This has literally nothing to do with the settlers, have you ever even looked at a map of Israel and Palestine? There are no Israeli settlements in Gaza.

Indiscriminately murdering civilians is not "fighting back." Can you maybe stop being antisemitic for long enough to realize what you're arguing right now? You're claiming that murdering hundreds of civilians on camera in the streets for no reason at all is somehow justified.

There is literally not a SINGLE incident that I have ever heard of of Israelis dragging a family out of their home, slitting their throats ON CAMERA in the street including the children, then parading the bodies around while a literal crowd of hundreds of people cheer the murders.

That simply hasn't happened. Comparing soldiers shooting people, justified or not, to this is not just disingenuous but deliberately, flagrantly stupid.

OR it's antisemitic, and I'm leaning toward antisemitism here TBH.

This is WELL beyond anything that Israel has done in the last few decades. Civilians killed during military actions in Gaza are not even remotely similar to this. This was a full on pogrom.

Cool so I respond to an antisemite saying that Israel refusing to supply power to a state that just declared war on it is punitive, and your response was to say it's Israel's fault.

Dear God lemmy today is really showing it's colors

Hamas mutilated a woman's corpse then paraded it through the streets this morning. I've never even heard of Israel doing something remotely close.

Bust sure keep doing antisemitic whataboutism.

Punitive reprisals to... The open declaration of war Hamas made today?

Who in their right mind expects a country to supply power to the country that literally just attacked them?

No this is what happens when terrorists overwhelm a border crossing and stsrt indiscriminately murdering civilians, then carry their mutilated bodies around as literal flags as they celebrate the murder in the street

The thing is that according to liberal ideas, the economy IS doing great.

Anyone to the left of Joe Biden recognizes that it isn't, but liberals are the majority of the democratic party. To them the "traditional" economic markers are the most important things to track, and those numbers all look good.

"Liberal" economic ideas have nothing to do with the living conditions of the average person, they have everything to do with the capitalist class being happy and "opportunity" being available to the working class. That's why the economy in the 1910s could be described as healthy even though people were literally forced to live in tenement houses and were being locked into factories. That's also why many liberal economists say that it's possible for unemployment to get too low, because apparently that's considered bad.

The question Joe Biden is answering when he says the economy is doing well is "are the capitalists happy and continuing to expand capitalism to extract as much wealth as possible from the working class," and right now that answer is clearly yes.

Redacted is a private tracker, I've seen a bunch of SACD stuff there. You can interview to get in, they have a website to prep for the interview.

Could be worse

She could add corn to it

Oh wow boo hoo, they have so much risk 😔 they have an entire house that they can sell at any time, who someone else is paying the mortgage of. Oh, the horror! If the market should crash they'll lose the equity another person paid!

Really the landlords are the victims here, not the tenants paying their mortgage for them plus a little extra for profits. Clearly the tenants have committed the crime of not having good enough credit for a loan, or the crime of not having enough for a down payment, so they aren't worthy of owning property.

No no it's the landlord who has the real problems, because they could ein a shaky financial situation of "selling the second house iown" if the market dips!

In my experience (I'm a few years out of date with how the app works now, keep that in mind) it's like 90% looks. You CAN build up a profile, but IIRC only the first sentence of it shows up on your picture. A person has to see your picture and that tagline, be curious enough to actually go to your profile before swiping, then read your profile if they're going to use it to judge you on.

Most of the people I know who used tinder, myself included, didn't really do that much. We just swiped based on looks, and if someone was borderline then we looked at the profile to make a decision. But that was pretty rare, most people it was a pretty clear yes/no based on looks.

The apps is designed to encourage that behavior. When I used it profiles were REALLY not being encouraged, IDK if that has changed (I would guess it hasn't).

I agree, but that just makes this even scummier on Tinder's part. The people who own and make the app know that, they're doing this anyway. So they're targeting people who are already desperate and lonely, and giving them what they will inevitably see as a "lifeline" which actually may make their chances worse.

No, you just heavily implied it. If you didn't mean to then you need to edit you comment. And I laid out how I clearly disagree with the idea that this is "aimed at creeps," because it's aimed at people who have been made desperate by the predatory nature of Tinder's algorithm. Desperation doesn't necessarily make someone creepy, but it does make Tinder a lot of money.

Also, why are you making it seem like someone sending a message to someone else on a dating app is somehow a kind of, like, assault? You're using very aggressive language to describe normal behavior by people trying to date, AKA talking to other people who they may be interested in

Why are you assuming that men who can't get matched are automatically creeps? That's not at all a good assumption, and is a BIG part of the problem with tinder.

Back before I met my now fiancee, I never got tinder matches. I only got matches on OKCupid, back when you were allowed to message people before matching with them. That's how I met my now fiancee, too.

Tinder is incredibly toxic by design and is designed to damage people's mental health. They've taken dating, something that requires a lot of human interaction, and reduced it to a literal slot machine which tinder can rig however they want. They've reduced finding a partner to "does this person look attractive to you?" which is NOT how dating works IRL. I know a lot of people who met their partners IRL and were not attracted to them until they started getting to know each other as friends, then fell for each other.

Tinder not only exploits the problematic beauty standards in our society, but actively makes them worse. If you're not getting matches you feel unattractive, because every piece of feedback the app gives you says you are. It doesn't matter how charismatic or interesting you are, it doesn't matter how much you and a potential match may have in common, all that matters is the pictures you put up, and maybe the first sentence or two of your bio.

The whole system is designed to make people using it feel desperate, men and women both, and this $500 to message first thing is incredibly scummy. They suck you in, kill your self confidence, depress you, then offer you what seems like a lifeline.

This is like a casino offering you a slot machine with a 50% higher win rate for a monthly subscription.

This thread is full of people laughing at people who would pay for this, but I actually kinda empathize.

I got REALLY lucky and met my now fiancee on a dating app. It took about 2 years of trying to meet her, and in that time ithink I had maybe 5-7 dates. ALL of those were on OKCupid, back when it let you message people without matching. I am not the most good looking person, but I could get a good first impression through a message.

Tinder though? It killed my self confidence when I used it. I never got a single date from tinder. It is designed tonot get you dates, unless you're SUPER attractive, especially if you're a man. A lot of it is that there are so many more men on dating apps than women, I know that objectively. But it SUCKS when you're actively looking for a partner and swiping every single day to either never get matches or get matches who are bots.

For a lot of guys like me being able to get a good first message in feels like the only chance, and if you're seriously looking and starting to feel desperate (and these apps are designed to make you feel desperate) then dropping $500 for a month of being able to get a shot may not actually seem crazy.

These apps have designed a "dating economy" around themselves that tells people that they are not attractive or a desirable partner if they aren't getting matches, then deliberately tailored their algorithms to manipulate people into coming back every day for a chance to meet someone. It's slot machines, but with romantic relationships, and it convinces people that dating is like gambling. And these apps want you to feel like they are the only way to date, and if you're not "winning" and getting dates they make it clear that it's YOUR fault, and if you drop a little money you'll get some matches.

Yes, some creeps will pay for this to send dick pics, but I think most people who will pay forthis are actually desperate and convinced that it's their only chance at getting a date. It's disgusting these apps are allowed to do what they have done. And I say all of that as someone who won the damn slot machine jackpot and came out with a long term partner.

I personally think these apps are doing some serious harm to our society and need to be regulated but that's a different discussion

I hate the crypto market so much, but ESPECIALLY nfts.

Nfts were blatantly a scam. It 2as a very in your face scam, it was giving money to someone else for literally nothing. It was obvious time from day 1 that it was just an avenue for rich people to launder money and have it look legit.

But the media fell for the new trend hook, line, and sinker. Instead of telling people it was a scam from day 1, which it *obviously was," the major news networks (at least here in the US) talked about nfts as if it was a legit new type of cool investment. They stopped short of telling people to buy them so that they couldn't get sued, but they hyped the fuck out of NFTs. CONSTANTLY. Any time I listened to any cable news for more than 30 minutes around mid 2021, I heard NFTs get mentioned at least once, and very rarely was that mention skeptical or a warning.

And now all the people who bought into the hype are left holding the bag, as always, a d the rich people who scammed them get to keep all the money, as always, and the media is facing no repercussions for their contribution to the scam, as always. It's so frustrating to watch

I disagree that this is unambiguous, I was also confused reading this headline. It's odd wording. It may be technically correct but that doesn't mean it's unambiguous.

You actually believe that? The people who claim that people like Werner von Braun didn't commit any crimes are the CIA and Braun himself. All of the records from Germany were destroyed. It's essentially just taking his word on it to believe he was only involved because "he had to be."

He was literally a member of the SS, the wing of the nazi government that was directly responsible for the Holocaust. He was photographed repeatedly with himmler himself, in uniform. He claimed that those were just ceremonial photos that he had to participate in the keep his career. He also claimed not to agree with the Nazis politically.

Why would you believe anything that a member of the SS said? Especially one as important to the Nazis as von Braun was.

Of fucking course he was never found guilty of any war crimes, the US was actively trying to recruit him. They didn't want to prosecute their newest asset, a man who directly led to the US becoming the globally dominant force it became during the space race. He was useful so the US government deliberately didn't investigate him seriously, took him at his word that he totally wasn't a real nazi, and then used him to invent more rockets for them.

Because Google has gotten the law steuctured such that THEY aren't liable for false advertisements they host and serve.

If I posted an ad that was blatantly false on Google, legally I'm the one liable, not Google.

It's ass backwards, Google should be on the hook for this and should have to curate advertisements. Especially when so any of them are not just fake but are openly malicious

OK this article is infuriating, as is the product it's hyping up.

If 2.5% of our emissions is going toward feeding 4 billion people then I'm totally fine with letting those emissions continue. This isn't a thing we need to "solve," this reeks of a capitalist looking at graphs of our emissions and going "we could cut emissions by 1% here and not have to actually change our habits at all!" This isn't the problem causing climate change.

The energy sector accounts for over 70% of our emissions. Instead of trying to stop emitting less than 1% by pouring money into genetically manipulating plants to need less fertilizer, why don't we instead cut 30% or more by replacing coal plants with solar, wind, and nuclear power?