Yup. That’s what happens when we hand over all the power to a few people.

We get excited when those priviledged people, who are literally the ones who oppress us, make choices that helps us a little.

WarThunder forums has the highest experts apparently

“I wanted people to see the absurdity of this law in practice,” Rheintgen told The Associated Press. “If I’m a criminal, it’s going to be so hard for me to live a normal life, all because I washed my hands. Like, that’s so insane.”

She’s an absolute legend. Thank you to her for her activism.

What? I’m guessing Taiwan isn’t a real country. People in Hong Kong didn’t have right to self determination.

The bulletts in fired on the Indian border were fake news?

Thanks for copypasting. It should be criminal to share a clickbait non-descriptive headline without atleast copying a couple paragraphs for context.

Yeah it’s not even close.

My rule with langauge:

If you understand what they’re trying to say, then they did a good enough job expressing themselves.

(Also I love how this post is getting loads of upvotes because people are just seeing Bernie’s message and liking it lol).

The state wants to keep its monopoly on violence.

As a long COVID advocate, we’ve tried and tried sharing our stories and all we get is ridicule and “why didn’t you try acupuncture and exercise”. So we’re starting to focus more on the economic impacts as the average person seems to actually care about that.

(so she’s on probation for two years in practice, better than nothing I guess.)

“sound” is a big word, for a justice system that perpetuates state violence and mistreats immigrants and disabled people.

But yes, the french system is more successful at holding politicians accountable than the US.

As someone who’se shared hundreds of articles on reddit then lemmy.

Good luck getting more than 1% to read the article. People want headlines, scrollable information bits that they can instinctively react on.

That’s why paragraphs under are useful. Makes people atleast read those before commenting a gut reaction to an oversimplified headline.

That’s how it was back in the day. When you walked over a couple of villages you’d have to change your watch by 3 minutes.

When Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon said “I’m a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028,” last week, it should have been a surprise, but wasn’t. “We’re working on it. … We’ll see what the definition of term limit is,”the dishevelled Bannon told NewsNation. It wasn’t the first time he had mentioned it either. The president’s adviser, who went to prison for refusing to testify before a congressional committee about the 6 January insurrection, suggested it in December. Then, he argued that Trump could circumvent the 22nd amendment, which codifies the two-term limit, because the word “consecutive” is not in the text of the document.

Trump has been making his feelings clear too. Shortly after his election victory last November, the president told congressional Republicans: “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you say, ‘He’s so good we’ve got to figure something else out’.”

Then, in January, during the annual House Republican retreat in Florida, he joked with speaker Mike Johnson: “Am I allowed to run again, Mike?” In February, he asked supporters at the White House: “Should I run again? You tell me.” Offhand musings about a third term in office sound less like bluster and more like a blueprint.

If we’re sharing articles can we make the effort to add a couple relevant paragraphs under the headline? Otherwise the discussion ends up being about the headline and often innaccurate.

He’s already said “Disabled people should just die”, os not far off

I wonder if this is just because as the world has shifted rightward the training data has too.

Or if it is a genuine OpenAI policy, in this political climate it would not suprise me if they were shifting it rightwards on purpose.

Sorry to hear. If you or your wife are in need of a support group, we’d love to have you at https://s4me.info/

will be?

They already have — quite successfully.

Lets say you live in a white neighbourhood in south africa. You are upper class. Your parents, and you as a child benefitted from a system which extracted the labour of black people and let the white upper class take the profits. Your parents were part of this system. Extracting black labour on the farmlands they owned.

There is a counterpart to you. Poor black people in your generation who grew up poor because their parents labour had its rewards extracted and given to parents like yours.

It does make sense in a system like that that some land previously owned by the white labour extractors should be redistributed to those whose poverty is a direct consequence of their parents oppression. This is broadly a correction of structural inequalities.

So perhaps your parents farmlands would have bits of them redistributed. I think that’s fair. (Perhaps they are technically your farmlands now that your parents have died, I still think that’s fair part of them get redistributed).

What doesn’t make sense is punishing poor white individuals for the way upper class whites oppressed non-whites.