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.

What the hell kind of response and way of thinking is this? You were just told "hundreds of children were killed" and your response is "yeah, but how many innocents did the people living in the same area as those children kill?"

Not only is your comment propagating the fucked up idea that children should pay for the crimes of their parents, but it's also quite racist/xenophobic ("they live in the same area, so they/their parents must be just like the rest of them!").

Perhaps there's something going over my head, but the more I read it, the more it just sounds like a really fucked up comment to me.

He created JavaScript?!?!

I can excuse controversial right-wing views and homophobia, but I draw the line at creating JavaScript!

What they were describing was basically a society that relies on a gift economy, which has already existed in the past, and still exists in some places and forms today. We've been brainwashed by capitalist societies to think that would be a "hippy-dippy, fantasy land" because capitalism and bartering are what is natural to us, but it's been shown that a gift-based economy is what a lot of uncontacted tribes use. It's also how a lot of friend groups interoperate - hell, start a minecraft server (some other survival game will do) with your friends right now, and you will almost certainly naturally default to using a gift based economy.

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.

There is such a thing as a "Libertarian Socialist", which seems to be what you are looking for. A lot of Libertarian Socialists also just call themselves "anarchists"; and "anarchism" essentially just means something like "anti-authority" or "anti-hierarchy".

If you want to maybe explore it a bit:

• Homage to Catalonia is a book written by George Orwell where he tells of his time in Spain fighting alongside the anarchists and socialists in Spain (against the fascists supported by Hitler and Mussolini, and against the republicans backed by Stalin).

• The Dispossessed written by Ursula K. Le Guin; it's a sci-fi story about a society living on a moon, who are anti-capitalists and supposedly anarchists (whether they are anarchists or not is one of the focus points of the story).

If you just want to read theory instead, you can also search for Pyotr Kropotkin, and Emma Goldberg.

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.