Bamboodpanda

It’s true that symbols and gestures can have historical origins that predate their modern meanings. However, intent and context always matter. The Nazi salute, whether or not it had roots in an earlier Roman gesture, is now overwhelmingly associated with fascism, white supremacy, and authoritarianism. When a public figure—especially a political leader—uses a gesture that resembles it, people have every reason to question why.

Dismissing those concerns as “a stretch” ignores the reality that optics matter in politics. If a leader doesn’t want to be associated with fascist imagery, they have a responsibility to be mindful of what they do. The burden isn’t on the public to assume good intentions—it’s on the leader to avoid any association with dangerous ideologies.

As for the claim that Democrats are “closer to democratic socialism” and thus closer to Nazis, that’s a misreading of political history. The Nazis were far-right ultranationalists who used state control to consolidate power, suppress opposition, and enforce racial supremacy. Democratic socialism, on the other hand, is about expanding worker protections and social welfare within a democratic system—not authoritarian rule.

Finally, while I agree that finding common ground is valuable, pretending that ideological divides are just trivial differences overlooks the very real stakes involved. Not all disagreements are just about policy—they’re about fundamental values, including democracy itself. If one side is leaning into authoritarianism, that’s not a “both sides” issue. It’s a problem that needs to be called out.

Ah, the classic approach: dismiss, insult, deflect, and avoid any actual debate. Instead of engaging with the content, you ridicule the tool I used to refine my response—conveniently ignoring that I did my own research before ever consulting it. You also claim to value context while simultaneously insisting that a single sentence in a decades-old essay should be taken as gospel without any consideration for its broader meaning or intent."

"Your ‘fact-checker anecdote’ is particularly amusing, since it ironically proves my point. Context is precisely what separates informed discussion from cherry-picked outrage. But of course, why wrestle with complexity when you can just claim ‘there’s plenty of evidence’ without citing a single source? That’s not wisdom—it’s just lazy."

"And yes, something does tell me that none of this will matter to you in the slightest. But at least I have the courtesy of engaging with ideas instead of hiding behind sneering dismissals. Enjoy the illusion of superiority—it’s the only argument you seem interested in making.

I took the time to look up the Soros essay, identify the quote to gather context, and craft a thoughtful response. GPTs are a tool—some use them to replace thinking, but the wise use them to enhance it. I stand by every word I wrote.

Your response, on the other hand, dismisses an argument you didn’t even bother to engage with. Instead of refuting my points, you crafted a strawman to wave away the discussion entirely. That speaks volumes—not about AI, but about you.

I didn’t use any AI to write this reply. But something tells me that doesn’t matter to you in the slightest.

Your claim that Ukrainians are merely "doing the fighting and dying" under US and NATO direction, citing George Soros's 1993 essay, is both a misinterpretation and a profound insult to the bravery and autonomy of the Ukrainian people.

In the essay, Soros discussed the potential for integrating Eastern European manpower with NATO's technical capabilities to enhance collective security. This proposal aimed to create a more balanced and cooperative defense structure in the post-Cold War era, not to relegate Eastern Europeans to the role of expendable forces. Soros emphasized the importance of political and economic collaboration to support emerging democracies, with military considerations being just one facet of a comprehensive strategy.

Since Russia's unprovoked invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable resilience and independence in defending its sovereignty. The Ukrainian government and armed forces have made strategic decisions, leading successful counteroffensives and reclaiming occupied territories. Their determination has not only defied global expectations but has also galvanized international support.

Your remarks diminish the profound sacrifices made by Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. The resilience of Ukrainians is evident not only on the battlefield but also in their daily lives. Civilians have engaged in acts of defiance, from producing essential military supplies to maintaining cultural institutions under siege. To reduce their struggle to mere pawns in a geopolitical game is an affront to their courage and agency.

It is imperative to approach discussions about such critical matters with a well-informed perspective. Recognizing the agency and bravery of the Ukrainian people is not only a matter of accuracy but also of respect. Mischaracterizations not only distort the truth but also unjustly belittle the experiences of those enduring the hardships of war.

All those who defend a free world should acknowledge the undeniable evidence of Ukraine's sovereign efforts and the extraordinary bravery of its people. Let us honor their sacrifices by portraying their struggle with the dignity and respect it unequivocally deserves.

1. On Cancel Culture: The term "cancel culture" typically refers to public backlash leading to personal or professional consequences for perceived offensive behavior. In the case of the NASA bio removal, it appears to be an internal policy decision, not a result of public outcry.

2. On Government Influence and Social Media: While there have been instances where government entities have interacted with social media platforms regarding content moderation—such as the Biden administration's efforts to curb COVID-19 misinformation—this differs from "cancel culture." These actions involve governmental attempts to manage public health information, which has sparked debates about free speech and censorship.

3. On the Lab Leak Theory: The origins of COVID-19 have been extensively debated. Agencies like the FBI and the Department of Energy have assessed, with varying degrees of confidence, that a lab leak is a plausible origin. However, this remains a separate issue from the NASA bio removal and the broader discussion of cancel culture.

Bringing up these points seems to divert from the initial discussion about the removal of a NASA bio highlighting a woman's achievements in STEM. It's essential to distinguish between institutional decisions, public backlash, and government policies.

Actually, this situation isn't about cancel culture at all. Cancel culture typically refers to public backlash resulting in personal or professional consequences for offensive or harmful behavior. What happened here seems to be a systemic decision to remove content highlighting women in STEM at NASA.

This isn’t driven by public outcry or social pressure; it’s a form of institutional erasure. There’s a big difference between being held accountable for harmful actions and having your achievements wiped out due to a policy change.

These two things shouldn’t be conflated.

Sync is an application that originally was designed to browse Reddit on Android. When Reddit destroyed 3rd party access, Sync was redesigned for Lemmy.

I followed Reddit Sync to Lemmy during the API fiasco. Even then, it was better than reddit had been in years. It's only gotten better.

Ohh! English is your second language! That makes sense. I really appreciate you engaging with this conversation. Since there might be some cultural or language differences, I’d love to explain a little about analogies and how they’re used here.

An analogy is a way to compare two things that seem different but share something important in common. In this case, the comparison is between hoarding objects (like newspapers or furniture) and hoarding wealth. While those things aren’t the same physically, the analogy helps highlight how both forms of accumulation can become excessive and, in some cases, harmful.

The idea is that society often judges hoarding physical objects harshly, while accumulating wealth beyond what someone could ever use is seen as admirable. The analogy is used to ask: Why do we treat these two behaviors so differently when they can have similar effects?

I hope that helps explain it a bit! If anything is unclear, feel free to ask or tell me what your native language is and be happy to translate an explanation.

You might know they are assholes. At least 50% of the voting public doesn't. In fact, they think they are very smart.

How dumb. Seriously how fucking dumb do you have to be to go along with something that is so juvenile and stupid. Everything about it is dumb.

I had no idea what I was watching when I sat down in the theater. My friend had bought the ticket and I just showed up. I didn't know ANYTHING.

One of the best experiences of my life and it turned me into a Denis Villeneuve super fan.