• kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 hours ago

    The amertican people have been asking for some time for Britain to take us back. Thats how bad our government is-- we’d happily sign back onto the absolute dumpter fire of British government rule and it’d be a great improvement.

    • Impractical_Island@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I be a dumpster fire of the stewards cost of baritone prominence, and I know what I understand and that’s where seven doth cost six one two in the back of yhr ninr snd that typo was on purpose, obviously.

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Come on, Britain.
        Please? We’re very used to “taxation without representation” now and its fine with us. Just give us a second chance and take us back, baby. it’ll be better this time – we’ve learned our lesson.

        • Impractical_Island@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Bro I am the 48th n 50th president, tf you on about? I represent a group of honest, trustworthy individuals representing the representatives of the government who make up the remains of the Illuminati and will be happy to take your banking information at a moment’s notice, I’ll have you know.

  • Cypressed@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    You kiddin’? I’ve been begging Canada to take New England as a province since y2k.

    ngl tho, for all its difficulties the british medical system is straight up better than the american one, since the american one is basically “no system, fuck you get rekt” x.x

  • carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m down for being annexed just please

    1. Don’t be a country seriously considering electing Nigel Farage or the local equivalent
    2. Be careful how much you annex or you will get #1 eventually.
    • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      shitstirring

      The word “trolling” covers exactly this concept. Unlike the misused term Russian “troll farm”, which is more accurately a hostile foreign psy-op.

      • athatet@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Whats brilliant is that more than one word can mean the same thing. It keeps things from getting boring.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Honestly, right now I’d love to be annexed by Canada.

    Or Denmark.

    Like. I’d totally help make that happen.

    • Junkers_Klunker@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Dane here. while your offer is flattering, we can’t accept as we have our own environmental problems to fix first. We don’t need another dumpster to clean.

        • Junkers_Klunker@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          It would require a genocide to clean Texas of all their environmental issues. And as far as I’m concerned, genocide is wrong.

          • TheparishofChigwell@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            That implies massacring minorities

            Genocide is only that when aimed at a race, not a locale

            You are free to nuke the whole place by merit of their stance alone

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 days ago

              Genocide is any group of people. A culture or national group, religious group, race, identity, or whatever else. If you’re identifying a group of people to destroy (not even just kill, but targeted destruction) that’s a genocide.

              • TheparishofChigwell@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                That definition is way too broad and ignores why the term exists. Genocide is a specific legal concept from the 1948 UN Convention, not a catch-all word for any group of people you decide to label.

                The law only covers national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups because those are the categories that have historically been targeted for systematic annihilation. Political groups were explicitly excluded when the convention was drafted for a reason. If you just define it as any group you want to destroy, the word loses all legal weight and precision.

                You can call mass violence against other groups a crime against humanity or a war crime—those are still incredibly serious—but calling it genocide just because it fits your personal preference is factually wrong. Precision matters if you actually want to talk about international law rather than just throwing around emotionally charged terms.

                Do you have any actual legal basis for your definition, or are you just making it up as you go?

                • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Yeah, and legally Trump wasn’t convicted of rape, because the court that convicted him had a definition that didn’t match the common usage, which the judge explicitly pointed out IIRC. Legal definitions are just that. They’re legal definitions, not the definition. Here’s the wiki page. It starts by saying “Genocide is the partial or total destruction of a human group, committed intentionally.”

              • TheparishofChigwell@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                Genocide is the deliberate attempt to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

                What do you say it is then? Instead of going: “nu-uh!” at things

                context often helps the thinkers to recognize the non thinkers

    • ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      You couldn’t pay us enough to put up with your fucking yahoos. I think you’re going to need to figure it out yourselves.

      America will always do the right thing, after they’ve tried literally everything else.

      • SEND_BUTTPLUG_PICS@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        We don’t even try the wrong things. We just keep doing the same old shit we’ve been doing and wondering why nothing ever changes.

      • Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        America has only done the right thing once, and that’s joining WWII. They immediately fucked that up though, when they needlessly nuked Japan twice.

        • ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yes, but then they made peace with Japan and brought it into full trade relationship with the world, and Japan became one of the top economies in the world. Germany the same via the Marshall Plan. All of this could have been accomplished without nuking Japan, but as I said, they have to do every wrong thing before the do the right thing.

          Unfortunately, I’m kind of cynical now given the last 50 years. I really am not sure that the American’s are capable of doing the right thing anymore, despite countless examples of countries around them that manage to treat it’s citizens like people for the most part. The oligarchic structure has gotten it’s talons too far into the meat at this point, and it’s rotting from inside. The citizens have been whittled away from power so extensively that it might take a pretty bloody fight to change it. And given the level of technology dedicated to suppression of citizen power, and even outright rejection of the constitution boundaries that have worked back when they could do the right thing, I’m not sure it’s going to work.

          So yah, I agree with you, today. I wouldn’t have agreed back when they were nuking Japan, because they did eventually do the right thing. And to be fair, Japan visited untold suffering on other countries. It’s hard to say if they would have capitulated without that display of overwhelming force. They sure didn’t seem open to it beforehand. But I guess we won’t know in this fucked up timeline.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        He says from a sofa…

        Any average Canadian has the same ability to take direct action and dictate their will over the US government as any US citizen… Virtually none.

        This is because The US government has achieved nearly a total monopoly on violence. It’s also the same reason you aren’t out in Canada killing cops over the states treatment of your indigenous population. What, do you support the genocidal actions of the Canadian government…why aren’t you out there doing something about it?

        Do you see how immature and naive that sounds?

        Now, I’m not saying that violence never solves anything, just that it requires a level of political organization that does not currently exist to do any good. If there were an actual leftist organizations doing violent direct action right now they would just be used as a tool to validate an even more extreme response from the state.

        Every Malcolm X needs an MLK to juxtapose the options for change to conservatives. As of now we don’t even have anyone close to MLK, mostly because the DNC are filled with center right stooges. Hopefully that changes soon, just recently there’s been a few actually left leaning politicians getting elected. So yes, people are working on the problem. Your hypocritical hysterics are not helping anyone, it just makes you feel less like a citizen of a country that is collaborating with the empire.

        • WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I can’t tell you how disinterested I am in reading another screed from a lazy, defensive, cowardly American. I’m sure someone will read that though 👍

        • Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          A big reason we don’t have a new MLK is because after MLK we functionally made it illegal to do what he did.

          Not explicitly mind you. We just created red tape, new laws and regulations. Around what he did. So your free to do it, just expect you know your not free to do it in anyway that he did, or like he did, or adjacent to what he did. Etc and etc.

          But you totally can do it!

          Public rallying is extremely controlled now.

          • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            Well, a lot of what MLK did wasn’t really legal either. The big difference is that MLK had important allies in Congress and in the Senate that would go out of their way to aid and protect him. You really do need support in powerful places to rally against the state, even in non violent ways.

            Having representatives that can shield your revolutionary actions is important even if you’ve given up on an electoral solution.