Again?

OK, there's a MASSIVE gap between "illegal use of white phosphorus" and "chemical eradication", like, dude, be real.

SNOW is a beast of a platform that requires a team of skilled engineers to set up properly. 90% of companies don't hire those engineers and then do a surprisedPikachu.jpg when everything's on fire.

But I did work at a company that had those engineers once, and I'm still in awe at how excellent that system can be.

1. If that's your point, why did you write about the Sami people?
2. Source on "chemical eradication" in Lebanon, please. I searched for it but couldn't find anything.

You have two options:

1. your economic policy is such that your country can stand on its own two feet, even if barely.
2. your economic policy is such that if you don't get a bailout from abroad, everything blows up in your face.

The first one is "good, even if controversial". The second one is "horrible enough that will blow up without a bailout"

So, yes, if a leftist leader needed a massive bailout, their reforms would be considered bad.

Source of external money is irrelevant.

When your country is incapable of handling its own finances and needs a bail-out, it's not a good fiscal policy.

It's the exact same thing as right-wing weirdos associating the term "feminist" strictly with with the most extreme, fundamentalist, fringe elements of the movement, "feminazis" if you will, that went way over the equality hill and ended up in "all men are bad, m'kay" forest.

The fact that public media often reinforces that view does not help.

In short: the game is woke, because it showcases a gay romance with historical accuracy. Vavra thinks it's not woke, because it doesn't allow the player character to be a black lesbian with "them" pronouns.

Are you saying that you don't understand the concept of "consent", or that you find it ironic that while erotica/porn exists, some women's lives can be ruined by their nudes being leaked?

Are you sure you're being honest with this review? Considering how the US had to bail him out? Without that, his policy WOULD have exploded in his face.

Yeah, I think I made a pretty strong refute of his points in this comment.

Cultural genocide is not recognized by the UN

This is false.

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Elements of the crime

The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. (...) The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.

Bold by me.

Unless the media wants to check up on the Uyghurs.