tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺 @ tryptaminev @feddit.de

Posts

7

Comments

943

Joined

2 yr. ago

Like many people with the reddit exodus.

But i also got quite annoyed with the main German communities shifting more and more to the right and the moderators of the largest german subreddit to tolerate and enable transphobic and racist discussions, e.g. when there was some tabloid "news" on either topic shared.

I dont know how much of it was because the communities were more and more targeted by organized far right propaganda and how much was the moderators of the /r/de subreddit sharing such viewpoints.

Those trends already happened for some years, getting particularly worse with covid.

Iran denies being involved in Hamas attack on Israel and had no interest in a further escalation, so it is unlikely that they pushed for it. Russia made deals with Israel, that Israel stays out of sanctions against Russia in return for Russia letting Israel attack Iranian proxies in Syria. Also Israeli drones are used by the russian military and have been shot down over Ukraine.

Iran is very much not happy with how Russia lets Israel bomb them in Syria. They most definetely dont trust Russia enough to take such a risk.

The one who have an interest in blaming October 7 on Iran are Israel and War Hawks in US politics, who want a war with Iran and justify unconditional support of Israel.

They reduced the debt in this years by having a budget surplus. Still the debt was not zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States

Which i would also say, if three men showed up at my door to inform me about the very unfortunate suicide of my husband and that they really strongly hope, that i am not also suicidal like him...

Being willing to kill someone as a "last option" and wanting to kill everyone who poses the slightest threat are not the same motivations.

Also thinking about it, how many people at a company the size of Boeing become a threat by being bothered with criminal practices violating safety and other law and ethic standards? How many do we not hear about because the "normal" coercion tactics work?

Having half your engineering department wind up dead because they raised concerns about issues with the production could backfire much more to begin with, but also it would make every engineer look for a different employer quickly. So trying to destroy someones reputation first, ousting him, creating a "him vs. us" mentality is preferential. It also makes it easier for the company to move on after killing him, if the need arises.

So both from a emotionally crippled, but not fully devoid point of view and from an completely psychopathic cold blooded strategy point of view it makes sense to not pull the trigger on everyone right away.

Which is why the trade balance is crucial when talking about financial assets. Because then all of these are financiall assets in foreign countries.

Fiat money is basically an IOU of the government. It has its value because it is the accepted currency. It is the accepted currency, because you can pay your taxes with it.

In order to create money the government first needs to make debt that it hands out the IOUs for.

That is the core of the concept. It is then mediated through an independant central bank and all sorts of private actors and institutions in between. But the account of the government at the central bank cannot go into a plus. It is always a minus, which increases with the debt handed out to private entitities and it is deleted by the tax coming in.

Are you not understanding that social and cultural evolution is part of evolution and that there might be good reason why not murdering and rapeing each other like animals do, is an evolutionary advantage?

So i take it if you fancy a new "female" you kill her previous partner in a fight and then her children with that partner, so she will focuse her attention on the children you make with her. If necessary by raping her? Also if there is no nee females available you will rape and make new children with your own daughters?

Because that is what animals do.

I remember at my first job we had a party. I played with the 10 years old daughter of the boss. Some guy was telling boring and exaggerated stories from his military service. Another guy told me i'am not particularly manly for drawing something with the little girl instead of listening to whatever.

Still makes me chuckle that his understanding of masculinity revolves around pointless affirmative rituals than providing for your family and community.

Unless you are forced to life in that area you are making a choice. And you are not forced to life there. It comes with trade offs. The trade offs are traded in the housing market. People fled the cities in the 80s to move into suburbs. Now people want to life in the city again.

And cost of living of course includes the coffee and toast. You see that in areas that are gentrified, forcing people who dont make the 100k a year to move away. Where before the coffee was 3$ it now is 15$. And someone is paying for that, otherwise the business would not work. So again people are making that choice. And the people with 100k make the choice actually forcing the hand of people who only make 30k and are literally forced out of their neighbourhood.

Of course then there is all the more compulsion to claim, that they had no choice but to gentrify and had no choice but to drive people out of their neighbourhoods. Because if the people with 100k weren't forced to do so, then they would need to take responsibility for their role in that market. Of course the main responsibility remains with the landlords who are happy to drive rents up and people out. But then again i doubt there to be many six figure engineers who are devout to left parties (in case of the US, the Democrats are not a left party by any outside standard.)

But then why is it an acceptable choice for the commuting grocery store worker, but not for the engineer? There is a quality of living involved here that the engineer chooses to pay for, which the grocery store worker doesn't have.

Thats what i mean with unrealised luxuries. They claim to live paycheck to paycheck because their understanding of what a "normal" standard of living ist, is very different, from what "normal" people actually have as a standard of living.

This is not to say, that theses conditions are a good society or dont need changing. But who can get such an engineering job definetely chooses to have a quality of life that he pays all his paycheck for. If it wouldn't be a choice the grocery store workers wouldn't exist.

So where is that place, where the cost of living fully eat up a 250k salary, or even a 100k salary? And by eating up i mean actually living paycheck to paycheck, not as given in the examples enjoying many small luxuries that add up, but are not realised as such.

I get the concept. But realistically that would mean three things:

In a region where people make 250k a year for them to live paycheck to paycheck the cost of living would need to be somewhere around 4-5x higher than in an area where people would make 50k a year.

That would further mean that in the areas where people make 250k a year noone would exist that could afford anything less than that. So the grocery store cashier and the gas station clerk and the postman would all need to make the same money as google software engineers. That is clearly not the case.

And thirdly that means that either the people who make that much money living paycheck to paycheck are economically illiterate and dont grasp such simple concepts... Or which is far more likely, the quality of life in high cost of living areas is in fact so much better, that it is worth paying the extra.

Either way someone who can make 250k a year is choosing to life paycheck to paycheck by choosing to pay such expenses. They definetely have the means to work somewhere where the difference between cost of living and paycheck allows for saving signficant amounts of money over time. Claiming those people would be victims of the system who were forced to live paycheck to paycheck is simply not true. It is still very much their own choice.

Excuse me what? Someone earning that much money is only living paycheck to paycheck because their lifestyle is that expensive. And then it actually is their own fault for buying the 15$ Latte with a 30$ Avocado toast every morning, driving to work in their leased 100k $ car, while their wive drives her own 100k $ car.

You develop your own database application or use a professional file system with customizeable attributes.

Then you end up cursing yourself because half the time you didn't fill in any of the entries that would actually help you find it again and you named it "funny comic cheetos"

Everyone who speaks up, encourages others to speak up. You will not get the ones that only sit a t home only watching fox news, but if everyone who leaves the house is still met with opposition to their absurd claims, it will deterioate the effects of fox and co.

What we expect to be the normative view does influence our views. People want to hold the opinion that they think to be the majority opinion. That is why cults try to isolate their members from other people with other opinions.

By just giving up and letting their propaganda run unopposed we help them feed it to their followers.

If you dress terribly and the clothes cost 20$ you are an uncultured peasant. If you dress terribly and the clothes cost 20,000$ you are a sophisticated eccentric who redefines the boundaries of fashion.

The difference being that this is about protecting sensitive data like trade secrets, in a complex ecosystem that is impossible to fully oversee. Many western governments have banned Huawei from 5g network components for the same reason and that is solid reasoning.

But with TikTok it is a very different story. Nobody needs to use it. People are using it voluntarily. In regards to steering people to bad content through its algorithm, it is no different from Facebook or Instagram. The argument @Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world made is valid.

It is not about preventing foreign or private influence that his harmful to the citizens. It is about controling that influence.

Well, Columbus, Galilei, Kepler & co. challenged what was considered "established fact" about the shape and place of the earth in their times.

It is not wrong to challenge what is considered "established facts". Problem is when you discard results that are going against your preoposition. I wouldn't consider flat earthers to be particular religious as a crowd though. At least in my country they mostl come from the esoteric scene, where you get a mixed bowl of esoteric nonsene, conspiracy theories, and fascist ideology.