halyk.the.red

I think we’re going to see a lot more of this over the next month, and it will be mentioned at sentencing in a bid for less or no jail time. If he goes to jail, it will ramp up even more, and we’ll see headlines in the vein of “Trump is a crazy old man, compassionate release on the table?”

In a similar vein, what this guy discusses in his articles is like embracing that kind of training. “Here are old tactics that no longer apply, and in situations you won’t find yourself in. Good luck.” Carriers don’t go out alone, they move in strike groups. The battleship tactics he says won’t work are so obviously obsolete that this whole article was pointless to the point where it didn’t need to be written. It would be like if he wrote an article about the war in Gaza titled: “Cavalry Charges: Useless?”

This guy’s articles are full of views that look at ships, mostly carriers and battleships, in a vaccuum against the entirety of China’s costal defenses. He completely disregards modern naval tactics in multiple articles in order to make his points, which all seem to be fearmongering about the threat China would pose if the US ever chose to invade. I get the impression that his understanding of modern naval combat comes from playing with boats while in his bathtub.

Now do ships.

This quote from Men In Black sums it up for me: “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”

Oh don’t worry, I condemn hammas and the great deceiver Carl Marks every morning after the pledge of allegiance, and before I dumpster dive for my breakfast behind the McDonald’s.

Like I said before, I have an American public school education, so that’s more math than I can do, so I appreciate it. I also have no emotional intelligence, and the news isn’t telling me to be mad about this, so all I can say is that this is the type of bad emotion that makes your eyes wet.

I attended American public school, just tell me how many 9/11’s that is so I can be appropriately outraged.

If I’m not mistaken, it’s just to say where the dog has been.

As far as pee ownership goes, if you can get to the pee first, it’s yours. You should probably ask the owner first if it’s not a stray.

I don’t think I would handle that well, if Hansi turned out to be a garbage person.

I agree, really turned me off to the band, although I will throw on Demons and Wizards from time to time.

Iced Earth guitarist was one of the first ones in the door on January 6th. The band pretty much said they disagree with his actions,but not his intent.

Guitarist from Manowar in trouble for being a pedo.

Years ago, Zazz Blammymatazz had a song about getting head from a 14 year old.

deleted by creator

Well if I, as an occasional customer, learn that Tim is murdering people, I doubt he’s still making soaps in his backyard.

You don’t get to become a company able to compete on a global scale without being unethical. Capitalism relies on exploitation.

What I’m asking is it worth the effort to dig so deep to find negatives? I certainly don’t have the time to do so with every purchase I make. If I can’t afford Tim’s soap, does that make me immoral for having to buy problematic soap?

I’d have to look into the things you’ve done that you aren’t proud of before I buy from your etsy.

I agree, know better and do better. But if we need to question our soap purchases, what isn’t being made with questionable methods or intentions?

But now we have to research and investigate companies C through Z to make sure they meet our moral standards. We wouldn’t want to give our money to a bad cause. In a profit driven market, win-at-all-cost mentalities are rewarded. Corners get cut, laws are broken, and the fines to pay off the government for breaking those laws are cheaper than the cost to fix the issues and comply with the law. Dig enough and any large corporation will have some level of morality issue. Racist CEO’s, misogynistic HR reps, middle managers that exploit their workers.

So OP goes online, finds a guy named Tim who makes their own soap. It’s ethical, sustainable, it leaves OP’s skin feeling wonderful. It costs $26 for 8 ounces. When verizon was digging the cables OP used to connect to the internet, they ruined groundhog habitats. The point is, there is always going to be something negative. Good for OP for sticking to their morals and trying to find a soap that invests in something they believe in. So where is the line drawn? Where do you stop investigating businesses to see if their morality matches up with your own? The investors? The CEO? Debra in accounting?

Also, I’m not pretending they’re all as bad as each other. I know they’re all as bad as each other. Global capitalism is a system in which we’re forced to participate, and now I have to do hours of research to justify a soap purchase so I can feel clean physically and mentally. Now I’m wondering about my coffee purchases. What about that candle I bought?

I’m not trying to be contrarian or difficult, I’m just trying to provoke thought. I’m sure OP is reading this and is wondering how a simple post about soap could go so far off the rails. We could discuss this and all it’s odds and ends for hours.

I agree, if they have the means to switch and can find a suitable replacement, they should. The point I was getting at is that if OP decides to search and dig and research, if they’re able to find a company they agree with, only to get skin they’re not comfortable with, seems like an unfortunate waste of time and effort and money.

At this point, though, it’s more of a thought experiment of ethical consumption under capitalism. There’s too many ‘if’ statements to realistically defend or justify every line of thought in this discussion. I wish OP the best of luck in finding a new soap.

I agree that ethics aren’t binary, and the threshold of your selection is defined by which evils you’re willing to tolerate. How much grey are you willing to support?

I don’t believe the slope to nihilism is that slippery. I was merely trying to advocate for OP’s mental wellbeing. If they’re able to find a soap they like that isn’t related to the company they’re trying to avoid, good for them.

However, undoubtedly, whatever company they select will have some shades of grey. For the sake of argument, let’s say Company A is supporting a war OP disagrees with. Company B is committing wage theft and is polluting the environment worse than Company A.

Now OP has to decide. Short of making their own soap, they have to support something they might not be completely comfortable with. Or, which is the point I was originally trying to make, is that we all have to deal with shady companies doing awful things and there is little we can do about it. So OP might as well use the soap that makes them happy with how their skin feels.

Or perhaps OP could shoplift the soap they prefer. They get the skin they enjoy without having to support big box stores or they company that makes the soap. We have options here.

There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism. Whatever brand you switch to will probably have some horrible shit going on that we’re unaware of. When forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, you still have to justify an evil. Just buy whatever makes you happiest and try to put good into the world.

I always struggled with this question as a kid. It wasn’t until I was much older I realized it for the capitalist propaganda that it is.