WoahWoah

@WoahWoah@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If the democrats executed the same fake electors scheme trump tried to execute, wouldn't Republican opposition be admission of trumps guilt?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ve got good and bad news for you: it’s an edge-lord adult. They’ve got strong “I would be embarrassed if people knew what I look like and what my life is like” vibes.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The fact that some humans can shove an entire large pizza inside themselves is both amazing and terrifying⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t gain weight, but I just can’t do it. When I was in high school my parents would always order me my own large pizza, and I would eat all of it except one slice, which I would eat cold the following morning.

  Now, I’ll still have the appetite sometimes, and I’ll order a large. If I’m lucky, I’ll eat half, and then I’m so stuffed I feel sick. I suppose that’s a good thing, but there is a certain sense of accomplishment found in dusting a whole pizza yourself.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If the democrats executed the same fake electors scheme trump tried to execute, wouldn't Republican opposition be admission of trumps guilt?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  He’s just a moron that plays video games all day, so his game of reference is a fictional world. He seems to think being obtuse online makes him appear strong and therefore smart. He’s basically a Trump voter that missed a memo along the way.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If the democrats executed the same fake electors scheme trump tried to execute, wouldn't Republican opposition be admission of trumps guilt?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  🙄

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If the democrats executed the same fake electors scheme trump tried to execute, wouldn't Republican opposition be admission of trumps guilt?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Sounds like a brilliant plan. “They’re being fascist so we have to be fascist!” has worked so well in history.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If the democrats executed the same fake electors scheme trump tried to execute, wouldn't Republican opposition be admission of trumps guilt?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  You can’t beat fascism with fascism.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If the democrats executed the same fake electors scheme trump tried to execute, wouldn't Republican opposition be admission of trumps guilt?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The problem is that the democrats are playing the game called “democracy.” The Republicans stopped following the rules of the game because they don’t want to play it anymore. If the Democrats do what the Republicans do, then the game is no longer be played. You can’t really give up on democracy and then bring it back. It rarely ever works that way.

  If you cede the ground of democratic norms, rules, and policies just to win, you ultimately lose because you no longer have a democracy. In many respects, getting the Democrats to start doing the same thing is precisely what the Republicans want. Because that means they can finish burying democracy, and they’re better positioned to win the game called “fascism.”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  For whom?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Seeing a sticker blocking a macbook's logo makes me realise it's a macbook more than just seeing the apple⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s kind of a “you” problem, no?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Zelensky says wants to end war by diplomacy next year⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Everything is word salad if you struggle with basic literacy.

  I’ll block you, that will make things easier for both of us.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Zelensky says wants to end war by diplomacy next year⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Why are you so defensive about someone discussing the topic of this thread?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Zelensky says wants to end war by diplomacy next year⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  No one thinks Trump will arm Russia? Perhaps you forget how fond of Putin he and much of the party in power in the US is.

  And no one said the EU will need to buy American arms. What I said is, if Trump decides to stop arming Ukraine and demands they end the war, and the EU decides to compensate Ukraine for what is no longer being provided by the United States, it’s quite possible Trump will withdraw the US from NATO. He’s already looking for an excuse.

  If you think you can build a military coalition with 70% of the spend suddenly stopping, by all means. What is more likely, as I said, is the withdrawal of the US from NATO would dramatically hamper its effective strength as a deterrent in the region. You would then need to rely on individual member states to attempt to deter or defend from Russian aggression.

  The US is a unified, centralized military with a unified, centralized command structure across all branches that allocates 4x the amount of spending to its military than the entire EU combined. The EU is a somewhat collaborative collection of nations with widely variant defense policies. Because of that, the EU channels the majority of its defense strategy through NATO, within which the US plays an absolutely irrefutable dominant role.

  The idea that the EU could unilaterally “roll over” Russia if the US leaves NATO is unlikely, and extremely unlikely if it causes the US to start providing military support to Russia. That goes to my final point, which is, if you think you’re right, go ahead and try and let’s see how it goes. Fortunately, the leaders of the member countries in NATO are generally not as ignorant as you are, so the likely outcome here is if Trump stops helping Ukraine and tells them to end the war, then Ukraine will end up ceding territory and the war will “end.”

  To be clear, none of these are things that I think are good. But the idea that the EU will just “go it alone” flies in the face of political and military realities.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Zelensky says wants to end war by diplomacy next year⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The problem isn’t simply the US not sending arms to Ukraine, which the EU could then compensate for. Do you really want to get into a military technology pissing match with the United States? Because the problem you have is if the Trump begins sending arms to Russia in response to the EU “prolonging the war” by making up for the US no longer among Ukraine.

  Oh, but what about NATO obligations, you might say. Well, Trump has long wanted to leave NATO. Trump’s team has already pointed out that there is executive authority over foreign policy, and they will argue Trump therefore has the authority to unilaterally withdraw from NATO. And it’s quite possible he will, especially if NATO countries align to defy his attempt to end the war by stopping arms to Ukraine.

  It’s important to note that without the United States, NATO’s collective defense capability would be crippled. The U.S. accounts for 68% of total NATO defense spending, providing the backbone of the alliance’s military power, advanced technology, and rapid response capabilities. This dominance means that European allies, even collectively, cannot match the U.S. in terms of strategic lift, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, or modern weapons systems, all of which are critical to NATO operations.

  U.S. withdrawal would leave a power vacuum that Europe is neither financially nor militarily equipped to fill, effectively gutting NATO’s ability to deter or respond to threats. Without the U.S., NATO as a credible military alliance would collapse under its own weight, leaving its members exposed and vulnerable to external aggressors. If the EU is worried about Russia continuing to expand its territory through force, the best way to make that happen would be to piss off the United States. Trump wouldn’t even need to do anything except leave. If he’s also arming Russia, say good night. The EU, even collectively, is wildly outmatched here.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Elon's Death Machine (aka Tesla) Mows Down Deer at Full Speed , Keeps Going on "Autopilot"⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Finally someone else familiar with the most deadly animal in North America.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Which adjective should come first, modular or versatile?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s not uncommon to change the order for branding. It makes people notice it more – even though they’re noticing it because it “feels” incorrect, it tends to force a reader’s attention. Alternatively, it might be a non-english company.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It's been 30 years and I still can't get over the fact that the French word for "potatoes" is "ground apples." Have The French never had an apple?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Ancient humans? Europe didn’t have potatoes until they were imported.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is American politics really as seemingly satirical of itself as it is portrayed?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  No, that’s fairly accurate. It’s a clown show.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Do you refrain from participating to a community if it's hosted on Lemmy.ml ?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes. I find their gaming-chair leftism and obnoxious preachiness annoying enough to just avoid. My blocklist is filled with .ml users, and none of those were because of any political positions. It’s because they were annoying whinging twats.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How come people who are against abortion are in favor of the death penalty? Kind of seems like a contradicition/⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The death penalty doesn’t control women.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do residential skyscrapers always seem to include balconies that never get used?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I had a friend that was drunk and was smoking and leaning back on the balcony and went over. Broke both his arms, his neck, fucked up his back, and had a major concussion. I think maybe he broke some ribs too. Really fucked him up. He didn’t die, but the head injury caused a dramatic personality change and the neck and back stuff created chronic pain.

  Don’t… uh, accidentally drop from great heights, people.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Two never-before-seen tools, from same group, infect air-gapped devices⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m confused. Compromising a computer with a thumbdrive is cutting edge h4x0r tech?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New Yorker’s ‘Social Media Is Killing Kids’ Article Waits 71 Paragraphs To Admit Evidence Doesn’t Support The Premise⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The desperate need to try to wave away any possible negative effects from social media by people heavily dependent on social media comes as no surprise. It’s like trying to criticize fast food to a fat person. Some will acknowledge it’s bad for them and eat it anyway, but most will just get extremely defensive about it and try to rationalize it. It has vitamins! If you only eat the unfried vegetables and only drink water, it’s actually good for you!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Suggestions⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  👍

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Suggestions⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  👍

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Suggestions⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  You are free to believe whatever you want. There are two comments posted back-to-back because I switched to a keyboard and decided to write them both while I was on the keyboard. Writing in Word, with its autocorrect features, makes producing relatively error-free prose fairly easy. Also, typing at 74 words per minute is not particularly fast—I typically type much faster than that. I find it funny that four quickly written paragraphs seem so unbelievable to you that it makes you question reality.

  Regardless, I have no intention of continuing to justify how quickly I write. This conversation is pointless.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Suggestions⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Also, I usually comment from my phone, but I switch to a laptop for more detailed responses. I actually found parts of that comment a bit repetitive, but I didn’t feel like spending the extra time revising it. I imagine if I were using an LLM, it would have produced something with better flow and polish.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Suggestions⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Accusing someone of using an LLM just because they presented a well-articulated and thought-provoking response is a sad reflection on the critic, not the writer. I wrote that using a keyboard, not some gimmick; I also have advanced degrees and can draft out my thoughts in Microsoft Word without relying on AI tools. It’s really telling that you think any robust, complex response must be “fake news” or generated by a bot. Just because a response isn’t reduced to shallow platitudes or memes doesn’t mean it’s not genuine.

  Frankly, that comment took less than five minutes to compose. Maybe it’s time to re-evaluate your assumptions about what people are capable of when they’re not locked into oversimplified, knee-jerk responses.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Suggestions⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The suggestion to discredit publications like The New York Times because they “platform disagreeable opinions” misses the point entirely. The goal of engaging with diverse viewpoints is not to validate every perspective but to understand them, deconstruct them, and refine our own positions through the process of critical reasoning. If we retreat into echo chambers that reinforce our pre-existing beliefs, we’re not just hiding from ideas we find distasteful—we’re deliberately choosing intellectual cowardice. It’s akin to thinking that if you simply close your eyes, the problem ceases to exist.

  This approach is not only self-defeating but fundamentally immature. Refusing to engage with what you perceive as “extremist rhetoric” doesn’t reduce its presence; it only blinds you to its evolution, making it easier for such rhetoric to gain traction unchallenged. To use a crude analogy, it’s like seeing blood from a wound, covering your eyes, and believing the wound is healed. Refusing to look at the problem—or pretending it doesn’t exist—does nothing to solve it.

  The notion that simply discrediting entire publications based on a few disagreeable viewpoints will somehow rid the world of those opinions is laughably naïve. In reality, it reveals a shallow understanding of how discourse works. Ideas don’t just vanish because you’ve decided not to look at them; they fester and grow stronger in the dark. This strategy isn’t just ineffective—it’s actively harmful, promoting a kind of self-imposed intellectual infantilism where one’s worldview is limited to only those thoughts deemed “safe.”

  The suggestion to stop reading publications like The New York Times because they platform a range of opinions assumes that people are incapable of discerning between well-reasoned arguments and extremist drivel. This assumption is not only insulting but speaks to a profound lack of faith in people’s ability to engage with, analyze, and refute arguments on their own merits. It’s this very stunted intellectual development—the notion that the world will be better if you downvote things you don’t like and only read things that already agree with you—that cultivates ignorance, rather than addressing it. In short, refusing to engage with challenging or disagreeable views is the hallmark of a mind that fears it might not have the reasoning capacity to withstand genuine debate.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Suggestions⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s ironic to invoke Godwin’s Law to stifle conversation, given that its original purpose was to call attention to the degradation of language and thought that occurs when Nazi comparisons are overused and misapplied. By cheapening such comparisons, the law sought to maintain the weight and specificity of historical evils like the Holocaust, which lose their impact when these terms are used flippantly or with little regard for context. This phenomenon is akin to Orwell’s warning in 1984 about the dangers of language simplification, where words are stripped of their meaning and are ultimately used to obfuscate, rather than clarify, reality.

  Interestingly, even Godwin himself has noted that invoking the law to shut down discussions does little to foster meaningful dialogue. Instead, he argues that Nazi comparisons can be justified if they are “thought-out and historically informed” rather than “poorly reasoned, hyperbolic invocations” that trivialize both the history and severity of such terms. The overuse of these comparisons not only dilutes their impact but also reflects a broader trend of linguistic manipulation that mirrors Orwell’s Newspeak: a language designed to control thought by reducing complexity and nuance. When words are allowed to encompass everything, they ultimately mean nothing at all.

  This loss of linguistic precision can also be seen in modern political rhetoric, where phrases like “concentration camps” are debated not based on the context but on who is using them and against whom. This constant redefinition erases historical distinctions, blurs moral boundaries, and makes it easier for anyone to dismiss any accusation as mere hyperbole. In this context, we see a perverse evolution of Godwin’s Law where the very comparisons meant to be avoided are applied more liberally, often to dismiss, derail, or discredit rather than to enlighten.

  The deeper problem is that invoking Godwin’s Law as a rhetorical cudgel is itself a form of linguistic reductionism. Rather than encourage thoughtful argumentation, it often forces discussions into binary categories: acceptable or unacceptable, on the “right side” of history or not. Such polarization undermines the very principles of debate and inquiry that Godwin initially hoped to preserve. In the end, it’s not the Nazis who are being compared to everyone—it’s the chilling realization that our language is being systematically eroded, making it ever harder to speak with the precision, integrity, and weight that serious topics demand.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Suggestions⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, frankly I don’t trust anyone to be able to think critically about what they read. I think we should outlaw disagreeable opinions. Let’s start with books! My library has a copy of mein kampf in fact. Let’s go burn it! That will take care of those damn nazis!