The funny thing is that, with a sensible foreign and alliance policy, many of these countries would probably have actually helped with US Imperialism, like they did in the past. Take Iraq, for example. But if you treat all your allies like shit and as submissive military service, the governments of those countries simply have no choice but to reject, if they don’t want to be voted out. I’m sure, for instance, that my country’s ruling party, the CDU in Germany, was really keen on it.

Everyone knows what needs to be done and what should have happened long ago. And not just to Trump, but to the entire oligarchic class in the US and worldwide.

If you can’t bring yourself to give it up, at least use it productively: if you see something interesting there, copy it and post it on the Fediverse.

Why would they get involved? What’s in it for the UK? The whole war is just bad for Europeans.

This is one of those ideas that sound great on first glance but aren’t when you take a deeper look. The floor absorbs the kinetic energy that a normal floor would normally send back to the spring system that constitutes your foot, making it necessary for you to expend more energy to compensate for it, and that makes walking more tiring. Essentially, the power is created by making it harder to walk. The additional effort that is placed on the people walking is turned into energy at a very low conversion rate. The energy required to create and maintain this machine dwarfs the expected output.

Such statistics are almost always meaningless. In Germany, the total volume of work has increased significantly over the last 30 years, but the number of hours worked per worker has fallen over the same period. How can this be? This is because part-time workers are also included in the statistics. This can lead to the bizarre situation where more work is being done, but the average number of hours worked is falling, for example because more women are working part-time instead of not working at all.

Therefore, we should either compare only the total volume of work in relation to the population or only the average working hours of full-time positions. Both of these approaches, however, have their own problems.

Nevertheless, it is of course ridiculous that people in the USA are not entitled to vacation. That said, I wouldn’t put my faith in politics. But strong unions can change that.

But then the seller is missing out on those $50, which they can’t spend anywhere else. From an macroeconomic perspective, the effect is zero. Like advertising, it only serves to allocate resources, not to create value. What’s more, it’s mainly large companies that benefit from something like this. Firstly, because of scale effects, and secondly, because they can sustain price dumping for longer than smaller companies.

The same applies to deals. You only benefit from them because someone else is disadvantaged. Unless, of course, you assume that companies have something to give away out of kindness. And, of course, you yourself have been someone who has given someone else an advantage at your own disadvantage. You paid more so that someone else could pay less. The macroeconomic effect was zero because no value was created.

Relevant:

"Entrepreneurship is like one of those carnival games where you throw darts or something.

Middle class kids can afford one throw. Most miss. A few hit the target and get a small prize. A very few hit the center bullseye and get a bigger prize. Rags to riches! The American Dream lives on.

Rich kids can afford many throws. If they want to, they can try over and over and over again until they hit something and feel good about themselves. Some keep going until they hit the center bullseye, then they give speeches or write blog posts about “meritocracy” and the salutary effects of hard work.

Poor kids aren’t visiting the carnival. They’re the ones working it."

Shareholders will expect their 185 million to turn into more. Someone will have to pay for this “more.” The business model will therefore boil down to either selling user data or companies paying to be given preferential treatment by the system. Probably both.

Furthermore, such services do not create any added value for the economy because, like advertising, they merely ensure that money is spent at B instead of at A. They are not productive and can be used much more efficiently by the bigger players.

It is one thing when innocent people die in armed conflicts. That is bad enough. But it is much worse when innocent people are deliberately targeted. That is simply inexcusable and not the fault of the Netanyahu government. Hamas cannot claim to be resisting when its targets are not the groups or institutions that oppress the Palestinians. One can only come to such a conclusion if one adopts Hamas’ interpretation of who the oppressors are. Namely, all Jews or Israelis by virtue of their origin.

I do not think we can agree on this. My view of humanity is fundamentally different from yours. Discussing normative principles is pointless. However, I find your attitude so cynical and appalling that I no longer wish to engage in further debate. I very rarely do this, but I have now blocked you.

My point is that you gloss over the suffering of innocent people while excusing the actions of the respective murderers, just as people on the other side do. Namely, as a necessary and inevitable consequence of the other leaders’ actions. You argue structurally against the innocent victims using the same logic as the supporters of the IDF.

It is a reversal of perpetrator and victim to appease your own conscience. An exaggerated and thus dehumanising tribalism that draws legitimacy for crimes against innocent people from the crimes of another group of actors. It is a misanthropic and cynical logic with which any atrocity could be justified (which is, of course, done constantly around the world).

Hamas and IDF supporters are equally malicious and disgusting. The murder of innocent people is always and fundamentally wrong. Leftists must reject and fight it.

What a dehumanising and despicable statement. The people murdered by Hamas did nothing wrong. Certainly nothing that could justify their deaths. They did not colonise anything either; they were simply born there.

This conflict really brings out the worst in some people. On the one hand, they blame the murder of innocent people on colonialism, and on the other, on the alleged human shield tactic.

This contextualisation, relativisation and, in some cases, romanticisation of human suffering is absolutely disgusting and must stop.

Those who deliberately kill innocent people lose the right to be considered the resistance. They should kill the fucking IDF. But not kids at a music festival or random civilians.

Except that the “Zionist infestation” is a fictional construct in this case. db0 is fighting ghosts.

Please try to avoid politico. It belongs to the right-wing conservative Springer publishing house (Axel Springer SE), which is trying to become a European Fox News.

Killing innocent people is never a legitimate defense. Actually, it is no defense at all, because these innocent people did nothing to Gaza or Hamas.

An anarchist instance that chooses an authoritarian, Islamist, and reactionary organization as the hill on which it wants to die. It makes you want to bang your head against the table. What I see this much more as is a case of double standards. Because the IDF, which also kills innocent people, makes the same argument. “Oh, it’s just defense.”

You still haven’t explained what is Zionist about calling Hamas Terrorist. You simply don’t like my opinion about it, so you stick that label on it. It’s intellectually lazy because it saves you from having to argue and allows you to rely solely on virtue signaling.

What’s wrong with calling Hamas terrorists? They have randomly but deliberately killed innocent people. How else would you describe that?

What do you consider to be an example of “obvious Zionism” on feddit?

Unfortunately, dbzer0 has not yet provided a consistent definition of Zionism, which is why they always resort to the broadest possible interpretation. As a result, it is essentially impossible to differentiate between the IDF and feddit.org (or at least their ideology), which is obviously stupid, but has the advantage of simplicity. One can simply throw the word around and everyone nods dutifully.

1. That’s not true. A lot of users have spoken out against defederation. Just look at the top comments here. There is no way you can speak of a “consensus” as the admin of dbzer0 claims.

2. It’s completely ridiculous to accuse feddit.org of being Zionist because particularly militant anti-Zionist forms (“Death to Israel”) are not allowed there. This line of argument is inconclusive and makes the classic conversion fallacy. But more importantly, most people on feddit.org are very critical of Israel. For example, I never read that anyone seriously denies that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Even if it did happen, it would be criticized immediately. They probably just don’t do so with the radicalism that is represented on dbzer0. Instead of concluding that there is at least a large overlap here, that the people on feddit.org are not only not allies, but in fact enemies (“fascists”), is so ridiculous that I can hardly believe that this is being advocated by adults. Yes, there have always been these stupid left-wing purity contests. But I think this reaches a new level of stupidity here.

I can’t stand this anymore. There are actual fascists who want to destroy both the users of feddit.org and dbzer0. They won’t care how purely anti-Zionist the person in question is. They’ll hang us all equally if they get the chance. But instead of uniting, we are creating new hostilities between us.