The cause of opioid addiction was already revealed by the famous Rat Park experiments of the 1970s. The results were clear: opioid addiction is someone’s “self medication” to cope with a miserable environment (generally from poverty & mental illness); happy rats with socialization and positive environments refused to take heroin-laced water. The literature gave us the solution to the opioid epidemic: eliminate poverty, and uplift our fellow brothers and sisters.

The US quickly labeled that approach “communism.” Disregarding the scientific consensus, it resorted to military action to kill even more people (inventing the bizarre label: “narco-terrorist”).

The results? No progress made, but the US now boasts the world’s highest prison population (despite being 5% of global pop).

Decades later, it’s 2025. The republicans are pushing harder than ever to continue the killing, and democrats stand idly by, ready to do… nothing.

Actually as far as I know, all these votes are new except the typical US and Israel. Someone can correct me though

lmao so true

Upvoted

East is wrong, west is correct

Lmao I just spit out my drink (upvoted)

That’s funny you point that out. I wrote this for a Western academic audience. Of course this isn’t a serious question, MD was far more evil than anything the Nazis did and we already know the Nazis were directly inspired by it.

But I know these liberal historians don’t give a shit they did the von Brauhn thing either so it was meant a subtle jab at them. Ffs NASA still has a page on him, describing him as one of the “most important champions of space exploration.” I’m wondering if they’ll even notice the irony that they don’t care about that either, or at least pretend like they condemn that, along with the rest of their country’s history they clutch their pearls at. I thought it would be fun to paste it here for the entertainment, I knew this community would be on my side at least lmao.

Upvoted :)

Liberals oppose every war and every genocide except the ones they are currently engaged in.

this is perfect. Imagine how disgraceful your country is that it’s normal to condemn 99% of your own history.

Yeah I condemn the sterilization of 1/3 of Puerto Rico’s women, yeah I condemn having 17/20 Latin American countries under military dictatorships during the 1970/1980s period, Yeah I condemn the “wars” in vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, basically between 1950s-2021, yeah I condemn slavery so there’s another 200-300 years. Yeah I condemn the American colonization of Philippines & Guam so just the 1900-1945 period basically. And yeah also I condemn Jim Crow, too, so there goes whatever’s left.

Yeah I also condemn being the only country to hold up the isolated Apartheid South Africa all the way to 1994, and the shunned Israel beginning in 1967 all the way to… to…

to OCT 7, 2023 YOU ANTI SEMITE THATS WHEN THEY FLIPPED TO THE GOOD GUYS… THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST AS A JEWISH STATE AND MUST BE DEFENDED TO THE BITTER END, DAS BITTERE ENDE, MEIN FÜHRER!!

but yeah in spite of these… hiccups… i still love this country and everything it stands for, it’s the only thing safeguarding democracy.

Like what other country talks like this? And we are to assume that your country is now reformed?

Upvoted; something in me suspects the difference is that the victims of Lebensraum were white europeans, while MD were overwhelmingly brown people.

lmfao ofc this is a thing. What a country.

This is why i love this community! A great quality resource, added to my reading list

Upvoted :)

So yeah i totally agree with your angle here. So my reasoning to strictly adhering to international law is because, in a perfect world, a country which violates it is punished. And because the US commits the overwhelming majority of the war crimes, it would face the most sanctions under such a system. Feel free to let me know if you disagree, I am far from an expert on this conflict so I’m not gonna pretend to be :)

Upvoted :)

I get what you’re saying! My approach to this is to carefully craft the narrative so that it can not be used to excuse the war crimes committed by the West. So for example I think BRICS should unilaterally impose sanctions on the US for its war crimes, and I don’t think that should be illegal for this to happen. Even if it means once in a while the US can sanction and isolate itself more on the world stage, whatever.

So the reasoning is, if we say the sanctions on Russia are unilateral and therefore illegal, then wouldn’t we also have to concede that the US can commit a crime and not be subject to unilateral sanctions from China / Russia because the UNSC does not vote in favor of it (bc of US veto)? Adhering to this narrative also benefits in the long term, because the US commits many more crimes than Russia / China and therefore would be subject to the most sanctions under this reasoning.

What are your thoughts on this? Also a disclaimer but I do admit ignorance on the Russo Ukraine conflict so I’m not going to pretend to be an authority here.

(And yeah, sounds like the UN is compromised. I totally agree there.)

How sure are we that Russia’s SMO isn’t violating international law? This caught my eye, because this would be an chef’s kiss talking point against the Russophobic liberals if it were true, but unfortunately all the evidence I could find didn’t point in that direction.

A UN general assembly voted 141-5 (35 abstentions) to demand Russia withdraw all military forces. As well as the ICJ ordering Russia to “immediately suspend” military operations in Ukraine.

The lack of UN sanctions on Russia is because Russia has veto power in the UNSC and has exercised it, so theoretically any of the 5 permanent members can commit crimes without being sanctioned as long as they use their veto power. Note that while the general assembly has condemned it, their actions are generally not legally binding. A better example is the general assembly of US ongoing blockade of Cuba, but nothing happens because US veto power on the UNSC.

As for the unilateral sanctions, there is ongoing debate over whether those are illegal, with some bodies like the Hague claiming they are illegal, as they bypass the UNSC, but there’s obviously the issue of one of the UNSC members themselves committing the initial crime unilaterally and vetoing resulting sanctions.

All of this to say that NATO of course is the ultimate evil in this tragic scenario, but I don’t think you could objectively say that the Russian SMO is within international law, even if it’s hand was illegally forced by NATO. If the point can be argued, however, then I’d be very curious to learn! Because that would be an excellent talking point against Russophobic liberals. ___

He said: ‘Today, you’re already a Nazi if you order a gypsy schnitzel.’

The shopowner said he put up the sign in opposition of those who support the war in Israel.

lol

Idk what to think about this, sounds like he meant “Zionists” but didn’t know the term for it.