You ignored most of what I said, cherry-picked things, and even then had to leave out context and use vague language to make your argument seem anything less than insane.

The rise of the Nazis before WW2 was definitely partly caused by the imposition of the allies after WW1.

You mean economic sanctions? Around the same time that Germany was suffering from those economic sanctions and Hitler was rising to power, the world was going through The Great Depression, and by the time Hitler rose to power Germany's economy was already improving. And even you are aware enough to use the word "partially" in that sentence. More on this towards the end (*).

They write the history books after all.

That's an argument made by people who don't know history and have nothing to back their claims. I really would not be shocked if you tried to claim the Holocaust wasn't real, next.

They still killed about 8% of the total German population during WW2.

I'm not gonna bother to check that number because 8% of the population of a country being killed during a war is not a genocide, and not even an inherent attempt at one. What the Nazis did to the Jews, and what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians, that is genocide. Push them away from where they live, close them off in ghetto's or walled compounds, and slowly kill them off. That's how the Holocaust started too, before they moved to concentration camps and gas chambers.

Almost 50% of German casualties during WW2 were civilians…

Firstly: According to this, about 2.25M civilians were killed during expulsions, and 500K Germans were killed by strategic bombing, but it does not specify how many are civilian. Even if we assume 100% of those are civilian and say the number of civilians casualties is 2.75M, that still only makes up 39% of the German death toll. That "almost" is certainly doing a lot of work there, for someone complaining about reality.

Secondly: How many civilians do you think make up the Palestinian death toll when they indiscriminately (and sometimes purposefully) bomb civilian areas? Israel has purposefully bombed civilian targets; 4 in 10 killed in Gaza are children; just in 2023 22K Palestinians were killed.

Finally: That still doesn't cover the important part you ignored, which is that no one is defending the bombing of German civilians during WW2, (*) and most people acknowledge the sanctions on Germany after WW1 were too harsh. Meanwhile, you are actively defending the ongoing killing of innocent civilians, and the genocide that has been ongoing for decades. Even if (and this is a giant fucking if) you were right in your comparison, you are merely arguing against yourself, because most people are not okay with any of those things.

You are somehow both (1): trying to equate Nazi Germany to Palestine, when Israel is the one doing to Palestinians what Nazi Germany was doing to the Jews, and (2): at the same time, purposefully or not, trying to victimize and justify the fucking Nazis.

I'm pretty sure we're not far from this conversation straying into Holocaust denial, either by you or someone else coming in here, so I'm leaving this convo permanently. I hope neither you nor your loved one ever get bombed because of people living in your general area; peace.

Firstly, the first and only rule of the instance you are commenting on is "be nice", but you couldn't even do that for one comment. Why are you even here? It's like going to a place whose sole purpose is having somewhere where there isn't rubbish on the floor, and throwing something on the ground as soon as you set foot in the area.

Secondly,

This situation and WW2 are not remotely the same thing. And no historian would call what the allies did to the Germans "genocide", because it wasn't. What Israel is doing has been. And it will be remembered as such. Just some differences:

• They don't hold even remotely the same kind of power and influence over the people in their region. The Nazis were given power through legal elections, Hamas was not. And Hamas is only in control in Gaza, not in the West Bank, where Palestinians still suffer at the hands of Israel.

• The existence of Hamas is a direct consequence of what Israel has been doing for several decades; this conflict did not just start last year. There was not an ongoing genocide of Germans before WW2, and it's not how the Nazis came about.

• WW2 was a war being fought between mainly armed soldiers, and people do not defend or support the bombing and killing of civilian targets, nor were they the primary targets. Israel has bombed and killed Palestinians indiscriminately, and that is what you are defending.

That's a bit over the top, in my opinion. I've tried plenty of courses, and Duolingo is pretty good to get a hang of the basics of a language.

I'd say, in my experience, the hardest part of learning a language is getting started, and I feel Duolingo is perfect just for that. To get deeper knowledge and become more comfortable, one should probably switch once they start feeling more comfortable with the alphabet (if there is a specific one), and with the basic vocabulary and grammar.

EDIT: Forgot to add but another advantage of Duolingo, is that it's also great to get a taste and basic feel for different languages; and that can be especially useful for someone who is looking to learn a new language but can't quite decide on one.

It’s immature, and unprofessional.

This isn't a job. They are a user like you who happen to also volunteer to mod because someone has to. They have just as much right to share their opinion as you do, and they did it politely. Besides, they didn't even start an argument, they just shared an opinion, confirmed it, and then clarified again; all of it in a polite manner.

Anybody could goad a mod like that to misusing their authority

They seem to have handled the situation just fine and even left the report for other mods to handle. I really don't see what the big issue is.

They're a user too, and they're arguing respectfully. What's the problem?

I already wrote another comment on this, but to sum up my thoughts in a top comment:

Most (major) games nowadays don’t look worlds better than the Witcher 3 (2015), but they still play the same as games from 2015 (or older), while requiring much better hardware with high levels of energy consumption. And I think it doesn't help that something like an RTX 4060 card (power consumption of a 1660 with performance slightly above a 3060) gets trashed for not providing a large increase in performance.

To everyone who is against this, and call the people supporting it "disgusting":

Here is a post on Beehaw about climate activists who spray-painted a yacht. Posted about 10 days ago but only has 68 upvotes, and 15 comments at this time; meanwhile this post sits at 182 votes and 151 comments just 1 day after. Off course, you could argue it's because c/environment isn't as big as c/news; although that could be said to be a demonstration of the problem itself. But the real questions are: why did it not spread further, and why did you almost certainly not hear about it?

Because no one gives a shit about that. It raises no eyebrows. Because it's meaningless and doesn't really inconvenience anyone. She probably just had her yacht cleaned, and it never bothered her for more than the 5 seconds she was made aware of the spray paint. It's not going to stop any other rich people from buying yachts, and it's not going to raise the awareness of the average person and cause them to reduce their consumption either. In the end, it accomplished absolutely nothing.

Climate activists have been trying peaceful protests for 50 years, do you need a reminder of how bad things are getting?

And before the arguments about how this affects "working class" people, but all of it is really the billionaire's and companies fault and that governments need to act: What do companies stand to gain from ruining the planet? Money, which the people give to them while offering each other excuses to consume. What could a government do to stop it? Well, they could introduce carbon taxes, stop subsidizing meat, and invest in more bike lanes and public transport; which would all result in higher gas prices, higher prices for anything made of plastic (among other goods), more expensive energy, much more expensive meat, a lot more bike lanes with smaller roads, and more public transport. Are these all things you're okay with? If yes, then there's no reason to not get "ahead" (although we're far behind) of the problem and start organizing; and if no... well, then you might have stumbled into the problem.

Finally, here is a picture from two posts on c/news that I think illustrates the problem quite well.

I can easily go without using my phone for extended periods of time, and always have been. I've never really been "phone addicted", and never used my phone during class - despite having one for the entirety of my school years.

That still never stopped me from not paying any attention in class. Drawing on a book/desk, talking to the person next to me, looking out the window, or just spending time with my imagination were things I did too often, and I never needed a phone for any of it.

I seriously doubt banning phones would make much of a difference, other than pissing plenty of kids off. You're essentially being forced to go to a place, every day, where you will be stripped of your personal belongings and are not allowed to be in contact with the outside world.

In my country, they started the newscast 2h earlier than usual just to say "Debris were found; may be unrelated". I think they initially went live earlier because the conference was meant to happen earlier and they couldn't wait to show it; it had to be live. When it got postponed, they spent 2h just talking about it with commentators and different specialists; all just theorizing what could have happened, and whether there might still be a chance for rescue or not, and repeating that there would be a conference "so stay tuned!".

But refugees you barely hear about.

I get this story has some more "thrill" and novelty to it, being a submarine near the titanic and all, but this really is ridiculous.

I know some vegans who would disagree with that

I definitely would!

Usually, the reason people go vegan is to try to reduce (hopefully eliminate) animal suffering, and/or to reduce green house gas emissions from animal farming.

Cultivated meat deals with the first, and, depending on how it's produced, can probably entirely avoid the second as well.

I don't know the process in detail, but I would also imagine that cultivated meat is no more sourced from animals than a plant that was fertilized with animal dung, and that would still be considered vegan.

After reading some more comments, I think I came up with a good analogy to explain this issue, and I wanted to share.

Think of websites like a bar that also has an open mic.

Now, when I go to a bar, I don't want to have to give the bouncers and staff my full name as well as my address. I also wouldn't want them to know that I just came, for example, from a store where I was looking for a vacuum, and then have them warn a vacuum seller about it. A vacuum seller who is then going to sit next to me, while I'm trying to have a drink, and show me a pamphlet regarding the "amazing vacuum" he has for sale.

Ideally, I can also look for a bar that will allow me to come in costumed and not show my face. Or I could ask the bar to delete footage of me at some point, and to not store my ID if I do have to show it to a bouncer at the entrance.

All of that is relatively feasible and within the realm of reason; and all of that are things that privacy advocates might advocate for.

However, what is not feasible, or within the realm of reason, or what privacy advocates tend to advocate for, is the ability for me to willingly go up on stage, say something on the mic which I immediately regret, and then ask everyone present to forget it ever happened and delete any footage they might have of it. No reasonable person would ask for something like that, because it is not a reasonable request.

That is how regular websites work. With federated websites, that becomes enhanced; it's like if the bar you're in has a camera pointed at the microphone, and transmits both video and audio directly into several other bars. So when you go up to that mic, you better make sure you're okay with what you are saying being made public and available to anyone.

Reddit was emailed twice by operators, once on April 13 and one again on June 16.

There was no attempt to find out what we took.

And now they are going public with it, but still haven't posted any kind of proof, or leaked anything at all. The most they say is "Did you know they also silently censor users?" which everyone already knew about as well.

It seems like a bluff to me, but of course I could be wrong.