Challenge accepted

What’s “heterolingual”? You can only talk to people who speak a different language than the one you use?

You wouldn’t download a book?

Blanta’s Blittle Blelper

I’d argue you still have a lot more visibility than if you were facing the other way. And you have to slide out a lot less to get a good-enough line of sight.

How many kilometers is your hood?

Wait, sorry. If cars are that big around you, you must be American. Let me rephrase: how many Washington Monuments is your hood?

Looking at any road, that number seems about right.

The point is not to reduce the amount of war crimes? Right. I forgot. The point is to signal as much virtue as possible.

This is not about “exercising choice”. This is about affecting the outcome.

To me, at least, it seems like they were fired not as a punishment for Russia’s war crimes but because their Russian citizenship made them compromised - at least in the eyes of their employer. But for the sake of the argument I’m willing to go with your interpretation.

The article doesn’t say who these Russian employees voted for. And it doesn’t matter - I doubt ABBYY knew how each of them voted when deciding to fire them. The question of whether or not they were held accountable had nothing to do with how they voted - only with what Russia ended up doing and with the fact they had a Russian citizenship.

Not voting for Putin, even voting against him, did not help the employees that did so to avoid being fired. The only thing that would have done that was if Russia didn’t invade Ukraine (which would have also had the nice little bonus of not having about a million casualties and not making the lives of many times that number a living hell. But we don’t care about such trivialities. We only care about the virtue that gets signaled)

But no vote they’d have cast could change that. Because Russia is a one-party system - Putin gets elected no matter what.

The USA is a two-party system. Either the Democrats get elected, or the Republicans. A third option is not more realistic than someone defeating Putin in the Russian elections. An American voter that cares about being associated with war crimes (I’m not even talking about whether the war crimes will happen or not. Nobody cares about that - only about being liable to them) can not take comfort in voting for a losing candidate that did not contribute to any war crimes (and never had the chance to). They’ll still be associated with these war crimes simply for being American, just like these Russians are being associated with Putin’s action simply for being Russian.

If war crimes are the main issue you care about in these elections, then the only scenario when you should not vote Democrat is if you think the Republicans are going to do better on that front.

So… do you think Trump, if elected, will commit less war crimes, or less horrible war crimes, than Harris?

Can you elaborate on these Russians? Are you referring to the ones that got conscripted to invade Ukraine?

But at least I am allowed to go into the city during lunch.

I doubt 15 minutes are enough to go into the city and eat there.

Can’t the same be said about Lust?

WIth or without tax?

The question is not “how”. The question is “why”.

Which is weird, because SovCits are a cargo cult who try to mimic the legal miracles top lawyers sometimes manage to pull off. Musk should be different - he does have access to these top lawyers who do have deep understanding of the law.

Unless Twittex’ lawyers got the same treatment the engineers got?

They are not made of straw, either.

Concord remaster when?

Well, you don’t eat swords for their calories. You eat them for the iron.