Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sugariedreams2707 Then we are in agreement concerning titles, gender pronouns, and preferred etiquette of being addressed in a certain way.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not a big deal.
Whatever makes the recipient happy.
My motto is "just be nice". Smile, and the world will smile back, and all of that.
Also, as far as I'm concerned nobody is going to get chucked into jail for getting it wrong, so what's the big deal.
90% of people, in their daily lives, will never even meet a transgender.
I'm 55, and I've never met one. So again, no big deal.
Thing about cause and effect though, is that the bullying, discrimination, insulting language, degrading remarks and real life disadvantages (getting fired from a job or losing an apartment) came first and the effect of that was a law.
I don't think such a law would ever be made use of, unless it was as a direct result of the above.
We should not stand up for dubious "rights" of bullies and assh*les to be bullies and assh*les.
2
-
@sugariedreams2707 As for the "bathroom thingy".
The idea idea is actually to simply return to the way is was for many centuries.
The single bathroom, which all can use.
As you have noted, it is not only cheaper for small cafes, but also better in the way of flow. Have you ever seen those long queues in front of the ladies, whilr the stalls in the mens were unoccupied?
Dumb, I would say.
A much better use of the space (and cheaper to build) is one big room, with separate stalls. That way anybody can just go in wherever they want.
There is no need to build "special bathrooms" for each and every person, gender, or sex.
One bathroom, one room, one door (many separate cubicles inside).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mrcool2107
The reality?
As the name "famine" already suggests, it is man-made, and not entirely natural.
Even worse than that, it would have been easy to avoid millions of deaths. Maybe not every death, but certainly many.
With a pot of ink and a table.
Certainly, even with a war going on (like during the 1943 famine), the most powerful empire in the world should have been able to do that.
Line up the people, sell them a few kilos of rice/food at a government set price, finger in the pot, on your way...
Note also, when food shortages did seem imminent or predictable for themselves, like during WW1 and WW2, food rationing was introduced. Strange, that it wasn't left to "market forces" to sort that out...
So much for the "well, we didn't know it was going to be so bad"-excuses...
But, of course Operation Legacy meant "winners" can sink evidence of crimes "to the bottom of the deepest oceans", or burn it, with instructions to ensure that ashes are ground to dust, and are not readable.
I wonder what "evidence" was so embarrassing, that it had to be burnt to cinders? The construction of roads and schools maybe?
Luckily for the British and their "popular or narrative history", most people are biased.
Most people consider it "not so bad" letting people die of starvation, as opposed to actively murdering them. I assume, to the victim the effect is the same (perspective). You die.
A bias known as "omission bias", and it's easy to fool people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Reality with re. to the "good whites" who "abolished slavery".
Slavery was abolished, because there was more to be gained by abolishing it, than by perpetuating it.
In a changing world where more and more people were becoming literate (mid 19th century), and newspapers and knowledge spread widely, it was simply a good "finger pointing"-tool.
The states which had abolished it, and paid the slave owners handsomely as an incentive, could now "finger point" at "bad states/people" in a giant propaganda match.
With a few exceptions, nobody "abolished slavery" because they woke up one morning feeling sorry for "poor slaves" lanquishing in misery.
In GB, the families who gained millions over millions of Pounds in return for "abolishing slavery" in a massive "trickle up"-scheme, at the expense of taxpayers, were paid in advance. The last "installment" of this gaint "wealth distribution"-scheme from the bottom up (the armies of taxpayers) to the top (ruling class), was only paid back in 2015.
LOL...BAMBOOZLED...
Sorry "taxpayer class".
You lose.
Again, and again, and again, and again...
The families who received their "reinbursement" for "lost property" (human beings) upfront 200 years ago, still block any and all freedom of information acts, to keep hidden who they are.
YOU are not soposed to find out "WHO GAINED BIGTIME" 200 hundred years ago, but YOU must bleat out the "whites are good people, cos we ended slavery"-narrative...
It was done for gain for the own "empire", at the expense of some other "empire".
2
-
Looks like the "army of empire apologists" have discovered this video, making the same kind of superficial apologia which a dozen "reaction videos" have already debunked as bs.
*The statement to "govern with the lightest possible hand" (H.W. Crocker) as "indirect rule", is divide and rule/conquer, which is what London did everywhere it went, FOR OWN GAIN.*.
"Lightest possible governing" when it is profitable (one tier), and "benign neglect" if it is potentially favorable (another tier).
The intention of "divide and rule" is not to facilitate unrests or wars, but in order to skim off the highest possible yield, with the lowest possible own imput. Those who "rule" with "light hands" amplify differences, or innocently state there is nothing they can do to try and even out diffences, thereby setting up those in the "cabooses" of the trains against each other, or employ such lower paygrades as "stokers" for the locomotives...
The actions are revealed by the events, not words.
2
-
@felixjoshua7679 What I mean is that for around a hundred years, the Ottoman Empire tried to resist foreign attacks on their soil.
The British Empire and France invaded Egypt, then Italy attacked Libya, and in the Balkans the age of nationalism led to the ethnicities here rising up (see 1st and 2nd Balkan Wars).
All of this meant that over a period of 100 years, the Ottoman Empire shrank more and more, and since the rising mechanization of wars from the late-19th/early-20th gave European powers such a competitive advantage, that further resistance would have been futile.
After the Balkan Wars, the Ottoman Rulers (Pashas) last attempt was to create an alliance with a European power, to safeguard what was left at the time from further foreign meddling (mainly the danger posed by Russia, aiming for control of the Dardanelles).
This geostrategic move (a grand alliance Berlin-Vienna-Budapest-Constantinople) would have indeed protected the remaining parts of the Ottoman Empire.
Russia and France were against this. GB was mixed, but mostly indifferent to such an alliance.
If you look at a map, you'll notice that "little Serbia" was in the way of such an alliance. Belgrade controlled the Danube, and rail connections not secure s long as the entire Balkans was not under the control such an alliance. The assassination of the Archduke was a welcome pretext to get rid of Serbia.
After WW1, Turkey was all alone, at odds with Italy and Greece, and with no potential alliance partners (Berlin/Vienna/Budapest was seriously weakened). That option was gone.
What I meant with "collusion" is that the measures you mentioned was the attempt to make Turkey more favorable to western people. For the people of Turkey, it was a good thing.
Sort of like Saudi Arabia is today also loosening its strict rules and Sharia Law, because the leaders know that most westerners would never ally with a country which didn't uphold western social standards and laws.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2