I’m just letting you know the most good faith interpretation of this post, in case you missed it. I’m not interested in arguing about “common parlance”

It’s amazing how much it takes for some to reach the conclusion that systemic change is both necessary and requires… systemic change. As in systems changing. As in greater change than your individual decision to ride an EV or ICEV or public transit. Change that would make it exponentially more intuitive for you to choose the most sustainable one of those options.

Especially if mass transit is not feasible for you, this post is not to shame you or call on you to try and do it anyways. It’s a recognition that riding mass transit is not feasible or intuitive for most people, and a call to make mass transit available to more people rather than investing all that time and energy into the wild goose chase of EV adoption.

The crying indian really did a number on us.

That’s the problem they’re pointing out.

They aren’t doing that, you are. The apples to apples comparison that they are making is our current transit system; with the cars being fully electrified but otherwise as it exists today; versus a transit system that prioritizes mass transit (and walking and biking) over personal vehicles.

Electric cars are a solution to save the auto industry, not the climate.

Yeah I figured, I’ve seen a lot of accurate accounts of history get derided as being “tankie” or worse without any legitimate challenge to what was said. It’s such a powerful thought-terminating cliche around here that I almost never venture into the .world-sphere anymore.

Fair enough, I was only looking at the dates and lining them up with the limited Russian history I am familiar with. I mean the alternative was still potentially complete Nazi occupation of Poland, if those lines weren’t drawn (Of course it’s a foregone conclusion that the Nazis were going to invade Poland) or to go to war with the Nazis and Poland as the battlefield in hopes of ending up with full Russian occupation, but I guess the distinction is important. I don’t claim to be an expert though, feel free to correct me or expand upon anything I’m missing.

Edit: also the Russians didn’t invade until 16 days after the Nazis did, when Poland was already effectively defeated. Again, feel free to fill in the blanks. Cause to me it seems to me that the pact served as reassurance that the Nazis would stop their invasion at the line drawn, so that Russia could allow the invasion to play out (on the off chance of a Polish victory); rather than invading simultaneously and practically guaranteeing Polish defeat; without risking all of Poland becoming Nazi territory.

1939? You mean when Poland was being occupied by the Nazis? Also, everything up to 1907 would have been done under the empire that was toppled by the Russian revolution in 1917. The formation that resulted is the one that poland would have been attacking in 1921, before they had officially formed the USSR in 1922, which altogether was dissolved 35 years ago in 1991. You realize geopolitics is about more than just monolithic masses of land?

Small correction, not relevant to the other commenter.

The two-state solution still implies an apartheid structure and in fact is exactly what has led to what we are witnessing today. A single state, where all people enjoy equal rights; where Palestinians are represented in the state, allowed to return to their homeland, and receive reparations; should be what we are looking towards as the most stable end to this violence. There will not be extended peace as long as there is land reserved to remain as a zionist ethnostate.

Highest praises to her autobiography, absolute must read. Rest in power Assata ✊🏾

Also lumping in deaths from Israeli bombs in that figure (re: Hannibal directive)

Yes exactly my point, thank you for clarifying

The US dumps money into “defense” because it is under a dictatorship of capital and it just so happens that selling weapons is an extremely effective way of converting public tax dollars into private capital. The US profits from endless violence, plain and simple. “American exceptionalism” i.e. chauvinism is just how they sell it to the people at large in order to appear democratic.

If the US left NATO it would cease to exist. It’s a protection racket, and one without a real threat at that. It was always intended as a red scare tactic (operation gladio for example) and to isolate the USSR, which no longer exists, by expanding US military influence across Europe. NATO has never been about european defense and it would be a solution in search of a cause without the US.