don’t believe I made the point that contemporaries criticized their fascism outright, I made the point that they were fascist and rejected Marx. Calling them Communist isn’t accurate in any way, plus they were stopped by the Vietnamese Communists.

I think what’s pertinent to the original argument was that they were communist while the Khmer Rouge were committing their atrocities. Labeling a country that transitioned from communism to fascism as a purely fascist government is misleading and reductive.

Also, being opposed to a communist government does not mean you’re automatically a fascist. As we know communist China attacked communist Vietnam right after the US Vietnam war.

The history of geopolitics in Asia is very complicated and cannot be summed up in a short Lemmy comment

It’s no more complicated than the history of European geopolitics. As an Asian person, I get told this by western people a lot. I think it’s just a hold over from the western interpretation of the east being based in mystery. Also, the complications of any topic does not validate the type of misleading/reductive comment you made.

my point was to distance Pol Pot from Communism, because he wasn’t a Communist and denounced Communism, nor did he implement Socialism.

I think this is completely inaccurate depending on what time you are talking about. I would say Pol Pot was probably one of the most ardent communist of the 50’s, it was just a weird type of agrarian communism. And in the regions he controlled he did attempt to construct a classless agrarian socialist society.

Pol Pot didn’t really divert from communism until the 80’s and that was a last ditch effort to get the west to support his failing regime. I don’t particularly believe that “We chose communism because we wanted to restore our nation. We helped the Vietnamese, who were communist. But now the communists are fighting us. So we have to turn to the West and follow their way.” constitutes as denouncing Marxism.

China, the USSR, and North Korea were/are Socialist, and should be judged as such, for better and for worse. Pol Pot and the gang were not, so judging them as though they were is just silly.

You haven’t supported the argument that the Khmer Rouge were never communist… Now I’m willing to compromise and say they transitioned away from communism as did the Russians, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that they were communist at some point.

How exactly was Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge not communist in the 50s-70’s?

Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and was lead by fascists who rejected Marx, like the Nazis.

I think that’s a highly misleading and highly reductionist interpretation. The Khmer Rouge was supported by the US, but mostly after the conflict had ended.

The Khmer Rouge was overwhelmingly supported by the CCP, especially during the Vietnam war, and before the Chinese invasion of Vietnam afterwards.

Also, PolPot wasn’t criticized for his diversion from Marxism until the 80’s, well after the most turbulent times in Cambodia. And even then Deng Xiaoping only criticised the Khmer Rouge for engaging in “deviations from Marxism-Leninism”

The only person on the left who accused him of being a fascist was Hoxha, but that was after his schism with the maoist. So to him any communist Asian was basically a barbaric fascist.

Reminder that I’m a random person on the internet

My dad taught physiology and survival training in the Air Force, and later for the FAA. You’re right about this not being very useful in any kind of survival scenario.

You’re going to lose a lot more liquid just digging the hole than you would ever gain from collecting condensation. Pretty much the most important survival item in any scenario is a pot that can boil a couple cups of water.

For the most part, filters are just for taste and mouth feel. Nothing you can make or find in an emergency situation is going to filter out the stuff that’s going to give you dysentery, or it won’t work fast/efficient enough to keep you from dehydrating. Unless you have some iodine or bleach handy, being able to boil water is a must.

Nah, the Japanese government since WW2 has primarily been run by war criminals or the children of war criminals. Modern Japan is basically what Germany would have been if people like Goring got to skip the Nuremberg trials and instead became the president.

Are you actually trying to say you did not say “They didn’t decide”? Because it’s right there, just a few posts up. Literally word for word.

Can you not see that you were the first to state “They didn’t decide”?

Again, “DNC has the responsibility to remain impartial, and when it doesn’t, it’s not surprising that the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses.” Is not the same as “they decided”.

Believing someone deserves something is not the same as giving something to someone. It’s just evidence of partiality.

Are you really not smart enough to just go look back after I told you you said it? Or are you just grossly dishonest? Who are you lying for here? You can’t honestly believe you can gaslight, because it’s still right there for me to look at.

I think you may need to work on your rhetoric and reading comprehension.

Also, I see you’ve continued to ignore the fact that you haven’t defended your original statement. You know… the whole point of the argument.

Nah, this dude is just lying their asses off for some reason. I get voting for the lesser of two evils, I mean I voted for Clinton as well. But, apparently there are still ride or die Clinton heads out here still sucking down the copium.

Lol

They didn’t decide.

And

the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses.

Are the same to you…?

Keep trying to shift the goal post.

You are the one who made an assertion, I rebutted it with sources evidence. You keep trying to squirm away from the fact that you were absolutely wrong. You can keep up the gish gallop of logical fallacies if you want, but we both know you have failed to defend your original affirmation, so now you are relying on semantic reasoning.

Project harder next time.

the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses.

Is what I originally said… You decided to take it out of context and change the phrasing, interpreting it as if I claimed they rigged the primaries. In reality they did decide who they thought deserves to be the president, the impartiality is clear.

You aren’t being very academically honest.

This is all moot, the original argument was that you claimed all the DNC did was write some bad email, and that’s just not true. The DNC showed a remarkable amount of bias in the primaries. All your other arguments have just been poor attempts to distract from the fact that your original statement was a lie.

Go kick rocks.

You literally linked to two people saying it was rigged with the link text “they didn’t decide”

Lol, the reason it’s in quotes is because it’s quoting you.

This branch of the argument derives from as a response to my original rebuttals. Which was “has the responsibility to remain impartial, and when it doesn’t, it’s not surprising that the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses”

You interpreted this as the DNC decided the election. In the article I provided, there is plenty of evidence to prove that the DNC did not remain impartial and chose to meddle the democratic process. You chose to ignore the entirety of the context to fixate on pedantry that furthers you logical fallacy.

Again, you don’t even realize you are fighting your own strawman argument.

You’ve got yourself so tied up trying to be right or trying not to be wrong, rather than figure out what’s right, that you don’t even know which way’s up anymore.

Said the man to the mirror.

I used the word argument, not claims.

Yes, you made an assertion which is also known as a claim, I made a rebuttal.

Are you suggesting you aren’t making an argument?

An argument is between two sides, one making an affirmation and the other a negation. Since you were the first to make a claim, you are the affirmation. The negation of this claim is not in fact creating a new claim, or assertion.

My rebuttals are dependent on your assertions, so you are in fact steering the argument. So asking if I’m “pretending if that’s been my argument the whole time” is nonsensical.

So, how exactly did they rig it? You’re making some vague claims, but can point to nothing.

I never claimed anything was “rigged”, that’s a strawman of your own making. My rebuttals was that DNC was impartial, and the article I provided already explains how.

You are mostly arguing with yourself via shoddily applied logical fallacy.

Are you pretending that’s been your argument up to this point?

My dude, you are the one making claims. I’m just negating them as they come.

Btw, why didn’t you point out that both of them backtracked the comments?

Again… Manufactured consent. Why would two senior politicians make claims and then backtrack upon them without admitting they were wrong in the first place? Could it be that both of these politicians are dependent on the DNC for their political careers?

Just because someone is pressured into retracting a comment does not mean that it erases the material evidence the comments were based on.

They didn’t decide

Because that’s the type of candidate they believe they want.

Guessing you’ve never heard of the term “manufacturing consent”?

No, I’m saying that the DNC has the responsibility to remain impartial, and when it doesn’t, it’s not surprising that the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses.

Only after the rest of the moderate candidates were convinced to drop out before the debate and voting… Sanders would have likely won the primaries if there were more moderates on the ticket to split the vote.

Hillary was unlikeable because she was a woman who wasn’t submissive. Sexist people hate that. Everyone who ever met her loves her.

I mean, that’s just validating her own reasoning on why she lost the election. She didn’t win because she was arrogant, and decided she didn’t have to campaign in Michigan.

People also didn’t like the fact that she and the DNC colluded together to torpedo Sander’s primary at any given chance.

I personally don’t like her because of what the Clinton’s have done to the DNC over the last 2 decades, particularly their championing of 3rd way politics.

Offhandedly blaming every valid criticism as Republican propaganda does nothing but drive people away. Hillary Clinton was obviously a bad candidate, this is self evident in the fact that she lost to a conman.

It’s not the job of the DNC to blame voters for not voting for their chosen candidate, it’s their job to give us candidates that we want to vote for.

Yeah… My oldest cat makes different noises for different requests. Yowling near door to go outside, chirping near bowls for dinner, and little mews while following you around to be picked up. And I’m not really sure it’s an outlier case as the other two younger cats are starting to learn to do the same.

If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly.

That’s a pretty big ask for a democratic government where half of the politicians are actively sabotaging climate initiatives…

The only countries where this is really feasible are places where federal powers can supersede the authority of local governments. A nuclear based power grid in America would require a complete reorganization of state and federal authority.

The only way anyone thinks nuclear energy is a viable option in the states is if they completely ignore the political realities of American government.

For example, is it physically possible for us to build a proper deep storage facility for nuclear waste? Yes, of course. Have we attempted to build said deep storage facility? Yes, since 1987. Are we any closer to finishing the site after +30 years…no.

No, it won’t. That’s the point of the misconception. You even get to it later then dismiss. We aren’t taking about overall health. We aren’t talking about the 'betes.

I mean, whenever you are talking about health you always consider total outcomes. The articles you are linking are talking about a very specific type of dehydration.

None of those things will dehydrate you more despite people saying differently. Not soda, not milk, even beer under 2% beer will be better. You will be rehydrated, there WILL be a net gain of water in your body. There is no net loss of water no matter how much people say sugar or caffeine will lower the net gain.

“Beverages with more concentrated sugars, such as fruit juices or colas, are not necessarily as hydrating as their lower-sugar cousins. They may spend a little more time in the stomach and empty more slowly compared to plain water, but once these beverages enter the small intestine their high concentration of sugars gets diluted during a physiological process called osmosis. This process in effect “pulls” water from the body into the small intestine to dilute the sugars these beverages contain. And technically, anything inside the intestine is outside your body. Juice and soda are not only less hydrating, but offer extra sugars and calories that won’t fill us up as much as solid foods, explained Majumdar. If the choice is between soda and water for hydration, go with water every time. After all, our kidneys and liver depend on water to get rid of toxins in our bodies”

From your own article…

If you’re dehydrated, you’re lacking salt. There’s a reason why physically demanding companies provide free drink packets to their crews. They don’t want road crews dying by the side of the road because they slammed water and had no salt on a 100 degree day working next to a machine shooting out molten tar and rock. We aren’t pumping people’s blood full of sterile water. Saline bags are .9% salt for a reason.

Again, you are talking about a specific type of dehydration… hyponatremia is exceedingly rare and is usually a sign of an undiagnosed kidney disease. Your nephrons will usually regulate your thirst in conjunction to the available salts in the body.

Dehydration is not just a lack of salt, it’s an imbalance of salt. Meaning that you can just be low on fluid with too much salt available.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/when-replenishing-fluids-does-milk-beat-water-202211142849

"Unsurprisingly, the ad is sponsored by the milk industry. And while I’d never heard this claim before, the studies behind the idea aren’t particularly new or compelling. "

Finally, the main benefit of water is that it’s neutral. The reason why people don’t tell you to slam a glass of milk or soda if you’re dehydrated is because it can upset your stomach. When concentrated amounts of sugars or fats enter the intestine the dilution process can go overboard and cause diarrhea, which can dangerously dehydrate you further.

Hydration is more complicated than what you are alluding too. Simply stating everything but piss and liquor is better than water is just ridiculous and misleading. In specific scenarios other liquids may provide some advantages, but it’s highly reductive to make that claim so broadly. Especially considering it requires you to separate hydration from kidney health, you know the things that control your thirst in the first place.

You know what’s better than water when you need water? Nearly everything that isn’t alcohol or literal piss.

I mean it really depends on the person and their current condition. The article you linked kinda has an abstract definition of hydration that doesn’t take into account things normally associated with dehydration.

If you are working hard outside and are mildly dehydrated I wouldn’t recommend slamming down a sugary soda with caffeine. Excessive sugar is diluted in the intestines which can cause further dehydration, and caffeine is a diuretic.

Normally this wouldn’t really matter, but if you’re already dehydrated it can make the situation worse.

Water is great, it may not be the most effective hydrator in the world as it doesn’t have the electrolytes and sugars that something like Gatorade has. However, it’s the best thing for your overall kidney and liver health which is what really matters. Most Americans already have an excess of salt, fat, and sugar in their diets, so even after working outside and sweating your ass off you are probably better off just having some water.

Yet here we are, talking about it. “There’s no such thing as ‘Bad Press’”, I guess? Are they right?.. maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?.. also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?.. no, not really.

Right, but we are talking about it knowing the consequences of not enacting changes. In the US fox news is watched by something like 40% of active voters. Meaning a significant portion of voters actively distrust news about climate change, another significant portion do not think about it on a day to day basis.

Giving the news network ammunition like this only further entrenches these audiences in anti climate change reactions.

Seems like something I’ll have to read more about.

Would knowing that this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress that lives in a 33m dollar home affect your opinion?