Your analogy can’t have it both ways. Either the allies saved Germany from itself, implying there was a good portion saved from the fascist portion, OR the Nazi party was the fault of all Germans, those who voted for it, those who enable it, etc., and blaming any portion on Nazis/Hitler is like blaming a toddler. So which is it?

I’m 86% convinced you’re a divisiveness bot at this point. Prove me wrong.

I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. The criticism being made is that no matter which way you look at it, crimes have been committed:

• if we accept the narrative that the US is at war with drug traffickers AND that’s who these people are: then the double-tap is a war crime
• else: it was murder to begin with

The Pentagon knows this. They are now trying to shift all the blame onto a specific Admiral, trying to make it look like he acted of his own accord, trying to retain plausible deniability. This article in particular is attempting to shift it back, to show that the official messaging from the Pentagon has always been encouraging war crimes, and that even if we take everything this administration has said at face value, they’re still culpable by their own standards.

So to be clear, you’re suggesting the reason for allied forces joining WW2 was to save Germany from itself?

I’m not disagreeing that Trump will pardon everyone involved, I’m not disagreeing that no other country cares if the US comes out the other end, I’m just saying, these regimes have a history of not sticking around long term. So I’m disagreeing with the statement that “nothing will happen”. Shit is happening and will continue to happen until their reign of terror is brought to an end, just like WW2.

Fair enough lol, can’t argue with that.

where we didn’t have to assume every single god-damned connection was a hostile entity

But you always did, it was always being abused, regularly. That’s WHY we now use secure connections.

I think I’m just not picking up whether you’re actually trying to pitch a technical solution, or just wishing for a perfect world without crime.

You know that Germany still exists, though, right? Something will happen…

Well, it’s never been about security, it’s about surveillance. But it is reasonable to assume that REAL ID is their most efficient way to track travelers, and if you make them use their less efficient methods of tracking, they’ll offset the difference by charging you directly.

You’re mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen…

Red states have been sneaking bans on RCV for years. Remember when Missouri tacked it onto a bill that was marketed as banning non-US citizens from voting (something that was obviously already illegal).

There is a price to pay for being an uneducated, reactionary constituency, and the bill is coming due.

While it may seem to be a smart money move, it can result in a costly productivity and innovation lag for the economy.

For the love of god! Won’t somebody think of the economy?!

Because they know the “party of anti-regulation/anti-nannie state” will never trust people to take care of themselves and someone will be forced to do it. They acknowledge either they will have to do a bunch of work and be liable when it fails, or some middle man will. So they choose the middle man.

“I hope that everyone sees, regardless of their specific reason, that the enemy is outside of the house. The people posing as Americans with big American opinions but are actually operating from a basement across the world have one common goal - to destroy the United States. We have our issues, but we really can’t allow them to succeed.”

Elon:

“Yeah, we’re just gonna turn that feature right back off here for a second…nothing to see, don’t worry about it.”

You forgot the Console Wars.

New track? Nice! Thanks for the heads up.

Historically, the only thing we’ve found that lowers wealth inequality is inevitably large scale war and death. And i don’t expect that to change before the next time it lowers.

I’ve been with my partner for 16 years. We met one of my friends for brunch last year, and afterwards he and I hung out, while my partner went home. Before she left, my friend said, “it was so good to see you <her name>” and hugged her. Then she turned to me and I said, “bye bitch, see ya at the house”. We laughed and she took off. My friend was like, “dude, I can’t believe you said that and she was cool with it. My gf would be pissed at me for days!”

So yeah, I got a good one :)

Why not 2012?

For Kony.

You forgot the best part: PT is not professional, but Chiropraction and Theology are.

If they were required to leave all meta platforms, then what would the experiment show? It sounds like the intention was to see where people shifted their time when they stopped using one meta product. If FB users primarily went to IG and vice versa, then it would indicate they held a monopoly. But it sounds like IG users primarily switched to TikTok and YouTube, not FB, indicating they are different products from each other and have different competition.

No, we think it’s great, keep going.