| ▲ | gwerbin 11 hours ago |
| While you're waffling on whether it's technically "illegal drilling" or "illegal not-yet-drilling": 1. the US president has previously threatened a war of conquest in Greenland, a territory of a NATO nation 2. the executive chair of the firm that is doing the illegal not-yet-drilling -- and also a top stakeholder -- is friends with said US president and donated to his campaigns. |
|
| ▲ | mindslight 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| A large part of the problem is that trust has gone completely out of the window, because the US is being run by an autocratic rapist. This phrasing isn't meant to be inflammatory, rather I'm merely describing a technical problem here - someone who doesn't respect "no", the idea of consent, the rule of law, etc. The reality itself is what is inflammatory. |
| |
| ▲ | gwerbin 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | One correction: the US is not being run by an autocratic rapist. The US is being run by a cabal of authoritarian/monarchist billionaires, and the aforesaid autocratic rapist is just their representative in the executive branch, supported by the majority in Congress and the Supreme Court. | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The US is being run by the autocratic rapist, but he's got stakeholders just like everyone else. It's the CEO/board distinction that Yarvin laid out in support of Trump, while he was going through the process of compromising his views for political expedience. No need to value competence or love of country like the idyllic kings of old when it's easier to find a rabid dog that just bites people and shits all over the place, but can always be removed by the board. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | XorNot 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That can all be true, but this is still posturing and they haven't yet broken any laws. |
| |
| ▲ | bigbadfeline 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > That can all be true, but this is still posturing and they haven't yet broken any laws. Posturing is to say that "they haven't yet broken any laws". Transferring equipment to a place for which the company had no permit is breaking the law. Once again, this is what happened and it's an act of breaking the law - both formally and substantively: Quote from the OP: That has prompted Greenland’s government to issue a “strong warning” that no approval had been granted to land the kit. | |
| ▲ | black_puppydog 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The article reads like the act of landing the drilling equipment in Greenland was in itself illegal. Not the same as drilling, and ofc IANAL, but still... | | |
| ▲ | watwut 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Whenever conservatives, far right or large businesses clearly and openly plan something unethical or illegal or plain damaging, everyone else has a duty to pretend they dont see it. We must extend infinite amounts of benefits of the doubt, even at the price of making ourself look like dumb. (Or course, no benefit of doubt is extend to their opposition.) Or something. | | |
| ▲ | gwerbin 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | And now in 2026 with NSPM-7 anyone who speaks up against literally anything the US does, can get put on a domestic terrorist list, which sets them up to be punished extrajudicially such as being de-banked. And then if the administration gets their way such individuals will be stripped of citizenship, detained in a concentration camp for a while because contractors make money off of that, and then eventually deported to some unknown place. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | teraflop 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | andsoitis 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > While you're waffling on whether it's technically "illegal drilling" or "illegal not-yet-drilling" How can one be guilty (“illegal”) of something if you’re not doing it (“not-yet”)? |
| |
