I took that as being part of the point.

I want to focus on the structure of the proposal rather than on defending Israeli state policy, which I oppose in many respects.

As written, the proposal does not clearly define Zionism so much as treat a particular interpretation of it as self-evident, namely that Zionism is inherently a form of settler colonialism. That is a position many people hold, but it is also a contested one, and the policy depends on that premise without unpacking it.

If the core concern is behavior such as genocide denial, dehumanization of Palestinians, or the repetition of propaganda talking points, those are concrete harms and seem like appropriate moderation targets on their own. Framing the rule around an ideological label instead of specific conduct risks conflating belief, state policy, and online behavior, which are not always the same thing even when they overlap.

I also share some of the concern about how “pro-Zionist” would be determined in practice. When enforcement depends on interpreting intent or identity rather than observable actions, it increases the risk of inconsistency and misclassification, even with good faith moderation.

I am not arguing against taking a clear moral stance in support of Palestinians. I am suggesting that the policy would be stronger, clearer, and easier to defend if it focused explicitly on the behaviors and arguments that cause harm, rather than relying on a broad and disputed definition of Zionism to do that work.

Imagine being so ideologically primed that a comment about a browser requires inventing a leftist to argue with.

As someone who recently made the switch with zero Linux experience, I completely agree.

The same thing happened to me a few years ago!

He’s 5 now and my best friend.

I make jams from fruits that are in season. They are dirt cheap and making jam in bulk is way easier. They make for great Christmas gifts.

That ideological diversity did not just fade on its own. Over the past decade it has been actively pruned away. Spaces like r/conservative now routinely permaban anyone who steps outside an approved line, including the kind of libertarian arguments that used to be common. What remains is a tightly controlled echo chamber that presents itself as grassroots discussion while functioning more like propaganda. Given that shift, it is hard to take it seriously as a place for real conservative debate.

I’m one of the few who has had it at the top for as long as I can remember. It absolutely infuriated me to find out the feature had been removed.

Calling this comic “bait” avoids engaging with what it is actually describing. Dismissing it as provocation reframes women’s experiences as manipulation instead of responding to the pattern being shown, and that reaction itself reinforces the point.

The first panel matters. A lot of men say they want honesty, but what they often want is honesty that does not hurt. They like the idea of honesty, but do not understand how to use it to reflect, grow, or regulate themselves. When straightforward rejection is met with insults, anger, persistence, or contempt, people learn that honesty is unsafe. That is not gamesmanship. It is conditioning.

Honesty only works in environments where it is not punished. In my marriage, honesty works because my wife knows it will not be used against her. That took years of consistent behavior to build. Outside of relationships with that level of trust, honesty can carry real social and emotional risk.

Transparency is not cruelty, but it only functions as kindness when the person receiving it is capable of kindness. If you respond to honesty with hostility, you are not being harmed by truth. You are demonstrating that you cannot tolerate it.

People who claim to value honesty but lash out when they hear it are not victims of dishonesty. They are teaching others to protect themselves. If you punish honesty, you should not be surprised when people stop offering it.

I am beyond tired of seeing “raises ethical concerns” every time something blatantly corrupt happens. I understand Reuters and AP want to sound neutral, but at this point that phrasing just feels like polite fiction. When the president’s son-in-law is financing a $108 billion media takeover that the president himself may influence through antitrust review, that is not a vague “ethical concern.” That is a direct, structural conflict of interest in plain sight. The soft language does not make it responsible journalism anymore. It makes it feel like reality is being systematically understated.

My youngest niece is a princess. Ever since she was a toddler, she has wanted to play all of the stereotypical princess games. I love it so much.

I was using Reddit Sync. When the API nonsense went down, the Dev announced that they were switching to Lemmy. I’ve stayed on the app and now feel like I’m part of a much richer community. I’m glad to be here.

I’m on my 3rd all achievement run of Into the Breach. Subset is God tier.

It doesn’t matter who the “they” is. Fascists need an enemy. They will construct as they go.

The original trilogy is enjoyable, and The Empire Strikes Back stands out as the strongest of the three.

Andor is top tier, with Rogue One serving as a decent conclusion.

Beyond that, nothing else really leaves a lasting impression for me.

Trump didn’t create the grift. The system that enabled it was built long before he arrived.

Starting with Nixon’s “Southern strategy,” the Republican Party began reshaping political identity around grievance. After the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987, partisan media like talk radio and Fox News grew without the obligation to present balanced perspectives. The Citizens United ruling in 2010 then opened the door to unlimited political spending, allowing well-funded groups to amplify fear-based messaging at scale. The Tea Party movement reinforced the idea that the threat came from within, not just from ideological opponents.

Over time, this narrative produced an ever-shifting villain: sometimes “liberals,” sometimes “socialists,” often just “them.” Orwell captured the mechanism in Animal Farm: “Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to Snowball.”

Trump didn’t invent that scapegoat. He inherited it, and then he turned the volume up.

To us, the grift is obvious. But for many, decades of messaging eroded trust in institutions and made the fear feel real. The lie works not because it persuades, but because it offers comfort.

Understanding that history doesn’t excuse it. It reminds us the machinery was built before Trump and will remain if we only confront the man instead of the system that produced him.

In the 90s, especially in high school environments, homophobia wasn’t just common, it was socially reinforced. Gay was used as an insult, casually and constantly. People rarely questioned it. Teachers didn’t intervene unless things turned violent, and even then, the issue addressed was the aggression, never the prejudice. It was an era when appearing different, even slightly, could make you a target. Most people avoided standing out if they could help it.

During that time my grandma gave me a pink terrycloth nightgown. On her it was a nightgown, but on me it fit more like a long shirt. I thought it was amusing and comfortable, so I wore it regularly without giving it much weight.

Each time someone hurled gay slurs at me, I replied, “I’m secure enough not to care what other people think. Can you say the same?” They usually followed up with more immature remarks, which I’d call out too. The problem wasn’t what I wore, it was that I wasn’t afraid to wear it.

Audio Visual! My job is so much fun!

It’s like those scam emails that are obviously fake. The sloppy writing isn’t by mistake. It filters out the people who would question it, leaving only those who don’t read carefully or think critically. What seems like incompetence is the strategy.

This ad works the same way.

“Never think twice about doing what’s right” sounds like a call for decisiveness, but it’s a call for impulsivity. If you never think twice, you never pause to consider whether what you’re being asked to do is actually right. You never weigh legality. You never examine morality. You simply obey.

They’re not looking for people who act ethically. They’re looking for people who won’t question.

They don’t want judgment. They want compliance.

If you stopped to think about what this ad implies, you’ve already proven you’re not the kind of person they’re trying to recruit.