this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
22 points (89.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

47213 readers
1541 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

To me it is like giving crack to a crack feind. Takes care of the problem short term but still stuck in the same spot. Basically the US is an oil fiend and will do anything and I mean anything to get our hands on it. For the long term prupose I have no idea ..do you?

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] shittydwarf@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 days ago
[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They are not trying to wean off oil... the Orange pedophile regime is actually looking at paying a BILLION dollar to cancel existing wind farms so that the USA depends harder on fossil fuels

That is the equivalent of a terminal alcoholic deciding coffee is woke and switching it with bourbon for breakfast

[–] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So far the only winners in the Iran’s War is Gazprom that have seen its American’s tariffs being loosened by the Orange admin.

[–] Naich@piefed.world 7 points 2 days ago

Putin's investment in Trump is paying off handsomely.

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Get rid of Conservatives. That's your first step. Their regressive nature makes moving past fossil fuels next to impossible.

[–] Ttangko@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Imo the two party system basically always devolves into two pro-authoritarian parties, sponsored by capital owners.

like I'd say the "democrats" are just a GOP-light version in terms of representing and realizing progressive topics. Even in parliament systems I feel like this is an issue, greens become more and more conservative in some countries, and esp a certain middle-left party, I have in mind, is basically just doing what the conservatives want with no own agenda anymore.. so in 2 party systems this overton-window shift seems even easier to establish idk

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago

Or get rid of Conservatives AND Democrats and let nature alone reclaim the soil.

/s

[–] redsand@infosec.pub 5 points 2 days ago

This isn't about oil. This is about "Greater Israel", zionism and the most powerful blackmail ring in the world run by Mossad and the CIA.

[–] zxqwas@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The US have been a net exporter of oil since 2020 something due to domestic shale oil. The meme about US starting wars to get more oil was probably valid in 2003 but not in 2026.

What they can do is try to cause a 1970s oil crisis in China, who is a net importer. China can and does invest massively in EV, solar and wind to reduce this vulnerability.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Yep, even in 2003 it was about controlling/disrupting the oil markets a lot more than the US personally wanting more oil. But that's a more difficult concept to grasp than "US wants peoples oil!" so that's the message that spread!

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

We export it because it's harder to refine, not because of a domestic oil surplus. We've already depleted our reserves.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

US and allies

What allies? He's estranged them all

[–] Janx@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

To me it is like giving crack to a crack feind. Takes care of the problem short term

What are you talking about? In what reality is supplying an addict with their addiction "taking care of the problem", either short, medium, or long-term?? Obviously there's parallels to America's oil addiction, but that sentence doesn't make any sense...

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 2 days ago

It takes care of the problem with withdrawals, not the addiction.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

This only delays the Epstein shit not even long enough to try and salvage the midterms. Tick-tick-TOCK!

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

It doesn't. It's all about maintaining dependency