squaresinger

The article talks about PCBs, by which they mean polychlorinated biphenyls, that leak out.

A much more common meaning for the same acronym is Printed Circuit Bords, which are these green/blue/black/red (rarely other colors) boards that e.g. hold most computer components and connect them to each other. Pretty much anything that's called a board in a computer and other electronic devices is a PCB.

PCBs don't melt, so if your PC is leaking PCBs (as in Printed Circuit Boards) something must have seriously gone wrong.

Do you want me to explain the joke to you?

Nothing wrong with a joke chart, and as such it isn't bad at all.

I was just answering to the commenter before me who asked how true the chart is. And if you want to know whether the chart is factually correct that Finland is the (heir of) the Roman Empire, then the answer has to be no.

Hatten wir schon mal, danach hat es ein paar Jahrzehnte funktioniert, weil jeder gesehen hat, wie arg es gescheppert hat.

Man könnte sagen, eine rechte Alleinregierung führt zu einem "Great Reset", um deren Terminologie zu verwenden.

If the school computers are leaking PCBs, something has gone terribly wrong.

Nothing of this is as clear-cut as it says here.

But all in all, it's a ship-of-Theseus situation. Is something the Roman Empire if it doesn't contain Rome, consists of land that was never occupied by Romans, uses a language that wasn't spoken in the Roman Empire, doesn't have any societal or political connections to the Roman Empire, doesn't call itself the Roman Empire and ultimately is no empire?

In the case of Russia and then Finland it's a case of "I once touched someone who touched someone who touched someone who touched the Queen, so I am now the Queen."

And calling the Western Roman Empire illegitimate (even though it contained Rome) and then the Ottomans too, but calling the Russian Empire (which never had anything to do with the Roman Empire) legitimate is more than questionable.

All in all, a fun little meme, but no factual basis to back it up.

Again a troll who thinks using swear words is an argumentation.

Also, have you pondered the fact, that almost every comment of yours has only downvotes?

Because you can't read more than a few words in one go?

Please google what Whataboutism actually means.

The US has hardly any democracy in their electoral system. All you can do on federal level is inputting a 1 bit vote once every four years. And if you don't live in a swing state, that vote doesn't count at all.

So there are only three possible choices on the ballot:

-Vote for A -Vote for B -Vote for another party, do a blank vote or don't go voting

All of the options in the third choice lead to exactly the same result: You have no input regarding the result.

So if your choice is between A, B, or leaving it up to others to decide for you, then comparing the stances of A and B is exactly what you have to do, because there is no other option where your vote does anything.

So let's compare these two:

-Republicans are 100% behind Israel and genocide. -Democrats are at least split on the topic of Israel and genocide.

So what's the right choice to take here? All three options likely lead to more genocide. Not voting doesn't change anything because politicians care about being voted into office, and non-voters don't stop them from getting into office.

So to circle back to the beginning:

Whataboutism means that you bring up an unrelated topic of something that's maybe worse to make something else seem less bad.

For example: "I don't do anything to save the environment, because my neighbor drives a massive truck."

Whataboutism does not apply if you are comparing two related points to each other, e.g. "I vote for A, because voting for B is worse and there are no other choices."

Person who doesn't understand that a two-party system based on first-to-the-post isn't a democracy thinks he has an idea about politics.

It proves once again: A sane person with a gun has no chance against a crazy person with a gun.

Normal people have inhibition in regards of killing people. If you are facing someone without this inhibition, you lose.

Why not both?