Screw community names, I want instance agnostic URLs for posts and comments.

Right now lemmy.ml/comment/123456 and lemmy.ml/comment/123456 are two different comments, and there is no simple way to find one comment on another instance (so you can interact with it from your logged in account). What we should have is lemmy.ml/comment/123456@lemmy.world to point to a comment made on another instance, then you can just change the instance name after the @ to find the comment (or post) on any other instance.

Go one further, edit and delete all your posts.

You should bear in mind, PowerDeleteSuite doesn’t get everything. It can only see what’s in your reddit profile under New, Top, Hot & Controversial - there will be numerous posts that are too old with only 1 or a few karma that aren’t displayed in these lists. In particular, if you go through your top posts of all time, you might find some replies to these posts that you made that the script did not see.

The GDPR archive gives a full list of all the comments. What we need is a FOSS script that can use these csv files to get everything. Apparently Shreddit can take the csv files, however you have to pay $15 to use this feature.

Hijacking the top comment to say: PowerDeleteSuite doesn’t get everything. It can only see what’s in your reddit profile under New, Top, Hot & Controversial - there will be numerous posts that are too old with only 1 or a few karma that aren’t displayed in these lists. In particular, if you go through your top posts of all time, you might find some replies to these posts that you made that the script did not see.

The GDPR archive gives a full list of all the comments. What we need is a FOSS script that can use these csv files to get everything. Apparently Shreddit can take the csv files, however you have to pay $15 to use this feature.

Usually tickling his feet makes him release.

Canada here, not very common until you get close to Canada day or Armistice day.

It’s very common if you’re travelling Europe and are American.

How about letting redditors vote that CEOs shouldn’t get a golden parachute?

How about shareholders sacking a paedophile CEO for gross misconduct with no golden parachute?

One can only dream.

Guacamelee??

Super Sopapillas ftw!!

You haven’t explained your position at all. You’ve dropped names and linked to articles in the hope of wearing me out, all without actually giving any detail yourself.

When I have presented you with detail, when I have asked you simple, explicit questions, you have dodged.

The only last word I wish to have is as friends with an agreement over ideas. However you have refused to present any ideas yourself, instead you have tactically moved around and promoted a specific narrative. When I have described ideas that align with your presented ideology, you have rejected and moved away from them because you cannot be seen to “agree with me”.

There is definitely meaningful discussion to be had here, you just have to be more open.

To me, what’s most frustrating is that you could better promote your position while being more open, but it feels like there’s this arbitrary wall in place that prevents you from doing so.

Hah full blown aggression, I hope you’re paid per ascii character.

Pick a lane.

I’ve told you my lane. My heels are in the sand, and I call out bullshit wherever I see it. You’re just so far on one side you can’t acknowledge that I’m on your side with some things.

You said I haven’t given any detail and that I linked you detailed articles explaining things.

I summarised this:

So, your argument is that people arguing in the 1990s that expansion of NATO was a bad idea (because said expansion would encourage Russia into hostile actions) is justification for Russia to enact said hostile actions in 2014 and 2021?

That was basically what your handful of links from Western scholars said.

In saying that, I was far more specific than you have been. If you wish to challenge me on any particular point, I welcome that, particularly as these are points you’re supposed to be presenting.

Please, give me a specific point to mull over. So far it’s been either generic or diverting.

The west is likewise trying to force a decision in their own favor. The fact is that Minsk agreements were created between the west, Russia, and Ukraine in order to avoid the current scenario.

Yes, the Minsk agreements were created to avoid Russia invading more of Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, the rest of the world wanted them to stop, now Russia is continuing their invasion.

Nevermind the fact that the agreement basically broke down completely in 2015, well before Russia mobilised in 2022.

And once again, the moralizing regarding whether something is justified or not is completely beside the point. That doesn’t actually solve anything and it’s not in any way productive. It’s just a way to make yourself feel righteous.

You’re trying to make out that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is some sort of forgone conclusion. It wasn’t. It was an active decision to invade and kill people.

What all this comes down to is that since the west and Russia can’t come to a diplomatic agreement this will be decided in a hot war. Currently, this war is contained in Ukraine, however it can easily turn into a world war and then into a nuclear holocaust. If you think that’s a good path to follow then by all means keep drumming up continued escalations.

And there we have it, full blown threats. If Russia can’t get its way, if Russia can’t claim the territory it wants, nukes will fly.

I am accutely aware of the threat of nukes, far more than you know. That won’t discourage me from calling out bullshit regardless.

You haven’t given any detail though, you’ve just dropped names and linked to long-winded articles, and when I’ve read those articles I’ve found that they don’t line up with your statements.

I can understand diplomacy and finding a common ground. I’ve been in enough relationships with bad women to know that all too well.

What I see from Russia is a desire to force a decision in their favour, with a bullshit statement along the lines of “well, you didn’t do what we asked, so we’re going to follow through with our threats”. As if that somehow makes the threats themselves justified.

You said “Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true”, perhaps clarify which statement you’re referring to then, because based on the thread that’s the statement I made that you’re disputing.

I was pretty clear, but let’s compile the comments together:

The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now.

So, your argument is that people arguing in the 1990s that expansion of NATO was a bad idea (because said expansion would encourage Russia into hostile actions) is justification for Russia to enact said hostile actions in 2014 and 2021?

No, the argument is that NATO is an aggressive alliance that has been invading and pillaging countries for decades that continues to expand and encircle Russia. This isn’t my argument, this is the argument from countless scholars, historians, and politicians.

That is not what you have presented, neither in your comments nor the sources you have linked.

This is a well known fact that’s beyond dispute.

Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true.

The rest of your replies seem to be going round in circles. So I’ll distill it down to this:

#What. specifically, is the justification for Russia to invade Ukraine?

One has to utterly lack any intellectual integrity to dispute the fact that NATO has invaded and destroyed many countries.

To quote you, “Where?” Where did I say that?

You’re making disingenuous arguments and personal insults again. You aren’t presenting ideas - presumably because you know your ideas are lacking - instead you’re trying to attack me personally.

Calling an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression defensive is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

I haven’t said they don’t attack others, you haven’t offered enough detail for me to critique that point over any specific events. You’ve mentioned a few countries, but I’m sure you know it’s far more nuanced than that. Instead, you’re just parroting bullshit rhetoric. This is real dishonesty on your part.

Nonetheless, it must be said that aggressive actions do not invalidate genuine defense. Not that NATO is defending in regards to Ukraine. NATO is not involved, even if countries that are in NATO are involved.

Countries that are in NATO are feeding weapons to Ukraine. They’re doing this not because they are in NATO, but because they are financing their local war industries. For example, the UK is providing arms not as donations, but as bilateral aid agreements - Ukraine is supposed to pay them back eventually. Meanwhile, the terms of these agreements almost certainly favour the UK (as all bilateral aid agreements always favour the country giving), such that, financially, they are “selling” the weapons at above market rates, albeit as a long term loan. Even though in the future Ukraine will almost certainly not be able to repay the debt, it means that the current UK government can fiddle their books to make it look like they haven’t raped the country’s finances as much as they have. Writing off the debt is a future UK government’s problem.

Meanwhile, Russia gets away with squandering the Russian peoples’ money even more than any other government in the world, financing things like Putin’s estate near Gelendzhik. Throw out all the marble, who cares, it’s not Putin’s money. Throw all the young country men’s lives away in Ukraine, they’re not Putin’s people, who cares.

Scholars such as John Mearsheimer are in fact respected by the vast majority of their peers, and geopoliticis is in fact their specialty.

Way to name drop. Argue a point, not people.

That’s infantile reasoning. It’s perfectly possible for adults to understand reasons and motivations of others without endorsing them.

Again, personal attacks. You’re not making meaningful arguments, you’re just following a playbook. How many pages do you have left? When will you actually present an argument that’s on topic?

No you don’t, you’re regurgitating a false narrative and ignore basic facts of the situation.

Please, present the facts. Put your balls on the table. Bullet points can be given with a - in front of them

• Like this.

This itself is a false statement.

What’s false? The fact that I finally replied to you? Do you actually have something meaningful to say?

It’s actually quite clear that you yourself have an agenda to push, and you continue to refuse to acknowledge the responsibility that the west bears in creating the conditions for the conflict, and in prolonging it to this day. Maybe do some self reflection.

I haven’t refused to acknowledge anything, I’ve called out the west. What I haven’t acknowledged is your interpretation that “People said Russia would attack if the West behaved as they did, thus Russia is justified in their invasion of Ukraine” as any sort of a reasonable argument.

Please, present a reasonable argument for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I’ve asked too many times now.

I wish you’d follow your own advice.

Man, I’m always trying. I don’t get it right every time, but I keep trying.

I dunno where your downvote and my upvote came from, but you have my upvote for replying to my comment and for not downvoting me. I appreciate the discussion regardless.

Holy thread revival Batman!!

This is a well known fact that’s beyond dispute.

Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true. In reality, the very fact that you would call something “beyond dispute” points to a disingenous argument on your part. There’s always a devil’s advocate argument to be made.

If you were arguing in good faith you would recognise this and try to get me to see your point of view. Instead, you’re creating a show for those that blindly support you, in an attempt to turn them against me and get me to shut up. You are trying to fight me, trying to defeat me, rather than trying to prove me wrong.

This is an argument of ideas, not a fight between two people. The more you try to fight me, the less value your ideas have.

I’ve provided you with history and the context, as well as numerous resources from respected scholars. Meanwhile, you’re the one who’s been regurgitating useless rhetoric here.

Your “respected scholars” aren’t unanimously respected - particularly in the fields you quote them in, which are not their specialty.

I’m just calling out bullshit where I see it, there’s no parroted rhetoric from me.

I’m sorry to see that you lack reading in the reading comprehension department.

Yay, personal insults, that means you win!

You endorse Russian military.

Where?

You did not explicitly endorse them, but you gloss over obvious failings and objective evils, and divert to praise instead. The implication is that you support Russia and stand against anyone who Russia is against.

Meanwhile, I call out Russia, I call out NATO, I call out Ukraine. I dig my heels in the sand and call out bullshit in all directions. Fuck the war industry and those that profit from death.

No, I’ve explained to you in detail how NATO created the situation for the war.

You have completely avoided commenting on Russia’s motive for invading Ukraine, a foreign country that Russia has no justification in occupying - nevermind any justification for killing civilians.

Yet, it’s plainly clear that you don’t care about facts and just keep regurgitating nonsense here. I’m sure you’ll leave another content free reply so enjoy having the last word.

Again, making false statements as if they are fact. I have finally left another comment, but that’s only because I could not let such bullshit go unchallenged.

Nonetheless, I do have some respect for you. I’ve even offered an olive branch here and there where I agree with your sentiment. However, you have completely ignored this, with a clear implication that you have an agenda to push.

I wish you were a better 'man.

I did read it, however the article never really called him out on it.

I get that journalists shouldn’t express opinions, and this article does manage that at least. However they should at least clearly display contradictions and hypocrisy, such that no reader can walk away without recognising it. This article doesn’t quite meet that bar - someone hooked on this paedophile’s lies could walk away after reading all his quotes and still think he’s fair minded.

I think the real reason the discussions on reddit have been in decline is because

• reddit promotes controversy and ragebait, as this has been proven to “increase user engagement”.
• more recently reddit has been wielding the ban hammer hard and perma banning people over things they would previously let slide.

Maybe, however there’s every chance he could be out before then. At which point the golden parachute will activate. Meanwhile, reddit will throw all the shade on him yet change nothing in the course of action.

However he very well could maintain shares in the company after leaving, which of course means he would benefit from the IPO.

I don’t think Occam’s razor would reach that conclusion when you look at all the different services that are in decline. There’s no one person tying them all together. At least, no one that is publicly known.

Peter Thiel comes close for Twitter - he financed Trump, along with a few sinister businesses, and he tried (and failed) to make a Twitter competitor. Thus it makes sense that he’d tap in his old business partner Elon Musk to remove Twitter from the equation (make no mistake, Twitter isn’t dying because of Musk’s mismanagement, it’s dying because of a leveraged buyout saddling it with $13bn of debt). However that doesn’t really cover any other service, such as reddit, Discord, or whatever else.

Regardless, we, the people, are being dispersed and our ability to organise suppressed.

Not all instances do that. Many instances accept you right away.

At the bottom of any webpage (rather than the app) there is an Instances link that lists pretty much all of them. Click a few that catch your eye.

Wait did sh.itjust.works do anything? I thought the story was that beehaw.org cut them and lemmy.world off, but only for people browsing on beehaw.