Neither would I call it generous to have billions of taxpayer dollars stolen for the sake of virtue signaling and supporting a corrupt backwater, but Zelensky certainly has.
10:1 simply is not sustainable
Which is why so many optimistic stories and pieces of information to come out of Kiev have been shown to be false. It's not sustainable, Ukraine is losing.
To add to other comments here, there's also the issue of degree. Calling a leftist woke is hardly comparable to them calling someone a racist or a Nazi in terms of severity. Those labels carry massive baggage and are outright dehumanizing . "Woke," by comparison, is an extremely tame label.
Damn my impatience and inability to count past 3!
Hahah, shush.
I've had girlfriends who wanted similar treatment, so my kneejerk wasn't to judge it as darkly as I guess most others did. I also give the audio clips less credibility in the context of her fake blood videos.
On the surface, this stuff doesn't make Greenwood look good, but I err on the side of presuming innocence.
I follow soccer/football closely and I've seen a lot of accusations against famous soccer players fall apart -- in fact, most recent accusations against superstars have fallen apart (Neymar, Ronaldo, Mendy, etc.). I think I have a good understanding of the public-facing aspects of this case, so I'd like to share my perspective here.
Mason Greenwood was and is a phenomenal young striker, with world class potential, who is still contracted with Manchester United. He rose to media prominence quickly, and within half a year of being in the spotlight, was accused by his girlfriend Harriet Robson of coercive and controlling behaviour, multiple beatings, and multiple rapes.
Unlike most cases against footballers, Robson appeared to have audio and video evidence against Greenwood. Robson had secretly recorded minutes of audio footage of what sounded like Greenwood aggressively forcing himself on her despite her protests that she didn't want to have sex. Robson also posted public videos of what appeared to be semi-dried blood running from her mouth, down her chin, and the front of her throat.
As you can no doubt guess, Greenwood was absolutely excoriated by fans and media following the release of this alleged evidence. Virtually every member of the ultimate coalition for championing women's justice, the soccer subreddit, met this news and evidence with abject condemnation. Greenwood was charged by UK police following the outcry.
However, there are some issues with the case:
- There is no video or audio evidence of Greenwood ever actually striking Robson;
- There is no video or audio evidence of Greenwood ever actually having sex with Robson against her will, there are merely statements made by Greenwood that he will force her;
- The "blood" in the videos looks fake as fuck;
- The audio recordings could absolutely represent rough sexual roleplay (Greenwood's defense); and
- Robson remains Greenwood's girlfriend and refuses to testify against him in court.
So based on that, and based on the incalculable number of incentives that women have to accuse famous, rich footballers of sex crimes, I thought skepticism was a healthy approach. Apparently, the absolute walnut brains that are European football fans refuse to learn their lessons, refuse to believe that this isn't some unprecedented miscarriage of justice and women's rights, and refuse to support presumption of innocence.
Fuck them, lol.
Because I'm talking about humans, that should be obvious. Individualism/collectivism is just a shitlib distinction, that's kinda the point here. People are, as I've noted, relational individuals.
Alright, so individuality is problematic but people are simultaneously individuals and groups, and you're only talking about humans because you're only talking about humans. Gotcha, mate.
Individualization, specifically, occurs through people and groups of which one is a part of; they are made made, not born.
Are you saying an individual is simply the absence of group connections or affiliations and that that's unnatural or wrong or even not possible? Is it because no person can spring up out of the ether and people are always the products of the coupling of others?
If so, and I mean no disrespect, but that seems like an arbitrary perspective. Why draw the line at humans? We don't exist without 3.9 billion years of evolution, so why is "the basis of humanity... family" -- assuming human family -- and not all life? We need to eat other non-human living things to exist, after all. Why isn't the basis of humanity all non-living matter, since we're all just made up of inert fragments of different compounds?
The idea that humans are, by default, a collective, that being an individual is "wrong," but that no other branches of life (or non-life) are also part of that collective seems completely arbitrary to me. You can't have existed without other people, but... you can't exist without hydrogen either.
The other issue I have is your non-individual perspective presupposes entitlement to or from others. By not being an individual foremost, you're suggesting a moral requirement that others support you and/or you support them in some way. What fundamental physical law of nature says I owe anyone anything? If that doesn't exist, then your position is a moral one.
Imp, on this we agree: It is inherently sexist to force men, and only men, to fight and die for their country. I'm okay with this only if men are afforded special privileges and respect commensurate with such a sacrifice -- albeit an involuntary sacrifice -- but such is not the case.
I live in Canada. If I were conscripted, I'd desert.
Sure, but at least in Ontario (where I'm from) there are more female students in law, medicine, veterinary school, and grad school than male students. Those fields have massive draw and competition, unlike "liberal arts" etc.
I might be in favour of women-only scholarships -- despite the incomprehensible number of advantages that women and girls enjoy in K-12 and post-secondary education -- if there were a proportional number of men's scholarships. But there are effectively no male scholarships, so fuck 'em.
In my opinion, tone, intention, and context are important to consider when discussing salary. I find bragging about salary or a high salary-to-work ratio is in poor taste and can give you a lot of insight into someone's lack of character. However, professional salary discussions among colleagues with the goal of leveraging information to negotiate raises should be encouraged.
Your reputation. I'm not saying it's correct or ethical or appropriate etc., but people downvote you out of name recognition. When people here see TheImpossible1, they likely think the conversation will inevitably steer toward women even when irrelevant or unwanted. Look, it's happening already.
You've been diluting your posts and comments with other subjects lately and I appreciate that. KIA doesn't always have to have the same conversations with the same entrenched viewpoints.
What a coincidence, I happened to notice that just now. ;)