Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
Please, tell me this is taken out of context. Please, tell me this is fake. Please, tell me this is old video from before the war and was not talking about enemy armies. Please, tell me anything that allows me to cope after what I just saw. Because If this is true, USA just hit the rock bottom. This is complete disregard of humanity and civilisation and embracing the barbarism. This is disgrace for entire nation. This is a public calling for commiting the war crimes. This is what every American, in every corner of the world, should be ashamed off. I cannot find profanities dirty enough to curse on this fucking idiot. I mean, how low you must fall to make such a speech because of self-inflicted frustration. US armed forces should refuse this insane idea. Americans should condemn this speech. This is what, if taken as granted, gives reason to prosecute him as war criminal. "No quarter". No, seriously. This just shook me, because whenever I think this administration cannot land any lower, someone shows me it absolutely can.
On March 14 2026 07:35 blomsterjohn wrote: I can't speak for anyone beyond myself or the ones in my social group, but for us Trump (and american politics) is really just the biggest clown fiesta laughing stock.
(it was the same kind of phenomenon with Bush Jr but that was in no shape or form even close to this)
Perhaps it’s because we’re now in the social media age, aside from levels of extremity it does feel rather a bit different. The Bush admin attracted a ton of flak and mockery in my social groups, or in media, comedians made hay etc.
But aside from maybe Fox News I don’t really recall the ire spreading quite nearly as far.
I mean I’m going off general vibes and a probably faulty memory, the disdain/hostility felt pretty focused. America doesn’t have the best government and we’ll lampoon it or bemoan it or whatever. But it was less of a referendum on America in its totality. Whereas now, it’s kinda like ‘a sizeable chunk of this nation across all sectors are insane people’
The incompetence factor, or the perception thereof are probably also pretty different. Bush era depending on your sensibilities may have done stupid things, Bush may have made the odd gaffe (which I laughed at at the time but most were genuine misspeaks), but overall the criticism was much more that these were assholes pursuing bad policy, not complete morons across the board.
I guess it may depend on locale as well. I mean the UK joined the US in the Iraq debacle, and that was pretty unpopular here even at the very beginning. But we can’t really slam America on that specific point.
Many of America’s misadventures were also our own over here, which I don’t think was a remotely good thing, but we were clearly pretty allied even if it wasn’t an entirely symmetric relationship. Whereas the current lot are happy to shit on traditional allies all the time.
I think it’s important to not retcon that period and make out that it was all hunky dory in the Bush era, it obviously wasn’t but the differences are also pretty huge.
Bush had plenty of qualified talent in prominent cabinet positions for example, I mean Trump just doesn’t, especially second term Trump.
It is an absolute clown fiesta, I struggle to think of a better descriptor!
On March 13 2026 21:36 LightSpectra wrote: If you actually read about their laws, it's actually lawful for civilians to own firearms for numerous reasons. The fact that most people don't desire to arm themselves is a completely different matter than the government banning them to prevent revolution. Have you
Congratulations on inadvertently discovering one of the reasons why gun ownership ≠ overthrowing the government lol. A lot of dictatorships enjoy support from the kind of people that own guns besides the military itself.
The more I talk with Europeans and Americans along the years I come to the conclusion that a good percentage of you have no conception of the third world, you simply cannot think or fathom how things actually work.
"Ackshually their constitution..." who gives a shit about the cuban constitution for fucks sake, laws are just words in a book enforced only at the convenience of the government, for example, in México guns are legal... yet there is one single "store" in the entire country obv owned by the state, they will assign you a date in several months, you have to travel to Mexico city to bring your papers (which include a psychiatry testing and vouching for you) and most likely you will get it denied. So law abiding citizens can't get weapons, and all criminals have an illegal one.
considered that maybe most Cubans don't want to overthrow their government?
LMAO no I haven't considered it, because unlike you I've actually been in Cuba, I encourage you to go and get out for a couple of hours outside of the tourist area, I guarantee you it will shock you to your core.
Congratulations on inadvertently discovering one of the reasons why gun ownership ≠ overthrowing the government lol. A lot of dictatorships enjoy support from the kind of people that own guns besides the military itself.
LOL "gun owners" didnt join Chavez, agains guns are illegal in Venezuela, the regime armed militias to keep protesters in check in case of a revolts, dictatorship 101.
Still zero sources so I'll just go ahead and stop bothering.
Please, tell me this is taken out of context. Please, tell me this is fake. Please, tell me this is old video from before the war and was not talking about enemy armies. Please, tell me anything that allows me to cope after what I just saw. Because If this is true, USA just hit the rock bottom. This is complete disregard of humanity and civilisation and embracing the barbarism. This is disgrace for entire nation. This is a public calling for commiting the war crimes. This is what every American, in every corner of the world, should be ashamed off. I cannot find profanities dirty enough to curse on this fucking idiot. I mean, how low you must fall to make such a speech because of self-inflicted frustration. US armed forces should refuse this insane idea. Americans should condemn this speech. This is what, if taken as granted, gives reason to prosecute him as war criminal. "No quarter". No, seriously. This just shook me, because whenever I think this administration cannot land any lower, someone shows me it absolutely can.
On the one hand, I'd be totally fine if Hegseth spent every waking moment of the rest of his life in a prison. On the other, there's no point in taking him so literally. He's just trying to sound like a badass--he's not laying out actual policy or strategy. The evil you are envisioning is definitely within his capability, but he's not actually confirming anything with his rhetoric.
On March 14 2026 15:48 XenOsky wrote: eye openning interview
Quick! Summarise the main points so this isn't against thread rules!
Lol, have you seen most of his posts? I think he has broken every forum rule there is. After calling half the posters in the thread every bad thing he can think of, it'd be ironic for posting a bare video to get him banned. Maybe it's the forum equivalent of tax evasion?
Why does it bother you so much? Are you a Franco supporter? In that case, it's no surprise you want to stifle freedom of expression for those resisting fascism.
We're going to yell fascists the truth to their faces, no matter what happens. In this forum, a ban; in the streets, arrests and disappearances. I don't care, I'll accept the consequences. It's in my blood ever since my grandfather prosecuted the German Nazis who came to southern Chile for illicit association; he was persecuted his whole life. Then my father was persecuted by Pinochet's dictatorship, my uncle was exiled, and you think I need someone's approval to tell the truth? Fuck off.
"Do we think Russians have shared intelligence about the location of US military assets? And if they have why would be giving them waivers on Russian oil sanctions?"
Wiktoff (the man who went to negotiate with Russia without his own and relied on a Russian provided translator):
"the Russians said that they have not been sharing. That's, that's what they said. So, you know, we can, we can take them at their word, but they did say that."
Fox News:
"It sounds like the Russians are helping Iran target and attack Americans now--"
Trump:
"It's just-- I have a lot of respect for you. You've always been very nice to me. What a stupid question that is to be asking at this time. We're talking about something else."
Rejects Ukraine's offered help with drone warfare.
"Last person we need help from is Zelensky."
Lifts oil sanctions on Russia. Continually tries to strong-arm Ukraine into surrendering to Russian demands while demanding payment from Ukraine.
Very cool seeing US so supportive of Russian imperial expansionism especially to wipe out the Ukrainians and so credulous of Russian claims.
@oBlade. Yes, I screwed up my labelling. My bad.
But no, I do mean authoritarian and corruption. I don't have a problem with a strong executive branch. As you rightly point out, I am more familiar with the Parliamentary system and the Westminster system that we have has a much stronger executive branch that is able to control the legislation passed through, party discipline (which I think is too strong and in need of reform), etc.
By executive order Trump extorted law firms, recently struck down in the courts by the law firms who refused to be extorted. Now by the FCC he's threatening the licensing of broadcasters if they don't cover the war in the way that he wants. Freedom of the press????
Threatening states to cough up more votes so that he can win. Threatening his VP to come through as he tried to enact his illegal electoral ballot scheme to seize power against the will of the people. Allowing a bunch of twenty year olds without security clearances to run amuck with no understanding of what they were hacking and slashing... and now we are hearing that some of them were walking away with thumb drives filled with sensitive information, confident that even if they are caught they will be pardoned by Trump (the one who pardoned drug-trafficker Hernandez) Qatar jet 'donation'. Undisclosed amounts of money funneling into his crypto schemes. Pilfering billions for an organization he created Board (or is it Bored?) of Peace... which is he just the chairman for life for that, or what?
What we see in Trump is not the executive branch asserting more control to cover for an incompetent Congress (House and Senate- got it right this time, thank you ). Congress is incompetent alright, mostly because whatever is left of the Republican wing is still terrified of the MAGA base and so will do nothing against Trump. But Trump is authoritarian and corrupt, historically so and ought to be removed for the health of your republic.
"It's just-- I have a lot of respect for you. You've always been very nice to me. What a stupid question that is to be asking at this time. We're talking about something else."
It is amazing how much Trump loves LARPing as a mafia don.
I didn't think I needed strong sources to refute Cuban civilians having guns LMAO.
Certain things dont change, I remember debating with your nordic lefty views decades ago, and now these guy make you look like a conservative old fart :D
Don't worry I'm still a pretty radical leftist.
I"m curious hasn't age nudged you to the right in the slightest?
I can elaborate on that I guess!
I think compared with 20 years ago, my ideals are basically unchanged, but there's significantly more nuance to them, I've become more pragmatic - and more accepting of other people having other ideals. For example, while I still firmly believe that the ideal world is borderless and that the nation you are born into shouldn't have any impact on the quality of your life, I'm not actually championing for unrestricted immigration - in fact, if pressed into a compromise situation with a right-winger, I'd easily let them have an immigration win (in the 'minimal amount of refugees/asylum seekers/family reunion'-sense, not in the 'deport children sense') if I could have a redistribution or climate change win. There's a recognition of having had a bit of a naive point of view in the past, too (even if, again, the ideal hasn't changed at all. Note that the immigration debate in Norway/EU and the US are very different in nature, though.)
I definitely haven't budged on redistribution, if anything, I believe the past two decades of increasing inequality have shown how harmful that is for society. But the how has matured through learning more, for example I'd be more skeptical towards taxing equity holdings and more positive towards incentivizing stock options for workers or saying CEO pay can only be x times that of an entry level/'regular' employee. Never been a bigger fan of estate tax than I currently am (but I've always been positive).
Then - and I'd attribute this more to having a child than my age (although I'm sure being in a very privileged position, especially globally but reasonably so even within Norway is also a factor) - I'm definitely more into preserving social stability than I used to be, again, not in the sense that I'm conservative in that I want to preserve society how it is today, because there are many ways in which I absolutely do not, but in the sense that I don't want to risk something worse to potentially get something better and prefer certain incremental improvement over gambling on a big win with a potential big loss.
Anti-imperialism definitely hasn't weakened as a position. Belief in the importance of preserving nature over economic growth is more steadfastly held than it used to be. At the same time I also believe that European countries should invest more in defense than I used to believe. Any changes here aren't explained by me changing, though - but by the world changing.
"It's just-- I have a lot of respect for you. You've always been very nice to me. What a stupid question that is to be asking at this time. We're talking about something else."
It is amazing how much Trump loves LARPing as a mafia don.
It‘s funny to do until you do it too well and drop a paper bag of oranges or worse.
I didn't think I needed strong sources to refute Cuban civilians having guns LMAO.
Certain things dont change, I remember debating with your nordic lefty views decades ago, and now these guy make you look like a conservative old fart :D
Don't worry I'm still a pretty radical leftist.
I"m curious hasn't age nudged you to the right in the slightest?
I can elaborate on that I guess!
I think compared with 20 years ago, my ideals are basically unchanged, but there's significantly more nuance to them, I've become more pragmatic - and more accepting of other people having other ideals. For example, while I still firmly believe that the ideal world is borderless and that the nation you are born into shouldn't have any impact on the quality of your life, I'm not actually championing for unrestricted immigration - in fact, if pressed into a compromise situation with a right-winger, I'd easily let them have an immigration win (in the 'minimal amount of refugees/asylum seekers/family reunion'-sense, not in the 'deport children sense') if I could have a redistribution or climate change win. There's a recognition of having had a bit of a naive point of view in the past, too (even if, again, the ideal hasn't changed at all. Note that the immigration debate in Norway/EU and the US are very different in nature, though.)
I definitely haven't budged on redistribution, if anything, I believe the past two decades of increasing inequality have shown how harmful that is for society. But the how has matured through learning more, for example I'd be more skeptical towards taxing equity holdings and more positive towards incentivizing stock options for workers or saying CEO pay can only be x times that of an entry level/'regular' employee. Never been a bigger fan of estate tax than I currently am (but I've always been positive).
Then - and I'd attribute this more to having a child than my age (although I'm sure being in a very privileged position, especially globally but reasonably so even within Norway is also a factor) - I'm definitely more into preserving social stability than I used to be, again, not in the sense that I'm conservative in that I want to preserve society how it is today, because there are many ways in which I absolutely do not, but in the sense that I don't want to risk something worse to potentially get something better and prefer certain incremental improvement over gambling on a big win with a potential big loss.
Anti-imperialism definitely hasn't weakened as a position. Belief in the importance of preserving nature over economic growth is more steadfastly held than it used to be. At the same time I also believe that European countries should invest more in defense than I used to believe. Any changes here aren't explained by me changing, though - but by the world changing.
Thanks for the share! I think the general cliche if you will of getting more conservative as one gets older is largely explained by the bolded, rather than the individual themselves necessarily changing their outlook all that much. Broad brushing of course, as I often do.
My journey as it were would be broadly similar. I’ve perhaps shifted tack on tactics, or mechanisms to tackle what I consider problems, but what I consider problems and why I do is pretty much as I was 20 years ago.
Which as you also said is more a case of me learning more than the underlying ideological framework shifting too much. If x sounded good to me at 19, or 27 or whatever age, but I’ve subsequently read up on the consequences of policy x being a disaster, I’d be a fool not to shift with that information.
I think probably the biggest shift for me is I guess what I perceive as realistically achievable. I think a combination of both my personal exposure, but also a quite fundamental change in how the internet intersects with our lives kinda threw water on the fire of the idea it’d help as a vehicle of positive change. Or well, positive to my sensibilities anyway.
I wasn’t quite there in the very nascent days, but I was a relative early adopter and it was a totally different place that really felt driven by the grass roots circumventing more traditional media mechanisms to do whatever their thing is.
I think from there, commercialisation somewhat turned the internet to largely resembling ye olde regular media culture. And then beyond there into an algorithm-driven hellhole that we’ve been in for a while.
Which I think aside from just making things worse in general, also makes me much more aware of such things as it’s bloody hard to avoid.
Bit rambly but ah well, be interested to hear how others have had their view changed, or not as the case may be
I think the biggest change in stance for me has been on anonymity. I used to strongly favor it online. As it is being abused year in and year out by countries, lobbying and even individuals using it for hate speech/inciting violence that has changed. I am more and more leaning into that people should be able to stand for their policies and that it should be visible who is broadcasting online, including why.
This core issue of how the internet is used to make society worse is slowly souring me on the entire technology. It is wonderful and does so many great things, the negatives are slowly starting to outweigh the positives though.
On March 15 2026 09:02 Yurie wrote: I think the biggest change in stance for me has been on anonymity. I used to strongly favor it online. As it is being abused year in and year out by countries, lobbying and even individuals using it for hate speech/inciting violence that has changed. I am more and more leaning into that people should be able to stand for their policies and that it should be visible who is broadcasting online, including why.
This core issue of how the internet is used to make society worse is slowly souring me on the entire technology. It is wonderful and does so many great things, the negatives are slowly starting to outweigh the positives though.
Yeah I’ve shifted a bit there, although I dunno how you mechanistically get to what I’d like to see. Which is broadly that if you as x person say something you should be accountable, but leaving room for satirists or whistleblower types or whatever.
On March 15 2026 09:02 Yurie wrote: I think the biggest change in stance for me has been on anonymity. I used to strongly favor it online. As it is being abused year in and year out by countries, lobbying and even individuals using it for hate speech/inciting violence that has changed. I am more and more leaning into that people should be able to stand for their policies and that it should be visible who is broadcasting online, including why.
This core issue of how the internet is used to make society worse is slowly souring me on the entire technology. It is wonderful and does so many great things, the negatives are slowly starting to outweigh the positives though.
Yeah I’ve shifted a bit there, although I dunno how you mechanistically get to what I’d like to see. Which is broadly that if you as x person say something you should be accountable, but leaving room for satirists or whistleblower types or whatever.
Bit tricky!
I'm still very much stuck on whether anonymity on the internet is a good thing or bad. I used to think it was unequivocally good. Then misinformation started to become weaponized and I kinda flipped to the other side, thinking the only solution is accountability. But the internet is a fantastic platform for the voiceless to find a voice. Oppressed people in oppressive regimes can talk relatively freely about what's happening. Minorities find a community of like-minded sympathisers without their community shunning them. And even for people with truly nothing to hide, privacy should be available. Employers don't need to have access to what you do on the internet in your free time. I'm pretty sure there's cryptographic solutions to having verifiable identity but maintain the relevant aspects of anonymity, but it requires trust in systems and institutions that have shown they are untrustworthy. So... no fucking clue how you do it.
There shouldn't be anonymity on social media networks, because that's how bad actors from foreign countries and bots sway public opinion. There should absolutely be anonymity for whistleblowers/journalists, purchasing birth control, reading censored literature, etc. But you don't need to do any of those things over social media.
On March 15 2026 10:03 LightSpectra wrote: There shouldn't be anonymity on social media networks, because that's how bad actors from foreign countries and bots sway public opinion. There should absolutely be anonymity for whistleblowers/journalists, purchasing birth control, reading censored literature, etc. But you don't need to do any of those things over social media.
What exactly would you require or not allow, if you're removing anonymity? For example, would you require social media accounts to show first and last names? An accurate, up-to-date profile picture of the person? How would these be verified by the social media platform? And how loose would privacy settings need to be, if a stranger wants to learn more about you and your account? Would stalking or unjustified violence be a concern?
I totally agree with you that bots and bad actors need to be addressed; I'm just not sure how to do that while still protecting average users. (Ideally, tech literacy / social media literacy / research literacy would be taught to new generations in middle/high school, so that young adults are less susceptible to bots, bullshit, and bad actors. That'll take a while though, and something should change during the interim.)
The digital town square only works if it follows the same rough rules as the real town square, you have to show your face, you have to be willing to face the social consequences for your speech, people have to be able to speak back to you.
When Mr Burns shows up at the Springfield town hall to argue against solar power the people of Springfield have the advantage of knowing that he isn't a well meaning concerned citizen, he has a conflicting financial interest. That is necessary for true dialogue to work.
This is all the more important in an era of bots using LLMs to impersonate humans.
Quick! Summarise the main points so this isn't against thread rules!
Lol, have you seen most of his posts? I think he has broken every forum rule there is. After calling half the posters in the thread every bad thing he can think of, it'd be ironic for posting a bare video to get him banned. Maybe it's the forum equivalent of tax evasion?
It's not his posts, but if this becomes another place where people just post videos at each other, I will stop following.
Same with the AI stuff, I can't stand the stuff -- if I wanted to talk to a bot I wouldn't be reading tl.net
As far as I can see, AI use and videos as sources of information just cause brain rot.
On March 15 2026 10:03 LightSpectra wrote: There shouldn't be anonymity on social media networks, because that's how bad actors from foreign countries and bots sway public opinion. There should absolutely be anonymity for whistleblowers/journalists, purchasing birth control, reading censored literature, etc. But you don't need to do any of those things over social media.
What exactly would you require or not allow, if you're removing anonymity? For example, would you require social media accounts to show first and last names? An accurate, up-to-date profile picture of the person? How would these be verified by the social media platform? And how loose would privacy settings need to be, if a stranger wants to learn more about you and your account? Would stalking or unjustified violence be a concern?
I totally agree with you that bots and bad actors need to be addressed; I'm just not sure how to do that while still protecting average users. (Ideally, tech literacy / social media literacy / research literacy would be taught to new generations in middle/high school, so that young adults are less susceptible to bots, bullshit, and bad actors. That'll take a while though, and something should change during the interim.)
It's really easy. Just require a login with a digital ID or a google/Facebook account created with a digital ID.
We already use it for basically everything, several times per day. Takes social media a few hours to implement.
Doesn't even have to show your full name. Just show country and maybe your first name. Removes all bots and obvious trolls and obviously illegal shit like childporn.
On March 15 2026 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote: I can elaborate on that I guess!
I think compared with 20 years ago, my ideals are basically unchanged, but there's significantly more nuance to them, I've become more pragmatic - and more accepting of other people having other ideals. For example, while I still firmly believe that the ideal world is borderless and that the nation you are born into shouldn't have any impact on the quality of your life, I'm not actually championing for unrestricted immigration - in fact, if pressed into a compromise situation with a right-winger, I'd easily let them have an immigration win (in the 'minimal amount of refugees/asylum seekers/family reunion'-sense, not in the 'deport children sense') if I could have a redistribution or climate change win. There's a recognition of having had a bit of a naive point of view in the past, too (even if, again, the ideal hasn't changed at all. Note that the immigration debate in Norway/EU and the US are very different in nature, though.)
I definitely haven't budged on redistribution, if anything, I believe the past two decades of increasing inequality have shown how harmful that is for society. But the how has matured through learning more, for example I'd be more skeptical towards taxing equity holdings and more positive towards incentivizing stock options for workers or saying CEO pay can only be x times that of an entry level/'regular' employee. Never been a bigger fan of estate tax than I currently am (but I've always been positive).
Then - and I'd attribute this more to having a child than my age (although I'm sure being in a very privileged position, especially globally but reasonably so even within Norway is also a factor) - I'm definitely more into preserving social stability than I used to be, again, not in the sense that I'm conservative in that I want to preserve society how it is today, because there are many ways in which I absolutely do not, but in the sense that I don't want to risk something worse to potentially get something better and prefer certain incremental improvement over gambling on a big win with a potential big loss.
Anti-imperialism definitely hasn't weakened as a position. Belief in the importance of preserving nature over economic growth is more steadfastly held than it used to be. At the same time I also believe that European countries should invest more in defense than I used to believe. Any changes here aren't explained by me changing, though - but by the world changing.
You said you would concede unlimited immigration if you got wins in climate change or redistribution but what specifically changed in your immigration views?
"In an ideal world" isn't really a useful though experiment, sure where you were born and into what family shouldn't have bearing into your quality of life but correcting these things create mayhem to say the least, what matters is what works or can work.
I don't know if its about the world changing or better understanding the world, I dont think it was less or more important to spend on defense before more than now its clear it is more important than many (myself included too) thought it was.
EPT
). Congress is incompetent alright, mostly because whatever is left of the Republican wing is still terrified of the MAGA base and so will do nothing against Trump. But Trump is authoritarian and corrupt, historically so and ought to be removed for the health of your republic.
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/17c48c90a2e0d085b3eba707baeb3c3a.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/31c4f1eb83ee3e5c47cf7db5c361e6ee.png)
