*An anonymous author said that Matthew said that Jesus said…

Not to mention the translation inbetween.

And people firmly believe whatever is written in that telephone game mess.

No but you see, this one actually predicted a lot of stuff that actually happened!

…I mean, she said that she predicted them after they happened, but I’m sure she wouldn’t lie about that, would she?

They’re not “millions” right now. Imagine every single dollar they currently spend for different types of advertising, all used as budget for astroturfing. It would turn every online space into bots talking to themselves and nothing else.

I know, and that sucks. But outright banning something that has its benefits has always been detrimental (not to mention, they’d just find sneakier ways to do it and it’d be worse for everyone). We need regulations, a lot of them, not banning entirely.

Plus who are we kidding, everyone in power is so deep into the advertising/propaganda industry that neither of those options have a decent chance of happening in our lifetime.

Yup. The whole article and “we should bring back bullying” rhetoric (even used ironically) just reeks of someone who doesn’t like “uncool” people and finally found a morally valid excuse to hate on some of them.

Really, not much different from misogynists pointing at random female tiktok influencers and concluding “See? This is why women are dumb and we need sexism”.

That’s a generalization. The White Rose was doing “advertising”, and I think that’s all but “by the wealthy, against the working class”.

Advertising has its place and can be beneficial to society, it just needs regulations (admittedly, A LOT of them).

We all know if every other way of advertising was banned, they’d start paying (or “incentivizing”) millions of people to “do word of mouth” for them.

And then we’ll have those people polluting every online space with unlabeled ads. No thank you.

That makes sense when it harms business being done in that country, people’s opportunity to find jobs and stuff like that.

But blocking people from working for free on open source projects where there’s nothing to be gained is harming progress, not individuals or countries. That’s not what sanctions were made for.

Here’s an archive link 7 days later, with 800+ replies

“This whole system needs to be smashed and recreated, it’s fine if the country burns itself down”

“Btw you’re the one with blood on your hands, I definitely think basic human rights aren’t negotiable”

Well, it does look like he shows her his badge as he’s walking up to her.

…not at all…? He has his hands in his pockets until he stops walking in front of her, then he takes out his open hand to tell her to stop, then he takes out the other to stop her from walking away. When do you think he showed her a badge?

Ohh, so you’re an accelerationist! Now your comments make sense. Well, except the one claiming you’re anti-genocide, but the rest make sense. Kinda.

Probably in the sense that as you’re approaching it in the distance you can see the lines around it. When you’re that close you can’t see them anymore, but you should’ve realized that it was a wall way before that point.

Yup, if not worse.

So in the end that means you can, and already did, cross that line. You just don’t want to do that when it specifically comes to voting.

I still think the ultimate outcome wouldn’t have changed but yeah, rewatching it he does seem a bit more provocative than in the rest of the interview. Maybe it did tick him off a bit too much and he decided to go for it in the heat of the moment.

I think it’s because he hoped there were actual guarantees, considering Trump is definitely interested in Ukraine’s mineral industry. But as the meeting went on it became increasingly clear that keeping Putin his BFF was even more important and he just wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

You’re still supporting genocide by proxy by living in the US and paying taxes, contributing to the GDP and whatnot, though. You should move and contribute to a different country if you really can’t stand to support genocide in any form.

I mean, he was asking a question that had to be asked at one point or another. If Vance had an answer to that, he wouldn’t have lost face. If he didn’t, that means any kind of deal they could’ve made would’ve been useless (if not harmful) to Ukraine.

What would’ve he gained by not making that question? The chance to make a deal with no warranties? I feel like he’s a very good strategic thinker, and that wasn’t a choice dictated by pride or by the heat of the moment. There was nothing significant to gain by not asking that question, they would’ve just discussed the deal behind closed doors and he’d still have to refuse because Trump’s only warranty would still be “well so far he hasn’t broken promises with me, though”.

It can be saved, through voting in primaries, grassroot movements, and trying to pressure whoever is in power to do the right thing.

But all of this is only possible if you keep voting for the lesser evil. By electing people like Trump, the US population is sending the message that they like those positions, and therefore the other party will keep shifting more and more to the right to try and capture those voters. And the only way a nation can be saved under those conditions is violent revolution. Are you ready for violent revolution? Because if you’re not I’d suggest you either start a plan to migrate to a better country, or get accustomed to voting “against” people, instead of “for” people.