I hate how relevant this question is in so many situations.

This is especially true with generic medicines.

The cheapest I can get Claritin in my nearest supermarket is 50¢—$1.12/pill.

The store brand can be as low as 7¢—37¢/pill.)

The CostCo version is 2 or 3¢/pill.

All of them are the same. 10mg of loratadine, highly regulated by the FDA.

They can differ with inactive ingredients, so maybe you’d like a syrup or something from a name brand. But it legally has to be the same active ingredients, in the same amounts, in the same forms.

One near me got into trouble for their “In Trump We Trust” sign, because it violated town codes. It was a BIG ass sign. I never need ice cream so badly I’d put money in a fascist’s pocket.

Also… how does anyone look at that sign and not immediately see that it’s a cult?

Of course, I think it’s undeniable that there’s anti-Chinese racism, and it can play into attacks on China, especially from the right. The thing is, my criticisms of China are things that I hate about the US and its allies. It’s not that China is some strange, unique evil. On the contrary, they’re similar.

In another comment, you talked about how genocide requires mass killings, but I wouldn’t limit it to that (nor would the UN). And yes, that makes the US complicit. The genocide of Native Americans didn’t stop with murder, but included stealing children to “reeducate” them. The eugenecist movement sterilized women without so much as their knowledge, much less their consent—and they were predominantly Black, Asian, and Native American. The Tuskeegee experiments also left people sterilized, and that’s just part of how it ruined and ended lives. Obviously we’ve seen “Islamic extremism” used as an excuse to demonize Muslims in general, ignore material conditions that lead to violent resistance, and justify brutal repression.

We’ve already talked about evidence, and I don’t know what to tell you. You also said that you don’t trust any citation in the Wikipedia article, so that’s cutting out sources I would absolutely lend weight: the UN, the Asspociated Press, Reuters, academic journals… and if your response to the UN report isn’t “technically this would mean it’s ethnocide,” then I don’t think we’re going to have a productive conversation.

A while back, I read an article by Dara Horn about the failures of Holocaust education, and the rise of antisemitism. One point that really struck a chord with me was that Holocaust education focuses too much on the “They were just like us” angle. Jews weren’t oppressed for their similarities, but their differences. To focus on the similarities to conemn their oppression carries with it the implication that, if people are different, it’s okay, and the more different they are, the more you can justify hate and oppression.

So imagine my disappointment when I read an article of hers condemning student protests. She repeated the lie about “From the river to the sea (Palestine will be free)” being a genocidal slogan. She juxtaposed it with antisemitic attacks, implying a connection. She denied that it was a genocide, which would of course justify demonstrations. She praised cracking down on student protests in general. She mournfully talked about overlooking Harvard, disappointed that the school she went to was awash in antisemitism, and all I could think was… Harvard is still standing, Gaza is in ruins.

Is the treatment of Uyghurs the same as the treatment of Palestinians? No, not as far as I can tell. It’s just that that isn’t the threshold. The genocide of Palestinians doesn’t only slightly cross the line. And while both antisemitism and sinophobia are undeniably real, have lead to attacks and oppression, and color some of the criticisms of Israel and China, that doesn’t represent real criticisms of states, not people. And those criticisms aren’t new, they are familiar. It’s the banality of evil. It’s capitalist empires doing what capitalist empires do.

The point about common ground was to give you a clear opportunity to present your position and intentions. I had my assumptions, but didn’t want to unfairly ascribe them to you. It turns out I was right, unfortunately, but as a matter of difference between us, I wanted to address what you actually think, feel, and say. I would appreciate it if you did the same, but you haven’t so far.

So to address another position you ascribed to me: I can easily aknowledge that the US is complicit in genocide, war crimes, slavery, and other crimes against humanity, and has been throughout its history. That does not mean the US has a monopoly on evil. That kind of campism is silly.

I’ve had a remarkably similar conversation to this a while back, except the topic was Palestine, and the other user was a hardcore Zionist. It literally began when I said, word for word, “killing civilians is bad.” To paraphrase the rest:

“So it’s bad when Hamas kills Israeli civilians?”

“Of course. Is it bad when Israel kills Palestinian civilians?”

Then the same kind of argument followed. Deflections, straw men, selective interpretation and acknowledgement of evidence, personal attacks… the works. It doesn’t matter what the protesters say or do, or how many of the protestors are Jews; they’re pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic. Any source supporting Israel is valid, anything condemning them is fake news. I was an idiot, I was the one arguing in bad faith… you know. That kind of stuff.

I don’t know you, or what’s in your heart. I hope that the aggression is coming from discomfort rooted in a sense of doubt, which I can also hope you pursue. You can believe me or not—so far, you haven’t—but I really mean it when I say I hope you have a better go of things from here on out. If the nature of this conversation changes, I’m here, but if it doesn’t, then it’s run its course.

Yet again.

No, it’s not.

My points were twofold. First, to find out if we could find some common ground. Second, to find out if you actually care about sources and evidence, or judge them retroactively based on whether or not you like the conclusions.

The latter makes the conversation a non-starter, because even within a single report, you’ll interpret it in different ways. Within the very constrained lens of not containing the word genocide, to you, it ought to be sufficient. When it comes to crimes against humanity, you don’t want to talk about it, start attacking, and dismiss it as “a distraction.” On the prior point, I hope that your frustration comes from some doubt within you, causing you discomfort. Keep pulling on that thread.

Good luck with everything. I hope things get better going forward.

That’s not even remotely what I said, implied, or believe. Would you like to respond to what I did say, or put words in my mouth?

Before going any further, can we at least agree that the treatment of Uyghurs by the government of China rises to the level of crimes against humanity?

deleted by creator

The UN thing is a perfect way of finding out how serious someone is.

Genocide apologists will say “The UN did not call it a genocide,” or even stronger, “The UN determined it is not a genocide.” The thing they leave out is that the UN did call the treatment of Uyghurs crimes against humanity.

Seems like a pretty big thing for them to leave out, huh?

Somewhat off topic, but the names of both the publisher and the developer are also used by unrelated tabletop game companies. Hero Games makes the Hero System tabletop RPG, and GameScience (no space, so there’s a difference) make dice. It threw me for a loop.

That user is basing their position on a Daily Mail article citing LePoint, a french right-wing magazine, that quotes one of her trainers, who said (with context) “There was a problem with her hormones and chromosomes, but she’s a woman. That’s all that mattered to us.”

Nowhere does that even suggest she has XY chromosomes, and, to state the obvious, he’s not a doctor. He’s responding to an unsubstantiated allegation, and probably giving it too much credit. He even says that she underwent a testosterone test that came back within female norms.

It really is simple. The burden of proof is on people making these claims, and we’re not taking the word of a blatantly corrupt organization, that had a vested interest in disqualifying Khelif, who would not say what test was administered or what the results were. If they had more specific information, they wouldn’t shut up about it, because won’t even shut up now with less to go on.

Fair point. I just don’t like the move, and don’t want to support a company doing it. Even putting that aside, it really makes me worried that they’re at the point that they’re trying to ride on their reputation while increasing profit margins. It makes me think that, if I buy their newer models, they’re more likely to cheap out but charge more.

It’s about PROTECTING WOMEN! And if I have to hurt a bunch of women to protect them from hypothetical scenarios I made up to demonize trans people, so be it!

Same. I’ve been thinking of replacing the cheap immersion circulator we have, and was going to go with Anova. This blatant enshittification is enough to make me look elsewhere.

My bad then! I just saw options for a trial and a one-time purchase, didn’t realize there was a subscription.

Honestly glad to see the option. I’ll take a one-time purchase any day.

It’s a one-time purchase.

edit: It’s a one-time purchase for the “pro” version. I’ve been using the free version for a while and really enjoying it. I’ve been thinking of upgrading more to support the developers than for the added features.

It sucks that I was unsure at “unemployed minors,” because the party is overtly pro-child labor and that bad at optics.

From the same folks who were just calling Kamala Harris a “DEI pick.”