wraekscadu

Soon.

Why's that? What part from that era would you like to see again today if you could?

I hope you're right. Although that Pahlavi fellow scares me. I'm not aware of how much support he truly has, but I hope it's super low.

Yeah, I can't see how just destroying infrastructure is going to accomplish anything. Total regime change seems to be the only logical end goal.

Military angle: Intelligence says that Iran is super close to having nukes. Random strikes on nuke labs, assassinations of nuke scientists, etc. won't help anymore cuz Iran has put all their facilities inside that big ass mountain. Total regime change is the only method through which Iran stops pursuit of nukes. Just killing the Ayatollah and the entirety of the high command is a waste of bombs if that momentum isn't used to build something further.

Trumpian angle: My guess is that he's just doing it for "legacy" purposes. Similar to Putin and Ukraine. Putin wanted a legacy similar to Peter the great. Trump probably wants something like that. That's why he was trying to force himself on Greenland and Canada. That's why the Gulf of America bullshit exists. Little men with big egos. He was getting too rapey, which is probably why his advisors advised him to take it out on Iran as it would be the least damaging compared to Greenland or fkin Canada lol. But this again becomes super unpredictable too! This entire Iran thing could stop on Trump's whim.

Economic angle: Not so confident of what I'm saying here, but my guess is that this is quite good for big oil and defense contractors. Defense contractors want more consumption of their wares and services. Big oil wants to be able to have a stake in extracting and exporting Iranian oil and gas. Anything aside from achieving this final goal hurts them, as their product becomes more expensive due to higher shipping costs through the strait of Hormuz, thus reducing demand.

That's why I'm not so upset with the Iran situation. The American government will face so much damage from this (economic, militaristic, political) that their appetite for war wouldn't be much (for a decade perhaps). At least that's my opinion after looking at iraq and Afghanistan.

This obviously changes if somehow the Iranian people topple the theocracy without American boots on the ground. This is definitely what the us admin is hoping for (and getting the shah back), but this looks... difficult...

Once American boots hit the ground, it's just another Iraq. So many factions and separatists sitting in Iran rn, who are being suppressed by the theocracy.

Also, the theocracy was arming, training and supporting islamist fascists in the neighborhood for decades. Will remnants of this regime just forget how to do that in their own country?

Again, this all hinges on the will of the Iranian public. How hard are they willing to fight for democracy? Will they get rid of the theocracy? Will they resist the terrorists? Will they resist US pressure to reestablish the monarchy? How do they deal with the separatists? Does a sentiment of war take precedence over a sentiment of "stfu, please stfu and keep the peace, we're Iranians, war is bad, peace is good, please please just stfu"?

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

That being said, we also need to understand the situation from all angles. It is in our best interests to have the US as a reliable trading partner. Sharing such a large geographic border with them gives us access to their large market, meaning that we can buy their products and services, and sell ours. Free trade generally tends to be a very very good thing, and we must hope for that.

BUT, we must also staunchly defend our sovereignty. The current American admin is extremely hostile ofc. Looking at this, we should now be building our own products and services (those that are key to maintaining our sovereignty). It does not matter if it is economically a worse choice in the short term. The price we pay for this onshoring is the price of national security. What would these industries be in my opinion? They would be:

• Selling and consuming our own natural resources independently.
• Anything involving information. This means news, social media and so on. We should continue funding "Canadian culture" related media.
• Maybe the automobile sector, but I'm not really educated on how sovereign we already are/are not in that area.
• Food maybe, but again, I'm not sure how independent we are there. If someone knows about this, I'd love to learn more.

So in short, here's what I'm saying: We must defend our sovereignty right now and in the long term. But, if an opportunity for economic cooperation presents itself in the future with the Americans, we must take it (while defending our sovereignty long term). Free trade with someone who isn't a psychopath is good and we must not forget that.

And cuz weed is better. Source: me

So here's my guess. I'm not trans, and what I'm about to say is purely my observation and not based on data.

Folks born with male genitalia doing anything that is not cis and straight is frowned upon more than folks born with female genitalia doing the same.

Society finds two dudes kissing more revolting than two women kissing. It also doesn't help that folks who transition to become a woman after having undergone male puberty are much more recognizable as trans. Compare this to trans men, who aren't so easily identifiable as trans.

Hence, trans women have it worse interacting with society compared to trans men. Hence, they crave for a safe space more. Lemmy's instances tend to be these safe places. Hence, more trans women here than men.

They mean, "I don't agree with gay people doing gay stuff".

Why? It's either: "Because the God I worship said being gay is bad". Or "I don't, know, it's just wrong and if you try to make me think further by asking more questions, I'm going to make up reasons to justify my conclusion instead of having a good faith conversation."

It's sad that logical reasoning and argument formation isn't taught in schools much. This is why we see people endlessly land in bad faith conversations riddled with logical fallacies. It sucks so hard :(

I mean yeah:

• saves a crazy amount of money
• one less thing to maintain and cause headaches
• makes me bike, which keeps me healthy
• better for the environment

I would only buy a car if I can use it as a means of production, i.e., uber.

"Lemme do it foooor youuuuoooo"

Supply will catch up with demand. High PC component prices are a temporary thing.