Do you have even the slightest problem with Canadian parliament applauding a Nazi? You and a bunch of other people here seem to think litigating how to post is more important than the actual issue.
Here’s the news story if you missed the dozen other threads on it and the discussion elsewhere in this thread. Let me know if you need anything else spoonfed to you.
The Canadian parliament gave one of these Nazis a standing ovation within the past week.
The point is that who that guy was should be no surprise to anyone, because this all has been public knowledge since (at least) Windows 95.
This is relevant context to the recent incident of the Canadian parliament giving a standing ovation to one of these Nazis.
Holy shit, read what you respond to
The guy criticizing Canada for knowingly admitting Nazis is somehow a Nazi?
Sharp as a cue ball, this one
“I’m lazy” is your argument here? Even the blurb from the start of the article says this immigration happened in 1950.
Did history start yesterday? Are we ever allowed to discuss the background of current events?
I explained why in the comment you responded to, read that lol
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed.
If you’re going to rules lawyer, do it well.
This is very obviously relevant to a recent news story that has had several posts here already.
This is relevant context to the recent incident of the Canadian parliament giving a standing ovation to one of these Nazis. The “narrative” here is that that it’s abhorrent and no one in the room has an excuse to plead ignorance as the presence of Nazis in Canada was well-known at least 25 years ago.
funny relatable memes
I’ll let you know when I see one!
That can be fixed with restrictions on what corporations can get away with
The problem is that capital can and does react to this. Companies will bribe and lobby until they can erode whatever meager guardrails you managed to install, and in the meantime they’ll carefully calculate how much they can break the law before the consequences outweigh the benefits.
As long as capital is the main driver of politics this will keep happening. “Take money out of politics” doesn’t work, either, because capital will erode or evade those laws, too. You do have to look at moving on from capitalism if you want anything more than a small, temporary change.
Trump did worse, and did it more blatantly, but this is bad, too.
In response to questions from Congressman Goldman about the [Joe Biden] brand’s alleged impact, Archer said that it appeared to shield Burisma “because people would be intimidated to mess with them…”
Republicans on the committee asked Archer about two dinners, one in 2014 and another in 2015 at a restaurant in Washington, D.C., with Hunter Biden’s foreign business associates, both of which the then-vice president attended…
Archer, according to the transcript, also testified that the elder Biden was put on speaker phone with business contacts, potential business associates including foreign national “maybe 20 times” during the course of Archer’s and Hunter Biden’s business relationship. Joe Biden was put on the phone to sell “the brand,” Archer said.
It looks like a conscious effort to imply favoritism without being stupid enough to say it out loud. It’s not normal to invite your dad to dinner with your business associates, especially when your dad is VP. It’s not normal to loop your dad in on a bunch of business calls, especially when your dad is VP.
Is anyone seriously suggesting Hunter Biden got on the board of a Ukranian energy company on his own merits? There’s one reason you have that guy in a plush job.
Like all elites, we use language and mores as tools to recognize one another and exclude others. Using words like problematic, cisgender, Latinx and intersectional is a sure sign that you’ve got cultural capital coming out of your ears. Meanwhile, members of the less-educated classes have to walk on eggshells, because they never know when we’ve changed the usage rules, so that something that was sayable five years ago now gets you fired.
This is giving reactionaries – who have shown time and time again that they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt – entirely too much credit. These aren’t well-intentioned folks who are anxious about keeping up with changing social norms; they know the norms they like, that of an idealized 50s or 60s white America, and they want to go back. They want to be able to say “Mexicans are a bunch of rapists and drug dealers,” like Trump said, and have everyone around them nod along.
Even the one decent point about people with more education (and from more elite schools) re-shaping the job market is at best half baked. It doesn’t mention how we’ve gutted career options for people with less than a bachelor’s degree. It doesn’t mention how we simultaneously made it impossible for most people to pay off college as they go through it. It doesn’t mention the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and housing.
It of course does not attempt to describe the alliance between these sorts of legitimate working-class grievances and the rest of the reactionary political project, or how actually addressing those grievances could undermine that alliance.
…a forum post, where you might actually have something resembling a real discussion, is of course preferable to someone who thinks you’re an idiot bothering you in your DMs.
Tells their users to follow the rules = it’s a ruse, they’re trolls
Tells their users to troll = see, they’re trolls!
Says nothing = they aren’t even trying to stop their users from trolling
This is what we call an unfalsifiable orthodoxy.
Are we a strictly pro-NATO server or something?
Functionally, yes.
There is nothing wrong with following the rules and being “subversive.” That is literally just challenging people’s ideas.
As others have pointed out, the population of the whole fediverse is currently less than a bunch of subreddits with far less than 4.3 million users. Mod/admin energy shouldn’t be taken for granted, but people are way overstating the potential for issues.
A game thread on any popular sporting event has way more comments and problems than basically any post in the history of this place.
Why would a ban on one instance merit a ban on another? Instances have different rules for reasons.
You care more about posting etiquette than you do about Canadian parliament applauding a Nazi.
This story has circulated widely enough (I see multiple articles on BBC and CBS, among other outlets) that they had to issue an apology. I don’t believe you haven’t heard of it, but if you really haven’t, what does that say about where you’re getting your news/what draws your attention?