Which countries are most, and least 'racist'?
I'm just trying to get a handle on what you mean by 'very'...seems arbitrary and reflexive the way you wrote it.
Which countries are most, and least 'racist'?
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
Trump hotels. And all our brands all over the globe.Seabass wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:55 pm"It seems to me that America is incredibly well branded as a country."
Wtf? We're the most hated country on earth, known for slavery, genocide, and perpetual warfare, and everyone thinks we're stupid, fat, and racist and have terrible cheeses, beers, movies, music, comedy, etc. What the devil is she talking about, "well branded"?!
Does the way 42 wrote 'very' seem arbitrary and reflexive?Cunt wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:20 pmWhich countries are most, and least 'racist'?
I'm just trying to get a handle on what you mean by 'very'...seems arbitrary and reflexive the way you wrote it.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
You are the one claiming one culture is 'very racist'. You go so far as to base it on your claim that the current President is racist.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
C'mon, Seabass, you ain't that bad!Seabass wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:55 pm"It seems to me that America is incredibly well branded as a country."
Wtf? We're the most hated country on earth, known for slavery, genocide, and perpetual warfare, and everyone thinks we're stupid, fat, and racist and have terrible cheeses, beers, movies, music, comedy, etc. What the devil is she talking about, "well branded"?!
I'll accept the historical illiterate label, but it's worse than that.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
Not only did the Russians bear the brunt of German aggression, they also inflicted by far the most damage to the Wehrmacht. Figures are bound to be somewhat rubbery. All sides always overstate the damage they inflict on the enemy and underdeclare the damage they suffered. Nevertheless, analyses of extant records have resulted in numbers that can be regarded as reasonably accurate with significant confidence. The best work appears to have been done in a statistical study by Rüdiger Overmans, which began in 1992 and was published in 2000. In addition to the usual records, it benefited from tons of documents that were declassified in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The study confirmed, in short, that 80% of Germany's soldiers that were killed, went missing in action or became prisoners of war, did so while fighting Russian troops.Cunt wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:57 pmBack to the distortions of America's history, I think it's odd how I didn't know the bit I learned recently. It's the kind of fact I could have guessed, even should have, but it never really occurred to me this way.
If you consider the 'cost' of winning WWII in soldiers spent, Russia (among several others) spent MUCH more than the USA.
I simply never thought of it in terms of 'weight' of contribution. The US really didn't get involved. USSR lost 20 times the people.
I know they were 'spending' them differently, but that doesn't exactly take away from the horror for me.
I was listening to a podcast, where Michael Shermer said that he was in Russia, and they tought WW2 differently, teaching their kids that Russia eliminated the Nazi's from Europe and it's damned hard to argue otherwise.
In the context of what our member from Yellowknife posted about WWII we need to add exactly nothing whatsoever, Jocka. The bottom line is that 80% of German soldiers that were killed, went missing in action or became prisoners of war, did so at the hands of the red army.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests