robinnist [he/him]

Navalny a Neo-Nazi? Um it’s all Russian propaganda, and yes the propaganda is true but that’s beside the point!!

The anarchist leader was just a kid who hadn’t grown out of it and gotten a job yet!! Some people just don’t know how the world really works, like those homeless people he saved from being brutalized by cops who sympathize with Anarky more than him (naive!!). Wait hold on I have to put down these “riots” (we see nobody being harmed except corrupt cops, who Batman was already forced to knock out numerous times at this point, but it’s different when he does it, and even after he clearly witnesses the police not only working for crime bosses but abusing innocent poor people he’ll still call them to sort out every issue after he’s done with it) and then do a grand bomb disarming finale (it’s always bombs, but don’t worry as I can put off disarming the bombs for however long I want and nothing will happen) before I can beat up the evil doctor who put innocent cops and security guards in danger to save his wife from the rich dude Batman was too stupid to realize was clearly evil!! This is very different from the first Anarky side mission where I had to disarm bombs because the stupid anarchists weren’t standing right next to them defending them from me as they exploded!!

The exact opposite of this is Arkham Origins

I was doing nothing of the sort

Hi!! There are a few issues with your evaluation of the RAND report; you link the brief here but the same applies for the full report, and wrt the distinction, “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia” is the title of the brief and not of the report (“Extending Russia: Competing From Advantageous Ground”), but obviously that’s not a big deal. Where the real issue starts is when you move from the correct statement that the report “suggests sending arms to Ukraine” to the incorrect statement “and provoking a war.” Both the brief* and the full report** clearly warn that it’s necessary to balance military support between weakening Russia “and provoking a war.” While this supports the aspect of your argument that Russia was forced by the US/NATO to invade Ukraine, it does not support the aspect arguing that this was done purposefully to overextend Russia.

*“But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.”

**“The Ukrainian military already is bleeding Russia in the Donbass region (and vice versa). Providing more U.S. military equipment and advice could lead Russia to increase its direct involvement in the conflict and the price it pays for it. Russia might respond by mounting a new offensive and seizing more Ukrainian territory. While this might increase Russia’s costs, it would also represent a setback for the United States, as well as for Ukraine.”

“Most of these measures—whether in Europe or the Middle East—risk provoking Russian reaction that could impose large military costs on U.S. allies and large political costs on the United States itself. Increasing military advice and arms supplies to Ukraine is the most feasible of these options with the largest impact, but any such initiative would have to be calibrated very carefully to avoid a widely expanded conflict.”

You responded to nothing. Do I honestly have to explain how empty this is?

Russia is doing the same kind of invasion in ukraine as zios in palestine.

Is it? Could you show me how Russian imperialist settler-colonialism factors into Russia’s invasion, or Russian leaders flaunting their targeting of Ukrainian civilians, or how Ukrainian armament against Russia, and so too the inner shift against Russia, is not a product of Western imperialist direction but an inner revolt against some brutal oppression that for some reason leads them into Nazism?

Don’t lump Iran with this tankie BS please. Not honest, not helpful.

What are you talking about? Are you stupid?

You would think they would know that, given that every time the “Houthis” have been mentioned in the Western press, it has been with the prefix “Iranian-backed.” It’s the same as the fact that “Hamas-run” must always precede “Gaza Health Ministry.” But every Western newspaper uses the same exact words and phrases over and over again while neglecting to use them wrt other subjects even when applicable by pure chance! And it is chance to the second power that this all serves the interest of influencing the public to support US imperialism.

I am completely devoid of hope

That may be so, but it also had some pretty egregious fanservice with the inclusion of OT characters even when it made no sense.

200,000 Deadpool & Wolverine slopfests are ready, with a million more well on the way

People are saying she didn’t answer the question I can’t take it anymore.

“Step one is more fully admitting that people are hurting, concerning young voters and all voters, particularly around the economy [and] inflation,” Smith said. “And that we’re doing something about it”

NO YOU’RE NOT AAAAAAHHH

You also keenly ignore the obvious troll movement going on pushing anti dem anti vote propaganda coming from this very lemmy instance.

Whether there’s an anti-vote anti-dem troll movement coming from whatever instance is irrelevant.

So no, I don’t regret asking the commentor to back up their post with any form of policy or factual issue.

You asked the user to back up something they didn’t say because you misunderstood their comment. You didn’t ask for “any form of policy or factual issue” you asked them to give you a specific trump policy that would help fix the issue when they never said a trump policy would help fix the issue. The reason you don’t regret this is because you’re stupid and rephrasing things in such a dishonest way is not something you can do to someone who’s seen the entire conversation; delusion and copium poisoning should be a private affair.

If they simply were venting on the current state then fine but yall all [sic] rushed in on cue to defend an offhand comment.

Only I “defend[ed]” the original comment which is what I guess you’re referring to by the “offhand comment,” and you could similarly say you “rushed in on cue” to criticize an offhand comment, except you did it with your brain turned off. Just genuine nonsense. Disengage and reflect.

Food for thought: the only reason it seems condescending and prickish is because I shouldn’t have to tell you to carefully read a comment before responding to it, and doing so makes it seem like I’m talking to you like a child. But still, you could’ve just reread the comment, recognized that your reply wasn’t connected, and edited your comment to be more connected or just deleted it. The situation would’ve been flipped but instead you lashed out and completely embarrassed yourself. You have nothing to teach me.

I told you to reread the comment until you got it, which you apparently couldn’t do. The original commenter’s position wasn’t that there was a Trump policy that would help fix this issue, and I don’t understand how you could possibly get that message from it; I figured I wouldn’t have to explain it to you, that you could just look over it again and realize that your “reply” didn’t make sense as a reply, but I’ll explain it now: the comment being anti-Kamala does NOT mean it is pro-Trump, and yes, it is anti-Kamala and anti-two party election rhetoric (referencing this because it is US election season and the idea that you can vote Democrat to fix the country even if a Democrat who campaigned on the same notion (relying on dissatisfaction with a Republican president the Democratic Party had practically ushered into office in a failed attempt to get Hillary elected) is already in office has become more and more prevalent—without the prior Trump presidency to react against, Kamala has nothing to blame obvious fixes not being put in place for domestic problems on but the presidency of which she is second-in-command, which she can’t do, and so the specter of Trump must be played up). This is the point.

As for “decid[ing] to go all ad-hominem”, didn’t that start with your response to my comment (which wasn’t a personal attack but just advice that you should reread the comment you were responding to because you had misunderstood it)? I don’t understand how you can read this thread and think it was anyone other than you who began the insults and derailed the conversation, and as far as insults go, only your “hexbear dweeb” nonsense could possibly fit the definition of an ad-hominem. Also the “your lackeys” thing doesn’t make any sense, do the bare minimum of knowing who you’re responding to.

I genuinely don’t know why you didn’t just admit you were in the wrong or ignore the responses, instead defending obviously wrong positions and embarrassing yourself further and further to the point of no return.

Reread the comment until you get it.

Nice try fed

I don’t think he’s personally said anything about trans people but China has been improving wrt trans rights and most of the things reported on as “anti-LGBTQ+ crackdowns” in China have been nonsense.

I don’t think so