I’m afraid you’re being maliciously obtuse. There is no need to criticize my pretty regular vocabulary. And the fact that you think the USA hasn’t historically been at the center of the imperialist propaganda machine fruther confirms the need to end our conversation.

The comment above that I replied to had the effect, regardless of intentions, of dismissing and whitewashing the actions of past US administrations, in a way that reduces the illegal invasions of the current administration into an exceptional, idiosyncratic, and one-off behavior. The reality is the US has been hated worldwide for far too long, at least since the end of WW2. I hope I was informative and pertinent enough according to your standards.

The internet is not a neutral space. A country having its own social media platforms instead of letting American companies harvest their citizens’ data is not truly censorship.

their polling indicates they have no idea the level of propaganda they are being faced with every day.

You’re being solipsistic. Not everything you disagree with based on personal whims is “propaganda.”

Didn’t even need to, I walked there fine.

No don’t worry the US had already been using those since manifest destiny.

So invading Afghanistan and Iraq was justifiable enough for you?

Normal, perhaps, in the sense that it is common, but being culturally ingrained is no indication of whether it’s normal in the sense of being human nature

This question is up for debate because some may see limerence as an evolutionary trait within humans and other creatures (like something as benign as sneezing, which can’t be good or bad in and of itself), while others may conceive of it as a social construct. I think both claims are not mutually exclusive; limerence being a social construct does not preclude its material existence, that is, it does not make it any less real; but culture definitely shapes the way we think of limerence and express it.

I view limerence as unsustainable in the long term, but because reciprocation can transform it into genuine love I find it hard to consider it inherently pathological.

Anways, I hope you enjoy the book in case you do read it.

Unfortunately, it is not so much stupidity that interferes with such conversations as much as cognitive dissonance or arguing in bad faith.

Amnesty International has a long history of dismissing anti-colonial resistance on the one hand, and whitewashing western-led massacres on the other.

In 2015, Amnesty published several reports on the 2014 Gaza massacres according to which it condemned the Palestinian resistance while simultaneously under-reporting and under-emphsizing Israeli war crimes. Source 1 Source 2

Not to mention the organization’s hesitancy to condemn Israel’s genocide for the longest time possible.

In 1964, Amnesty disqualified Nelson Mandela as a priaoner of conscience for defending the African National Congress’s use of organized political violence as a necessary and ethical response in the struggle against apartheid. A similar fate happened to whistleblower Julian Assange. Source

Amnesty has repetitively shown anticommunist tendencies, for instance in its 1981 report which dismissed communists as prisoners of conscience because they wanted to overthrow the capitalist state. (Source: Tobias Kelly, A Divided Conscience, Public Culture 30: 3, 1 September 2018, p. 370).

Recently, Amnesty justified Trump’s illegal meddling in Venezuela under the facade of human rights violations. Source

It is ironic how competent Amnesty is in documenting human rights violations in noncapitalist and non-Western states, but is simultaneously oblivious and very narrow-scoped in assessing the state of human rights in Western-aligned countries, namely their disastrous reporting of Pinochet’s Chile. Read on this topic Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, Chapter 4.

If an organization is selective and counter intuitive in what it condemns as violence and whatnot, how could it be trusted? Notwithstanding the fact that Amnesty has a history of receiving funding from the United States State Department, the UK Department for International Development, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and many other shady governments and think tanks.

How would one proceed into such an endeavour, in your opinion? Genuinely curious.

Projection.

So China will counteract its adoption of linux by… Committing a genocide? Something doesn’t add up here.

If you want to criticize China then find something more relevant and credible than CIA propaganda.

I also checked on my end and could not find the quote in question. In fact, there is no mention of fascism in the entire book.

Edit: no results either when searching for the quote on the browser.

I’m in a similar situation. I did inidvidual backups for each app that offers such a feature and copied them into a hard drive with all the photos and other files that I need. It’s arduous the first time but it becomes easier the next time you do a full backup. I have an organized folder which contains subfolders for each app and for photos, downloads, etc. All backup files are exported into their respective folder. It takes me all in all up to 15 minutes.

WhatsOpen lets you start whatsapp conversations without needing to give meta access to your contacts. Although you still need to have the official whatsapp app and an account there.

The owner of the second-hand bookstore I frequent is a leftist, so yes.

That’s a correct observation.

It’s unfair to imply that Islam has been stagnant for a millennia, when in reality numerous scholars from across the globe have contributed so much to Islamic jurisprudence and still do. “Islam” is a very wide notion and cannot be reduced to a historically and spacially specific vision thereof. You cannot find the same Sharia law in two Muslim countries. Some countries even accomodate different Islamic rites by providing them with parallel legal systems.

Historically, reaction to queerness in the Global South has been relative to the imperial core’s stance on it.

Homophobia is largely (though not always) a colonial legacy. Many premodern nations, to different extents, were either accepting or tolerant of queer relationships. The colonial authorities criminalized same-sex relationships (e.g. British Raj, French African colonies, etc.). Some postcolonial nations after they achieved their independence, retracted these laws, but the majority didn’t. So for a certain period in the 20th century, queerness was a symbol of anticolonial struggle, because it meant defying the West.

However, as the imperial core and its neoliberal institutions absorbed queer activism into their agenda of foreign affairs, queerness began to be depicted as the face of imperialism.

The struggle of being a bourgeois, liberal state.