ah okay and my post cannot be expanded in that manner, i believe i understand now. thanks

I don’t follow, the way I did it causes a worse UI outcome?

Should I use something other than the upload button? Lile uploading it externally and linking it?

Star Trek DS9

7/10 Americans are aware / woke.

The owners, “Stop being aware, go back to being a cog in the machine. Stop reading the founders intent that we can overthrow them. That’s against the law and the law is what we will use to enforce our ideologies upon you.”

The “war against woke” is a war against awareness.

Nah, they nuts. I am def a fan of classic journalism, and sorry if my comment came across as confrontational, hard to avoid in text sometimes. Have a nice day!

Which I assume is why her familial relationship was not the focus of the article.

Oh yes, I totally agree with the person calling for attacking the media, how dare they see a thing that happened and tell me about it! Truly deserving of a death sentence.

It’s an interesting wager that more people hate than not. I don’t think it’s compatible with the upcoming generations’ perspectives, which is why I assume they are investing so much into radicalizing children on social media. More soldiers for the culture war.

^ disinformation.

The way this post is written is a lie.

Journalists aren’t moonlighting as terrorist, what Israel actually said in the article was that they don’t care if you are a journalist or a terrorist, even telling Hamas’s story makes you a valid target for state-sponsored murder.

This opinion conflicts with international law and makes Israel the one worthy of scrutiny.

Asked about the al-Aqsa network casualties, a senior IDF spokesperson told reporters in the Gaza project consortium that there was “no difference” between working for the media outlet and belonging to Hamas’s armed wing, a sweeping statement legal experts described as alarming.

“It’s a shocking statement,” Adil Haque, a law professor at Rutgers University in the US said, describing the position as showing “a complete misunderstanding or just a wilful disregard for international law”. ‘Reporting is not direct participation in hostilities’

Almost as soon as Israel began its aerial bombardment of Gaza in response to Hamas’s assault on southern Israel in which 1,200 people were killed and about 250 taken hostage, the al-Aqsa headquarters were evacuated as executives believed the IDF would target the organisation, two sources said.

Please stop lying.

Under the laws of war, a journalist can lose their civilian status if they engage in planning, preparing or carrying out combat operations. Simply working for an organisation such as al-Aqsa does not make someone a legitimate target to be killed.

“Reporting the news is not direct participation in hostilities,” Janina Dill, a professor at the University of Oxford and expert in the laws of war, said. “Even if they reported the news in a biased way, even if they did propaganda for Hamas, even if Israel fundamentally disagrees with how they report the news. That is not enough.” Combatants and civilians

Multiple Israeli sources said there had been a permissive approach to targeting across the IDF in a war aimed at the “total destruction of Hamas”.

Israel is a pseudo-Nazi state carrying out a Holocaust.

So cool.

This application looks fine to me.

Clearly labeled sections.

Local on one side, remote on the other

Transfer window on bottom.

No space for anything besides function, is the joke going over my head?

I agree with the comedy image.

The only thing worse than the squalor of addiction is the unearned confidence of people with glasses.

It would be more accurate if you said, “This is not about right and wrong (for me).”

If you say it’s not about right and wrong, dead stop, then you are pledging full faith to the institutions, the very ones we are critiquing.

Basically, you are dismissing my opinion as misguided, dismissing me as missing the point and I am telling you it was expressed exactly as intended.

In short, you are arguing on the wrong conceptual meta-level for me to respond without dismissing my own claim. If I take as True that “this isn’t about right and wrong” (it is), then I am setting aside the power I have in a democratic society to say, “Fuck this I’m changing it.” Maybe we’ve just been stuck in gridlock politics, with a ruling class that strips and monetizes every aspect of humanity that the society today doesn’t realize the power citizens wield.

Not sure. Been fun to think and share thoughts with you though. Thanks for your time and have a nice night.

An impasse is a perfectly acceptable outcome on a sane platform like Lemmy.

It’s a quote of an opinion, so in general I ignore them. I’m usually more interested in distilling ideas constructed with some line of reasoning.

But I guess we can look at this one. Find it’s essence. Tho it doesn’t seem very deep…

“Societies with rule of law are dictatorships. How leaders are selected and the existence of fundamental Constitutional rights is not a factor.”

So in short.

Having laws at all is a dictatorship.

Yeah, that is one of the opinions I’d ignore. It’s easy to have that opinion inside the walls of a lawed society.

Luckily it is valid to respond to an opinion with an opinion, and mine is that I imagine everyone (except the strongest with the most resources) would abandon that perspective as soon as they lived in a world with no laws.

I had nothing to say to that. I agree with it.

One paragraph discusses action, the other discusses philosophy. I only took issue with your regressive philosophy. I’m open to correcting misunderstandings, elaborate if you feel I continue to miss something.

“No one should stand up for new rights. Don’t rock the boat bro.”

Your mindset is the road to a dictatorship.

What does the Mafia do? Show up, “Wow you got a lot of valuable things here Be a shame if someone broke them. Best listen to us.”

The Mafia leverages potential of damage to existing value to extract cooperation.

I see very little difference here between the Mafia and the plaintiff.

“Because what is legal is always right.
And what is right is always legal.”

No?

In a fascist state, your mindset is welcome, “Well they broke the rule, they must pay,” but do you never abstract one more level? Is the rule itself breaking something?

Those who downvote you say yes. Nuance is important. The rule has two main affects that I see.

1. Direct effect (the goal) :Publishers maintain a monopoly on bookselling low value books, the structure of their business preventing any competition.

Okay lets think about #1. Is that good or bad?

2. Indirect effect : the members of that society now have a restricted access to knowledge.

Okay lets think about #2. Is that good or bad?

Being critical in thought enough to recognize the flaws of the first quote is key.

Which is also something the president had control to protect prisoners from.

But instead went, “It’s gonna go big in cities, kill lots of democrats, let it run loose!”

Then that plan backfired and it went rampant in republican areas as democrats masked up and got vaccinated…

The president at the time made zero effort to do anything other than hide behind a curtain and go, “The virus isn’t real! Trust me I tell the truth!”, then spent months saying insane things with no evidence to substantiate any of it. Tens of thousands of rural citizens trusted him and died following his advice.

One final note, this was less than a few years after dismantling and defunding Obama’s virus response task force which had been assembled so that the US would be prepared for virulant events.

I want to point out that your reasoning is irrational which makes your conclusion nonsense.

You didn’t root cause or analyze anything, then declared yourself to be right “because”.

Here I’ll show you, let me use your method to “prove” something.

“The Potato Party has always been in charge in Tombo County, the hungry kids in schools are not the fault of The Potato Party because kids here have been hungry before.”

We can “prove” so many things this way!

.