Tell me you’re a foreign intelligence agent without saying you’re a foreign intelligence agent.

And think of the vomit!

Speak for yourself.

Think of foreign policy as a ladder, and you are the person in charge of your country (or at least their foreign relations). Each rung is a new action you can take to influence the behavior of other countries.

The first step is formal communications. That’s easy, you’re probably on that step with just about every other nation. The next few rings are all other friendly diplomatic steps, things like opening embassies, making trade agreements, non-aggression pacts, etc.

Now let’s say a neighboring country is doing something you don’t like. Your nation’s grievance with them will fall into one of a few broad categories: they are a threat to your security, they are a threat to your interests, or they are a threat to your honor (meaning your international reputation). Whatever the reason, your job is to change their behavior and none of the previous steps on the ladder have worked, so now you climb higher.

The next rungs are less friendly, but are still diplomatic. These are things like denouncements, cessation of trade, tariffs, and sanctions. At the very top of this set of rungs, you close your embassy and demand they close theirs. You break off most communication. Finally, you tell the whole world why they have wronged you.

Now you’ve done everything you can diplomatically, but their behavior is still a threat to your security, interest, or honor. How do you change their behavior? There are more rungs on the ladder.

Going all the way back to Sun Tzu, generals have known that their job was to take over when the diplomats failed. This doesn’t mean that total war is immediate or inevitable. The military could conduct raids, surgical strikes, or enforce an embargo. Warfare is simply the top rungs of the ladder of foreign policy. Some nations climb it more quickly or willingly than others, but war exists on the same spectrum as diplomacy.

What is this, a comment from 2005?

It’s less about their role in the long term and more about having another front open at the outset of hostilities.

Every Arleigh Burke not tasked with intercepting Iranian missiles is another one inside the first island chain.

Don’t you mean you h*te it?

Yeah, that’s what I said.

See, this is exactly what I was worried about. Now I’ve got to write a whole fucking essay because history classes never get past WWII.

“Relatively recent” here means “in the past few decades”. There was a period of time in the early 20th century where (due to a long domestic propaganda effort that, frankly, you’re going to have to read up on yourself) the racist connotations were significantly diminished.

During this time period, the Confederate naval jack was more broadly seen as a symbol of Southern pride. Perhaps the best example is the Dukes of Hazzard, although this was closer to the tail end of this period.

What precipitated the gradual shift to the modern interpretation was the Vietnam war. The army was racially integrated by that time, and black soldiers were encountering the Confederate flag that their Southern, white comrades sometimes brought along. For fucking obvious reasons, the “it’s not racist” argument didn’t exactly fly with them. To almost criminally abridge an interesting and important part of history, a symbol that those soldiers may not have ever seen or even really cared in civilian life was at the forefront of their minds.

It took years for that bad experience to move the needle of public opinion. To (again) abridge decades decades of history, that experience in Vietnam “trickled down” to the public. Over time, the mainstream view of the flag shifted from one of primarily Southern pride to one that was primarily (and later, overtly) about racism.

I’m gonna start and end this comment with the same disclaimer: I’M NOT HERE TO DEBATE THE MEANING OF THE FLAG, JUST COMMENTING IN THE CURRENT USES OF IT. THIS IS AN OBSERVATION OF THE BELIEFS OTHER PEOPLE HOLD, NOT MY OWN.

Yeah, there are a lot of people who still interpret the Confederate naval jack to represent southern pride. In recent decades the nationwide interpretation changed to basically “racism”, either wholly or in part.

This (relatively) recent change means that people who want to express southern pride but weren’t racists tended to move away from using the flag, instead opting for things like using their state flags. The other end of this is racists who specifically and explicitly leaned into the new interpretation and use the flag more.

There is a (very much) smaller subset of people who want to stick by the older “Southern pride” meaning and reject the more modern interpretation. While these people probably deal with a lot of funny looks and awkward conversations, they exist. Apparently there’s a large enough cohort that feels that way and support LGBT rights to warrant someone printing Confederate naval jacks on a rainbow field.

Again, before I have a dozen motherfuckers here to tell me why their interpretation of the flag is the correct one: I’M NOT HERE TO DEBATE THE MEANING OF THE FLAG, JUST COMMENTING IN THE CURRENT USES OF IT. THIS IS AN OBSERVATION OF THE BELIEFS OTHER PEOPLE HOLD, NOT MY OWN.

As someone outside of Florida, I would say that they can’t.

A Floridian wouldn’t allow things like “laws” and “rules” from stopping their ten year old son from getting hammered on a Tuesday morning.

What they mean is that the people in Florida have a different understanding of the word “legal”.

When most people hear the word “illegal” they think “there will be consequences if I do that”. When Floridians hear the word “illegal” it translates to something between “rude” and “fun”.

My money is on Iranian psyops influencing people.

The alternative is that people that stupid actually exist and I’m not ready to give up hope for humanity.

Characters in Jurassic Park are portrayed as flawed, imperfect people who make mistakes. None of the plot relies on them being idiots or anything, but people screw up, panic on occasion, and don’t know things from time to time.

Dr. Grant using a stick to test the fence is a mistake, albeit a small one without real consequences. While it doesn’t distract from his character arc of how he feels about kids, it is his character simply messing up.

I also disagree with the person you replied to. While their assessment is correct, Dr. Grant is a character with a lot of time working in the field and therefore has a lot of practical skills. He does way, way better than a doctorate in mathematics working in academia would. Writing off all people with a doctorate (or experts in general) as being hyper specialized is a mistake.

George Lucas gonna George Lucas.

Mace Windu getting killed was the turning point and point of no return for the three film character arc of Anakin Skywalker. That’s a long way from “needlessly”. Sure the character didn’t have to be killed, but the impact of him being betrayed and killed was enormous. The plot of the third film (and the entire prequel trilogy) culminated with his death scene.

On rye MF

Send a bondulance, I’m having a stronk.

Yes, “on point” is slang, but only just recently. Slag is just a little further down the scale in terms of specialized language.

The real test is how accepted a word or phrase is with the larger population using a given language (while keeping a specific meaning in mind). This gets a little muddied with the lingo used by larger groups.

For instance the phrases “weird” and “cat lady” have both been co-opted by the major political parties in this election to decide their opponents. Because they each have so many members and because their discourse is covered by media outlets the new connotations of those phrases will be more widely known outside of the group and will stop being lingo much faster than the phrases you use privately with your family or coworkers.

“On point” used to be lingo in the military once upon a time, but because of the size of the military (and aided by the internet) it has become slang and is no longer a phrase only used by a certain group.

And there’s the rub. Lingo isn’t inherently evil, in fact it’s necessary to get through day-to-day life. You can’t refer to every tool you use on the job with a short sentence explaining what it is, you say it’s name and the people you work with know what you’re talking about. The only time lingo must be avoided is when talking about something you’re familiar with with someone who isn’t to avoid putting them off or confusing them.

The real danger is people not realizing how (contrived, constantly changing) lingo can be used to manipulate them, specifically how it drives tribalism and the “us versus them” mentality. This is especially important given how political movements and other groups behave online, and how prevalent this tactic has become over the past decade.