PhilipTheBucket

Bro you have to have the screenshot be showing the post showing the screenshot. Do you even internet?

This is dangerous though bc very high voltage

This cannot be stressed enough. You can kill yourself poking around in an old monitor. It's not even hard to do. There are thousands of volts in there, just waiting, even when it's unplugged.

All of this advice is not really wrong, but I would revise all of it to "leave the cover on, unless it's giving you an issue, in which case take it to someone who knows enough about this stuff to mess around with it safely."

Oh, hello! I didn't even notice it was you when I was replying. Good to see you found a way to shoehorn "Biden" and "DNC" and "Hillary" into this totally related topic. You did it real smoothly, too, it totally wasn't some random hard turn into a rant about US politics and your favorite politicians from the US to talk about. Nice.

I think it is far more likely that some other country would fall out of our good graces than that the US government might become anti-Israeli-genocide.

(I am not saying you're wrong as far as the Israeli calculus or that factoring into their decision. Just that, as far as my own calculus, they don't really have any need to get concerned.)

In some theoretical future history book, there is a whole section of one chapter devoted to how the collapse of the US was that calamitous event that in the end ushered in a new age, much more civilized and laid on more solid foundations than the capitalist wasteland that had defined the previous 100-150 years or so.

Everyone stopped waiting for someone else to solve climate change. Everyone stopped assuming someone else would see to their country’s geopolitical security. Around the world, citizens of the comfortable countries realized they had to seize the reins of their own governments, or a tsunami of social-media slop and campaign contributions would seize it away from them. And they looked at the wreckage between the Atlantic and Pacific and said, Jesus Christ, fuck no, that’s not happening here. And then they got to work. Enabled by a glut of highly qualified people fleeing from the horror and into any role that could be created for them in science and public policy. And, it fucking worked, and things finally started going in the right direction in a sustained fashion.

There are other outcomes, of course. That is one of a few different possibilities.

It's actually a very telling carve-out, and I have no idea what it's doing so far down in the article. It should have been front and center.

The only two logical conclusions I can see are:

• Israel is so sharp with their negotiation that they spotted and fought for something that it just didn't occur to anyone else would be something worth worrying about (possible, I guess.)
• We already know that Israel is fucked without us, F-35s or no, so there's no particular reason we would need to separately ensure that their F-35s are fucked without us.

I very much suspect that it's the second one. Which indicates that the lock-in was an intentional decision, and one that actually would make quite a bit of sense on reflection.

But if, say, an official says he thinks something about how Trump is running things, that’s interesting. If a new poll comes out about sentiment amongst voters about how Trump is running things, that’s interesting. And Rachel Maddow blogs, which I share in @[email protected] here and there are, if not interesting, at the very least a perspective shared by a non-insignificant portion of the population.

You know good and well that none of any of that is what I am talking about, or the reason people are giving you static about your postings.

Correct. I’m not going to run around sharing links to conspiracy theories, that is completely different.

Yeah, in hindsight I wasn’t entirely correct

...

I’m not going to run around sharing links to conspiracy theories

You told me that people of certain ethnicities weren't getting prosecuted in some jurisdictions, because the DA had just decided that they were going to be above the law because they were POC. Then when I asked for details, you said maybe that wasn't true. But then, you listed some cities where you "have seen this happen." I can pretty much guarantee you that it's not happening. You're free to show me, if you think I am wrong, but I am extremely sure that that doesn't happen. There are things that kind of sound similar to that after a long game of right-wing-media-telephone, but I would be surprised if there is any jurisdiction anywhere in the country where the rate of POC who get charged with crimes is anything other than significantly higher than the white people.

I don't know man. I'm not trying to jump down your throat about it. I'm just saying that it matters. People hopped-up on this kind of stuff have gone out and killed other people. This country is developing itself towards a civil war, and a lot of why it is happening isn't because people are reading Rachel Maddow on one side and Jordan Peterson on the other side. It's happening, more than any other single reason, because people are seeing made-up crazy nonsense online and getting themselves amped up on it. There's a huge difference between just something that isn't my particular polarization, and something that is both polarized and inflammatory and not even the slightest bit true (and the person who's saying it doesn't really seem to care whether it's true or any of those things).

I don't really care about the polarization part. I'm probably in a tiny minority on Lemmy in that regard. I do care about the truth part, and I would hope that a lot of the reason you're getting flak about your postings isn't just that they're political in a certain way, but also that you're unapologetically including content from known liars.

Canadian slur for Irish Catholics, apparently.

🤷

Yeah, I'm not trying to be unfriendly about it.

For the things I post, I’ll usually post them because I either 1) think that the content is probably both relevant and true, 2) it portrays a relevant perspective, or 3) is just plain interesting

But... you surely have to see how (2) and (3) are bad things, right? I'm not saying you necessarily mean any harm, but this whole explanation that something is "a perspective" or "interesting" and so that means it's okay if it doesn't fall into the category of "true" is... it's not good. There's a lot of deliberately misleading stuff out there.

There are a lot of people in the US getting amped-up over some thing that they saw online that's total fabricated nonsense. People have died as a result. It really matters whether stuff is true. I know it is sort of popular in some circles to retreat into a kind of landscape where it's not all that important, everything's just a perspective, if the stuff starts getting challenged, but it is important. Perspective is perspective, and truth and falsehood are truth and falsehood. They're not the same.

I mean just someone explaining their take on things is fine. Maybe that's what you mean by (2). Something doesn't have to be "objective" to be based in fact and reality. I guess my beef is more with the stuff where it's treated as not that important that the factual backing is not there or just imaginary.

Edit: Also, the point of Rule 6 was to reduce spam, as my communities were starting to get brigaded by leftists basically saying “fake news” verbatim in the comment sections of certain news posts. I don’t like those types of rules, but it seems necessary for now since it keeps happening.

Yeah, I do get that. I would rather have some kind of productive conversation about it. I don't think it's really all that useful to just have two sides yelling at each other whichever side anybody happens to be on.

No this is a thing in blue states, and not at all related to being a citizen or immigrant. I think they call it “equitive justice” or “progressive prosecution”, either DAs will refuse to charge a POC for a crime due to their race, or judges will waive bail for the same reason.

Where did you read this? Can I find out more details about why you think this is happening, and read for myself the argument that it is happening?

This was something I noticed during BLM riots particularly, and in some blue areas afterwards like in New York (though not as prominently since the riots), there’d be cases of somebody stealing something or hurting someone, caught on video, and the DA would refuse to place charges on the individual. For the life of me I couldn’t figure out why else they would do that.

What you're saying now is different from what you said before. What you said before was "equitive justice" and "progressive prosecution" where people in the present tense are not prosecuted because of their race. Where does this happen, what are some of the cities? Where can I read more about it? How did you find out about it?

I have more to say on the arrests-during-BLM issue specifically, but that's different than saying that blue states are using progressive prosecution and refusing to charge a crime because of the race of the person being accused, so I want to focus on the first thing instead of switching if we can.

Now to be fair I think there was some overlap between the BLM riots and me still watching Steven Crowder so maybe some of the stuff I observed at the time wasn’t entirely accurate or correct (I stopped watching him during the Summer Of Love because I noticed he wasn’t as truthful as he claimed to be during his coverage)

Yeah, fair enough. I've had that experience of paying attention to something online and believing it, and then later on putting it together that it was bullshit, so I can respect the idea. The whole endeavor of trying to figure out who is actually telling the truth is important and it's not real easy.

Hm... I just looked over their comment history and I have to say you kind of have a point. I have RCR mentally categorized as a bad-faith engager, but I really don't see much at all of that after a quick glance over what they've actually been doing.

I think there is a big example set in conservative media that the right way to go about things is to spew propaganda, or be "snarky" and refuse to engage with reasonable conversation about politics in favor of just dunking on the opposition. That comes across as "fun," or as sort of doing battle for "your team" in the marketplace of ideas, and I think people are taken in by the idea of it even if they're not necessarily bad people or intending to do anything wrong. Looking over RCR's history I'm going to take back what I said about their intent being to violate the social contract. I think they're just posting a bunch of conservative stuff. Which, of course, there's a lot of overlap between that and naked propaganda, but that doesn't necessarily have to be their fault or their intent if that's just the media they consume.

@[email protected] as an olive branch I'm going to ask you about some details of some of the stuff you've said recently, under appropriate comment threads. You don't have to answer my questions of course if you don't want to. I am just trying to sort out whether you are (1) posting this stuff because you think it's true (2) posting it because "doing battle for your team" so to speak is the pattern of behavior you see, by fun conservative commentators you're trying to emulate (3) posting it because you've independently decided that you don't give a shit whether it's true as long as it "feels" like a win for your side. Those are somewhat different behaviors, as far as how you're treating the social contract and as far as the Nazi bar analogy people have been talking about here, and so if you want people to treat you and your instance some certain way you might want people to be placing you in the earlier categories instead of the later ones.

Edit: Oh, one of the comments I wanted to respond to is not federated here. My question is:

No this is a thing in blue states, and not at all related to being a citizen or immigrant. I think they call it “equitive justice” or “progressive prosecution”, either DAs will refuse to charge a POC for a crime due to their race, or judges will waive bail for the same reason.

Where did you read this? Can I find out more details about why you think this is happening, and read for myself the argument that it is happening?

The timing is absolutely on purpose.

(Also, FYI your comment is marked as German so a lot of people may not see it.)

I edited the comment, and I honestly think it's funnier / more impactful without it.