KombatWombat @ KombatWombat @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

339

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yup, this and some spicy potato soft tacos are my regular order. Comes out to around 200 calories per dollar, which is pretty good value.

These are satirical/ironic. It's a joke, probably fair to call it a circlejerk but it's mostly self-perpetuating at this point. "Gamer, rise up!" and "I'm sure everyone will have pronouns as well" are the main giveaways. The last one I'm less sure about because the punchline is weak but I would still guess it isn't sincere.

Gamers Rise Up context

People should be appointed based on what the people elected you to do, anything else is a betrayal of the constituents. If someone voted for you because they believed you would reschedule cannabis, and you don't get it done, that is a betrayal of your voters.

Yes, but "what the people elected you to do" isn't as straightforward as you make it out to be. Yes, in this case, it means working to get cannabis legalized. But that doesn't mean by any means necessary. You would certainly lose supporters if you specified legalizing it would require jeopardizing future access to other prescriptions or undermining the procedural standards set by Congress and earlier administrations. The people are electing a president to influence the direction of government, not a tyrant to remake it.

And then they will face electoral consequences.

Re-election prospects represent a deterrent, but only a purely reactive one in a system of checks and balances. Constitutional restrictions are better since by design they preemptively address overreach. Namely, the president has to work with other branches to get policy changed. Also, particularly drastic action can result in ending their current term early through impeachment.

Israel instigated the conflict by...

I was not trying to say history started on Oct. 7. In fact, my point was that the history of it started long before Biden's administration and limited how much control he had over it. And you may argue that completely withdrawing support would limit Israel's options. I frankly think that giving Israel nothing to lose would make them attack with less discrimination than they do now, assuming Biden was even willing to face the massive amount of pushback for that in the first place. Because calling back to your earlier point, that would definitely be against the will of the majority of his constituents.

The western allies who gave up Austria and Czechoslovakia were expecting consequences; they were expecting Hitler (and Poland, who also got territory from Czechoslovakia) to invade their common enemy, the USSR.

Is this true? It's hard for me to believe that two major European powers wanted to stand idly by while a rival power (especially for France given their history) conquered much of Eastern Europe just on the hope it would end up fighting another rival power. Especially since they already had justification to keep Germany declawed from the Treaty of Versailles, and later chose to go to war when it came to the invasion of Poland, which the USSR was much more likely to care about and start a war over.

But this is in support of those people. The tweet is responding to people who believe these behaviors are something that is considered worthy of judgement, and are advocating that they should be exempted. This tweet is instead saying they already are and have been. So no validation has ever been needed, and if you felt otherwise, you were wrong. So you can feel free to do this and likely other things you felt self-conscious about because nobody cares.

Exactly how I feel. It is certainly favoritism that undermines our justice system, but I think very few people would choose not to intervene to save a child they loved from great suffering, even if they knew their child had earned the punishment. It may be wrong, but it's very understandable that in this case he prioritizes being a good father over being a good president.

These aren't normal questions from strangers. Unless you have a strong reason to, you don't assume details about people's lives when getting to know more about them. Even the questions on the left are presumptuous and can represent a faux pas, but they're mild enough that the recipient would likely correct any wrong premise without making it an incident. But trying to guess details reflects poorly on you if you are wrong. Mostly you would express interest in what you can see about someone as an invitation for them to share more if they care to.

There's a couple of quests that have a time limit, and it's easy to not be aware since all the others can be completed whenever. I only knew beforehand because I read about it, and I'm glad I did, because letting them unintentionally expire has really bad outcomes.

Also I got a mod for infinite respecs. Otherwise I would worry about wasting finite consumable points and never spend them.

I would say it's more like, "Things aren't as bad as the right would have you believe, and we have actually done a lot to prevent it from being worse." She didn't pretend America wasn't struggling. I remember her talking about the rising costs of groceries frequently, and she advertised the planned first time homeowner tax credit as something intended to make housing more affordable. Trump's solution was instead deporting a lot of residents working jobs that generated a lot of value relative to their wage, and making pretty much everything more expensive with tarriffs.

The president appoints the head of the DoJ and DEA. Just appoint someone who says “I’ll hold the hearing and we’ll have the judgement within the hour”. Instead they appointed someone who scheduled the hearing for after they’ll have been kicked out by Trump’s guy. There is no way to read that as anything but they never intended for it to be rescheduled at all.

I would consider that corruption. People should be appointed based on competency, not dogmatic loyalty to the person appointing them. Sidestepping the review process would open it up to challenge and set a precedent that would allow it and other drugs to similarly be casually reassigned based on the whims of whoever is in power in the future. It's also almost certainly illegal, since the process for reassignment was part of the laws passed from Congress. Additionally, Biden first instructed the Attorney General to re-evaluate its scheduling in 2022, so it didn't just start now. The review process just takes a long time I guess, but it's fair to assume it hasn't been a priority.

Or just not sending them the weapons they’re using to carry out that war.

If you mean Gaza, that started long before Biden's presidency, and Hamas instigated the most recent conflict. If you mean Ukraine, that also started before Biden's presidency, but I would consider leaving the country to conquest from Russia to be abandoning a responsibility to safeguard peaceful nations' sovereignty. I would compare it to European nations appeasing Hitler by allowing him to conquer Austria and Czechoslovakia without consequences.

But they're questioned now more than ever. There are more atheists and agnostics in the world than ever before.

It's true that inflation outpaced wages, but this was only for a period following Covid. And while everyone pointed out when inflation pulled away, no one seemed to notice when wages bounced back.

Tens of millions of deaths globally will inevitably cause supply chain issues, and no amount of fiscal policy will prevent that scarcity. So people have to pay more for the same value. But things also recovered under Biden to more than compensate for that deficit. Here's the growth rate of inflation and wages over the past four years:

Decriminalizing marijuana isn't something that the president can do through an executive action. Unless Congress does it (which was always unlikely), it requires the Justice Department to propose rescheduling followed by acceptance from the DEA (which is part of the Judiciary). The Biden administration has worked to reschedule it to schedule 3, which would make it legally available with a prescription. The DEA hearing for this was delayed to early 2025 however. It's also worth noting that Biden pardoned and released thousands of people from federal prison for marijuana possession around a year ago.

Expecting the US to prevent other countries from going to war would require a level of intervention that could only be called imperialism, if it would even be possible. I would argue doing so would be endorsing oppression in some cases. Peace is an important goal but the price for it can only be so high.

I feel like the Biden administration actually accomplished a lot over the last 4 years against heavy resistance but no one wants to give them any credit. I was not expecting much but have been impressed whenever I look into things.

Mass shooters are obviously despicable, but they wouldn't generally be terrorists. The definition of terrorist requires a political motivation. But even if you did include school shooters in the count, they still would be greatly outnumbered by the amount of people in actual terrorist groups. Some like Hezbollah are effectively armies. Also, I can't think of a game where you deal with isolated mass shooters.

Yes, technically Mandela was considered a terrorist because he was a member of the ANC, which was labeled as a terrorist group during the cold war after its infrastructure attacks against an apartheid government accidentally killed civilians. I agree this was a mistake and should have been corrected sooner. But this was also a lingering bureaucratic snafu, and doesn't have anything to do with the Houthis. And for the record, Mandela was welcomed into the white house by Bush and considered a respected ally decades before being delisted.

The Houthis meanwhile have fired on, captured, and killed crew members of merchant ships belonging to various countries uninvolved with the conflict. They've haphazardly fired cruise missiles at Israel that instead land in civilian areas in Egypt. Their slogan translates to "God Is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A curse upon the Jews, Victory to Islam". Whatever justifications they may give for their actions, they are terrorists.

I did some more research and I'll admit the guy may not have been a member of the Houthis. I'm sorry for saying that when it was unconfirmed, but I still wish he would've been pressed to give a real yes or no. I didn't find an explanation for why else he would call himself a Red Sea pirate. But if not, then at least he does support them with content like this and was welcomed onto a ship patrolled by armed guards they had captured for a tour or for content.

Also, you are misremembering the tone of the interview. Hasan's fourth question was if the guy had heard of One Piece, followed by Hasan saying that the Houthis were "doing what Luffy would do". When the guy was talking about their motivation for capturing the ships, Hasan said "Yeah yeah yeah yeah, exactly, no, I'm saying it's a good thing. I understand." Hasan asked if he was a Houthi member later, after bringing up anime.

But that's just a pithy statement that someone of any political position would likely agree with. Everyone wants their government to be efficient. What does justification mean to anarchist specifically?

The kid described himself as a "Red Sea Pirate" and when asked more about his role, his translator gave us "His answer is, he is a Yemeni who stands with Palestine". Hasan said he was media-trained, so I would say that's a rather meaningful evasion. Also worth noting that the Houthis were (and I think still are?) designated as a terrorist group by the US, so I would expect he wouldn't want to claim membership outright. If nothing else, it could risk a ToS violation for Hasan.

I'm not saying that he should be demonized. In case I wasn't clear, I personally think an interview could be valuable if done carefully, but interviews can also be disguised advertisements, and I don't think Hasan was trying to be neutral in it. It would have been cool to know more about the kid's personal motivations and goals considering he would probably share them with many others. But I guess part of my critique is that we didn't get much exploration of that and it seems like a squandered opportunity. Instead it was mostly stuff with little substance that distracts from the possibility of a moral judgement, and it seemed intentional to me.

Yeah no problem. It's always nice to be able to discuss something with others and be respectful even if you don't fully agree.

I understand where the protesters are coming from and the idea that doing anything sounds better than just allowing the world to deteriorate. But I genuinely believe the less dramatic strategies do work better, even if it's hard to feel the effects. Not too long ago, the idea that the climate change was happening and that humans were to blame was largely ignored. Now, most people acknowledge that it's the case, and it's a matter of making it a priority. But that's still meaningful progress.

Anyways, thanks for the conversation and being open to push back. It's great to see in spaces that seem more divisive than ever.

Agreed that both parties look bad here. Blackbeard was needlessly condescending from the onset and FlyingSquid's victim complex escalated things quickly for no reason. Blackbeard was pretty bad at communicating, but I think the calm down messages were meant to reinforce that they needed more time to respond to messages and that the idea that FlyingSquid was going to be banned or not allowed to post was apropos of nothing.

Blackbeard should have asked FlyingSquid to clarify where the misinformation was. Unless you are trying to take the comment literally, the comment essentially says "each candidate's actions resemble those of these despised historical figures" which is too abstract to be falsifiable. Then they should have said that FlyingSquid and anyone else is welcome on the community until they show themselves as a bad actor, and that this was just a misunderstanding. And creating false reports could be rule-breaking in the sense of being spam if it's clearly malicious.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

First of all, it's your vote and it's up to you to cast it (or not) as you see fit. Anyone saying you have an obligation to use it a certain way is violating fundamental democratic values. But other people likewise have the right to judge your decision.

I would say not voting for one of the main parties would show them that the distinction between them doesn't matter, and so their leadership does not need to be more or less radical to cater to you. And not voting for even a third party shows that effectively no one can meet your standards, so policymakers can entirely ignore whatever it is you care about.

Protesting with your vote, like all protests, only works when your actions actually motivate the intended recipients to act as you want them to. Otherwise, it's just performative self-indulgence.