ormr

And it’s 100% in accordance with international law.

+1 for such an extensive, well-founded rant

Interesting read. The statements by SJP are really disgusting and the Maoist revolutionary rethoric is repulsive to say the least.

Thanks for pointing that link out. Disgusting to say the least…

Wrong. It’s the talk of authoritarian extremist politicians in all countries.

Payback is fair? Even though these very digital megacorporations are just now facing antitrust lawsuits for very good reasons? The only argument for having to use these platforms as a content creator is reach. But if Google, Amazon, Meta, etc. only got their market-dominating positions by illegal means, nothing is fair about wanting payback.

I am paying money to people creating content for me directly, even for some YouTube channels. If I were to abide by Google’s rules, I’d have to pay double. For the infrastructure & the people actually producing the content. Sorry… Why would I? I will not pity a monopolist because of their lost profits as long as I can circumvent it somehow.

He knows that he’ll lose power once that war ends. He will prolong it as long as he can. Of course he doesn’t care about the lifes of his own people, never did.

I think some of these requirements have a lot to do with bots and trolls. If Lemmy were as popular as Reddit, we’d probably see way more rules like that.

Where are the spongebob memes?

We have all kinds in my city: Medieval cobblestone, brick roads and asphalt. As a cyclist I have to tell you that I hate all kinds of brick roads that I have encountered. Even when they’re not the horrible middle age version, they will often get deformed by roots or depression of the ground quite rapidly, making them even more bumpy. For this reason I think, I saw in Sweden in an otherwise bricky city center that they had a narrow asphalt lane on the side of the road for cyclists. I was just amazed that someone would spend that much thought into what’s great for cyclists. As a cyclist I really love asphalt :D

What is a “serious gamer”?

Multiple arguments have been made: Basic human rights, the need for a differentiated view on religions instead of sweeping condemnation of a single religion whatsoever, etc.

With no word I or the user before me excused any crime committed by christians. So why imply that we did just that?

You know nothing about our beliefs. We could be agnostics of even atheists. Yet you insinuate we are like cult members in a direct ad hominem attack… Why?

You can condemn crimes committed by religious people all day, perfectly okay. But it is hate speech to discriminate against the beliefs of ALL members of a religion no matter who they are of what they did.

If you think that truly all christians are hypocritical and evil, you are being extremly unfair. And if you think that the world would be a better and less violent place if only religions didn’t exist, you’re delusional.

I only see one hateful person in this thread and it isn’t the guy rightfully pointing out basic human and constitutional rights whom you are trying to frame as a fascist.

It’s very simplistic to blame religions for heinous crimes committed by humans over centuries. Crimes have been committed in the name of every religion on earth.

But in every religion there are countless good-hearted people who try hard to live up to their ideals. There is much more to religion than just bigots.

So please: Stop your hatespeech.

Thank you for the explanations!

Havent read that sentence since I left reddit (and WSB with it hahaha).

In this case I’d rather blame everyone else for their emissions as the complete disappearance of food sources is linked to climate-induced migration of species.