What? You didn’t know? They secretly exterminated 6 M russian citizens on a secret 4x4 lab buried deep in Mariupol! And if you need more prove, they are fighting against Russia, they are fascists!!!
Edit: so I figured I go investigate for myself and by “Ukraine” you mean random citizens involved in what was basically a civil war, the people in the building were using it as a fortress, and blockaded themselves inside, and by “people” you meant Russian separatist insurrectionists, who were firing from the building and throwing Molotov cocktails into the crowd below.
Ah yes, because there definitely wasn’t some other common characteristic to the (not only leftist, as you carefully avoided mentioning) parties that were banned
Something like, I don’t know, supporting the country actively invading Ukraine, perhaps?
The best part is, unless that function name is misleading, it doesn’t matter how the data is passed; a copy is being sent out over TCP/IP to another device regardless.
I’m not reading every article you posted cuz I have a life, but this random one I clicked says this
To be clear, the Kremlin’s claims that Ukraine is a hornets’ nest of fascists are false: far-right parties performed poorly in Ukraine’s last parliamentary elections, and Ukrainians reacted with alarm to the National Militia’s demonstration in Kiev.
Yeah, there are neo-nazi fascists in Ukraine. And almost every other country on earth. They have a problem, and the war with Russia made it more difficult for them to deal with it. But unless you can’t point me to one article (instead of listing a dozen at a time for some reason) that indicates it’s backed by the Ukrainian government, then I don’t see why the Ukrainian flag should be included in this meme. The US flag, sure, it looks like one of the articles is suggesting the US has supported fascists in Ukraine. But not Ukraine itself, and Russia is absolutely not invading to defeat the neo-nazis in Ukraine. Especially since Putin has been a textbook fascist since he took office and has barely tried to hide it.
Do we consider the text to be the words on the screen or the ideas within the text itself? As a kind of reaction to a current state of affairs, I wouldn’t be surprised if the core idea of this text is thought up by someone every couple days at least, if only in passing. As long as the conditions which brought this meme about in the first place are sustained, it basically can’t die. I’d say, in that sense, this meme could only be considered successful if it doesn’t get replicated forever, it could only be successful if it dies.
Classically, the meme would be the semantic content in this context or a derivative one (unless we consider this text itself to be derivative). It might re-emerge periodically, but some degree of contextual integrity would be necessary for it to be considered the same meme.
I can think of two fairly active potential homes for that content: Showerthoughts, which is for random trains of thought that you think others might relate to. Lemmy Be Wholesome is for content that you feel elevates people’s moods, is supportive, shares good vibes and so on.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !showerthoughts, !lemmybewholesome
I can think of two fairly active potential homes for that content: Showerthoughts, which is for random trains of thought that you think others might relate to. Lemmy Be Wholesome is for content that you feel elevates people’s moods, is supportive, shares good vibes and so on.
The main thesis here is good, but that’s a mischaracterization of what people consider “failed” writers.
Someone who wrote one novel and had it published is not considered a failed writer, no matter if they then stop writing immediately. “Failed writer” is pretty much reserved for people who tried writing and couldn’t get anyone interested enough in it to publish it.
I’m not sure what labels would be applied to someone who exclusively pursued self-publishing, but that’s not really the common way.
Salinger is a classic example of this. One of the most celebrated authors of all time. He really only wrote one full novel and then essentially disappeared from public view. Despite this I don’t think anyone would consider him a failed writer by any definition
I think a better, but still not perfect, way to define it would be “This person wants to do X, but can’t support him/her/itself doing it.”
Of course, if you are already rich it doesn’t matter and then it is a bad metric (one of the reasons it isn’t perfect.) However, I think it is a better way to define it. Someone writing a few books as a hobby and then stops are not a failed writer, but someone that wants to be a writer but just can’t support it is.
Basically I think the intent matters, but that is impossible to measure (and people lie about it). So being able to do it as a profession is an ok metric.
lemmy.ml
Oldest