That’s not how these things work, if anything, the more serious an event is, the more that thing is going to be what people make jokes and memes about, to dampen the stress of the situation if nothing else. I’m not sure there’s actually such a thing as an event so serious that nobody makes jokes about it.

3rd? Surely there’s been more than 2 before?

I mean, I dont see how it isnt a war already, this kind of thing is an act of war after all, and the other side doesnt have to be capable of equal retaliation for the term to apply.

You may misunderstand, I’m not making any prediction that this administration or any like what we’ve had in a long time, if ever, would do such a thing. What I’m saying is that if some government was installed that actually cared, it’s not an impossibly to improve agricultural labor conditions without driving the working class broke from food cost increases.

That would be unpleasant, yes, and would require further efforts to minimize the consequences for those with low incomes (for instance, expansion of food subsidies, which yes would require even more taxation of those with wealth), however, if food prices aren’t as high as that now because of near slavery conditions, then there’s probably no ethical way to avoid it.

I would imagine the Iranian government or an affiliated organization like that would have better access to the internet at the moment than the average citizen. A social media influence campaign doesn’t even have to be physically based within the country running it, technically. I’m not saying whether Iran is or isn’t running bots or to what extent, because I don’t know that, but I would think that, given that their enemies are doing it, it would make quite a lot of sense for them to do so as well.

I’m not sure that modern political terminology, especially with regards to something like socialism, really fits someone who predates even the invention of those words. Sure, you can find similarities, but you can’t always expect consistency with it in all their positions if the person in question got to those positions in a very different manner.

I’ve been pretty happy with how the instance I use has been run thus far, but it is focused around furries, so it won’t be something most people outside that subculture like I expect. Still, the fandom is big enough that someone in it looking for an instance might look at this thread, so I mention it anyway.

I wonder if Putin is jealous about having to share…

If that were true, what happens if two different non violent movements each with more than 3.5% of the population involved, exist at the same time in direct opposition to eachother?

I know albatross are big, but I can’t stop seeing it as an abnormally small man petting an abnormally well-behaved seagull.

Other than maybe one tiny corner of China, where are you finding manicheans in this day and age?

holds the power button

Technically not, since a lack of intelligence doesn’t necessarily imply that something said by a given person is wrong (else an unintelligent person could make things more likely to be wrong by saying something, or would be unable to say that thing if it is true.)

Ron DeSantis isn’t a lemmy mod, to my knowledge.

Is there a context for “sociopath”? like, would a person that actually had that mental condition be disallowed from commenting, or was it saying that you had called someone else a sociopath and that isnt allowed?

To be fair, potentially addictive or not, I wouldn’t support a ban on social media either. The practical requirements needed to effectively restrict access to information in the modern age (both porn and social media being examples of information) are such that I generally view the cure as worse than the disease, so to speak, and view the least bad option as being to just give up on legal restrictions and just deal with the consequences instead. Addiction is harmful, but most consumers of such information aren’t harmed by it, and restriction inherently requires monitoring and removing internet anonymity to a degree that I find unacceptable.

Does the rule in question even apply to end users? All I had heard of it was that it put some kind of requirement on the website itself to identify people, which a person seeking out a noncompliant or foreign website presumably wouldn’t be the one violating?

Isn’t Bowser more of a turtle?

why does it need to choose bodies?