The real reason they’re attacking anybody is that they’re “weird” (which is obviously something completely subjective and meaningless), the alleged reasons are made up on the fly to convince themselves that they actually have some weight in their opinions.

So you’re now posting images of people being mocked for having mental illnesses. Yeah, sure dude, you’re an exemplary pillar of morality. Perhaps hold on from having these discussions until you grow up.

We may be talking about someone who handled logistics, or cooking, or maintenance; they might have been punished by life enough in the 30 years have followed; they may be someone who didn’t know what they were getting into, but once they were on the ground, tried to minimize the harm they brought upon others; they may be someone who realized what the army was doing was wrong too late, and was branded a traitor for refusing orders or revealing evil shit that was going on behind the curtains.

All in all, you’re either defending that once a person does one bad thing, regardless of their context, they have become essentially tarnished forever, and no matter their growth or already suffered punishment they should continue to suffer forever; or else you’re just rationalizing the fact that you want to throw fireworks no matter the harm you bring upon others. Think about this all for two minutes before you say something stupid.

If you join the army because you’re fucking stupid in your 20s, and by your 50s you’ve become a wise, anti-war person who still has PTSD, you don’t deserve to get your PTSD triggered because you were dumb 30 years ago.

If you have any kind of anxiety disorder, sensory hypersensitivity or heart issues, the sudden noise of fireworks will at least startle you. The constant barrage of noise that takes place in some places through some celebrations or through the year provoke people to develop even more serious health issues. Ah, but don’t you dare to suggest that the health of vulnerable people should take priority over some brief dumbfuck fun, or that there exist less harmful ways to celebrate, or that constant fireworks in places with certain population density means annoying a lot of people for the sake of very few, because then it turns out that you just “hate freedom”.

My point is that plenty of high-information Democrat voters ultimately fall in line, but the party fails to reach further beyond, while Republicans don’t actually have to “fall in line”, because they like what they’re voting for. Is this not the opposite of the quote?

On top of that, it’s an issue that will easily change the leanings of a lot of low-information voters. Republicans know that the 2025 agenda isn’t popular with moderates, and while most of Biden’s policies have been short-reaching, they’re generally considered a positive (save for Gaza), so they attack at the very obvious and glaring weak point that isn’t actually policy-related.

I actually disagree with this sentiment.

There’s clearly a split in the Democratic Party regarding the candidates and leanings of the old guard, vs a very large portion of their voter base that wants structural reforms in the country (universal public healthcare VS increased access to insurance, for instance), and I bet a large portion of the latter feel whipped into having to vote for a lesser evil rather than for a political project they actually have passion for.

Meanwhile, Trump was an outsider of the Republican party who managed to get their voters in love with him, to the point that he managed to hijack the party and leave it ripe open for a transformation from neoconservative to proto-fascist, despite the Republican old guard initially being hostile towards him.

The Republican party has managed to stay competitive, despite their political goals being less popular overall in the US than the Dems’, precisely because they allowed themselves to mutate and stay responsive to the changes in the electorate, the obvious tragedy being that democratic institutions (mostly referring to both political parties) have been far more willing to incorporate far right nutjobs who want to end democracy than they have for left-wing populism that wants to make housing affordable.

Is this bill going to be voted by the previous representatives or by the ones we just voted? Because that page shows the ones who are leaving.

when they’re the ones that pushed Israel for so long that it finally snapped?

I guess Israel has never treated Palestinians unfairly, huh?🙄

Not really? Bruxism is heavily linked with stress and anxiety, which we have too much of in our contemporary society (meaning: a drop of water in our whole evolutionary history), and it’s very rarely going to incapacitate anyone, so evolution doesn’t care, and has cared even less before civilization.

If there’s a silver lining to this, is that the people of one of the most populous countries in Earth are going to become far more likely to support policies against climate change.

Is that causation or correlation?

Spain did successfully negotiate with ETA, and there is no more ETA today. Colombia’s government negotiated with the FARC, and the immense majority of the FARC have gotten peacefully integrated in their country’s parliamentary system.

I’m sure all this nonsense waste of energy is exactly what we needed just to stop climate change.

Sounds like the BBC’s explanation on their use of language regarding Hamas is relevant here:

John Simpson responded to the criticism in a post on X. “British politicians know perfectly well why the BBC avoids the word ‘terrorist’, and over the years plenty of them have privately agreed with it,” he wrote.

"Calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.

“The BBC’s job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting.”

He said: “It’s about making sure that all audiences trust the information that we’re giving them, that they don’t think the BBC is coming at this from one side of the conflict as opposed to the other, and that we steer a course though this in very difficult circumstances in which our journalism can continue to be factual, accurate, impartial and truthful.”

The corporation’s editorial guidelines say the word “terrorist” can be “a barrier rather than an aid to understanding”.

They say: "We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened.

"We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as ‘bomber’, ‘attacker’, ‘gunman’, ‘kidnapper’, ‘insurgent’ and ‘militant’.

“We should not adopt other people’s language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.”

Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism. Now, if you use this standard, the Israeli government also uses violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism, therefore the Israeli government is also a terrorist organization. Would David Cameron be okay with the BBC maintaining their neutrality and describing both sides as terrorists?

This won’t make Spez any more uncomfortable when he wants to sleep at night. According to him, that subreddit was “valuable discussion”.

Just said on a Reddit r/worldnews’ thread that the subreddit has been astroturfed for years, as a response to someone wondering how could people in the comments be wishing for more innocent Palestinians be killed, and surprise surprise, I got instabanned. The site is becoming a façade of a fake reality in far more ways than one.

The list of names at the left creeps me the fuck out.

The only possible benefit to this kind of behavior is creating the impression that there’s more traffic on Reddit than there really is, from which only Reddit benefits.