Forums / Discussion / General

Leon musk is really doing everything to bribe people to vote for trump that he can

UK’s Labour Party sent out nearly 100 current and former staff members (not Members of Parliament) to North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Musk, Greene, and Mike Collins believe that it is illegal and is an election interference. What they don’t know is that foreign nationals are allowed to participate in unpaid volunteering in support of candidates.

They whine while activly working to rig the election and make fake sites and letters for Harris

So, Twitch is now having an emerging scandal of arbitrary (or possibly agenda driven) site policies. I think it should be self-evident that sites doing this like Twitter is bad.

Now, there's an argument to be made on the "free speech" angle that light will wash away the darkness, but in practice I think it's only become an excuse to ban one side while letting the worst of another side fester.

This is why having a clear of conduct (or a code of laws in general) is necessary, fair and clear rules that are applied equally to all is actually less oppressive than a few, intentionally vague and arbitrary rules that seem to rest on the enforcer's whim.

In other news, the Moldovan EU referendum seems to have passed on the 'Yes' side.

It was a fraught affair, but still formal accession talks are set to start in June.

@Gilan
It is entirely agenda driven. Here are the facts: Twitch banned new accounts being made in Israel (this also happens to cover West Bank and Gaza) on October 17th, 2023, which was also the Day of Global Jihad. Twitch claims this was a temporary ban was "…to prevent uploads of graphic material related to the attack and to protect the safety of users." If true then:
-Why did Twitch never make this public until now? Such actions usually come with a press statement.
-Why did Twitch never do this for any other current, or past, and very bloody, conflicts including Ukraine/Russia, the Syrian Civil War, the Sudanese Civil War, etc?
-Why did it take a year for this decision to be changed despite numerous attempts by Israeli citizens notifying them that they can't make accounts?

Circumstantial but very damning evidence: Why is a streamer like Hasan not banned despite interviewing and glazing a Houthi terrorist who, admittedly, participated in piracy? Why was Sneako recently unbanned? Why was Fresh and Fit recently unbanned? Why does someone like Frogan get special treatment, despite engaging in behavior and speech that blatantly violates Twitch terms of service? Why did it take until yesterday to suspend her, and others, including the Houthi kid?

Why is the Trust and Safety team outsourced to Egypt? Why is the Senior Manager, Trust & Safety Policy at Twitch's Fadzai Madzingira – a person who has been suspended from her high ranking position at Ofcom, the UK Office of Communications, due to her extremely anti-Israel tweets? Has her bias and the bias of the Egyptian team impacted this decision, and continues to impact this decision?

It seems to me that there is a pattern of extreme anti-Israel and, by extension, anti-Jewish bias at Twitch going into the highest ranks, including the CEO Dan Clancy who made it so the Trust and Safety department directly reports to him.

Edit: Why is this important? More important than previous Twitch controversies.
It is one thing to apply one set of rules to a group of people, such as girls doing bathtub streaming, which has no real significance outside of Twitch viewership. It is another to engage in behavior that has geopolitical repercussions such as banning an entire country, which is engaged in a war that is kinetic and propagandic, from the platform. We are focusing on this ban, but we aren't even asking the question if existing Israeli, or Palestinian streamers have had been shadow banned. A large segment of our population, especially younger generation, get a lot of their news on social media, which has a massive influence on how they view the world, and in turn how they may vote. If the social media platform from which they gather that information blatantly prevents one side from even engaging with them, do you not think this is a big deal?

We are coming to the realization, slowly but surely, that we are engaged in a global cold war again with the so called "Axis of Resistance" which is an alliance of Syria, Iran, and it's proxy groups in Lebanon, West Bank and Gaza, and Iraq with an informal alliance with Russia and North Korea. This isn't two singular conflicts, these conflicts are increasingly being tied together.

@Chewybunny

Yes, the comment reply you made about Fadzai Madzingira on the entry is what convinced me that this was fully intended, they not only hired but put her in a position of influence. It's foul, I probably shouldn't even have given the benefit of the doubt due to how egregious it is, but I guess it's better now to have some kind of proof.

A large segment of our population, especially younger generation, get a lot of their news on social media, which has a massive influence on how they view the world, and in turn how they may vote. If the social media platform from which they gather that information blatantly prevents one side from even engaging with them, do you not think this is a big deal?

You're preaching to the choir here, I think that it isn't a coincidence that the rise of a lot of extremism is parallel to the increased prominence of social media. Now, it's one thing if it's people just getting into and stewing into echo chambers until they lose their minds. It's a sad thing people will do, but now it's pretty much an open-secret there are bot farms and influence campaigns at work, and that's if the owners of the sites aren't outright trying to spread their own agenda like in this situation.

No one is immune.

Tik Tok, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Twitch and more, all have these issues in different degrees, it's such a pervasive problem. My go to preferred solution is state action & legislation, but if this is an issue that's acknowledged even by the tech industry (or anyone), I'd laud alternative actions to attempts to redress this issue.

Maybe there should be other methods than the hammer of regulations, but it's clear there's a problem and I don't think anyone will disagree about deplatforming ISIS, so there has to be a limit.

We are coming to the realization, slowly but surely, that we are engaged in a global cold war again with the so called "Axis of Resistance" which is an alliance of Syria, Iran, and it's proxy groups in Lebanon, West Bank and Gaza, and Iraq with an informal alliance with Russia and North Korea. This isn't two singular conflicts, these conflicts are increasingly being tied together.

It's a new cold war, and it's been going on for a while.

It's clear with how Iran, North Korea & China are helping Russia in it's invasion, and that the tinpot dictators of the world (or wannabes like Orban) started trying to cause chaos at around the same time. Iran's terrorist proxies were just the ones who were the most tragically "successful" in that they actually attacked Israel. I even suspect Bolsanero's attempt to cast France as Brazil's greatest military threat before he lost were his attempt of setting something up.

This isn't new. Cyberwarfare & influence campaigns is just a front as any other, one just hopes that Democracies won't stay asleep at the wheel:

Grayzone Warfare Intensifies as the West Dithers

I think that it isn't a coincidence that the rise of a lot of extremism is parallel to the increased prominence of social media. Now, it's one thing if it's people just getting into and stewing into echo chambers until they lose their minds. It's a sad thing people will do, but now it's pretty much an open-secret there are bot farms and influence campaigns at work, and that's if the owners of the sites aren't outright trying to spread their own agenda like in this situation.

Actions speak much louder than words. I'm pretty sure that what Israel has done for one year has done much more damage to the international reputation of the West than any "troll farm" or intelligence agency from an adversary nation. Like it or not, people are seeing women and children being bombed at refugee camps and hospitals. People don't get radicalized in a vacuum. The best and most effective propaganda is the one that contains a core of truth in it.

Actions do speak louder in words.

Don't think that it's only the West's reputation who has suffered, however. I believe this year and the last was when a lot of "anti-imperialists" who supported and cheered on an imperialist war then suddenly changed their tune again completely lost any credibility of their own. I will never forget the first reaction of some people who were gleeful at the suffering and deaths of people from Ukraine, and their dream of the "West's" suffering, because they thought it would a retribution of some sort.

If anything, it's a general breakdown of everyone's trust in each other.

Me? I think it's just irreconcilable differences at this point, what can be said now that hasn't been said before? Although, since we're on a meme site there was a sort of funny image about how strangely people sort themselves by their stances.

(There are much ruder ones in various galleries).

@TheHolyEmpress

And to cutoff any future argument, here's my stated position: I'll mirror what you said about Ukraine.

If Palestine wants peace, they can surrender and rebuild that way. The sadness of the death and suffering on the innocent civilians, is felt. The guilt trips of environmental damage, accusations of manipulation and escalation and debates of the onus of deaths from an aggressive attacker? As much on their heads, as you say.

"troll farm"

Minimizing and trying to divert responsibility for this incident (because that's always what happens) is forgive me, exactly why I didn't particularly trust the defence of Elon Musk vs Brazil. At some point, one has to call bullshit, because it's an issue and it can't be deflected anymore by moralizing about the "government" or "values" (which are themselves trampled by these sites) or in this case "Israel".

If one uses every detente as an opportunity land a sucker punch, one doesn't get to complain and moralize anymore that the other side refuses to let their guard down anymore.

Not related to the election but is related to Green Energy efforts: A certain kind of wind turbine, when placed next to data center cooling fans, can generate more power than needed by the cooling fans

Did… we invent perpetual surplus energy?

That's it? That's the October surprise? Surely there could've been better options than literally doing the meme.

the october surprise was receipts for Trump trying to destroy democracy. As expected, MAGA doesn't care.

Whatever you say. This play is by no means anything new to the Democrats, and it far predates Trump's candidacy. It's about sixty years old, in fact: in 1964, Republican candidate Barry Goldwater held an interview with German news magazine Der Spiegel, and later would visit an American military installation in Bavaria. Together, these were spun as an attempt to "link up" with the German right, and the governor of California commented about the "stench of fascism". Note that by the 60s, the primary right-wing party in Germany was the CDU!

Coincidentally, unwanted endorsements from the KKK are also about as old. I'm almost surprised that they didn't support Lyndon Johnson, but he was pretty quiet about his racism before getting into office.

With all due respect Spaghetto, being "almost surprised" the KKK didn't support LBJ is absurd. The KKK would not endorse a man who made it policy to finish the job on ending segregation nationally.

i love the "libertarian right" section

you have your maga people, the american nazis, the evangelicalists

and then india. just, india. that's so jarringly different from the first 3 that it's hilarious to me

I want to know more about Donald Trump being a rapist because I am not sure if sources are true.
Genuine question.

There's other Ukraine-Russia & Israel-Palestine boxes which have even weirder "alliances" due to aligning on views between the two conflicts. Someone else here could go box by box to try to explain why each group is where they are.

(Also as a disclaimer; it is a stupid meme I found. Levels of support and reasons why are more complicated.)

In the case of India, they're sort of, but not really on the side of Russia, although it would be fairer to say that they're profiteering and just trying to maintain relations with Russia due to geopolitics (after all, the US was backing Pakistan their geopolitical rival for a long-time). As for the Israel bit, their Hindu right is the one who's pro-Israeli and they're currently in power.

I don't know why there's a divide between the Catholics, Orthodox & Evangelicals, it'd be interesting for someone to explain why.

Funny thing is I didn't even post it with the American Right in mind. There's different types in each cell (mine even has European Nazis in it, so something to watch out for), although if it struck a nerve, it struck a nerve.

It's one way to out oneself about Russia, at least.

Shouldn't neo-nazis be on the top left?

Nope. You have tankies there, but I don't know if there's any neo-nazi presence on the Pro-Russia & Pro-Palestine box. They seem to be more split on for the lack of a better word the "global far-right (i.e Russian affiliates)" vs "nationalist far-right"

There might be right-wing of "non-west" nations in that corner, or ISIS types, but those aren't the same brand as the Neo-Nazis.

Don't think that it's only the West's reputation who has suffered, however. I believe this year and the last was when a lot of "anti-imperialists" who supported and cheered on an imperialist war then suddenly changed their tune again completely lost any credibility of their own.

I wonder who those are. It can't be the anti-establishment dissidents who didn't have a reputation in the mainstream to begin with. But these figures have received a hell of a boon over the last year. All they need to do is point at the stuff the US and its proxies are doing.

The media is still manufacturing perception about Ukraine quite effectively, though their narratives keep getting messier. Case in point, the whole mess about North Korean troops. Today is saying there's evidence of about 3k North Korean troops training in eastern Russia, while Ukraine said there were North Korean troops already fighting and deserting in Ukrainian territory… Last week. Oops. It's quite easy to get tangled up when you weave such a web of lies, I guess).

That said, what's happening in Gaza is harder to conceal.

And to cutoff any future argument, here's my stated position: I'll mirror what you said about Ukraine.

Gaza has an area less than half of that of Kyiv. Gaza, in one year, had four times the civilian casualties of the entire Russian invasion of Ukraine, the bloodiest war in Europe since WW2.

What you're "mirroring" is a not just a ridiculous strawman, it's either a very disingenuous or a very ignorant argument.

Shouldn't neo-nazis be on the top left?

Definitely top right. Case in point, the Azov Brigade and their ilk.

I wonder who those are.

You quite literally talked about the "international" support for Russia's annexation attempt, when I pressed you about international recognition. so count those ones (whether they're real or not).

Gaza has an area less than half of that of Kyiv. Gaza, in one year, had four times the civilian casualties of the entire Russian invasion of Ukraine, the bloodiest war in Europe since WW2.

All the more reason for Palestine to surrender, using the precedent of the logic you used. Like you said, I can't determine the policy of any of these countries, but if the destruction that Russia is causing is enough for Ukraine to surrender and to justify pressing them to surrender and condemn any attempts to aid Ukraine to continue to fight, than the same principle applies even more so and worse for Palestine.

I'm not the one denying warcrimes here.

What you're "mirroring" is a not just a ridiculous strawman, it's either a very disingenuous or a very ignorant argument.

In this mirroring I can say the exact same thing about you. If anything, it's exactly why I'm mirroring, you cry moral outrage one minute than try to practice might makes right the next, all the while you downplay events in Ukraine.

Definitely top right. Case in point, the Azov Brigade and their ilk.

Do you or do you not consider this claim a suitable cassus belli? I'll predict you say you won't, but that's won't stop the side comments, as you did at one point directly compare Ukraine and Russia as "two corrupt states" with the logic of "so why are we intervening".

How funny that you deliberately ignore erstwhile ally on the bottom-right. Or, really the neo-nazi elements in Russia & that it's outright going for an attempt to annex & conquer.

That aside, I want Trump to lose not because of him, but because his crew will force things he didn't want to.
Even Vance looks like a guy who would do something so cartoonishly stupid.

You quite literally talked about the "international" support for Russia's annexation attempt, when I pressed you about international recognition. so count those ones (whether they're real or not).

I quite literally didn't. Recognition and support are completely different things. The only countries that openly support the invasion are already on the list of adversary nations or within their spheres of influence, they don't have the reputation in the West to lose, so I have no idea what you're going on about.

All the more reason for Palestine to surrender, using the precedent of the logic you used. Like you said, I can't determine the policy of any of these countries, but if the destruction that Russia is causing is enough for Ukraine to surrender and to justify pressing them to surrender and condemn any attempts to aid Ukraine to continue to fight, than the same principle applies even more so and worse for Palestine.

In this mirroring I can say the exact same thing about you. If anything, it's exactly why I'm mirroring, you cry moral outrage one minute than try to practice might makes right the next, all the while you downplay events in Ukraine.

If I recall correctly, the whole argument started when I pointed out the inability, or most likely, the unwillingness, of certain people to analyze any nuances and their tendency towards moral dichotomies. So here we go, we have gone full circle. Go figure.

You know what I said about recognizing isn't supporting? Well, here's a good example. Two months later and things haven't gotten any better for Ukraine. In fact they've gotten worse. It doesn't mean I support it, we can argue about ethics and international laws until the cows come home, but it doesn't change the realities on the ground.

That's why I questioned the logic of encouraging Ukraine to keep fighting a losing war. The West has done pretty much everything it can, short of direct intervention, in order to stop Russia. So far it has been unsuccessful. Russia isn't a small country that imports much of their most advanced weapons and equipment and might be pressured into negotiations by something like an arms embargo.

People are now talking about Ukraine mobilizing men between 18-25, not to push the Russians back, but just to stabilize the front. The country's smallest demographic, one whose loss would worsen the demographic crisis and economy for the present and the future. These are the factors Ukraine should consider before throwing more people into the meat grinder. But according to you I just want them to surrender because "might makes right" ¯\(ツ)/¯.

By the way, If you have any idea on how to force Russia into peace without it being a quick ticket into nuclear Armageddon, let us all know, Zelenskyy probably wants to know.

Oh, and the only events in Ukraine I've "downplayed" (questioned, actually) are those being manufactured or exaggerated by propagandists, repeated by "journalists" with no standards and parroted unquestioningly by morons on social media. The whole "North Korean troops" story is such an example.

But if you still prefer to apply your "logic", well, just don't act surprised when more and more people lose any trust towards anyone who supports the so-called "most moral army in the world" .

Do you or do you not consider this claim a suitable cassus belli? I'll predict you say you won't, but that's won't stop the side comments, as you did at one point directly compare Ukraine and Russia as "two corrupt states" with the logic of "so why are we intervening".

No. No need for side comments, really.

How funny that you deliberately ignore erstwhile ally on the bottom-right. Or, really the neo-nazi elements in Russia & that it's outright going for an attempt to annex & conquer.

No, I'm not ignoring anything. For starters, many countries have neo-nazi elements in their military forces, which tend to align towards the authoritarian right. Russia is not the exception. You might make an association between Wagner group and people like Dmitry Utkin. That said, I don't think any of those groups hold as much political power as the Azov brigade and certainly none of them have been whitewashed by the media nearly as much.

With all due respect Spaghetto, being "almost surprised" the KKK didn't support LBJ is absurd. The KKK would not endorse a man who made it policy to finish the job on ending segregation nationally.

Ah, my B. My most important points still stand though.

i love the "libertarian right" section

you have your maga people, the american nazis, the evangelicalists

and then india. just, india. that's so jarringly different from the first 3 that it's hilarious to me

The whole chart is really silly. Being needlessly stapled onto the political compass chart makes it look like an exercise in absurdist comedy.

People are now talking about Ukraine mobilizing men between 18-25, not to push the Russians back, but just to stabilize the front.

A suspect has reportedly been taken into custody in connection with a fire in a United States Postal Service Collection Box in Phoenix overnight, which damaged over a dozen ballots inside. Phoenix police said 35-year-old Dieter Bradford Klofkorn was arrested for an outstanding and unrelated warrant. While in custody, authorities say he admitted to the arson because he “wanted to be arrested” and claimed his actions “were not politically motivated” and unrelated to the upcoming election.

likely not actually malicious. dude looks nuts.
However it's nice knowing every once in a while the press are actually watching something like a hawk.

For some more unsuprising news, musky has been in regular contact with putin for the last 2 years

@TheHolyEmpress

No, I'm not ignoring anything.

No. No need for side comments, really.

Yet, you still can't help but continue, because that's what you did above and below, and I want to dissect the last passage, piece by piece. For context, this was what I said:

How funny that you deliberately ignore erstwhile ally on the bottom-right. Or, really the neo-nazi elements in Russia & that it's outright going for an attempt to annex & conquer.

For starters, many countries have neo-nazi elements in their military forces

First, you go with a general "everyone does it" message to the point of meaningless, all the while ignoring I wasn't talking about army culture, but also about Russia's national strategy. No, Russia is not acting the same as "many countries", unless you count some specific warlords.

You might make an association between Wagner group and people like Dmitry Utkin. That said, I don't think any of those groups hold as much political power as the Azov brigade and certainly none of them have been whitewashed by the media nearly as much.

I'd say a certain non-insignificant element of media is sane-washing Russia. Azov has been destroyed, and it has been destroyed for a long-time and even before that, it's neo-nazi principles were well-known and reported. Considering how the ideological influences of Russia, those groups had far more power in Russian than a brigade ever had. Your claim is unfounded.

You also neglected to acknowledge that my accusation wasn't just about Russia either, I'm talking about the MAGA/American Nazi types who are pro-Russia, and are non-Russian. Those ones, I acknowledge the dangerous elements even among those who are 'allies' by circumstances, you haven't yet.

I quite literally didn't. Recognition and support are completely different things.

Recognition of an annexation is support. This goes into a general issue of how you say a statement, but take absolutely no ownership or responsibility of it. Looking at the quasi-taunting tone of some of it and it's purpose, you're not neutral.

See, with the above about the "Nazis"? I think you have a tendency to try to reverse accusations & downplay, the case with Elon Musk was particularly blatant, makes whatever else you say also questionable (or at least tinged with the knowledge that like all of us, you're someone with a position).

If I recall correctly, the whole argument started when I pointed out the inability, or most likely, the unwillingness, of certain people to analyze any nuances and their tendency towards moral dichotomies. So here we go, we have gone full circle. Go figure.

From what I remember, it started with wisehowl_the_2nd yelling at you, and I tried to see what that was about. You complained about that, but I think I've spent enough time to conclude fairly enough that they had a point, so I like others will also go full circle about this.

As for the moral arguments, the reason why is because of this:

we can argue about ethics and international laws until the cows come home, but it doesn't change the realities on the ground.

You mention "moral nuances" and make moral statements, but completely refused to actually discuss it, because in face of the logic behind the annexation you reverted to "Russia needs a warm water port" and "facts on the ground" or in other words, "might makes right" (and repeating you're not actually for it, but having it as the primary logic does mean using it).

But if you still prefer to apply your "logic", well, just don't act surprised when more and more people lose any trust towards anyone who supports the so-called "most moral army in the world" .

Now that's a straw-man, if I've seen any. "Most moral army" for Ukraine? No such thing for anyone, to mirror, who are you talking about, I have no idea what you're going on about.

Don't think that the feeling isn't mutual, however as I already said. You said that the Europeans were risking a "self-fulfilling prophesy" for their diplomacy towards Russia, completely neglecting that the Russia had been threatening nuclear Armageddon with shocking regularity. Can't lose someone that was never there (and if anything, it's more dangerous to indulge them).

You and many like you take the position that you're the one who judges, and who gets to apply retribution, without being judged in return. I can definitely say that has never been true for anyone, and I have lost in trust in you, and the hollow morals and barely-disguised agendas of that position.

How a "three day operation" and starting wars became the rallying moral cry of the "anti-west" never ceases to disgust me.

An extremely obvious piece of news, but some people kept on defending him.

It's a bit like Project 2025 & Hungary's Orban, a lot kept on downplaying them and insulted those who noticed the warning signs, but now that's it's become a big enough issue that's too difficult to deny, there's no shame about trying to obfuscate the issue.

In fact, I think they always wanted this outcome. No need to give the benefit of the doubt to known bad actors.

First, you go with a general "everyone does it" message to the point of meaningless, all the while ignoring I wasn't talking about army culture, but also about Russia's national strategy. No, Russia is not acting the same as "many countries", unless you count some specific warlords.

You're working off the assumption that the one and only motivation for the Russian invasion is exactly the same one Germany had in the 1930s and early 1940s: a policy of fascistic expansionism based on military conquest. I question that assumption because, quite honestly, I just don't think it aligns well with existing evidence. If I recall correctly, I gave my theories before, so I'll avoid repeating myself here.

I'd say a certain non-insignificant element of media is sane-washing Russia. Azov has been destroyed, and it has been destroyed for a long-time and even before that, it's neo-nazi principles were well-known and reported. Considering how the ideological influences of Russia, those groups had far more power in Russian than a brigade ever had. Your claim is unfounded.

The Azov Brigade is alive and kicking. Last I heard they were sending troops to reinforce Pokrovsk. They're still active on social media. If their Telegram posts are to be believed, they have a pretty significant influence on how the war is being fought. It was only on June this year that the US decided to remove their ban on sending Western equipment to them because they were previously considered an extremist organization. Around the time things started getting real bad for Ukraine, coincidentally enough. With the Western media calling them "the revered Azov Brigade" and reassuring everyone that "they were neo-nazis before, but don't worry, they're good now, they've totally reformed". Forgive me for being skeptical about leopards being able to change their spots.

You also neglected to acknowledge that my accusation wasn't just about Russia either, I'm talking about the MAGA/American Nazi types who are pro-Russia, and are non-Russian. Those ones, I acknowledge the dangerous elements even among those who are 'allies' by circumstances, you haven't yet.

Because I fail to see the relevance. There's neo-Nazis in every continent, even Asia and Latin America. Some of them are pro-Russian. Some of them are MAGA supporters. Most of them lean towards the authoritarian right.

Recognition of an annexation is support. This goes into a general issue of how you say a statement, but take absolutely no ownership of it. Looking at the quasi-taunting tone of some of it, you're not neutral.

Recognition of an annexation is acceptance. It can be done with support or without it, be it reluctantly or purely out of necessity.

And I get it, I can be quite sarcastic. Snarky even. Especially when dealing with hypocritical and self-righteous statements (which is not a jab at anyone in particular in this case). Perhaps you're taking it as "taunting"? It's not really the intention.

See, with the above about the "Nazis"? I think you have a tendency to try to reverse accusations & downplay, the case with Elon Musk was particularly blatant, makes whatever else you say also questionable (or at least tinged with the knowledge that like all of us, you're someone with a position).

My position about the Elon Musk case was pretty clear. I did not support him personally, I did not support the accounts he tried to ban. I said it was a very dangerous precedent for the government of supposedly democratic countries to ban accounts, any accounts (or the entire service), for political reasons.

If there is a criminal investigation accounts can be locked, set to "no replies" mode, while authorities can have full access to the server data with the proper warrant. Banning them means any of the data is no longer publicly available if it wasn't archived before. Do I really need to spell out the potential for abuse if governments decide they can ban anyone's account while they're under an "investigation" for any reason?

And before you bring it up, yes, owners of platforms can abuse it too and there needs to be accountability for it, but I am a bit more concerned about who makes the laws and enforces them. Platforms come and go and there's a selection of them, but you can't exactly choose which laws apply to you. And what really worried me back then (and still does) was that some people were actively praising the act of censorship.

You mention "moral nuances" and make moral statements, but completely refused to actually discuss it, because in face of the logic behind the annexation you reverted to "Russia needs a warm water port" and "facts on the ground" or in other words, "might makes right" (and repeating you're not actually for it, but having it as the primary logic does mean using it).

Theories. Those were theories. I went out of my way to point out I wasn't analyzing the morality or legality of the invasion, but try to determine the reasons why. You think because I don't buy the explanation of "Putin is a crazed dictator on a campaign of territorial conquest through force" it automatically means I agree they should have invaded.

Now that's a straw-man, if I've seen any. "Most moral army" for Ukraine? No such thing for anyone, to mirror, who are you talking about, I have no idea what you're going on about.

Weren't we talking about the war in Gaza in the first place? Guess which army claims that title.

Don't think that the feeling isn't mutual, however as I already said. You said that the Europeans were risking a "self-fulfilling prophesy" for their diplomacy towards Russia, completely neglecting that the Russia had been threatening nuclear Armageddon with shocking regularity. Can't lose someone that was never there (and if anything, it's more dangerous to indulge them).

Because the European "diplomacy" you mention is the constant message of "we must prepare for war", "Putin isn't going to stop at Ukraine". Estonia recently went and said they're ready to "pre-emptively strike Russia" in case of conflict. Does it sound to you like people who want to actively avoid a war or people who want to convince you war is inevitable?

And Russia has been using nuclear threats, yes, so why do you think the Pentagon has adamantly refused to authorize long-range strikes on Russian territory, despite the pleas from pretty much everyone else in the pro-Ukrainian space, from your average NAFO poster on Twitter to every so-called expert, retired US general or head of state in Europe? Zelenskyy himself has been begging for permission for months and still includes them as part of his "Victory plan". Keir Starmer gave Ukraine his permission to use Storm Shadow missiles before retracting the statement shortly after. The Institute for the Study of War has wholeheartedly supported the idea, even publishing a map of potential targets for ATACMS/Storm Shadow missiles. The idea of providing the AGM-158 JASSM long-range missiles for Ukraine was all but confirmed but as far as I know has still not been approved.

You may think it's because the US doesn't want Ukraine to win too quickly, lest it destabilizes Russia and makes it crumble too messily and too soon (no joke, I've heard this argument from pro-Ukrainian people), or because the US government doesn't want to make the Russians too upset because they don't want to burn bridges with them completely (another argument I've heard, which at least makes a little bit more sense). Or it could be because if the Russians start feeling threatened they may consider releasing the nuclear genie from its bottle and nobody knows where things could go from there. I don't know about you, but I'm personally not eager to find out. Russia and NATO are playing a dangerous game there, something that people from previous generations knew better about, but nowadays there's a disturbing amount of people dismissing it as empty threats for some dumb reason.

And before you go on a tirade of how I am approving of nuclear blackmail because "might makes right", I am not. I'm not particularly approving of people playing "chicken" with the lives of the whole world, and I assume neither you do, but I'm not going to pretend it's not a factor either.

You and many like you take the position that you're the one who judges, and who gets to apply retribution, without being judged in return. I can definitely say that has never been true for anyone, and I have lost in trust in you, and the hollow morals and barely-disguised agendas of that position.

How a "three day operation" and starting wars became the rallying moral cry of the "anti-west" never ceases to disgust me.

I'm not anti-West, even if some people think I'm biased against it. On the contrary, I grew up here, I hold many of the Western values very dearly. But when you hold someone or something in high regard, you should also hold them to high standards.

What I criticize and mock from Western countries are the hypocrisy, the abuses of power, the policies of exploitation and imperialism of certain governments and organizations, like the ones who complain about autocracies and human rights abuses while profiteering from wars pushed and lobbied for by think tanks sponsored by the MIC. You know, the people who funded places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, who are now lecturing everyone about international law and morality.

Hell, even the "three day operation" quote was said by people like Mark Milley. By Lukashenko too, but not by the Russians. But even pointing that out leads to accusations of bias. Pointing out corruption, war crimes by Ukraine, the influence of people like the Azov or the Right Sector, leads to accusations of bias. Pointing out that Ukraine is losing leads to accusations of bias. Because the pro-Ukrainian space is so full of toxic positivity and propaganda that anything that goes against the narrative is at best "dooming", at worse "Russian propaganda" that needs to be countered.

I'm not here to tell you who's right or wrong, who's justified and who isn't. I'm mentioning facts. When I forward a theory, guess or speculation, I'm quite clear about it. So be as critical about them as you want. If you have information to challenge them, it is welcome. Do your research, analyze critically. Engage with different points of view, even those you disagree with. That's how you can start finding the truths apart from the fiction. Narratives are easy and digestible, truth can be hard to swallow.

And you're absolutely free to question my morals. I'd just remind you, I started all this by asking what would be better for the Ukrainian people. Not the Ukrainian comedian-in-chief and his cronies, not the Russians, not Biden, Kamala or Trump, not the EU, not Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics, but the people who are actually been sent to the trenches and having bombs dropped on top of them.

This is a bit off-topic, but does anyone know what happened to Mothman? They used to be active during political discussions or whenever a controversial topic is brought up. Are they taking a break, or did they leave this site?

It’s only been 20 days

So we've found out why Musk thinks he's screwed if Trump loses.
Military contractor was talking to Putin about classified documents. Even if there's no jail involved, SpaceX would be incredibly screwed by these actions. Not legally allowed to contract screwed

He is not terminally online like us.

I have seen a silly ad against masturbation and pornography. As much as I dislike pornography, banning it won't be this Easy because of Patriot Act like rules and because it's like alcohol. It must be moderated and very restricted.
Banning drugs did nothing, but caused black markets to boom.

…Boo

City Council of Odessa Texas bans transgender people from using the bathroom that differs from the gender on their original birth certificate. The city can seek a fine of up to $500 and trespassing charges.

The part that is getting headlines is in the private right of action section:
"Any person… …has standing to bring and may bring a civil action against any person who violates or intends to violate the provisions of this ordinance. If a claimant prevails in an action brought under this section, the court shall award… …statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each violation of this ordinance; and court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees."

City Council Meeting (Specific ordinance PDF pages 156-162)

Erin in the Morning

Texas Tribune

YOU ARE BACK!!!! We missed you, yo.

This is the most retarded rule I have ever seen. And punishment makes is even worse.

(This is a transgender man, Female To Male)

i think you missed the point

aw, man.
gotta read before I write what I want to and post.

you gotta watch out, those trans people will suddenly cut of your balls for no reason /j

Honestly, Trump's a pathetic joke, but some of the shit he's been saying lately is…worrying.

On and on and on about how journalists who won't cover him positively are 'the enemy of the people.' Talking about using the military inside the country to restore order, this, that- I mean, it's all the usual strongman feel-good shit, sure, but.

It's still worrying, you know? Worrying in a different sort of way than his usual. The usual is just spewing racist bilge and propping up big corporations more and fucking with the judicial system- and like, all of that is terrible, but it's damage that can be undone.

What worries me is, you know, what if it's /not/ the usual strongman windbag shit? What if he's legitimate about it, and tries to swing at US citizens that piss him off?

It's not like his base would stop voting for him if he did. It's not like he can be convicted, either, considering the supreme court's given the president immunity. Shit like this is starting to stress me out a little.