The early 00s was pretty mysoginistic.

I originally came from a conservative country, and yet there were plenty of ads for softcore porns in TVs and billboards in those days. Even as a child, I questioned why do they show such images in front of full view to everyone.

The thing is, such mysoginy was the norm without us even realising it. I remember reading an article of a woman reminiscing her college days in early 00s. There were pictures of college girls on pin up boards and they get graded on how beautiful they are. The author said no one thought bad about it but looking back, it was very degrading and also invading privacy. There was also the matter of the infamous wardrobe malfunction of Janet Jackson. She got all the public spotlight afterwards because she is a woman, but Justin Timberlake pretty much got away with it for free. JT also shamed Britney Spears about losing her virginity to him, instead of keeping his mouth shut, while Britney was branded as slut.

I would disagree. It is still far from being able to tell with clarity if Russia is winning. Plenty of things could still happen. Somehow, we’re often forgetting naval warfare and focus too much on the army/ground level. Ukraine managing to turn the Russian fleet scurrying away from Sevastopol, as it had become too vulnerable for missile attacks, is no easy feat. And they killed the top Russian Black Sea officers (I’m convinced Admiral Sokolov is dead). This gave Ukraine needed breathing room to finally resume grain shipments, which could help Ukraine further finance the war and remove Russia’s stranglehold and ability to blackmail the world from accessing grains.

Although, how would all these translate to victory on land? Obviously, Ukraine will have more money coming in from exporting grain and other commodities. Might this allow them to buy more and better weapons? An option I see is Ukraine being able to intertidict Russian logistical lines, which they have proven to be pretty adept at. But the question is, would this lead to desired strategic successes and more immediate outcome desperately wanted by the West (we don’t need to know what Ukraine wants because they could keep going forever if they could)? Only time will tell.

Well, you’re going to get different responses, many of which are good points, and depending on the person you asked.

But imo, it is hard to tell. And the best response we can say is: we don’t know. Ukraine retook many territories but so has Russia. Both sides suffered many casualties. The problem with analysing the war is the white noise coming from emotional responses on the events of the war happening at the time.

When Ukraine was invaded, everyone thought they will capitulate. They didn’t. Kyiv then retook Kharkiv Oblast, everyone thought Russia will surrender. The Ukrainian counteroffensive was hyped, but disappointed many. Prigozhin tried to coup Putin and thought it is the end of Putin, but they’re still here.

So, the best response to your question is, we don’t know. And that’s the most certain answer you could get and that is not a bad thing. For those who tend to forget, we still have the fog of war shrouding our vision. We don’t know what will happen in many months to come. Hindsight only tends to be 20/20 after an event.

However, I think the two major considerations for this year is 1. Ukraine had been effective in interdicting Russian logistical lines and sent the Russian Black Sea fleet reeling away from Crimea. Those are Ukrainian strategic gains that are often forgotten and not seen by the mainstream as important, who see ground combat as more important. 2. Though on the other side, the Russian support for Putin is still strong and either they support the war or ambivalent. In this case, Putin won the hearts and minds of Russians to either support or turn a blind eye to the conflict. Propaganda war is as important as military one to convince enough of the public to support it.

I agree in principle but this is a slippery slope and they’re not “easy” skills to learn as OP have asked.

Filosophy Xtra Y-fi Citi

There is a AskHistorians question in reddit on the legacy of the Roman empire. The response has been that the idea of being the shining beacon on the hill is one of the enduring cultural legacy of Rome, especially with many European/Western countries presenting themselves as entities spreading civilisation to the unknown world, echoing the Roman legacy in Europe, Middle East and North Africa.

Well firstly, Rome did not become “totalitarian”. The word implies there is heavy censorship and control over the minutiae of the daily lives every single citizen. There was no secret police in Rome to police thoughts. Totalitarianism is different to authoritarianism. Rome transitioned to “authoritarianism” because the power of the senate became diluted and transferred much of the power to the caesar or emperor. But the caesar still allow huge degree of freedom and still held sessions with the senate to discuss matters. There is a reason why the Roman empire with an emperor, as its ruler, still lasted for centuries. Many people in the past identified as Romans even long after the Western part fell.

To answer your question, I don’t think much about the Roman empire. I think they’re overrated. They have been the model of many European powers (and the United States) to justify imperialism and colonisation. Rome is being presented as the the force that “civilised” much of Europe from dirty barbarians. That’s not so different from the Western idea of civilising mission and manifest destiny to subjugate dirty indigenous folks in the colonies.

I guess it’s “Coventrated” after all.

Same I never felt I had to change browsers. Firefox was the fastest internet browser. Even though it’s not anymore, I use it for the sake of familiarity. But with the change of Firefox’s selling point as being the most privacy-friendly, it made it all the more better!

I’m not trying to dismiss or diminish the oppression that happened to Native Americans, blacks and other minorities in the US, but abuse of free speech hasn’t really been a factor into it-- not that I could think of. There have still been people who voiced out against the oppression and those people weren’t silenced or killed for doing so (aside from those who suffered from mob justice, which is different to government-sanctioned killings like the Holocaust).

Good point.

The US never, in its history, had a collective trauma of unstifled free speech that led to any mass hate speech which then led to genocide. That’s why many Americans are absolutists. But considering the Jan 6 capitol attack two years ago, being instigated by the words of Donald Trump, I think sooner or later a worse incident will come eventually. And the country will come reckoning with their absolutist approach to free speech.

Hatred had been allowed to flourish in the run up to both genocides and eventual stifling of free speech, precisely because the undemocratic forces took advantage of freedom of speech to gain power themselves and then stifle any dissent.

The Rwandan genocide in relation to media and free speech is slightly different. It is the government affiliated radio station that encouraged to hate the Tutsis by constantly calling them cockroaches. Interestingly, there was a debate in the US government at the time to block radio signals from the radio station, but decided not to for “commitment to freedom of speech”.

The questioning is stupid. There is no nuance on the categorisation of frequency because “always” and “sometimes” are put together. They do not mean the same thing! “Always” means “all the time”, “sometimes” means “on occasions”. I am an advocate for free speech as much as the next person, but there is limit to that right because history has shown what can happen if free speech is absolute-- which led us the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. Therefore, “sometimes” you COULD shout down someone depending on the content being spouted. So, on a case by case basis, “on occasions” you could shout down someone.

As another poster pointed out, the company who made the survey is conducted by conservative group, FIRE, which is Koch-funded so obviously there is clear bias and dishonesty in the framing of the survey.

The one and only good PSA ever created is the famous Thai government encouragement on the public to stop drinking, go to school, get a job, and use their their knowledge and gained expertise to help others.

I am hearing that tune in my head with teenage me playing the flute in school. I can hear the horrible screeching noises coming out from that plastic tube.