Democracy vs flawed democracy is such cope, especially when they say "communist" in quotes but not democracy. Also, famously flawless democracy, RoC, where there is a comical level of misrepresentation of the public will at the highest level because an anti-PRC party just needs to maintain control. Do the RoK next!
The government of the Philipines is like a democracy with military dictatorship characteristics. They are calling it a "flawed democracy" to euphemize and deflect from its problems because it is western-aligned.
The hypocrisy of how people characterize China's territorial claims is kind of frustrating. They basically assume in every dispute that China is doing expansionism and the other side is the only legitimate one, when a lot of this is just the byproduct of colonization and the history of feudal disorganization (and the historical limitations of cartography) leading to there not being totally consistent lines on every map and various countries preferring interpretations that favor them. China, as a massive country that was subject to colonial rule from multiple outside powers, is naturally going to have many disputes, even if you believe that it would be worth it to make some small sacrifices for the sake of their relationship with, e.g. India. It very well may be true that China is ultimately in the wrong in multiple cases here, but these people have no epistemology for making such a determination and just assume China is in the wrong from the outset.
That and some of their supposed incursions are the construction of artificial islands for military purposes, rather than claiming actual existing land that other countries also claim.
I have no specific comment on the South China Sea disputes with Vietnam, I don't have any clear idea of the history of those.
I support your idea of not going on Reddit anymore, or at least not subs like that one.
My brainrot actually left me familiar with this incident, though I think they also used a couple of grenades. For some reason the communist movement movement there just loved doing dumb terror attacks, because this isn't the only time even if it was the biggest one in terms of international reception.
They definitely did that with Hitler himself, who was superficially on many levels what they would designate a subhuman -- a greasy and unimposing tweaker with dark hair and dark eyes* -- but then he gets depicted as a demigod. Goebbels looked pretty goofy too, just an absolutely gawky dork even if he wasn't ugly for it. Reactionaries need to get a lot of mileage out of German generals and the like having dueling scars (from traditional military school dueling practices) to make them look cooler. The rest I think is just that "they're Our Guys, so they must look cool!"
*I'm obviously not advocating for judging someone on these qualities (most of which I personally share), merely saying that the fascists made a whole political ideology out of the pretense of such judgements and then suspended them where it was convenient, even to the point that their mascot does not resemble their Aryan chad ideal at all.
There was a post on here the other day about how it does in fact have hardcoding to be distrustful of media consensus even when there's no apparent motive. The example was whether some actor was the main star of some movie, where the answer was obviously yes but Grok basically kept saying "allegedly" in so many words.
The most Elon part about this isn't the fascism, but how incredibly lame it is. This is the most "hello fellow kids" bullshit I've seen in a while, but for being "based".
Grok has pushed back against the white genocide myth even while explaining that he was instructed by twitter to treat it as credible, so it's not literally musk but they are trying to make it as groyper as they can without actually understanding how to code it properly.
I think a fair number of the accounts are still functionally anonymous in the sense that our accounts mostly are, except of course for Twitter itself storing more of their information.
Not all idioms are euphemisms, the expression is "the birds and the bees," and the suggested narrative of that idiom is not interspecial sex.
In modern English, "act of God" to refer generically to natural disasters is a "term of art" (a sort of jargon) used in legal contexts to insinuate not being liable, but I don't think they are facing legal action to start with even in a case where they fully admit fault, because fault is not the same as liability if you aren't obliged to prevent something. They are using the term with a meaning that is legible to its normal use, but outside of the normal legal utility, so I believe it is reasonable to conclude that they really do want to involve the idea of God even if they aren't going as far as making a fully theological argument regarding the disaster. Hence "kinda."
Sick