• ByteJunk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yep. A single billionaire funding a war effort is abhorrent.

    This one happens to be on the right side, but there’s absolutely no guarantee that his will be the case for any of these fucking psychopaths.who horde wealth. They all need to go.

    • ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Except he’s not funding a war, he’s funding the defense of a nation fighting for freedom and its right to exist.

      Ukraine didn’t get in this war as a pissing match with Russia. It was wrongly attacked and is a democracy defending itself. It’s had its children kidnapped and its civilians targeted. It will cease to exist if it loses. We don’t have a greedy capitalist funding an unjust war for profit as you’re trying to suggest. Helping Ukraine is the right thing to do. Refusing to help them will simply result in Europe fighting a better-resourced Russia later.

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        We don’t have a greedy capitalist funding an unjust war for profit as you’re trying to suggest.

        Yet.

    • Lumiluz@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Counterpoint - under the current administration, paying taxes might help Russia more

      • ammonium@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        But would the current administration be the current administration without wealth hoarding psychopaths?

        • Lumiluz@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It wouldn’t, but I think that ship has sailed already. I don’t see how your current governmental structure would ever fix that. It’s been a problem since citizens united, if not before

    • Bogus007@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Do you say the same thing about Russian billionaires funding the war against Ukraine?

        • Bogus007@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Are you ByteJunk? Is ByteJunk a name for a group of people or why do you say « they »?

          • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            No. I am dependencyInjection.

            I said they, as I was referencing ByteJunk and what they literally said (typed, if you want to be a pedant) in the comment you replied to.

            Are you happy now? Do you need anything else blatantly obvious to be clarified for you?

            • humorlessrepost@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Bogus is just doing that new anti-trans-panic performance the nazis do now where they pretend English hasn’t used they/them for unspecified gender for hundreds of years. She’s a troll.

              • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Yeah it’s an odd one. You could say my friend Bob is also going and they will meet you in the reception.

                Perfectly normal way of speaking and nothing to do with transgender stuff.

                • Bogus007@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Ah, great idea for progress in English, they have. Not only ‘the’ for all sexes, but ‘they’ for all, now they say. Great idea they have, yes. 🤣

                  • boonhet@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Singular they had existed for centuries before your miserable existence.

                    It’s a way to refer to someone in the 3rd person without knowing their gender. If you do know their gender, you can use the proper gendered pronouns.

                    Not only ‘the’ for all sexes

                    ‘The’ has always been gender neutral in English because English doesn’t assign gender to nouns. Thus grammatically, a gender-specific “the” isn’t necessary unlike in German or Spanish where all nouns have grammatical genders. And if you come back at me with “‘the’ isn’t even that old, it used to be spelled ‘ye’”, well the problem there is that it was only printed that way for convenience, the pronunciation was never with a “y”.

                    “It” is incorrect for using about a person as well, unless referring to a baby or a small child. Why? It’s just how English has been spoken for a long time now, and how it’s still used. Language rules should reflect usage, not the other way around.

              • Bogus007@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Please, correct it you want to say, then ‘it’ say, you must 😂