Don’t kid yourself, you are not changing anyone’s life on here by condescending and asserting some kind of moral superiority, and your charade of self-aggrandizement is vile. I’m truly uninterested in your ‘insights’ or judegements and projections on my charcter. As far as I have seen you’re a naracissist who wants to police and gatekeep the community using civility as a shield, which is the playbook of conservatism, we have nothing else to talk about.

You seem to be confused, I do not give a fuck what you said I should do, and I never asked for your wanrings or judgements or advice, so keep that shit to yourself, and let’s agree to go our separate ways.

This is fucking political malpractice, read the goddamn room, pal! Doesn’t help to be paid to stay blind… This is emblematic of the need for the fight to eject huge donors and their bribe money from politics.

We can’t afford to forget about bot accounts. Social media and the internet in general is vastly polluted by non-human accounts trying to manipulate you directly and through your algorithm. Also it’s a literal addiction engine; yeah people on it are flawed and unaware fo themselves and harms they’re exposed to, and also the site is designed to exploit them to the tune of billions of dollars in psychological research. So don’t forget how evil it is when you want to blame the (human) users, it is in part victim blaming. Also, don’t forget Zuckerberg did this all with intent when you see his pasty robotic ass dragged in for depositions to explain himself.

Don’t condescend to me like I’m not watching what’s fucking going on after coming at these comments like some self-righteous arbiter of truth and morality. I will relax when I don’t have some asshole on lemmy griping about people who are actually out there using what power they have to try to influence future outcomes for the better in this increasingly despotic fascist regime. I fucking hope you’re out there phonebanking for progressive canditates and engaging with officials about how desperately we cannot allow status quo fuckery to block the action you claim to want now that there’s some power to affect it, cause if not you can continue to fuck all the way off, and frankly, even if you are you can goddamn well check yourself up in here.

“People like me”

Point to where I ever said any of that shit you just slopped at me… Then when you realize that I didn’t, and you’re just projecting at me to create a pallatable strawman to coddle your little insecurities, point that fucking finger up your ass.

Respecting the dead is taking action to honour them, all the shit you’re yapping about is downstream from the act of voting whether your idealism likes it or not, this is the system we have. Your self-rightious bloviating in the name of the dead is vanity plain and simple, so shut the fuck up and stop grandstanding to people who are doing their best.

Actually, it can be, and is, many bad things, including the war!

Remove him, the party absolutely needs his removal. He won’t do it himself cause he’s a narcissist ideologue.

Shut the fuck up.

Whoever is downvoting this is either butthurt, or in denial.

No. Hang him. What more evidence do you need of his immense traitorous harm to America and the working class around the world that would require investigation? You’ll lethally inject one person for egregious crimes against one other person, but you’ll dither and fret over bringing meaningful consequence to set an example when it’s someone who has directly harmed millions worldwide and condemned an entire generation to immeasureable struggle and unprecedented crises. It’s vile and pathetic. At this point investigation is a very clear delay and distract tactic, and we all know why this is the best the good cop half of this corporate capital party has to offer.

This would have a lot more punch if they didn’t use such pathetic delivery, and it would get more eyes, and generate more trust in the paper too because people already know the actual facts here, nobody needs the injection of deniability. If someone threatens to sue because you implied they don’t care about americans, you say “bet, show me where you are demonstrating care and I’ll recind my claim”. But no, we can’t simply say “because he doesn’t care” because of corporate cowardice.

What an absurd assertion, it absolutely has something to do with him and the precedents set by his complete disregard for if not distainful and explicit abuse of the standards you seem to want to apply selectively. You’re not wrong that those have been the standards for a century, and now they have changed because he has set the new standard with his behaviour, society will have to adjust accordingly. Not unlike his party breaking procedural precedents by selectively adhereing to them as is advantageous to stack a supreme court that would set the stage for tRump’s authoritarian power grab. Choosing to cherry pick and talk like these things exist in a vacuum only exasperates the demolition of both legal and social norms and standards, and cements the new ones. It even conveniently ignores his prolific use of frivolous SLAPP suits to silence valid legal action against him, or coerce favourable actions and manipulate behaviour of private companies he has grievances with (most of which are dropped or settled when attention dies down) quite directly corrupting the administration of justice. Your prescription translates to just let it happen, if you admit it or not.

Ethical standards for thee but not for me, said the administration. tRump himself personally slanders and libels private citizens regularly, and pretty well anybody he doesn’t like without hesitation or account. At a certain point the standards are being weaponized, just like their politics has done with civility. I think if they took a principaled stand and got sued, they could win, and I do support that actually. Will that happen? No.

Well shit maybe they shouldn’t have done it then, if they’re so upset about being called out.

Ooops more treason! Surprise!!

He’s laying the groundwork and sowing the seed of the idea that ‘somebody’ might nuke the US, but it will be him, not Iran.

Because it too frequently props up opposing platforms who are objectively worse for customers as a comparison, and turns out to be Tim Sweeney in a mask. One monopoly’s existence doesn’t justify introducing competitors with worse business models just so their CEO can get their cut of the middleman action. I care about outcomes for end users, and most of the complaints I see about steam aren’t reflective of my lived experience with the platform, nor are they accompanied by actual ideas for improving the model.