There is an enormous amount of evidence to disprove the idea that liberals will always support fascism. Fascism explicitly rejected liberal democracy, individual rights, and political pluralism. Liberals were among those persecuted by fascist regimes, and liberal democracies were instrumental in defeating said fascist regimes.

Never understood the lengths some Lemmy users go to describe liberalism in these ways. It's just as bad when people do the same thing towards ideologies such as communism

By seeing your battery percentage number displayed, you're able to tell if your battery suddenly starts to drain faster than usual. This would be harder without the battery percentage. This indicator helps you to know if an app or process is significantly draining battery life so you can fix it. Although I guess most phone users aren't bothered by this I'd imagine

That doesn't mean the Austrian police are nazis. Being right wing also doesn't make you a nazi. I thought correctly

I've only ever used Debian my entire life

Lol?? Why so many downvotes

I don't think the Austrian police are supporting Nazi ideology

Why even use forums if you're just going to discourage user engagement?

It wasn't just right wing YouTubers who made these claims. Seems kind of dismissive

Didn't the article say they're voting democrat from now on though? I don't get it

Hyphens clarify compounds, they don’t create them. Grammatically, ‘child eating’ modifies ‘pedophiles’, the head noun. Reading ‘child’ as its own noun would require ‘a child’ or a different construction, which isn’t what’s written.

It says “stolen by child eating pedophiles”. The preposition “by” takes a noun phrase as its object.That noun phrase is “child eating pedophiles”. The head noun is clearly pedophiles. “child eating” is a modifier (a compound/participle phrase) describing those pedophiles

Hyphenation would make it clearer, but its absence doesn’t suddenly create a new valid reading where “child” becomes a separate noun or the main object

Gamer and yeah

You're interpreting a child being the subject of the statement. For this to be true, the original text would need to say 'a child'. Only then would the sentence mean there's a child going about eating paedophiles