Just remember that “But it’s a democracy”, is not an argument for anything
It’s also good to remember that not only is this not an argument for anything, but also the precondition of being a democracy is simply not met for pissrael. You cannot do apartheid and legitimately call yourself a democracy. There’s a couple million people within the dominion that pissrael rules over who simply cannot vote for the bodies that govern them. That’s not a democracy.
Jewish state in the middle of a muslim area
The problem isn’t really the muslims here, nor the jewish supremacy. If you kick 700,000 people of any religion, creed, race, whatever off of the land they’ve lived on for centuries so you can start living there, you’re going to have a problem.
Jews can live anywhere
In the context where zionism was conceived (late 19th century Europe), this is false. Actual antisemitism was rampant in all of Europe. They were being lynched in the streets, and discriminated against on levels that are unimaginable today. And it was completely normal too! It is impossible to overstate what an awful place Europe was for the jews. And this is before the holocaust!
There were some brave jews who organized and armed themselves and fought back, with the motto “here, where I live, is my country”. This was the bund, and they were like the jewish version of the black panthers before the black panthers were ever a thing. Organized schools and mutual aid and all that, too. Truly heroic people.
The other solution is to run away, to colonize some other place (maybe Uganda, maybe Argentina, maybe Palestine) and become the master race there. This is zionism. You know which solution the antisemitic western governments preferred. And it makes sense, right? Imagine you hate jews, imagine you’re an actual antisemite, and a member of british parliament. And now the jews come to you to say, “hey we’ll just move to another country, get out of your hair”. That’s cause for celebration! Not only are you getting rid of the jews, but they’re volunteering to leave! And that’s how you get the Balfour declaration.
Anyway fuck pissrael.
Oh shit, did they make false claims in this article?
Or do you just object to their biased reporting? Because then we can exclude everything from AP news (“Israel ‘’‘’‘‘tests’’‘’‘’’ ceasefire”) to fox news.
I’m saying other hypothetical systems would work better
Do you have an actual system in mind and a reason to believe it is more capable of handling a flood of junk reports? Otherwise this claim is a bit of a nothingburger that you can say about literally anything.
Fingers crossed that this won’t turn into a Bernie situation. If we get past the primaries, fingers crossed this won’t turn into a Obama/Fetterman situation.
Ah ok I did misinterpret it! Thanks for the correction.
I don’t really understand what you’re saying, sorry.
Oh my bad. What does the meme mean then?
Am I reading this meme right when I think it’s implying that folks are getting over-diagnosed with mental disorders? Because that’s some RFK jr shit. Shame on you.
EDIT: I did misread it, I fully agree with OP.
Billionaires don’t make things
But video games! Video games good! Steam good! 😡
The number of responses in this thread that sound emotional is making me feel big and strong
It’s a matter of public safety. Driving while sleep deprived significantly increases the odds of crashing your car, and sleep apnea can in some cases deprive you a lot. A colleague of mine fell asleep behind the wheel on his morning drive to work, totalled his car. Turned out he had sleep apnea.
No, I like that language is composable. I think it’s very convenient. It also allows me to say stuff in a way that’s easier to grasp for folks who might not understand English that well. Very dumb suggestion.
I genuinely don’t know much about corruption in China (or other places, really), so I’m pretty ambivalent.
But when I look at transparency.org’s methodology, it raises some minor doubts. What they do is they collect surveys from 12 different institutions, 10 of which are based in US allied countries. This, combined with the fact that the US is in some kind of cold war with China, makes me a bit doubtful of its veracity. Analogously, how trustworthy would I deem an assessment of America made by Iranian, Chinese, and Russian institutions? Not very.
I’m not saying China isn’t corrupt, it may very well be. I don’t know. But I prefer suspending judgement until I’ve looked into it properly.
He won’t be able to put this on a playlist on spotify, but this is 32 seconds of heaven for me.
So, is this like a vibes based comment or do you know something about this?
There is the colloquial definition of monopoly, and a different legal bar for being declared a monopolist under US law.
The US legal bar for being a monopoly has been a joke since Reagan. But even aside from that, legality is not an interesting concept in discussions like these. Slavery was legal. The real question here is whether this situation has the potential to cause serious harm to society.
The real danger is that if steam decided to suddenly start being externally anti consumer, like many of it’s competitors already are, it would be difficult for people to migrate away due to a lack of interoperability between services. Users can’t transfer licenses to play games between services, nor can they easily interact with social features on other platforms.
Exactly, this is the problem. This is anticompetitive behavior.
But that’s not really steam’s fault, that’s how all the competitors (for the most part) work as well.
Yes it is, this is a deliberate choice they made. No one held a gun to their head. And it is precisely this kind of stuff that antitrust laws were supposed to protect us from. And you can see that in countries which do still have reasonable antitrust laws, Steam is being sued for precisely these practices.
This is satire right? This is the same sky news that, when the pissraeli hooligan thing happened in Amsterdam, posted a video of pissraeli hooligans chasing some locals with pipes, correctly identifying the assailants as pissraeli, and later changed the description to say that the assailants were the locals.