Do you mean all forms of liberalism or how the word is used in political circles in the US?

I actually agree with you with everything else you said about atomisation, I'm just confused about the part when you said 'liberalism'

Oh, in the US, liberalism is a defensive, antagonistic point of view that despises all forms of correction or feedback.
Their primary moral philosophy is distance, non-interaction, "you do you, I can't tell you what to do" and it's the most unifying trait of liberal thought.
Wanting to do whatever you want, so you have to let other people do whatever they want or you're the bad guy.

They think that "don't judge" trumps "love your neighbor."

They think that absolving themselves or the person they're speaking to of any responsibility or standard is the only way to prevent or resolve conflict.

So you meant liberalism as it is defined in the US that promotes atomisation?

Eh, I agree with that to a good degree

What's sad about it is that by enforcing this separation of influence, they are using their own influence. In saying that you can't tell them what to do, they are telling YOU what to do. They judge you for being judgmental, presuming that you are a bad actor when you have someone else's interests at heart.

It is a very insidious form of bigotry.

And they have no defense for a government in this framework other than force and status quo. They can never tell you why a good guy with a gun is any different from a policeman, and often devolve logically into hating police on this basis. They can't tell you why prison is justifiable if you have no reason to tell someone else what not to do. They're just in favor of what helps them personally.

It's the godless worldview.

how the word is used in the us generally forms a part of liberalism more broadly

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/540321294319878150/664047811150741505/image0.png

Ok sooo...

I've heard that policies pushed by The Greens in Australia have actually contributed to the spread of the fires. Can someome elaborate on this?

It's California but worse.

The people protesting against controlled burns let brush and dead wood pile up until one day it hits a overfuelled, unhindered blaze.

Some have also blamed it on arson, because people want to prove that the world is on fire by setting it on fire and blaming climate change.

Even though it was their own refusal of controlled-burn forest management that allowed it to go this far on its own.

Is control-burn management actually necessary there? Over here, I have never heard of us intentionally burning forests. I assume they just get exploited for wood so well we don't really need to.

I'm not an expert nor a firefighter, but I think control-burning seems like a good idea.

I get why it's a good idea if your forests are full of dead wood and undergrowth, but ours aren't.

Australia is huge, though, so I excuse them not being able to tend to all of the forests.

I also heard that the policies enacted by the Greens stopped the tending of forests in Australia

Am I mistaken?

I know there were protests over it, people wanting to end or limit controlled burning

And I know there are less instances of controlled burning than there were

But by how much Idk

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-05/lack-of-backburning-blamed-for-fire-losses-in-gippsland/10869018?pfmredir=sm

I've also read a few stories like this quite recently

A place like this sure could use more somali crime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-WViLMs_4c

lol?

Due to Switzerland being a direct democracy, it actually has some ***🅱️ased*** laws

Like sometime ago, the Swiss Nationalist Party with a weird name I can't recall and a logo that looks like a pre-school, started a petition on whether or not to ban the construction minaret towers.
You know, which tend to be attached to mosques where the imam shouts prayers as you've probably seen in Islamic countries.
Anyway, under Swiss law when a petition reaches a certain number a public referendum must be held, and that's exactly what happened. And the majority of the Swiss people voted to ban the construction of minaret towers.

https://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-arming-neo-nazis-ukraine/24876

<:thinking_clown:590855640268668928>

after Iran and Iraq's offenses against the US, if both parties are pulled into full on conflict, who's allied against each side?

from what it seems like, it's going to be them against the rest of the world

Russia and China haven't asked us to btfo

I heard the US and Canada have sent forces over

In this situation our allies count, irans allies only count if they're dumb enough to think Iran will win, they started hostilities so the don't have a leg to stand on in calling on allies

yeah i'm pretty sure the rest of the Middle East is going to side with us because Iran was in the wrong here