451
The US is thinking about letting Ukraine use its weapons to strike Russia, even if it enrages Putin: report
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
451 points (96.3% liked)
World News
38699 readers
3463 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And if every country on earth suddenly starts playing a hand, someone is going to bust, so pick your poison I guess
Appease thugs with nukes and proliferate nuclear weapons around the world adding dozens more dice to be cast every conflict, or call their bluff and risk them actually using them
That's not even remotely how poker works, at all (or geopolitics).
It's okay if you don't understand the analogy
When everyone has nukes, all it takes is one country busting for us all to lose
Lmao. Let me just clear this up so you can stop pretending to know what you're talking about about.
In poker, you don't bust (that is, lose all your chips) unless you go all-in and lose. "If every country on earth suddenly starts playing a hand, someone is going to bust" is not true at all, because plenty of hands don't end in someone busting. Just because you lose a hand doesn't mean you're out of the game.
It's pretty clear that you were confused about the meaning of "bust" in this context which is fine but being both wrong and condescending makes you less sympathetic. Although, not nearly as much as being in favor of recklessly risking global thermonuclear war does.
Man this is your own analogy, do I really gotta explain it
If everyone is suddenly playing at the nuclear poker table, the chances of SOMEONE going all in each hand drastically increases, and if any one singular player goes bust, we ALL lose because the damn table explodes
Appeasement just kicks the can down the road (and makes things much worse in the future), it's vital that we not make playing nuclear poker appealing by letting countries get away with shit even if they do have nukes
Accept you were wrong after being unequivocally proven wrong challenge level: impossible.
If you're going to struggle this hard to follow along with expansions of your own analogies it would probably be best if you stopped using them, it's just making it harder on everyone else
God you're prideful. If you won't admit your mistakes then there's no point in trying to convince you of anything because you obviously won't listen, and there's no value in hearing your perspective because it's clearly unrefined.
Ironically, if you understood the fact that you could lose a poker hand without busting, maybe you could understand that you could concede this one tiny point and stay in the game. But I guess you only know how to escalate and double down. Rather Trumpian if you ask me.
It's okay, I forgive you, we all make mistakes sometimes, I'm sure you'll have better luck next time you try to engage
Well, you certainly do. I didn't make any mistakes in this conversation, apart from engaging with you at all. You, otoh, said something demonstrably and objectively incorrect, and then proceeded to, what are we at, quadruple down on it?