guy

Except the terminal and a few other places.
While it’s very good looking, it’s not extremely practical with no difference (almost) between lower case and upper case letters.

Protomolecule for that scifi feel

I don’t understand your logic at all. Being anti-terrorism is not equal to being pro-genocide and vice versa.
It isn’t a black and white world and taking a stance doesn’t require sith lord reasoning.

Saying that you condemn both assault and murder doesn’t make one worse and the other less so. It’s a simple acknowledgement of wrong acts being wrong which is perfectly fine.

But it doesn’t. It perfectly fine to say Hamas terrorist attacks are wrong and at the same town saying the Israeli genocide is wrong.

The problem is that when Russia bombs a children’s hospital and it’s pointed out as a war crime, there’s always some schmuck saying “Oh yeah?! But the US is responsible for hundreds of thousand dead civilians in Afghanistan!”
And yes, that is fucking heineous but it doesn’t make leveling a hospital less severe. 🙄

A bad is a bad.

The whole point is to condemn evil whatever the intensity, scale or who is responsible.
But somehow it always comes to a comparison of evilness (obviously always the US) which somehow excuses (mostly Chinese or Russian) atrocities. And that is the issue.

Incorrect conclusions about bad actions being bad no matter who does it?

Why not just change it to “imperialism is bad” lmao
Unless there’s some good imperialism somewhere…

Exactly! :)

Nazis executing civilians is bad. Partisans executing civilians is bad. A bad action is bad no matter the intention.
Insert some quote about how the history is filled with good intentions.

Tell the ‘unlawful’ killed that it’s ok, it was a growing power who haven’t attacked someone for a long time and just tries to lift your country out of poverty that bombed you to bits not the cashking warmongerer, and see if they agree with your reasoning.

See, that’s the issue.
Pointing at state A and saying it’s bad invokes the response “Well B is by far more bad, if you look at contextualized extent, impact, and level of badness!” thus down playing the bad state A has done.

It’s like, A hit X with a fist, but B hit Y with a bat, twice and on the shins, so what A did isn’t so bad actually. Instead of just admitting hitting is wrong.

Seems like this post is about you! :)

I think the point is that both are bad. But somehow it always ends up with a competition where the US is more bad than the rest, and the rest is therefore somehow excused when .ml is involved

I chose it as my first instance since I wanted a leftist one. Oh boy did I earn an experience

Thanks for the clarification, I assumed you meant that the West had backed HTS, but I understand what you meant now. :)

I don’t understand, do you mean that the west should have backed this terrorist group to come out on top or what?

My point exactly

Oh sorry, I just assumed you meant that the west backed these rebels, which they don’t. You should have been clearer if that wasn’t the case.

They seem to be backed by Turkey, which isn’t a western country afak?

The statements their leader have made seems promising. Cooperation with the UN, peaceful overhanding of power etc. But they stem from Al-Qaeda so let’s hope this doesn’t age like milk…

Oh I agree. It’s not an easy read at all. Took me for sure three times longer to finish Neuromancer than a another similarly long sci-fi book.
Language without explanation and a plot that you view from a frog perspective is really confusing.

I can’t say it’s a master piece but I enjoyed it for it’s uniqueness and would probably read it again …sometime in a decade or so.

Currently trying to read through Count Zero, but boy is it hard. Mostly because I don’t feel for any of the characters.