The way I see it, if you say something and others dont get it, that is more on you for failing to communicate clearly than on others for not understanding. At the very least, you accept any potential consequences of being misunderstood (getting into pointless arguments, being viewed poorly etc) if you opt to intentionally make your meaning ambiguous with something objectionable.

I disagree. In verbal sarcasm, there’s often an equivalent, where the sarcastic phrase is said with a certain tone, or certain syllables or words are emphasized, to convey the meaning that that statement is sarcastic and not the actual intent of the speaker. That information is lost in written text, and something like /s simply creates a written equivalent. It hardly “ruins” the sarcastic statement when a verbal equivalent might be similarly blatant and the mark to signify sarcastic intent is only read after the rest of the statement anyway.

Just figuring out a sarcastic statement by virtue of that statement being absurd enough as to not possibly be intended seriously, does not work in situations where the statement is presented by itself without other context, and the assumption that “nobody would say that thing unironically” is false, because in such a situation, the sarcastic and non-sarcasic use appear exactly the same.

Further, having no standard for conveying sarcasm unambiguously would mean that someone who really did intend to say something like that unironically could simply hide behind “I was being sarcastic” when called out on it.

He isn’t the only winner of that prize to be involved in war crimes, to be fair.

I wonder if he actually got their representatives to try to negotiate anything, or if he literally just said there would be a cease fire in the hopes that the two sides would feel obligated to follow through once it was publicly announced.

I mean, wouldn’t physical activity (and cooperative group based physical activity at that) during one’s formative years make one more likely to make a useful soldier, not less?

It’s not laid out like Lemmy is, because Lemmy is basically the fediverse version of Reddit, while Mastodon is more the fediverse version of Twitter. I’m not very good at using that format myself so I can’t offer much advice, but from what I’ve seen, what your feed is like depends a lot on what instance you join, to a much larger extent than on Lemmy (it’s a much bigger userbase than lemmy as well to my knowledge). I dont know of any equivalent to communities per se, you have to join an instance that is good for the kinds of things you’re looking for, and follow users that post or interact with that content. I think a favorite is more like a like, and reblogging is more like reposting for one’s followers and imstance to see too.

They do technically have orbital launch capability, which implies they in theory have the capacity to construct an ICBM, even if not with a nuclear warhead necessarily. Granted, the results of such a strike almost certainly would not be worth the costs to them so I’ve no expectation they’ll do such a thing, but they probably could if they wanted to badly enough.

If that were true, Disney and a number of other large companies would not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#China_syndrome

That’s not how these things work, if anything, the more serious an event is, the more that thing is going to be what people make jokes and memes about, to dampen the stress of the situation if nothing else. I’m not sure there’s actually such a thing as an event so serious that nobody makes jokes about it.

3rd? Surely there’s been more than 2 before?

I mean, I dont see how it isnt a war already, this kind of thing is an act of war after all, and the other side doesnt have to be capable of equal retaliation for the term to apply.

You may misunderstand, I’m not making any prediction that this administration or any like what we’ve had in a long time, if ever, would do such a thing. What I’m saying is that if some government was installed that actually cared, it’s not an impossibly to improve agricultural labor conditions without driving the working class broke from food cost increases.

That would be unpleasant, yes, and would require further efforts to minimize the consequences for those with low incomes (for instance, expansion of food subsidies, which yes would require even more taxation of those with wealth), however, if food prices aren’t as high as that now because of near slavery conditions, then there’s probably no ethical way to avoid it.

I would imagine the Iranian government or an affiliated organization like that would have better access to the internet at the moment than the average citizen. A social media influence campaign doesn’t even have to be physically based within the country running it, technically. I’m not saying whether Iran is or isn’t running bots or to what extent, because I don’t know that, but I would think that, given that their enemies are doing it, it would make quite a lot of sense for them to do so as well.

I don’t remember if it’s come up, does the federations/earths dislike of genetic and other such augmentation extend to animals? If not, I wouldn’t think it entirely impossible for them to have found an actual cure to aging, sufficient to make the lifespan of an organism indefinite until killed by some accident or infection, for some common species like a dog, but found that the technique requires the use of tech they aren’t willing to deploy in humans (though the aversion to it would have to be crazy strong to give up that temptation I’d imagine.)

I’m not sure that modern political terminology, especially with regards to something like socialism, really fits someone who predates even the invention of those words. Sure, you can find similarities, but you can’t always expect consistency with it in all their positions if the person in question got to those positions in a very different manner.

No. If 85% of a group is guilty of something, then to say that whole group is guilty, would obviously be false, because 85 is simply not equal to 100. If I round up a group of 99 murders, and stick you in a room with them, that does not suddenly mean that you are a murderer because “the people in that room collectively are murders”. Otherwise, literally everyone is, because I can simply define a group of people that includes mostly people that have committed horrible crimes, plus any given person, and now that person is a “murderer”, and I can rinse and repeat until everyone has been so grouped.

What about these, the cutest lil bootlickers ever?

A people as a whole cannot be responsible for a crime, because there will always be members who did not have a say in committing it (children at the very least, and realistically some adults will object too). Stopping the genocide is a good thing, holding the decision makers accountable and doing what can reasonably be done to prevent another is a good thing, but holding another in retribution for the first one would not be.