There are lot of people saying that in charge of foreign policy somewhere. And not a single one actually thinking it.

No, that’s just bollocks. It’s of course a refusal to choose sides. Stop making Putin’s point for him, the whole “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mindset reeks of coming straight from the Führerbunker.

Why exactly should the global south have any appetite to get involved and thereby legitimize warfare by sanctions, when precisely that method has been applied against many nations in the developing world quite arbitrarily, when they didn’t cave in to Western demands? Clear case of what goes around comes around.

Now, let’s be clear here, Putin is still the far bigger dick and the aggressor, but by how much is a question of perspective. Uncomfortable as it may be, but from most not distinctly Western perspectives the difference is barely even noticeable. Yes, maybe one is worse, but preferably you want to keep both at arms bay and, come to think of it, you don’t really mind when they keep each other busy somewhere far away. At all.

You may dislike that all you want, but dislike probably won’t convert people to your simplistic black and white view when they know better from their own experience.

At which point we arrive at OP’s closing remark: “Either way, it’s a win for Norway.” And that’s hard to dispute for any country taking its claim to being a democracy even halfway serious, considering the manipulative shenanigans that are par for the course at anything Meta.

Agreed. I’d also argue that it would have been better if pirates managed to do the job before that.

True, but let’s be real here: it’s only true, because you started the genocide much earlier and at this point in time are basically done, besides when some holy site or other is in the way of building an environment destroying pipeline and necessitates a belated mop up operation on a scale small enough to be largely overlooked, especially by corporate media who couldn’t give a fuck about any genocide that can’t be used to further a profitable agenda anyway.

… in Warsaw.

For people who didn’t watch way too many Zizek talks: Zizek used this joke to illustrate a point. As it goes, I completely forgot the point, but memorized the joke. Probably because I’m a pervert. Here goes: In an exhibition in Moscow, there’s a painting with the title “Lenin in Warsaw” depicting a woman who looks suspiciously like Nadezhda Krupskaya, Lenin’s wife, screwing what appears to be a student. A confused visitor asks the guide standing beneath the painting: “But where’s Lenin?” The guide, of course, answers: “Lenin is in Warsaw.”

Well, why should the average end-user use Linux, actually? If your answer is privacy, taking control back or something in that general line, you’re essentially advocating for a technological solution on the individual level as a solution to what essentially are and always have been political and ideological problems. Expecting that to work out is wishful thinking at best. I have growing suspicions, though, that it’s more like a different ideological layer, and in that regard quite akin to making the climate catastrophe about choices of individual consumers (of which they often have very few, actually).

Dumbed down Linux exists. It’s called Android.

Rechtsextrimistisch ist noch geschönt. Die Partei, die den Faschisten Björn Höcke aka Landolf Ladig in ihren Reihen duldet, ist dann eben konsequent auch als faschistisch zu bezeichnen. Wie man sich bettet, so liegt man.

Organic growth is good. Growth for the sake of growth makes no sense outside an environment where you need those metrics to convince investors.

Nah, you’re spot on. Let’s keep this simple and not muddy the waters. If it’s corporate, it’s evil. All you need for a rule of thumb. There may be rare instances when this isn’t the case, but I’ve yet to see one that lasted for long. Let’s be real here, corporation’s raison d’être is increasing shareholder value and dividends - inherently and inevitably incompatible with the common good.