People in asia seem to have an infatuation with Russia even before the palestine issue became prominent. It’s sickening.
The only good thing about it I see is that it’s a necessary counter-balance against the US and its imperialism, perhaps.
Yeah hadn’t realized the spanish/portuguese thing, assumed indigenous folk spoke it but I realize it’s usually some different native thing.
I’m glad it’s better over there, because in my [limited] friend group and family, nobody is pro-ukraine.
Ah so the people there are still ethnically brazillian/argentinian right? i.e. the people are indigenous themselves, just not the rulers? or are the majority of people of european descent too?
Then the only way for the rich to keep getting richer is to degrade labour conditions, but that’s unpopular so you need to blame a scapegoat and enact a repressive regime to enforce it.
I didn’t get this part. Please explain?
Argentina and Brazil are colonial entities? Please elaborate, haven’t heard before.
Edit: How the hell do people deal with Israel given its Samson option??
I’m glad I’m finally seeing someone else that’s actually both pro-palestine AND pro-ukraine for once. It’s usually mutually exclusive — I don’t understand why. Literally every single pro-palestine person I’ve seen otherwise has been pretty vocally anti-Ukraine.
The analogy you’re providing is fallacious because unlike nonsensical singular statements about ducks (an ethically neutral statement), what we’re actually getting is people consistently defending various forms of hate that endangers minorities and marginalized people. They rarely, if ever - and it is my opinion that this almost never occurs - respond to reason. People being purposefully obtuse and heartless within discussions do not really deserve logical vigour or effort. You could try, but it’s a waste of time and energy, and it’ll just put one in a bad mood.
I think it’s fair to assume those when people openly support a movement that visibly takes away the rights of marginalized groups and kills innocent people.
Even with MAGAts and the wave of red that’s ever-present online?
How do you determine what’s not in good faith?
I would imagine this would tie to values, but do those become the unquestionable object, then?
You say should, but that’s a judgment; judgments are subjective.
People who can’t engage with logical reasoning or evidence without resorting to intellectual cop-outs to defend their positions can’t be helped.
My primary concern was that last bit you wrote: e2ee doesn’t necessarily guarantee anything; corporate overlords like Meta has abused it and iirc the British government is starting to fuck with e2ee too.
Does e2ee even mean anything anymore?
Can you (or someone) explain like I’m 5?
Is having an algo off the table? Xcancel doesn’t give you a feed, just searches. coomer mostly has women on it, do you happen to know of any focused on men?
thanks anyways, though. appreciate it.
Yeah I meant a social media platform that’s image-based. Things like Pinterest, Instagram, and to some extent X/twitter.
As for thirst content. Well. If you’re not 18+, can’t say.
This is still a fallacious analogy because it’s clearly exaggerated/fictitious and nobody argues like this. If it was instead:
A: We should torture indigenous people by killing their offspring in front of them.
B: You are acting in bad faith
Is totally acceptable - anyone arguing something like point A is most certainly not engaging in a ‘‘good faith’’ discussion, it’s plain common sense that they aren’t.
If you want to argue in terms of strict ‘‘logic’’, ‘‘faith’’ isn’t even something that would ever ‘‘follow’’ from a statement anyway, so to say that following a statement with ‘‘you’re acting in bad faith’’ is a ‘‘non-sequitur’’ is a meaningless statement. Unless you’re reducing bad faith actors to people coming up and saying, ‘‘hey everyone, I’m acting in bad faith!’’ (which the vast majority of bad faith actors do not do) - which is ridiculous.