I can respond to every single comment of yours. It’s just that my time is worth much more than that. Since Russia has basically an infinite amount of propaganda and you won’t stop until you spew all of it.

If you were a user that used logic and reasoning I might be motivated enough to engage in conversation. You are not, however.

Ah I read the “.ml”, but not the username. It doesn’t make sense for me to continue to argue. You’re deep into the Russian propaganda pool.

The US are using its bases in allied countries to attack Iran. It is not named a NATO mission because it isn’t. The NATO alliance does not require it’s members to let the US use the military bases in their countries.

For example, Spain, a member of NATO, did not allow the US to use the military bases located in Spain to attack Iran.

The US has many allies. Some in NATO, and some outside NATO. Even if the US exited NATO, it could still use the bases in allied countries.

It does matter to Iran if it is a NATO mission or not. Because since it is not, it doesn’t have to fight against the entirety of NATO.

The US cannot use military bases it does not own or in foreign territory without permission. If there were “NATO military bases” in Ukraine, It would need the permission of NATO and Ukraine to use such base. NATO would presumably not grant permission to use it for an offensive war, as it is a defensive alliance.

Yeah. A defensive alliance is totally the same as a military that is currently committing a genocide for the purpose of territorial expansion.

And Russia is totally an invented enemy that is not currently in a war with the purpose of territorial expansion.

Oh wait, what is actually similar to the IDF is Russia! Who would have thought?

They can defend themselves the same way as if any other country attacked them.

NATO doesn’t protect you if you start an offensive war. It only protects you if you’ve been attacked first.

There’s no better example than the epstein-US-Iran war. Trump keeps whining that his “NATO allies” are not helping him. Iran right now can attack the US as much as it can, since the US started the war for no fucking reason.

Some individual countries that are part of NATO have helped the US, but that was independently of NATO.

What expansion?

The latest new members of NATO after many years have applied because Russia invaded ukraine, a non-NATO country.

If there weren’t countries invading other ones, no one would need to join NATO, as it is a defensive alliance.

I believe it went over your head. This was a satire comment. It is made by OP. OP doesn’t believe in those words. Sarcasm can be used without writing “/s”.

If you criticism the Chinese government on a .ml instance, you will quickly get banned for “rule 2: xenophobia”.

Go to basically any comment section of a politics-related popular post on a .ml instance. I can almost guarantee that there will be some china/Russia/north Korea brainless take.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t do what you do. You just asked why someone would be against doing an image post when it could be a text post and I answered.

What you are doing cannot be done with text posts because of reason 2 and 3.

It’s a hyperbole. It’s not unethical. But many people don’t like it/hate it.

1. An image is just more expensive than text. Text is usually ~1 byte per character. An uncompressed image is ~3bytes per pixel. Of course, most images are compressed, and compression does a lot of heavy lifting. But still. Also, you don’t need to uncompress plain text. More amount of bytes means more storage expense, more network expense, and worse user experience due to latency.
2. We have plenty of tools that work for text. You can copy-paste it. You can easily edit it with just a keyboard. It is easily configurable via fonts and font sizes.
3. Accessibility: text can be read by screen readers. Images (without alt text) cannot. Maybe there are some fancy screen readers that OCR images, but then it’s the case of point 1.
4. Text is easily indexable. Which means that it’s searchable. If the reddit search tool were any good, it could find the post. Not for images. Alternatively, 3rd party search tools such as google and DDG work.

There’s probably many more points.

You went through my comment history and quoted me, to just not read the whole quote.

Here, I’ll help you:

It’s fine if someone already answered with what you were going to answer. You can just upvote that guy and move on.

As I said, there are already 3 top comments explaining to you why you’re being downvoted. I don’t need to explain myself when I mostly agree with them, I just upvote them.

If everyone had to explain every downvote, we would have hundreds of comments on each post, and most of them would say the same thing.

There are at least 3 comments with well laid arguments (hint, they have way more up votes than the post). You have answered to none of them.

That’s whataboutism.

There are many factors for the housing crisis.

That doesn’t mean that you can only solve one of the factors.

Well. In that case we have to either move on to argue why I believe that a stateless society is bad and you believe it is good. Or just call it here and agree to disagree. Whatever you prefer. Since I don’t think I can change your mind (on the basis of past experience about this topic, not something personal about you) or that you can change mine about that topic.

EDIT:

Or you could provide a different definition for “xenophobia”. But I don’t think I’ll agree to any other definition.

No I wouldn’t. Just like arguing a murder is not illegal grafitti, doesn’t make you pro-murder. Arguing that a specific genocide is not xenophobia does not make me pro-genocide. I absolutely hate what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and I believe that someone should assassinate Netanyahu and all of his pro-genocide people on power of the Israeli government. Or imprison them for life.

But you can miss my point all you want.

This specific technicality is important for your point though.

I’m gonna explain my reasoning so you can choose whatever you want have a conversation about.

Your claim was that putting citizens above non-citizens is xenophobic.

My point is that putting citizens above non-citizens is a natural consequence of a state. And furthermore, that it is a good thing.

Xenophobia is widely regarded to be a bad thing and that we should avoid it.

If both of our statements are true. The natural conclusion is that we should have a stateless society. I don’t think that a stateless society is a good thing. Therefore I’m trying to find a flaw in the argument. I think that the flaw is that you are wrong. So I have to have a conversation with you about why I think you are wrong.

If you are wrong, it must mean one of these statements are wrong:

• Putting citizens above non-citizens is xenophobic.
• Putting citizens above non-citizens is a natural consequence of the state.
• Xenophobia is widely regarded to be a bad thing and we should avoid it.

Since 2/3 statements are made by me, of course I think they are true. So I’m going to argue about why the first one is wrong.

The only way to proof your statement to be wrong is by first defining what xenophobia is. Which you might call a technicality, but I don’t think it’s possible to have a conversation if we don’t first agree what the meaning of the words we use is.

After defining what xenophobia is, we have to figure out if the “equation” is true: “putting citizens above non-citizens” = “xenophobia”.

The results of an action being done for a reason being discriminatory does not make the reason invalid.

Almost any policy is discriminatory.

Taxing the rich more is discriminatory against the rich. Helping women out is discriminatory against the men. Ending segregation is discriminatory against people that don’t want be near people different to them. The list is endless.

I assume you agree with all 3 of those policies. Yet they are discriminatory. Those 3 policies are done because of very valid reasons.

There are very few policies that I’d say are not desceiminatory. Like universal basic income or universal healthcare. And even then, by your definition of discriminatory, those would be discriminatory. Since they would still discriminate against non-citizens.

There is no world where a person born in X country that has never left X country to receive income from a UBI policy of Y country. Unless X and Y countries have some sort of deal where that happens.

Putting citizens over non-citizens is called being a government.

Xenophobia is the irrational fear of foreign. And fear in this context usually shows up in the form of hate.

Putting citizens first does not mean hating the rest. Being a citizen of a country means that your government should represent you and your interests. It’s only natural that it develops into benefits for citizens.

Xenophobia on a person level is when you see a person that you think is not part of your same origin, do you cross the street, or attack him or whatever. Of course this is not even close to being an exhaustive list.

Xenophobia on a country level is when you punish foreigners irrationally. Not letting foreigners into your country because you have a housing crisis is not irrational, it is a valid reason.

I find it hard to find examples of country-level xenophobia. Even if the act itself may seem xenophobic, the government may want to gain popular support of their xenophobic population, which would be a reason and thus non-xenophonic.

Of course, not being xenophobic does not mean it is good. For example Israel genociding Palestinians is horrible. But their reason is that having a neighbor that claims the same land as you do is problematic, and they figured if they just kill everyone the world will forget in 100-200 years (or less) while the land will be theirs for longer than that with no revels, since they genocided them. Of course, having a reason does not mean that it’s not many other bad things (in this case, genocidal, which is worse than xenophobic).

Just ask your ISP for more upload speed (and pay for it). It’s a thing you can do.

Vscode too