The court is responsible, among other things, for crimes against humanity

Unfortunate phrasing.

(the original German is more precise)

Looking at the comments in this thread I’m mostly amazed at how many users have their number of comments in the several thousands. I see you have 1.2K comments on your instance, but only ­­­­­ ~300 of them federated over to PieFed.

I had Kbin and Mbin accounts before this one, so my total count of ~900 in this profile is not the complete picture, but it’s still fascinating to me how relatively inactive I am compared to the big time posters out there. I’m pretty sure I already spend way too much time on here.

So she kinda misunderstood the anecdote?

Its not “Bluesky user enters Waffle house, begins talking about pancakes. Waiter starts shouting at him, berating him for talking about anything other than waffles”.

It’s almost like she read the anecdote and her takeaway was “hell yes I hate pancakes”.

Thanks for taking the time to explain me this stuff, I’m usually pretty quick with social cues but this just left me feeling completely dumb.

Edit: I see in your explanation you flipped waffles and pancakes around (why do you hate waffles), maybe she did the same and just decided to stick with it. Or maybe she just had a public meltdown and it doesn’t need to make sense, I was just weirded out by how people kinda pretended like it did.

Yes, I kind of get that this is the point of the “person enters Waffle house, assumes people hate pancakes” anecdote. I just don’t understand how “WAFFLES” could be seen as not only a clever comeback, but a comeback at all.

She started a thread about Bluesky content moderation policy, someone asks about Bluesky content moderation policy, and she retorts by yelling WAFFLES.

Does she mean “you are acting like that guy from the waffle house anecdote that I just posted”, even though that guy was complaining about pancakes? Or is she trying to insist that “this is a place to talk about waffles, not pancakes”? Is it just a “let me remind you of my anecdote”, and she reads the fable of the waffle house pancake man as a moral story about how people should shut up about banning bigots? Even though this is not the point of the anecdote at all?

Or does it simply not make sense, and I’m overthinking it? Did I snooze, and it is now not a criteria that things should make sense at all any more?

I’m probably stupid, but I do not understand the waffe comment. Is she trying to say “this is a waffle house, stop talking about pancakes”? Is “waffle” some sort of code word I don’t understand?

The US was not really playing in the first place. Basically the other kids invited the US to play a game of international justice years ago, the US said “fuck that” and refused to join in, and now they are trying to put fire to the club house.

Thankfully the fact that the US are not parts of the ICC means they have way less leverage. Basically it is a problem to the ICC because they depend on American companies like Microsoft, and companies that want to do business with american companies and are afraid of sanctions.

Going down this route will do incredible harm to US companies as it’ll be obvious to everyone that they cannot be trusted.

Well, your comment just has a bit of a “what goes around comes around” vibe, when this is the US attacking an institution it has nothing to do with. You could reasonably expect him to attack the rule of law in America first, not starting with fucking it up for the rest of us.

But for sure, nothing surprising about Trump attacking the rule of law and supporting genocide.

The US is not even part of the ICC though. The rest of us didn’t elect him.

Amanda Bradshaw, a 44-year-old creeler from Georgia, describes the job market as “like the dating scene only the recruiters are the ones swiping left”.

What a time to be alive.