She means died for this country in the Nazi imperialist Christian way, not as the filthy colored victims in one of those shithole countries.

Sure but in this case there are numerous gun related phrases that have persisted in American culture because of this particular affinity.

Considering this guy got re-elected, there may be some overlap with American qualities here.

Yes, thats part of the why but it’s still odd culturally from the perspective of the rest of the world especially since what you’re describing occurred 100+ years ago and the terminology has likely only persisted because of the US’ gun obsession.

Sounds like the US’ chickens coming home to roost. After creating those conditions with their CIA elsewhere for decades.

The implication is that China is a serious military threat so being allied with the West (not sure if the West as a whole is that strong militarily, moreso the US [perhaps the UK and France] specifically) is necessary for India.

China and India were friends long ago, throughout much of human history actually. The attitude between both regions was one of “you got your good thing going, and we got our good thing going”. It’s how both civilizations coexisted for thousands of years.

Things changed in the colonial era and after. Britain needed to bankroll their industrial revolution to, in their view, push humanity forward but really it was mostly for themselves. They turned India into a resource mining machine and pumped China full of opium (often grown in India) mostly so that they could… purchase tea?

Shortly after the end of WW2 and both nations were free from the shackles of Anglo tyranny, China was not happy with the borders the British had drawn and wanted to take control of a region, given to India, that connected Tibet and Xinjiang called Aksai Chin. This led to the Sino Indian war in 1962 which China won with a suprise attack, reasserting its presence as a major regional player and putting India in a position to more closely ally with the Soviet Union for military purposes.

Since then, India and China have not really been close, even if they are both BRICS nations. China also went on to help Pakistan procure nuclear weapons so its going to be quite some time before this relationship is mended.

Thats one way to see it. India and the West see each other as strategic allies in a mutually beneficial arrangement given Indias proximity to China and Russia. I don’t see it as one sided as you’re suggesting, especially since historically India and Russia have been friendly to each other.

They’ve gotten friendlier with the West in the past few decades. The distrust is for good reason given history of Western foreign interference (colonialism) and the US having a close relationship with Pakistan pre Bin Laden.

In an open marketplace I’m afraid that is a competitive disadvantage Especially with a 1 in 3 approval rating.

Its a good yoke but coming at a South Asian person for the anglicized spelling of a South Asian word is the sugar syrup on the Gulab Jamun.

Western nations really need to teach their kids about colonialism. There needs to be an honest appraisal of the harm that went into creating the global imbalance we see today. Without it, the average person ends up cognitively deficient in discussions of global geopolitics (there are far too many that fit this bill).

I still meet too many people that hold onto a colonialism happened because we’re awesome attitude with a profound knowledge deficit on the number of genocides that went into the process.

They argue on a Western technological advantage which can be a reasonable assertion but also Western moral superiority which is so laughably misinformed they might as well have not gone to grade school.

There was no concept of a terrorist in biblical times.

Collective hedonism is an abstract ideal that has not quite had any real world application. I have met quite a few hedonistic individuals but have yet to see a successfully and consistently hedonistic group. It’s hard to get a large group to agree on what is meaningfully pleasurable. For the purposes of this discussion it’s too abstract to be relevant and even if it was I’m still not quite sure why it would be ‘badass’ as doing the pleasurable thing often does not coincide with doing the right thing.

Collective pleasure does not exist with any degree of permanence but collective prevention of harm absolutely does, and often requires sacrifice / hardship, which is what I would define as “badass”

The reason why it isn’t badass is it prioritizies self over others. Under a hedonistic worldview, your own pleasure matters more than another living beings pain.

It aligns well with capitalism and its inventivization of personal enrichment even if at an expense to others.

In my view being “badass” is taking care of each other, even the supposed “least” amongst us (if we are to believe in such hierarchies), as our superheros and religious figures are written.

There’s a reason we have immortalized such figures and I would describe exactly none of them as hedonistic. Rather they often take on incredible personal pain to bring safety and security to others. That is what I would call badass.

A lot of what we define as pleasurable in this part of the world is driven by consumerism or other environmentally unsustainably/harmful activity. If your pleasurable activities account for your impact on all living things then by all means knock yourself out. Most hedonists I’ve known do not demonstrate this degree of introspection and often are looking for fleeting pleasures to mask trauma or other mental health challenges.

Sounds more like the musings of a hedonist than a badass. The incoordination and head trauma are not as far off brand as he thinks it is.

So… Nukes.

An alarming number of Americans (and people around the world) just vote on vibes. That’s the only way you can explain voting for a fascist one election and immediately pivoting to a democratic socialist.