Of these, over 2.8 million have fled to Russia, which has taken in more refugees than any other country.[42]

Interesting claim, the cited source is https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine

This states however that Russia took in 6280 refugees. How does the wiki get to 2.8 million?

We’re not even sure how to deal with intelligent life on Earth yet. Let’s figure that one out first, shall we?

He was wearing his headphones the wrong way around, so the text was mirrored too.

Pen names have been in use for ages. Dr. Seuss and Mark Twain for example.

The provided link is a movie made with full permission and cooperation of the North-Korean government. It’s quite literally what NKs government wants you to see.

Fsync is also mentioned as having issues when emulating ntsync, and the improvements for some games are still quite good.

Israel is suing the NYT for supposedly breaking US law. That’s pretty typical worldwide. Crime doesn’t become legal if you do it to a foreigner, you need a special status for that (like ICE goon for example).

Dodik is putting forward an opinion in the article. Perhaps you also need to look up what the word opinion means?

Did you miss the “An argument is a discussion or debate” part of the definition you quoted? Dodik isn’t in a discussion or a debate, he’s just monologuing.

If you claim to have no idea why Dodik thinks what he thinks then you clearly need to work on your reading comprehension instead of spending time trolling here because he’s pretty clear on that in the article

Cite the article then. I’ve asked you this several times now. Stop dancing around it and dodging the question.

Voting over the internet brings election integrity issues. That’s why almost all countries use physical ballots still.

Holding elections, especially if part of the country is occupied, could also be seen as “corrupt”. For example, if Ukraine were to hold elections right now, Donetsk and Luhansk could not vote in them because Russia occupies those territories. This would deprive the Ukrainians there of their right to vote. And one has to wonder if turnout will be any good if going out to vote risks being drone striked (especially since voting locations would make easy targets).

Doing everything online might work, but afaik I’m not aware of people promoting that since it’s susceptible to hacks, DDOS, etc… It’s just not secure.

Too bad for you, my claim goes back 3001 years. Get in line!

The US is notable, but in a unique position since its size and position make it very unlikely that it would have to fight an existential war.

Can’t find much on Denmark though. I suppose that during WW2 they didn’t get much of a say. But in previous wars Denmark was still a monarchy. The only other major war in which they didn’t immediately capitulate were the Schleswig wars, but then the Danish parliament was still very young (1849, wars happened in 1848 and 1864).

Suspending elections for the time being is a bit more common, especially if voting would be too dangerous for the people.

Global consumption compared to what the Earth can regenerate.

If I say the sky is blue, I don’t need to provide a scientific treatise explaining on why it’s blue.

To people who agree with you, you won’t. But to someone who is colourblind, or blind even, you do need to provide actual evidence.

If someone says “the sky is purple”, and someone else says “that’s nonsense, that guy claims everything is purple” you can’t just go “no but counter his reasoning for why the sky is purple”, because no reasoning was provided.

I have no idea why Dodik thinks what he thinks. He didn’t say why he said what he said.

You evidently have no clue what making an argument means.

An argument is a statement or set of statements that you use in order to try to convince people that your opinion about something is correct.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/argument

Feel free to cite the original article where Dodik provides a statement used to convince the reader/listener of why his opinion is correct. I’m not interested in continuing this until you do.

That’s not how that works.

Dodik made statements. He didn’t back it up with anything. He provided no argumentation, nor any examples. So when you say “attack the argument, not the person”, the question is “which argument, Dodik did not provide any”.

If I were to baselessly claim “Yoghtos is secretly three porcupines in a people-suit”, there’s no reason to ‘debate’ that statement; you dismiss it out of hand because I don’t provide any reasoning or argumentation as to why this is supposed to be true.

You provided an argumentation for him, which could be debated. Dodik did not.

The idea apparently was that the warmth of the rectum makes the ball very squishy again, allowing you to easily push it out again.

I know that there’s the occasional spicy comic or photoshoot, and I think I recently came across a kind of squishy ball you could insert rectally to make anal sex less messy. So there was some stuff at least.

To make this determination the court may hear evidence, and must take account of any representations made by the parties.

This did not happen as far as I can tell. Neither are any of the listed examples applicable.

Did Dodik mention Romania? Did he mention the genocide in Gaza? Did he mention VPNs? Or rewriting history then?

Oh that’s right, he didn’t. Are you hallucinating a different article?

You asked to counter Dodik’s arguments, then substituted your own.

On the flipside, an always public never-changing modlog has already and will be abused in the future (in eg the doxxing case). You can’t protect people’s privacy if the modlog can’t be hidden in some manner (which is also a GDPR-compliance issue). It’s an overlooked problem and imo severe enough to warrant a quick, but perhaps overzealous response, over a slow response. If a better solution is proposed they can always change it again and adopt it. And if it’s a dealbreaker for your instance, either defederate or fork the software (which is part of the core philosophy behind the fediverse after all). A right of reply wouldn’t remove the PII, nor would a context field or something. And if you could remove PII but it would require a context field, there’s nothing that stops an admin from hiding their actions through such a field either.

You can’t be absolute in either conviction here since they clash. The only way to solve it as far as I can see is having admins build up trust with their communities, allowing them to redact the modlog if necessary, and trusting them to do the right thing (and defederating if they don’t).