Bamboodpanda

Depends on where you go. America is REALLY big—like, continent-sized big. States still have a lot of autonomy, so the experience can vary quite a bit depending on the region, city, or even neighborhood. It’s not as different as going between EU countries, but there’s still a meaningful shift in culture, policy, and general vibe from place to place.

That said, I totally get the fear and frustration. The U.S. is going through a really turbulent time right now. There’s rising political extremism, deeply entrenched polarization, and yeah—an increasingly authoritarian tone at the highest levels of leadership. For people outside the U.S., it’s not unreasonable to see that and feel like it’s unsafe or unwelcoming to visit. Depending on where you go and what your background is, it can be dangerous.

But the full picture is more complicated. There are millions of people here actively fighting for justice, creating inclusive communities, and resisting that slide into authoritarianism. There are cities that are vibrant, diverse, and far more aligned with global democratic values than the loudest voices might suggest.

So yeah—it’s a mess, but not a monolith. And while it’s okay to be critical, it’s also worth remembering that there are still people here trying to make things better.

Everytime I see this guy, this is all I can think of.

17 years of marriage this year. 21 years together.

This morning, we were cuddling, and she asked, "Do you think other couples love each other as much as we do?"

I said, "I hope there are lots." Then we made out, had sex, and started the day—I went grocery shopping while she cleaned the kitchen. When I got back, we put everything away, made out again in the kitchen, and now I’m stretched out on a freshly made bed while she watches TV.

I know, it sounds disgustingly perfect. And honestly? It is. This is my life, every day, with the woman I adore more everyday.

If you’re reading this, I just want you to know—this kind of love exists. It’s real. But it’s not luck. It’s something you build, something you protect, something you choose every single day.

It’s worth it.

There are only about 30,000 people in the world who have a net worth of at least 100 million.

Isn't that fun! /s

Honestly, I leverage LLMs a lot to keep my conversations balanced and intentional. I usually copy-paste my discussions into a 'Speaker 1:' and 'Speaker 2:' format and ask for a critique on my tone and consistency. I also spend a lot of time thinking through my responses, often drafting a few versions before settling on one. After doing this for a few years, I’ve streamlined my process and can spot weak points pretty quickly.

I even built a GPT-powered game that generates logical fallacy scenarios for me to analyze. Someone once told me, "When I was in my 20s, I studied logical fallacies so I could tell others they were wrong. In my 40s, I study them to know when I’m wrong." That perspective completely changed how I approach discussions—I start by making sure my own shit is in check first. It’s helped me navigate arguments with people who rely on fallacies while also keeping myself accountable to the same standards.

The fact that you already recognize your own "shit" puts you in a great category for growth. Keep chasing that awareness and practicing, and you’re gonna be unstoppable!

The ultimate debate strategy: Declare yourself the winner, refuse to read the response, then graciously "allow" me the last word you're not even going to see. Truly a masterclass in performative activism.

You claim to understand "human psychology" and "tactics," yet you embody the very behaviors you criticize – making sweeping judgments without engaging with counterarguments, creating strawmen, and retreating when challenged. The irony is almost poetic.

Your approach is perfectly calibrated to feel righteous while accomplishing nothing. You drop vague proclamations about wealth distribution with zero nuance or practical solutions, then flee at the first sign of scrutiny. You're not fighting any system; you're just performing for an audience of one – yourself.

What's truly revealing is how you've constructed this narrative where you're the lone truth-teller surrounded by "you people" who "will not stop." This convenient framing lets you dismiss any criticism as groupthink rather than examining the glaring contradictions in your own positions.

Your self-congratulatory exit is the perfect capstone – simultaneously claiming moral high ground while ensuring you never have to defend it. This isn't principled advocacy; it's intellectual cowardice dressed as enlightenment.

But hey, enjoy your righteous solitude. The rest of us will be over here, celebrating actual kindness and generosity rather than shouting self-righteous nonsense into the void.

Thank you for the last word! I had fun with it ;)

Ah yes, the rare and elusive Schrödinger’s Wealth Argument. The rich guy both shouldn’t have the money and yet you never said he shouldn’t have money. Truly a masterclass in mental gymnastics.

Let me make it clear for everyone in the room: "Rich guy gives money he shouldn’t have" followed by "I never said he shouldn’t have money.".

If your argument is so airtight, why does it fall apart the second someone repeats your own words back to you? You’re so desperate to sound intellectually untouchable that you didn’t even bother making your position internally consistent.

But hey, if you're the self-appointed gatekeeper of who “should” have money, maybe enlighten us: What’s the magic number? How many dollars past your personal threshold turns someone from acceptable to villainous? Or do you just decide that based on who pisses you off the most in the moment?

Your argument isn’t about justice or fairness, it’s just self-righteous noise wrapped in a superiority complex. You don’t actually want solutions; you just want to act like the smartest guy in the room. Spoiler: You’re not. But by all means, keep preaching from your imaginary throne, Just don’t be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. Why do you think his neighbors don’t need the money? How do you know he isn’t also donating to people in real need? And why exactly shouldn't he have money? Did you personally determine the correct amount he’s allowed to have? Sounds like a lot of certainty for someone who probably doesn't have all the facts.

Nazis thrive on diluting language—twisting words like "freedom" and "patriotism" to serve their agenda. Ironically, the same thing happens when "Nazi" gets thrown around carelessly. Mislabeling people weakens the term, but so does refusing to acknowledge real extremists. Precision matters—both in calling out threats and in resisting linguistic manipulation.

Skepticism and awareness don’t require absolute certainty—they require recognizing patterns, weighing evidence, and applying critical thinking. Intelligence agencies, cybersecurity experts, and investigative journalists don’t operate with perfect knowledge of every individual actor; they analyze behaviors, tactics, and known strategies to assess likely influence operations. That’s exactly what I’m doing here.

What’s not up for debate is whether bad actors are present in online spaces. There is overwhelming, verifiable evidence that state-backed influence campaigns, misinformation networks, and coordinated propaganda efforts exist and are active on most notable social platforms. This isn’t speculation; it’s been extensively documented by cybersecurity researchers, investigative journalists, and intelligence agencies across multiple countries. The only real question is to what extent they are influencing a given conversation on Lemmy in particular, not whether they are here at all.

Dismissing these concerns simply because I can’t produce a list of every bot and handled account is shortsighted. That’s like saying misinformation campaigns don’t exist unless you can personally name every individual behind them. The research I shared—along with extensive documentation from reputable sources—makes it clear that these operations exist. Ignoring that reality doesn’t make it go away.

You keep labeling this discussion as "spreading FUD" without engaging with the substance of the argument. But dismissing any discussion of manipulation tactics as paranoia actually discourages people from critically assessing how online spaces are influenced. If you disagree with my conclusions, that’s fine. But refusing to acknowledge the undeniable presence of organized misinformation efforts while insisting that discussing them is somehow harmful only serves to shut down necessary discourse.

Pointing out patterns of manipulation isn’t the same as accusing individuals of bad faith. Influence operations are well-documented, and recognizing when engagement follows known tactics is about awareness, not personal attacks. If someone is engaging in good faith, discussing these concerns shouldn’t be an issue. Still, I believe it’s more prudent to acknowledge and warn others about the presence of bad actors on the platform than to ignore the reality that they exist.

I'm advocating for awareness and critical thinking, not paranoia. The New York Times article I shared outlines how influence operations have grown more sophisticated, with bots and handled accounts leveraging LLMs to mimic real engagement while derailing or inflaming discussions. Recognizing these tactics isn’t about dismissing individuals—it’s about understanding patterns of manipulation that have been well-documented. Identifying bad-faith engagement isn’t an ad hominem attack; it’s a necessary part of critical discourse. If you disagree, that’s fine, but ignoring the issue doesn’t make it disappear.