I'm calling him a socialist because THE EU is a socialist UNION !
You might as well say that he's a socialist because 2+2 = 4; the one doesn't follow the other.
Just because the EU is socialist, it doesn't follow that TentElephant is also-- especially considering he wants to cut off the EU.
I saw the headline of an article about an interview with Millie Bobbie Brown from Stranger Things talking about being "sexualized" at a young age.
So she went to a public school? (I jest.)
She's probably talking about becoming sexually aware involuntarily, either through abuse or exposure (which if you're young enough, counts as abuse.) Given Hollywood, she's signaling abuse.
As an aside: I remember (but cannot find links to) ambiguous images, which were patterned (a la Escher) to resemble dolphins or sexual organs-- depending on how you looked at them. Utilizing such an image you could quickly tell if a child had exposure to sexuality, because they'd either say "dolphins" or "dicks." Three or four similar answers would drill down whether that toddler had inappropriate exposure pretty quickly.
I'd imagine such tools have been memory-holed, since the very idea of childhood/sexual innocence are under ideological assault.
Also you [TentElephant] are a socialist..
He's a socialist because he understands the power dynamics at play? Because he calls out or describes the way things are? Please.
You realize he disapproves of what he describes and is calling for change, right? The way it's looking, you're calling him a socialist because he disagrees with you about the nature of the horrid state of affairs, or worse because he understands socialism at all.
Wait... If understanding socialism makes you a socialist-- aren't you one too? GASP
The local college in my town straight up renamed its philosophy department to the "social" philosophy department.
I mean, you can say the quiet part out loud, but putting it right out in the open like that is practically hubris.
As you say, nothing wrong with the geography-- it's the sociology that's fucked.
There's something about the divorce from the struggle of survival, the constant activity (or divorce from nature), and the decadence (divorce from tradition), which is something of a crucible for mental illness.
Subjects of a New Yorker article, being caricatures like the pretentious cartoons they print? Unpossible! Say it ain't so!
Sarcasm aside, could the problem be New York City itself?
The 'uncanny valley' quality of the reporting could very well be accurate depiction of NPC behavior in one of the most uncanny, unnatural, and artificial environments in all of history.
I'm sure there's a variety of demisexual _____romantic that describes only being sexually & romantically attracted to people you have emotional attachment to, and sounds quite pride-ish in construction, but is actually describing the vast majority of people. Then you identify as bi, but only as a 1 or 2 on the Kinsey scale.
You've basically described yourself in their terms, so you get your brownie points and actual consideration. If you can hide your power-level, so much the better.
Am I suggesting subversion? Absolutely.
Long march through their institutions and see how they like it.
A man strong enough to check a woman's bullshit is necessarily strong enough to protect her and their children, in theory. Doesn't mean he will in practice (see abusers), but it means he could. For a low-quality woman, that's enough. "I can fix him," is the next line of female-fantasy BS that follows the basal attraction to the violence and drama of machismo.
It's tiresome.
Right. Saying you shot the person would be a lie, false report, etc.
There's an ugly truth at play: the police have the resources to respond to a shooting (like you defending your property) not a robbery. Go figure.
The correct response is to say that you shot the person, and they no longer need to come.
Then when cops show up in five minutes, interrupting the crime, and ask: "Didn't you say you shot him?" You reply: "Didn't you say nothing can be done?"
In the name of the "Greater Good™" everything merely 'good' will be sacrificed. Utopians don't care about human suffering, nor how many bodies get buried in the foundation-- hell, they don't even care if the project is feasible. They care about showing they are *good people", who want the best for everyone! (Just ignore the sacrificed. They weren't people anyway...)
So there aren't WWII era military bases in germany?
The EU policy is to remain under the umbrella of American power, which he described as GAE-- there's no contradiction between that and anything else you've asserted about the EU