xor

It’s also worth adding, though, that the convention of only running for at most two terms had existed pretty much since the establishment of the republic (until FDR broke it), when Washington and Jefferson each chose not to run for third terms

It’s nice that this exists these days, but my god is it horrendously unreadable at a glance

There’s only really one big building society in the UK, which is Nationwide, but they’re awesome

I’m such a dunce, I didn’t spot your username 🤦

Thought I was asking a db0 random, not the NaN himself

Slightly off topic, is db0 one of the anarchist instances you’re referring to? I know it’s a generally leftist instance, but don’t know much more detail than that

Yet☝️🤓

Lula Brazil is very different from bolsonaro Brazil

You can’t possibly make a reasonable argument that Kamala Harris is a fascist lmao

• Authoritarian: no
• Ultra-nationalist: no
• Forcible suppression of opposition: no
• Militarisation of society: no
• State controlled economy: no

If they’re exclusively supporting the right wing candidate, they’re not a centrist, then

Why are you unwilling to enlighten us?

This list isn’t by percentage with a home - it excludes people who rent, so all this shows is that nobody rents their home in China

Let’s go look at your comment history and check, shall we?

Defending yourself and launching invasions or orchestrating soldiers are two different things

It’s not defending yourself if you have an army! What a great take 👍

it sounds like the government is giving out plans and commanding the army. The government of ukraine and people from ukraine are two different things. When people ask what’s the alternative to send billions to the ukrainian government what they need to understand is that people can defend themself even without an authority on top of them playing war games with soldiers and possibly forcing conscript to go on missions

Oh, why did Ukraine never consider magically winning the war by sheer willpower instead of this “having an army” nonsense, smart!

I’m not twisting anything. Context matters, and the context of your post was you throwing a tantrum after around 10 different Lemmy users calling out your bad takes.

If you believe not being drafted blah blah blah

That’s not what I said at all, mere moments after you accused me of “twisting” what you said. What I said, louder for the people in the back is BEING UNABLE TO FIGHT BACK IN THE ENEMY’S TERRITORY, BEING DISALLOWED TO RECEIVE FOREIGN AID AND BEING DISALLOWED TO FORM AN ACTUAL ARMY is the equivalent of rolling over and dying.

The issue, from what I can tell, is that the question you’ve asked here doesn’t match the argument you just had in comments of a post about about the Ukraine war. The argument you were trying to make is not “war bad”, but specifically that Ukraine’s counteroffensive is bad. You were additionally arguing that it is morally reprehensible for other countries to provide economic support to Ukraine rather than leaving them to “defend themselves”.

There’s a few important details that such an argument (intentionally) ignores.

• This invasion was not a choice between war or no war. It was simply a decision between locations that battles take place. It is entirely legitimate for Ukraine to pursue a counteroffensive strategy into russian territory if it believes it to be a more effective military strategy than defensive attritional warfare within their own borders.
• The fact that combat is taking place in Russian territory doesn’t change the fact that the war itself is a defensive war against an aggressor with overtly territorial/imperialist goals.
• As far as I am aware, the units involved in the counteroffensive are exclusively non-drafted volunteer units.
• Cessation of funding to Ukraine would lead to their imminent loss. The fact that they have been able to innovate cheaper strategies like domestic drone usage doesn’t change the fact that war is extremely expensive and technology dependent, and their economy is dwarfed by that of Russia’s.

The combination of your proposals that Ukraine should not proactively fight back, and that they should lose access to the resources that would allow them to continue to defend their territory end us meaning that Ukraine would not be able to effectively defend itself.

From reading your comments alongside this post, it seems that the title should actually be “how do you make someone understand that rolling over and dying is good”, to which the answer is “oh fuck off mate”

Holy moly

Especially since their one example is Caesar, who lived in a time when basically everyone was gay!

Edit: and about 1.5 thousand years before capitalism was invented

The Churchill example I think demonstrates the OP’s misunderstanding, in that all of them did terrible things/were horrible people, but excelled at being effective leaders in the context they were in.

Churchill was a terrible human being, racist, abrasive, homophobic, a drunk etc etc. But he was an outstanding wartime prime minister, because he was a talented war strategist, a compelling speaker and, frankly, had enormous balls.

We can go back and try and just classify every human into the good/bad boxes, but that reduces away all the details that make them so interesting.

It wasn’t for him, but for those who were named after him it was used to symbolise that they - like Caesar - were one of “the greats”

I kinda disagree - that’s not to say that they don’t usually do so for illegitimate reasons (or that these bans are legitimate), but there’s plenty of valid reasons why a government would want/need to ban a platform

X, for example, has been giving the UK a whole lot of good reasons why they may wish to consider it (restoring the accounts of people like Tommy Robinson, allowing misinformation, the owner of the platform himself actively spreading that misinformation)

But you’re actively supporting the people who banned it

The words in the middle are the key difference, though:

Communities are groups

Communities involve (i.e. are not) topics

Communities involve (i.e. are not) individuals

The social structure of Lemmy is fundamentally centred on groups, and that’s what makes it distinct from other fediverse platforms, even if there is some interoperability