I don't know much about East Germany, but people do leave North Korea. There's like 100,000 North Koreans abroad at any given time. It's UN sanctions that prevent countries from employing North Koreans so they usually only wind up in China or Russia.
The "wall" shit is the demilitarised zone which is the space between two countries technically still at war.
Obviously it wasn't like intentionally written to be as it's just a stupid kids show that exists to sell toy but a lot of the themes in the show do frame policing in a very pro-police way.
I'm sorry but if you're going to refer to people that do a genocide and then use any word that suggest they're a force for good, then I'm going to call you a cunt.
If someone goes "won't anyone give me a gun so I can shoot this child in the head" and person A says "sure thing" and person B says "Sure thing. Also, black lives matter, slava Ukraine".
You wouldn't say person B was actually a force for good unless you think Hitler was a force for good because of his anti-smoking campaigns and animals rights advocacy.
I don't even disagree with the position you have that minimizing genocide is abhorrent. However, by talking about "what is related or not" I personally feel like society is spraying blood from the femoral artery and there's the "tourniquet party" and the "shoot people in the femoral artery" party and you're like "FUCK THE TOURNIQUET PARTY, they abetted genocide! I'm out!". Or "Because of their apparent support for genocide, I will vote for the cautery and surgical foam party, even if they HAPPEN to be a 9 hour drive away."
It's incredibly jarring that you'd call people who abetted a genocide the "tourniquet party"
Because they don't actually care about people who suffered. They just want to put up a museum with a big list of names so they can go "look how evil communism is. They're just the same as nazis but with a different coat of paint."
I saw a comment the other day saying that an .ml called them a nazi and then that same .ml replied with a picture of the comment they had made dehumanising Russians.
Even if paradoxically well paid workers would be better as they'd have more money to spend on things, billionares only focus on what immediately creates profits and that means paying their workers as low a wage as possible. When homelessness exists it means you HAVE to work to survive. You either take the job that pays you far less than the work is worth or you're left on the streets.
Your first link is some guy's website misrepresenting what peta's actual stance on pets is. I already linked to peta's website why they explain the problem is with manufacturing pets. Because there is such a demand for cute pets there's an incentive to produce as many as possible and that leds to puppy mills where animals are forced into baby producing factories all while stray dogs get put down because they can't find a home. They explain this on their website which I linked in the previous comment.
Peta doesn't have a problem with the concept of having a pet, the problem is how such a reality exists. If people have a demand for pets then that means there needs to be a supply for pets. This is what that quote about the vice president meant. She simply doesn't envision a world where pets can be manufactured in any ethical way. I do but I also don't care if she thinks that because what she and peta stand for is treating animals ethically and that's a good thing.
PETA started a campaign that Milk causes autism based on a couple of week studies, which they've since removed from the record
I can't look at the campaign anymore because they've removed it but I found this article which had quotes from their website where it shows they mentioned that more research was needed and that one of the studies only had like 20 kids in it. Of course the media ran with headlines like "Oh peta said milk causes autism!" When they didn't. They used the autism panic at the time and the "got milk" ad which existed to create a narrative that milk was a necessary part of a healthy diet to shift to a discussion about why we think milk is needed for a healthy lifestyle when the milk industry pumps cows full of hormones and shit that wind up in milk, not to mention the fact that cow milk is obviously for cows whereas human milk is for humans. Milk serves a role in mammals to quickly grow their offspring and yet humans don't just continue drinking milk but we also drink milk from other animals. They go over all this on their website: https://www.peta.org/features/peta-ad-cows-dairy-products-disease/
I do take issue with how they framed autism with a frowny face as that normalises the notion that autism is a bad thing and I'm glad it's been taken down. But at the end of the day peta is a charty for treating animals ethically. The way our society treats animals is so evil that holocaust survivors, the event we treat as the ultimate evil, draw parallels to it. There is such an urgency to put an end to this cruelty that I honestly don't give a fuck if such a charity employs the "any publicity is good publicity" method which sometimes results in campaigns that look too goofy or sometimes go a bit to far.
This is yet another example of anti-peta misinformation.
Peta has high kill rates in their shelters because they have a no turn away policy. They will take any animal into their shelter and unfortunately many animals typically the older less cute ones are harder to find homes for and rather than keep them locked up in cages for the rest of their lives they settle for the less cruel option which is putting down the animals that aren't going to find a loving home.
No-kill shelters have a trick up their sleeve where they look good on paper but in reality they turn away animals that aren't likely to be adopted or even send animals that aren't likely to get adopted to peta where they are then put down. In other words peta aren't uniquely evil and bad at their job, the system funnels more animals into their hands because the alternative is leaving animals on the streets or locked up in cages for the rest of their lives.
Yes, that's the bad reason I've been repeatedly debunking over all the flaws inherent to it and that you're somehow entrenched in thinking is a good point?
No you haven't you've just said "yes and this is one of those structures" You have to actually explain why it's necessary.
(And dude you've brought Xi into this when I was never talking about China - I get you like them real hard but I'm not discussing them?)
At this point you're just trolling. This thread began with China as an example of a dictatorship which lead into the discussion about term limits as the main reason for that. I'm not going to keep feeding the troll. Blocked.
Oh boy if comparisons of our treatment of animals to the way we treated victims of the holocaust upset you then wait until you hear about the first guy to do it. Let's just say he had some first hand experience...
The animal industry uses up a hell of a lot more water than AI. And the water usage from AI mostly comes from the efforts to produce that electricity which in this case typically means fossil fuels. These issues would be solved if we were just using renewable energy sources.
I don't know much about East Germany, but people do leave North Korea. There's like 100,000 North Koreans abroad at any given time. It's UN sanctions that prevent countries from employing North Koreans so they usually only wind up in China or Russia.
The "wall" shit is the demilitarised zone which is the space between two countries technically still at war.