Interesting. What is really causing the rapid decline
There are bots on here too. I've noticed a lot of handled accounts that will reply consistently with pro Russian propaganda. Some may be bots, but others are handled. Either way, the goals are the same.
You sadly can't escape it these days.
No matter where you go, it's best to be aware and double check sources.
Oh, how I wish that were true. I wish Republicans had the moral fortitude to throw him out. But sadly, they cheered for Trump—the literal king of inappropriate behavior—as he waved his hand to dismiss the only Democrat who had the guts to stand up to every lie he was spewing.
What a hurtful thing to say about a "person".
/s
"Russian interference" is not just a few hackers breaking into emails—it’s a well-documented, multi-decade strategy of disinformation designed to weaken democratic institutions. The Kremlin has spent years building an extensive network of fake social media accounts, bot farms, and propaganda outlets to spread divisive narratives.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, the FBI, and cybersecurity experts have all confirmed that Russia’s influence campaigns exploit social and political fractures, using platforms like Facebook and Twitter to push misleading or outright false information. Reports from organizations like the RAND Corporation and Stanford Internet Observatory show how these tactics are designed to erode trust in democracy itself, making people more susceptible to authoritarian and extremist messaging.
This isn’t just speculation—it’s the exact playbook used in Russia’s interference in the 2016 and 2020 elections, as confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies and the Mueller Report. The goal has always been to amplify distrust, push conspiracy theories, and create a populace that can no longer distinguish fact from fiction.
And now? We’re seeing the results. A country where misinformation spreads faster than the truth, where people take social media posts at face value instead of questioning their sources, and where a populist leader can ride that wave of disinformation straight into power.
Putin doesn’t need to fire a single shot—he’s watching Americans tear themselves apart over lies his operatives helped plant. And the worst part? Many people still refuse to acknowledge it's happening.
Putin has long stated that Russia is at war with the West—not through traditional military means, but through information warfare. Intelligence agencies, cybersecurity experts, and independent researchers have repeatedly warned that we are being targeted. Yet, many in the West refused to take it seriously.
Now, we’re losing the war—not on the battlefield, but in the minds of our own citizens, as propaganda and disinformation tear at the very fabric of democracy.
I stopped watching movie trailers years ago. Now, my friends just tell me, "Go watch this movie," and it’s made for an amazing movie-watching experience.
For example, I walked into the theater to watch The Lighthouse without knowing anything about it.
Movies are so much better when you have no idea what to expect.
"I recall Ethan Mollick discussing a professor who required students to use LLMs for their assignments. However, the trade-off was that accuracy and grammar had to be flawless, or their grades would suffer. This approach makes me think—we need to reshape our academic standards to align with the capabilities of LLMs, ensuring that we’re assessing skills that truly matter in an AI-enhanced world.
Go back further till you hit some John Waters movies OP.
Ukraine is a US ally. Trump is a Russian ally. Of course he would attack his adversary.
I would just stop using whatever the service is. For as long as I can that is. Not long before our new dictatorship might force us to watch ads for crucial services.
The company I work for had a DEIB conference last week. They were asked if they were still moving forward. They said "We built this company on DEIB, of course we are sticking to our values." I couldn''t be more proud.
Musk is a walking ethics violation.
I hated cats. Then a cat decided he lived in my house. He changed my life. Now I have another trash cat living with me and I love them both so much.
Or a belt sander. Just sand off "Private" and "on the steps." so it says, "Lake. Please stay"
I get where you're coming from, and I think you're right that geopolitics isn't driven by morality. But saying that morality ‘matters very little’ is different from saying it doesn’t matter at all. Leaders don’t operate in a vacuum, but they also aren’t just passive reflections of material conditions. They make choices—sometimes bad ones, sometimes catastrophic ones—and those choices have consequences beyond the abstract forces of history.
The chain of cause and effect you’re talking about is real, but it doesn’t eliminate agency. If it did, there’d be no point in trying to influence anything, because everything would already be preordained by material processes. That’s not how history actually plays out. Leaders make decisions within constraints, but they still make them. The idea that Russia had no other choice but to invade Ukraine ignores the fact that plenty of other post-Soviet states also experienced economic and political instability, yet Russia didn’t invade them all. Why? Because it wasn’t just about abstract ‘material processes’—it was about specific decisions made by people with power.
You’re also implying that NATO’s role in this is straightforwardly imperialist, which oversimplifies the situation. NATO is a military alliance, and yes, it serves Western interests. But Ukraine wasn't ‘forced’ into NATO’s orbit—it actively sought security guarantees after watching what happened in Georgia, Crimea, and Donbas. If we’re doing a materialist analysis, Ukraine’s desire to align with NATO is as much a material reality as Russia’s desire to stop it. So why treat one as natural and the other as Western manipulation?
I don’t think we disagree that material conditions shape conflicts. But I do think dismissing leadership choices as secondary, or treating NATO as the sole driver of the conflict, is just as much of a simplification as ignoring material conditions entirely. The best analysis—whether practical or historical—accounts for both.
I'm working on transitioning to using They/Them pronouns for everyone since they're completely neutral and fit every context. If your preference is Xe/Xem, I respect that—but unfortunately, my brain just doesn't have the bandwidth to keep track of multiple pronouns consistently. You get They/Them.
I appreciate the depth of this discussion, and I think we might be closer in our views than it initially appears. I agree that material conditions matter—history, economics, and geopolitical realities all create the environment in which decisions are made. NATO expansion did change the security landscape in Eastern Europe, and the fallout from the Soviet collapse created complex dynamics we're still witnessing today.
Where I think we differ is in how we understand the decision to invade. Material conditions create contexts, but they don't predetermine military aggression. Putin's choice to invade has resulted in catastrophic humanitarian consequences—tens of thousands dead, millions displaced, cities reduced to rubble, and countless lives shattered. These aren't abstract policy outcomes but profound human tragedies that demand accountability.
The material analysis also cuts both ways. If we're talking about material interests, what about Ukraine's? Their desire for security guarantees after watching Russia's actions in Georgia and Crimea represents a material reality too. Their concerns about Russian aggression weren't imaginary—they were based on observed patterns.
I still maintain that Russia's actions reflect more than just defensive security concerns. The rhetoric about "one people," the denial of Ukrainian identity, the installation of Russian educational systems in occupied territories— they are words and actions that point to imperial ambitions beyond simply keeping NATO at bay.
Perhaps the most productive approach is to recognize both material conditions and leadership decisions as essential parts of the analysis, while never losing sight of the real human beings whose lives have been devastated by this war.
I’m not ignoring Euromaidan or the broader post-Soviet fallout—I just don’t think they justify Russia’s actions. If anything, they reinforce my argument.
Euromaidan wasn’t some Western-orchestrated coup; it was a mass uprising driven by Ukrainians rejecting a corrupt, Russia-aligned government that tried to back out of closer ties with the EU. The response? Russia annexed Crimea and fueled a separatist war in Donbas. That wasn’t some inevitable “material consequence” of Soviet dissolution—it was a calculated move to punish Ukraine for stepping out of Russia’s shadow.
Yes, many Russians support the war—but why? Because Putin controls the media, suppresses opposition, and jails or kills dissenters. When you control the narrative, you control public opinion. That doesn’t make the war justified—it just means propaganda works. The idea that Russia had to invade due to “material reasons” falls apart when you consider that no actual threat existed. NATO wasn’t invading. Ukraine wasn’t attacking Russia. The only “threat” was Ukraine choosing its own path, and Putin couldn’t tolerate that.
Putin’s actions tell the real story. He has repeatedly stated that Ukraine is not a real country and that its independence was a mistake. That isn’t about NATO. That isn’t about self-defense. That’s about control. If NATO weren’t the excuse, something else would be.
You’re right that history is complicated—but some things are simple. Invading a sovereign nation because you don’t like its direction isn’t a “material necessity.” It’s imperialism.
I said "I've noticed" which is anecdotal, but others have shared similar experiences with me. That along with the well documented interference campaigns, it's not a stretch to draw the same conclusion here on Lemmy.
Did you read the article I shared by chance?