Candelestine @ Candelestine @lemmy.world

Hello.

---

Read more

Posts

6

Comments

1,928

Joined

2 yr. ago

No one wants this war, or wishes it on anyone,” said Tal Beeri of the Alma Research and Education Center

Bit naive imo. Netanyahu is a bit of a strongman that catastrophically failed to keep his people safe, which betrays the most foundational appeal of such a figure. His approval rating demonstrates this, and he's facing criminal charges to boot.

He has one route forward for personal preservation--more war.

Not necessarily. Some are just indoctrinated. Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance. Ignorance is very common, and is actually a solvable problem.

Though very difficult.

Yea, honestly it put me in a bad mood for most of the day. Had to use breathing techniques just to get control of my feelings again, and even that didn't fully cut it.

Fox is the gateway drug. It's the hard shit that'll really make a person lose touch with reality.

Someone who just watches Fox might possibly still be reachable.

How the hell are they supposed to know your degree is worth any more than the paper its printed on? It could be from some shitty school someone just started last year. Honestly, I find it a little hard to believe a veteran doesn't understand what tests are for, since the military uses them frequently.

Want to be a SEAL? Pass the test. It's not complicated.

It's a little more complicated than that, because there are many different kinds of landmines. Nobody bans them all.

Landmines are also not banned. There's a lot of subtly misleading bullshit on the internet.

Not that complicated. Which humans is it better than? People that want to watch the world burn, while they're still on it, are not always that great at more difficult thinking.

Not too different from how hard it is for states that want to find new methods of execution that are both humane and effective to actually figure that out. The people who are capable of actually doing that competently, doctors, won't help them.

Ah, was not sarcasm. My mistake.

Are you operating under the impression that the French Revolution created the current republic? If so, you're missing many, many steps. One of which was a fellow named Napoleon who crowned himself emperor.

tbf, an active shooter situation is unique. When bullets are flying, I think it is very reasonable to flip away from de-escalation to a combat situation mentality. Whereas any situation where active combat is not occuring leaves de-escalation as a potentially viable path.

It's not like police should be expected to approach every situation with just one mentality, that would be counter-productive. No single mentality can handle the broad array of situations that real life can throw at a person, even if we might wish that we could just stay on one consistent mentality, for simplicity's sake. That's just wishful thinking though. No single mentality can solve life.

If that becomes confusing, then I start to wonder why this idea of different mindsets for different situations is so new. Do they need to ticket every speeder? No, it can vary based on the severity of the offense. That's not life-or-death though, so I understand that it is easier without combat adrenaline surging through your system.

This argument is basically the same as those put forward by the right wing nut jobs that think their second amendment rights to tote a rifle will let them fight against the US govt.

Just because a method functioned a couple centuries ago in a far simpler time, does not mean it will function today. Gotta keep up with the times there gramps.

Ah, sulfuric acid clouds. How lovely.

True. But the propaganda line doesn't acknowledge the distinction, and just tries to spread the idea that the US does not care about international law, which is false.

This is an organized political movement, and the health and science sectors don’t know what to do.

When a target is chosen for attack, the method of attack chosen will be designed around any resources they have and reactions they can take. This is an advantage conferred by the attacker having initiative, they can put much more thought and planning into exactly how they want to execute their attack, and can try to predict and preemptively deal with likely responses. Where a defender is stuck on defense, and has to try to spread their attention out to try to predict and guard against a wide multitude of potential attacks, if they're even expecting attack in the first place.

Defenders are frequently defeated by this mechanism.

Defenders have advantages of their own, though, one of which is a natural moral high ground. Where an attacker can make a specific plan, concentrate their force, and strike where the defense is weakest, a defender can frequently call for and receive reinforcements.

And that is what we're seeing. An organized attack, and pleas for help from the defenders. And if we value their services, I think we'd best honor the call. How, then...? Grassroots civic engagement, of course, wherever the opportunity presents. Unless you can think up some sort of tech solution.

It's funny, the fascists tend to think that all the militaristic-trained thinkers are on their side, but that's not actually true.

I mean, you didn't include anything like tea, so it's kinda just easy. Fizzy, calorie-pumped, nutritionless, cheap-dopamine-providing, overpriced and overpackaged water is pretty low hanging fruit.

Oooh they should go after internet service providers next. I bet those ISPs are censoring them sometimes. Somehow.

Thanks for providing a link.

While it's all certainly Americans, and we don't like genocides, she is correct in assuming that Putin wants Trump to win, and this would be an effective way to further that goal.

Don't forget Putin was KGB.

I imagine it's more through social media manipulation and misinformation than FSB funding, I suppose I could be wrong. By way of example, though, how many times have you heard that white phosphorous is banned, even though that's not exactly true?

Liberal in the traditional sense, as in, believing in liberty, I'm being technical. Not meaning "leftist" the way the word has been rebranded by right-leaners. So, their adoption of "no rules" is ultra-liberal, or libertarian perhaps.

And all social consequences are social. Drawing a distinction between legal and social is arbitrary. Suffering is suffering, and employing it to control dissenting voices is fundamentally illiberal. If you can prevent certain messages from appearing on your platform, you have successfully executed a form of control.

Thus, their ultra-liberty is an illusion. It's not real.