But that’s him and his company! 😯

a) A soft stance against genocide is not a very good stance on genocide.

b) Biden also said he was against genocide. His position is that all the starvation, collective punishment, and attacks against civilian infrastructure just weren’t genocide so nothing much needed to be done. She said she didn’t disagree with anything he had done.

And just to jump to the next step of this conversation, yes, Trump was vocally worse and while it’s hard to imagine being much worse than what Biden has done, I think he has the potential to figure out a way. A sober and objective and rational game theorist should choose to vote for Harris.

But that’s not how voters work. “We’re 98% bad, but he’ll be 100%” isn’t a message to keep your coalition together. Emotional voters will cut off their nose to spite their face and that’s a fundamental aspect of how politics works that can’t be ignored or dismissed because they should do something else.

Sweet, I can’t wait for our first election to not be influenced by dumb voters. When’s that going to happen? I guess we should just keep losing until then.

I really don’t see how Cory’s view of enshittification doesn’t also encompass the powerful corporation embracing, extending, and extinguishing their own protocol to close any escape hatch. Especially when the key module is so monolithic and expensive.

They’ll make a proprietary update to their relay that conveniently makes it better and faster for their users while making it harder and more expensive for the alternative to keep up. They’ll add a special feature, but only build it out for their implementation and not figure out how to backport it to the public spec. Little by little Bluesky and the spec will drift. All while the alternative keeps burning money trying for something that, while Bluesky is still in the growth mode, provides no benefit. Eventually they give up or just can no longer be a real alternative, then the VC investors start asking for more and more and more. Corporate money isn’t just going to roll over and say “you got us, I guess our investments were just charity”.

At least you know you’re a nutter.

But they might have soup splashed on their glass!

You can see who didn’t read the article by their responses. Of course since this is the third major disaster in national news that had the same narrative, it’s getting harder to believe it’s a mistake.

These are one-time payments for immediate needs, not total compensation and support after the disaster. The same thing happened after the Maui fires. The federal government gave them immediate money to do stuff like buy new clothes, get baby supplies, and eat out in the immediate aftermath of losing their home, but there were other programs to provide housing and ongoing support while things are rebuilt.

I’ve seen this story before. He’s doing important work.

This is the core problem with most analyses. People are emotional. Whoever pissed them off last might just be who they vote against. Or they may act out to hurt the party that’s least bad for them because they’re angry the most they’re willing to offer is to be less bad. It’s irrational, but no amount of complaining about irrationality is going to make it not true.

Seems like general military-industrial-complex stuff. In the initial phase of an open war, say against an island nation that totally has always been your territory, you could quite openly want to cut cables, and the patents kinda protect against another company being the one that profits from a new method of doing so. (I have no idea if the Chinese government actually respects patents by companies within it.)

Still though, China’s typical response when they get called on their bullshit is “fuck you, do something about it”.

Not defending China in any way, but that’s the response used by most powerful countries.

Every troll thinks they have a justification for it. They’re fighting the good fight and “poking holes” in groupthink. Was that or was it not one of your first posts in the community? And were you or were you not going in to argue?

You literally have comments in the mod-complaint post about how you think anarchism is fundamentally flawed. You didn’t go in there to understand anarchism or debate with fellow anarchists about what anarchism should be, you went in to argue for a political goal.

It doesn’t matter if you were doing it for the right reasons. It also doesn’t really matter if the mod was also posting for the wrong reasons. The pattern of going into a community to immediately debate them is classic trolling behavior. The various people who responded to you in the mod-complaint community told you all these things.

I don’t even know what his belief or the prevailing narrative of the community is. He sounds like a troll because what he described is trolling. He “came in”, implying it was his first or nearly first post, and immediately wanted to “poke a hole in the narrative”. That’s classic trolling.

Weirdly the ability for Lemmy to have many versions of the same community is both the solution to this policy change and the best argument against it being necessary. If the mods in one version want to be a fan club rather than a debate club, that’s not a problem because there are other communities out there. And at the same time, if World wants to mandate all communities be debate clubs, people can stop visiting World communities.

Lemmy definitely has a problem with single-viewpoint moderated communities. I am banned from some anarchism communities because I came in and did exactly what Serinus described, gave a point of view that poked a hole in the only officially allowed narrative,

You sound like a troll who went to the anarchism community for the purpose of starting an argument. “Debate me bro” isn’t a personality that should need to be supported by topic-focused communities.

I really thought this was satire.

Article title: “DoJ to release”

Article summary: “Garland plans to release” but “a court injunction temporarily blocks the report’s release”

Until the rightwing court deigns to allow them to release a negative report on their new fascist leader or Merrick Garland’s balls grow three sizes and he just does it even though fucking Aileen Cannon says no, the report won’t be released. The clock is ticking and there are plentiful options for the greater conservative project to block this unless they’re willing to call a spade a spade and just do it without asking permission.

Especially for something socially embarrassing. That’s just building a blackmail database. Sure, porn use isn’t going to significantly compromise a lot of people, but for some that could end marriages and careers.

And currency, and people, and just things in general.

What, “progressive” isn’t synonymous with “the elites” or “the political establishment”?