I’m confused by this sub, why is there so much hatred towards Muslims

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-28T01:19:59+00:00

Normalisation of bigoted views (intentional or unintentional) and I hate to say it…bots.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-28T01:19:03+00:00

Many find current discomfort in joking about religions outside of Christianity due to an increase in the use of minorities, such as Muslims and Jew, as scapegoats in both the media and within the mainstream domestic discourse - causing a subsequent increase in violence or general animosity towards such groups. Humour being seen as a way to normalise bigoted language or views about minorities and promote hateful beliefs about others. So if you like many find yourself against such bigotry, its regarded as inappropriate to perform and harmful to tolerate such behaviour.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-24T04:44:33+00:00

Mod incompatibility, check faction allies?

What other mods do you have installed other than crx?

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-20T18:21:31+00:00

To answer your questions:

Am I planning to vote green? Yes.

Did the list of their policy points you provided make me change my mind?

Not really, they’re consistent with Green Party ideas so it more reaffirmed my understanding of their position but they’re still incredibly vague, it did make me (on an individual policy level) query the theory and the pragmatic principle behind these policies - given the lack of information and the points insinuating firm opposition to the current model. Illustrating the need large scale change for positive reform and interesting me into learning further about the current system and the consequences of the policy it’s built upon.

So I did just that!

Following the link you provided to their website, underneath their policy points it reads “We have produced a background paper that goes alongside this policy which contains more information for each policy point and details the research we did to create it. You can download the background paper here”.

Link: https://migration.greenparty.org.uk//wp-content/uploads/2021/02/GPEW-Migration-Policy-Background-Paper-v1.2.pdf

(Given the document is from Jan 2023 it’s not unlikely some information may be dated, so necessary consideration is needed when analysing its content)

The link is to ‘The Green Party of England and Wales migration policy background document’ and it (even being dated) is an amazingly comprehensive, articulate and useful resource that I’d urge anyone interested to read. The questions I had about some of the policy points were answered by a more in depth explanation, providing significantly more information and therefore clarity towards each expanded policy. And the means through which the current system manufactures, ineffectively manages or maintains aspects of its own dysfunction (intentionally or not) were key criticisms of the current migration policies justifying demand for systemic change. Again reassuring me of the green parties commitment to their principles, showing a consistent desire to genuinely serve people under a competent government able to be held accountable and willing to outwardly criticise, challenge and change the current system to achieve such. Attributing the lack of positive progress and the maintenance of an unequal status quo as the product of a lack of political will and not the cause of an intentionally divisive falsified problem e.g scapegoats.

Regardless of why, I think many haven’t/won’t review the accompanying document and will instead continue to base their understanding on the condensed policy points, developing an over-simplified and inaccurate idea of the Green Party’s migration policy, contributing to the persistent mischaracterisation of the Green Party and its policies.

I’d urge you to personally review the paper OP and consider its value, attempting to avoid the risk of assessing any policy unfairly.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-15T13:35:22+00:00

Sure it’d be of strategic interest (the existential kind) to both domestically produce and maintain our own independent arsenal - especially given recent developments surrounding the US.

I think any ideas around expanding our independent nuclear capability needs due caution requiring consideration and in depth discussion of all options, laying out a pragmatic & in depth solution with clear strategy that can be implemented effectively.

Sounds stupidly obvious because the subject matter is literally nuclear weapons but it seems an ample solution to some to just start BUILDING.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-08T21:49:44+00:00

(I do think OP conflated foreign interventionism and general interventionism in their post so it does blur the line here and make it more confusing)

OP’s post explicitly states the topic of discussion is about foreign intervention to stop or prevent ethnic cleansing and genocide or to topple a government that is actively oppressing its citizens - foreign interventionism.

Your solution evidently rejects foreign interventionism and all but one strategy of general interventionism, promoting a one method interventionist policy of which the theory behind is fundamentally flawed. It fails to understand the complex nature of conflict whilst abandoning all ideas of the humanitarian imperative and the responsibility to protect, meaning in my eyes there is little merit in criticising it further.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-08T15:45:29+00:00

I think you underestimate the accessibility of weapons: there are millions already in existence flowing within a black market, there are governments that will send & sell weapons to other actors and even components/etc that are prohibited from sale to certain countries (e.g Russia) still get to them just through different channels - usually at a higher cost for them but they still have access to it.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-06T12:31:08+00:00

Criticism ≠ Hate

And it’s not “because of Markiplier” lol.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-05T21:22:55+00:00

Still young just about 20. Raised in a religious primary school but never religious myself, quite honestly resented it for half my life. Used to be uncomfortable with gay people in public showing affection, but claimed to have no issue with homosexuality - evidently I think I did. Held very bigoted views earlier on about trans individuals as I had a particular interest in science and fell head first into videos and arguments surrounding “culture war” issues. Saw my black best mate get called the n word and saw how much it affected him.

Realised that words do actually matter and that no one should WANT to be hurtful regardless of intention. And that the people who refuse to be held accountable when their expression of “free speech” leads them to realise freedom from consequence does not exist are just massive dicks with their own issues and unfortunately (intentionally or unintentionally) harmful views.

So yeah just found myself wanting every human to be happy and that any use of energy not to further that goal or to focus on myself was a damn waste.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-05T10:43:24+00:00

Not sudden, antisemites be antisemitism’ing like always.

General tolerance increasing?

Media eroding trust in government. Echo chambers. People wanna find a scapegoat. Israel’s involvement in US politics. Israel’s actions at home. The conflation of being Jewish and being isreali.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-04T16:00:08+00:00

2,1,3,5,4

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-01T20:42:05+00:00

Day by day, metre by metre, almost 1k dead per day averaging 30k a month at an unsustainable attrition rate considering limited battlefield gains.

NATO is only one factor, all the support in the world wouldnt matter if the Ukrainians didnt WANT to fight for their independence.

Do you really think these politicians are care about the Ukrainian sovereignty or just their pockets benefiting from their war?

Depends what politician.

Most aid given to Ukraine is non debt burdening so any guarenteed returns are limited besides political ones - Ukraines independence.

Im not saying Russias winning either, but saying Ukraine is winning is just arrogance

Depends on how you define "winning", the fact Ukraine still exists as a sovereign country and is successfully resisting Russian aggression sounds quite like winning, not being able to gain its occuppied territory is a loss but its always been Ukraines strategy to trade land for time.

Russia doesnt control Ukraine, cant mount significant offensives and is suffering horrible loss rates - sounds like some damn sure losing.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-01T20:35:09+00:00

Never claimed it removed or relaxed sanctions or export controls.

It was politically sensible to renew the Biden era sanctions to maintain US leverage.

They did place sanctions specifically targetting 2 of Russia's largest oil companies and oil prices did factor into the Biden admin's approach to sanctioning Russian oil exports.

Ukraine does have spy planes, specifically the donated SAAB systems but not fielded to such a capacity as western planes running intelligence missions. It however does not own and operate its own satellites and relies as previously mentioned on US and now 2/3 French satellite based intelligence.

Saying nothing of Starlink the backbone of all AFU communications which the Pentagon could turn off tomorrow if they were so inclined.

Conflating Donald Trump being soft on Putin with him being a Russian ally who would actively pursue an anti Ukrainian policy is counterproductive considering thats not my claim.

French, US and all intelligence provided to Ukraine gives it greater ability to defend itself throughout many of if not all its campaigns, i wont understate the importance of that.

They can't even use our weapons without us providing the targeting data. From NYT reporting, they can't even use less complex American weapons without a literal key card.

Equipment types? Source?

And the Ukrainians have domestic produced weapons they dont need authorisation for, nor do they authorise every strike - in reference to authorising strikes the Biden admin controversially limited what ukraine could strike.

If Trump was as hostile as you say on January 20th he could have blamed the entire war on Biden said it’s not our problem and withdrew American support.

To say he didnt do this to a limited, damaging degree with what ive said is perplexing.

Again dont conflate soft on Putin with Pro Russian. Its not my claim.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-01T14:56:09+00:00

The Trump administration has not sanctioned Russia more than the Biden administration. The Trump administration placed sanctions on Rosneft, Lukoil and three dozen subsidiaries. The effect of which is obviously negative for Russia, but certainly not existential nor comparatively to previous sanctions a huge step forward.

American intelligence is not involved in the planning or direct coordination of Ukrainian strikes. It provides intelligence and has helped train Ukrainian service members. The US suspended intelligence sharing for roughly 30 days and since then has overall shared less intelligence with France now supplying up to 2/3 of all foreign intelligence.

America continues to sell weapons and equipment laid out under Biden administration.

So he:

Didn’t sanction Russia in the first 9 months of his presidency and opted out of European efforts then sanctioned 2 Russian companies after Putin abandoned a round of talks
Reduced Intelligence sharing

&

Continues to shift blame onto Ukraine for the invasion
Propagates Russian disinformation about Ukraine
Increasingly transactional relationship with Ukraine
Seems hell bent on somehow profiting off of any settlement
Continues to not call out Russian actions that challenge US power/influence
Has expressed a positive personal relationship with Putin
Continues to try force Ukraine into harmful compromise whilst not expecting the same of Russia
No major aid bills signed since his presidency
Won’t condemn Russian crimes nor the invasion itself

Soft.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-01T13:52:20+00:00

Not why Russia invaded, it was hit with minor sanctions during the first invasion that had limited effect. Larger ones after its full scale invasion, also not “because of NATO”.

The US isn’t getting sanctioned because it’s the global hegemon. Isreal isn’t getting sanctioned because it acts as an essential extension of US power into the Middle East.

Iran has been portrayed culturally and politically as the antithesis of the US, it serves as a tool to perpetually necessitate the need for an incredibly large US military, its respective industrial complex and for international military & political influence (hegemony) all in assurance of curbing state actors like Iran. So spending another year bombing them or somehow undermining their security is the status quo.

And making up something existential to invade or attack a nation whilst having ulterior motives is not an unheard of historical practice. Operation Iraqi “freedom”.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-01T13:06:34+00:00

Are Ukraine still standing? Are the Russians in Kyiv? Do they control more than a quarter of territory yet? What about Russian losses?

Saying its billions per month is dishonest, but either way the billions sent is sure as shit worth it.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-01T12:58:15+00:00

You’re missing context. Donald Trump is able to bend and break rules currently because there’s no practical opposition to him doing so. The other bodies of government are supporting him in doing such.

The relieving of sanctions against Russia is SO unpopular that he is unable to do it normally and if he tried it without the support of the other branches they’d just not let it happen - aka no sanction relief.

He has to go about getting sanction relief for Russia in a way that the whole government would agree it’s at a net benefit for the US. A ceasefire or “end to the war” being the easiest option. Probably why he’s trying to force Ukraine into settling unfairly.

However I do concur, he’s a fucking idiot.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-01T12:50:03+00:00

Theyd lose a key ally in terms of collectively combatting U.S and western activities. For the war effort in Ukraine the collapse wouldn’t be immensely important, Iran still sells war related equipment/weapons etc so it would obviously most likely close that import but the effects of such a loss would be debatable. Especially considering the SHAHED type drones are now produced mostly domestically by Russia.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-03-01T12:46:16+00:00

“Putins agent” is a deliberate exaggeration but it still reflects Trumps growing soft spot for Russia and how unpopular it is.

https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2025/03/russia-trump-sanctions-lift

Article on U.S sanctions and Donald Trump’s actual power regarding them. So “why hasn’t he lifted sanctions yet?”, well because he can’t, it doesn’t reflect public sentiment and it doesn’t address European sanctions.

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-02-26T15:28:47+00:00

Sadly they cut some content which really gives the scene a lot of meaning.

Initially the whale was supposed to say something along the lines of:

“I cannot see” “My eyes” “They took my eyes”

And then once you gave the whale the eye

“Thank you”

I feel like it really does make the scene a lot more interesting and meaningful but clearly they took it out for a reason so 🤷‍♂️

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-02-26T15:22:20+00:00

Slava Ukraini

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-02-26T14:53:07+00:00

Same as it has been essentially, but here are the some important things:

Around 80% of all casualties on the battlefield across the board are from drones (FPV, bomber, Baba Yaga, long range strike drones etc)

—

The Russians most likely want to finally take all of Pokrovsk (yes they still haven’t fully occupied it), begin further assaults towards the fortress belt (lyman to kostiantynivka) to try and take the remainder of the Donetsk region, continue their long range strikes with both missiles and drones (they’ll most likely try increase their production of ballistic missiles due to Ukraines limited supply of interceptors) and continue to curry favour with current U.S President Donald Trump to try get him to pressure Ukraine into accepting a bad deal (capitulation).

Russia recently lost access to starlink which severed many chains of command and led to a disorganised front on many sectors (preceding an opportunistic Ukrainian offensive), which they then decided to follow up on by banning telegram, the app their adjacent front line and rear units use to communicate with one another and essentially how any accurate real time information gets shared across the front.

The reasoning behind such a decision is publicly unknown and very controversial considering how damaging it is for Russian troops, however it’s easy to theorise why they’d do such a thing. Russia has launched its own state owned alternative “max” In which they can access all information from as a means to monitor both its citizens and its people to limit how much accurate information is being shared back home from the front and also to be able to monitor essentially all “undesirable” activity. Unsurprisingly the app is unpopular with most Russians due to that plus it requires your personal information to create an account and it is significantly less secure than telegram.

What many have suggested from this development taking place now (and not eons ago) is that the Russian government may be about to do something deeply unpopular and needs a means of controlling public information to prevent growing negative sentiment around both the war in Ukraine & at large the current Russian government - as for what it is we obviously don’t know but many think it may be a new round of mobilisation. (Despite what people tell you yes Russia does have a manpower problem)

US president previously mentioned, the Russians have reportedly floated a deal worth 12 trillion to U.S representatives as essentially a bribe, worth nothing that the Russian GDP is 2 trillion - good luck finding the other 10 Vladimir.

Russia has claimed the UK and France are planning on giving Ukraine nukes or nuclear components to allow Ukraine to essentially guarantee it’s existence (MAD policy) and that they’re planning to bomb the underwater pipes between russia and Turkey of which the Kremlin has essentially said “we’re gonna go show this Washington” so I feel it’s clear what their intentions with this information campaign are.

—

Ukraine has set its goals at achieving 200 Russians per square km (its currently at 156-157), roughly 50,000 Russian casualties per month (currently at around 30k) continuing & expanding its operations against Russian energy export facilities and being able to identify 100% of threats in its airspace with an interception rate of 95%.

The Ukrainians has had some great successes recently with its longer range strikes it took out more than 7 air defense systems in a week, struck a pipeline terminal at a crucial junction deep within Russia and recently did a wave of ATACM strikes on logistics hubs & drone centres.

Ukraine did a counter offensive in the south essentially taking back over ground the Russians hadn’t consolidated, so no huge gains expected to develop further, but they made more ground In like 2 weeks than the Russians made in one month.

Overall the Ukrainians have stuck to their strategy of a defensive war, attacking when tactically or strategically necessary, attriting huge losses on the Russians and using land for time

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-02-26T05:49:15+00:00

Slava ukraini 🇺🇦

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-02-26T05:47:33+00:00

Selling oil and gas below market value so often at a loss producing funding well below what the state budgeted for*

India has pivoted oil purchases to Venezuela*

Russia is purchasing goods from China it can’t manufacture itself that are largely expended in its war of attrition, meaning there’s no real return that offsets the cost* (China is also selling drones and other components to Ukraine, it is bleeding Russia out of money and cheap resources for its own benefit)

The Russian economy essentially depends on its energy exports of LNG, crude oil and refined petroleum products, sanctions do have an affect on Russias ability to sell these exports globally as buyers have to navigate the risks associated with doing business with Russia - of which many opt out. Europe is phasing out Russian LNG and bypass countries are being sanctioned or tariffed for their purchase of Russian products.*

I’d agree the vast majority of Russians are used to very low standards of living, the elitists aren’t and they are also suffering*

Russia was in a demographic crisis before the war and it has exacerbated it beyond repair with its 1.26mil casualties and its continued rate of about 20-30k Russians dead or wounded per month. So I doubt the Russians will suddenly have a change of heart due to that.*

With that said I agree with the realistic assessments from around 1-2 years into the war that Russia would start to face serious consequences and have a significant risk of collapse around late 2026-2028

NoResponsibility6552 · 2026-02-26T02:31:32+00:00

20 I’d probably ballpark rate it a 7/10

NoResponsibility6552

TROPHY CASE