This meme has literally never been more appropriate given the U.K.’s totalitarian stance on speech crimes.

I love a gif whose time has come 🤌

She is part of the current adminstration who has already failed in this front. Not sure who in their right mind would have any faith in her doing the right thing for the industry.

Remember, Donald Trump’s entire campaign is to sow fear and division through exaggeration and outright lies, so that he can then claim to be the only solution. It is a campaign entirely of FUD.

Has to be opening some NPCs eyes

What would you do if someone airdropped you 1000 ETH?

a. Dump for bitcoin because something something stacking goals

b. Send to burn address because ETH is haram

c. Ignore

The next generation needs to be desperately taught about Jesus, Marcus Aurelius, Buddha, The Bible, sacred texts, seers and prophets.

Celebrity worship is degrading our societies.

The realists have been fighting against it since always. Facts!!!

THINK BEFORE YOU POST. GFY

COVID as a deadly disease is down bad these days

I disagree. Conservatives do not maintain values or culture; they only slow down the destruction. Moreover, they eventually adopt the progressives' values. They are merely a step behind.

The analogy of the right being a fence post and the left being a rabid dog tied to it is not accurate because it suggests that conservative values are immovable, which isn't the case. A more fitting analogy would be that progressives are a rabid dog, and conservatives are a weight slowing the dog down. However, the weight does not stop the dog and, more importantly, moves in the same direction.

For instance, the shift in conservative attitudes toward same-sex marriage in recent years demonstrates that conservative values can and do change. Many conservatives now support or accept same-sex marriage, reflecting broader societal shifts and illustrating that their values are not fixed.

Growing up in the '90s I remember being told a few things about migration, which was just getting started in large numbers:

1. We only let in as many as we can assimilate and will stop if it gets out of hand.

2. We only let in people whose life is in real danger in their home countries.

3. They will need to adapt to our customs, not the other way around.

4. Second generation migrants are very well integrated, third generation are basically Lutheran liberals.

5. Migrants want to be like us and if they don't it's because we're still a bit racist.

This all seemed very reasonable. Voters bought it too, because they kept voting in favor of these policies. Only the truly far right warned that it wouldn't work out that way, but they were literal Nazis (that word used to mean something). Besides, the outcome was anyway future us' problem.

But in the '00s, the story slowly began to change. It was no longer about assimilation but multiculturalism, and how great it is. And frankly, this also sounded quite reasonable to me:

1. Diversity is great, just look at the food options.

2. It doesn't matter how or why they came, they are here now.

3. If you don't like their customs you're just being islamophobic.

4. Some migrants are integrating really well, just look at this anecdote.

5. Everyone should be proud of their own culture, except us (lest you're racist)

In hindsight, there was some apathy in this change. Less than a conscious shift in narrative, we collectively rationalized what had already come to pass. So while voters showed increased concern, they stuck with the parties and policies that got them there.

Then some really bad things started to happen. Murders over caricatures. A wave of terrorist attacks. A dramatic rise in rapes. Regular bombings in peaceful places. Racially motivated grooming. Exploding social expenditures. Gangs and stabbings.

But most concerning it became taboo to suggest that any of this had any connection to migrants. And they kept coming in ever larger numbers. Many seeking family reunification, bringing even more. Past us miscalculated.

By the '10s, this last fact brought a true racial element to the situation, as the change became so visible on the streets that the echoes of the promises from the '90s seemed to some as a cruel trick.

Old conspiracy theories about some great replacement were thus granted subtle credence, making the unreasonable reasonable.

Tragically, this trapped large numbers of migrants who worked hard to integrate and build a better life here in a web of general suspicion. Increasing suspicion harmed integration exacerbating issues increasing suspicion.

And continuing in the '20s, new migrants kept coming much faster than we could break this vicious cycle, fertilizing the seed of conflict we see budding this summer.

So what now? Pray the seed never blooms and go in peace.

There is no way to return to the past without a fundamental break with the core of our own culture - rule of law, basic liberties, human rights. And then what would it all be for. Besides, the past had plenty of forgotten flaws. Careful what you wish for.

But it also seems unlikely we will be able to move into the future without challenging many of the same values. People are being arrested as you read this for speaking their mind in the UK. Many more are afraid to speak their mind. Perhaps for the best.

Because in the end we will have to live together. And remember that the vast majority of us still do so in harmony. So let's not harbor any fantasies about the past, even if we don't know what to do about the future (other than make babies and stack sats).

To quote the Bible: "Don't be afraid". There must be love.

I don't have any better answers, nor did I write this to offer any. I just wanted to share how I've truly experienced these changes as part of the "native" European generation that grew up with them. I don't know any other world.

At best it's valuable context, at worst I hope some can relate.

Conservatives are not more grounded in "truth" than progressives. They are just as willing to construct their own "truths," which they use as a weapon of control. For example, religion, traditions, or law are popular methods of fabricated control, altered to fit their current agenda.

If by "power" you mean the ability to control others, then both conservatives and progressives use an inversion of values to gain power over people they otherwise would have no influence over. There is no fundamental difference in how conservatives and progressives view truth and power. They use different tactics at different times, but on a long timescale, they are both pushing in the exact same direction. On a short-term basis, they often appear to be complete opposites, but that will change once either side moves the Overton window.

Both sides use emotional tactics, albeit in different ways. Progressives might use overt outbursts of emotion like crying, screaming, or rage more frequently to get their way, while conservatives prefer to use more subtle emotions for manipulation, such as guilt, moral superiority, and virtuousness.

If you compare progressives to children having emotional tantrums to get their way, you can compare conservatives to dependent children looking for someone else to take care of their problems.

Conservatives are not more grounded in "truth" than progressives. They are just as willing to construct their own "truths," which they use as a weapon of control. For example, religion, traditions, or law are popular methods of fabricated control, altered to fit their current agenda.

If by "power" you mean the ability to control others, then both conservatives and progressives use an inversion of values to gain power over people they otherwise would have no influence over. There is no fundamental difference in how conservatives and progressives view truth and power. They use different tactics at different times, but on a long timescale, they are both pushing in the exact same direction. On a short-term basis, they often appear to be complete opposites, but that will change once either side moves the Overton window.

Both sides use emotional tactics, albeit in different ways. Progressives might use overt outbursts of emotion like crying, screaming, or rage more frequently to get their way, while conservatives prefer to use more subtle emotions for manipulation, such as guilt, moral superiority, and virtuousness.

If you compare progressives to children having emotional tantrums to get their way, you can compare conservatives to dependent children looking for someone else to take care of their problems.