Nationalism as a political ideology and nationalism as advocacy for independence of people sharing national identity that isn’t broadly recognized as official nation are two different things sharing the same name. Nationalism as political ideology is inherently evil, as it puts interests of an artifical construct above interests of people, with specific attention put to ingroup and outgroup dynamics. Separatists movements aren’t inherently evil, with the desire of liberation being usually something everyone can stand behind, but if those movements co-opt the nationalist ideology, then they may be classified as evil in my book. Or evil-er. There are no perfect victims and such.

I feel like it’s a meaningful distinction to make.

Well, imagine him being broke, homeless, despised by everyone and treated like interacting with him could lead you to the exclusion from the society. Warms your heart, doesn’t it? I don’t want him dead, I wish him worse. I want him thanking bums for pissing on him so he doesn’t lose more fingers to the frostbite and cursing himself for pushing for cutting social safety net.

I send anything that isn’t plain text or something I requested straight to security to keep those fucks sharp, I wish they summarized emails I sent them instead of complaining that I keep doing it though.

Doubting that this is the case, seeing how they are trying to push back against protests against Republicans, is just delusional. I refuse to believe them to be so incompetent, that they constantly act against their own interests and boost MAGA message instead. Bernie gets way more attention from the public than everything they are doing right now combined, and they barely acknowledge he exists.

Russia invaded Ukraine under a very weak pretense of de-nazification, and buldozed over a lot of privately owned means of production, including foreign owned. They had some reputation to lose back then, now the worst that could happen would be Trump getting pissed at them and threatening them to escalate the war, but never doing so, because he’s still beholden to the capital interests, and this war has been extremely lucrative for the world’s main exporter of weapons. At best(for Putin) Trump would claim that Zelensky is using private contractors as human shields and that Zelensky broke the deal because the yield of the mining operations was lower than promised, and because of that USA will help Russia deal with the terrorists that overtook the land.

As for the nuclear war - billionaires that push this war forward for their profit aren’t interested in living in bunkers, they want to lie on beaches and be sucked off by sex trafficed slaves. The war will never escalate beyond the point where it would endanger their profits, and definitely not to the point where they might worry for their lifes. No major player in this conflict that’s capable of employing a nuclear armaments will ever do so for those reasons, not to mention the soft power they would lose if they did - not that Trump and Putin are very concerned with soft power…

Russia doesn’t mind continuing, USA doesn’t mind either, it’s just that Trump lied in his campaign promises that he did, and now he’s making a stink about it not being possible because Zelensky is a dictator. If they can cause an election in Ukraine and do a coup once Zelensky wins, or forge some different series of events that leads to Ukraine changing it’s president to one aligned with Russia, then it would be a preferable outcome for them, but it’s going to be difficult without losing a lot of influence and power, and Trump is already very unpopular, so I feel it’s unlikely they would try, but I wouldn’t put it past them. Trump antagonized both the world and his own citizens, and the backlash is growing to a degree where he might lack means to control it. Zelensky probably saw that as his most viable way out, so he chose to argue with Trump and J. D. Vance, and hoped that the backlash will limit their further meddling. Not that he had any good option there, but out of bad ones this one at least didn’t lock all Ukrainian cards in a bad deal. At this point Ukraine can try dealing with Europe, Turkey (was it Turkey? I think so) or even China, and they still have those tasty minerals that Trump helped advertise.

Europe in general has to rethink their means of defence, and if Ukraine has something valuable, a new military alliance with more hawkish stance against both Russia and USA, one that would include security assurances for Ukraine and other member states, is not out of question. If fascism in USA keep getting worse, then Europe will definitely need it. If the bubble bursts, they may include USA in this alliance in the future, though probably without as much sway as it had in NATO. Not saying that it will happen, just a wild shot in the dark, but there are more options for Ukraine now, than if Zelensky went along with the farce, and, I don’t know, apologized for being a dictator and promised to be a good boy.

The idea that any deal with Russia that wouldn’t include rock solid security guarantees would lead to stopping the killing, much less any sort of peace, is extremely naive. This issue is ongoing ever since Russia annexed Crimea, there have been many deals and all of them failed to stop Putin from breaking them. The issue is very simple - Trump can not (and absolutely doesn’t want to, from the looks of things) convince Putin to stop the war, because Putin doesn’t want the war to stop. It was shown time and time again that they aren’t willing to stop their invasion, and only thing that ever thwarted their progress was military opposition. There is no reason to believe that Russia wouldn’t just continue the invasion after the deal with USA is made. And Ukraine wouldn’t have any benefit from this kind of deal, so why would they go through with it?

Since you watched all of it, as unbearable to watch it was, you probably also heard the comments of Trump in the interview afterwards - that he organized and prolonged this discussion to show the world that Zelensky can not be negotiated with. Whatever you might believe in, it’s hard to imagine that as anything else other than admission that Trump never expected his “deal” to go through. They jumped and insulted the president of soverign country and blamed him for the war their close friend started. If your reaction to that is “he shouldn’t have reacted to the provocation”, then you’re missing the point of why they provoked him in the first place. This way, at the very least, he made sure the world despised Trump and that all other allies of Ukraine were sympathetic. His only choice is to weather this storm until the fascist bubble in USA bursts and there is some chance for diplomacy in the future.

As for the economic entanglements, they mean nothing in times when USA is incapable of diplomacy and Russia is unwilling of adhering to any deals. Speaking of any trades where Ukraine is giving up their minerals before USA promises to push Russia outside of Ukraine borders is meaningless, and Ukraine wouldn’t get anything out of that.

I mean, that only proves that those trans people are sneaking into bathrooms. We all know that the deep state dedicates a substantial amount of resources to make sure trans women get to piss in the sinks in women bathrooms. That’s why they make them so good at sports, so they can ninja their way to the most purests of sinks. And the eggs are expensive because the deep state loans the money for transing kids from the Big Egg. Why did you think those trans people call cis people eggs? They’re going to eat us. And piss in our sinks.

I’ll let you know that as a Pole I feel grateful for your research and terrified of it’s results.

Jesus you folks must have wild roaches in Denmark. Sounds like “don’t go out at night” or “make sure your gun is loaded before entering the woods” kind of thing. Stay safe.

Yeah, it’s bad enough that it could happen, the fact they allowed that to happen so easily is far worse.

IQ tests intentionally omit any questions related to empathy, emotional intelligence and creativity, so it can favour people from the top of the pile and act as accurate perdictor of success in ruthless capitalist society. It implicitly promotes lack of those traits in individuals and explicitly promotes the definition of intelligence that’s unrelated to them. While you don’t get lower scores if you’re highly creative or empathetic person, so it’s not directly a detrimental for society and can be a useful metric for some cases like specific jobs, it’s image as sole measure of intelect is manufactured to promote “specific kind of people”, to which group many republican businessmen would belong.

I’m not disagreeing with what you said, just thought I’d expand on that.

I’d say any claims about rape being a justification for genocide have lost their weight after Israelis protested punishment of IDF soldiers for rape of prisoners on the basis of “Palestinians deserving it”. There are no moral arguments supporting begining, maintaining or continuing the genocide in Gaza.

I don’t think you can check if array of n elements is sorted in O(1), if you skip the check though and just assume it is sorted now (have faith), then the time would be constant, depending on how long you’re willing to wait until the miracle happens. As long as MTM (Mean Time to Miracle) is constant, the faithfull miracle sort has O(1) time complexity, even if MTM is infinite. Faithless miracle sort has at best the complexity of the algorithm that checks if the array is sorted.

Technically you can to down to O(0) if you assume all array are always sorted.

Capitalisms’ unsustainable model of infinite growth requires something like imperialism to keep going, and even if you could point out alternative venues for capital acquisition, it’s still what people in power want, since it gives them more than just fuel for capitalism, but also more power. Countries and companies that do not rely on imperialism directly, most often rely in others that do. While it’s not entirely futile to discuss whenever that has to be the case in theorethical capitalist solution, it is the case in one we’re living under, and since it’s the ruling class of hyper-wealthy that make decisions about the worlds future and current state of affairs is result of those decisions, it is the system we have to deal with. Unless, you know, we bring out the guilottines and start over, but I don’t see much point in retrying capitalism to see if it won’t lead us down on the path to facism again.

I also have felt unburdened by what has been, as if a spell was cast on me. I had no doubt though that replacing Joe Biden with literally anyone, including his son or dog, would increase democrats chance of winning. I think in my case it was more of letting go of pent up anger towards the rotting carcass of the current president and all those who campaigned for his reelection. Including the lovely folk of lemmy, for whom I still might hold some animosity. To those that rode hard for Biden, a sincere fuck you.

Oh, trust me, it’s not a coincidence that ALL wolves decided to sit away from that uncouth beast.

We know him for his orange tan face, but this new trick he has down his sleeve will shock you…

Right, sorry, it was his wife that outed him for having Hitler speeches book “My New Order” back in 1990, which he apparently kept in a cabinet next to his bed. In the interview he also admitted having a copy of Mein Kampf, though he never openly claimed to read that book often. When he quoted Hitler in 2023 he said it was just a coincidence. Which caused no one to feel uneasy, no one at all. His former chief of staff claimed that Trump praised Hitler for doing some good things, like rebuilding the economy.

So right, sorry, I mixed the “Mein Kampf” for “My New Order”, and it was his wife that outed that, he only confirmed.

I see republican voters shooting republican candidates as pretty much reasonable outcome rather than some newly emergent threat to democracy. Trump made his image himself, it was him who decided to harass miniorities and brag about reading Mein Kampf often. It was him who made republican message extreme, provoked an insurrection, had all those criminal charges and appointed obviously corrupt judges. He groomed americans into feeling insecure and threatened and radicalized a lot of them. I think random depressed kids trying to suicide by shooting him is the least he should expect, especially seeing that USA has a gun cult focused around right to bear arms against threats to democracy. Also a child rapist, which alone is enough for millions of people to pull the trigger. You’re seriously blaming his bad image on anyone else?

The question was never about whenever men are scarier than bears, but rather whenever women are more afraid to be at mercy of man or a bear. Admitting that women have valid reasons to be afraid of men doesn’t equate to vilifying all men, however (some) men actively denying that they do and acting like their fears are baseless is quite valid reason to assume that those men are either clueless or the root of the problem.

I fail to see the misandry you describe as something common. No one is asking you to take responsibility for the actions of rapists, nor is anyone sane pretending that all men are violent. I do however see constant complaining about potential of this misandry becoming a reality and I think that’s a reactionary view, which leads to push back against women. Sure, there obviously are some women that do act like all men are violent rapists, because for every extreme opinion you’re going to find an extreme example somewhere on twitter. Dealing with women on daily basis I have yet to find one that actually acts that way. And sure, it could be that I live in a sheltered bubble and my anecdotal experience isn’t worth shit, but I do personally think that this view that “all men are bad” comes from the men misunderstanding of the issue of “all women are in danger because of some men”. I argue that the stats I mentioned in previous comment substantiate my opinion about the danger being there.

No one is asking you to bear responsibility for anything you didn’t do, but you can’t seriously blame women for being wary of strangers. Surely you can see how women would also prefer not to need to be afraid? Women aren’t much danger to you, so they don’t need to earn your trust as much, but the opposite simply isn’t true. And if you feel someone is dangerous (as in, has potential to cause you harm), it’s absolutely fine for you to require them to earn your trust, regardless of their gender.

As to what can be done by the majority, is to be informed and aware that the problem exists, and when silly question like “men or bear in forest” pops up, not to push back against women who are afraid of men and treat it like misandry.

Topic of men mental health is separate from this issue (imo), and sure, it’s valid and should be discussed broadly. I don’t believe that blaming women and their well founded fears for those issues is correct approach though. I don’t see anything inherently bad with needing to earn trust of someone, and I think that expectation that you shouldn’t need to do that is the problem. You might know you wont do anything crazy, but how should they? And it’s not like you need to sacrifice your firstborn to gain trust, just act like normal human being and don’t take it for granted.

Topic of anger issues is completely unrelated to women, unless we’re talking about them being potential victims there, but that’s not the point you’re touching on. In my opinion those issues stem partially from the fact that society glorified dominating men for a longest time, and this image also included taking whatever you want by force. Many people, mostly men but also some women, still see those as golden standards of masculinity. Being aggressive and overbearing is still presented as manly, especially on the right side of the political spectrum. Trying to deal with anger issues is thus seen as infantile and embarrassing. That’s obviously much more convoluted than just that, but if anything, it’s more of a source of a problem rather than the effect of women not trusting men.