RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]
- 0 Posts
- 31 Comments
Score is relative though. On hexbear we have downvotes disabled. This means we can not down vote but also means down votes do not federate.
Studies have shown that down votes actually have a large psychological impact negatively on the user. Down votes are frankly unproductive. They might also encourage bad behavior, because if your goal is to stir the pot then down votes are a great indicator that it’s working.
On hexbear we operate on a fork of Lemmy. One of the changes is to the active algorithm, which makes posts decay faster then core Lemmy. Since the change things move pretty smoothly on the front page.
An automated system of banning is something primed for abuse. We see this already on other platforms that has trigger mechanisms for banning a user pending review. Its a shoot first ask questions later approach that could be weaponized against people.
Echo chamber is a very loaded term. A safe community is a protected community. To someone intruding on a space that values the community it has built, it might look like bad faith action. However, often the inverse is true, and the intruder is the one acting in bad faith. That could mean they willingly or ignorantly disregard the rules of a space, or are unwilling to listen and understand the perspective of a given space, and simply want to argue.
The value in Lemmy is that you can build and curate the kind of site culture and ultimately network culture you desire. If you do not like that culture, you can anyways find another place to hang out.
As it stands, you can implement your ideas using a bot. One thing definitely lacking on Lemmy is a kind of Auto moderator. It should be remembered though that auto moderator was a community built tool until Reddit assimilated it into the site as a core feature.
The API has an endpoint for marking posts as read. It would be a matter of adding a button to the interface to mark the post as read.
I’m sure if an issue was opened on the Lemmy UI side it could be implemented by someone.
During WWII, America shocked the world when they revealed their nuclear capacity by dropping not one, but two atomic bombs on strictly civilian targets. Since then, they have maintained a first strike policy, meaning, their plans for their nuclear arsenal are not defensive, but aggressive and the highest form of escalation.
During the Korean War, Dugless MacArthur asked the joint chiefs of staff for approval to use nuclear weapons on China, to the tune of 30, to 50 nuclear strikes. They approved. MacArthur’s goal was to create a radioactive no-mans land across Russia and China to act as a buffer zone between after the war was “won”.
During the JFK Administration, they drew up plans for nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union if conflict in Berlin turned violent.
The Nixon administration drew up plans to drop nuclear bombs on North Vietnam.
Just this week, news broke that the Biden administration is considering giving Ukraine nukes. “Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union.” You’ll tell me this is strictly defensive, then I beg you to consider reading why the Soviet Union was giving Cuba nuclear weapons during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The only place threatening a Nuclear Holocaust is the United States. They remain today the only country on earth to have dropped not one, but two atomic bombs on war targets (read civilian populations).
Known for espousing antisemitic tropes,[11][12] Sima’s Weibo channel spread the notion that Jews colluded with the Empire of Japan to establish a Jewish homeland in mainland China during the Second Sino-Japanese War in what has been termed the Fugu Plan.[13]
In August 2022, he admitted to buying a house in California. This made him a target of widespread ridicule, with commentators saying “being anti-American is work, living in America is life” (反美是工作、留美是生活).[14] For unknown reasons, he was blocked in Chinese social media in August 2022.[15] His accounts were later reinstated on 27 August.[15]
On 4 July 2023, he attended the American Independence Day dinner hosted by the US Embassy in China where also met with US Ambassador to China R. Nicholas Burns. Sima’s attendance of the dinner was mocked by Chinese social media users who accused him of being hypocritical, as the day before the event he had criticized the US proposal to provide Ukraine with cluster bombs during the Russian invasion as “an act against humanity.”[16]
I mean, he sounds like a provocateur, probably looking to heighten tensions between the two powers. Antisemitic at that. Also, support for Donald Trump under the guise that he’ll be better for China? The best outcome for China is (somehow) becoming a partner with the US economically and having friendly relations. Problem there is neither party wants that. Under Trump, tensions will continue to be heightened between the two but also internal tensions in the US will also accelerate. Maybe this is what he means when he says Trump is good for China, but that’s a very nationalistic sentiment.
If you want to stop the spread of far right nationalism in your country this is one way you handle it. In America, we put far right nationalism on the same level as every other political thinking, except for left thinking, especially left economic thinking, which we demonize.
The issue is, however, the largest superpower is backing and supporting the actions of Israel in this regard. “The World” would have to label the United States as an active participant and begin the process of sanctioning and isolating the US. Either way, it wasn’t morals or ethics that ultimately led to turning on Nazi Germany. Before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the United States was very comfortable in keeping itself out of the conflict. At the time, Anti-Semitism was the soup du jour of domestic policy in Europe and America.
The Franks (of Anne Frank fame) attempted to immigrate into the US leading up to World War II, and despite Otto Frank’s connections within the American government, and his connections as a businessman, him and his family were deemed a “security risk” and denied entry. They were one family out of thousands who were turned away by FDR’s State Department. It was clear early on that the Third Reich was facilitating mass oppression against their Jewish population. The problem, ultimately, is that the prevailing opinions about the Jewish people were shared within the western powers. From an American perspective, what the Third Reich was doing with its Nuremberg laws wasn’t too far off from what America was doing with its Jim Crow laws, in fact, the Nuremberg Laws were heavily influenced by the Jim Crow laws of America. Meanwhile, European countries facilitated the emigration of Jews from their borders through the Third Reich’s first solution, which was relocating the Jewish people to “Israel”, of which they covered the majority of the costs to do so.
The United States didn’t enter into the war until after the attack on Pearl Harbor, which was a form of blowback resulting from the British and American embargo on oil heading to the Japanese Empire. Up to that point, the states had been operating Lend-Lease programs for weapons and supplying the Allied powers with material support in an attempt to allow them to deal with the Axis threat. There were great material interests in pushing the Third Reich back, as they had expansionist ambitions, ones that would see them control land and resources that the Allied forces had ready access to. Ambitions of conquest in Africa and Asia, as well as a colonization scheme into Russia. It wasn’t until April 1945 that the Dachau Concentration Camp was discovered and ultimately liberated. The idea that the Allied powers were fighting against the Third Reich on Moral and Ethical grounds rooted in the treatment of the Jews is very much a misunderstanding of the timeline of that war. The European front was effectively finished by May that same year.
So this idea that the world “can find it in themselves to have a single moral or ethic, and then act on it”, as if that was what happened in World War II, is idealism, and a revisionist view of the events of that war. I do not see this conflict playing out as the way you imagine it.
Because for these places it’s about more than just the money. They have an ideological position that drives their choices. They are convinced that Israel will allow them all to keep regional solidarity down, and ensure the region never coalesces into a region bound by common goals, self-determination, and mutual defense. Should it become a Europe type entity, representing middle eastern interests collectively, it will become considerably harder to exploit.