• 0 Posts
  • 39 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 5th, 2024

help-circle
  • As the dev’s flagship instance, there is only so much that can be done. There is also only so much that should be done, since they should have the right to run their own instance however they see fit. They did put the work in to create the service, after all.

    I think the most reasonable solution around this is to simply push mbin a little harder. Since .ml will always garner a certain degree of attention as the dev’s instance, simply pivoting more attention to a lemmy-related service may be the best option to make us more appealing to less politically-interested people overall.


  • I’ve already said, I don’t give a shit what an IDF officer says. I actually know better than to listen to military messaging. Yes they get weapons from us, but do they have to or are there other ways on planet Earth to get weapons asides buying from the US?

    Still waiting for your Egyptian victory.

    Perhaps you were talking about Yom Kippur, where if I recall Egypt and one other country (not Hezbollah) launched a surprise attack with the aid of advanced kit from the USSR, gained some ground and then were beaten back?

    Quit believing dumb propaganda



  • They won several wars in their early history, before getting an advanced air force, on the back of heavy infantry casualties. Again, you have no evidence.

    What would a rocket barrage do? Kill tons of Israelis. Would that defeat the IDF somehow? We learned in WW2 that you can level cities, but the country will fight on. What can Iran do asides fire missiles? March through the two countries in the way?

    I am not the one living in fantasy. I am not the one just conveniently believing dumb shit spoonfed to me for someone’s political purposes.


  • Yes, they get a lot of weapons from us, no question. It is very advantageous for them to do so. The question is, do they have to? You seem to think yes, but have no evidence to support that. Nor does it make any sense, except with regards to the most advanced weapons.

    Plenty of other countries manage to get weapons without getting them from the US.

    Do the bulldozers need to be armored to do work enabling the genocide of Gazans? No, right? You cannot seem to distinguish optional things from requirements. Necessities from conveniences. Why is this?








  • Biden was a good candidate, just too old, that’s all. He’s saved far more Palestinian lives than anyone in your movement did, though. You want us in the West to divest, at which point nothing holds Netanyahu back from just completely cutting the last of the food aid and finishing the job in a single month.

    You just don’t know how to recognize a messy, ugly, harm reduction scheme, instead preferring some sort of purist, noble-minded alignment driven by wishful thinking and based on a misinformed concept that Israel would somehow magically fall apart without the US. When they’re really just using us, because it’s conveniently their best option.

    The ugly reality is, though, that you don’t actually need big bombs to kill all the Gazans. Or even defeat Hezbollah honestly, considering they’re outnumbered 4 to 1 by the IDF. And no, the Sunnis will not all rise up to attack Israel alongside a Shiite militia funded by a regional rival to the Sunnis, regardless of your fantasies. And that’s not even mentioning the modern Israeli nuclear arsenal.

    So sick and tired of you tearing down what you don’t understand because it doesn’t fit your childish views of somehow saving the day. It’s not that easy. Biden did the best anyone could have, in an ugly situation. He kept Netanyahu strung out on a line, needing us, and was able to stop him before Rafah by withholding those bombs.

    The man deserves some understanding for how many people could have died if he just did what you all ask for, because Netanyahu would not have just sat down and stopped. Not so long as he still had bullets for machine guns, hand grenades and bulldozers, which is all that’s really necessary to wipe out every last Gazan.




  • Why would big tech ever want to get rid of nasty meat bags when nasty meat bags drive much of their engagement and thus increase their advertising revenues? We can’t escape the realities of how the human brain operates, how much it likes to be stimulated regardless of the qualities of the stimulus.

    I think a much more logical goal would be to take just enough action to avoid most (but not all) legal consequences while otherwise encouraging as many nasty meat bags to encounter other nasty meat bags with opposing viewpoints as possible. That would maximize brain stimulation, increasing engagement and thus revenue. This improves the stock price and makes your boss happier with you.





  • If there was a team of downvoters following him around, then the number of downvotes he receives would be more consistent across his content, with older things having more and newer things having fewer.

    Instead what we see is wildly varying downvote totals, seeming to depend on the specific thing he says. People disagreeing with his statements would not fuel his victimhood mentality though.

    Personally I do check his account once a day to keep tabs on him. I don’t generally downvote though, I prefer to fact check his statements.