Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S
Posts
0
Comments
650
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • The F sure as fuck doesn't stand for Army you fucking ape.

    The FBI has the authority to enforce laws passed through regular congressional channels by elected officials.

    Here the commander in chief is declaring a policy and enforcing it directly with his own power. It's the textbook definition.

  • Eminent Domain

  • Military unilaterally policing civil affairs on US soil

    HoW iS tHaT mArTiAL Law??

    Just look up the definition you fucking stooge.

  • "We dragged the Overton window so far to the right that basic facts are political advocacy"

  • Are you a child/young teen with a completely different brain structure than a mature adult? Do you have already have the media literacy needed to navigate disinfo and toxic content online?

    Kids really are a different species, but have predictable development. For every kid that's responsible enough to have unrestricted device access there's 50 more who just aren't mature enough yet. There's a limit to how much you can coach responsibility into them

  • Fair point, but it's still a flat tax regardless of miles driven. Current Gen EVs see a lot less miles/yr in the US vs combustion.

    So at 1.25x weight with that mileage you should only expect 1.5x the cost.

    I'm not a huge fan of any cars but this is a pretty regressive scheme.

  • Then tax by weight and not engine type. Freight trucks already don't pay their fair share in infrastructure costs.

    Edit: EVs are about 18-24% heavier than their Ice equivalent. Still doesn't add up to the proposed costs.

  • Sensationalist? They give a very clear picture of what the orders were and are a perfect microcosm of how Stalin's regime operated with the violently anti-communist Nazi's.

    As your well sourced historical analysis states there are plausible reasons for the policy but that doesn't change the fact that the USSR acted to project and protect its own influence. You don't get to dress it up as "saviors of Europe" or "benevolent protectors of Poland".

    As for using Russia and USSR interchangeably, I pretty obviously use it due to the outsized russkie influence on USSR policy. Stalin's USSR was a hard turn from Lenin's korenisatsiya, Russian culture and interests were first among "equals" (from Stalin's own mouth). Waxing lyrical about the USSR's diversity is pretty irrelevant in most conversations and especially here.

    And next time you stalk someone's post history, use a little more critical thinking. In no way do I support just about any of the USA's foreign policy. I call a spade a spade and operate in real life, outside the confines of internet ideology. You have no clue what I do or don't do in real life, regardless of what I post. Keep fighting that strawman, trooper, maybe it will go better for you than this thread.

  • Dang bro you had Russian imperial apologism ready to go that quick? Impressive.

    I'm not going to engage with most of what you wrote because everything I've said is a fact, it's not up for argument. The maps delineating eastern Europe exist, these conflicts happened. The Soviets oh-so-valiantly opposed nazi aggression except for when they didn't.

    Hey look, here's a Soviet and Nazi officer shaking hands after the invasion of Poland:

    Here's a German soldier giving flowers to the crew of a Russian tank:

    Somehow if you're a fan of an imperial power (UK, US, USSR, RUS, CHN, etc...) your invasions are always the product of specific circumstance. It's always actually a liberation, or counter terrorism or defending world order. Your puppet government is always an improvement. The other team are the true bloodthirsty enemies.

    Let me cut through your mincing of the facts:

    The Soviet Union invaded Poland 2 weeks after the Nazis, at a time...

    It's not a secret that western powers were opposed to the Soviets; it's not a secret that they did it to protect their own interests. If they cared more about being a bulwark against fascism those pictures would be Russian troops fighting side by side with the Poles. They could have even pushed into the German lines at any point before Operation Barbarossa.

    They did eventually win the eastern front, but they looked out for their own interests first. There are a lot of counterfactual histories where millions of lives are saved by decisive cooperation.

  • Here's how the Soviets save the Poles:

    This might be the most backward brain rot comment I've ever read. Just gonna rapid fire through these...

    • Poland existed for a long ass time, even when it wasn't on the map. It had no less than 6 armed conflicts and rebellions against the Russian Empire.
    • Poland lost 6 million people in WW2, 17% of their population; by far the largest of any country. If you want to play who-suffered-most they're getting gold.
    • Maybe they would have lost less had the Soviets not joined the Germans in slicing up their country. They literally staked out what parts of eastern Europe they would own...
    • Polish independence was gained through the collapse of the Russian Empire; Moscow was in no position to claim control over anything anyway
    • Lenin renegged on that "self determination" just a few years later in 1919 when they marched the Red Army into Poland and annexed Kresy

    There's a reason a Pole will tell you never trust a Russian, they've never been grateful vassals. I don't subscribe to America's red scare propoganda but you're an idiot to whitewash Soviet foreign policy.

  • Out of curiosity, what constitutional basis do they have to do this? Elections are explicitly run by the states and there's nothing about RCV or any voting system that prevents a fair election.

  • If I had to choose between panicking over chlorinated water or spending billions of dollars to disinfect water in a less effective way...

    I'd probably just let the water sit out for a while or run it through a cheap carbon filter because I'm not an idiot.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • You're high as a kite if you think a super pac doesn't have infinitely deeper pockets. They just bid the minimum for these politicians. If millions of grass roots donors gave everything they could, it would be a rounding error for them to match it.

  • Don't mince the issue. Deserved or not should be determined with due process in a court and not on Twitter while he's chained up in a concentration camp.

  • I don't disagree with your conclusion but in this case it's actually irrelevant. A simple majority in the house doesn't mean shit for following through with an impeachment.

  • This feels exactly like people fighting against gun control while schools are shot up on the regular. Get over your individualism and sparkling ideals and realize that something has to be done. If your privacy and personal freedom are tied to Facebook and Twitter, maybe that's a you problem.

  • Why does every country on earth need to do it? Will a massive majority of the population switch to VPNs just to watch some YouTube videos? Is that any different from kids trying to circumvent other age gated activities? Does YouTube even want that VPN traffic if it makes them less money? Why not just ban smart phones for kids?

    What measures do you need to enforce it beyond what already exists? The only ones that matter are massive mega-platforms. If a platform isn't complying just punish it.

    The main question is how much of your life really needs to exist in a digital space? People paid bills, shopped, watched porn, played games and read news before the internet. Democracy falls when an entire generation of voters is raised on supporting Tate-endorsed fascism. This is not a non-issue. It's happening no matter how much you tut-tut everyone's parenting.

  • The solution is to give those laws teeth. Harsh regulations on platforms that serve unmoderated content open to everyone. Enforce transparency on content serving algorithms. Massive penalties for security breaches. Ban platforms that don't comply.

    If you're worried about state actors having access to your clearnet data, that's pretty much unavoidable in the internet age. You can lessen that by pushing against the digitization of society. You shouldn't need a smart phone or internet service to live daily life.

    Support brick-and-mortar stores, your local library, a local hobby group. Campaign against always-online car features, IoT e-waste, traffic surveillance laws, etc... Don't make me choose between subjecting children to a stream of unregulated bullshit and the right to privacy. It's a false dichotomy propped up by our need for digital convenience.

  • It’s not social medias fault. This is POOR PARENTING. Plain and simple.

    Sounds like absolving social media to me.

    The complexity of social media engineering and the scope of its impact is unprecedented. It's not at all the same thing as video game or TV panic. When you account for how much real-life peer discussion is driven by these platforms, protecting your child from this toxic rhetoric is nearly impossible.

    You used to have to show your ID to rent a movie in person, why is doing it online any different? If you (rightfully) are concerned about data collection and surveillance, push for legeslative protections on that topic. This is a completely separate issue with a very clear root cause.