Biden was not nearly critical enough towards Israel, he did not stop supplying them with weapons, but it seemed like he was at least not happy with what Netanyahu is doing. Trump, on the other hand, is very clear in his explicit approval and practically daring Israel to do more. There is a difference.
Both are bad, both are wrong, but even you have to be able to see that one option is worse than the other.
Him pouring gasoline on the fire sure as shit didn’t help.
“I’m for euthanasia but I think we need to introduce it in a way that doesn’t reduce access to healthcare”
What part was negated?
I don’t think Trump is as much of a lackey that’s following the plan as he is a useful idiot that’s easy to manipulate. I believe that Trump believes that the US is the biggest and the best - it suits the same image he has of himself as the biggest and best leader - but he’s so dumb and narcissistic that he won’t realize that he’s being led on a leash.
I don’t think Trump consciously wants to destroy America, I think he wants to make it what he considers to be great (a militarily powerful dictatorship built on worshiping him), but he’s absolutely fine with making it weaker in the interim if it either:
A. Makes him gain something
B. Feeds his ego
then because of the mods who moved from Reddit to here. They hated that their power was taken away on Reddit so they jumped ship and now get to make their own rules without having to answer to Reddit admins
Combined with your earlier comments, this seems like saying that moderators only moved to Lemmy because they wanted more power which seems almost revisionist. Moderating is a shitty job, a lot of people do it just because they care about their online communities, and many moderators moved from Reddit to Lemmy specifically because they cared about their communities and how what Reddit was doing was ruining them.
Most of them just defederate from any instance that doesn’t highly censor views they don’t like
So, what is your alternative? We should force people to be on platforms that they don’t want and have to spend all day blocking people who thrives on antagonizing them? You can just go on those other instances, you don’t have to interact with the ones that are, in your words, so authoritarian.
If you don’t ban people they don’t need to create multiple accounts. You just block and move on and they’ll continue doing their thing while you don’t see it. Win-win.
Why wouldn’t they create more accounts to get around the blocks? Not to mention other reasons for making more accounts, for example making it seem like your opinion has more widespread support than it actually does.
You’re a typical “everyone I disagree with is a Nazi bigot” who craves censorship and authoritarian leadership because you can’t handle people having differing opinions by the looks of it
And now it sounds like you ran out of things to say, so the only thing left is to try and discredit my character. I am fine with people having different opinions than I do, that’s how the world works, but it sounds to me like you’re suggesting that discussing income tax rates is the same as disagreeing with someone about whether genocide is acceptable or not. They’re not the same thing. Having good-faith discourse and pushing disinformation are not the same thing.
It should be on the onus of the person being a dick to stop being a dick to get to interact with others in their communities, not for the people who aren’t being dicks to spend a bunch of their time and energy having to filter out all the dicks. If you disagree with that, you can whenever you want, go to a different community where people have the same opinion as you, but saying that people only want moderation because they can’t handle someone else’s opinion without “losing their minds” sounds disingenuous at best.
Where did you address them? You just claim that
almost every Lemmy instance is the same, many significantly worse in terms of how authoritarian they are
Without any explanation for why that would be the case whereas I have not have at all had the same experience. Therefore, I don’t see how it relates to federated social media at all.
Furthermore, you just state that
some of us just want a place with zero bans and which unless you break the law with your speech, zero bans and moderation
And to just “block them and move on”. Honestly, I don’t want my time using social media to be spent having to personally block multiple accounts (by people who will probably make more accounts) because they’re racists, misogynists, foreign bot farms, etc. Furthermore, I don’t want my content and my comments to be used, knowingly or otherwise, to prop up comment sections and threads that are spreading disinformation and bigotry.
If you want that, that’s fine. Go to one of those places. But from what I’ve seen, they are usually where nazis end up congregating, which is one reason why I (and at least some other people) prefer to avoid them.
As you mentioned, Reddit had a huge problem with moderators who banned without just cause so this is in no way related to decentralization. If you want zero moderation then you’re free to join one of the instances that have that as a guiding principle, but that is almost inevitably where all the nazis end up, which is why the rest of us avoid them.
The UN only has power insofar as other countries agree that it does. If they start taking harsher stances, countries will start pulling out of the UN which defeats its whole purpose.
This is a very brief, very incomplete list but from what has been reported so far they are
Deporting people with legal visas because they express opinions that the presidential administration disapproves of
Sending people who were in the US legally to a foreign prison without due process. That last part is especially important, without due process anyone can get punished without having any recourse for proving their innocence.
Severely damaging international relations and damaging the world’s economies without any reasonable process or determination, especially with long-standing allies and trade partners.
Dismantling large portions of the government, a lot of it created for enabling life-saving research, providing assistance to those who are most in need, and protecting citizens from toxic, dangerous, and otherwise harmful products, including in food and medicine. A lot of it through sudden, unannounced, unjustified, and illegal firings.
Aggressively attacking anyone who disagrees with the administration, even if their disagreement stems from the law or even the constitution itself, including attacking legal firms that represent those parties.
This is without mentioning what they are doing to infringe on voting rights, redistribute more wealth to the very richest, reduce protections for minorities and strengthen systematic discrimination, and otherwise dismantling democracy at large.
It doesn’t quite feel right for other countries have to send their citizens to fight and die against a former ally just because American citizens can’t hold their government accountable.
If I’m not mistaken, the US spends more on military than the rest of NATO combined. How do you imagine a military engagement against the US would end for us?
You’re either an apologist for totalitarian dictatorships who falls for propaganda as easily as MAGA cultists or you’re just straight-up trolling. The racism accusation was really the cherry on top.
I have never even visited the US, nor do I have any intention to.
First: No I cannot, the people of China do not enjoy freedom of press or freedom of expression, so finding out the actual statistics can be very difficult.
Second: What is your point? Two governments can be bad simultaneously, and even more than just two. Just because I oppose Israel’s genocide doesn’t mean I suddenly support Iran’s totalitarian leadership.
The enemies have never been the Chinese proletariat who toil and slave for scraps to feed the demands of a capitalist, consumerist society and always the greedy, totalitarian faux-socialists with a love for concentration camps that form the ruling party.
Sweden, long known for being neutral (up until joining NATO last year) and peaceful, can by law compel every single swedish citizen between the ages of 16 and 70 to serve during wartime.
Exactly as you state, almost every sovereign country on the planet likely has some version of this.
Starts with green card holders, then it progresses to those who weren’t born in the US via denaturalization (as the administration has already started with), and finally it gets to all citizens. The people cheering for this are the ones who don’t realize that the leopards will eat their faces sooner or later as well.
I don’t know if it’s related to the culture of American exceptionalism, that people are so used to the idea that they’re special and that they won’t be affected, that they never even stop to consider the possibility.
Once you start remembering where the buttons are you get to the advantageous part which is using the controls without ever having to take your eyes off the road.
Don’t mistake Ukraine’s ability for self-defense as Putin’s mercy.