deleted by creator

Like she left the party because her abuser did.

what

Danes vs. Germans: “you took everything from me” vs. “I don’t even know who you are”.

The “HTS” regime is now attacking the “SDF” … also claims that the PKK

I wonder where that Amerikkkan support for their “ally” is now? Never forget that “it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal”.

former Syrian Arab Army troops

Extremely ironic if true.

and the Platner ones

I don’t remember much of a struggle session over Platner, but if you told me there was one I would believe you and assume I purged it from my mind in a sort of psychological immune reaction, lol.

Yeah, I wasn’t meaning for it to be vagueposting, but I absolutely wasn’t clear enough for what I was talking about, I was trying to complain about wrecker accounts turning discussions into slap fights, not about people on one side or the other on Mamdani (or even the idea that people need to “pick a side” rather than being willing to change their mind as new information becomes available).

That makes sense, thanks for explaining!

these accounts made the site very unpleasant for a while because whenever they were around everything had to turn into an argument, even when people agreed with them, it often wasn’t enough and they would still start fights.

God, that sounds really exhausting.

I was probably more annoyed by them than most people here I think, and didn’t realise that people literally don’t remember what I’m talking about at all.

I also mostly took a break from the site for a while that might have overlapped with these accounts being active, so that might be why I don’t remember them. I often find that it’s easier than people think to miss some struggle-sessions here, though. Things fall off the front page fairly quickly because of the adjusted algorithm the site uses (the normal Lemmy algorithm can keep them there for days), I’ll mention something to another user here and they’ll reply “what?” because they didn’t see the thread I was talking about.

I’m just glad my poorly worded comment didn’t end up starting another pointless fight.

Sorry if I came off kind of aggressively in my replies. I always feel like the Mamdani argument is about to restart and it has me on edge every time the subject is mentioned.

I think your original comment was vague, TBH. I don’t personally remember those accounts, it’s likely I missed them (I missed the first few months of Mamdani debates), but reading your comment it seemed to imply they were the only detractors of Mamdani on here at the time (which I know wasn’t the case, and if I understand your clarification correctly you agree). There have been so many arguments about Mamdani already, we don’t need to continue these into meta-arguments.

Edit: thanks for editing your original comment, that’s a bit clearer now and with the additional context of your reply.

Mirror Universe Cowbee.

@Cowbee@hexbear.net

Can someone tell me why the streamer Pokimane gets so much hate?

Unfortunately, I think it’s…

Anything she posts

We are never escaping Mamdani-struggle-session-samsara. Every time it dies, it will soon start again with another layer of meta. Soon we will be discussing who said what about who said what about Zohran.

It feels kind of weird that you’re implying people you disagreed with about Mamdani were wreckers. They might have said things in ways you didn’t like, but I don’t think that made them wreckers.

Not that I think anyone here is surprised the socdem is in fact acting like a socdem

Many people (not just here) definitely believed he was a socialist. He’s not, and that’s very obvious now, but it was definitely the subject of debate before.

Have you ever seen them together in the same room?

from emphatically saying killing clergy is an objective to going “violence will be necessary in some cases to politically marginalize them” like the least convincing attempt at a motte-and-bailey that I’ve ever seen

Thank you for pointing this out. I had the strange feeling of arguing with a shifting target when I was writing some of my replies in this thread. When I read it all again to double-check, I realized that that was what was going on, but it’s nice to see someone else point it out explicitly.

I mean, besides that Mossad is the Top and CIA is the bottom?

If anything, this is probably backward, though I don’t think “top and bottom” is a particularly good analogy either way.

CIA has atrophied alot since the end of the cold war where as Mossad is still in top shape and has a much higher focus on undercover human assets.

This I think is probably true, though.

There are always events which trigger this.

It actually does kind of look like a 4-panel comic of a dog being sprayed with water and blown dry.

Live Cowbee reactions.

Top left: you just told him communism is red fascism.

Top right: POG, he likes your comment/post.

Bottom left: he is chilling (this makes the fedichuds mad).

Bottom right: you told him “Israel” has a right to exist.

Copying (with some edits to clarify) my edit above replying to your edit above.

You are eager to learn from the mistakes of maybe being a little too eager to pursue secularisation, but the greater mistake here tends more towards not being more anti religious.

We’re not discussing in a vacuum here, we’re talking about someone asserting that protesters should wait until after the revolution to burn down mosques because doing so before would alienate supporters. I disagreed with that (to be clear, because I don’t think revolutionaries should lie to people to get their support and then burn down their places of worship) and your response was that there should always be a plan to kill the clergy. These assertions are not compatible with building popular movements in parts of the world where most people are religious.

excessive anti-religiousness.

No such thing.

If you won’t consider the idea that it’s ever possible for an organization to be too anti-religious for a popular movement when there are many places in the world where the large majority of people are deeply religious, I don’t think this discussion is going anywhere and I’m going to respectfully agree to disagree with you.

Edit: you removed the portion of your comment I actually replied to, and added the last line.

You are eager to learn from the mistakes of maybe being a little too eager to pursue secularisation, but the greater mistake here tends more towards not being more anti religious.

We’re not discussing in a vacuum here, we’re talking about someone asserting that protesters should wait until after the revolution to burn down mosques. Your response to this was that there should always be a plan to kill clergy. These assertions are not compatible with building popular movements in parts of the world where most people are religious.