852
"Yankees not like it when someone threatens to annex your country against your will?"
(discuss.online)
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
852 points (98.7% liked)
Political Memes
12043 readers
2681 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Honestly, right now I’d love to be annexed by Canada.
Or Denmark.
Like. I’d totally help make that happen.
Dane here. while your offer is flattering, we can’t accept as we have our own environmental problems to fix first. We don’t need another dumpster to clean.
But but but... You could clean Texas!
It would require a genocide to clean Texas of all their environmental issues. And as far as I’m concerned, genocide is wrong.
That implies massacring minorities
Genocide is only that when aimed at a race, not a locale
You are free to nuke the whole place by merit of their stance alone
Genocide is any group of people. A culture or national group, religious group, race, identity, or whatever else. If you're identifying a group of people to destroy (not even just kill, but targeted destruction) that's a genocide.
That definition is way too broad and ignores why the term exists. Genocide is a specific legal concept from the 1948 UN Convention, not a catch-all word for any group of people you decide to label.
The law only covers national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups because those are the categories that have historically been targeted for systematic annihilation. Political groups were explicitly excluded when the convention was drafted for a reason. If you just define it as any group you want to destroy, the word loses all legal weight and precision.
You can call mass violence against other groups a crime against humanity or a war crime—those are still incredibly serious—but calling it genocide just because it fits your personal preference is factually wrong. Precision matters if you actually want to talk about international law rather than just throwing around emotionally charged terms.
Do you have any actual legal basis for your definition, or are you just making it up as you go?
Yeah, and legally Trump wasn't convicted of rape, because the court that convicted him had a definition that didn't match the common usage, which the judge explicitly pointed out IIRC. Legal definitions are just that. They're legal definitions, not the definition. Here's the wiki page. It starts by saying "Genocide is the partial or total destruction of a human group, committed intentionally."
Wiki. That's your backup? Why not a dictionary for starters
Absolutely incorrect, lol.
Genocide is the deliberate attempt to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
What do you say it is then? Instead of going: "nu-uh!" at things
context often helps the thinkers to recognize the non thinkers
You spell "excise" funny.
I vote we just let them have their independence. No need to inflict that on anyone.
This is fair.
You couldn't pay us enough to put up with your fucking yahoos. I think you're going to need to figure it out yourselves.
America will always do the right thing, after they've tried literally everything else.
We don't even try the wrong things. We just keep doing the same old shit we've been doing and wondering why nothing ever changes.
That's the wrong thing..
America has only done the right thing once, and that's joining WWII. They immediately fucked that up though, when they needlessly nuked Japan twice.
Yes, but then they made peace with Japan and brought it into full trade relationship with the world, and Japan became one of the top economies in the world. Germany the same via the Marshall Plan. All of this could have been accomplished without nuking Japan, but as I said, they have to do every wrong thing before the do the right thing.
Unfortunately, I'm kind of cynical now given the last 50 years. I really am not sure that the American's are capable of doing the right thing anymore, despite countless examples of countries around them that manage to treat it's citizens like people for the most part. The oligarchic structure has gotten it's talons too far into the meat at this point, and it's rotting from inside. The citizens have been whittled away from power so extensively that it might take a pretty bloody fight to change it. And given the level of technology dedicated to suppression of citizen power, and even outright rejection of the constitution boundaries that have worked back when they could do the right thing, I'm not sure it's going to work.
So yah, I agree with you, today. I wouldn't have agreed back when they were nuking Japan, because they did eventually do the right thing. And to be fair, Japan visited untold suffering on other countries. It's hard to say if they would have capitulated without that display of overwhelming force. They sure didn't seem open to it beforehand. But I guess we won't know in this fucked up timeline.
Yeah buddy, death to America.
Wow, good reading skills. Do you need a pat on the head?