Sorry for the non answer, but here’s a little rant:
Honorifics should go away. They unnecessarily create and restate hierarchies that don’t really need to exist.
On the receiving end, it has always felt weird being called “sir”. A smile is more than enough, thank you very much.
I don’t necessarily boycott businesses just to achieve some higher purpose like beating fascism away or whatever- most of the time it’s cuz I know the owner(s) are assholes to their workers. Fuck those guys. Plus, most food served outside is inferior to the one I make at home, so not much of value is lost.
:(
Spaghetti with peaches… Kinda sounds like something that would taste… nice?
But… What causes these wounds? What kind of “going outside” causes so many wounds on one’s legs? For example, in the picture above, there’s one that is present high up the thigh. What would cause a wound there?
Ok quick question. Most of such cute individuals are depicted having small wounds on their body, which have to be covered by little bandages. What wounds are these?
Ew. What a repulsive dude…
If I ever have kids in the future, and if my kids do this seat kicking bullshit, I give total permission to this distinguished individual to eat my kid.
Thank you so much.
Jobs aren’t this static thing that immigrants come and steal. Immigrants also increase consumption. Increased consumption = more jobs. Basic macroecon.
At no point has any modern macroeconomist ever condemned immigration. Immigration from a low economic productivity country to a high productivity country is always a net positive.
Canada is facing scaling issues with respect to population increase. Again, as you said not being able to construct new houses quickly. Why is supply not meeting demand? Shitty zoning laws, red tape and long, drawn out public consultations mostly attended by boomer NIMBY homeowners concerned about increasing the valuator their home.
Hey, funny picture, though could you please not link to Musk’s platform? He’s kind of a dick, n we don’t really like supporting his businesses here. Sorry <3
Why’s that? What part from that era would you like to see again today if you could?
I hope you’re right. Although that Pahlavi fellow scares me. I’m not aware of how much support he truly has, but I hope it’s super low.
Yeah, I can’t see how just destroying infrastructure is going to accomplish anything. Total regime change seems to be the only logical end goal.
Military angle: Intelligence says that Iran is super close to having nukes. Random strikes on nuke labs, assassinations of nuke scientists, etc. won’t help anymore cuz Iran has put all their facilities inside that big ass mountain. Total regime change is the only method through which Iran stops pursuit of nukes. Just killing the Ayatollah and the entirety of the high command is a waste of bombs if that momentum isn’t used to build something further.
Trumpian angle: My guess is that he’s just doing it for “legacy” purposes. Similar to Putin and Ukraine. Putin wanted a legacy similar to Peter the great. Trump probably wants something like that. That’s why he was trying to force himself on Greenland and Canada. That’s why the Gulf of America bullshit exists. Little men with big egos. He was getting too rapey, which is probably why his advisors advised him to take it out on Iran as it would be the least damaging compared to Greenland or fkin Canada lol. But this again becomes super unpredictable too! This entire Iran thing could stop on Trump’s whim.
Economic angle: Not so confident of what I’m saying here, but my guess is that this is quite good for big oil and defense contractors. Defense contractors want more consumption of their wares and services. Big oil wants to be able to have a stake in extracting and exporting Iranian oil and gas. Anything aside from achieving this final goal hurts them, as their product becomes more expensive due to higher shipping costs through the strait of Hormuz, thus reducing demand.
That’s why I’m not so upset with the Iran situation. The American government will face so much damage from this (economic, militaristic, political) that their appetite for war wouldn’t be much (for a decade perhaps). At least that’s my opinion after looking at iraq and Afghanistan.
This obviously changes if somehow the Iranian people topple the theocracy without American boots on the ground. This is definitely what the us admin is hoping for (and getting the shah back), but this looks… difficult…
Once American boots hit the ground, it’s just another Iraq. So many factions and separatists sitting in Iran rn, who are being suppressed by the theocracy.
Also, the theocracy was arming, training and supporting islamist fascists in the neighborhood for decades. Will remnants of this regime just forget how to do that in their own country?
Again, this all hinges on the will of the Iranian public. How hard are they willing to fight for democracy? Will they get rid of the theocracy? Will they resist the terrorists? Will they resist US pressure to reestablish the monarchy? How do they deal with the separatists? Does a sentiment of war take precedence over a sentiment of “stfu, please stfu and keep the peace, we’re Iranians, war is bad, peace is good, please please just stfu”?
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
That being said, we also need to understand the situation from all angles. It is in our best interests to have the US as a reliable trading partner. Sharing such a large geographic border with them gives us access to their large market, meaning that we can buy their products and services, and sell ours. Free trade generally tends to be a very very good thing, and we must hope for that.
BUT, we must also staunchly defend our sovereignty. The current American admin is extremely hostile ofc. Looking at this, we should now be building our own products and services (those that are key to maintaining our sovereignty). It does not matter if it is economically a worse choice in the short term. The price we pay for this onshoring is the price of national security. What would these industries be in my opinion? They would be:
So in short, here’s what I’m saying: We must defend our sovereignty right now and in the long term. But, if an opportunity for economic cooperation presents itself in the future with the Americans, we must take it (while defending our sovereignty long term). Free trade with someone who isn’t a psychopath is good and we must not forget that.
And cuz weed is better. Source: me
So here’s my guess. I’m not trans, and what I’m about to say is purely my observation and not based on data.
Folks born with male genitalia doing anything that is not cis and straight is frowned upon more than folks born with female genitalia doing the same.
Society finds two dudes kissing more revolting than two women kissing. It also doesn’t help that folks who transition to become a woman after having undergone male puberty are much more recognizable as trans. Compare this to trans men, who aren’t so easily identifiable as trans.
Hence, trans women have it worse interacting with society compared to trans men. Hence, they crave for a safe space more. Lemmy’s instances tend to be these safe places. Hence, more trans women here than men.
They mean, “I don’t agree with gay people doing gay stuff”.
Why? It’s either: “Because the God I worship said being gay is bad”. Or “I don’t, know, it’s just wrong and if you try to make me think further by asking more questions, I’m going to make up reasons to justify my conclusion instead of having a good faith conversation.”
It’s sad that logical reasoning and argument formation isn’t taught in schools much. This is why we see people endlessly land in bad faith conversations riddled with logical fallacies. It sucks so hard :(
Centralised payment systems are much more efficient. Yes, corporate capture can make them suck (visa/MasterCard duopoly). To ensure security, financial infrastructure tends to be super capital intensive. This leads to an oligopoly in a best case scenario and a monopoly in the worst case scenario.
Being a natural monopoly, I would highly highly be in support of state owned financial “stuff”. Cooperativize operations as much as possible, but let the state raise capital for this. Good for national security too.
Certain types of crypto can be very good if you want transactions to be anonymous (Monero being the best example). Wanna purchase drugs from an illegal ecommerce platform? Monero is untraceable. Wanna buy weapons, launder money, etc? Monero works. Otherwise, it’s pretty much useless in the face of existing non crypto services.
BTC sucks for transactions. But its value proposition is kinda different. It’s kinda like gold (kinda).
Humans throughout history have based currencies based on items that can be easily verified to be real, and are scarce. Gold is an example. Gold can be mined, yes. But it’s pretty scarce. It’s easy to tell gold from “not gold”.
Hence, in a world where financial systems weren’t exactly integrated and digitized, assets and market info was hard to track, trust in other countries and their institutions was super low, gold worked.
But we abandoned the gold standard for a reason. Hence, do we really want a digital gold equivalent (in terms of verifiability and scarcity)? What even is the point? That’s why BTC doesn’t make sense (for me)