To be America's enemy is dangerous, but to be its ally is fatal
I get what you're saying about perspectives, and I’ll take your question in good faith. Let’s establish some key points:
NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO’s founding principle is collective defense—Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. However, NATO has never preemptively attacked Russia or any other non-member state. The only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was after 9/11.
If NATO were aggressive, we’d have seen it by now. NATO expanded eastward because former Soviet-controlled states wanted to join. If NATO were truly a threat to Russia’s existence, why hasn’t it attacked Russia in the 30+ years since the USSR collapsed? There have been countless opportunities if that were NATO’s intent. But that’s not what has happened—because NATO isn’t an offensive force.
Putin’s “perspective” is selective and self-serving. Russia itself has attacked multiple neighboring countries—Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine (multiple times), and intervened in Syria. Meanwhile, NATO has not attacked Russian territory, nor has it forced any nation to join. So when Putin claims NATO is the aggressor, he is projecting—using the idea of a NATO "threat" as an excuse to justify his own expansionist wars.
Putin doesn’t recognize Ukraine as a real country. He has said outright that Ukrainians and Russians are "one people" and that Ukraine exists only because of Soviet mistakes. That isn’t about NATO—it’s about his imperial ambitions. If NATO weren’t the excuse, he’d find another one.
So yes, Russia might perceive NATO as aggressive, but that doesn’t make it true. A defensive alliance accepting new members isn’t aggression. An authoritarian leader launching wars to reclaim "lost" lands is.
Of course, Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federation—just as imperialist ambitions in Russia predate Putin. But history isn't an excuse for present-day aggression. Whatever the past, the reality now is that Putin's actions are not about NATO; they are about control, power, and his own legacy. He isn't reacting to a genuine security threat—he is manufacturing one to justify his war.
NATO expansion didn’t force Russia to invade Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t on the verge of joining NATO when the full-scale invasion began. Putin made that decision because he saw Ukraine slipping out of his influence, not because of any immediate NATO threat. His goal isn't just to stop NATO expansion; it's to erase Ukrainian sovereignty entirely.
The Kremlin says whatever suits its needs at any given moment. Of course, they've called NATO membership for Ukraine a "red line"—just as they've claimed Ukraine is full of Nazis, that the U.S. started the war, and that up is down and red is blue.
Putin lies with every word he speaks. His statements are meaningless; his actions tell the real story. He is an imperialist obsessed with his own legacy, determined to be remembered as one of Russia’s greatest leaders. His ambitions are monstrous, and he will stop at nothing—no matter the cost in human lives—to achieve them.
- On Cancel Culture: The term "cancel culture" typically refers to public backlash leading to personal or professional consequences for perceived offensive behavior. In the case of the NASA bio removal, it appears to be an internal policy decision, not a result of public outcry.
- On Government Influence and Social Media: While there have been instances where government entities have interacted with social media platforms regarding content moderation—such as the Biden administration's efforts to curb COVID-19 misinformation—this differs from "cancel culture." These actions involve governmental attempts to manage public health information, which has sparked debates about free speech and censorship.
- On the Lab Leak Theory: The origins of COVID-19 have been extensively debated. Agencies like the FBI and the Department of Energy have assessed, with varying degrees of confidence, that a lab leak is a plausible origin. However, this remains a separate issue from the NASA bio removal and the broader discussion of cancel culture.
Bringing up these points seems to divert from the initial discussion about the removal of a NASA bio highlighting a woman's achievements in STEM. It's essential to distinguish between institutional decisions, public backlash, and government policies.
Actually, this situation isn't about cancel culture at all. Cancel culture typically refers to public backlash resulting in personal or professional consequences for offensive or harmful behavior. What happened here seems to be a systemic decision to remove content highlighting women in STEM at NASA.
This isn’t driven by public outcry or social pressure; it’s a form of institutional erasure. There’s a big difference between being held accountable for harmful actions and having your achievements wiped out due to a policy change.
These two things shouldn’t be conflated.
Sync is an application that originally was designed to browse Reddit on Android. When Reddit destroyed 3rd party access, Sync was redesigned for Lemmy.
I followed Reddit Sync to Lemmy during the API fiasco. Even then, it was better than reddit had been in years. It's only gotten better.
Ohh! English is your second language! That makes sense. I really appreciate you engaging with this conversation. Since there might be some cultural or language differences, I’d love to explain a little about analogies and how they’re used here.
An analogy is a way to compare two things that seem different but share something important in common. In this case, the comparison is between hoarding objects (like newspapers or furniture) and hoarding wealth. While those things aren’t the same physically, the analogy helps highlight how both forms of accumulation can become excessive and, in some cases, harmful.
The idea is that society often judges hoarding physical objects harshly, while accumulating wealth beyond what someone could ever use is seen as admirable. The analogy is used to ask: Why do we treat these two behaviors so differently when they can have similar effects?
I hope that helps explain it a bit! If anything is unclear, feel free to ask or tell me what your native language is and be happy to translate an explanation.
You might know they are assholes. At least 50% of the voting public doesn't. In fact, they think they are very smart.
I came here to say exactly this. Stop worrying about what others think and start living life on your terms. Focus on becoming the best version of yourself—one that you shape for no one else but you.
The beautiful side effect? Your authenticity and honesty will naturally transform how others see you. When you live genuinely, you inspire others to do the same.
Do what? The only option at this point is sedition and violence, but I can't even imagine what that looks like.
I've never ordered Five Guys through a delivery app but I have NEVER had a good experience. Every meal has tasted like it was waiting on the driver's cold passenger seat the longest possible time.
You could argue that in 2016, some conservatives voted based on promises of economic growth, job creation, or an 'outsider' shaking up the system. But at this point, it's clear that a significant portion of the movement isn't just tolerating the consequences—they’re actively embracing them.
Right-wing media outlets like Fox News are already preparing their audience for economic hardship, not by criticizing the policies causing it, but by framing it as a necessary sacrifice to achieve ideological goals—like restricting immigration. That tells us this isn’t about economic prosperity or stability; it’s about prioritizing certain cultural and political victories, even if it means making life harder for everyone.
This isn't just one politician’s recklessness; it's a broader shift in conservative politics. There’s a growing acceptance of government dysfunction, economic decline, and even authoritarian tactics—as long as it’s seen as benefiting their side. That’s what makes this moment different from 2016. It's not just that a 'mad king' is at the helm; it’s that a large segment of his supporters and media ecosystem are celebrating the chaos, rather than trying to stop it.
My wife and I own three homes, each purchased below our means so we could invest time and money into renovations while living in them. One is currently rented, and we’re working on the second, with plans to have it rented by next summer.
Balancing full-time jobs with these projects demands a lot of our time and resources, but I take pride in the work we put into each home. I treat my rental properties with the same care and quality as my own home—because they were my homes.
I also expect my tenants to treat the house with the same respect I do.
The moderation practices on that subreddit have created an environment where dissenting opinions are swiftly and permanently banned. This approach has fostered an echo chamber where only one perspective is allowed to thrive, reinforcing a cycle of confirmation bias and groupthink. As a result, most conservative posts lack depth and often resemble oversimplified memes rather than meaningful discourse.
Even when an opposing viewpoint manages to slip through, it’s often dismissed as artificial or the work of bots. This mindset reveals how deeply entrenched their worldview has become—so much so that they struggle to believe that differing opinions could be genuine. It’s a surreal and unfortunate dynamic that stifles any chance of productive discussion.
That subreddit is an absolute dumpster fire of stupidity.
I jumped on board with the reddit API fiasco. I use Sync primarily since I'm familiar with the format and I browse and post often.
I think one problem is that it's confusing to your average Joe. I honestly still don't quite understand how it works. I see posts like .ml and .world and I have no idea what they are even though I've been here a while.
I don’t usually eat fast food, but one night I was starving, and there happened to be a drive-thru right next to me. I saw only two cars ahead in line and thought it would be quick. I pulled in and waited. Fifteen minutes passed. Then nearly twenty. By that point, a long line had formed behind me, trapping my car.
At the thirty-minute mark, I started asking the cars around me if they could maneuver to let me out. After almost forty minutes, I finally managed to escape.
Frustrated and still hungry, I drove a little further to a local gyro joint. I walked inside, placed my order, and within five minutes, I was enjoying a fresh, delicious lamb platter.
If this had been an isolated incident, I wouldn’t have thought much of it. But the reality is, experiences like this are all too common. Fast food isn’t fast, and to make matters worse, it’s often not even cheap anymore. Unless you’re scraping the bottom of the so-called “value menu”—which has become scarce and filled with low-quality options—you’re likely paying the same, if not more, than you would at a local spot.
When you stack up the cost, the wait, and the disappointing quality, it’s hard to justify why anyone bothers with fast food at all.
Into the Breach released on netflix when its game feature launched. Its one of the best games I have ever played.
I see where you’re coming from, and I’ll acknowledge that NATO’s history isn’t without controversy. The Cold War era was full of power struggles, covert operations, and actions taken under the banner of anti-communism that are fair to criticize. But historical context doesn’t automatically determine present reality. The NATO of today is not the NATO of 1950, and treating it as if it is ignores how global politics have evolved.
Yes, NATO was formed as a counter to the USSR, but alliances don’t exist in a vacuum—they evolve based on the actions of those they were meant to counter. Russia is not the Soviet Union, but Putin’s government has actively revived expansionist policies that threaten its neighbors. That isn’t just Western propaganda—ask the people of Ukraine, Georgia, or Chechnya.
More importantly, focusing on NATO as the reason for Russia’s invasion ignores a fundamental fact: Ukraine wanted to join NATO precisely because of Russia’s aggression. Ukraine’s sovereignty isn’t just a chess piece in some imperialist struggle—it’s a real country making real choices based on real threats. If this were purely a matter of NATO’s existence, why did Russia invade Ukraine in 2014, long before any serious NATO membership talks?
As for “Great Man Theory,” I agree that geopolitics isn’t just about individual leaders. But ignoring Putin’s role entirely is just as simplistic. Leaders shape policy, especially in authoritarian states like Russia, where power is heavily centralized. Putin isn’t acting alone, but his worldview—his obsession with restoring Russia’s sphere of influence, his belief that Ukraine isn’t a real country, his willingness to use force to achieve his goals—does matter. Dismissing that as just “character analysis” misses the material reality that his decisions are shaping the lives of millions.
So while I respect the historical perspective, I think the argument that NATO is the primary driver of this war is flawed. Ukraine wasn’t forced into conflict by some Western plot—it was attacked by a neighboring country that refuses to accept its independence. That’s not imperialist propaganda. That’s just reality.