No - actually I was talking worldwide. Russia’s just a notable example.
And I would say that all of the things you listed are, directly or indirectly, consequences of the fact that wealthy authoritarian parasites have warped societies to their benefit regardless of the harm done to others, so are actually examples of exactly what I’m talking about.
News flash for wealthy authoritarian parasites around the world, because you all seem ignorant of this fact:
Declining birthrates are a direct result of the simple fact that more people all the time decide that they have no desire to bring children into this world, and that in turn is a direct result of the fact that you’ve turned this world into a warped, corrupt, toxic, authoritarian shithole.
You have no one to blame but yourselves.
I think you have forums confused with microblogs.
I presume I’m supposed to care, but I dont, and I don’t know why anyone would.
So… Meta’s “plan” is to dodge responsibility?
Gee whiz… I sure never saw that coming…
Just be patient.
With all due respect, fuck the normies. The fediverse is better off without them.
If he’s trying to say “Biden wanted this but Trump already started it”
Which “he?”
Zuckerberg blames it exclusively and entirely on the Biden administration.
that tells me BOTH parties requested it. Hence, if you don’t like Biden because of this, you don’t want Trump either. And of course, vice versa. In short, this policy is not unique to either party or administration.
Exactly, but that’s explicitly not what Zuckerberg is saying. He’s saying that it was entirely and exclusively Biden, which is a lie.
Why did Zuckerberg choose now to make this announcement and publicly reveal the inside play?
There’s actually a tidbit that the author notes that points at the obvious reason for it.
In his letter to Congressional investigators, he flat-out said what everyone else has been saying for years now.
In 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content…
The author then goes on to say though:
A few clarifications. The censorship began much earlier than that, from March 2020 at the very least if not earlier.
What’s significant about that? Trump was president then.
So Zuckerberg is rather obviously trying to pin entirely on the Biden administration a set of policies that were already in place under Trump.
To what end? Obviously to do the same thing he did in 2016 and 2020 - to overtly promote Trump.
This particular one certainly not coincidentally plays into the whole Republican narrative that the Democrats are oppressive and dishonest, which in turn is meant to provide a context for their intention to dispute the election results when Trump loses. Zuckerberg is simply doing his part to further that narrative.
I’m entirely unsurprised.
D and D got a lot of heat for the last season of Game of Thrones, but I’ve never thought they were entirely, or even chiefly, to blame. Most of the problem really is that GRRM obviously desperately needed an editor to rein him in as the series went along, but for whatever reason, that didn’t happen. So now he has this huge, sprawling mess of a story that’s going in eighteen different directions at once, and just as D and D couldn’t manage to tie it all together, neither can he.
Most similar to Advance Wars:
Final Fantasy Tactics Advance
Tactics Ogre: Knight of Lodis
Super Robot Taisen: Original Generation
Shining Force:Resurrection of the Dark Dragon
Just in general:
Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow
Summon Night: Swordcraft Story 1 and 2
Drill Dozer
Golden Sun 1 and 2
Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap
Harvest Moon: Friends of Mineral Town
Guru Logic Champ
Metroid Fusion
Metroid Zero Mission
Medabots RPG
Klonoa: Empire of Dreams
Yes - that’s exactly what it is. Vichy Twitter is to historical Twitter as Vichy France was to historical France.
I stole it myself, so you’re welcome to it.
I have no idea who originated it, but from the first time I saw it, I haven’t used anything else. It just so perfectly sums it up.
So there are only two possibilities - either Vichy Twitter is such a poorly run site that it crashed on its own, or it’s such a poorly run site that it’s not prepared to deal with being DDOSed.
No surprise there.
After Knesset members actually got up and angrily defended the supposed right to rape Palestinians and the finance minister lamented the fact that the rest of the world would condemn arranging for the death by starvation of 2 million Palestinians, there’s pretty much no low left that’s too low for the Israeli government.
I wonder how the plutocrats and the christofascists will try to carry out their plan of destroying US democracy and imposing autocracy after the stinky old weirdo they’ve pinned all their hopes on has a screeching public meltdown.
Altruistic? ALTRUISTIC?!
Just who in the fuck does he think he is?!
The only altruists on Reddit are the users who freely provided the content that this fucking parasite feeds off of.
I’m so glad I left that awful shithole of a site.
I would say that he’s entirely and completely correct.
And I would also say that that doesn’t change the facts on the ground - if Trump wins, democracy is dead. He and his backers and his coattail-riders will enact the plutocratic/christofascist autocracy of their dreams, and many, many Americans will die and the survivors, outside of the ruling elite, will be reduced to peasants and cannon fodder.
If Harris (or whoever the DNC saddles us with in an 11th hour switcheroo) wins, we at least have some chance, however small, of saving this country. Maybe.
Maybe is a helluva lot better than no fucking way.
Oh wow, I really riled you up.
Presuming, for the moment, that this laughable, trite and terribly cliched rejoinder is in any way true, how would it be relevant to anything?
Never mind though - that was a rhetorical question. I know, and I suspect you do as well, that it’s not. It’s just a casual, and at this point entirely predictable, bit of disparagement tossed out to give yourself what you erroneously believe to be an edge.
the real problem is the idiots who are paying.
I mean, I think that this is contentious enough to be worth picking apart.
Feel free. I’m more than willing to explain in as much detail as you want exactly why it is that I think that people who pay extra for early access to games are “idiots.”
(Just, by the bye, as I think that people who don’t wear seat belts, tahe the guards off their table saws or don’t get covid vaccines are “idiots.”)
I can’t imagine calling someone an idiot unless I thought they kind of deserved what was coming to them.
Which is exactly what I do in fact think.
It’s this schadenfreude you seem to feel that I take issue with.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
I don’t feel any sort of pleasure or sense of fulfillment at their idiocy - I simply note it.
I’m especially curious about that one.
Oh, that would be this, actually:
demonstrates more contempt for one’s fellow man than decreeing that they shouldn’t even be allowed to make their own choices.
You are, for some reason, arguing against the concept of rules. I never asked you to do that.
In response to my statement that:
any consumers who, in such a situation, do not say no to a bad deal have nobody to blame but themselves
you wrote:
Do you suppose that choosing not to wear a seatbelt, a very bad deal, should be left entirely up to individuals, um, “stupid” enough to take it?"
Clearly, with that, you established that the point you wished to dispute was whether or not “choosing… a very bad deal should be left entirely up to individuals.” That was the exact point of contention you stipulated.
So this:
You are, for some reason, arguing against the concept of rules. I never asked you to do that
is blatant bullshit. In point of fact, with the example above, that’s the specific focus you introduced. Curiously, you said nothing at all about the “contentious” phrasing of my original post or my supposed “schadenfreude.” That only came along now, in this desperate bit of backing and filling in which you’re vainly engaged. Rather, your immediate and exclusive focus was on whether or not “choosing… a very bad deal should be left entirely up to individuals.” The clear, and in fact only, alternative to that is that it should not be left up to individuals, so that’s the position you’ve taken, and the position in support of which I’m still waiting for you to provide an argument.
Now - if that’s truly not what you intended to say or imply, that would be another matter. And in fact, in any other situation, I’d be willing to simply grant that that wasn’t your intent and amend my responses accordingly. We could simply cooperate to find the exact point of our disagreement and focus on that (and could both enjoy this exchange much more).
But you blew that chance a long time ago.
So that was in fact the position you took, whether intentionally or not. And I’m still waiting for an argument in support of it.
And if the world were a just place instead of a twisted shithole designed to maximize the privilege of a relative few wealthy and empowered parasites, you could work fewer hours, make the same or even more money and afford a house.
But instead the system has been warped so that you have to work long hours for insufficient pay and still can’t afford a decent life, and all so that a relative few executives, board nembers, bankers, investors and politicians can siphon off the bulk of the wealth you generate so that they can buy more houses and bigger yachts.