To expand on why Aunt Jemima was racist for those that don't know: She was a stereotype of a servant caretaker, a caricature and not a person. Uncle Ben was the male servant version.
Both were designed to be acceptable to southerners who still think black people should be servants even if they are no longer slaves. It was intentional, not accidental.
Hmm. I’m unsure of the “self-identifying” part, as I’ve mostly heard corrections coming from Romani people themselves. Secondly, the joke seems a slippery slope toward apologist antics.
Romani are spread throughout the world and have different preferences based on how slurs are used and whether they want to cede certain terms to racists or keep them. Some still identify as gypsy for personal reasons and should be respected for that while not using the term by default. Treat it like the word queer for LGBTQ+ folks, only use it if that is their preference.
Also, there are other nomadic people that. Romani, and the usage as a slur includes using one term for all groups instead of recognizing the diversity.
They’re the butt of a lot of jokes: everything from poor chain of command, infighting, lack of equipment, corruption, dishonesty leading to a failure to accurately asses the situation, franken vehicles, and bizarre orders like digging trenches near Chernobyl or fortifying against beach landings. My personal favorite is a Ukrainian soldier talking on russian comms and telling them to just surrender. They tell him to shut up and continue communicating tactical plans. A real facepalm moment.
We’re on NCD so I try to make this sound like overblown russian copium. Denying what happened and the “minor damage” is part of the joke that it is “completely destroyed” because Russia lies and makes subsequent attacks just as unexpected as the first, a reference to the shock factor of Himars strikes.
He’s assuming that because that’s what he would do in this situation, because he has the critical thinking skills of a spanner. He thinks every other politician is like him, he doesn’t get that most of them are basically just constantly playing in a personality contest, which is something he’s never had to do.
There’s basically flat support for the war at the moment, there isn’t really any interest in removing support and there isn’t really any interest in granting additional support (actual military intervention, WMDs). As long as Europeans are not adversely affected by the existence of this war, the support isn’t going to go anywhere.
If somebody were to turn up with some actual evidence that say we could have built 30,000 houses but instead we sent Ukraine 20 missiles, or whatever, then maybe that would turn the tide, but I don’t think anybody has that data because in most countries military spending is pre-allocated.
You do realize that the vast majority of the dollars from various countries’ Ukrainian war support programs doesn’t actually leave the domestic economy, right? Take the US for example; America says it’ll send 50 billion USD of defense equipment, America sends that amount of equipment from it’s current sites, it then buys new stuff from domestic manufacturers to replace what is now absent.
This is what is happening across Europe, as well. Ukraine gets stuff that’s old, but still good enough to embarrass Russia’s weapons platforms, while the donating country gets to outfit it’s forces in even newer shit.
I’m 100% for giving Ukraine weapons to defend their country and European freedom indirectly. That our old weapons are better that current russian weapons is an unexpected delight
I’ve only ever been a government contractor, never military myself, but you quickly learn that some acronyms were destined to be enunciated as-is, rather than spelt out.
files.catbox.moe
Oldest