xor

It’s nice that this exists these days, but my god is it horrendously unreadable at a glance

Plus mini metro, terraria, don’t starve, wild rift, and TFT (last two are free to play, and only have cosmetic transactions)

Yet☝️🤓

Let’s go look at your comment history and check, shall we?

Defending yourself and launching invasions or orchestrating soldiers are two different things

It’s not defending yourself if you have an army! What a great take 👍

it sounds like the government is giving out plans and commanding the army. The government of ukraine and people from ukraine are two different things. When people ask what’s the alternative to send billions to the ukrainian government what they need to understand is that people can defend themself even without an authority on top of them playing war games with soldiers and possibly forcing conscript to go on missions

Oh, why did Ukraine never consider magically winning the war by sheer willpower instead of this “having an army” nonsense, smart!

I’m not twisting anything. Context matters, and the context of your post was you throwing a tantrum after around 10 different Lemmy users calling out your bad takes.

If you believe not being drafted blah blah blah

That’s not what I said at all, mere moments after you accused me of “twisting” what you said. What I said, louder for the people in the back is BEING UNABLE TO FIGHT BACK IN THE ENEMY’S TERRITORY, BEING DISALLOWED TO RECEIVE FOREIGN AID AND BEING DISALLOWED TO FORM AN ACTUAL ARMY is the equivalent of rolling over and dying.

The issue, from what I can tell, is that the question you’ve asked here doesn’t match the argument you just had in comments of a post about about the Ukraine war. The argument you were trying to make is not “war bad”, but specifically that Ukraine’s counteroffensive is bad. You were additionally arguing that it is morally reprehensible for other countries to provide economic support to Ukraine rather than leaving them to “defend themselves”.

There’s a few important details that such an argument (intentionally) ignores.

• This invasion was not a choice between war or no war. It was simply a decision between locations that battles take place. It is entirely legitimate for Ukraine to pursue a counteroffensive strategy into russian territory if it believes it to be a more effective military strategy than defensive attritional warfare within their own borders.
• The fact that combat is taking place in Russian territory doesn’t change the fact that the war itself is a defensive war against an aggressor with overtly territorial/imperialist goals.
• As far as I am aware, the units involved in the counteroffensive are exclusively non-drafted volunteer units.
• Cessation of funding to Ukraine would lead to their imminent loss. The fact that they have been able to innovate cheaper strategies like domestic drone usage doesn’t change the fact that war is extremely expensive and technology dependent, and their economy is dwarfed by that of Russia’s.

The combination of your proposals that Ukraine should not proactively fight back, and that they should lose access to the resources that would allow them to continue to defend their territory end us meaning that Ukraine would not be able to effectively defend itself.

From reading your comments alongside this post, it seems that the title should actually be “how do you make someone understand that rolling over and dying is good”, to which the answer is “oh fuck off mate”

Holy moly

Especially since their one example is Caesar, who lived in a time when basically everyone was gay!

Edit: and about 1.5 thousand years before capitalism was invented

The Churchill example I think demonstrates the OP’s misunderstanding, in that all of them did terrible things/were horrible people, but excelled at being effective leaders in the context they were in.

Churchill was a terrible human being, racist, abrasive, homophobic, a drunk etc etc. But he was an outstanding wartime prime minister, because he was a talented war strategist, a compelling speaker and, frankly, had enormous balls.

We can go back and try and just classify every human into the good/bad boxes, but that reduces away all the details that make them so interesting.

It wasn’t for him, but for those who were named after him it was used to symbolise that they - like Caesar - were one of “the greats”

I kinda disagree - that’s not to say that they don’t usually do so for illegitimate reasons (or that these bans are legitimate), but there’s plenty of valid reasons why a government would want/need to ban a platform

X, for example, has been giving the UK a whole lot of good reasons why they may wish to consider it (restoring the accounts of people like Tommy Robinson, allowing misinformation, the owner of the platform himself actively spreading that misinformation)

Covfefe

I’m a big sway fan - it’s the Wayland equivalent for i3

Customisation takes a bit of time (as with all these sorts of things) but it was very stable for me once I had it set up

The guardian’s summary was pretty thorough in my opinion

The pros and cons of Kamala Harris: a progressive reformer forced to run on Biden’s record

Taylor swift?! You’re proposing a literal billionaire as a more radical candidate than Harris?

deleted by creator

I put my steel in the fridge and it’s completely dried out now

Granted, it wasn’t very wet when it went in

I should go to the library more

“generally speaking” as in “I pulled this stat out of my ass”

Calling you a russian bot isn’t exactly a liberal policy, is it?

If your reasoning for determining someone is “a lib” is saying that, then that’s exactly how you’re using the term.

The fact you immediately assumed I was a capitalist is a pretty compelling argument that you’re not good at determining people’s ideologies based on their unrelated complaints about your bad takes

Criticising liberal policy is absolutely reasonable

Using “the libs” as a catch-all term for “anyone I disagree with” is the marker of an incoming terrible take

Didn’t mention capitalism, and I consider myself a socialist, but go off