u/Fondots

Sounds like you did pretty much the same bit of googling I did, because I also ended up there and ctrl-f'd "Taliban" and only found the one result

For anyone who doesn't go down the rabbit hole themselves, that result is "Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP)" or the "Pakistani Taliban"

Which is a group that mostly seems to be active in Pakistan (duh) and in Afghanistan near the border. TTP pledges allegiance to the Afghan Taliban, but the Afghan Taliban, at least publicly rejects that allegiance (though you can certainly make some arguments that they're probably in cahoots, just keeping things off-the-books)

Interestingly enough, the US doesn't seem to regard the Taliban (at least not the main branch that's currently running Afghanistan) as a terrorist organization.

When you said that I thought they might, I was actually pretty sure it was the case, but on looking into it that doesn't seem like they do, at least not officially.

Some other countries do, and there are a couple other Taliban splinter groups and such that do make the cut.

And of course, the entire history of Afghanistan since the Cold war can probably be of best summed up as "an absolute fucking mess" full of different factions, shifting allegiances, and all of that geopolitical nonsense, but you can make a pretty compelling argument that the US sort of put the Taliban in charge there in the first place. The us backed the Mujahideen against Russia back in the day, and while they're not exactly the same organization, there was a whole lot of overlap between former members of the Mujahideen and the people who formed the Taliban. So from one angle slapping the terrorist label on them would be kind of like admitting "we backed the terrorists"

You know, I've read your comment a couple times, and I can't quite wrap my head around what you're trying to say, I can kind of parse it in a few different ways, and none of them quite seem like they're really a direct response to what I said either agreeing with me or disagreeing.

It's certainly possible that I've got a case of the dumb tonight, but would you mind rephrasing and expanding on your thoughts a little bit?

Fuck Russia, fuck the Taliban

That said, all the other countries that haven't recognized them just have their head in the sand.

Whether you like them or not, they're the ones in power there and despite being a bunch of bumbling, backwards, violent, religious fanatics, they've actually done a better job of holding onto that power than anyone else has over the last half century.

Pretending they're not is really just denying reality.

I'm way out of my element, and I don't feel like doing the math right now, but I think it may be worth considering that helium is very light, I think last time I saw it brought up someone said that 1g of helium is like 5 or 6 liters at standard temperature/pressure. Not a huge quantity by any means, but significantly more than you'd probably imagine picturing a gram of water or whatever. I have no idea what kinds of amounts, pressures, etc. are needed for helium to be used in any of the applications we want it for, but I suspect it's a lot more than that.

Also as far as mining goes, except for the fact that it's on the moon, it seems like harvesting regolith is probably a fairly straightforward operation, it's just moon dust, the stuff that's covering pretty much the entire surface a few meters deep. Seems like all that's really needed would be some space bulldozers and dump trucks (though of course I'm sure there's a whole lot more challenges that I'm not thinking of)

To say nothing about whatever is needed to process the regolith, I wouldn't even know where to begin with that.

But helium also isn't the only thing we'd be looking to harvest from regolith. Let's say it takes us 50 years to harvest enough helium for whatever we need it for (no idea if that estimate is over, under, or about right) over those 50 years we'd also be harvesting all of the iron and silicon and whatever else we need to build out the infrastructure to use the helium.

And of course the cost/benefit analysis can be all over the place depending on if you're thinking about this as some sort of capitalist profit-seeking venture or if it's more of a "for the good of all mankind" or "scientific research for its own sake" kind of thing.

Lot of things to consider. I'm not saying that mining the moon necessarily makes sense, I also don't know if it *doesn't* there's a lot of factors at play.

My dude, I think someone needs to tell you, Russia is part of the imperialist west now. Has been for a while. They're maybe not always in agreement with the rest of the West, but the disagreement is only over who should be the top dog, not over any deeper philosophical/sociological/political/economic/etc. differences.

They're not championing communism and haven't for decades, arguably they haven't since well-before the USSR officially fell apart.

They drank deep from the capitalist kool-aid, to the point that they're almost a parody of crony capitalism taken to its most ridiculous extreme. You know all the talk of oligarchs and Putin's yachts, and all of that? What part of that sounds like redistributing the wealth and seizing the means of production for the working class to you?

I'm sorry you have to find out this way comrade, I can only assume that you spent most of the last half century or so in a coma to not know this. I know the revolution must go on, but for now you should really focus on your physical therapy, and maybe catch up a bit on all that has happened. If you're going around this uninformed, you're not going to be able to advance the cause in any sort of meaningful way.

Funeral rites and traditions vary a lot around the world. I don't know the specifics in Russia, but I know in some places traditionally family has played a big part in preparing the body for burial- cleaning it and dressing it and such, . There may also be additional religious rituals and such that would be performed.

But at the very least, I'm pretty sure that almost anywhere in the world would normally give the next of kin che opportunity to see the corpse if just to confirm that it is in fact their relative they're about to bury.

I mean, welcome to the world. Sometimes concepts are complicated and require more than a simple dictionary-style definition to fully understand. Otherwise there'd be no use for classes and textbooks and you could learn everything you need to know from a dictionary.

And I did provide some pretty short definitions right at the beginning, the rest is examples and me sort of musing on the terms for further clarification for those who need/want it.

Elsewhere in the comments I think you used the term "misogynist homicide." If for some reason that term sits better with you, by all means use it, I'd say they're synonymous, and all of my explanation applies just as much to that term. Language evolves and new words are coined every day, if we can come up with a neat one-word name for something as opposed to clunky 2+ word phrases I'm generally a fan of that.

Also, I think a critical reading of my comment might show you that I also have some misgivings about how we use the term, because like I repeatedly said, it can be damn hard to properly sort out the killers motivations. I think some people are too fast to slap the label on any instance where a woman is killed, especially by a man, and while it's probably likely that the label is appropriate in the majority of those cases, I don't think it's necessarily a useful term to use unless you can clearly explain the misogynistic motivations behind it.

Domestic violence is violence that occurs between people who have a domestic relationship- family members, roommates, romantic/sexual partners, etc. It may or may not rise to the level of murder.

Femicide is killing a woman due to her gender, and there may or may not be a domestic relationship between the killer and the victim.

There's going to be a lot of overlap and grey areas between the two. Many femicides are domestics, but not all, and not all domestics result in femicide

To provide some examples

**1.** *Sort of your "classic" domestic abuse situation*- man beats his wife. Domestic abuse, not a femicide because he's not killing her.

**1.5** *He beats her to death.* Domestic, and this may ruffle some feathers, but I'm going to say only *probably* a femicide. I'm sure I'm going to end up saying something like this a lot in this comment and expand on it as I go, but you kind of have to examine the killers thoughts and motivations, and they may not always be totally clear. In probably the vast majority of these kinds of situations you'd probably find there's sort of an underlying attitude of "I'm the man, she's the woman, so I can do whatever I want to her" to one degree or another which would make it a pretty cut-and-dry femicide, but I think there's also cases where he might be just as violent and abusive to other people regardless of gender given the opportunity, which muddies the waters and makes it a little harder to call a femicide, if he was just as likely to kill a man under similar circumstances I don't know if it necessarily warrants slapping the "femicide" label on it, but it sure as hell looks like one on the surface. I suspect that most places collecting and studying data on this kind of thing would just go ahead and call it a femicide and I'm not going to blame them for that, I don't think there's any feasible way to really examine each individual incident with the kind of attention you'd need to properly sort it out, and even if you could, in the end given the sorts of cultural imbalances between men and women that exist, you'd probably end up with the conclusion that the basically all of them do in fact qualify as femicide to some degree and the rest are just kind of a rounding error.

**2.** *Religious extremists kill a woman they see out on the street because (take your pick, she wasn't dressed "appropriately," didn't have a male guardian with her, she dared to have a job or education, etc.)* That's a femicide, but not a domestic because there was no relationship between them.

As an aside, there was a conscious decision on my part in that example to use the gender-neutral "they" in that example. You probably pictured male murderers, I did as well, but on further reflection I think it would be perfectly fair to still call it a femicide even if the perpetrators were women. The victim is still being targeted because she's a woman who's not behaving the way they think a woman should.

**3.** *Woman kills her husband.* Domestic, murder, not a femicide because the victim was a man.

**4.** (Here's where shit really starts getting murky.) *Man kills his wife because she was having an affair with another man.* Again it's a domestic, it's a murder, and its *maybe/probably* a femicide. It's a bit harder to nail down the motivation here. There could be a lot of underlying psychological, cultural, interpersonal, etc. baggage here. Did the man kill her just because she was cheating, or does he have, for example, some sort of underlying expectations that because she's the female partner she's supposed to be loyal and subservient to him. I don't know that there's an easy way to untangle that, and many men may not even really be consciously aware of those sorts of biases they have in the back of their minds. If hypothetically the man way gay/bit/pan/etc. would he have murdered a male partner in the same sort of situation?

**5.** *Wife kills her husband's mistress*. Murder. Kind of a domestic, *maybe* stretching it a bit because unless he was cheating on her with her sister or something there's not really a direct domestic relationship between the two women, but there is still an indirect link between them through the husband. Femicide? Again, maybe, for pretty much the same reasons as #4, lots of potential baggage there that would need to be unpacked.

**5½.** *Man kills his cheating wife AND/OR wife's mistress ~(wife was cheating on him with another woman.)~* Murder✓ Domestic? See above. Femicide? Maybe, again see above, but there's also potentially an added aspect of "she cheated on me with another woman?" That, in his mind, adds extra insult to just the fact that she was cheating on him, would he have been so quick to jump to Murder if she had cheated on him with a man?

**5¾?** *Woman kills her wife AND/OR her wife's mistress*. Murder- yes. Domestic - see above. Femicide - again see above, *probably not* a femicide, I think in this one since we're dealing with a lesbian relationship we've kind of reached a point where we'd kind of expect a lot of "traditional" ideas about gender roles and such to be thrown out the window which would sort of take the concept of femicide off the table, but in practice that shit is *really* deeply ingrained in a lot of people and hard for them to shake entirely. There can still be some lingering notions that "a woman should be faithful to their partner" that they wouldn't apply equally to men, and so you could make a solid argument for it qualifying as femicide.

**6.** *Man rapes and kills woman jogging alone in the park.* Murder? Yes. Domestic? No, no relationship between them. Femicide? Almost certainly yes. I'm sure there could be some edge cases of a rapist lurking in the bushes who would be happy to target the next person who came jogging down the trail regardless of their gender, but far more often they probably specifically were preying on women.

**7.** *Man kills woman in a carjacking.* Murder? Yes. Domestic? No. Femicide? Maybe. This could be a situation where they literally just carjacked the first person in a vehicle they come across, so not a femicide, it could have just as easily been a man. Or it could be a case where they specifically targeted a woman because they perceived her as being weaker, easier to victimize, less able to defend herself, etc. which I think would make a compelling argument to call it a femicide.

That's not meant to be an all-inclusive list by any means of course.

And there's a lot of complicating factors we could go into that I'll be honest, I don't feel like digging into too deep right now and I may hit the character limit if I tried to. Like how trans and nonbinary people fit into the equation, to give a short example a transphobic person kills a trans man who they "see" as a woman, you might say that they had "femicidal intent" or something to that effect, even though the victim was a man, and if they killed a trans woman, their motivations might not have been femicidal, and in their own minds they wouldn't think they committed femicide, but to the rest of us they committed femicide anyway.

I have a friend who's grandfather was a chemist who at least claimed to his family that he mixed up small batches of DDT for mosquito control on his property.

I have no way of verifying that, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if some rogue chemist with a vendetta against mosquitos was out there doing it.

I took Amtrak from NYC to Montreal last year for the eclipse, I had a great time.

Would have been technically faster to drive, but the flip side is that I didn't have to drive, and it was a beautiful ride. And once I was there I definitely didn't miss having a car, I found everything to be very walkable and the subway beat anything I've personally used in the US. If the weather is nice I'd probably also consider using their bike share.

Assuming you're doing the same train, just a heads up that Amtrak WiFi is practically useless. Make sure you have whatever you need downloaded before then because a lot of the way had spotty or no cell service. Bring a pen, you're gonna have to fill out a form at the border crossing and pens seemed to be in short supply on the train. The Canadian border agents when we went seemed like they were kind of dicks, but I think that's just kind of a feature of border crossing officials around the world. Coming back the American ones seemed a bit more chill but a lot has changed since last year. The food options on board aren't amazing so you'll probably want to pack some snacks, but they'll hold you over for the ride.

Some other unsolicited advice/highlights from my trip-

If you've got the wiggle room in your budget, au pied de cochon was hands-down the best meal I've ever had in my life. In general all the food I had there was amazing but I can't recommend that place enough.

The biodome, planetarium, and insectarium were really cool.

There was a store we stumbled into in the plateau- mycoboutique, that sold all kinds of mushroom stuff. Dried mushrooms, mushroom foods, mushroom growing stuff, various mushroom themed bric-a-brac. My wife and I are big mushroom eaters so we loved that. The stand-out though was an ice cream made from maple milky cap mushrooms. It contained no maple, just the mushrooms and it tasted just like you'd want a maple syrup ice cream to taste.

Take some time to explore the "underground city"/RESO, for the most part it just kind of feels like a shopping mall, but it's kind of amazing just how far you can get around in the city without setting foot outside.

The art museum seemed pretty cool, but unfortunately the day we tried to go someone had apparently called in a bomb threat so we didn't get to see that.

Poutine, smoked meat, bagels of course.

Everyone we ran into seemed to speak passable English, and no one seemed to give us any attitude about it. I can stumble my way through some basic French pleasantries with my half-remembered high school French, and people seemed to appreciate my token efforts, but it's probably not *totally* necessarily as a tourist.

I'm from Philadelphia, in general Montreal kind of felt a lot like the best parts of Philly if we cleaned up and got our shit together.

There's not many cities I've visited where I'm itching to go back, normally I'm more of a woods and camping kind of guy, but I would definitely go back to Montreal in a heartbeat.

My mom's side of the family is polish, back in the 80s they visited some relatives there so my mom could be the godmother to one of their daughters.

Shit was rough there then, the family they stayed with had an actual outhouse. No one could ever say that my family is rich, but American money went a long way there back then, basically anything they wanted could be had for what was practically pocket change but the local polish people could barely afford any of it. One of them managed to visit the US back then, and literally cried when he went into an American supermarket and saw the variety and amount of food that just anyone could buy without needing to save up their ration cards (and not a big or fancy one, I'm pretty sure the one they went to is now a normal sized CVS)

So some really rough times are still in living memory for a lot of poles.

And they've really come a long way since then, my mom's goddaughter is now traveling the world doing something in the hospitality industry, last I heard I think she was in Thailand (the relative who visited back in the 80s was amazed to see black people.)

So I don't think most poles are in any hurry to end up under Russians thumb again.