I recommend downloading it from f-droid if you want full functionality (like self-hosted sync) for free – the one in the play store is monetized (however I do recommend donating to the dev if you don’t want to pay the subscription fee).

I have little to comment on regarding the motivation for your post – I am not up to date with what’s happening in the EU – but, for an encrypted messaging-app alternative to Signal, I can recommend Matrix.

This isn’t necessarily about the sheer size of population, and has more to do with birth rates, but this Kurzgesagt video also outlines well the need for a higher birth rate.

Almost all countries need to reduce their population.

On the contrary, actually, we need to increase our populations. Assuming that you mean an equal reduction in all demographics, the existence of productive, and hyper-productive people is mostly a game of statistics. A larger population means that more of such people will exist. Such individuals are necessary for pushing humanity forward. A nation with a larger population means a larger natural defence. A larger gloabal population decreases the chances of a mass-extinction event.

it’s stressing the system.

What specific stresses are you referring to? We have no lacking in resources, nor space. Economic activity is proportional to those acting within it.

For reference, the article does point out the following:

The United States said it was discussing with relief agencies how “safe areas” could be set up for civilians in Gaza. “One of the things that we did discuss with [Israel] was the need to protect civilian lives in Gaza, the need to establish some safe areas, where civilians could relocate to be safe from Israel’s legitimate security operations,” said a senior U.S. State Department official in briefing reporters. “So we’ve been engaged with the International Committee for the Red Cross, the UN relief agencies to work through the details of what that might look like. It’s still work that’s coming together. The Israelis are committed to it,” the official said.

The article also provides a map of the total evacuation area, which I assume was also provided to the Palestinians. Given that this evacuation area only applies to the north of the Gaza strip, I would assume that the evacuees could flee to the south. I’m not arguing that this is practical given the circumstances, but there technically are places to go.

Please correct me if there is extra information that would suggest that evacuation to the south is also not an option. There’s a lot of information out there regarding this situation, and I am not at all fully educated on the matter.

That said, the use of fallacious arguments is the tool by which one gaslights. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

Fair point in that they aren’t mutually exclusive, but I would disagree that logical fallacies are then only means used to gaslight. Gaslighting is the action by which an abuser sews doubt in one’s own judgement, and beliefs – that can be done any number of ways.

When you use fallacies intentionally to convince someone that their basic and true point is wrong… That’s a form of gaslight.

Gaslighting isn’t necessarily attempting to convince someone that what they believe is wrong, it’s meant to cause someone to question reality, their own sanity, beliefs, memories, etc. This can of course be used to sway average public opinion in the direction of a desired agenda, but it’s not trying to convince change in one’s opinion, I would argue.

The term doesn’t need to only apply to relationships. Political gaslights have become increasingly prevalent through social media.

Oh, for sure. A simple example would be the official denial of a true event’s occurence.

I agree with the statement that you are making, but, if I may be pedantic for just a moment, the way that your example was worded is not an example of gaslighting; it is actually an example of something called “affirming the disjunct”.

What is your rationale for making that statement?

Borg good

You can still edit it.

I understand that you don’t think it is necessary, but I’m curious what your reasoning is, as to why?

I have found that instances that do seem to modify the source code just use the existing “Code” link and simply point it to their own repo instead.

Still, I would be very hesitant to make such a claim.

I don’t understand what you are objecting to in my interperetation, then. You are confirming that my interperetation of your statement is correct.

Did you mistype something? That comment doesn’t make any sense to me. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding how it is written. Would you mind rewording, or explaining what you mean?

These people are there from institutional failure, not merit or meaningful support if their citizens.

They are there because they were voted in.

I meant to say “I’m not saying”

Then what did you mean by “the both sides problem is reveling in political opponents bad health”? Taken litterally, that statement is saying that people are enjoying the fact that their political opponents are in poor health.

If constituents are supposed to be trusted in determining the competency of who they want to elect there should be no age limits at all.

This is the opinion that currently I hold.

President has a 2 term limit, so there is no reason Congress or Justices should not also be subject to predefined limits to how often they can hold an office, to say nothing of other elected officials down the line.

My argument isn’t that of whether it’s possible to make such rules, it is instead, from a point of principle, whether we should make such rules.

I’m not overly convinced that such restrictions are truly necessary at scale. When we are dealing with “large” populations, these sorts of edge-cases begin to become extremely improbable. While they would indeed remain possible, I would argue that if they were to actually end up occurring, that would be as a symptom of a much more serious societal breakdown which would most likely indicate an imminent collapse. That being said, if there was to be some explicit restriction, I believe that it is sufficient to state that individual must be, at least, a naturalized citizen. There could also be some other clause added for the sake of ensuring that the individuals interests are in that of the nation’s – like the natural-born citizen clause in the U.S.A; however, I personally haven’t come to a decision on whether I agree with that, or not.

What do you mean? I’m saying saying most voters enjoy their own representatives poor health.

Yeah, that’s what I just said that you said.