing food for our food than to growing food for us. Lab grown meat doesn’t completely solve this - there are still lost calories in the process to my knowledge - but its way more efficnient. Plus less land usage, less fossil fuel emissions, overall it would be more sustainable.

I see 2 big problems facing it right now:

The first is scale, which is the more significant. We’d need to figure out how to grow meat on a truly massive scale. Definitely doable though, just needs more research.

The second is “realism” or how close it seems to natural meat. Lab grown meat has the advantage over like plant based stuff because it is actually meat. However, ifnits too perfect or uniform, or maybe doesnr have enough fat or variety, it might be seen as unnatural by many (even just subconsciously) and push them away from it.

But yeah, could be awesome.

In theory thats all well and good, but in practice there is no state which I would trust to decide who does and doesn’t get free speech. If the bourgeosie don’t get free speech, then the state can silence anyone they disagree with by labeling them as part of the bourgeoisie. And while I certainly wish we could just take freedom of speech from nazis - because they absolutely do not deserve it, you’re right about that - in that case the state can silence anyone by labeling them a nazi. Which kinda is happening right now because some will try to silence people who are pro-palestinian by labeling them as anti-semetic and then comparing them to nazis. You also see that with people being labeled as terrorists, or gang affiliated, for example. (Same argument applies to due process, and to a greater extent, but thats not super relevant)

I know it’s not static, thats why I said I would support reunification if the people of Taiwan did. You, however, are refusing to acknowledge your own biases and hypocrisy on this matter.

If those complexities were significant enough, then the people of Taiwan would support reunification. Like you said yourself earlier, these people aren’t stupid. If it was best for them to be a part of the PRC they would support that, but they overwhelmingly wouldn’t. And, to be clear, this is not even close. Your own source said it was less than 8% of the population wanted reunification. That’s one of the most overwhelmingly unpopular opinions I’ve ever seen in politics.

This conversation started with you arguing that the PRC was so great because the people of the PRC believed it to be. That the PRC should be the way it is because thats what the people want. And now here we are, talking about a people who overwhelmingly think they should not be a part of the PRC, and now suddenly “what the people want” isn’t valid anymore? Why was that valid when it was in favor of the PRC but is invalid when it isn’t? Maybe you’re right that I have a bias and preconceived notions, but you clearly do too.

As I said, if the opinion of the people of Taiwan change to be in favor of reunification then I will also support it, regardless of what western influences want. I understand the situation is complex but consent and self-determination are not.

Again, my stance on Taiwan is simple: because the people of Taiwan do not wish to be part of the PRC, I do not believe they should be. Do you disagree with me?

I couldn’t care less about what the US government has to say on the matter. As I feel I’ve made abundantly clear, I do not believe Taiwan should be a part of the PRC because the people of Taiwan do not wish to be a part of the PRC. Any other factors are fairly insignificant compared to that. Even your pro-PRC article clearly states the statistics - that reunification is extremely unpopular to the people of Taiwan - so I really doubt that is western propaganda or the US narrative.

Well, as I said, if the people of Taiwan are ever willing to unify with the PRC then I will support it. But they don’t, they never have, and I see no reason to believe they ever will soon. China’s insistence that Taiwan is currently and always has been a part of China does not seem to me like waiting for consent of the people.

And I guess that’s where we’re just going to fundamentally disagree. The state should not have control over who does and doesn’t get freedom of speech. If they do, there is not truly freedom of speech.

Alright, I apologize for putting words in your mouth with the Chinese utopia thing, but you did the same to me, just to be clear.

As far as “conflict of interest” goes, I appreciate they are transparent in their interests, but what I mean by “conflict” is that if they have their interest is also to be fair and truthful (something I would hope is the case for any media) then they cant be fair and truthful about a conflict when their other interest is explicitly one side of that conflict. Again, I’m not dismissing the article as a whole but it’s very clearly one-sided.

From the resource you provided on Taiwan:

7.6% of respondents support some form of reunification

I don’t see how there is much conversation to be had beyond that. I don’t care that the majority of its population is ethnically Chinese, they don’t want to be part of the PRC. I recognize the American interests in keeping Taiwan independent and the problematic ties to the American military, but at the end of the day, if 92.4% of the population does not want to be a part of China then they should not be a part of China. And China, in wanting to control a foreign territory without the consent of its people, is imperialist in that regard. If the majority opinion of the people in Taiwan ever changes to be in favor of reunification, then I will change my mind on that matter.

Apologies, I only saw the Qiao Collective described as a Chinese group, and thought that meant it was based in China, not just that it was made up of Chinese people. Still, they’re very clearly a media organization made with the intention of supporting the PRC, and I’ve found claims they receive significant funding from the PRC, which I don’t think makes them truly independent in the same way that the massive western media conglomerates are not truly independent because they must answer to their own capital interests. Point is, the conflict of interest is still very, very clear.

And no, I don’t view china as a dystopia, I recognize that there’s a lot going right there and that the people are, for the most part, doing fairly well. But conversely I don’t view it as a communist utopia, it has genuine issues with surveillance, freedom of speech, and political persecution. And I haven’t even mentioned its own imperialist tendencies with Taiwan, a country in which the opinion of reunification is in the overwhelming minority. And the country’s massive participation in and influence from the global market makes me really doubt how free the country is of capital interests.

In my opinion, the idea that china is a utopia and the greatest country in the world is similarly naive to those who say the same about America.