He talks like a nazi, walks like a nazi and does sieg heil like a nazi. Yet you say that the verdict is still out on him being a nazi. Being this ignorant is usually willful and your reservations about being truthful about him does not portray you well. “Weird affection” was the nicest interpretation I could think of.

Never said you did. However, we are indeed using that shithead to bisect your weird affection for X and the comparable shithead Elon Musk.

Per your other comment

First of all it remains to be seen whether Elon Musk is a Nazi.

I see where the cognitive dissonance kicks in. You do not want to be mistaken for a nazi sympathizer, but refuse to distance yourself from them on some basis of believed plausible deniability. Is it perhaps because you are indeed sympathetic to some of their fascist talking points?

Out of curiosity, if Kanye West opens a book club for reading Mein Kampf, would you join it to keep up to date with unfiltered political analysis by a piece of shit? If the answer is no, maybe you should reconsider your stance on X.

They did not merely passively “assist”. They established factories in close proximity to the death camps so that they could profit off of the slave labour deemed too fit for immediate extermination.

Yikes.

If you say so, daddy 🤠

Individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence are horrible, but not nearly the same as sexual violence employed on scale through genocidal concentration camps, which is claimed by US propaganda machines. Individual incidents of sexual violence unfortunately happen everywhere, and pretending otherwise is wilful ignorance of an endemic problem for the purpose of, what I have to assume is, an underlying agenda. Stop moving the goal post and stop using reductive argumentation to score cheap shots at China. If China really is as bad as claimed, which I am not categorically refuting, then make the proper case for it.

No, but I am not the one making statements. I only asked for sources that supported those made by others.

Yes. Though serious human rights violations are not the same as genocide and concentrations camps, as both the above poster and Victims of Communism Foundation wants us to believe.

That means in no way that those violations are acceptable.

Truthfully, if anyone can give an independent first hand report about the treatment of Uyghurs in China (that is not coming from propaganda vehicles like the Victims of Communism Foundation), I would be most interested.

No, I am not saying this in rebuttal to anything.

We need to ban spoons because they are nazi pedophiles’ preferred tool for eating soup.

I thought it was Morgoth, a valar and not an elf, who made them. In any case it twists the causal relationship because the goblins subsequently make their own pitiful conditions. I do not condone the terminology even if solely on the basis of how reductionist it is. Since a government is, in its pure form, only a body of people, you can translate trust between people and trust between a government if it is sufficiently representative.

Okay, so I never wanted to say that this was unique to Scandinavia. The important part was how we have a a lot of trust based systems (which of course probably exists elsewhere too, but not everywhere) that are really formative for how we make policy and implement it.

This trust should translate to trust to other people, but this has been eroded away for some time because the social contract is being violated.

Most importantly with respect to elf/goblin part: I found that distasteful and resent the implication that I said anything to that degree. I do not think people are fundamentally different, only that the conditions (material basis and social superstructures) that they find themselves in allow for and promotes certain kinds of actions and ways of being.

Could be I am being dense, but I do not understand what you are saying at all.

As a case study, we did this in 1988 with a smoking law that was incrementally improved with great success. It was controversial at the time, but is now generally regarded as such an obvious policy: no smoking in or around public transport, in bars and restaurants etc…

For all those that think this is the government overstepping with an unenforceable law, you are not grasping the intent correctly. Declaring that we have democratically decided to have an age limit for social media means that we have laid the groundwork for collective action. This means that suddenly schools, parents, teenagers themselves, etc. all have a reason and a mandate for keeping young people off platforms that we believe to be detrimental to their development and well-being. True democratic culture lies not in bourgeoisie domination (as many Americans like to believe), but rather in mutual trust and cooperation in order to solve common and big problems.

Probably networks where users post personal data in conjunction with chat features. Obviously, Wikipedia is not social media in this regard and neither is a mailing list.

Now I want to try too: The ultimate form of democracy is when people are voting with their wallets. Then they can have the freedom to express both what they want and how much they want it. That is why profitable = good and freedom, actually.

Much of the basis for the RSA cryptosystem, and by extension much of modern computing, was done by some mathematician who prided himself that his work was not applied mathematics and could not ever be applied in any way (bonus point for being pertinent to the topic of large primes). Science is exploratory work, not a straight path to some predefined goal. The person above is evidently clueless as to how science is conducted.