naevaTheRat @ naevaTheRat @lemmy.dbzer0.com

I use arch btw

---

Read more

Posts

43

Comments

1,626

Joined

3 yr. ago

Moderating

---

The "normal" range of pooing is wild, fibre accounts for some but it's like up to 6 times a day to once every 2 days.

I am a certified 4-8'er after switching to a vegan diet. The idea of struggling out a 2 dayer like you're wrestling a neutronium anaconda with your pelvic floor horrifies me.

Fibre makes you poo more.. You can't digest it so must pass it.

This seem distinctly power tripping, you wont explain your reasoning as to how the rules cover it. Meanwhile you project intentions onto me I do not have.

I am sorry to have annoyed you, but with the rules as they are I feel like you are behaving unreasonably. If you ammend them to cover submissions of news articles not copying their headlines (and whether there is a difference if the article is posted in the body or not) I will be entirely satisfied with the removal.

I know running coms can be stressful, but it can't be arbitrary.

I am not trying to be antagonistic, why is submitting a news article with an edited headline being a "dick"?

being deliberately antagonistic in attempting to provoke a fight from those with differing opinions to you

this was not my intention, I don't want to trigger a fight, just plainly state how the actions relate to IL and the RBO to highlight the horror.

can you amend the rules to clarify this stance please?

yes I did, no response

Why is it ok for mods to remove posts without reference to rules?

What is the point of rules if they don't bind mods?

If submitting news articles with titles that aren't copies of the source is against the rules then that should be written down and communicated.

I'm not the only person to do this, but my post is removed. why?

You want to be killed in an uprising against people behaving monsterously like you?

Not really, I want people to stop killing

So I shoot an ancient 22 for fun. Cards on the table.

I actually think Australian gun laws are a mix of good and bad but the reaction to this is very kneejerk.

Some stuff like magazine limits is hilarious, it's a metal box and a spring. If you wanna kill people it's trivial to make. The new limits in nsw are a bit low and don't really account for the different risks guns pose, nor do they address the problematic aspect of stockpiling ammo.

Cartridges are hard to make, give me a cartridge and I can turn a nail and pipe into a crude but lethal firearm. A 3d printer and a pretty decent disposable gun. A few months with a computer and a garage and I could make an extremely lethal and durable weapon from scratch.

We currently don't do much to stop people piling up ammo. In nsw at least less scrutiny is applied to the nth gun in a calibre than the first which is arse backwards.

I wish more people knew more about these things so we could have better laws.

Also as a vegan, every carnist that feels disgust at hunting but not farms makes me actually sick. Hunting is way less brutal for a number of reasons, even horrific stuff like hunting pigs is waaaaaay less bad in scale than your nommy bacon farming where they die screaming in gas chambers by the billion.

Why the fuck are those that yolk us always signing deals with racist failing regimes?

Deeply mixed. Pileons online happen for stupid reasons, tone and nuance is hard to convey, purity tests are common, and education is often sidelined in favour of berating.

Otoh lemmy is kinda dogshit and riddled with fucking freaks repeating straight up genocide denial. Opposing state backed mass murder is like a baseline requirement for admission into human civilisation so...

You getting paid by the word count?

I would like evidence supporting

systematic government slop that destroy individuality and make people miserable.

I was under the impression they were centrally planned, modern brutalist buildings that didn't meet all expectations as 2was typical of modernist project of the time (c.f. le corbusier's projects).

Not some darstardly unliveable conspiricy.

Why did they leave so much room for light and green space?

going in the bio

Let's trace your shifting goalposts, since you seem to have the memory of a goldfish:

You initially implied Russia was a proxy for someone, questioning the term "proxy war."

When provided with the basic definition and the clear fact that Ukraine is the primary entity receiving direct external support to fight a war against a larger power, you had no substantive counter.

So now, you abandon the entire factual premise of the discussion and swerve into a moralistic declaration about the invasion being wrong.

You attempted a "gotcha" on terminology, failed, and now pretend the original debate was always about the morality of invasion. No one argued that invading was good.

Your insistence on reducing everything to "Russia bad, therefore Ukraine good" is exactly the liberal masquerade alsaaas called out. You conflate opposing Russian imperialism with endorsing the Ukrainian state or NATO's project. You cannot hold two thoughts at once: that Russia is an imperialist aggressor and that the Ukrainian government is a corrupt, conscripting capitalist regime fighting a proxy war for Western interests that do not align with those of its own or the international proletariat.

That's exactly what I said. Well done, have a gold star for achieving 7 year old reading comprehension.

Actually subtract that star because you're too damn proud to admit you were mistaken, which is approximately 2 year old developmental level.

In political science, a proxy war is an armed conflict where at least one of the belligerents is directed or supported by an external third-party power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war

The russian federation under Putin is persuing Putin's own objectives. Ukrain is being supported by the EU, the usa, and protectorates such as Australia.

I think this is beyond debate? If you feel a need to establish consensus on these basic details then please indicate so. If you were merely mistaken about the definition of a proxy war then please, for clarity, say so.

[citation needed]