• 1 Post
  • 32 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 16th, 2023

help-circle

  • “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?.. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation… We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956





  • This is absolutely staggering. I’m still trying to process the fact that senior U.S. officials—people at the highest levels of government—were casually texting war plans over Signal, an app that’s not even approved for classified communications. Not only that, but they accidentally added a journalist to the group chat. And then? Just carried on like nothing happened. No one noticed. No one asked questions. They dropped operational details, discussed strategy, named targets, and then capped it all off with high-five emojis.

    It’s not just irresponsible—it’s surreal. This isn’t a parody or a leaked TV script. This happened. They talked about military strikes the same way people coordinate a fantasy football draft. And then, as if to hammer home just how broken our national security culture has become, they celebrated the bombing of a foreign country with emojis. Fire, flags, praying hands, muscle arms. Like they’d just won a pickup basketball game.

    What’s worse—what really makes my blood boil—is that nothing will come of it. Nothing. There won’t be hearings. No one will be fired. There won’t even be a slap on the wrist. The fact that a sitting Secretary of Defense might have violated the Espionage Act by leaking sensitive war plans over an unsecured app to a journalist should be a full-blown national scandal. Instead? Silence. Shrugs. Maybe a Fox News segment praising how “tough” the response was.

    It’s the normalization of absurdity. It’s government by group chat, with the fate of lives—American and otherwise—being tossed around like a Twitter thread. And the most horrifying part? They all seem to think this is fine. Routine. Standard operating procedure.

    This is bigger than partisan politics. This is about the breakdown of basic standards—of competence, of professionalism, of decency. If this doesn’t trigger national outrage, if this doesn’t result in real consequences, then we’ve officially accepted that chaos, recklessness, and emoji warfare are the new norm.

    I’m furious. And if you’re not, you should be too.


  • Bamboodpanda@lemmy.worldtoWorld News@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    351
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is absolutely staggering. I’m still trying to process the fact that senior U.S. officials—people at the highest levels of government—were casually texting war plans over Signal, an app that’s not even approved for classified communications. Not only that, but they accidentally added a journalist to the group chat. And then? Just carried on like nothing happened. No one noticed. No one asked questions. They dropped operational details, discussed strategy, named targets, and then capped it all off with high-five emojis.

    It’s not just irresponsible—it’s surreal. This isn’t a parody or a leaked TV script. This happened. They talked about military strikes the same way people coordinate a fantasy football draft. And then, as if to hammer home just how broken our national security culture has become, they celebrated the bombing of a foreign country with emojis. Fire, flags, praying hands, muscle arms. Like they’d just won a pickup basketball game.

    What’s worse—what really makes my blood boil—is that nothing will come of it. Nothing. There won’t be hearings. No one will be fired. There won’t even be a slap on the wrist. The fact that a sitting Secretary of Defense might have violated the Espionage Act by leaking sensitive war plans over an unsecured app to a journalist should be a full-blown national scandal. Instead? Silence. Shrugs. Maybe a Fox News segment praising how “tough” the response was.

    It’s the normalization of absurdity. It’s government by group chat, with the fate of lives—American and otherwise—being tossed around like a Twitter thread. And the most horrifying part? They all seem to think this is fine. Routine. Standard operating procedure.

    This is bigger than partisan politics. This is about the breakdown of basic standards—of competence, of professionalism, of decency. If this doesn’t trigger national outrage, if this doesn’t result in real consequences, then we’ve officially accepted that chaos, recklessness, and emoji warfare are the new norm.

    I’m furious. And if you’re not, you should be too.



  • That’s not really true. USPS isn’t a monopoly—it’s a public service with a legal obligation to deliver to every address in the U.S., no matter how remote or unprofitable. FedEx and UPS can cherry-pick the routes that make money and skip the rest. In fact, they often rely on USPS for the final leg of rural deliveries because it’s cheaper for them than doing it themselves.

    Also worth noting: USPS doesn’t get taxpayer funding for operations and is saddled with ridiculous requirements, like pre-funding retiree benefits decades in advance—a rule no private company has to follow. Then people cut funding or impose restrictions and turn around to say, “See? Government doesn’t work.”

    So yeah, it’s not perfect—but comparing it to FedEx or UPS without acknowledging the completely different rules they play by misses the point entirely.


  • Depends on where you go. America is REALLY big—like, continent-sized big. States still have a lot of autonomy, so the experience can vary quite a bit depending on the region, city, or even neighborhood. It’s not as different as going between EU countries, but there’s still a meaningful shift in culture, policy, and general vibe from place to place.

    That said, I totally get the fear and frustration. The U.S. is going through a really turbulent time right now. There’s rising political extremism, deeply entrenched polarization, and yeah—an increasingly authoritarian tone at the highest levels of leadership. For people outside the U.S., it’s not unreasonable to see that and feel like it’s unsafe or unwelcoming to visit. Depending on where you go and what your background is, it can be dangerous.

    But the full picture is more complicated. There are millions of people here actively fighting for justice, creating inclusive communities, and resisting that slide into authoritarianism. There are cities that are vibrant, diverse, and far more aligned with global democratic values than the loudest voices might suggest.

    So yeah—it’s a mess, but not a monolith. And while it’s okay to be critical, it’s also worth remembering that there are still people here trying to make things better.



  • Honestly, I leverage LLMs a lot to keep my conversations balanced and intentional. I usually copy-paste my discussions into a ‘Speaker 1:’ and ‘Speaker 2:’ format and ask for a critique on my tone and consistency. I also spend a lot of time thinking through my responses, often drafting a few versions before settling on one. After doing this for a few years, I’ve streamlined my process and can spot weak points pretty quickly.

    I even built a GPT-powered game that generates logical fallacy scenarios for me to analyze. Someone once told me, “When I was in my 20s, I studied logical fallacies so I could tell others they were wrong. In my 40s, I study them to know when I’m wrong.” That perspective completely changed how I approach discussions—I start by making sure my own shit is in check first. It’s helped me navigate arguments with people who rely on fallacies while also keeping myself accountable to the same standards.

    The fact that you already recognize your own “shit” puts you in a great category for growth. Keep chasing that awareness and practicing, and you’re gonna be unstoppable!


  • The ultimate debate strategy: Declare yourself the winner, refuse to read the response, then graciously “allow” me the last word you’re not even going to see. Truly a masterclass in performative activism.

    You claim to understand “human psychology” and “tactics,” yet you embody the very behaviors you criticize – making sweeping judgments without engaging with counterarguments, creating strawmen, and retreating when challenged. The irony is almost poetic.

    Your approach is perfectly calibrated to feel righteous while accomplishing nothing. You drop vague proclamations about wealth distribution with zero nuance or practical solutions, then flee at the first sign of scrutiny. You’re not fighting any system; you’re just performing for an audience of one – yourself.

    What’s truly revealing is how you’ve constructed this narrative where you’re the lone truth-teller surrounded by “you people” who “will not stop.” This convenient framing lets you dismiss any criticism as groupthink rather than examining the glaring contradictions in your own positions.

    Your self-congratulatory exit is the perfect capstone – simultaneously claiming moral high ground while ensuring you never have to defend it. This isn’t principled advocacy; it’s intellectual cowardice dressed as enlightenment.

    But hey, enjoy your righteous solitude. The rest of us will be over here, celebrating actual kindness and generosity rather than shouting self-righteous nonsense into the void.

    Thank you for the last word! I had fun with it ;)


  • Ah yes, the rare and elusive Schrödinger’s Wealth Argument. The rich guy both shouldn’t have the money and yet you never said he shouldn’t have money. Truly a masterclass in mental gymnastics.

    Let me make it clear for everyone in the room: “Rich guy gives money he shouldn’t have” followed by “I never said he shouldn’t have money.”.

    If your argument is so airtight, why does it fall apart the second someone repeats your own words back to you? You’re so desperate to sound intellectually untouchable that you didn’t even bother making your position internally consistent.

    But hey, if you’re the self-appointed gatekeeper of who “should” have money, maybe enlighten us: What’s the magic number? How many dollars past your personal threshold turns someone from acceptable to villainous? Or do you just decide that based on who pisses you off the most in the moment?

    Your argument isn’t about justice or fairness, it’s just self-righteous noise wrapped in a superiority complex. You don’t actually want solutions; you just want to act like the smartest guy in the room. Spoiler: You’re not. But by all means, keep preaching from your imaginary throne, Just don’t be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.




  • “Russian interference” is not just a few hackers breaking into emails—it’s a well-documented, multi-decade strategy of disinformation designed to weaken democratic institutions. The Kremlin has spent years building an extensive network of fake social media accounts, bot farms, and propaganda outlets to spread divisive narratives.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee, the FBI, and cybersecurity experts have all confirmed that Russia’s influence campaigns exploit social and political fractures, using platforms like Facebook and Twitter to push misleading or outright false information. Reports from organizations like the RAND Corporation and Stanford Internet Observatory show how these tactics are designed to erode trust in democracy itself, making people more susceptible to authoritarian and extremist messaging.

    This isn’t just speculation—it’s the exact playbook used in Russia’s interference in the 2016 and 2020 elections, as confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies and the Mueller Report. The goal has always been to amplify distrust, push conspiracy theories, and create a populace that can no longer distinguish fact from fiction.

    And now? We’re seeing the results. A country where misinformation spreads faster than the truth, where people take social media posts at face value instead of questioning their sources, and where a populist leader can ride that wave of disinformation straight into power.

    Putin doesn’t need to fire a single shot—he’s watching Americans tear themselves apart over lies his operatives helped plant. And the worst part? Many people still refuse to acknowledge it’s happening.

    Putin has long stated that Russia is at war with the West—not through traditional military means, but through information warfare. Intelligence agencies, cybersecurity experts, and independent researchers have repeatedly warned that we are being targeted. Yet, many in the West refused to take it seriously.

    Now, we’re losing the war—not on the battlefield, but in the minds of our own citizens, as propaganda and disinformation tear at the very fabric of democracy.