Well, first, you didn't ask a question. You made statements that seemed divorced from the geopolitical and military reality of the EU, so I offered some clarity. And no one thinks Trump will arm Russia? I think perhaps you forget how fond of Putin he and much of the party taking power in the US is.

No one said the EU will need to buy American arms. What I said is, if Trump decides to stop arming Ukraine and demands they end the war, and the EU decides to compensate Ukraine for what is no longer being provided by the United States, it's quite possible Trump will withdraw the US from NATO. He's already looking for an excuse.

If you think you can build a military coalition with 70% of the spend suddenly stopping, by all means. What is more likely, as I said, is the withdrawal of the US from NATO would dramatically hamper its effective strength as a deterrent in the region. You would then need to rely on individual member states to attempt to deter or defend from Russian aggression.

The US is a unified, centralized military with a clear and consolidated command structure across all of its branches with a military spending allocation 4x greater than the entire EU combined. The EU is a somewhat collaborative collection of nations with widely variant defense policies. Because of that, the EU channels the majority of its defense strategy through NATO, within which the US plays an irrefutably dominant role.

The idea that the EU could unilaterally "roll over" Russia if the US leaves NATO is unlikely, and extremely unlikely if it causes the US to start providing military support to Russia. That goes to my final point, which is, if you think you're right, go ahead and try and let's see how it goes. Fortunately, the leaders of the member countries in NATO are generally not as ignorant as you are, so the likely outcome here is if Trump stops helping Ukraine and tells them to end the war, then Ukraine will end up ceding territory and the war will "end."

To be clear, none of these are things that I think are good. You may not like it, and I certainly don't, but the idea that the EU will just "go it alone" flies in the face of the political and military reality of the United States and the EU. If you give Trump an excuse to exit NATO, he absolutely will, and the EU will then have serious challenges ahead. The economic impact of attempting to replace even half of the military power that will disappear if the US withdraws would dramatically reshape the EU economy. And not for the better. And that's not even going into what China would do with the EU if this kind of political and military realignment occurred.

Rhetorical impact.

The problem isn't simply the US not sending arms to Ukraine and the the EU compensating for it. Do you really want to get into a military technology pissing match with the United States? Because the problem you have is if the Trump begins sending arms to Russia in response to the EU "prolonging the war" by making up for the US no longer arming Ukraine, you're going to realize just how weak the NATO military alliance actually is.

Oh, but what about the US's NATO obligations, you might say. Well, Trump has long wanted to leave NATO. Trump's team has already pointed out that there is executive authority over foreign policy, and they will argue Trump therefore has the authority to unilaterally withdraw from NATO. And it's quite possible he will, especially if NATO countries align to defy his attempt to end the war by increasing the arms they send to Ukraine.

It's important to note that without the United States, NATO's collective defense capability would be crippled. The U.S. accounts for 68% of total NATO defense spending, providing the backbone of the alliance's military power, advanced technology, and rapid response capabilities. This dominance means that European allies, even collectively, cannot match the U.S. in terms of strategic lift, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, or modern weapons systems, all of which are critical to NATO operations.

U.S. withdrawal would leave a power vacuum that Europe is neither financially nor militarily equipped to fill, effectively gutting NATO's ability to deter or respond to threats. Without the U.S., NATO as a credible military alliance would collapse under its own weight, leaving its members exposed and vulnerable to external aggressors. If the EU is worried about Russia continuing to expand its territory through force, the best way to make that happen would be to piss off the United States. Trump wouldn't even need to do anything except leave. If he's also arming Russia, say good night.

The EU is in no position to dictate terms or defy the will of the US in terms of military priorities. If you want to do that, than you need all member countries to dramatically reorganize their federal budgets to significantly amplify military spending. Very few if any EU countries a) have the political will to do this b) have the economy to afford this, and c) have the means to actually accomplish this. If Trump says the war is over, there is very little the EU can realistically do about it without making their situation dramatically worse.

Sad to say, this is truly a geo-political "fuck around and find out" situation for the EU.

"Lemming discovers accelerationism, thinks it's a crazy idea he invented."

Yeah, that's exactly what you said. He also said raw milk is dangerous to humans because pasteurized milk is safer for humans (??). I think he's drunk or just very dumb. Either way, just ignore him.

What a crazy story lol. I've never heard of that story until now.

RFK is secretly a flu virus wearing a human suit.

Privileged college kids larping as radicals that will only protest in safe spaces and only protest against people that agree with them and/or aren't a threat to them. It's kind of like whatever the opposite of "fighting the power" is. I'm convinced that's why there's so much infighting on the college left: they'd rather hyperventilate about a minor transgression that fails the immaculate morality purity test for someone that 99% agrees with them in all other respects than actually take their politics to people who have real and serious disagreements with them.

Hint: they're usually only a few blocks from college campus. You know, the area you and your friends never go? Where the poor people live? That you supposedly care about?

Not all are like this, obviously, but I regularly interact with "campus activists" in organizing circles, and it's largely an exercise in self-obsessive circle jerking in my experience. It's incredibly difficult to convince them to do something that might actually take them out of their comfort zone. They'd rather yell at each other, yell at other privileged, harmless college students that disagree with them, or protest college administrators. As though college administrations are some great fascist force.

They're one level above high school principals, Olivia. Relax.

They count on the weak regulatory powers of nations to "force them" to blunt the worst effects of their industries. Unfettered, the negative effects of their business practices are likely to hasten a reckoning with the very visible and spectacular damage they would cause. Due to stakeholder obligations, corporations are more or less required to take advantage of the profits that can be made by mass deregulation, but they're also aware it might abruptly cause unrecoverable damage to their business.

Basically, they need governments to regulate them just enough that they aren't deeply and profoundly hated for what they do, can appear to be "responsible" corporate citizens, and can continue to make profits in the near- and long-term, but not so much that it actually meaningfully affects their bottom line. Arguably government regulations, which they basically write themselves through lobbying and other forms of political persuasion, are a critical part of their business model and PR strategy.

It's sort of like if someone regularly rides in the passenger seat (C-suite) of a super nice car (corporation) with an unstable, angry, and dangerous driver (profit-motive responsibility to stakeholders). The passenger likes that they get where they're going faster than everyone else, they ride in a dope car, they have a very comfortable commute, and they like how everyone is jealous of the car when they pass them.

That being said, the passenger doesn't want to die and doesn't want the car destroyed. But, since the driver is insane, it's easier to just always agree with the driver that "speed limits are stupid," "air bags are for pussies," "crumple zones are a Chinese conspiracy," and so on. They don't have to worry about it because the laws governing driving, the regulations governing car design, etc. keep them relatively safe. Sure, the driver pushes the limits and occasionally gets pulled over, but, ultimately, they wear their seatbelts, have airbags, crumple zones, and all the other standard, government regulated safety features of a modern, high-end car.

Then a new president comes in saying all the same things the driver has been saying and says they're going to remove all those "dumb" things like traffic laws, manufacturing guidelines/regulations, and safety features. Suddenly the passenger feels obligated to start trying to either disagree with, and hopefully stop, the president making those changes, or they'll have to disagree, and hopefully stop, the driver taking advantage of them being repealed, or they'll have to do nothing and have a profoundly more dangerous commute with a high chance of death.

Interestingly, research shows a surprising trend related to this topic: young adults today, on the whole, are engaging in less sexual activity than any generation for which we have data. Yet, this shift isn't equally distributed across genders—where young men (ages 18-25) once reported slightly higher rates of sexual activity than young women, the pattern has reversed. Now, young women report engaging in sex more frequently than their male counterparts, with the gender gap widening now to a degree that significantly favors women in this area.

The reasons for this shift are still under debate. Economic pressures, the influence of digital media, and evolving social norms are all posited as contributing factors. But the data does suggest (this is based on CDC and JAMA studies) that a smaller subset of men are experiencing a larger share of sexual activity, aligning with certain internet memes and narratives about “Chads” dominating the dating scene. Whether these cultural constructs, such as the "MRA" or "Chad" phenomenon, are reflective of or reactive to this social shift remains unclear. Nonetheless, they generally resonate with the timeline of the observed trends around sexual activity. I'll be curious to see how the trends indirectly the future of dating and sexual relationships among young adults.

But, all that aside, if more women choose to opt out of traditional dating or sexual encounters with men, more power to women. Coincidentally, it could begin to narrow or at least slow the widening gender gap in this area. I am unsure if that would be good, bad, or neutral. In general, a healthy sex life seems to be an important dimension of the human experience. I would imagine the fact that the overall trends are going down is probably a negative for the psychology of a generation, but I guess we'll see.

This age cohort also drinks less, has more eating disorders, smokes/vapes less, is more sleep deprived, parties less, is more risk-averse, has shorter attention spans, experiments with drugs less, is more (prescription) medicated, is more depressed, is more socially isolated, and is more anxious than previous generations at the same ages. Looking at research on Gen Z is pretty crazy. And it can be depressing sometimes, but it's a particularly unique age cohort. Scholars widely acknowledge Gen Z as being markedly different than previous youth generations.

I'm simply responding to the article and the OP. I've already noted I'm largely ignorant on the topic/school. The article notes the discrimination is largely against the Scottish and the working-class -- two separate categories they can but needn't overlap -- and OP's comment mentioned it's largely a problem of the English at Edinburgh.

My second comment was actually intended as a light-hearted joke in the vein of "always blame the English!" but I can see it really offended your sensibilities. Here's hoping you recover soon!

Nah, not really. I would encourage the university to make some generalizations about class background and nationality and become more prejudiced against the wealthy and the English and create a mandate to serve more of their underprivileged countrymen and women.

I would never vote for the Green Party after watching two decades of their utter disregard for political calculus while being both supercilious and patronizing about it. If the party's behavior wasn't enough, their supporters are utterly obnoxious, self-congratulatory egotists.

I fully intend to support nearly any candidate running against a green party candidate at the local and regional level, and will happily make political donations to any organization running ads and/or mobilizing on-the-ground efforts against the green party. The green party has been one long abysmal failure after Nader/LaDuke.

They certainly don't need my help to die, but I'll help dig the grave anyway.

Remember how it took merrick garland two full years and an independently organized governmental January 6th committee forcing his hand before he pursued criminal charges against Trump? How investigations by the NYT and WaPo showed that, over a year onto Biden's presidency, Garland had ordered no investigations into Trump at all? Yeah.

That dude is singularly responsible for one of the biggest law enforcement failures in the history of the United States and an extreme dereliction of duty. What a coward. Like most cowards, he hoped if he did nothing and stayed quiet no one would notice him. Unfortunately, now anti-Trump people hate him for his failure to meaningfully prosecute and pro-Trump people hate him for attempting to prosecute in the first place.

This dude is the squirrel that runs across the street, then gets scared and tries to run back, then gets scared and tries to run across again, then gets scared and tries to run back... and then gets run over by the car.

Most people on Lemmy think online clout is a political cause.

This goes to my theory that if you dig deep enough into any problem in the world, there's an English twat at the bottom of it.

I'll admit I'm an idiot, but isn't Edinburgh University like... the Scottish university and located in Scotland?? But it discriminates against Scots..? I'm so confused.

Buttigieg/AOC 2028. Never forget that despite looking like a choir boy, Mayor Pete is a bulldog. Love watching him regularly demolish frothing Republicans. AOC is great at/for a lot of things, but at the top of the ticket, she's got too many cheap, easy character weaknesses. Too young. Her voice. Her big-time speeches, like at the DNC, show she's an unpolished orator. No executive experience.

Other than her voice (I like it, but many people find it annoying), all of those flaws would go away if she serves as VP for 4-8 years.

If Newsom is the democrat's candidate, I will vote third party. Fuck that guy.

Roughly 70% of factors that have contributed to climate change can't be mitigated in less than 300-500+ years. And all major metrics indicate we are doing worse at mitigating the damage on that last 30% each year. 2023 was a record year for greenhouse gas emissions. 2024 is shaping up to be similar if not worse.

Yeah, usually that really thick, bleach-white chowder is frowned at. Really traditional chowder only uses the starch from the potatoes and cream to thicken it, and it's more soup-like than the kind that's basically the consistency of soft-serve ice cream. Really traditional chowder would someotimes used crushed ship biscuits (hard tack) as a thickener, which is why some people use flour/roux these days. Hard tack is basically the progenitor of modern crackers, including the often served oyster crackers. I like a crusty sourdough myself. Better for the mop up work!

Rhode Island, a suburb of Boston (😁) has an interesting chowder that has a clear broth that is pretty good too. It's basically identical minus the heavy cream. Great for people that don't get along with lactose.

Also, pro tip, if you don't have fresh clams, get a bottle of clam juice to add to taste. Usually you steam the clams open and then take out the meat and chop them up for the chowder, and you use the steaming juice leftover to add more clam flavor, as desired. Bottle of clam juice does the same basic thing (without needing to strain out the grit).

Usually the best chowders aren't brilliant white. They're a little darker like yours and almost look a little "dirty," for lack of a better word. If someone served me a bowl of what you made, I would expect it probably will taste great just from the eye test.