NoneOfUrBusiness

Nobody is silent about this what the fuck are you even talking about?

Y'all getting the latter, definitely.

That'd be tantamount to seceding, so legally no but practically yes if they want to secede.

I mean autism is an inherently bad thing in that it's basically just raising the difficulty of life across the board, and that's for high-functioning autism. Low-functioning autism is its own beast. There are aspects to autism that would make someone think "oh no this could happen to my child?!". Still better than the imagined alternative obviously.

Brilliant, I suppose that's why famines are so often accompanied by redistribution of wealth, once the rich have been killed so the poor can eat. Inequality plummets after famines, what with all of those dead elites. /s

Here's Wikipedia on the Irish potato famine:

The period of the potato blight in Ireland from 1845 to 1851 was full of political confrontation.[84] A more radical Young Ireland group seceded from the Repeal movement in July 1846, and attempted an armed rebellion in 1848. It was unsuccessful.

Peasant uprisings almost always (or just always???) end in failure, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Furthermore, the strata most likely to experience anything resembling actual starvation was the peasantry, which was largely indifferent to the prospect of revolution, and would end up as a primary support base for the counterrevolutionaries in the years to come.

What? No. The Russian peasantry was having the time of their lives during WWI (well, the ones not conscripted into the war anyway). It's a long story, but because of inflation, strained supply chains and government failures meant that while the food was there, it just wasn't getting to the cities. Also do note that the Russian peasantry, while not as revolutionary as the urban proletariat, were absolutely not indifferent to the prospect of revolution. These were the people breaking into, ransacking and burning down their local nobles' manors. They were also electing these guys.

Insofar as they caused economic distress by increasing food prices. Insofar as actual starvation is concerned, no.

Those are literally the same thing. Economic distress is just an expression of the human desire not to starve.

There's a reason why the Communist Manifesto, itself written during the Revolutions of 48, mentions the lack of revolutionary potential of the peasantry, who would've been the most food insecure of the classes.

I don't see why peasants would be any more affected by lack of food than the urban proletariat, but that could be just my ignorance. Also Marx's reasons for making that conclusion were based on peasants' relationship with private property and religion, and not about how they're somehow more at leace with rhe prospect of starving to death.

Desperation drives one to desperate acts - with desperate goals. A starving man doesn't overthrow a government, a starving man steals bread.

Yes, and a million starving men will kill the people keeping all the bread so they can eat. The Russian revolution, for example, was directly caused by the lack of food in Russian cities, and the revolutions of 1848-1849 were in part caused by the hungry forties.

To be fair the liberation of India wasn't accomplished through violence, at least not mainly. It wasn't accomplished through protest either, mind you; Ghandi's approach was simply not supporting the British occupation (which needed Indian collaboration to function) and letting it collapse under its own weight.

Does it require infinite growth adjusted for inflation? Because as long as you have a state printing money there will be inflation and if your profits don't keep up with it that means they're decreasing, not just constant.

Creationists always try to use the second law To disprove evolution

The fuck? How does that even work?

Going on strike is one thing that comes to mind.

While I agree with the sentiment, there is a non zero chance that this would qualify Canada into the oil for freedom kinetic négociation program.

No way in hell that happens. Not because of Trump's geopolitical acumen, mind you, but because it'd start a civil war, split the country in half and turn America into a global pariah state. And either way America does not have what it takes to occupy Canada. See: Afghanistan.

Do note that the reason Hitler was able to dismantle the Weimar Republic that fast was because (IIRC) the constitution gave too much power to the chancellor. More robust democracies need a lot more time.