since when is war an internal affair?

The show is set in the 90s and IT wasn’t something mainstream back then. The plot is not that they’re too dense to understand, it’s that it is too obscure to care

These were supposed to be young people with very laid back schedules. That’s what the vibe of the show was about. I’m pretty sure there isn’t a shortage of groups of young adults with moderately wealthy parents living in this sort of bohemian setting now and there certainly wasn’t one in the 90s.

But yeah, it isn’t universal and it can come across badly in sine cases

They weren’t their “normal lives”. People were affected by the rule of the nazi party since it very quickly installed a new social order in the country. We shouldn’t think that the move of the country towards violent totalitarianism happened without people noticing.

But just like now, the future wasn’t obvious. If you could have convinced people in 1932 that the nazi party world start WW2, they wouldn’t have voted for it. If you could have convinced them in 1935 that not only will they be anther world war, but their nation would try and almost succeed in exterminating various peoples from their own country, people world have violently rebelled and deposed the nazis, but that wasn’t obvious. It wasn’t obvious even in 1938 - “peace for our time”, eh? So people did grudgingly accepted what was happening while completely misunderstanding the seriousness of the situation.

There is no way around this. It will happen again and again and there is no way to prevent it because this shift from a strong democracy to authoritarianism is so impossible to believe that people will rather go by their preconceptions rather than the evidence in front of them and simply refuse to think something like this can actually happen.

This is why it isn’t reasonable to expect the people to simply take to the streets. We need leadership

that would likely turn on him in a heart beat.

Again, what happens to him personally or to Facebook as a company is irrelevant when it comes to how our lives are affected. The regulation of social platforms is good for society regardless of the efect regulation has on the owners or the companies owning the platforms.

Your argument is built around the wrong desirable outcome.

A minority that probably hates his guts.

How is this relevant to us? The subject here is about the platform’s influence on society, not of Zuckerberg.

ISIS? Hamas? any number of such organizations would happily use some mass murdering weapons if given access to them. Putin has shown that he doesn’t care about what happens to russian citizens if he can win something out of their suffering so empowering terrorist organizations to harm people, even russians, is not a big price to pay to make his point

No. I also checked to see if I refused any cookies too and I didn’t

I haven’t noticed it being small. Any app recommendations?

The type of investors who invest speculatively in the money grab that this move is aren’t the types that invest into heartfelt projects which may or may not bring any money. There’s a reason why the fellowship had a budget of $94 million and an unexpected journey had between $200 and $315 million depending on source.

There isn’t a fixed budget somewhere that all these projects are competing for. Whomever is financing this movie is not going to finance whatever projects you’re talking about. However, it might just be that if this is a success and brings a profit and visibility, those other smaller projects will get more funds thrown their way.

so what? It will either be terrible or interesting. Either way, we, personally, have nothing to lose from this being made and a lot to win if it’s not terrible.

i don’t think the nukes are where the drills take place, that would be quite stupid

As somebody else who lived through part of it, closer to the side that was on the “losing side of history”, I think that it’s much more difficult to get someone to push the required buttons without the state indoctrination apparatus as it was in USSR. Everybody hesitated back then, I think it’s highly unlikely they won’t now.

That’s an empty threat. Maybe it wasn’t empty when there was some ideology backing the threat like in the 60s, but there’s no way that the Russian oligarchy would accept such an outcome given the luxury they hope to live in.

The discussions about sending military instructors or contractors to Ukraine to train troops and assist with equipment repairs have raised concerns among NATO allies about being drawn into a conflict with Russia

Isn’t NATO already in a de facto conflict with Russia? Almost all countries in the alliance have placed sanctions on it and are openly hostile towards Putin’s regime except maybe Turkey. Also, Russia has been unable to push forward the front line in the past year or so, is NATO really worried that they have the capability to open another front line?

let me put it this way: if you have money, time can be whatever you want it to be

the bible also contains accounts of god helping his people conquer land and uproot the residing population from it. I wouldn’t use it as a moral reference.

In fact, let’s be honest: there is no point in quoting any religious text, regardless of religion, when discussing morality. These texts are horribly dated and should be considered as historically interesting, but nothing more.

What data though? This article doesn’t contain data - that’s my issue. You’re right, it’s not asking fishermen if they think we should eat fish. It’s asking nutritionists if they like fish.

No. I’m saying that “77% of Top …etc” is a stupid way of conveying the importance of the information.