I’m not trying to argue in bad faith. First I think the US shouldn’t fund it at all, no matter why there is a genocide.

But regarding the neighbour conflict, I want to explain: Your argument seems to be that what happens in Gaza is something singular or special, tied to the colonialist nature of the funding of the modern Israel. I don’t see that. In Germany there was a discussion about the singularity of the Shoah. I have doubts about this too but it’s an understandable notion to have as a “perpetrator nation”. The Shoah however was a genocide of real neighbours, like next door neighbours. And it was unprecedented in the cruelty and the industrial scope of the extermination. But I don’t think it couldn’t happen again. And this is an example of one of the worst genocides in history which didn’t even require a colonialist setting, not even a neighbouring nation or people with which you had hostilities dating back centuries. And that’s the reason why I refute the argument that this genocide is in any way special just because it’s rooted in a colonialist setting.

No I agree with you both. It seems very likely that such a collapse would then start to manifest. What do you think would be the long-term result of this?

A squabble like the genocide in Darfur or the genocide in Armenia? What point are you trying to make here?

Yes I agree with you that Israel requires these resources to continue it’s militaristic course of action with the goal of extermination. If it didn’t have these resources anymore, it wouldn’t cease to exist. It would need to change this course if it wants to survive.

No logic in your argument. If American investment in Israel would stop now, of course the country wouldn’t cease to exist. That’s magical thinking. Did the US create the mindsets of orthodox jews, radicalised settlers or right-wing nutjobs serving as long-term PMs?

Of course not. It’s not untypical. We find this kind of hatred against a neighbor all over the world. In this sense Israel demonstrates very well that they are not a “chosen people” but a horribly regular people.

IMO prions are like a IRL glitch. It seems like a bug without any direction, intentions whatsoever.

I heard from friends who went there that yes people were actually hooked. Additionally they tore some flesh out of an artist and proceeded in a later scene to bbq and eat it.

This is exactly what we’re gonna see on a large scale in a few years.

Stumbled upon this: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2024/09/black-white-2001-open-source-game-engine-sees-a-first-release/

Good timing for revisiting this classic.

I didn’t follow everything he’s been doing but I don’t understand the negative sentiment. Populous and Black & White were fantastic games IMO. But these games are old so maybe this view of him as a liar is more recent development.

And the Greens thought the economy ministry would be the biggest opportunity to enact green changes. But the FDP knew that nothing could stop change as effectively as having the finance ministry… And amazingly they got it. Surely because Scholz is not an idiot and knew that this would lead to a balance of power between his two coalition buddies, in a way stabilising his weak chancellorship.

You can’t always get what you want in a coalition government.

When I read articles like this, I have to wonder: Either these people are complete lunatics or arms dealer lobbyists.

Why did countries develop their nuclear arsenals again, ensuring mutual destruction in case of war? So that we now stockpile stupid amounts of ammunition for imaginary wars between powers that can destroy humanity for good if such a war ever happened? We should again sacrifice millions for what? There’ll be nothing left worth defending.

So no. I will never prepare am mindset for war. It’s the utmost idiocy.

Yes but not using inclusive language is far from counting as a moral failing in my world… It’s far from racism, let alone nazi stuff. So what’s that comparison good for?

Sure everyone’s free to use it or not, contribute to it or not. That’s not related to my argument. I was only talking about making a connection between someone’s political views and how much trust they deserve when it comes to e.g. security.

So you think you can draw a connection between someone’s views on inclusive language and whether an individual or org can be trusted with software security.

I’m sorry but to me this line of thinking is bonkers. The two things have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. What if a conservative individual argued that they have trust issues with an open source project because it features inclusive language now? The person might argue that they don’t understand why devs would devote their limited time to such cosmetics instead of focusing on code quality. How would you view this argument? On Lemmy it would probably be ridiculed, and rightfully so. Yet it’s the same line of thinking that I see if I interpreted your comment correctly.