No. The instance being killed by the taliban is the opposite of that is happening here.

The taliban has done nothing, in this case. The admins of the instance have chosen not to keep the instance due to not wanting to fund the taliban in anyway.

This phrasing fucks up which way the action flows, which is important for a headline to get right to remain accurate to the story. Does that make sense?

Honestly, the only thing that registered for me was that Caleb didn’t object to race being in the story until the second guy was brought up.

I don’t think Freckles, the other character, was declaring a type preference though, I think they were just communicating the race of both guys as set dressing for the story (“you know how I like a little x” to me just sounds like a playful double down, but I really dont actually know, you do have a point here, but it seems ambiguous at best to me right now. I would have to ask the writers what they meant for me to be satisfied now haha good call out though!)

The only reason I posted it was because it seemed that Freckles was saying essentially the same thing as the person I was responding to. Race isn’t a bad thing to include, it’s only bad when you’re being an asshole about it, essentially.

That reminds me of this skit: https://youtu.be/GS10Rp8zLE0?si=Yq_zs-GmdJZZxD9v&t=10

(before I begin my ramble, I understand this is pedantic as hell and nitpicky af. Please know that I’m not calling this meme bad, I’m only looking for someone who is willing to be pedantic about definitions with me for a few rounds or so.)

What exactly does “false solidarity” mean? What exactly is this particular understanding of solidarity either? To my knowledge (aka, I googled it to ensure my vibe check of what solidarity meant was about right), solidarity is something you feel and are essentially motivated to solidarity actions by. To feel it is to experience it, which means, by my understanding of what solidarity is, the term “false solidarity” seems nonsensical.

Like I know what you’re saying, I agree, the effect is that the worker works against his own interest for the betterment of the upper classes, but this phrasing seems… I don’t know exactly how to put it, but like inexact in a way that can probably be and should probably be fixed.

I would just call it poisonous solidarity (intentionally avoiding virus/illness words though) or something that simultaneously implies that it’s externally put there by an external actor, it’s bad for you, it can hurt things and people around you, but it still is legitimate solidarity. Those actions those workers are taking, those votes that they’re casting, those are all real actions caused by real feelings. Implying the feelings themselves are false seems to me to be lazy and irrational at this point… If this were the late 1800s, that probably would be the best phrasing we had for this at the time, but language evolves and I don’t think this language is illustrative/metaphorical enough to accurately portray the mechanics that our current culture allows us to portray about subjects like this.

But again, I’m not the arbiter of what’s true, correct, or what actually should happen, so what do you people think?

Hmm can someone tell me if I’m just in a “republicans are hysteric about it so it must not be that bad” mindset?

It’s obviously spyware to some degree, but this really seems more like a case of red-scare. I can’t put my finger on exactly why, though. Makes me think I might just be reacting to their reaction.

I guess, what exactly are they afraid that China is going to do with this data? It’s a missing puzzle piece that I’ve heard nothing coherent on besides “China gonna spy on muh datas”. Like, sure, maybe if you’re a government official, and I don’t think bans of tiktok on government devices are stupid, but I think the nationwide ban idea is pretty dumb and baseless. So I guess my actual question is, what are they afraid of happening, exactly?