Great explanation. If they are well dose and manages, they should feel like nothing, instead your emotions should feel a bit more manageable.

Something about this sounds AIsh

Not from you. Lol

… peasants slaving for the regime?

Ok. Just gonna carry on with my day, I thought this was gonna be a normal conversation. Lol

Who are “these people”? Like… Really who are you taking about? The directors? Teachers? Janitors? Lol

That’s the fun part. You don’t.

You draft them and order them to invade another country.

Finally. All these years of Hearts of Iron are going to pay off big time.

I find it annoying when people talk like this. It sounds like you forced the other person to be with you, or that you consider yourself so important that the other person would sacrifice their comfort for you.

Yes. There’s also been a spike of political commentors that seem normal until you engage with them, then they fire back with emotionally-charged nonsense full of contradictions.

What job proposal? This is a platform or a scam, any way you look at it is in no way different from what already exists, just with 0 protection for the workers, and using monopoly money that might make your work worth 20% less every month.

So you don’t, is what you’re saying.

Lol. Cope.

How is simping them any different from calling them “basically Hitler from the past”? If you’re talking with your feelings, what you are saying is by definition not-objective, like with simps, but also with haters. I doubt you or OP are any more informed on history than the average Lemmy rando. By starting with the desired conclusion, rather than with arguments, the discussion is already beginning on subjective terms.

They are conflicting in some things but agree on many things…

If this is your definition of “objective”, something you can say about the books in the Bible, sure bro I guess. To me objective means it can be empirically proven: 2+2=4. Earth is the third planet from the Sun. Water at sea level boils at 100c. Etc.

If you think the one of many competing, historical narratives that you or your culture chose are “objective truth”, sure bro, that’s how politics works.

What do you mean “objectively studying history”, what is objective about History? What you’re studying is a narrative, that has been put together by experts, based of what remains from that past. There is nothing “objective” about History, it is an educated guess. Even written records are narratives told from the perspective and culture of the ancient writer.

This is to say that, the reason we don’t judge historical figures through a modern lens is that to do so is to ignore history. It doesn’t matter what your think about Alexander the Great, it matters what his contemporaries (both friends and enemies) had to say about him (objectively biased narratices). For another example think about what the Greeks wrote about the Persians during their many wars, and vice versa. They are conflicrive accounts. Both biased and political. So again, what history is correct, objective?

It’s probably more complex than this. For example, every tree you remove mean less carbon capture in the world.

Might want to do your own research on the historical existence of Jesus. I might be wrong, but I think there is evidence if a man having a really lived and fitting Jesus’ story. Don’t just listen to random dudes in the intern because they wrote a long text and linked Wikipedia!

A bit sensitive about religion, are we?

You lower your head and do your work. You’re all adults and what they do is their biz.