GlacialTurtle

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 6mo ago

As part of "Steam Play", videos are re-encoded and downloaded to allow playback via proton in certain cases. On subsequent runs of the game, the video will likely work fine.

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/guides/view/why-some-games-on-linux-steamos-steam-deck-have-broken-videos-and-what-you-can-do/

1

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 6mo ago

And the far right will get what they want anyway:

First, after the October 29 vote, the core trio of far-right parties — PVV, JA21 (Conservative Liberals), and Forum for Democracy — hold forty-two of hundred fifty seats. In 2023, they held forty-one. Wilders’s party lost eleven, yet JA21 jumped from one to nine and Forum rose from three to seven. In total, they control nearly one-third of the 150-seat parliament. This reshuffle is mainly tactical: once every mainstream party said it would refuse to govern with Wilders, many hard-right voters simply parked their ballot with JA21 or Forum, instead of abandoning this kind of politics altogether.
[...]
The historically more radical-left Socialist Party adopted the opposite pose as the GreenLeft-Labor alliance. It tried to copy the playbook of Germany’s Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance: talk tough on borders while hankering after a lost social democracy. This may have seemed a viable strategy, since the far right predictably failed to deliver on its pro-welfare promises. But voters are used to governments of all stripes failing to deliver on bread-and-butter economic issues. So those attracted to the anti-immigration message stuck with the familiar far-right narrative — which the Socialist Party helped legitimize. Progressives and voters with a migration background just turned away.

D66, the Dutch left-liberal party, has made a sharp turn on asylum migration, demanding that asylum applications are made from outside Europe’s borders.
Party leader Rob Jetten said he wanted a change of international treaties and pushed forward what he called “the Canadian model” as an alternative to the current policies.
He said “the parties of the middle should take a step forward” to prevent, he said, the subject taking national politics hostage again.
“The current migration system is broken,” said Jetten. “From migration that happens to us, we will have to move to migration that we control ourselves.”
Under the Canadian model, all asylum applications would have to be requested outside the borders of the European Union, meaning asylum seekers who applied in the Netherlands would not be allowed in.

https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/06/dutch-d66-party-calls-for-stricter-asylum-policies/

Same fucking bullshit everywhere: Centrist parties winning after scandal and failure by right wing or far right party in government celebrates as if it's some return to normalcy, when actually they increasingly adopt far right policy, rhetoric and framing, especially on immigration. At best they try to soft sell it through triangulation and borrowing vaguely progressive sounding buzzwords.

Meanwhile, no actual meaningful decline in the far rights share of the vote and party representation, and the perfect stage for a one term centrist government as people swap between far right parties and liberals continue to flounder and take for granted their own voters as having "nowhere to go" as they shift right.

It happened with Biden, it's happening with Keir, and it's the perfect setup to happen in the Netherlands.

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 6mo ago

You just defended claiming objections should be taken seriously from "serious" (lmao) countries in the specific context of someone trying to get the article rewritten to downplay claims of genocide by invoking the claims of interested governments that are the ones doing the downplaying for their own cynical reasons.

You're an idiot who can't follow the topic and context of conversation. Goodbye.

2

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 6mo ago

If you are not able to extrapolate, I’m not going to give an opinion on all ~200 governments in the world, or any significant fraction of them.

Only that there's apparently enough "serious" ones to be OK to deny genocide in an encyclopedia.

Fundamental error. Wales and the wikipedia ethos is not about “not offending” people; it’s about creating a resource that can be trusted by as many people as possible.

And how you get trust is by denying inconvenient facts that are only controversial to morons and complicit governments and politicians according to you, because they're "serious" in your stupid, shallow and meaningless criteria. Moron.

4

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 6mo ago

So if you’re just repeating the claim, there is no point. Say something new?

So if you're not going to say anything of substance, there is no point. Say something that doesn't waste peoples time?

So the statements of the Israeli government would not have much weight in this, as they have obvious incentive to lie. The government of Russia should not have much weight, because it wants to whitewash its war crimes in Ukraine. The government of the US should not have much weight, because it has been eviscerated of everyone of any intellectual capacity.

Good to know we've dealt with all 3 governments.

They are not neutral observers, but (some of them) make serious statements and are capable of responding to facts even when it concerns an ally. We don’t see that with the US. We do see it with the UK, so even though it is not neutral, it forms part of the lack of consensus.
Going on the basis of consensus means that sometimes Wikipedia will not state as fact something that is a fact. And that’s fine. It’s better than the alternative.

Somehow you've managed to be both inane and absurd. We can't state facts because there's no consensus, there's no consensus because there are material and idealogical incentives to deny facts, so therefore liars and and co-conspirators get to pre-empt statements of fact, and this is better than the alternative to stating facts, because it might offend those who want to deny them. And the basis of this allowance of self censorship for alignment with the guilty is that some are "serious", and they are "serious" entirely because they are "capable of responding to facts even when it concerns an ally". This is despite the UK (a "serious" country) being directly complicit, having hidden its own legal advice on the sale of arms to Israel, having been in near lockstep with the US on policy, having declared Israel "does have that right" to deny power and water to Palestinians as collective punishment, having cracked down on domestic protests and made Palestine Action a proscribed organisation for mere trespassing and maybe criminal damage (of spraying paint on a plane), I could go on.

6

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 6mo ago

That’s just repeating the claim that they’re ideologically motivated.

Because they are, as well as materially motivated.

Western governments, sans the US, are serious governments.

As opposed to every government that is non-western, which are by definition non-serious???

What denotes serious vs non-serious government worthy of weight? Why would you not merely look at the evidence, and make determinations independent of the will of any particular government? Why would being "serious" mean they're not materially or ideologically motivated? Why would the US under Biden be more serious when Biden repeated the false claim of beheaded babies? Why would Starmer, who declared Israel had the right to withhold power and water, be any more serious? Why would any of these countries that have smeared Palestinian advocates as anti-semites and introduced laws to crack down on even peaceful protests be "serious" and worth weighing in their view of what constitutes genocide as if they are neutral observers, not guilty co-conspirators?

1

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 6mo ago

No actual care or interest in Palestinians and the victims, only about the damage to "Israels image" and the "propaganda blow".

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 6mo ago

An opinion prompted by a awkward question in an interview and where he is abusing his position to insist the article needs to change to meet his arbitrary standard of not being considerate of governments that deny genocide.

8

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 6mo ago

There are serious governments and academics and commentators who disagree.

No there isn't. All the arguments rely on genocide denial and ignoring repeated, clear statements of intent by Israeli government officials, soldiers, MP's and citizens, whilst clearly having a clear bias towards exaggeration when it concerns claims about acts committed by Palestinians.

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 6mo ago

I just figured he was trying to save Wikipedia from getting axed by those in power in some countries who are pushing back very hard against anything that has sentences containing both “Israel” and “genocide” in it.

This is not the case.

But I am pro-Israel. That doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine. This is not a controversial position. My views actually aren't in any way shocking or unusual. 9:30 AM · Apr 16, 2019

https://x.com/jimmy_wales/status/1118069048493740032

You can search his profile and find the last time he mentioned anything regarding Israel, Palestine or Gaza was 2 years ago, besides a post referring to the ADL discussing how wikipedia banned editors for antisemitism.

What you can find, however, is many, many, many posts over a number of years claiming Jeremy Corbyn was antisemitic and had made the Labour party antisemitic during his tenure as leader, something which happened largely due to Corbyn being pro-Palestinian and was used as a smear campaign against him.

And now out of the blue he declares this article not up to standards, and the only argument he consistently formulates is that some governments disagree and they have to be given equal weight.

Gee whiz, I wonder why.

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 7mo ago

It's so obvious that the dog was trained with a shock collar that the people pushing the idea have just spent the last few days using a clip with one of Hasans streamer/podcast friends popping his chewing gum into the mic as "proof" he's clicking a button to shock the dog...

For a guy who streams 6+ hours 6 days a week and has done for the entire time he's had the dog.

Almost like the entire thing is hysteria driven by weirdo freaks who have even weirder hate boners and will make things up based on literally nothing other than circumstance.

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 9mo ago

I’m not defending the vote so much as pointing out that it was a meaningless vote.

Just ignore the part where you kept suggesting the Iron Dome was "defensive" therefore it's OK and "not a weapon" (lmao) therefore voting in favour of it would be legitimate.

Again, you're just an obtuse moron twisting yourself into a pretzel pretending its nuance.

If MTG brought up an amendment that said everyone gets to live forever and AOC voted against it, would you claim AOC is pro-death or would you recognize that MTG’s proposal was a useless measure that shouldn’t be taken seriously?

You're just not a serious person. Learn to shut the fuck up.

8

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 9mo ago

Except I’m not. You literally quoted me saying I don’t support funding the iron dome.

You are an absurdly obtuse and disingenuous person.

Iron Dome funding is sending arms to Israel. Iron Dome protects Israel as it invades its neighbours and commits a genocide. It's that simple.

You are defending a vote against stripping iron dome funding, accusing others of being in favour of killing civilians whilst trying to claim you also don't support funding Israel. You can't have it both ways. You support killing of civilians with your own stupid fucking rhetoric, but you want to dance around the issue and pretend you aren't doing what you are in fact doing.

There actually was a lot of debate about civilian deaths in the firebombing of Dresden and the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan. Your lack of historical context and nuance doesn’t help your broad brush arguments.

You are genuinely a fucking moron. I said nothing about Dresden or dropping nukes. You are literally advocating for sending AA guns to Hitler by equating and reducing all forms of military response as being one and the same as mass murder of civilians to suggest it's legitimate to support funding for the Iron Dome as "defensive".

10

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 9mo ago

I wouldn’t personally support funding anything in Russia or Israel.

Yet here you are defending funding the iron dome. Weird that.

A gun is an offensive weapon. It’s not useful for self defense. You can’t shoot bullets out of the air easily. There’s no need for useless name-calling.

A missile is an offensive weapon. What do you think the iron dome is? Idiot.

Except she voted against said funding by voting against the bill.

Yet she defended funding the iron dome, which is giving arms to Israel.

The iron dome existed before the current genocide.

Irrelevant to the point.

But you’re literally saying that civilians in Israel should die because the people in control of the government and military are committing genocide.

Irrelevant to the point. You're saying Russian civilians should die by saying you wouldn't fund anything in Russia. You also said the same about Israel, so you also support killing Israeli civilians according to you.

You're saying German civilians should die because you refuse to provide Hitler with AA guns.

I’d be interested in defending Israel entirely. The conservatives in the majority in Congress will not allow that to happen. However AOC voted or even if she abstained, the results would not be any different.

???? nonsensical.

She literally didn’t say that. If she did, you could quote her saying “Tlaib and Omar are Nazis.” You’re assigning that meaning to her words and then getting upset at your own interpretation.

"If you believe neo-nazis are welcome and operating in good faith, you can have them!" She said about people voting in favour of the amendment. She called Ilhan and Tlaib nazis.

12

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 9mo ago

Would you support funding an iron dome for Russia against Ukraine?

The iron dome isn’t a defensive “weapon.” That’s a contradiction in terms.

A gun doesn't stop being a weapon because you used it in self defence, idiot.

She specifically cited an interest in not having innocent people die.

By funding arms to Israel to protect it from consequences of committing a genocide and invading and bombing multiple neighbours, which then allows it to act with further impunity to keep doing what it's doing.

She did not call Tlaib a Nazi. That’s a gross misrepresentation of the statement. Ask Tlaib if she thinks AOC was referring to her.

She straight up declared anyone who voted for it effectively a nazi. She called Tlaib and Omar nazis.

16

GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml 9mo ago

AOC herself defended """defensive""" weapns to Israel. She was against the amendment on those grounds.

Her and other progressives vote for "doomed" bills and amendments all the time, as do most politicians. They vote for them to signal their position and push those positions publicly as much as anything else.

Rashiba Tlaib voted for the amendment. AOC called her a nazi.