It depends. There are riots in England currently because some racists don’t want anymore immigration. I’m pretty sure you can easily have a very heated debate with these guys. You may talk with a jew about Israel these days too.

If you avoid hit topic with the wrong person, you won’t find strong opinions. But Internet bring people together, especially when they want to fight eachother.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

While this is not worthy of ww3, defending nato member space is something nato can and should do. Whether the strike is intended or not, nato is legitimate to defend the area to prevent a strike. More than legitimate in fact.

The title mention god with a capital G, which means it’s the religions of the Bible, which means European history of things. Context in small details.

What weakened religion is a long process going from the middle age to the modern world. It starts with the pope wars. It peaks with the religion wars in the XVIIth century. By this point the religious power was a political power like any other, but merely with a cultural hold on European populations. Which was the nail in the coffin.

During this period, the Church radicalised itself as a defense mode. Which solidified the laïcal mindset of the Lumières. Basically the church entered a cultural war against science because it feared it would lose controle.

Then the XIXth century happened. Monarchies got destroyed. And the Catholic Church got humiliated and destroyed as a political power. Socialism and communism appeared, and to state how progressive they were, they put the church in the same reactionary bag as the royalists.

In the middle of this are the liberals who don’t care much about anything but profits. Si when democracy is on the rise, they are democrats. When royalty comes back, they praise the king. At least as long as they let them make good profits. And that’s what the church doesn’t let them do. Morale goes in the way of profit. It forbid slavery and exploitation. It’s against science. It promotes charity. That sucks balls for the liberals. But order is good, so why not being a believer but without the problems?

It’s not science that made religion recess. It’s bad political decisions and alliances. Many renowned scientists were believers. Many still are. But somehow the religions are rejecting science because it doesn’t go into litteraly what their old fantasy book wrote. It’s a shame because religions could easily make a humanist evolution if they had the political will to do it.

Quit eating and tell us about it I guess…

Everything can be. But for the largest majority of people, eating is normal, eventhough it can seem to have some aspects of an addiction.

And the most important part here is that even if you somehow get addicted to food, you cannot simply stop eating. Because you need to eat for your survival. It’s a biological need.

That’s the point of the example : showing that something you can’t stop doing is not necessarily a bad thing. The details are very important when it comes to addiction.

And video games are unfortunately victim of propaganda when it comes to their dangers.

An addiction is defined by two things : first, it has negative effects on your life. Second, trying to stop it makes you miserable.

Food for example is not an addiction, it’s a biological need. The need for socialisation is another one.

Video games can be an addiction. But I’d argue that they’re usually not, they usually a coping mechanism. When they are, the problem is elsewhere, and the video games are helping you to survive through the problem.

My point is the exact opposite. The smiley face is to point the hypocrisy of making the loss of 3 abrams something meaningful when Russia lost far, far more.

What proportions of its planes did Russia lost? Of its warships? Of its tanks? :-)

I think you’re thinking backward. Internet is what it is because a single protocole unified it. Without it, you’d have island working with only one browser each, some would eventually die and with them large parts of Internet would disappear.

Internet works on unified protocoles. Everything that challenged this model is bound to fail. That’s why javascript is so successful eventhough it’s so shitty as a language.

Evolution can only be iterative.

Fascism has everything to do with poverty and inequalities. And inequalities in Europe are rising a lot. Where do you get your informations?

Capitalism is a sickness. It breeds crisis that lead to war, and it lives out of war and exploitation. But that’s beside the point.

All countries of Europe are going fascists one after the other. Why if there is no problem?

Europe had capitalism under a leash because communism was here to threaten it. Since the 90’s, capitalism is unleashed and inequalities are rising. USA didn’t had communism to tame its capitalism, because it was basically forbidden because of the cold war.

Capitalism is entirely focused on having companies making a profit. If you don’t have strong states to tame it and redistribute the money, inequalities increase. It’s mathematical.

Under capitalism the rich will get richer, and the poor poorer. That’s the whole point of it. Guillotines are a solution to get UBI.

I wish your fear were justified! I’ll praise anything that can kill work.

Hallas, we’re not here yet. Current AI is a glorified search engine. The problem it will have is that most code today is unmaintainable garbage. So AI can only do this for now : unmaintainable garbage.

First the software industry needs to properly industrialise itself. Then there will be code to copy and reuse.

You do not. Or we have a different definition for owning.

This is the perfect comparison!

We need to shit down billionaires planes indeed. But we also need to remove all cars that produce co2. Their emissions are significant. It means we won’t survive if we don’t remove them.

The problem you’re touching is the one of whom will pay the price of the transition. And indeed it’d be better if rich people were paying.

In case you missed it, co2 is causing global warming, which has the ability to extinct mankind in the future. EV don’t produce any co2. Some idiots will talk about indirect emissions, but the point is moot. You don’t remove indirect emissions by removing EV, you remove them by cleaning power grid and logistic lines.

EV are a necessity on a short term basis. Developing public transports and alternative to cars are also a necessity.