asdfgtr comments

Putin's urging of Russian women to have eight or more children reminds one of Hitler:

Hitler instituted the Mother’s Cross, to encourage German women to have more children.

Once female members of the Hitler Youth (the League of German Girls) turned 18, they became eligible for a branch called Faith and Beauty, which trained them to be mothers. Each year, in honour of Hitler's mum a gold medal was awarded to women with seven children, a silver to women with six, and a bronze to women with five.

Putin wants Russian women to give birth to cheap cannon fodder:

He has urged Russian women to have eight or more children amid soaring casualties in his war against Ukraine.

Russia’s birth rate has been steadily falling since the 90’s and the country has suffered more than 300,000 casualties since the start of the Ukraine conflict.

Putin:

> “Recall that in Russian families our grandmothers and great-grandmothers had both 7 and 8 children. Let us preserve and revive these traditions. Having many children, a large family, should become a norm, a way of life for all the peoples of Russia.”

TaiwanIsNotChinaToday  03:23 pm JST

you shamelessly ignore the fact that rape is rape just to try and score a point against the US.

Nope. Another meaningless ad hominem. Rape is rape.

Slave breeding is defined as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States

Slave breeding was the practice in slave states of the United States of slave owners to systematically force the reproduction of slaves. The function.......was to produce as many slaves as possible for sale and distribution.....The slaves were managed as chattel assets, similar to farm animals.

Slaves were "given hoods or bags over their heads to keep them from knowing who they were having forced sex with. It could be someone they know, perhaps a niece, aunt, sister, or their own mother. The breeders only wanted a child that could be sold."

.... "there were masters who, without any regard for the preferences of their slaves, mated their human chattel as they did their stock." Ex-slave Maggie Stenhouse remarked, "Durin' slavery there were stockmen. They was weighed and tested. A man would rent the stockman and put him in a room with some young women he wanted to raise children from."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/american-slave-coast-a-history-of-the-slavebreeding-industry-by-ned-and-constance-sublette-chicago-lawrence-hill-books-2016-752-pages-3500-hardback/2D423A8A901A972273793ECEF43FC7A0

Presumably all slaveholders profited from the enslavement of African American children at birth (otherwise they would have manumitted them). Indeed, using their definition, all slaveholders could be classified as slave breeders.

[However] Most scholars define slave breeding as the use of barnyard techniques normally associated with animal husbandry. The choice of definitions is important. 

"Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem!" I believe you are just engaging in just pure nonsense. Doesn't need to have an official name.

If it makes you happy, believe away.

TaiwanIsNotChinaToday  01:52 pm JST

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/170552296

QED

Nothing mentioned about the systematic breeding of slaves for sale and distribution. QED Fail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States

**Slave breeding was the practice in slave states of the United States of slave owners to systematically force the reproduction of slaves....***

The function.......was to produce as many slaves as possible for sale and distribution.

Just because you are able to google logical fallacies doesn't mean you are applying the terms correctly.

Your opinion and further meaningless deflection.

Mentioning America's history of slave breeding means one is "obsessed", "deluding yourself" and "you hate the US"?

Laughable ad hominem arguments.

TaiwanIsNotChinaToday  11:40 am JST

> If you don't think the plantations in the Caribbean tried the same thing between 1807 and 1838 .....you are deluding yourself.

Any sources to support your opinion? Thought not.

I realize you hate the US

Mentioning America's history of slave breeding means "you hate the US"?

Laughable ad hominem and a very weak attempt at deflection.

TaiwanIsNotChinaToday  09:50 am JST

Completely unaware statement of the conditions of slavery in the Caribbean.

Irrelevant straw man. Your link mentions nothing about slave breeding. Slavery in the Carribbean does not excuse America of developing the heinous concept of slaves as breedable, valuable livestock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States

*Slave breeding** was the practice in slave states of the United States of slave owners to systematically force the reproduction of slaves to increase their profits.[1] It included coerced sexual relations between male slaves and women or girls, forced pregnancies of female slaves, and favoring women or young girls who could produce a relatively large number of children.[1] The objective was to increase the number of slaves without incurring the cost of purchase, and to fill labor shortages caused by the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade.[2]*

Systematic breeding of slaves often forced incest upon slave families. Slaves were "given hoods or bags over their heads to keep them from knowing who they were having forced sex with. It could be someone they know, perhaps a niece, aunt, sister, or their own mother. The breeders only wanted a child that could be sold."[12] This disturbing practice naturally broke the psyche of slave families as this forced incest tainted the boundaries they kept with family.

The historian E. Franklin Frazier, in his book The Negro Family, stated that "there were masters who, without any regard for the preferences of their slaves, mated their human chattel as they did their stock."[citation needed] Ex-slave Maggie Stenhouse remarked, "Durin' slavery there were stockmen. They was weighed and tested. A man would rent the stockman and put him in a room with some young women he wanted to raise children from."[13]

The slaves were managed as chattel assets, similar to farm animals. Slave owners passed laws regulating slavery and the slave trade, designed to protect their financial investment. The enslaved workers had no more rights than a cow or a horse, or as famously put by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, "they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect".

But even when the USA was formed the atrocities did not cease, but were carried out against the indigenous tribes and black slaves for hundreds of years. 

Early America did take chattel slavery to new perverse heights, treating slaves as effectively breedable, valuable livestock instead of just working war prisoners and criminals and debtors to death and then getting new ones to replace them. But that's just what Americans do as a people. They take what other people are doing, add their own weirdness to it, and crank it up to eleven

More info into Apple's reasoning here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyTA33HQZLA&ab_channel=CollegeHumor

That's great and all, but how effective do you think the Soviet entry into the war would have been without the US blockade of the home islands? Without the American boats they needed to get to Japan?

The Soviet 16th Army — 100,000 strong — launched an amphibious invasion of the southern half of Sakhalin Island. No American boats used.

Then, within 10 to 14 days — they had orders to invade Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan’s home islands.

Clearly the bomb impressed Stalin enough that he left Japan and South Korea to the US. Do you think a bloodthirsty monster like that would just stop for no reason?

Your opinion.

Any credible sources that use this argument as the primary justification for nuking hundreds of thousands of civilians?

Sources please.

.They weren't "eager" to surrender. The Supreme War Council was deadlocked after the Potsdam Declaration, which is why they left the decision to Hirohito.

That Japan was "eager" is illustrated by their surrender to America within days of Soviet entry to the war.

When H&N were nuked, the Japanese war councils did not quickly meet to discuss it – but they did immediately convene to discuss the new Soviet-driven reality.

He told Chamberlain Fujita in 1946 that the US aerial bombings were utmost in his mind ("motivation") when making his unilateral decision to surrender. When he met McArthur, he offered to take full responsibility for the war. 

Hirohito also stated: "We declared war....out of Our sincere desire.... being far from Our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement."

I suppose you believe this too?

Hanging was an option on the table at that point, so "personal survival" didn't seem to be much on his mind.

Utter nonsense. The hanging of Hirohito wasn't on the table in 1946. They had already met on September 27, 1945.

I wouldn't. The US military brass resented the scientists, civilians.......appointed to effect a quick end of the war. The generals and admirals didn't want their achievements...... to be overshadowed by the A-bombs, which could do the job almost instantly.

I find your opinion unconvincing.

Only those that made the decision to nuke civilians can be credible? I find your "just chuck a nuke on civilians and say it ended the war defence" ridiculous.

Are we to believe your personal feeling that all six of the seven U.S. 5 star WWII officers were part an anti-Truman conspiracy with an axe to grind and all other critics of the bomb are social "advocates" and not be trusted? Occam's razor comes into play here.

For Truman and those on interim council eager to test the bomb on human subjects, ending the war "quickly" was just a convenient, yet unconvincing excuse.

Truman's Interim Council of mostly science and geopolitical experts assured him the a-bombs could do the job, thereby avoiding what would be a devastating invasion of the home islands. The council turned out to be right....

Laughably false. As the United States Strategic Bombing Survey clearly states:

 "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

The Soviets did enter the war and then the Japanese offered often fanatical resistance during the Manchurian invasion. It was a very brutal campaign that went on until Aug. 20th.

Yes, this is why the Japanese were so eager to surrender to the U.S. as soon as the Soviets entered the war. The leadership of the emperor was at stake.

In reality, what motivated Hirohito to surrender to the U.S. was a sense of personal survival and deep responsibility to maintain the imperial house (which Russian occupation would most certainly have dismantled), which had lasted in unbroken lineage since the Jinmu emperor.

President Truman knew the Japanese would be "finished" as soon as the Soviets entered the war and admitted it prior to the nukings in his personal diary. The bombs were simply a live human experiment and indefensible war crimes.

Japan showed no inclination to surrender in the face of the Soviet juggernaut on its doorstep. That only changed after Hirohito's call for surrender, which he himself said afterward was primarily motivated by the US aerial bombings of Japan.

Incorrect. Japan showed no inclination to surrender in the face of the nukings of H&N. The Emperor himself stated that afterward that surrender was primarily motivated by Soviet entry into the war.

When dozens of Japanese cities were now being bombed into oblivion every single night, the fact that two of them were destroyed in one blast was only slightly interesting. In fact, The Japanese war councils did not meet to discuss it – but they did immediately convene to discuss the new Soviet-driven reality.

In his speech to the soldiers and sailors, especially die-hard officers who might still wish to continue fighting, the emperor did not mention the atomic bomb. Rather, it was Soviet participation in the war that provided a more powerful justification to persuade the troops to lay down their arms.

Yes, afterward, the emperor did refer to bombs in his rescript to the general Japanese population. However, he also laughably claimed the same speech:

"We declared war....out of Our sincere desire to secure....stabilization of East Asia, it being far from Our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement."

Do you believe this too?

By the way, Ward Wilson is...... not highly thought of as a historian. 

Any sources other than your own opinion?

Rather than your opinion on this matter, I place much more value on the words of Brigadier General Carter Clarke:

“We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.”

In fact, six out of seven five-star WWII officers — condemned the use of the atomic bomb:

For example, Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Moreover, Leahy continued, "in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

@TaiwanIsNotChina

I suspect a lot of these military figures didn't like their contribution being minimized by the bomb....What is clear to outsiders, though, is that it secured the Japan and South Korea we know today.

I find your opinion unconvincing.

The Japanese would have unconditionally given up and surrendered immediately and unconditionally to the US without the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the Soviet Union entered the war.

Early in the war, the Soviets negotiated a peace treaty with Japan so they would not have to fight a war on two fronts. But, after the German surrender, the Soviets broke the treaty, declared war, and invaded Manchuria (including two small islands), crushing an elite Japanese army stationed there and seizing vast, logistically very-difficult territory at breakneck speed. The Soviets were now poised to attack Japan from the west, a trivial distance away across the Sea of Japan. And it was very obvious that they would very quickly do it, using no international forces other than their own.

Now, Japan realized that it was finally doomed. They had no mainland forces left to counter the Soviet juggernaut, and no way to defend against the coming invasion. Now, they had to either surrender to the Allies, or to risk having to surrender entirely to the Soviets.

When dozens of Japanese cities were now being bombed into oblivion every single night, the fact that two of them were destroyed in one blast was only slightly interesting. In fact, The Japanese war councils did not meet to discuss it – but they did immediately convene to discuss the new Soviet-driven reality.

Specifically, Emperor Hitohito's imperial rescript surrender speech to the Japanese troops made no acknowledgement of the bombs:

https://apjjf.org/-tsuyoshi-hasegawa/2501/article.html

In his speech to the soldiers and sailors, especially die-hard officers who might still wish to continue fighting, the emperor did not mention the atomic bomb. Rather, it was Soviet participation in the war that provided a more powerful justification to persuade the troops to lay down their arms.

The emperor did refer to bombs in his rescript to the general Japanese population. However, he also laughably claimed the same speech:

"We declared war....out of Our sincere desire to secure....stabilization of East Asia, it being far from Our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement."

In reality, what motivated Hirohito to surrender to the U.S. was neither a pious wish to bring peace to humanity nor a sincere desire to save the people and the nation from destruction, as his speech to civilians stated and as the myth of the emperor’s “sacred decision” would have Americans eager to justify nuking civilians believe. More than anything else, it was a sense of personal survival and deep responsibility to maintain the imperial house (which Russian occupation would most certainly have dismantled), which had lasted in unbroken lineage since the Jinmu emperor.

Here are some starting points for your research:

https://rethinkingschools.org/2013/08/09/army-teaches-wrong-lesson-in-nations-high-schools/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

@smithinjapan,

They should learn ALL history, from Pearl Harbor to incarceration, to the bombings that caused Japan’s surrender.

Napalming and nuking civilians had nothing to do with Japan's surrender. It's merely an ex post facto justification used by American war crime apologists.

Rather than your opinion on this matter, I place much more value on the words of Brigadier General Carter Clarke:

“We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.”

https://rethinkingschools.org/2013/08/09/army-teaches-wrong-lesson-in-nations-high-schools/

ALIEN vs. PREDATOR

And if the graphic artist doesn't like black people, find a new one.

And if a graphic artist doesn't like working with women, find a new one.

And if the graphic artist doesn't like working with Jews, find a new one.

Just keep trying until you eliminate all the bigots. Easy peasy.

This.

The posters celebrating this ruling would be the first to throw a tantrum and whine about "discrimination" if they were refused housing in Japan due to being a foreigner.

What’s next? No wedding websites for mixed race couples?

America continues its decent into backwards theocracy.

Ridiculous anti-Japan hysteria fueled by South Korean government propaganda.

This A.I. generated Popeye’s fast food ad shows how amazing the tech is.....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SsbWC2qlodQ&pp=ygURUG9weWVzIGFpIGNoaWNrZW4%3D

@Kazuaki Shimazaki,

.......when they are together, they might bother to corpulate in a fertile manner. 

This comment section is an endless source of amusement.

@girl_in_tokyo,

Great posts. I admire your patience shutting down the bigots.

@Samit Basu,

Yes, the situation in South Korea is bad as the country has long been sliding towards political and economic irrelevance.

South Korea is suffering from the demographic fallout of having the world's lowest fertility rate and being one of the planet's fastest-aging societies, all-around economic competition from China, vulnerable supply chains, and negative growth rates.

@Mr. Kipling,

L,G and even B fine....but T?

Excellent summation of the divide and conquer strategy!

Christian evangelical right group "Family Research Council" mapped out three non-negotiables in the fight against transgender people:

The first is to “divide and conquer. For all its recent success, the LGBT alliance is actually fragile and the trans activists need the gay rights movement to help legitimize them.” In other words, separate trans activists from the gay rights movement, and their agenda becomes much easier to oppose. As Kilgannon explained, “Trans and gender identity are a tough sell, so focus on gender identity to divide and conquer.” For many, “gender identity on its own is just a bridge too far. If we separate the T from the alphabet soup we’ll have more success.”

Kilgannon identified a wide coalition of potential allies outside the Christian Right who could confront trans friendly measures. Here’s her advice on how to draw them in:

Explain that gender identity rights only come at the expense of others: women, sexual assault survivors, female athletes forced to compete against men and boys, ethnic minorities who culturally value modesty, economically challenged children who face many barriers to educational success and don’t need another level of chaos in their lives, children with anxiety disorders and the list goes on and on and on.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/23/christian-right-tips-fight-transgender-rights-separate-t-lgb

There's not much point in defending Trump anymore as no one is on the surrender train with him.

Doesn't Republican intellectual colossus Marjorie Taylor Green count?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/04/cpac-rightwing-republicans-ukraine-support-marjorie-taylor-greene

According to the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD sanctions have been very effective:

It is estimated that in 2022, Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) dropped by at least 2.2% in the best-case scenario and by up to 3.9% in the worst-case scenario.

Russia’s economy may continue to shrink in 2023. Its GDP is forecast to decline by 5.6% in the worst-case scenario (OECD) or by 3.3% according to the World Bank. 

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/impact-sanctions-russian-economy/

@Bronco,

People don't realize that sanctions are actually applied to US companies, not to Russian ones.

It's impossible for the US to sanction a Russian company.

Au contraire, sanctions have been very damaging to Russia's warmongering.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/02/russia-run-out-of-money-oleg-deripaska

Curtis LeMay on his role in targeting and mass murdering civilians:

"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals."

Robert McNamara on LeMay's comment:

"And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals."

@Mark,

This article is about the US firebombing, and people are blaming the Imperial Japanese Army. The amount of whatboutism by the anti-Japan gang is sad.

Agreed. Just the same old posters trying to justify the mass murder of civilians and war crimes.

> Why would you be worried about a trans man in the women's dressing room? Transmen are men; they would be in the men's dressing room. 

How about the right of a transwoman to use facilities meant for women? 

And yes, I think that's perfectly fine, since transwomen, unlike straight cisgender men, aren't a danger to other women. 

Unless you can prove otherwise - where are your numbers that prove conclusively that transwomen or transmen are more of a danger to society than cisgender men? I'll wait.

Excellent post. Agree 100%

Trudeau is burnishing his credentials as a total badass.

noun

a tough, uncompromising, or intimidating person.

"one of them is a real badass, the other's pretty friendly"

adjective

tough, uncompromising, or intimidating.

"a badass demeanour"

Looks Putin's gas needs another outlet.