OccamsTeapot

I would argue my dick is used the vast majority of time, in a nonsexual manner

No doubt. If we’re talking % of time then basically nothing is sexual.

But primarily it is a sexual organ. That is why we have them. I think that’s the difference when it comes to your mouth example. Or hands as well. It’s a little silly to take it to that extreme.

But certainly people overreact about nudity

I think you have good points but it doesn’t fit with current social norms in most places. People respond like this because we don’t usually see people’s junk. Breaking this norm sends people’s minds right to sex because that’s when you usually see other people naked.

a naked body is not inherently a sexual object

Genuine question: what about a dick/vagina? Likewise it is natural and has other functions too. But it is an inherently sexual object, right?

If so, then I think it’s clear why people see naked bodies (literally, the stuff we see all the time + visible dick/vagina + nipples) as inherently sexual. Nudity is fine in theory, but you don’t get one without the other.

Just imagine! We would be so stuck. It would require some kind of hydrocarbon-based fuel to be held in storage just in case. Or we could try to split the atom. But that’s pure madness. It’d never work

“Low value energy” because “the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.”

Oil, on the other hand, famously requires no effort whatsoever to locate, extract and refine before use. The wells are just spewing out oil constantly, for free, for eternity. We never have to transport it. Oil just spawns nearby population hubs as Allah yahweh JESUS wills it. There’s no way a hostile country could close a relatively small waterway and make that a lot less convenient. And no, oil will not run out eventually. It’s eternal. Omg what a cuck who cares about climate change? CO2 is just plant food. Did you fail high school science?

Thank you. I’m thrilled to be destroying the climate (and getting rich) on this blessed day of independence

Removed by mod

Av a proper gander at that word innit

“Extending” is the key word here. You aren’t extending any power if it’s your own nation, it would be the other party who did that.

Anyway, thanks for the link, I’ll check it out!

Kicking someone out is not “extending power over foreign nations.” That is “resisting foreign nations trying to extend power over you.”

You’re being ridiculous and clearly not taking the definition as intended. Your definition is the problem here

Ok thanks.

Your definition seems a little cherry picky. Ignoring the obvious role of hard power and over-focusing on capital seems like a mistake. But I don’t know enough anyway. Wiki’s definition makes more sense to me

Would Russia be imperialist if everything was the same except they had more finance capital and less commodities trade?

Hmm OK. I don’t think you really addressed my question but it’s fine. Everyone’s imperialist. Except Russia of course, famously progressive Russia.

Anyway, thanks for explaining what you meant

So Russia with more finance capital and less commodities trade would be imperialist, but the way it is, they aren’t?

I think I get what you’re saying now. But it seems so arbitrary. Why should I give a shit who’s imperialist by this specific definition? It would basically make 0% difference to how much Russia is a problem for the world

I see where you’re coming from now. I think if you define imperialism in that way, it makes sense that you would consider all of those countries imperialist.

When markets are fully saturated domestically, capital expands outward. Once industrial and bank capital grow, they merge and dominate the entire economy, resulting in the dominance of finance capital in the economy …

But this whole description seems weird to me. Are there any powerful capitalist countries that could avoid this?

And I still don’t think Russia could possibly escape this definition. They have BRICS and are a major oil trader. They physically are trying to occupy another country right now. They use Russian language and state media to influence Eastern European countries in particular.

The EU is a coaliton of right-wing imperialist states, this is true.

Not really all right wing but perhaps compared to your politics. Or mine tbh

Russia isn’t imperialist

I’m confused about this. I checked to see if I had the right definition, just in case, and this is wikipedia’s:

imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power and soft power.

How does this not perfectly describe what Russia is doing in Ukraine?

Do you have an alternative definition you’re working with?

“Many of them”

“Either in power or coming to power”

“Rely on”

The claims have changed so much it seems that you also disagree with the meme at this point.

If you felt the need to add all those qualifiers (not wrong, btw), then it’s clear that you wouldn’t describe the EU as an “imperialist nazi state” either.

And that’s before we ask other things, eg why Ukraine and not Russia?

Because it’s dumb propaganda

“Nazi state”

Looks inside

Contains 27 states, most of which are not nazi-run

Completely and utterly stupid.

Clearly the EU is an imperialist nazi state made up of multiple different independent nations generally not following fascism and being members on a purely voluntary basis. Did you not receive your shipment of tankie crack this week, comrade?