For either Mandarin or French to supplant English as the world’s most widely spoken language we would need not just a large and wealthy segment of the world that natively speaks it, but a mechanism that encourages people who know neither French nor Mandarin nor English to learn one of the former and not the latter.

The latter usually follows from the former. Wealthy people buy things, sell things, create things and go to places, all of which requires those on the other end of the deal to be able to talk to them. China is also investing in its global image, and in a few decades they’ll be forced to import immigrants to make up the shortfall in their labor force.

Similarly, Mandarin is the second language of a bunch of non-native speakers who live or work in China, most of which are presumably Chinese natives whose first language was a different dialect like Cantonese.

Chinese is also gaining steam in Russia and Africa, though admittedly it’s probably going to be at least a generation before it becomes an actually popular language to learn.

Being widely spoken in one particular region (or even a few regions) doesn’t automatically connect to being a global lingua franca. If that was the standard we’d be speaking Hindi or Mandarin here. Francophone Africa is projected to experience a popular boom, but even in the best case scenario (i.e. one where francophone Africa experiences better economic growth than other parts) that’d only make it more widespread in Africa. Globally there’s no way it can compete with the rising utility of Mandarin.

It’s more like conservatism isn’t a coherent ideology; it’s just nostalgia for the good old days fueling reactionary support for entrenched power structures. In places where rhese entrenched power structures are liberal conservatism is liberal; in places where they’re not it’s not.

Sure that’s a fair point, but then we’d expect other polls to produce similar results. It’s not like we have to take their word for it.

“The entire political spectrum” doesn’t mean “every single person ever,” or even “every single politician ever.” The implication is only that the statement applies to all political segments of the population. If the left, right and center (and any other significant political blocs) mostly agree on something, then the whole political spectrum supports it, even if some people don’t.

Echoing basically all other replies: Israel doesn’t actually have the juice to get their lebensraum alone; they need all sorts of American and European support for it. Cutting off their support would immediately destroy their position as regional near-hegemon and force them to compromise.

The poll they cite only polled 500 people

Which is more than enough. Statistically, you only need 30 or so samples to get a normal distribution, at which case the error varies with 1/sqrt(n) for sample size n. This means that if a sample size of 8000 would only have 4 times less error (so from 4% to 2%) compared to one of 500. The mathematics of the thing is ironclad: Provided the sample is representative (i.e. doesn’t unfairly over or underrepresent a particular group) and exceeds the mid-double digits*, any issues with sample size would manifest as a large calculated error.

There’s literally Israeli Kinesset members that oppose the genocide in Gaza and the war with Iran.

How many?

Israel is doing that too, but also America has a lot more domestic opposition to its leadership’s naked imperialism than Israel. This opposition rarely translates to action making it more or less worthless, but still, Americans do better on the “do you not like naked imperialism” index than Israeli Jews.

Read closer, they’re criticizing Netanyahu for not being pro-war enough. Not all of them are infected, but Israel is a lot worse than even America in this regard.

Even the Nazis weren’t “a whole nation of genocidal maniacs.” In both Israel and Nazi Germany there is/was opposition to the atrocities committed by their leadership, just not enough. In Israel in particular “do you support comically evil thing” polls tend to get 60-80% support, except the Iran war which at its outset had 93% support. That’s not a whole nation of genocidal maniacs; that’s a nation of mostly genocidal maniacs.

Have you thought about the sheer retardation of modern copyright law today?

Basically I don’t believe in intellectual property in the first place, so I consider the whole debate moot. It becomes obviously absurd when you try to think of how to apply the rulings of actual property. For example if I have an OC and “lend” it to someone, what? Am I not allowed to draw it anymore? Will they sue me? How do I return a stolen OC? Are we really going to consider piracy a major sin (stealing)? Accepting IP as property would also imply that it never ends, and literally nobody does that.

Intellectual property should be seen for what it is: A system thought up by the British to make the rich richer that has about as much Islamic legitimacy as, say, segregation.

Edit: Also you’re generally not going to get many replies from Muslims here seeing as the number of Muslims on the Threadverse is in the single digits.

Yeah but this isn’t that. This is just another company trying to make their products hip and trendy.

deleted by creator

They won’t because Europe is always on the loosing side and getting in any war is bad, against the us, let’s be honest, it would be a disaster.

I meant diplomatically and economically, not necessarily militarily. There are cards that can be played without getting into a hot (or even cold) war with the US; (most) European countries just don’t use them because A: Their elites profit from US war crimes too, and B: Most of them are happy being US vassal states.

No way Europe meaningfully stands up to Uncle Sam, and heinous Israeli-American war crimes are nothing new. Trump still hasn’t actually outdone the Iraq war, for example.

In fairness, TCM has produced a nobel prize winning medicine

Wait really? Where can I read more about this?

Halal moment.

I don’t think this reaction makes sense when we’re talking about Catholics. Catholic clergy are already notorious for diddling kids.