Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "NFKRZ"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DailyMusic
"Ukraine has other sources of water, electricity"
My point is that Ukraine could be affected by another country, I don't think the degree of risk is what matters here, it's the principle of self-determination. Something being "mad" shouldn't be an argument against leaving, for either Ukraine or Crimea.
If we go by your logic, then what level of risk is acceptable for Crimea to permanently leave Ukraine?
And why are you seeing this through the lens of force? Isn't that what Russia is doing, and Ukraine is supposed to be against? Was all the rhetoric about national sovereignty meaningless?
Your framing of Ukraine being unable to guarantee safety is disingenuous when they didn't respect the wishes of the Crimeans on issues unrelated to independence.
As I said, they repealed the status of Russian as a minority language. So they don't care about them at all, and pretending like keeping Crimea is for the well-being of the people living there is just plain lying.
Ukraine might be a victim to Russia, but it never had good intentions for Crimea. When Ukraine becomes the "Russia" in a political relationship, they don't act any differently to Russia.
Same goes for the Hungarians, Romanians, Poles, and Rusyns on their territory. Ukraine treats them like Russia treated Ukraine. And that's the most despicable part, knowing how it feels to be oppressed and choosing to oppress others anyway. It's sick.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@05KAR
I don't think so. Certainly, the Soviets acknowledged that, among the Polish, there was a higher number of people who opposed the Soviet system and sought to destroy it. That being said, the Soviets didn't target people because they were Polish. They targeted whomever posed a threat, and if more Poles posed a threat, then... you see my point.
You're looking at the results and working backwards.
And even the most brutal famines like Holodomor affected not only Ukrainians but also millions of Kazakhs and southern Russians. It had nothing to do with ethnicity, sorry. Ironically, the Soviets were non-discriminatory, in spite of all their other flaws.
And even at the end, you highlighted my point. That someone would consider themselves Polish was more important than their actual ethnicity (or genetics, if you see it that way.) All Soviets were to consider themselves Soviet first, so the emphasis on identity was what became problematic for the Party.
Hitler explicitly wrote about the biological and mental characteristics of certain ethnic groups by blood, not allegiance. Stalin was a monster, but he was not Hitler. Not even close.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ironically, I think you're betraying your own opinions here, by agreeing with Vexler.
He (and you, by extension) seem to think that Putin, under this framework, is acting from a knowingly evil perspective. That's fundamentally incorrect, and reductionist. Everyone is the good guy of his own story.
And I find it funny to think that the same people calling Lex naive apparently genuinely believe that Putin thinks to himself, "I want to spread suffering in the world because I, Vladimir Vladimirovich, am a hateful person and therefore will express that through violence!" Rationalizing and sugar-coating your own decisions is human. Putin is no different, so he wouldn't have the motivations of a cartoon villain.
I don't agree with Lex that Putin's motivation is a love of country, but his actions are too well thought-out, long-term (2014-2022, and counting) to be impulsive; and too reserved (why not use nukes? Prigozhin wanted to) to be purely fuelled by "want for destruction".
Vexler also misunderstands Lex's worldview.
Lex, being a compsci grad, and later alum to MIT, sees the world in a mechanical way. A series of stimuli and reactions. {If, then} lines of code.
It's not correct to say that he sees only the emotionally good motivations in people, he has trouble seeing the emotional motivations, period.
He's not a robot of course, but look back through his interviews and the way he frames questions about motivations. Vexler is simply wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Playing Devil's Advocate here:
Russia should have "banned" (put tariffs on) products that it could quickly replicate a long time ago. If it invests in domestic industry its economy will become more robust and resistant to change. Think of China, they used to make cheap crap and other countries' goods, but they now have their own market and Chinese-made brands that are actually good.
If everyone in China took Roman's approach ("just buy whatever's good now throw money at the easiest option") we'd never have brands like Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo, DJI, Lenovo, etc.
So I don't support banning or (especially!) destroying the food you already bought from Europe, but it's always good to support your local industry, because it leads to a general better quality of life in the country you're living in. Yes it takes time to develop, but at a certain point your country starts attracting foreign buyers and now you have the upper hand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How, realistically, do you see any "small companies" setting up their own internet infrastructure? I hope you realize fiber optic cables cost literally millions of dollars per mile to install. I'm not even talking about a city, where dense sewage and water systems have to be taken into account and often make new installations impossible.
The U.S. government knows this, and gave grants to the few major ISPs in the '90s and early '00s
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/broadbandgrants/comments/61BF.pdf
(that is an entire book, primary sources are at the very bottom)
to update their cables from copper to fiber optic. It was much cheaper than expecting multi-million dollar companies to appear out of nowhere and install their own, especially because the technology was more expensive at the time. Did they go ahead and upgrade? Of course not! (The U.S. still uses copper). The icing on the cake is, no new companies are legally allowed to directly compete in an area where these massive companies exist, courtesy of ISP lobbying.
So, when net neutrality is repealed, what do you think will happen? Nothing! Comcast, Cox, and Frontier have already raised their prices across the board, and no one will be there to engage in the "free market." And even if small companies were able to intervene, what difference would that make?
Out of genuine curiosity, I'd like to know specifically how you see Net Neutrality as a hindrance to competition. I'm not even trying to be a bitch, I really want to know what you think, because I can't understand it. If you could, please explain it to me step by step, how repealing NN would increase diversity of options for a consumer.
Thanks.
1
-
I can see why you'd think that, but I don't think that it's fair at all to charge companies extra for more bandwidth. The monetary relationship between the three entities- ISP, Media Company, and Consumer is already established:
--You, the consumer, pay the ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T) a monthly fee, so their cables can be maintained, their company staffed; etc.
I will remind you again that the U.S. government gave the ISPs BILLIONS of dollars to update their cables- with fiber optic, there is room for millions of people to have a minimum of 1 Gbps download speeds, MORE than enough for Netflix and any other streaming and online services to compete.
--You, the consumer, also pay the company (Netflix) for access to their service.
--The companies should not have to pay ISPs extra, because that is literally extortion, which is illegal:
In 2014, Verizon demanded Netflix pay extra for something that you already paid the ISP for (monthly subscription to Verizon and access to websites). Thankfully, Netflix didn't pass the price to the consumer- you- but it can't be that generous forever. Until Netflix paid up, their video quality was throttled.
https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
Also, I don't know how old you are, but you must be either very old or very young, because it is extremely naive to think that cable companies (you know, for-profit organizations?) wouldn't jump at a chance to increase their earnings. In fact, it's so naive and dumb, that it's already not true:
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/12/19/comcast-cox-frontier-net-neutrality/
So yes, repealing NN *does ^^^ cost people money for no good reason, and it has literally created a cable package system for people living in most of the U.S. I only hope you live somewhere with AT&T, because they are biding their time.
Also, I didn't ask you to read the whole article. I said primary sources were at the bottom. Something tells me you didn't even bother to look at the first page, because then you'd know that it wasn't about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You really need to think more about what you believe, because from where I'm standing, it's not fleshed out, and
it's all bullshit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1