Meanwhile twitter is promoting sponsored tweets from Xinhua. Travel to Xinjiang - Everything is great! Come visit the temples in Lhasa, but be sure to make your reservation in advance!
> Think about infant mortality, sanitation or historical practices like suttee.
Those are (I presume) referring to instances where the colonised were 'bad', and the colonisers have done 'good' (to put it in simplistic terms). I agree that there are such instances! There are also instances where the colonised were 'good', and the colonisers have done 'bad'. Or, if the presence of any 'bad'ness is enough to lead one to be an appropriate target for colonisation, there are also instances where the colonisers' civilisation was 'bad'. How many of each? Well, obviously my position is that colonisers overall do much more harm than good. Maybe that's not true, but you won't disprove it by mentioning a couple of good things that they've done.
(There are also instances where keepers of slaves have done good, but that doesn't mean we condone slavery.)
Simplistic terms don't advance your point. If you do have a point oversimplification only obscures it. Imperialism is neither good nor bad. Only specific acts and actors can be judged as such.
The British empire could be credited for ending slavery. It is the promulgation of liberal western values allows us the context to condemn the barbarity of the past.
History is a process. It seems nonsensical to presume to judge the pioneers of our civilization (by modern standards) while enjoying the benefits they provided.
The popular view of western guilt smacks of condescending nobelesse oblige. At what point does it become purely selfish? Decolonized regions won't put the past behind them as long as they are incentivized not to.
"...detractors of Western imperialism hijack the ideas of Western civilization and crash them into a ditch."
Notice how these wildlife advocates don't have lobbying offices in these areas. Their property is safe.
Elephants are not destroying their crops/orchards. Rhinos are not smashing their cars. Leopards are not eating their pets, livestock, neighbors or family members.
To avoid false accusations of theft, avoid self-checkout. YMMV.
I understand that people are abusing the system. I can accept that the store has an interest in loss prevention. But I'll never feel comfortable with being checked up on. As a stubborn person, I'll have to start shopping somewhere else when this happens. This means a less convenient location. Where's the time savings in that?
Many here bring their politically charged economic analysis into it. For me I've always wanted to just get home without any undue awkward/impolite scenarios. Nor do I want to navigate the menu system for produce.
Waiting in a longer line is relatively cheap for the peace of mind gained.
You can see the results in 'fetch as Google' and in the structured data tool. Injected JS content is there, including changes to the page title and head.
As always take SEO advice from Google with a grain of salt.
Well, is SEO advice just allows you to get rid of any impediments from rising to where you should in the results then you should trust them, but if SEO advice is a thing that can help you rise to a prominence that you should not have then that advice would be detrimental to Google and they would not give it to you.
So really it matters if you believe in the light or dark sides of the SEO force.
Yet the human experience is subjective and fallible.