Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "HasanAbi"
channel.
-
590
-
559
-
124
-
117
-
92
-
77
-
71
-
66
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
60
-
59
-
57
-
55
-
53
-
44
-
41
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
26
-
@nathanlovik1753
Ah yes, the '4D chess' argument. When your figurehead is so stupid that even you can't rationalize their behavior at face value, so you inject it with meaning to compensate.
There is no evidence to suggest that JLP was using the Socratic method here- he doesn't ever hint at a deeper, underlying reason for questioning the way that he does. In fact, he does the opposite:
When Hassan answers his question at 38:19 "Do you think black people are victims?" with "I think black people, just like white people, are all victims of the same system that we live under". He keeps repeating the same question, "I didn't ask about all I only asked about one group" and so on, until they move on.
This isn't Socratic- he isn't questioning assumptions, he's creating them. While I personally do think that black people are victims in a way exclusive to them (court sentencing lengths, policing, weed arrests, all connected to generational wealth)-- if Hasan doesn't think that, JLP needs to accept the answer and move on, or address the underlying disagreement.
His question rests on a false assumption, that Hasan needs to think exactly the way he does.
If Hasan established that he doesn't believe the premise of the question (black people are victims in particular) then JLP needs to prove that the premise is true. Instead of actually questioning the premise, like you're saying, he just keeps going with it.
As for the rest of your gibberish comment, again, I need evidence to suggest that JLP actually thinks that. Does he explicitly say that we're all a part of society, or capitalism? Does he hint at it? I need words from his mouth, not yours.
And you went from one point to another: Dylan Roof shooting up a black church after writing things like "Negroes have lower Iqs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behavior."
That's the definition of racism- thinking that some races are beneath others, or that they're inherently bad.
So, there is "some individuals must be behind the racist or injustice."
Dylann is racist, and he killed black people. Is innocent black people dying not injustice? Is being killed, having members of your family killed by a child not oppressive? I think you proved yourself wrong.
Then you went to power, which is a different argument. You need to stay on track. Even then, you're wrong.
The power to kill innocent people and not be killed on the spot, like Ahmaud Arbery, Eric Garner, or Treyvon Martin, is power. Why do the police not kill him, but kill all those other people? It's because he's white and his family will raise hell if their little 'troubled angel' is killed.
"Is society racist" is exactly the same type of question as "are black people victims"! Too fucking broad!! Which society? Which country? U.S.? Okay, which region? Racist against which group? How, where? Is it legal or illegal?
Why don't you conservatives ever want to being your ideas out of La-La Land and into the real world? Talk about specific places, times, dates.
For fuck's sake. Be specific, for once.
25
-
25
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
That makes Russia no different from the US, then, and I only point this out to ask why, if "international law" is so colossally important to people, did the EU not sanction the US, or the Netherlands stop supplying ASML chips like it has for Russia, to force regime change and policy change.
Why the unequal treatment?
If the answer is "because they're too economically involved in everything", then the principles you're hating Russia for violating cannot be upheld anyway, so the question returns to, why risk it this time, but not in 2003 or 2011?
22
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@nathanlovik1753
Lol, if the best you can do is say "they look unprepared" you've already lost. Attacking the person shows that you know his arguments are right, but you can't talk about that because it'll be obvious the second you start.
And Peterson was the one mumbling through his own show, I don't know where exactly you saw him as being 'unprepared' or clueless. I need specific timestamps.
You're making assumption after assumption here, it makes you look really stupid. Give me evidence that Hasan 'rolled out of bed' to the interview. Comments by him later, testimonies from friends, groupchat messages, anything. You're jumping to conclusions without any documentation that it actually, really happened.
But you're conservative, so what should I expect.
The rest of your statement is also completely ridiculous. Red states mooch off of blue states, consistently.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
If the Republican South is so great, why is it still piss-poor after all this time? Even Texas cities are blue lol. New Orleans is blue. Missoula is blue. Face it, Democrats pull the weight of the country, red flyover states mooch off Medicare while pretending they hate it. Slimy hypocrites.
Ben Shapiro couldn't handle a 15 minute interview with Andrew Neil, a conservative!
His job was to read arguments from the left and play Devil's Advocate, to see the interviewee defend their positions. The second Ben steps off a college campus or his safe little show, he gets destroyed LMAO, he even had to apologize for it, fucking loser
https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1126561352867147776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1126561352867147776&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2019%2F05%2F11%2Fus%2Fben-shapiro-bbc-interview-intl%2Findex.html
He's so not used to actually being challenged that he cracked the second it happened. He's not prepared, he literally says he didn't do his research before. Stop lying right to my face.
https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1126894051456774144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1126894051456774144&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2019%2F05%2F11%2Fus%2Fben-shapiro-bbc-interview-intl%2Findex.html
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
...It's never not been like this. This is your country's core identity.
Independence was gotten not for "Freedom" but over capitalists' fury at the Stamp Acts. They wanted to keep as much of their profits as possible, even if it meant angering the British Empire.
The United States of America is, fundamentally, not a place in of itself, not a country, but a territory for wealthy people to live on and exploit.
It was that in 1776, through slavery, sharecropping, neoslavery, industrialization, trusts, the Marshall Plan, the Cold War, the tech boom, the rise of social media, and everything in between.
The country was founded by capital, for capital.
9
-
9
-
9
-
@IAMHALFLIGHT
Essentially, yes. A MAD-protected Concert of Powers, if you will.
Not a great solution, but compared to what we had in the 1990s (with the US at its peak, facing a post-USSR existential crisis and destroying the Middle East) it is at least providing smaller states with the chance that their larger neighbor will not manipulate or occupy them (Haiti, Mexico; Azerbaijan, Finland) because there is an alternative to turn to.
That is actually what has kept Russia on relatively equal terms with Azerbaijan; Turkey as an alternative economic option. The greater the imbalance of power, the greater potential for abuse.
Of course, this does not account for perceived imbalance of power, as in Ukraine right now (2014 may have given Russia the wrong impression, that the rest would be just as easy), but generally if the state perceives correctly, and there are too many large states that can be called upon, large states will stop exerting their force so much.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Alex-vo2ew
"The US was brought into Syria by a coalition force"
Was Syria part of that coalition force? No? Then it was, and is, illegal and the US should vacate immediately. End of story.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say regarding my pfp— that shouldn't really influence the veracity of my words. I never understood this, the idea that someone's identity makes the ideas they profess less true than if someone else were to to say them.
Hitler was an animal rights acitivst, and I would agree with him about those ideas in isolation.
Obviously, everything else he said and did is abhorrent, but I can separate the art from the artist, so to speak. Do you really hate Russia so much that you get emotional and can't analyze my words dispassionately?
Regarding the last part of your comment— IS IS has been defeated, it's been years and only ISIS-K poses a threat.
Trump has said publicly what the US' goal is in occupying northeastern Syria, and if it were purely for de-escalational purposes, US soldiers wouldn't be helping Kurds steal oil belonging to the Syrian government and selling it on the global market.
You can also try and deflect by calling it 'a buffer zone' but that doesn't make it legal and you have yet to acknowledge the blatant illegality of US actions.
Tell you what, if you admit the US is violating international law, I'll say Russia is, too. You can get your licks in. Deal?
6
-
5
-
5
-
@PWN3GE
No, it does, but in the absence of an alternative, it is the practical thing to do.
Russia has genuine security concerns about a US military presence right on its southern border. I could very easily see CIA agents training Chechen separatists to fracture Russia into more pieces.
Funny enough, that is how the 2nd Chechen War started, except it was Saudi Arabia doing the funding then.
So no, it's not "Russian paranoia".
However, just as Russia has genuine concerns, so does Georgia.
So what do we do?
Problem is, NATO is zero-sum. Either Georgia is in NATO, and Russia is unhappy, or it isn't and Georgia is unhappy.
I think I compromise could be reached, but the West seems to think that its way is the only way.
It refuses to compromise, and takes nothing less than full NATO membership as satisfactory.
In th face of that stubbornness, what is Russia (for its own self-interest) supposed to do? Roll over?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@thebignacho
No, the left isn't saying that.
In fact, it's the right that's being hypocritical.
They were SO supportive of the Supreme Court decision to allow a baker to refuse service to someone because they're gay.
But when a tech company refuses service to someone because they're supporting Trump?
"That's oppression, my freedom of speech wahhh!"
No, it's not. The Constitution protects you from government censorship. If you step onto corporate jurisdiction, it's their rules.
Anyway, you haven't really addressed what I said before, and you'll need to be more specific about which "mental gymnastics" we're doing.
If it's blatantly obvious, like you said, point it out.
I personally don't mind property destruction, even federal, but I do think you're just wrong in your ideas and reasons for storming the Capitol.
I don't oppose your right to riot, though, just like I support our right to do that too.
It's not legal in either the police OR Capitol riots but neither was he Boston Tea Party
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@PlatinumAltaria
..So, basically proving my point again. You refuse to believe that you could possible be wrong, or that the scenario doesn't play out exactly as you've described it.
At least, not in a way that benefits Ukraine.
There are lives to negotiate. That goes for Ukraine, too. lol
And in spite of all of what you said, 8 years later, Crimea in still Russian and will likely remain so.
You can argue with me on the internet all you want, but the truth is that all possibilities are open-- and it is all about likelihood. Anything is technically possible, but some outcomes are more probable than others.
I see it as likely that Russia will further reduce its holdings to just Donbas and Crimea, and will keep the conflict brewing to force a negotiation.
Now, given all that-- do you expect Ukraine to keep throwing bodies at their eastern front?
Assuming you don't just say
"no you're wrong, Ukraine just.. .can't lose! I can't accept the idea that they won't win!!"
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ravenblood1954
How am I delusional? For exploring all possible scenarios playing out in the conflict?
You literally refused to even entertain the idea that there would be any outcome besides Ukraine's complete victory.
Really going for broke there, huh?
The West is more prosperous because of colonialism and slavery. One only need look at Europe before the Age of "Exploration", and after.
I just find it just astounding that you think the countries which had literal colonies in living memory are the "good guys".
Why do you think Kenya is still furious with Britain? Why do you think France still has French Guiana-- their fantastic diplomacy and democratic governance??
You know how much Europe had funneled into it in terms of resources and FREE manpower? Untold trillions, for hundreds of years.
It'd be a miracle if Europe WASN'T prosperous.
That is something which Russia was
A) hundreds of years late to, courtesy of the Mongols,
B) stopped at every turn by Europe, which had already industrialized and colonized.
See the Crimean War: all of Europe wanted to prevent Russia from having what they had: access to the sea. Same with Japan in the East.
Historic instability came at the hands of constant invasion. We don't have the British Channel. Or the Mediterranean. Or the Alps, or Pyrenes, or the Atlantic. Just flat, indefensible land.
How do you expect us to be stable under these conditions?
The only time we came close was the 1900s, when Russia had expanded to the Carpathians in the West, the Karakum Desert in the south, and the Pacific in the far East.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@ravenblood1954
Yes, but it is at least a consideration of the other sides' negotiations. You claim that it's insane that Russia should even be allowed to put forth terms, yet you turn around and say that Ukraine should basically get everything it wants.
Like it or not, Crimea won't return to Ukraine-- the people there literally don't want to be part of Ukraine.
In 1994, when Russia was weakened and busy with Georgia, Crimea voted on its own to become autonomous. Ukraine declared it illegal.
Whatever happened to respecting democracy??
Was the plan to forcefully Ukrainianize the Crimeans? Isn't that what Ukraine claims separates it from tyrannical, horrible Russia? Or is it just "okay when we do it" now?
The "people of Ukraine" didn't decide their government. The Verkhovnaya Rada under-represented the southeastern regions (Russian-speaking ones) and there were counter-protests against the Maidan overthrow.
It was because of massive protests in Kiev, not the entire country, that the whole government was changed.
Ultimately, when you ignore these warning signs, Russia sees an opportunity-- much like the US in Middle East-- to support separatist groups.
The demand is easily enforced-- they're right next to each other and Russia did it for 400 years before.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Zb_Calisthenic
True, but the vast majority aren't prosperous, not anymore. I have experience in 2 continents, and most Americans are only better in material things. There is a wide variety of things here, the best technology, big economy.
But they struggle to give all citizens the basic things. Even in some russian villages, there is a clinic that will heal a broken leg for free. It will not be perfect, but to my understanding, it is the same in the us. The good services cost money, so most us citizens will only get average care, for a high price.
And most europeans will say that the pace of life is too fast in the us. You are making so much money, but no time to enjoy any of that. It is like having a bigger house, but no keys to inside.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheSubso
...You must be kidding.
Russia didn't have the string of luck associated with free capital and knowledge transfer from the British Empire, isolationism for 200 years, access to 2 oceans with no foreign powers etc...
But I would say, even if you consider the russification and suppression of political dissent (is that any different to the US? South Korea was a dictatorship for decades), the average Ukrainian's life is- materially- vastly better now than it was 200 years ago.
The USSR, like it or not, industrialized Russia and its former subjects at breakneck speed, and much of the infrastructure they are defending right now wouldn't have even existed if not for Lenin.
You take for granted that the US started from a high level of development to start with.
Even immigration: hundreds of thousands of Germans were simply... allowed to leave for the US, but when they were invited to settle in Russia, Prussia quickly disallowed their movement. Europe went out of its way to hamper Russia at every turn, and continues to.
It will of course take time, and genuine investment and nurture (instead of neoliberal policy, allowing Russian oligarchs to launder money into Western banks) to develop Russia.
But I think that the stability that Ukraine would provide (namely the Carpathian mountains, shorter land border = lessened military expenditure) will free up some of Russia's budget to actually develop itself, and by extension Ukraine.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mjm3091
It isn't 100% Russian, but all (minus the 2 I mentioned) areas are majority ethnically Russian.
And you scenario isn't really likely.
There are indeed multiple factions-- but the pro-democratic ones will quickly be snuffed out, as they are mostly funded by Western NGOs and would lose organization in event of a civil war.
The oligarchs would likely elect just one of themselves to rule, and that person right now is Medvedev. Or Kadyrov-- in both cases, the conflict will continue, as both have expressed commitment to the issue and even taken it farther than Putin.
The Church-- now this one is laughable. It is a cultural institution with sway over older people's lives, but ruling Russia? With what army?
Let's move past that one, if you really insist then I'll explain to you why you can't rule a country with no way to have a monopoly on force.
Regarding Siberia becoming independent-- how?
If we assume that Siberia as a whole secedes, then sure-- but any region outside of Vladivostok will be landlocked and forced to negotiate with a neighbor that can access the world's oceans.
The problem is, Vladivostok is in no position to defend itself from the US Navy, which has been trying to establish any sort of foothold in the Okhotsk Sea for decades.
Any regions in between Vladivostok and the Russian core would face a similar problem-- foreign encroachment, Chinese or Western. All they have of value is minerals-- It is happening currently, but would accelerate if they all became smaller, weaker countries.
Lastly, much of Siberia is dependent on investment from the Russian core to survive, especially the more remote areas. The people can't just move to China-- they don't speak Mandarin! So they will need to keep ties VERY close to Moscow even in your fantasy scenario.
That is even assuming it happens, which it is VERY unlikely to.
You have a surface-level understanding of Russia, which is fine, but don't go around acting like a policy expert. Or like someone who actually lives there.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stormyprawn
I'm glad you agree, everyone seems to just deflect and call me a bot when I am clearly not. Would a bot have perfect English (or is that another sinister Russian plot?:)
I agree that violating sovereignty and warcrimes is a horrible thing to do, but I ultimately see the world in terms of likely outcomes.
We have already had decades of US hegemony, and they have abused that privilege greatly. They cannot be trusted to do the right thing of their own accord.
Essentially, we cannot condemn one and not the other--- partially because it's morally wrong, but also because it reinforces negative behavior.
If the US has genuine competitors- China, Russia, maybe someday India- it will need to treat countries better, or risk having them "fall" to other countries' influence.
Currently, Europe refusing to hold the US accountable for its crimes reinforces its bad behavior-- what incentive does it have to stop?
Additionally, Russia refusing to stop and pointing out the hypocrisy- however brual they themselves may be- is holding the US' reputation as a bargaining chip.
"If you claim to be against X, you need to apply it to everyone, your won government too".
If Europe and the US cannot do that, then Russia will simply keep reaping the benefits of the same actions the West does. And they cannot credibly tell Russia to stop without drawing attention to their own actions-- unless they stop, or retroactively pay for them.
So I don't personally see it as whataboutism, more like "ensuring impartiality".
2
-
@stormyprawn
I certainly could say that, and I think there's plenty of evidence to support that.
I agree with your assessment here, and I have thought about this too: The only 2 "final" options for power politics are: hegemony, or not hegemony.
In other words, a single country controlling things, or a balance of power, as you said.
I would argue that we already did rather well, all things considered, with a balance of power in the nuclear age. Case in point: the Cold War. The mere fact that we're here is testament to the fact that it can be managed.
I also agree with you about the concept of interconnectedness, but your view of history here seems to be in a vacuum.
The "world order" was never truly reset, nor was it rebuilt from scratch. Europe still retained much of the international connection, industrial know-how, experience in statecraft, etc, that defined its own global domination in the 500 years prior.
America had also developed its own and left WWII unscathed.
So the idea that the economies of "the world" become so interconnected as to disincentivise war is missing the whole picture.
The rest of the world-- the newly freed European colonies, non-aligned countries-- had no such history of development and funneling resources and human capital into their own states for their benefit.
The "interconnection", in their case, just means Western global domination. Colonialism by another name.
Western companies and societies have so much more experience and time to make mistakes, come back from them, without a peer competitor completely absorbing them.
My point here? Russia got a similar treatment in the 1990s.
The aim of "shock therapy" may have been to transition Russia into capitalism, but it was so poorly done that-- while it did rope Russia into the West's financial institutions and companies (the reverse effect is being felt now)-- it also ruined Russia's prospects of developing on its own.
I can go into more detail if you like, but generally speaking:
mass privatization (eliminating a gov't budget),
opening up to Western companies, supporting Yeltsin and his "super-presidential" system (a weak democratic government to boot),
and rigging the 1996 elections to get him re-elected,
All made Russia unstable and weak, and very, very resentful of the West.
That decade essentially confirmed the Russian state's every fear about foreign occupation.
The centuries-old fight had been lost, and Russia was paying dearly- the economic impact was worse, comparatively speaking, than the Depression.
So while I think it's a nice sentiment to have, it will never be executed by the US. They would never intentionally help such a large country, a potential competitor.
China got lucky because Nixon worked with them to create an anti-Soviet alliance, and that let them slip through.
But otherwise? Unless the US can gain cheap labor or resources from a country, it will treat it as a threat.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@thewarzoneformerlyknownass4498
This is why, in Russia, religion is allowed (both the Orthodox and the older, "Old Believer" sect, along with Islam, Buddhism, and animism)— but NOT evangelicalism.
It is an almost exclusively American religion and is a foothold for their influence in other areas of life within the targeted country.
This is similar to Japan's policy on Christians in the 1800's. Portugal, Spain, France, England, all used religion as a front to establish trade and colonies in Japan.
The Japanese did not make that mistake.
1
-
1
-
@JollyWanker
Question, for someone who has WAY more knowledge on this than me. Should I even bother with learning on my own? From my own pov, I could be learning alot but in actuality it could be bullshit or no one's there to correct my cognitive biases.
Specifically, I want to learn to read through and accurately interpret scientific literature but I've heard that it's (ironically) more of an art than a science because so much context is needed to parse out the information coherently.
Ex: recognize manipulating p-values and correlation coefficients, know whether the organization that funded it has a bias, watch for scale altering in graphs, be able to get through the structure of a paper without falling asleep and/or getting confused, understand the minutia in wording like random sample vs simple random sample, know the hierarchy of information like meta-analysis being more reliable than survey, etc etc.
If there is a way to interpret it better, could you recommend anything? So much news always links back to a scientific paper and it's almost always exaggerated in the article, I want to get past that hopefully.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
La Bôi
The idea is, that if you can't fulfill the bare minimum then your chances drop to 0. Nobody's guaranteeing you sex if you do these things; this isn't programming where you have conditionals, or mechanics where if you fix this, this, and that, the car starts.
The whole idea of the "game" is that you can win, or lose, but you still have to play by the rules.
But I agree, if they don't play, they lose. And it's not wrong to say that looks play a big role in attractiveness, but that wears off in lieu of new information- charm, wit, voice, confidence (depending on setting) intelligence are also indicators of how fuckable you are.
Incels love to pretend to be scientific but stop short of whatever makes them acknowledge their own faults. It's really kind of sad because the longer they prolong their seclusion, the harder the hit will be if/when they finally break out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheSubso
" but you sure love advocating for it."
How about, instead of trying to force Russia to spend even more on military and border security, you leave us, and ukraine, the fuck alone? Ideally, like you said.
For someone who likes to accuse me of 'sucking a country in', you seem all to eager to do the same.
You literally said they'd be better off in your bubble, yet complain when we want to do the exact same thing.
Again-- the action doesn't matter. Russia could do literally anything (short of selling itself like in the 1990s) and the West would find a way to bitch and moan.
" wont lead to a worse outcome :)"
..How? You never really addressed what I said-- the US is likely to buy out most of Ukraine's resources and companies- their "aid" is a giant loan.
Once again, I offer you Greece and most of the Balkans. Being in the US' sphere =/= prosperity.
The US cares about Ukrainians as much as it cares for Greeks, which is to say not at all. Only if they're convenient.
Frankly I could also present Ukraine from the 1990s as well. Seems like it's due for a repeat! Clinton will be proud
All you did was repeat your original belief, but you didn't square it with any of what I said
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thebignacho
No, it's not. The First Amendment does not protect you from censorship (of speech, religion, etc) by private companies or individuals. How many times do I have to keep telling you conservative fucks?
In fact, the example you gave happens to be a perfect example of that! Companies can do what they want, since you, as an employee, legally agreed to their terms.
They can also mandate dress codes that exclude religious garments (yarmulke, hijab, veils, etc), "violating" your freedom of religion. No crosses and/or prayer allowed at any McDonald's? Perfectly legal. As long as you're there, using their services.
I don't like Big Tech either- they do have too much power. But you can't break the law to stop their actions, no matter how good your intentions are. It sets a dangerous precedent.
If you want address the issue, you either create a new law or look into prior ones (like antitrust) as a possible avenue. you can't just go off the rails and completely ignore the legal system.
And Trump has violated Twitter's ToS many times, specifically the Glorification of Violence and Civic Integrity policies.
No, I won't oppose it. Charlottesville was a riot, so were the George Floyd protests, and so were the Capitol riots.
John Locke (the inspiration for the Founding Fathers' writings) gave explicit permission to overthrow a government if it does not protect the people's natural rights to Life, Liberty and Property.
Sometimes, it is necessary.
And I think you're drawing a line that doesn't exist. What those people did at the Capitol was just as illegal as what the George Floyd protestors did. Sorry. Breaking and entering onto federal property, armed, is extremely illegal.
Don't try to make something legal just because you support it happening now. It'll come back to bite you, case in point:
Big Tech can do what it wants because the Court ruled that an anti-gay baker (private individual working for a company) can do what it wants.
Okay, so would you support riots against stop and frisk? Or would you say that it's "not unfair"? Name me a situation where you'd support the left rioting against the police. Would you at all? Because if you can't, then you don't operate on principles, you just want your team to win.
The riots were against the death of an unarmed man in breach of standard protocol. And an unfair ruling to dismiss Chauvin's 3rd degree murder charge. It's not a new law, but a legal decision. Same as the Capitol riots.
And you're right, that is hypocritical. That's why I don't support those cops, either. And I also don't support people turning in their rioting coworkers to the Feds, that also sets a dangerous precedent. Most of the Left doesn't have that double standard, you're thinking of Liberals. And if you think those are the same, then you have a lot to learn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@malum9478
Except they do. America cared, and continues to care, a whole lot. Progressives are willing to scream over what happened in Bolivia but somehow turn into nationalists and war hawks when it comes to the same situation, just to the benefit of a rival power?
I fear manufacturing consent has worked on all of you- no matter how progressive, you are all very nationalistic at heart.
Also, the CIA has been funding extremist elements, so no, it wasn't Russia (America, in your strange analogy) who funded 'insurrectionist groups'--- it was the actual US. Vice has reported on the Azov battalion, and the American neo-Nazis that are slowly streaming into its ranks.
Also, your analogy was a false equivalency, too.
It would be more like if North America was, for centuries, under a single state, with Americans making ground in what is now Canada. The state collapses, but the boundaries aren't drawn along ethnic lines, and millions of Americans are now in Canada--- (for the sake of analogy here) Canada has recently forced the Americans to stop learning English in schools, and learn French instead. Americans are regularly beat up in the streets for using English. All the while, Canada is inching closer to China's military alliance.
And then China is angry when the Americans living in Canada ask Washington to become a 51st state.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mjm3091
Well, I'm glad you at least venture outside of your imagined victory lap.
I disagree with your assessment, for multiple reasons. India and especially China are still wearing of aligning with the West for any reason.
A limited nuclear engagement, as seen in Japan, would not destroy half the world-- and no country would have a justifiable reason to attack Russia on Ukraine's behalf. There's no international law to do so, and any country firing would receive missiles in kind.
Sanctions would be increased, a no-fly zone would be established, maybe NATO would be deployed to Ukraine, but all sides understand: asserting Ukraine's independence is not worth the entire world.
Russia would, in short, not be attacked back directly.
Regarding China-- the CCP has already agreed on the Amur as its northern border, and controlling all that land is extremely difficult, given their current domestic problems.
"Potentially there will be some revolution or country itself may fall apart - no one will try to get hands on Russian territory though. It will eat itself down like USRR did. After being economic pariah, probably will even fall behind Belarus after this."
Lol, are you finished with your fevered hateboner-fuelled ramblings?
I think not. Russia currently is majority Russian, there are no further lines to divide it along. Only Chechnya and Dagestan, but they will quickly go back to fighting each other, or Georgia, as was in the past.
In fact, if we go by ethnicity, northern Kazakhstan is basically Russia.
Even if the Russian state somehow falls apart (again, nukes-- so very unlikely), it will just reform itself. It has twice now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keiolge
Bro... Chechnya attacked first. August 1999. Fucking Yanks.
Also, unlike Western countries, Russia has largely respected the native cultures which it encountered. Europe has none left to speak of (Langue d'Oil, Manx, Pictish, Prussia, all extinct, Irish language almost extinct, Basque and Welsh barely recovering).
And the US is even worse-- a few Native reservations on garbage land, no opportunities, pretending like they're nations and refusing to find them properly...
Russia has native Republics, and came to genuine compromises regarding autonomy in the 1990s. Entire regions have mandatory schooling in the native languages.
I'd say Russia, relatively speaking, was the most benevolent in terms of encountering natives.
No encomienda system, no Manifest Destiny, just align with Moscow and be left alone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Time goes forwards, not backwards. You cannot expand NATO, provoke a reaction, and then say "see, this is exactly why we needed to expand NATO!"
Chomsky and many other have been clear on this:
you try to control any country, "put [leader] in his place!", you will get bad results.
Treating Russia like shit post-collapse was a recipe for resentment, continuing to surround it especially given its history of Western coalitions (Crimean War, Cold War) doing exactly that,
was always going to end badly.
Essentially, the West wanted unconditional surrender from Russia, bowing to their economic and political system in order to reconcile. Russia refused those terms, and here we are.
All could have been avoided with an independent, pan-European security architecture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1