Blaine

There are only five sentences of text on that page, with the last one explaining that this sort of marriage was not common at all. Where did you get the idea that the textbook is suggesting that this was the norm?

For everyone scratching their heads…

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Irish_Unification_of_2024

I tried this once. Went to the dog park, chatted up a girl over a period of a month. I finally got the courage to ask her on a date, and she said yes! The date (dinner and a local concert) went great - we ended up back at my place and I can honestly say it was some of the best sex of my life.

Then she ghosted me and we never talked again. That was 2017, and I’m still not over it. Thanks for the advice though.

I asked a question the other day that gave the appearance that I might sympathise with a conservative viewpoint, and it was the most downvoted post of my entire life within 30 minutes. Let me reiterate - I was downvoted en masse for asking a good faith question and not accepting the Democratic narrative as a given. Folks instantly assumed I must be asking the question with an (conservative) answer already in mind, and dogpiled me for it.

Ironically enough, there was one good faith reply that answered my question and resulted in me ultimately agreeing with the Lemmy-approved viewpoint. But I almost didn’t get that answer due to the amount of bad-faith responses and downvotes I was swamped with.

Isn’t this a pretty standard practice across the world? If someone has extensive ties to and/or sympathies for a specific regime, they’ll be more susceptible to coercion and compromise by that regime. Why purposely put them in the place where they are most likely to be coerced and/or compromised?

You have to weigh the benefit (their familiarity with local perspectives and customs) against the cost (increased risk of counter-intel failures).

There’s a reason Starfleet sends Captain Picard far away to the Romulan border when the Borg are attacking Earth. Or am I missing something?

I mean… even the Harvard Crimson has been posting op-eds from folks on the Academic Integrity Committee and student government calling for her resignation.

She fucked around (50+ instances of plagiarism) and found out (forced to resign).

Only on Lemmy would you need to add all of those disclaimers before asking a legitimate question.

Let’s just say that, hypothetically, the OP didn’t hold a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli viewpoint. In that case, would they have to lie and add those disclaimers in order to be “well mannered”?

My point is that anyone should be able to ask a simple question about why South Africa are the ones filing this case at the ICJ. It shouldn’t matter what their overarching beliefs are, nor should they be required to submit their liberal bona fides before they are allowed ask the question.

That’s not good manners, that’s an echo chamber.

Congratulations! You just fell for the “Genetic Fallacy”, one of the more common Logical Fallacies. Please do some research and try to do better in the future.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Thanks for reminding me of yet another reason why Star Trek: Discovery is not canon.