Yep. Some of the mods that mod 5+ communities are openly calling NATO fascist.
There’s a lot of pro-china sentiment where users encourage people moving to china, denying Tianmen Square events, and encourage full annexation of Taiwan.
It’s just lemmingrad 2.0
I block every .ml community on sight, as they’re laced with tankie propaganda/agenda.
I thought we got rid of fascist, right wing losers. Don’t you guys like your echo chambers? Then go to truth social or twitter. Don’t bring your garbage views here. Thanks
I don’t feel like I’m smart, I’d save average at best…but I truly do feel like the majority of the general public that I am around is less intelligent than I am
Why would that make sense? Yuki has 2 points this season, Perez has 5 podiums and like 156 points. Why would RB downgrade MASSIVELY?
lmao, I really am dealing with a bona fide genius here.
It’s just not worth devoting the time to argue with people like yourself who are so indoctrinated and misinformed. Your maladaptive thinking style can’t even begin to be reprogrammed until you yourself realize that you’ve fallen victim to this.
So there’s just no reason to devote time and effort articulating a well-argued retort with supporting evidence when your beliefs aren’t based in reality, you can’t effectively scrutinize accurate information, and your beliefs are so deeply internalized and unwilling to be challenged, that it feels like devoting the time of day to argue with a toddler who can’t grasp the concept you’re discussing.
The truth is, trying to debate people like you is a useless, fruitless waste of time. You’re going to reject information, truths and logic you do not like, and your delusional beliefs will remain insulated by rationalization and other maladaptive coping strategies to reduce the cognitive dissonance you experience when you have that momentary realization that your beliefs may not be accurate.
The truth is you’re just a waste of time for reasonable people to engage with. I’m not going to waste my time debating you here, but feel free to respond and get the last word in. I know that helps people feel like they’ve “won” an argument. You can respond with ad hominem, deflection, and baseless accusations against me like you’ve done to others. Doesn’t change the fact that you’re damaged goods no one here feels obligated or interested in engaging with.
That’s a lot of words for a post that essentially says nothing. Hopefully someone makes an AI version of Fragmaster’s nerd voice, so that insufferable post can be read out loud by it.
The funny thing is that all I said was NATO was bad because they tolerate fascist members and attacked a bunch of countries for no reason…which is all based on facts.
By the very same “by association, present or historical” “logic” you could say that the whole of NATO is Feminist (because some heads of state are openly Feminist women), Machist (some are pretty machist men), impeccably fair Democracies (take your pick), Communist (take your pick of members which were once Communist), Dictatorships with a Theocratic leaning (ahem, Turkey), Rich (take your pick), Poor (take your pick), an association of Small Nations (take your pick), an association of Large nations (take your pick), Social Democrat (take your pick), Socialist (the very Portugal you mention is governed by a party called the Socialist Party), Dead (most founding head of state are dead by now), Alive (lots of living heads of state), Anti-Nazi (lots of member states fough the Nazis), Pro-Nazi (some member states were Nazi), Mountainous (take your pick), Flat (ahem, The Netherlands) and so on.
This is because “by association” “arguments” just as the one which is the cornerstone of your comment are complete total jokes in logical terms - you can’t pick a trait of one member (worse, one it had long ago and doesn’t have anymore) and claim that “they’re all like that”.
Shit, that’s exactly the kind of “argument” the far-right newspapers in the UK use to demonize the poor: pick a single poor person who has abused the social security safety net and claim that “the poor” are all like that.
If you trully believe that line of yours, you’re either totally brainwashed or a moron (the latter very much in the medical sense).
”For association” was not the ”cornerstone” of my comment, although it’s pretty damning that the other founding nations would knowingly allow a fascist nation to join. NATO is an organization built on enforcing US hegemony. Fascist may not technically be the right term for that, but whatever. People call Russia fascist all the time even though that’s not really accurate either.
This time you’re conflating allowing an entity into a group with endorsing a specific characteristic of that entity.
Also you’re still keeping the whole “if they did so half a century ago, they approve of that kind of thing now” angle. That’s an “all present day Germans are Nazis” worldview.
It’s basically the guilt by association falacy but with “like” rather than “is”, i.e. NATO likes Feminist, Machist, pro-Nazi, anti-Nazi, Flat, Mountainous and so on countries because it let countries with such characteristic in.
The only situation were that wouldn’t be a falacy is if it was an organisation explicitly about that characteristic - i.e. an Association Of Democratic Nations - which let in a country with opposite characteristics, which is not the case here since NATO is a military alliance.
This time you’re conflating allowing an entity into a group with endorsing a specific characteristic of that entity.
It kind of is. Would they have allowed a communist nation to join? I highly doubt it. They could’ve easily said, ”no, you’re fascists, go away.” It’s not like getting fucking Portugal to join was essential.
Also you’re still keeping the whole “if they did so half a century ago, they approve of that kind of thing now” angle.
Hungary and Poland are fascist.
The only situation were that wouldn’t be a falacy is if it was an organisation explicitly about that characteristic - i.e. an Association Of Democratic Nations - which let in a country with opposite characteristics, which is not the case here since NATO is a military alliance.
I would agree with this, because at face value it’s true. Liberals are always calling NATO a group of civilized, European, democratic nations though, so you can’t have it both ways.
Well, that’s the thing: you can accuse some (maybe most) leaders of NATO countries of being hypocrites and I’ll agree with you on that.
In fact said leaders are equally hypocrite in exactly the same way also outside that NATO context: look at Macron’s authoritarianism in France imposing his will by decree and supporting the most violent thuggish police in all of Western Europe, or the long long history of the US invading countries for their oil whilst claiming it’s to “free their people” or Britain’s harping about Democracy whilst being “strong allies of Saudi Arabia” (and having one of the least democratic voting system in Europe).
(Mind you, so called “Communist” or ex-“Communist” [I’m sorry but no country still in the “Dictatorship Of The Proletariat” stage with an elite that controls it and self-proclaimed as representatives of the Proletariat has actually reached Communism as per Marx’s definition, so there is not a single genuine Communist nation in the World] are just as hypocrite: look at China’s treatment of Tibetans and support for the next door de-facto Kim Monarchy and at how Russia has been breaking world record after world record in hypocrisy of late)
However that wasn’t your original accusation: your original accusation was that NATO is a Fascist Organization.
Claiming an entire organisation is Fascist is worlds away from saying that some heads of state in it are hypocrites, including in the context of NATO.
Claims that NATO is Democratic are bullshit. Claims that it’s Fascist are even more bullshit.
The same Iraqis that no longer have to worry about Saddam doing stupid shit? Who can now elect their leaders again? They don’t think the US is the best but they sure aren’t in the same category as the Serbians.
Anti US people are so used to the US fucking up they forget that we actually do a good every now and then.
Are you seriously saying that the Iraq War was anything but a major fuckup by the US? Sure, they can elect their own leaders for a massively corrupt government, and many people are suffering because after the US invasion a lot of infrastructure was privatized in suspect deals. Iraq still can’t produce as much electricity as before the war. Listen to Blowback season one if you want some real info on the buildup and the war.
You’re right in that there are a few million Iraqis that don’t have to worry anymore. That might be because they’re dead, but semantics 😉
What about that last sentence makes you think that I think it was all flowers and sunshine?
At the end of the day they have a better government and if they hadn’t partnered with the American soldiers then we’d have fought AQ there for twenty years just like the Taliban in Afghanistan. I don’t have any concept that all Iraqis love the US. But the Iranian backed militias ain’t the majority opinion either. So yeah. There was a good thing done in there.
A country being in a dictatorship is an excluding factor for making good decisions. Plus, when Portugal left the dictatorship in 1974 it stayed and to this day remains in NATO.
And 1974, post-Revolution, Portugal, which was naturally very leftwing (it came pretty close to becoming a Communist dictatorship), could’ve and yet didn’t left.
It’s a ridiculously uniformed and childishly-simplist opinion (or just straightforward astroturfing paid by either the Putin or the CCP dictatorships) to claim that all NATO is Fascist by pointing out that more than half a century ago one of its founder (which by now has been a Democracy for almost half a century) was under the yolk of a Fascist Dictatorship hence all NATO was and is Fascist.
It’s funny how “guilt by association” and “the present is the same as the past” are core argument techniques of autoritarian lapdogs on both the Left and the Right.
“Being a Democracy” is not a significant military criteria.
It’s you who are comming up with your own “selection criteria” which you then claim NATO is supposed to follow (even though the criteria you made up at times go against NATO’s very clearly and firmly stated aims), and then arguing that they don’t follow your criteria hence are whatever you feel like to label those who don’t strictly follow criteria you decided they’re suppose to follow.
That fantastic and circular line of thinking is all you, and quite unrelated to the real world.
NATO has nothing to do with that. Not unless Turkey asks for an Article 5 conference. Talk about the specific countries sure but NATO has one purpose. It is a military defense pact.
Depending on what app you are using. I can select a post that comes from a community on an instance, and I can pick to either block the OP or the Community.
People outside the west have different views on a military organisation led by colonialists who have a track record of invading and destroying the world? How can this be!
Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their peasant families and brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they were bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeated rape, beginning at age nine - Melvyn Goldstein, William Siebenschuh, and Tashì-Tsering, The Struggle for Modern Tibet: The Autobiography of Tashì-Tsering (Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 1997). Gelder and Gelder, The Timely Rain, 110.
The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation–including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation–were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: “When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion.” - Gelder and Gelder, The Timely Rain, 113.
Whatever wrongs and new oppressions introduced by the Chinese after 1959, they did abolish slavery and the Tibetan serfdom system of unpaid labor. They eliminated the many crushing taxes, started work projects, and greatly reduced unemployment and beggary. They established secular schools, thereby breaking the educational monopoly of the monasteries. And they constructed running water and electrical systems in Lhasa. - Greene, A Curtain of Ignorance, 248 and passim; and Grunfeld, The Making of Modern Tibet, passim.
Heinrich Harrer (later revealed to have been a sergeant in Hitler’s SS) wrote a bestseller about his experiences in Tibet that was made into a popular Hollywood movie. He reported that the Tibetans who resisted the Chinese “were predominantly nobles, semi-nobles and lamas; they were punished by being made to perform the lowliest tasks, such as laboring on roads and bridges. They were further humiliated by being made to clean up the city before the tourists arrived.” They also had to live in a camp originally reserved for beggars and vagrants–all of which Harrer treats as sure evidence of the dreadful nature of the Chinese occupation - Harrer, Return to Tibet, 54.
American Internet MLs when someone defends colonization by criticizing the prior systems of the colonized people: "Let colonized people dedcide their own fate! >:( "
American Internet MLs when someone criticizes China’s colonization of Tibet: “[5000 characters criticizing prior systems in Tibet]”
I just want some consistency. Why is it liberation when China does it to Tibet but colonization when America does it to Afghanistan/South America/everywhere else? Fuck em both bro
Also have you ever noticed that criticisms of Tibet’s former systems always rely on the secondary source of The Timely Rain, an account written by foreign travelers in Tibet? (Or, as MLs might call someone who travels to China today to do this, “colonizers”?) Why is that perspective okay with you, enough to justify China’s actions?
Colonization is not just forcing culture or language. The material basis of colonization is imperialism i.e. forcing an unequal exchange between the colonized and the colonizers. There is no unequal exchange between Tibet and China as they are the same country. Capital and labour flows freely in and out, with the majority of the Tibetan population living outside Tibet. The majority of the Tibetan population has a positive opinion of the Chinese government, the same can’t be said of any colony. And on top of that the Tibetans are free to practice their culture(except the feudalism, pedophilia, and torture part of course).
NATO, a defensive alliance that’s been activated once ever? Whose historic motivator is right now invading a European country and constantly threatening several more?
Yeah, people who have experienced it understand that you don’t “try” gaslighting. People who do it are just constantly doing it, usually without even needing to try - it’s just their natural state to counter the things other people say. It works not by making someone believe a lie, but by wearing them down slowly, showing such confidence in something that the victim sees as being so clearly incorrect that they can’t help but think that maybe they’re the problem.
Nailed it. Had best friends and exes that are like this. Took some therapy to realize the abuse that I endured and internalized. Still work on avoiding these types of relationships, they are gravitational.
Yeah, it’s often unsuccessful. I think the more common success is getting someone to do something in reaction, like…
“You never do xyz”
“I always do xyz.” And now does it more for the other person to notice or to prove a point.
Also people bringing in ad populum, preying on social insecurities, I’d say is quite common too. “People think this of you” stuff by people close enough to them to be a valid source.
Anyway, if you want to see bad examples of gaslighting attempts—and a myriad of other budget grade colloquialisms and common fallacies—you’re in the right place 👍
Self reflection is important! It is good to ASK yourself these questions, and ask others even. It is not good to ruminate on the questions or doubt yourself because of lack of confidence. And if your answer is always that you were wrong… idk maybe seek therapy. Sounds like a trait of a chronic asshole or a chronic doormat.
Have you spent your entire life raised to put more weight in others’ comfort, opinions, achievements than your own?
It’s REALLY easy to gaslight someone. Congratulations, you’re not a predator who seeks out/recognizes these qualities in someone for you to take advantage of.
It IS common. It exists in many forms of abusive relationships. The fucking problem is that the internet is stupid as fuck and doesn’t understand what gaslighting is. If you start to question your intelligence, memory, etc because your partner is always contradicting you, just them, yeah that’s gaslighting. Disagreeing or the person is being a jerk and saying those lines doesn’t mean “you’re being gaslit” it’s a process and state of mind and being. You can be gaslit to believe your father never spent months painting himself blue trying to get into the blue man group, but that’s if you are convinced! Someone telling you that your dad never blue himself trying to convince you does NOT mean you were gaslit.
Also lying isn’t gaslighting. The point is someone questioning or changing their reality.
Sorry for the rant. I’m very passionate about abuse awareness and can’t self edit so well.
No, honestly it’s actually pretty hard to actually gaslight someone. I know you think you see it in abusive relationships, but I really think your just misremembering honest mistakes as gaslighting. I mean you’ve made mistakes like that before in the past remember? So yeah, no big deal, just chalk it up to stress. And you trust me right? You know I would never lie to you.
Can confirm, I used to have a partner that was conditioned to accept gaslighting by their narcissistic father. They had a terrible memory for his abuse. Like he’d say these flagrantly horrible things, and I’d try to talk to them about it later and half the time they just… wouldn’t remember it.
It was really easy to accidentally railroad them too. Like I had to learn to be hyper aware of anything I said that might unconsciously contradict what they wanted, because they would just self-edit to remove the contradiction.
It’s what ended the relationship really, because even though they didn’t always consciously remember the abuse, they did expect it, and it was impossible to have a conversation about a difficult issue without them perceiving abuse and sidestepping it. The conversation would go in circles. When I got good enough at anticipating the ways they would sidestep topics, they had another strategy - just dissociate and blank out, so I’m left standing there going, “Hello? Can you hear me?”
Gaslighting is real, and it does serious damage to people.
NSFWI was with my mistress one day when she heard her husband walking up the drive. She said, “quick, use the back door!”. I wasn’t sure we had time, but it’s not every day you’re offered anal
Dude I worked for in 2008 (small IT support company) insisted we store all the domain logins and passwords for all our customer's networks on our internal Sharepoint system and forward a port to RDP on all their domain controllers. It was a fucked up place to work with every procedure pulled out of someone's ass on the spot.
My assumption would be that the gap between Male and Female is much thinner than to the Hardcore option. Thus it’s a new option group. And an option group with only one choice is invalid thus is has to be a checkbox.
I just assumed the option for normal difficulty was to the left and that’s why the image is weirdly cropped like that.
There is a gap between the male and female grouping and the hardcore. This is what leads me to believe that the hardcore option is in a different grouping, probably horizontal grouping which is why I think the normal difficulty is to the left.
After the first UI update pass, someone on the forums made this into a meme after they noticed that Crate missed the title screen in the update. The dev team thought it was funny and just left it like that.
That duplicate of your folder in /run is due to filesystem links (or more likely a fuse mount, I’ve never actually looked into how flatpak works). But either way, they aren’t copies of the data.
Me: “So, I completed this time critical task a week ago, had it QA tested, and it’s been awaiting approval since Tuesday. I’ve posted my PR with links in the dev chat, I’ve pinged each of you individually each day as well. It is still awaiting approval before I can merge and pick up a new card from our backlog that is dependent on these changes. If literally anyone has the bandwidth to do this review, please do. I’ll post the link here again as well, to make this super convenient for you all, as well as the Jira card for reference, and the changes and requirements themselves are extremely straight forward. It should only take 5-10 minutes, tops. And I will be sitting here useless until it is done. Somebody, please, for the love of god…”
My team: crickets
Scrum Master: “Thanks for the update, kryptonianCodeMonkey… next up is…”
“manager, person_a and person_b are the reviewers on my time sensitive PR. I’m blocked. You are aware of everyone’s priorities, can you indicate prioritization of tasks and delegate how we should act?”
Every time I see these comments, I wonder if I was just lucky with my scrum masters and most actually suck, or if it’s confirmation bias. We don’t have a scrum master where I work, but my whole job as lead is keeping things rolling, and this would be just unacceptable.
My Scrum Master is nice, but her role seems to mostly revolve around enforcing documentation standards, coordinating refinements and retrospectives, tracking metrics on task completion, and maintaining our Jira board. She doesn’t have a lot of involvement with the specifics of development, delegation, or how we execute our tasks.
Yeah, I also wonder what kind of shitty culture they have in these teams? I mean, who would leave a coworker hanging like that? That’s just a collective dick move.
We have big red magnets representing blocked to put on the board. We have to speak about every single blocker every stand up and what the team’s path forward is to unblock the thing. If it’s waiting for vendor, then that’s all we can do. If the ball is in our court for any blockers, and its still there tomorrow without a really good reason, there is hell to pay.
Well on the flip side, I somehow ended up doing legacy projects with a dude that has been coding for decades and is still actively developing in VB and asp.net. Weirdly, the guys not dumb - he asked me for an API and I blew his mind with generics and cut the code down by a third. I then introduced him to the concept of (primitive) components, he isn’t quite sold on the importance of code reuse, but every time I delete 1k lines of old code and replace it with a 20 line function my soul grows
When we do code reviews, it’s basically pair programming sharing screen… Usually we just push everything and wait for bug reports, because this crazy ass company has been using a reference book, a calculator, and hundreds of people were manually re-entering things by memory into QuickBooks until January 1st this year. They were thousands of dollars off in the second week… We thought it was a bug. It was all user errors
He’s been working on this system for 15 years, I ran into a table with 126 columns the other day. Somehow, this dude manages to swim through a database with hundreds of tables and just as many triggers with rawdog sql.
It’s fucking wild…I split my time between that and working on my virtual assistant that brainstorms it’s own development with me, and an app that I’m trying to make into a unified fediverse client.
I know what a tight ship looks like and I push for best practices when I think there’s something to gain worth the fight, but the sheer spectrum of software dev is incredible. My legacy guy told me about what’s been taking all his time lately today - he has to build a system to screen scrape from an emulated IBM mainframe… And I spent my morning working on a unified activity pub interface and my evening testing my weird observation that LLMs speaking UwU seem to perform significantly better
My point being, there’s a sweet spot between methodology/process, and it’s very rare to hit it. And also, software dev is playing in realms beyond human comprehension, and no matter how orderly if seems it should be, every senior dev who still writes code is superstitious, and often correct to be so
Notify the people you have to notify for your blockers, then embrace the absurdity
I mean you’ve done your job and even reminded them everyday that they need to do theirs for you to do yours. Take screenshots and if they try to sack you, straight to court
Yeah the idea that somebody has a percentage rating of quality is genuine lunacy. It’s also sociopathic to overlook that being fond of someone despite their flaws or “lower rating”.
This seems to be the whole point. Neg the other person and make them question their own worth. "Oh, no! I'd better keep them happy. Is THAT GUY 10% better than me!?"
If they chew open mouthed and are not amenable to change that is a straight up deal breaker, sorry not sorry, my misophonia doesn't leave room to compromise on that.
I would like to see something that is less focussed on social media and more on building something together like Wikipedia. One thing that comes to mind would be mapping out all political statements along with arguments and evidence to support or falsify them and the relationships between them (e.g. “if you believe x is a big problem in society and you believe y is the perfect form of government then you must believe y solves x”).
A lot of our political discussions seem quite repetitive and go in circles because each argument is presented in a very shallow way. Something to counteract that would be welcome and I think it could work quite well in a federated way since people with different political views would probably want to contribute the supporting and that falsifying sides for each statement.
That would go to shit immediately. The sheer level of moderation that would be required to prevent that from being abused and corrupted would be insane, and then that kind of moderation would in turn invalidate the whole project because the moderation itself would have its own biases.
But it especially wouldn’t work in a federated space. Are you suggesting that people can just open their own instance of that? If there are multiple different instances for this kind of thing, that’s even more abusable.
Part of the reason Wikipedia works is it is centralized, relatively neutral, and you need sources on facts. It’s run by people that adhere to a strict standard, and everyone that contributes is required to adhere to that exact same standard.
What would be the scholarly criteria for the sort of thing that you’re talking about? What is the standard? And how do you enforce that standard in a federated space?
Because if it’s anything like how federation works around Lemmy, there can be no standard. Instances are going to do whatever they like based on the biases of each admin, which undermines the entire concept.
You’re trying to apply objectivity to a very subjective area. I’m not saying it’s impossible, and you should by all means try it, but maybe it would be a good idea to try something that has a better chance, first, such as this:
How about an open platform for scientific review and tracking? Like, whenever a new discovery or advance is announced, that site would cut through the hype, report on peer review, feasibility, flaws in methodology, the ways in which it’s practical and impractical, how close we are to actual usage (state of clinical trials, demonstrated practical applications, etc.)
And it would keep being updated, somewhat like Wikipedia, as more research occurs. It needs a more robust system of review to avoid the problems that Wikipedia has, and I don’t have the solution for that, but I believe there’s got to be a way to do it that’s resistant to manipulation.
Basically a living survey paper. Examine.com does a very good job of this for a very small set of the scientific literature. The problem is that it takes a lot of work to do, few people are qualified to do it, and out of those few, even fewer will have the time to make such contributions.
Tech illiterate guy here. All these Ml models require training data, right? So all these AI companies that develop new ML based chat/video/image apps require data. So where exactly do they? It can’t be that their entire dataset is licensed, isn’t it?
If so, are there any firms that are using these orgs for data theft? How to know if the model has been trained on your data? Sorry if this is not the right place to ask.
You know how you look at a pic on the internet and don’t pay? The AI is basically doing the same thing only it’s collecting the effect of the data points ( like pixels in a picture) more accurately. The input no matter what it is only moves a set of weights. That’s all. It does not copy anything it is trained on.
Yes it can reproduce with some level of accuracy any work just like a painter or musician could replay a piece they see or hear.
Again, this is not theft any more than u hearing a Song or viewing a selfie.
only it’s collecting the effect of the data points ( like pixels in a picture) more accurately
Isn’t that the entire point of creativity. though? What separates an artist from a bad painter is the positioning of pixels on a 2-Dimensional plane? If the model collects the positions of pixels together with the pixel RGB (color? Don’t know the technical term for it), then the model is effectively stealing the “pixel configuration and makeup” of that artist which can be reproduced by the said model anywhere if similar prompts were passed to it?
Also, I’m pretty sure the argument is more about the unequal enforcement of the law. Copyright should be either enforced fairly or not at all. If AI is allowed to scrape content and regurgitate it, piracy should also be legal.
Someone mentioned antifa at work the other day, and I said, “Antifa? I’m in. Shitting on fascists has been an American pass time for a century or better.”
The looks of shock and horror on my coworkers faces was quite the sight to behold.
Well, I can tell you, in Europe Extremist Voters switch without thinking twice between far left and far right.
Methods, Objectives and Goals are the same, just the arguments differ slightly.
Both hate the West, especially the US and Israel, both hate the way we live but without offering a better way. Both want to burn down the house just to see who survives. Only the Arguments differ, the left hate the people running their own society, the right hate the people running other society.
And always remember, Hitler was a National-SOCIALIST.
The “Socialist” in the NSDAP is only a honeypot so they could claim ground and voters who leaned socialist without much thought (“I’m a mill worker like my father before me, we have always voted socialist. Buuut that National-Thing sounds nice”). Same with the “A” which stands for “Arbeiter” (Workers).
There’s the same with the conservative party (CDU = Christdemokratische Union, Christ-Democratic Union) today. Lots of old people say “I’m a christian and that party has a C for ‘Christianity’ in its name.” In fact, their regional party in Bavaria, the CSU is more conservative. And you have three guesses what their “S” is for.
The very real implication is that Anakin is an online conspiracy theorist who generally always arrives at the conclusion that Jewish people control the world.
lemmy.ml
Top