That makes sense when it harms business being done in that country, people’s opportunity to find jobs and stuff like that.

But blocking people from working for free on open source projects where there’s nothing to be gained is harming progress, not individuals or countries. That’s not what sanctions were made for.

Here’s an archive link 7 days later, with 800+ replies

“This whole system needs to be smashed and recreated, it’s fine if the country burns itself down”

“Btw you’re the one with blood on your hands, I definitely think basic human rights aren’t negotiable”

Well, it does look like he shows her his badge as he’s walking up to her.

…not at all…? He has his hands in his pockets until he stops walking in front of her, then he takes out his open hand to tell her to stop, then he takes out the other to stop her from walking away. When do you think he showed her a badge?

Ohh, so you’re an accelerationist! Now your comments make sense. Well, except the one claiming you’re anti-genocide, but the rest make sense. Kinda.

(Copying from my other comment)

Apparently they’re next to the timestamp now (you can see the “↑ 4” on that screenshot, and if you sort this post’s comments by Best, the Futurama meme shows as “↑ 87 ↓ 1”)

Apparently they’re next to the timestamp now (you can see the “↑ 4” on your screenshot, and if you sort this post’s comments by Best, the Futurama meme shows as “↑ 87 ↓ 1”)

I hate how it’s always like this. Some leftists get angry about fictional stuff and fascists use the opportunity to get more people to their side. When will they learn to shut up about things that don’t actually harm anyone?

Gamergate would’ve had no legs to stand on if people just left “gamers” alone. Instead they decided to complain about innocuous stuff and now we have a crapton of young people who suck up to Andrew Tate & co because they feel like the other side of the spectrum hates them. How do we always manage to sabotage ourselves?

So in the end that means you can, and already did, cross that line. You just don’t want to do that when it specifically comes to voting.

I still think the ultimate outcome wouldn’t have changed but yeah, rewatching it he does seem a bit more provocative than in the rest of the interview. Maybe it did tick him off a bit too much and he decided to go for it in the heat of the moment.

I think it’s because he hoped there were actual guarantees, considering Trump is definitely interested in Ukraine’s mineral industry. But as the meeting went on it became increasingly clear that keeping Putin his BFF was even more important and he just wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

You’re still supporting genocide by proxy by living in the US and paying taxes, contributing to the GDP and whatnot, though. You should move and contribute to a different country if you really can’t stand to support genocide in any form.

I mean, he was asking a question that had to be asked at one point or another. If Vance had an answer to that, he wouldn’t have lost face. If he didn’t, that means any kind of deal they could’ve made would’ve been useless (if not harmful) to Ukraine.

What would’ve he gained by not making that question? The chance to make a deal with no warranties? I feel like he’s a very good strategic thinker, and that wasn’t a choice dictated by pride or by the heat of the moment. There was nothing significant to gain by not asking that question, they would’ve just discussed the deal behind closed doors and he’d still have to refuse because Trump’s only warranty would still be “well so far he hasn’t broken promises with me, though”.

It can be saved, through voting in primaries, grassroot movements, and trying to pressure whoever is in power to do the right thing.

But all of this is only possible if you keep voting for the lesser evil. By electing people like Trump, the US population is sending the message that they like those positions, and therefore the other party will keep shifting more and more to the right to try and capture those voters. And the only way a nation can be saved under those conditions is violent revolution. Are you ready for violent revolution? Because if you’re not I’d suggest you either start a plan to migrate to a better country, or get accustomed to voting “against” people, instead of “for” people.

Too bad that in the US there’s three sides, two that support genocide and a third one which supports whoever gets the most votes out of the other two.

You literally can’t avoid “supporting genocide” in a FPTP system, refusing to choose just means letting others choose for you. And you can’t tell me in good faith that both outcomes were the same.

So what should’ve been the answer to Vance’s proposal of “diplomacy”, in your opinion? Do you think he shouldn’t have questioned the validity of it, in spite of the precedents? Wouldn’t that just mean accepting the deal without any guarantee of protection like it happened before?

We need to get more people in here if we want it to actually be a Reddit competitor. Right now it’s good for some communities, but smaller ones are still extremely underpopulated.

That’s what I’m saying, the snowball effect will definitely be in full effect after the first 10. You do one per day and see how on the 11th day the richest person of the world has exactly 999 million dollars.

As it has been said over and over, those people don’t need all of that money at all. Once they realize them having it is actually detrimental they’ll be quick to dump it on whatever they feel is the best use for it (which could be giving them to someone they trust, sure, but does Musk have 396 people he trusts? Hell I’m not even sure he has one!)

Of course this is just fantasy and requires some god-like figure to act out, but while we’re just talking fantasy I’m convinced if that figure just showed up and said “from next month onwards, whoever owns at least one billion dollars will be killed” this could all be solved without a single person dying (of course excluding people like Musk which would suddenly find himself unable to function with a net worth under 1B and lose it all in one day).

200? I’m betting most charities would be set after the first 10.

The thread was about Global Switch Day, whose purpose is to leave proprietary social media for ones that won’t sell your data or get enshittified. So Rednote being proprietary already makes it irrelevant to the discussion.

Even if it actually was better than mainstream social media at the moment, it would still be at the same risk of being enshittified due to that. It’s just a bandaid solution, like people leaving Twitter for Bluesky.

And besides that, most sources I found say Rednote does have ads.