So your contention is that Nation A considering joining an alliance that Nation B doesn’t like - not actually joining, just considering - is a provocation worthy of military invasion?

Jesus what a world that would be.

I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree as I see a fundamental difference between a multi national joint military operation targeting international terrorists and a unilateral military operation aimed at reconstituting the USSR.

Updated

What on earth are you talking about occupying Syria?

Edit: they’re misconstruing the 32-country military coalition that’s been trying to degrade Da’esh since 2014 as the US military by itself occupying sovereign territory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_against_the_Islamic_State

Some may remember the breathless daily & weekly map updates on the news showing areas controlled by Da’esh changing. Might remember the coalition partnering with various groups of differing militancy & reliability. I think including us (the coalition) fucking over Iraqi Kurds…? I believe because Syria hated them? Or loved them?

So, y’know, absolutely nothing like Russia’s completely unprovoked, unilateral decision to invade Ukraine because Putin was afraid of Ukraine getting too chummy with NATO countries, possibility even considering joining NATO.

If the point of supporting Ukraine is to support the international order of respecting borders, then an absolutist interpretation would mean you stop at your border when repelling invaders.

On the other hand, that would certainly result in invaders loading up on personnel and materiel on their side of the border until they reached some critical mass for a re invasion.

A lot of people might not remember the first Gulf War where the international community defending Kuwait stopped at the Iraq border. I think it could be argued that was a mistake on multiple levels, even ignoring everything we know that came after.

Violence must be organized and accountable to be just. Non-violence is always preferred, and is always the initial approach.

But if there is a credible threat, defensive violence is OK as long as whoever is being violent accepts whatever accountability may come.

I’m conflicted about it, but the fact is one reason the US has been so successful in leading the world in relative peace (as compared to WWII and before, not compared to the ideal) is because we have so much capacity for violence in our back pocket.

“Talk softly and carry a big stick.”

Well “conservative” (i.e. “Republican”) has shifted to such a weird place that people who aren’t weird probably feel compelled to call themselves “liberal” (probably meaning they’ll vote for Democrats).

I’m a liberal dude who earned enough that my wife could stay at home and raise our kids until corporate greed gave me a one two punch of rapacious price increases (because they could get away with it) and stagnant wages (because they expect me to put up with it). She was doing a lot of work on the household all the time.

Luckily she went back to work after our kids became much more self sufficient and could participate in taking care of the house.

Never thought of myself as king of the house.

(She the Queen, though)

Those poor people spending time only on HB for four years, never going anywhere else, never finding 4/8chan, never even finding reddit…

Is your question why a propaganda operation focused on disrupting or presidential elections would “go live” 18-ish months before the presidential election?

And are you asking if I have specific evidence that they’re trolls? Or that the governments I’ve listed have troll farms? Or that specifically HB is specifically rife with trolls from this governments’ farms? Because I definitely don’t have specific evidence. Just the historical evidence of (attempted) general interference from those countries in our previous elections.

I think HB and some of the other groups are mostly trolls or Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean, or aligned operatives trying to gas up trolls or wannabe trolls.

There are definitely some well meaning Americans and others who get suckered into the bullshit tornado that is those sites. They are definitely worth saving if we can. But it’s hard. They ban and block anyone with a dissenting voice no matter how calmly presented.

If someone calls me insane, the response that proves them wrong is a reasonable, chill response at most. The actual sane thing to do is ignore them or make a joke about the claim.

Just like if someone calls me weird, the response that proves I’m not weird is to say, “hahaha, sure, whatever” or “so what?” The response that would prove their point is along the lines of, “I’m not weird, you’re weird” or “they’re not calling me weird, they’re calling my associate weird.”

I think Cheney and most pre-Gingrich Republicans have a commitment to the preservation of the Constitution and the Republic. Once Gingrich the philanderer came in and switched the Republican Party into all partisanship mode, things changed and people who don’t put the Constitution first started seeping into the party.

Cheney was an establishment in the party long before that, so he still has those values.

But a commitment to preserve and defend the Constitution is probably the only thing I have in common with him. I welcome him insofar as that. Harris will do that. Trump will not.

For example, I don’t think it’s cool to shoot your friends in the face with a shotgun. Also I’m not a big fan of wars for oil.

I have it on pretty good authority that everyone who likes having sex with humans likes female boobs. And plump round asses. It’s some deeply ingrained evolutionary stuff.

Doesn’t mean a gay guy is gonna go straight because of some nice tits, but he can appreciate them erotically.

Thanks!

Ooooh can I sort their grades from lowest to highest to figure out where I want to work?

It would be wild if stuff like this is some proof of life after death.

Hmmm maybe we should ignore #1 and focus on #5 then

This is Zuck’s characterisation. No direct quotes. No attachments (that I’ve seen). He calls it pressure. He says they wanted to censor “satire & humor.” In fact this BS letter is what the original article quoted.

If Mastodon wins out in the long run the only reason will be persistence.

All these other “like Twitter but ______” micro blogging or whatever sites only stay viable while they’re profitable.

If Bluesky or Threads become (net) unprofitable, they’ll die. Mastodon is already unprofitable, so that can’t kill it.

I think we could compete with #1 just by word of mouth.

For #2 some person or group needs to develop a Mastodon app (FOSS obviously) that has a “just do this part for me” option, probably automatically enabled.

#3 is on us. We have to do what we can to make Mastodon (and Lemmy) more open and accepting without falling pretty to the paradox of tolerance.

#4 is hard… Although I think if Mastodon follows or tries to replicate the “early” Facebook user experience where most or all of the content people got was from people they follow, that could be better. The only challenge is that algorithms tickle our anger/hate/disgust impulses to drive and maintain engagement. That’s some very strong “lizard brain” stuff.

So… let’s get going y’all! :)