420stalin69 [he/him]

  • 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 7th, 2022

help-circle




  • 420stalin69 [he/him]@hexbear.nettoLemmy@lemmy.ml*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Isn’t assessing the issue on the issue tracker “listening to input” though?

    Your options are

    • do it yourself and create a pull request
    • make a suggestion to the devs on the issue tracker, who have every right to reject it
    • start a discussion here if you believe a feature is important enough to have public debate

    That seems like a lot of options for listening to input to me.

    What exactly is missing that you want to see? How could you add what you see is missing?






  • 420stalin69 [he/him]@hexbear.nettoMemes@lemmy.mlThe Nordic Model
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    There is no Nordic model. The Nordics have substantially different economic histories and have developed in different ways at different times. Finland was poor until really very recently, Denmark was and still is a colonial exploiter, Norway got oil rich, Iceland was a haven for bankers and tax cheats, and Sweden only saw a recent blip of social progress from the 40s into the 70s and then destroyed the labor movement that built those gains over the previous 20 years with the impressive equality achieved in that period rapidly eroding back to the 1920s when you look at disparate investment in education and other ways of funneling public benefits to the already wealthy. And don’t forget that Sweden are colonial bastards towards the Sami as well, and still are looting their way through those spoils for resource wealth.

    Anyone who tells you there even is a Nordic model is a fucking idiot.


  • 420stalin69 [he/him]@hexbear.nettoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlWho's winning the war in Ukraine?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    It was a fringe position in the Polish far-right before the election and now that the libs have won it’s even less likely to happen.

    The Polish far-right are a dominant political force.

    And it’s under the relatively lib coalition that relations have reached their lowest point.

    I think if Ukraine comes out of this with borders that roughly resemble the current front lines then they’ll keep Lviv but there’s a real possibility of political collapse in Ukraine, if things get worse and if the currently cooperating power centers turn on each other, and in that collapse scenario it becomes pretty plausible.

    probably still less likely to happen than not but it’s definitely plausible and there are multiple plausible-to-likely pathways where you can see the political situation in Ukraine deteriorating to the point of collapse.

    I don’t think I buy the current Russian narrative that the military camp are about to coup Zelenskyy but he’s definitely under enormous pressure right now, and even if a coup likely isn’t about to happen you can nonetheless see Zelenskyy and the military camp making political defense lines between each other, and the number of high level aides, spouses, and the like opening boxes that accidentally contained a grenade or suffered an unfortunate food poisoning incident is pretty eyebrow raising.










  • Seeing it as your right, having an expectation that it should be a right, isn’t the same as being a legal right though.

    You could have said you disagreed with the court but unless you’re sitting on that court you can disagree all you want and it actually just doesn’t mean anything in terms of changing the reality that it’s not up to you what legal rights are or how the constitution is interpreted because that’s what the Supreme Court is for - and it says so in the constitution.

    A legal right is a constructed and formal concept. A legal right simply does not exist unless the courts say it does even if you strongly feel it should exist. That’s what I’m saying.

    And since 2008 that legal right has existed but before then it simply didn’t.

    And I’m not a liberal man. I’m not even anti-guns.

    I am a progressive and you probably view the terms progressive and liberal as synonyms but they aren’t.

    In fact youre the one who is appealing to an idealism here, and in that sense you’re more of a liberal than I am even if I’m closer to them in the sense or being a progressive. You’re pointing to a right existing in some almost metaphysical sense, ie you’re saying that because people felt it should be a right you’re saying it in some sense existed. Which is liberal idealism.

    Look, we probably aren’t actually very far in terms of what we think sensible gun policy should be since I think if you’re in Montana or whatever then yeah sure a rifle makes a lot of sense and can be a lot of fun and you pointed to the more modern and moderate 2a types which probably places you actually not far from me in terms of what we would agree sensible gun laws could be.

    What I said is that the legal right to own a gun was created in 2008 and that is a straightforward fact. It’s DC vs. Heller. 2008. Look it up if you want to. Going on about how some people really felt it should be a right before then doesn’t change that, and it is also a fact that if you were to ask a mainstream legal scholar in the 80s or early to mid 90s you would have to look into some pretty partisan political camps to find someone who would have advocated the current interpretation that was established recently in 2008.

    But of course since the late 90s and certainly in the late 2000s you can find a lot of them. That’s also a fact.