aasatru

Yeah, the media is not suppressing some working class hero story here. It’s just a man who lost his marbles.

At first I only read that it was a building housing finance institutions, so I figured he had probably just snapped and figured he’d attack the world of finance. So crazy, but driven by the state of everything rather than by some random sports career.

I didn’t see that it also housed the NFL. Makes the Football story a lot more plausible. So the CEO might indeed just have been a random bystander like anyone else at the scene.

In either case it’s obviously not a defendable of constructive thing to do, I just speculated that maybe there’s bigger things in America to lose your mind over than football. Maybe I was wrong.

In either case it’s a reflection of the mental health crisis.

He shot a Blackstone CEO, yet when I search for him the media reports on his football career as a potential reason?

What the hell? America is not in a position where the assassination of CEOs needs to be explained. The question is how some of them can still show their faces in public.

Edit: See comments below. I’m dumb and/or jumping to conclusions too quickly.

The worlds smallest violin keeps getting smaller.

"I left this gigantic capitalist American monolith and the alternative I found was full of leftists! "

Well, duh.

(Obligatory fuck tankies.)

Oh yeah, it seems like half the posts I made on reddit in the end were shadow deleted, and I’m not even sure what I did wrong. Just automatic and instant action from Reddit. At least here when your shit is deleted you know about it.

I’m not here to suffer fools.

And bans come cheap because they’re on an instance level. Go out and find yourself a place where you belong. If it turns out the people you’d like to talk to don’t like you back, maybe recalibrate.

The Commission has no law-making power on its own. They can open proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union to verify compliance with existing laws, or they propose legislation that will have to go through other EU institutions (the Parliament, which is elected, and the Council, which consists of representatives from Member State governments).

The job of the Commission is to propose laws. The job of the other institutions is to reject these laws if they are stupid. The Commission opening an investigation does not mean that the EU is “adopting similar regulations” - it is an extremely long way away from that.

And even the Commission itself is likely to contain a wide spectrum of opinions within it - it tends to be a strange political constellation. So until there’s a Commission proposal (as happened with chat control) there’s really nothing. After the Commission proposal, we need to make sure it’s stopped by pressuring national governments (Council) and elected MEPs (Parliament).

Yeah, there’s no guarantees against stupidity in the member states. That’s easier to reverse than if it happens in an EU regulation.

This kind of misinformation is why people get confused and vote for right wing eurosceptic parties, which ironically tends to be the parties most eager to strip people’s rights away.

What exactly do you think a Commission blueprint is?

It’s nothing but soft power and hardly even that, little more than just thinking out loud. It has no implications whatsoever unless member states decide they want to implement the ideas nationally, in which case it’s on them. The Commission cannot implement EU law unilaterally.

As for chat contol, that’s about banning true encryption. Very different from regulating big tech.

I would like to know which EU law it is they are takling about, aa they proclaim pretty boldly that the Union is adapting “similar Regulations”. I follow EU politics somewhat closely and I have no idea what they are talking about.

The Commission has published some guidelines and recommendations, which are as legally binding as a fart.

As for chat control: With that attitude, probably.

Are you talking about chat control?

It was rejected once, and will be rejected again. At least if people mobilize a bit against it. There’s a long way from Commission proposal to law.

Equating the proposal of a law with the adaptation of it is highly misleading. The EU is a complex institution where different bodies are pulling in different directions.

I think it reveals that the antagonist is more used to hunting humans than animals, and that referring to the target as an “it” takes a bit of getting used to.

For the movie it might help make the stakes seem a bit higher, underlining that this is no ordinary hunt.

But also of course it hints that he know the identity. Especially so maybe when he feels the need to correct himself - the vicar gets the feeling something is off.

Is there a pretty list of federated NodeBB forums anywhere? I like to check out which ones are listed on fedidb every now and then, but it’s not the most convenient list as the topic of the forum is often obscure based on its name.

(I really enjoy being able to follow and participate in communities in forums around the web - thanks for making it possible!)

Shouldn’t we try to gift them our technology so they are better equipped to survive?

Looking at the state of affairs right now, I’m not entirely sure this is the effect the “gift of technology” has had. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up outliving all of us.

group of people who don’t want to compromise on any of their values

Of course I don’t want to compromise my values in order to see growth of a platform that I use precisely because it aligns with my values.

The definition of UN should be simple enough:

In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.

A related reading would be the paradox of tolerance, which goes far in explaining why we do not want this shit anywhere near our communities.

As for anti-Semitism, I’ve seen some of it in response to Israel’s ongoing genocide, and of course the current context makes both anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim sentiments a very real problem. However, I think people on here mostly seem to be able to distinguish Israel and Judaism, and when they don’t it seems moderators are generally doing a better job than on most platforms in my experience. But I doubt you’re here in good faith, so I don’t see much point in discussing something like this with you.

That’s a pretty mainstream belief for a lot a people who have been completely ostracised and discriminated against by the fediverse as a whole.

If you feel discriminated against because people don’t want you around, feel free to vote with your feet.

Hate speech has no place here, no matter how comfortable these creeps feel around their fascist politicians and policemen at home.

Hating Jews was “pretty mainstream” in the NSDAP.

Hate speech is hate speech no matter how many bootlicking pieces of shit might agree, and this is not a platform that’s friendly to the miserable fuckers who have nothing better to do with their lives than to spread hate and intolerance. They have Twitter and Truth social to spread their shit.

And if we have fewer people over here because the fascists don’t like us, well, cry me a fucking river.

The podcast is also posted to PeerTube: !dot_social@flipboard.video

The episode in question is here: https://flipboard.video/videos/watch/7a8904e2-fd7f-4004-bcc1-a4abc1c796f3