Your point about making stuff up aside… yes, 100%. Who the Hell wouldn’t support a leola root ban, other than Neelix‽

I don’t get it. If you’re an immigrant who’s already made it to the EU, why would you want to go to England in the first place?

Literally “sinking” isn’t the issue. Becoming uninhabitable due to frequent inundations and saltwater contamination of their aquifer is the issue, and that’s starting to happen already. “Within their children’s life time” is incredibly optimistic.

Certain people here really hate Media Bias Fact Checker in particular because they believe it’s biased in favor of neoliberalism.

Please understand that I am making an extreme effort to be charitable and polite when I say that trying to spin this tiny quota as being somehow for the benefit of the Tuvaluans themselves is… less than persuasive.

Frankly, we’re already at 1 degree C warming today and Tuvalu is 100% doomed. Forcing many of them to wait until the bitter end – paternalistically imposing that decision on them rather than allowing them to decide what’s best for themselves – is hardly doing them any sort of favor!

But hey, maybe I’m wrong: maybe the Tuvaluan leaders themselves asked for this quota, not the Australians. I don’t believe that for a fucking microsecond, but if you can cite something that supports the notion then I’ll reconsider how I’ve judged you for posting the… comment… you just wrote.

First of all:

The Falepili Union, an agreement letting Tuvaluans escape the impacts of climate change and move to Australia, came into effect last month.

The program is expected to start in nine months and will allow up to 280 people to migrate each year through a random ballot.

Really? The entire population Tuvalu is like 11,000 people. Even if they all showed up at once, Australia’s (population ~27 million) demographics wouldn’t even fucking notice. Hell, they could all move to the same neighborhood in a city like Sydney or Melbourne and even people in the rest of the city would barely notice! What the fuck even is the point of bothering with limited quotas?!

Second:

“It’s a sad situation because we Tuvaluans contribute less to the cause of climate change but we are the ones suffering,” she says.

It is singularly infuriating that even while Tuvaluans take responsibility for their “contribution” to climate change – even though with <$6000 GDP per capita and a whopping 5 miles of paved roads it’s honestly fucking negligible – most Americans and other rich westerners still won’t make any acknowledgement at all of their own. This is Oliver Twist “please sir I want some more” levels of wretched groveling, and our reaction to it is goddamned appalling!

No. If Trump were capable of conceptualizing losing and suffering consequences he wouldn’t do half the shit he does.

You’re not wrong, but I also think it’s important to point out that just because the US interfered in 2020 doesn’t mean it interfered in 2024. In fact, I can think of a reason or two – like, say, Biden being in office instead of Trump – why its policy on attempting coups might be vastly different.

Exactly: “more progress on peace talks” in this context is just a tankie dog-whistle for “capitulating to Russia’s land-grabbing.”

I agree with your first paragraph 100%.

Re: your second, we know Russia has functioning nukes because, at least until a year and a half ago, we used to go and inspect them on a regular basis.

Probably a big part of why Russia wants to take it in the first place.

Okay, look: I really need you to knock it off with this argument, please. 'Cause if you keep going with it, you’re gonna start convincing me that maybe we should let Zuckerberg post all the anti-vaxxer bullshit his shriveled, blackened heart desires, after all!

(And that’s bad because, as much as I’d love to see Zuck fuck up, @RidcullyTheBrown is right.)

In other words, the Pacific is so wide that cyclones typically curl North before making it all the way across, so it’s unlikely that the same storm would affect both North America/Hawaii and East Asia. Therefore, it’s not necessary to force anybody to give up the name they previously picked.

(The word “hurricane” came from the Arawak people in the Caribbean, while the etymology of “typhoon” is less clear but may have come from China or India. Also, for completeness: “cyclone” is of Greek origin and is used for southern hemisphere storms because the British picked it in the 1800s.)

Atlantan here; same. 😬

You realize Oklahoma is already where we forcibly relocated a lot of the Native Americans to, right? I know you mean well, but 😬

The point was to set a precedent.

Sure is nice of Ukraine to start shooting them down closer to the pilots’ homes, rather than making them travel all the way back from Ukrainian territory.

There’s a thing called Grice’s Maxims that describe the rules of conversations – specifically, about how things can be implied without being said, yet still be very real and expected to be understood by both parties to the conversation.

I told you to read the definition because it already told you the answer.

By asking the question after having read the definition – and in fact, reiterating that I wanted an answer after having confirmed to you that I had read the definition – it was 100% crystal clear to you that claiming the definition answered the question was not adequate. Yet you still claimed it. In other words, you were violating – not flouting, violating – the maxims.

You have been continuing to violate those maxims throughout this discussion. Why are you being deliberately uncivil?

What changed between now, when it seems courteous to answer questions, and upthread, when you evaded answering my initial one?

But you are continuing to reply. Why?