I think the word you're looking for is cynic, and yeah, you're not wrong.
For what it's worth, I would probably refuse to switch position too, mostly because I'm somewhat OCD about refusing what I feel is "corrupting myself". But I also count my blessings because I don't fear being put out on the street, and I acknowledge not everyone lives so securely.
Side note: Their secret weapon was to sign exclusivity agreements with all of the specialist hardware makers that make parts for the stepper - so basically if you want to replace them, you have to replace everything behind them as well...
Also someone OnHere works there, forgot their name...
Well, that's a very "moral" answer. If you're in that position and you hold out despite losing your job (for example), that could be considered heroic. Perhaps losing your job changes your life trajectory so you never have children of your own, in which case you would have martyred your own bloodline for your values.
Unless under invasion, no serious country puts individuals in the situation of having to choose whether to martyr themselves to protect values that the government claims are sacred.
And you have to ask yourself if it's even smart to stand up for what you believe in. If you lived in El Salvador prior to Bukele and you testified against a gang member, they might go to prison, but then their familia would kill you. Would it have been worth it?
Knowing that the alternative is to elect Bukele, and get the whole lot of them rounded up and thrown in the can for the rest of time makes it pretty clear that the answer is no. And it also makes it pretty clear that prior to Bukele, the whole criminal justice process amounted to little more than a fig leaf over the fact that gangs were operating with the government's blessing.
The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does. So if government sanctions the murder of children, then government is a child murdering system. Sacrificing yourself, or you future, for a cause you believe in is indeed noble, but would you sacrifice yourself for a fig leaf?
Embed this noticecjd (cjd@pkteerium.xyz)'s status on Wednesday, 02-Sep-2026 19:26:40 JST
cjdLindsay Clancy is innocent. You might disagree. You might even have some evidence to the contrary. But you have to ask yourself: is this really worth missing work so you can sit in jury deliberation having a staring contest with some feminist that's got nothing better to do, until eventually you lose your job? Lindsay Clancy is innocent.
In cases as gruesome and public as this, the National Interest is to make a public spectacle of the punishment in order to prevent copycats. This is the utilitarian justification for public execution.
British and Americans had amphetamine salts, Germans had better chemists so they were able to synthesize methamphetamine. They discovered that it had a stronger and longer effect and so that's what they gave their soldiers.
The story of how they conquered Poland in three days was actually 72 hours of continuous marching and fighting. And this really caught the Brits off guard.
But later on, the Brits were able to use their advantage against them in Africa - they began doing surprise attacks and then retreating (and going to sleep), and the problem with methamphetamine is that it lasts too long and makes sleep impossible. Having to jump up and fight meant they took more of it, and then being left alone for hours meant they then couldn't sleep and eventually it drove them mad.
If you're gonna claim that Europe is lost and it doesn't matter if it collapses, and yet you can't point to one single county that's in better condition - WTF is your point?
> The least shitty place on earth is still shitty 😭
Anyone with two braincells to rub together can see the only reason you'd be so evasive about what country you're in is because it's way more of a shithole than the worst places in Europe.
Or else it's Israel and you're afraid they're gonna bully you.
I don't think he's actually that dumb, it's just bad faith argumentation - and that kinda pisses me off, especially because there's people that don't know they're not in an honest debate and they get scammed into thinking they're wrong.
Usually OnHere is clean of that horseshit so when someone brings it around, I like to do my part to make them feel extra unwelcome.
Unfortunately for them, Russia has them bent over a barrel, so their demands are gonna be rich.
The US is tapped out, so no help to come from that hemisphere.
The only hope for the EU is that China will come in with some kind of a bailout program because they don't want to see Russia conquer Europe and then be able to form a Eurasian hegemony that will then proceed to roll China...
But bailout without restructuring is just extending the bad practices, and Europe needs to cut spending. Unfortunately "stop spending money you don't have" is never a vote-winner, so herein lies a challenge.
But in that regard, Europe has a really surprising opportunity because the EU and ECB are kind of autocratic, so if China will underwrite the Euro, they can be given partial control over monetary policy, so that the failures will be the bad banks rather than the entire currency.
But the problem that remains is the individual countries. The French and Italians don't understand financial markets, they understand that you vote for presidents who do or don't give you nice stuff. The reality is more like "Vote for whoever you want, but if they are not financially sound, you get flogged by the bond market".
It's like the scene in Indiana Jones: Voters decide which cup to drink from, and the bond market says whether they chose wisely, or not.
Also, if the French bonds go berserk, going back to their old currency doesn't make those bonds go away. Telling the creditors to pound sand is a strategy, but then nobody will lend them anything at all. Any European country that talks about going back to their old currency, is PROBABLY going to print money and dump it on their populous, in order to get EUR, or USD, or whatever is the currency their actual bonds are denominated in, and pay them.
That every full on hyperinflation scenario in the past century has been exactly that dynamic.
So in this regard, EUR is protecting the people from themselves. It'd be better if it was XAU but that's a digression...
The other problem with exiting the EU is then each state is gonna get treated like some South American joke country by Russia, China, etc. And nobody wants to end up negotiating like that.
1. Stay in the Euro, keep paying creditors, keep borrowing and pretending (status quo)
2. Stay in the Euro, keep paying creditors, stop irrational spending (the "diet and exercise" answer because it works the best but nobody ever does it)
3. Stay in the Euro, default on debts, irrational spending stops by force because nobody will lend you any more money. Government is fucked, but the country keeps functioning.
4. Leave the Euro, keep paying creditors, keep borrowing and pretending (hyperinflation 💀 )
5. Leave the Euro, keep paying creditors, stop irrational spending (haha nobody gonna do that shit, nice try)
6. Leave the Euro, default on debts... Become financially very isolated, hard to convince anyone to accept your money on foreign exchange markets, imports become challenging, foreign investment scared, probably 💀
That "depreciating currency" stuff is Keynsian nonsense.
Depreciating currency is just another way of saying you're more competitive when your people are poorer. You can also accomplish the same goal by importing millions of low wage workers to bid down salaries.
And in the end, there's no reason to actually leave the Euro, unless, you want to print a fuckton of money and hyper-inflate. The Euro isn't doing anything that's really actually bad.