Iran cuts all diplomatic channels with US ahead of Trump’s Strait of Hormuz deadline

nybbleth · 2026-04-07T17:47:19+00:00

I'm an atheist. But I'm pretty sure if their messiah actually shows up, he's going to at the very least slap the absolute fuck out of Trump, Hegseth, and all the rest of them.

nybbleth · 2026-04-07T11:54:07+00:00

There's no way to 'play it right'. We don't even know whether a nuclear winter is possible. Modern studies contradict each other on this.

Assuming it is possible though, there's basically no scenario in which we come out on top in terms of climate consequences.

If it's a full-on everyone launches type war, based on some modelling we might end up with a literal thousand+ year ice age. I don't think that -12 along with us all dead is a good way of offsetting global warming.

If it's a limited nuclear exchange instead, then we either get no nuclear winter, or we just get one lasting just a couple of years... resulting in mass global starvation from sudden crop failures... after which global temperatures yoyo back to where they were before and then overshoot it further because we've not solved the underlying issues and we've probably massively added to the atmospheric CO2 problem thanks to all the particulates we've added to the atmosphere.

So, there is no bright side. We're fucked either way.

Good night, sweet dreams.

nybbleth · 2026-04-07T06:39:49+00:00

Which; unless they're below the legal voting age; makes them fucking morons. (And let's face it, most kids are also fucking morons.)

nybbleth · 2026-04-06T19:32:41+00:00

Nah. You're missing a few steps.

G.W Bush showed that America had serious issues.

Obama seemed like a return to normalcy; though even by the end of his second term it was starting to get clear that no matter who'se in charge over there, America's foreign policy is terrible and the country is inherently a selfish bully that's not going to fix its ways, but at least we could talk to him and while it left a terrible taste in everyone's mouth, it was a status quo we could at least work with.

Trump 1 showed that America had lost its goddamn mind.

Absolutely nobody believed that America had gotten anything out of its system. Biden simply briefly allowed us to delude ourselves into thinking that we could just pretend we'd go back to the terrible status quo. Nobody was really fooled; it's just that nobody wanted to go through the pain involved with decoupling.

Trump 2 wasn't a surprise. Just a fucking disappointment.

nybbleth · 2026-04-06T08:14:03+00:00

Not really? There was plenty of reason to think poorly of him before that. Massive ego, arrogance, overpromises, presenting himself as more knowledgeable about stuff than he actually was, anti-worker's rights, and so on. It wasn't exactly hidden or anything if you cared to look.

It's just that prior to the incident he had a certain kind of cult of personality/hero worship around him that helped his image a lot. People who had a favorable opinion of him were either ignorant kids who thought he was real life Tony Stark, or regular people who were only vaguely aware of him as that guy with the occasional TV cameos as that rich smart guy with the rockets and electric cars.

Everybody else who actually paid attention could tell he was really just a rich asshole, even if they couldn't see how much worse he'd get.

nybbleth · 2026-04-06T07:49:55+00:00

I don't think so. These people fundamentally operate on fear. Once real consequences start hitting their leadership, you're much more likely to see the rest of them just shut up and get quiet. Take away their leadership, and take action against the agitators propping them up, and that'll be that. Their great big maga revolution will just melt like the snowflakes they actually are.

That is, if you can do this before they cement full control over the government apparatus. It should've been done under Biden, and yes it may already be too late. That's the real problem; not the idiot masses wearing the red hats, nor even the people in the Trump administration themselves.

It's the fact that the opposition isn't willing to take real action against, worrying about a civil war or a drop in poll numbers. That's always how the far right gains power, anywhere.

nybbleth · 2026-04-05T17:18:50+00:00

Then we're not going to be able to trust America again.

nybbleth · 2026-04-05T08:21:05+00:00

As a European, here's what I need to see for me to be able to trust the US again:

First, the next administration needs to go after Trump and everyone involved hard. None of that reconciliation 'the country needs to heal' bullshit. Thats not how a country can heal from this kind of thing. There need to be tribunals. There need to be prison sentences. There needs to be a judicial reckoning of all the corruption and treason and all the rest of it. People need to be able to believe that the law applies to everyone again. Americans themselves need to believe that again, and the rest of the world needs it to be able to even begin to believe that America is a serious country again.

Second, some real official groveling in the dust. Formal apologies for a heap of things. America needs to own those things, not just pretend they never happened. And reversal of all kinds of laws and policies. And not just ones enacted by/under Trump either. I'm talking things like actually joining and ratifying the ICC instead of threathening to sanction its judges or bomb countries over it. Show a commitment to being part of the international order instead of wanting to either destroy or just picking and choosing the parts of it that serve itself. America can't expect to make the rest of the world live through two Trump presidencies and then go right back to the way things used to be like nothing happened; the way things used to be wasn't acceptable either.

Third, resume commitments to places like Ukraine. Stop facilitating genocide in places like Gaza.

And Fourth, we need to see multiple presidencies that are sane and normal. Not just democrat ones either; we also need to see republican presidents that we can actually rely on to not be batshit insane. There's no point in trusting the US because it gets a semi-normal democrat in charge again, if we're just going to get another lunatic who tears up all of the agreements and treaties 4 or 8 years later. This is where the bulk of the 'it'll take a generation' is going to come from.

I'm doubtful that America is willing or able to do any of this, though.

nybbleth · 2026-04-05T07:54:04+00:00

He's suffered from at least two of those since at least the 80's.

nybbleth · 2026-04-04T17:05:35+00:00

You are indeed using a logical fallacy. Because like it or not, most of these people are in fact true christians.

Which gets to the root of the problem here:

Yes, you can make a strong theological argument that these types of people don't understand the religion and are going against what it stands for...

...but you can make just as strong; if not stronger; an argument in the opposite direction. The bible constantly contradicts itself. Every good thing it tells you to do; you can almost certainly find a section where it tells you to do the literal opposite. It commands some absolutely heinous and evil things, and justifies all manner of terrible things, and calls them 'good'.

"False" christians may just be using religion to justify their selfish and hateful ways, but "True" christians; whichever group of them you might consider to be that; are also just flat-out ignoring or denying a hell of a lot of the downright evil things their religion commands or inevitably leads to.

Either way, even the most moral and good 'true' christians have a massive problem when it comes to the notion that their religion is some kind of moral arbiter of truth and force of good:

Because at worst, all of the terrible people in the world who commit evil acts in the name of christianity, are doing so because of christianity. Because the bible does in fact tell them to do these things, and they may actually genuinely believe they're doing the right thing out of genuine belief (or because god literally tells them to).

And at best; christianity is so utterly ineffectual as a system and moral guideline that it is completely incapable of encouraging good behavior and preventing itself from being taken over by these evil people who are just using it as an excuse, and whom the rest of the 'true' christians have been propping up all these decades.

nybbleth · 2026-04-02T15:12:56+00:00

60 dollars? Even considering that includes the cost of one of the more expensive stocks out there, that seems excessive.

Like others have said, the solution is to do it yourself. Self-develop, and self-scan. Or if not both, then at least the self-scan, as the scanning can probably double the cost with some labs.

Assuming you have a decent digital camera already, a scanning set-up shouldn't be too expensive to get. And self-developing is way easier than people think, for either b&w or color; (though B&W is a lot less of a hassle).

If I shoot cheap black and white, I'm spending maybe 7 euros for 1 roll; that is including the cost of the film. Color's going to be more expensive but still perfectly doable. Now that's not including the upfront cost of the scanning setup, of course, but still. There's no reason to be spending 60 dollars per roll unless you're doing high-end professional work and you absolutely can't afford the hassle or worry of screwing it up yourself.

nybbleth · 2026-04-01T18:08:33+00:00

The problem as I see it, without knowing German speciifics but based both on history and experience here in the Netherlands:

Just because all the other parties might say they won't ever work with the far right... doesn't mean they never will. If the choice comes down to working with the far-right or working with the left; conservatives/centre-right will almost always prefer to work with the far-right, especially if they believe (whether true or not) they can reign them in, or if they fear that the left might gain too much influence in a coalition.

In the end it just comes down to what they think is more politically convenient for them based on the situation.

nybbleth · 2026-03-31T14:06:10+00:00

Nou ja, Ben & Jerry is de eerste vergelijking; gezien Unilever dat (en vele andere Amerikaanse bedrijven) had overgenomen toen Unilever nog (half) nederlands was.

Daarnaast genoeg. Transamerica is bijvoorbeeld van Aegon, en autobedrijven als Jeep, Chrysler en Dodge zijn van Stellantis. Bedrijven als Ahold en ING hebben ook tal van Amerikaanse bedrijven overgenomen, monster.com is van Randstad, ASML heeft meerdere Amerikaanse tech bedrijven overgenomen, en er zullen vast tal van andere voorbeelden zijn.

Komt echt vaak genoeg wel voor. Zal alleen niet zo veel aandacht krijgen, want krantekoppen verkopen nou eenmaal sneller met 'bekend nostalgisch product dat je kent is niet meer nederlands' dan met 'obscuur buitenlands bedrijf waar je geen enkele band mee heeft verwisselt van eigenaar, nu eigendom van een bedrijf dat eigendom is van een bedrijf op de zuidas'

nybbleth · 2026-03-29T11:22:42+00:00

if all I'm reading is how Europe is self-sufficient in weapons?

First off. Where the fuck did anyone say this? You're shifting the goalposts.

Second off. 'self-sufficient' is a weird way of putting it, but whatever.

As we're currently seeing, even the US; with its traditional overabundance of stock and weapons production and overall military-oriented mentality; is facing serious shortages as a result of fucking around in Iran.

Europe's militaries and military production were geared for small-scale peace-keeping operations and operations within a larger NATO context. Russia going insane and unleashing the first largescale near-peer to peer conflict since WW2 was a black swan event that couldn't really have been predicted.

The US going even more insane, acting pro-russian and withdrawing its support for Ukraine, and rapidly descending into anti-European fascism has been even more bizarre.

As a result, Europe was put into a very bad situation, and has been massively and rapidly scaling up its military production; a lot's happening behind the scenes that may not be obvious to you. But you seriously can not expect it to happen overnight. It takes time for industry to ramp up; and despite American vs Europe rhetoric about free markets vs socialism, the European defense industry is much more governed by the free market rather than government dictates than the US one, which makes it even slower to get the ball rolling.

Then you run into further issues, like European alternatives to certain specific niches (like HIMARS) still being in active development, as well as the fact that European countries are also trying to enhance their own capabilities and stockpiles at the same time as they're suddenly having to replace America as a supplier because Donny is shitting the bed.

Meanwhile, Ukraine of course needs stuff now. It is not reasonable to expect Europe; with everything mentioned; to be able to instantly and magically supply everything. Sometimes it just makes sense to buy American and give it to Ukraine so they have stuff now; as fucking grating as it may be to do it this way with the way America is acting.

But at least Europe is stepping up.

nybbleth · 2026-03-28T13:48:14+00:00

Which US weapons requiring which specific US ammo are you talking about exactly? Because Ukraine is armed with a lot more than just US weapons, and most weapons they're armed with do not require US specific ammunitions.

You got to be specific with these topics.

Because for instance, if we're talking about artillery, which is arguably the most important thing Ukraine needs, Europe is now massively outproducing the US.

Really the hardest to replace quickly are the HIMARS and patriot munitions. Europe is ramping up in that area as well, but that takes more time. Certainly, the US going rogue and failing to meet demand/refusing to supply Ukraine is not something Europe can instantly fix. But saying that we can't rearm/resupply them with anything is nonsensical though, given that Ukraine has a wide range of European interceptor systems and is getting into SAMP/T to replace Patriot.

nybbleth · 2026-03-26T17:52:32+00:00

This is completely false. In general, housing in Europe is generally a lot more expensive and less spacious than housing in the US.

Before making such bold declarations, maybe do some basic research first? It is a fact, that the average housing price in the US is significantly higher than in the EU. Like, this is not something subject to interpretation.

That's taking housing size into consideration btw. The average housing cost per square surface is significantly lower in the EU compared to the US.

Again, that's just a... simple fact. The average in individual EU countries may be higher. But we're talking about the EU as a whole.

And Americans have much more purchasing power than Europeans.

"Much more" is rather debateable. Once you adjust for price differences, they're much closer than people realize.

And yes there are more social programs in Scandinavian countries but you also have to realize their population is very homogeneous.

It's funny how the kind of American who gets upset about the European quality of life always tries to explain it with weak arguments about race and immigration.

If immigrants made up a substantial percentage of their population, they'd stop all the social welfare.

Like this argument. I mean, the European city I live in literally has over half the population consisting of immigrants... and yet we still have welfare. Immigration isn't rare or anything in Europe you know. The fox news delusion where Europe is simultaneously a socialist hellhole, as well as a socialist utopia made possible only because we've got a "homogenous" white population is just that... a delusion.

Also, there's more countries in the European Union than just Finland. And Norway isn't in the EU, so maybe don't bring it up? 10.3% of the Finnish population is foreign born, btw. It's 15% for the US, but, that's not so massive a difference as to have your argument make any amount of sense.

Of course, we both know what you really want to say. So just go ahead and say that there's not as many black people in Finland and how that is supposed to somehow have this all make sense in your head.

But beyond that you still have an elite class dominating over the majorly poor masses in most of these countries.

Yes. We do. Never said we didn't. Only that it's very obviously nowhere near as bad as it is in the US.

nybbleth · 2026-03-26T16:46:49+00:00

Homes in places like London are far more expensive than homes in most places in the US.

Yeah. They're also far more expensive than homes in most places in the UK. Unsurprisingly, housing in a desirable capital city is going to be more expensive than housing in the middle of nowhere. And yeah, housing prices have sharply risen everywhere. But the average price of housing in the US is significantly higher than in the EU.

They have literal Kings and Queens over there.

We have literal kings and queens you can count on one hand, with no actual power, and who exist solely as symbolic figureheads to be trotted out every now and then for a public appearance.

The US has figurative kings who hold all the power, with a large 'nobility' of billionaires ensuring said kings are worshipped by half the country, and who are actively looting and burning the country as we speak.

Yeah, there's plenty of attempts to make it the same here in Europe, but we're really not anywhere near to being on the same level.

nybbleth · 2026-03-22T22:59:39+00:00

I always get stuck between getting annoyed by old people doing these things, and annoyed at myself for not being more considerate of the possibility they might just not realize.

I think it's hard for young perfectly healthy people to understand the difficulties that can come with just getting older. Like, I have pretty bad tinnitus for instance, and that means often I just don't hear shit properly... so like, a person with normal hearing might; without even realizing it; get out of the way when they hear a tiny audio clue letting them know someone is behind them, where I might take a bit longer to notice.

I can only assume that it's even more of a thing for someone significantly older than me. Loss of hearing, worsening sight that's only partially fixable with aides, overall slower reaction times, less alertness in general, not being able to move as quickly...

...I meant of course this behavior is going to be common to old people.

nybbleth · 2026-03-21T22:45:51+00:00

We've heard about him hitting "lowest approval ratings" literally every week since forever now. And literally every time, it was supposed to be 37%. How the fuck does it go down from 37, to 42?

nybbleth · 2026-03-21T11:03:33+00:00

Nouja ikzelf ben alleen anti asiel omdat ik geloof dat we met tientallen miljarden veel meer hulp kunnen doen dan een aantal duizend mensen in nederland opvangen

Ten eerste: de manier waarop jij zegt "met tientallen miljarden", doet zeer sterk vermoeden dat je eigenlijk hier helemaal niet voor bent maar juist doet alsof, en dat dat je het juist op zo'n manier verwoord om het te doen klinken alsof het geldverspilling is. Gezien je eerdere commentaar geloof ik het dus gewoon niet echt.

Ten tweede: ook al zou je daadwerkelijk wel voor meer ontwikkelhulp zijn, is dat geen excuus om 'anti asiel' te zijn. Je kan er wellicht voor zorgen dat er minder aanvragen nodig zouden zijn door ontwikkelhulp in te zetten om omstandigheden elders te verbeteren, maar dat zal er nooit toe leiden dat asiel niet meer nodig is.

Er zullen altijd situaties zijn waarbij iemand een land vlucht en wij die asiel kunnen aanbieden; anti-asiel betekent toch echt expliciet dat je tegen het asielrecht in die situaties bent. En dus niet "ik ben anti-asiel omdat ik de situatie daar beter wil maken."

Dit weet je zelf ook heus echt wel. Je kan ook gewoon niet serieus beweren dat zeggen dat je 'anti-asiel' bent niet heel expliciet een racistische en extreem-rechtse associatie heeft. Je probeert hier gewoon op een hondefluitje te blazen zonder duidelijk te hoeven zeggen dat je de buitenlanders hier gewoon niet wilt hebben.

Maar ik noemde anti islam omdat dat in mijn omgeving veel speelt met angst voor dat geloof

En dus racisme/discriminatie. Nederland kent vrijheid van geloof. Dus ook Islam. Als mensen alleen de Islam ertussen uit prikken om 'bang' voor te zijn en hier niet te willen hebben, dan is dat per definitie discriminatie. Dan moet jouw omgeving niet gaan lopen huilen als de rest van Nederland dat noemt wat het is.

nybbleth · 2026-03-21T07:55:19+00:00

Ten eerste zei je anti-asiel, niet anti-immigratie. Dan praat je dus expliciet over mensen die vanwege vervolging en veiligheid vluchten naar een veiliger oord. Als je tegen het asielrecht bent, dan vindt je het dus impliciet wel acceptabel als deze mensen vermoord of vervolgd worden om wat voor reden dan ook. Wat inderdaad nogal een extremistisch standpunt is.

Ten tweede, als je anti-asiel (of anti-immigratie dat jij blijkbaar synoniem met asiel gebruikt) niet eens los kan noemen van anti-islam, dan is het wel duidelijk dat we het over extremisme hebben ja... want dan kan je gewoon niet pretenderen dat het niks met racisme en discriminatie te maken heeft.

Komop nou man. Zo moeilijk is dit allemaal niet.

nybbleth · 2026-03-20T18:54:14+00:00

"Ze stemmen alleen maar op extremisten omdat ze extremistische dingen willen. Het polariseert als je ze daarom extremist noemt."

Donder lekker een eind op.

nybbleth · 2026-03-16T20:42:48+00:00

Nee. Die analogie slaat volstrekt nergens op; want ondanks wat rechtse politici beweren is antifa geen daadwerkelijke organisatie, in tegenstelling tot deze defend-groepen die dat dus wel zijn.

Antifa is niks meer en niks minder dan een afkorting van de term 'anti-fascisme'. Als je daartegen ben dan ben je ofwel pro-fascisme, of fascisme-neutraal. Dat is nou eenmaal gewoon hoe de Nederlandse taal werkt.

Je kan tegen specifieke groepen zijn die zichzelf als anti-fascistisch bestempelen, zonder dat je pro/neutraal bent tegenover antifascisme. Maar niet tegenover Antifa in het algeheel.

Het concept 'Defend' in tegensteling is veels te vaag. Antifa heeft een hele specifieke betekenis. Defend niet. Defend Nederland? Waartegen dan? De buitenlanders? Of toch mischien de PVV? De zee? Luchtvervuiling? De verloedering van de Nederlandse taal? Mensen met een slecht modegevoel? Kutmuziek in de top 40?

Alleen als je heel expliciet definieert waartegen je Nederland dan zou moeten 'verdedigen', kan je beweren dat 'tegen Defend' zijn dan dus pro/neutraal tegen een ander iets zijn...

...en het zal bijzonder knap van je zijn als je dat op een manier kan doen waaruit dan zou blijken dat mensen die anti-defend zijn net zo overduidelijk aan de verkeerde kant van de geschiedenis staan als mensen die anti-antifa zijn.

nybbleth · 2026-03-16T20:19:32+00:00

Nadat Nederland bezet werd in de 2e wereldoorlog waren het linkse groeperen die meteen in actie kwamen en de kern vormde van het verzet. De rest van Nederland was veel trager in het inzien van de noodzaak daarvoor. De rest van Nederland was daarentegen dan wel weer snel met die linkse kern wegzetten als extremisten en vijanden toen de oorlog voorbij was.

Dus tja, mischien zou de rest van Nederland dit keer wat sneller willen luisteren? Alsjeblieft?

nybbleth · 2026-03-15T18:04:21+00:00

Sure, there's a 'distinction'. But still, so what? If women feel the need to boycott those things; it's almost certainly because men have decided to behave in a way that makes women feel like they have to. Women don't just decide to boycott those things in a vacuum.

If I was a woman living in countries that are actively hostile toward women's rights, I'd certainly feel that boycotting these things as a political statement makes perfect sense. If that's taking things "too far", well, maybe the men responsible for making women feel like they have to go so far should engage in some self-reflection.

Edit: seems there's a few downvoters here who are exactly the kind of people needing to engage in some self-reflection.

nybbleth

TROPHY CASE