Youtube comments of LancesArmorStriking (@LancesArmorStriking).
-
5300
-
3600
-
1200
-
689
-
592
-
559
-
469
-
355
-
331
-
321
-
254
-
221
-
217
-
193
-
187
-
186
-
186
-
183
-
180
-
170
-
163
-
162
-
158
-
152
-
150
-
146
-
146
-
According to senior aides, 2011 (Libya) was what changed him so fundamentally.
At the start of his career (think 2001 speeach at the Bundestag) he genuinely wanted Russia to be folded into the Western system, as a key partner.
What he got instead was a continuation of pushing for neoliberal policies by the West (which destroyed Russian society in the 1990s under Yeltsin), and rank hypocrisy in foreign policy.
Other countries can't do anything without our okay, but Iraq needs to be invaded!
That sort of thing.
Libya was especially horrifying for him. It was in the process of developing nuclear arms, and the US didn't want that. They made an informal deal with Gaddafi that, if he suspended the program, the US would look the other way regarding his 'lack of ddmocracy', and ostensibly allow the country to continue under him. He disarmed in 2003.
8 years later, they funded rebel groups and had him killed in the streets.
Putin reportedly watched that video on repeat over and over, obsessively. He saw himself in that video. A nuclear armed state being given non-binding agreements by the US, only to be backstabbed and exploited later. Case in point, look at Libya now.
He definitely also saw it happen surrounding NATO expansion in the 1990s.
So from that point on, his perceived role as leader of Russia was to chiefly to develop Russia, but to act as a counter to the West.
143
-
136
-
135
-
124
-
123
-
117
-
117
-
115
-
115
-
107
-
104
-
102
-
98
-
97
-
95
-
94
-
93
-
91
-
90
-
86
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
79
-
77
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
@MistaOneGuy
Fine, no insults.
No, What I'm saying is Trump shouldn't have any businesses while running for or residing in office.
Reagan stopped acting, Carter gave up his peanut farm, the Bushes gave up their oil companies.
if they hadn't, they would also, like Trump, be violating the Emoluments Clause.
You're right, there is nothing else to say. That is the smoking gun.
Trump violated the Constitution while President, and should be impeached, and promptly removed from office. End of story.
55
-
55
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
That's very hard to achieve. Unless you're a sumo wrestler or natural powerlifter, most healthy diets will nudge you closer and closer to a bodyfat percentage of 10-12% for males and 15-25% for females. It's the ideal number for survival. Anything more, for a period of time longer than, say, a few weeks, is indicative of an unhealthy lifestyle.
Sugar is usually the culprit, but the industry has dug its heels in, and 50 years after Ancel Keys' disastrous advice to the American people, there is an entire movement of people that think this lifestyle is not only "okay," but healthy! It's saddening, to see the U.S. population become so fat and disgusting.
It's not the people's fault, of course, but now we know that we've been lied to- insisting that we continue is the worst possible course of action.
43
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
@ninyaninjabrifsanovichthes45
Yes, but how do you think Yeltsin got re-elected in 1996 with 6% approval rating?
Here's a hint: it's red, white, blue, and this case case very green
(Longer version:
Not only did the US Treasury guide Russia's economic policy after the collapse, making conditions horrible overall, they also worsened things by helping Yeltsin rig the 1996 elections;
advisors flown out to Moscow every single week, $10B IMF loan "mysteriously" not used for development, Clinton personally saying "I want this guy to win so bad, it hurts", 1M votes for Yeltsin in Chechnya where only 500K were registered to vote).
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
@Don.M.
They're one of the only countries on Earth where a major peasant/workers' revolt has not yet happened. 250 years of uninterrupted capitalism.
The only real help they got was during the USSR, when the US was afraid of a Revolution due to poor people's (justified) anger over living conditions— and a model to follow right across the Atlantic.
And so Social Security, Medicare, and the Public Works programs, among others, were established. And a high effective corporate tax rate. Keynesian spending from the 1930s-60s.
They are a nation completely defined by one government that's never had its continuity broken.
Americans are afraid that, if they tear the system down, they will have nothing left.
The founding of the US was not on shared cultural grounds or for national freedom (US taxed too), but based entirely in statehood.
The United States came first, the American nation is secondary to that.
Besides sharing a government, what really unites Americans?
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
@jacobq.2204
Lol, except he does. Seattle introduced $15/hr minimum wage and, contrary to the Republican freakout, not much changed. The economy improved- in fact, restaurants boomed because the staff previously too poor to go out to eat now had the disposable income.
Meanwhile, 80% of Trump's tax cut went straight into the pockets of executives, CEOs, and shareholders (via stock buybacks, bonuses, and dividends). Capitalism assumes people are self-interested, but businessmen will re-invest their money instead of just taking it? What a fucking joke. Trickle down has never worked.
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
@Founderschannel123
The issue for Russia is access.
Let me pose a question: would you rather have land in Mongolia, or Hawaii?
Most people say 'Hawaii' for the weather, but it's also because of location.
Hawaii has free access to the ocean, while Mongolia has none. This creates an economic problem.
Russia has an enormous amount of land, yes, but most of it is frozen and its coastline in frozen 90% of the year. In reality, only about 36% of Russia is habitable.
That's about the size of Kazakhstan.
So what good is land if you can't trade with other places? You're isolated.
Russia is in that situation. Why does it expand? It wants to freely trade.
The West doesn't seem to understand, because all of the countries (US, Britain, Australia, Japan, European bloc) have access to the ocean 100% of the year. No advanced ice-breaking ships. They just have it all the time, for free, and expect it as granted.
They don't seem to understand that if Russia 'just follow the rules', they become placed in a permanent disadvantage, and have to make concessions to other countries just so they can do what other countries are guaranteed by sheer luck.
Geography makes things unequal, and Russia will not accept a fate as a landlocked resource mine.
Its people would forever be exploited by Western corporations taking its resources, and selling finished products back to Russians at a high price.
This already happened in the 90s once. It will not happen again.
26
-
26
-
25
-
@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
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
Aspiring Pyramidbuilder
Material possession didn't prove superiority? And I'm the one with the flag of the former USSR?
Material wealth is an expression of power. If Mansa Musa had enough wealth to be the inspiration for Europeans to travel to Africa, then I'd say it was pretty damn commendable and superior, be it caused by intelligent rule, favorable climate, or luck.
Toddlers? You clearly are still subject to my point— you still haven't grasped how vast Africa's cultures are.
If you want to talk about shitty art, let's cherrypick, like you just did. Compare all of Byzantine art, with Old Kingdom Egyptian work. I recommend the Seated Scribe.
Go ahead.
Tell me that the gangly, sickly Byzantine Jesus compares to photorealtic depictions, so old that they were the reason the pre-Classical Greeks stopped making "toddlerlike" sculptures
"Science is still not settled"
This is where I realize that you're just a really good troll, or just a fucking dumbass.
There is no science, dipshit. This is history. Gunpowder was invented in 7th century China by Taoist alchemists.
So was paper. The base 10 numerals we use today, as opposed to the clunky Roman system, was invented in India. The sails we used to cross the Atlantic were Arabic. Algebra was invented in Persia. Surgery was invented in Egypt. Metallurgy was invented in Tanzania.
Everything we have, everyone has, is a result of countless cultures contributing to our collective knowledge.
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
@ManiacMayhem7256
From the point of view of "international" consensus, there is only one wrong.
And that, too, is wrong.
Either the West selectively chooses who to pile
onto, revealing their lack of care for any lives (Ukrainian ones included, since they showed a willingness to throw away lives when it suited them- if their motivation was caring, they would necessarily have applied it universally),
or they actually apply the standard equally in the name of the values they support, and throw Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump (and Kissinger for good measure) onto the steps of the ICC.
You cannot have it both ways.
You can't finger wag at the US and destroy anyone 'not on their team', for the exact same crimes.
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
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
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
@frankySR21
I fail to see where I am wrong; all of your examples confirmed my point:
African nations can, and are, leading themselves.
I'm glad you acknowledged each country's strengths, and that's my point. Given political autonomy, they will raise their own standards of living. And they have been.
Rwanda, by the way, has a murder rate less than half of the U.S., and has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. You clearly didn't do what I said, because you think they're still reeling from the Rwandan Genocide. That was 30 years ago, keep up. Things are changing for the better.
Egypt is an African country. Did you say, "sub-Saharan African?" No? Then stop moving the goalposts so you don't have to admit when you're wrong. Grow some balls and recognize when you've made an error in judgement.
The rest of my comment was meant to illustrate why African countries aren't going to "just be better" overnight. Their boundaries rope in multiple ethnic groups in conflict with each other for hundreds if not thousands of years. That leads to instability, and moving borders now would be too complex.
And really? If you're severely flawed, you're unable to self-govern? So the fact that Norway relies on oil exports is fine, but Nigeria is 'behind' for exploiting its own natural resources?
Turkey has its Kurds, Russia its Chechens, and China its Tibetans and Uighurs. Ethnic conflict is somehow the fault of an African nation whose boundaries were drawn without any African input, but another nation with the same problem is 'just securing its territory,' right?
Why won't you address the rest of my comment? If it were actually moronic, you'd tear it to pieces. But you didn't because you know I'm right.
African nations have been sabotaged again and again by the United States and France. Trying to establish a national currency is sooo corrupt, stupid monkeys! /s
Africa was doomed from the start by Europe, that was the point of my analogy. Rwanda is the African version of Poland and Russia. Enemies for centuries, forced into the same country. And then people like you have the gall to say "they
re just backwards, they just need to get over their differences and advance!"
When European conflicts are treated seriously. It's a double standard and you know it.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
@50centpb7
Did you not watch the video? The "family" as you're describing it is an entirely postwar phenomenon.
Tribes didn't send their most able-bodied members off to be on their own.
If the family "died," I say good riddance. Restrictive family values are reminiscent of the stone age— or rather, of the 1950's and nothing more. It wasn't sustainable.
The surplus of labor you're describing didn't come from women— it came from foreign countries. America was never going to stay the only manufacturing juggernaut, so when cheaper labor arose, the first American jobs to go were manufacturing and low-skilled service. The amount of goods and services devoted to each single "family" could not last.
Also, if you think that the '50s were great ("traditional" values, freedom, suits) the '60s were bad (feminism, free love, "chaos"), then I get a strong impression you weren't actually around for those decades. Too simplistic of a view.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
@shadowbanned636
All those words, and you still couldn't address my point.
Crimeans overwhelmingly (look to any poll, before or after 2014) want to be a part of Russia.
Ukrainian, US, Canadian, German, and Russian polls all reflect this consistently.
Making the argument of international law is ridiculous because
1) it's violated all the time and Americans dont seem to care unless it's done by a geopolitical rival, leading me to think they don't care at all except to use 'international law' as a political cudgel
2) After the violation of Minsk II and especially damming the Crimean canal there is good legal precedent for the Crimeans to officially declare independence from Ukraine.
Frankly, how can you make an argument like that while also supporting any Western Revolution?
French Revolutionary activity was 100% illegal under French law.
"We support it when it's moral"
Okay so should the majority of Crimeans not have had the results of their own referendum (1994, not 2014) respected and be allowed to return to Russia?
"Doesn't matter if it's moral, international law goes above all else. Slava ukraini!!!"
You can see the type of intellectual heavyweights I'm dealing with here. They should have gone into gymnastics instead...
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
@masters.1000
Then by that logic, any taxes are communist. They're compulsory, and to the state.
Do you want privatized roads, water, and electricity? Privatized social security, privatized military, police, firemen?
Take your pick— Dasani, Nestle, Ice Mountain, all Premium Walter Options for Low Low Prices!! Freedom!
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
CatEyes1993
Part of it is that most of America actually had pretty low property value on account of there being nothing to do there. Most of the U.S. is just cookie-cutter suburbs with nothing that adds value to the area.
Additionally, most houses here are cheaply built, out of fiberboard (compressed sawdust) and chicken wire, so not only are the walls thinner, allowing for more space, but they're easier to build.
On one hand, that adds to the economy; on the other, it means a 100 year old building is almost unheard of, because nothing lasts that long.
Cost per use goes down the older the house gets, but because they keep eroding, we just keep building new ones, with even fewer materials.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
@jstarr7506
Because, if they have their way— regulating companies that funnel money out of the U.S.— you wouldn't need to worry about paying for hospital bills or medical expenses of any kind. It would be, in line with the results of most other countries, about the same as it is now, but "free."
You would have higher taxes, but you can also forget about ER visits, doctor, dentist, podiatrist, optomologist, etc., appointment costs.
You'd also likely not have to file your own taxes— those would be sent to you (because H&R Block and TurboTax pay [mostly Republican] politicians to block any hope of free filing). This would cost next to nothing, because the government already knows what your taxes amount to. They'd send it to you, you'd adjust for any unseen deductibles, and send it back.
Your kid would likely not have to worry about student loans or paying for college, so the money you lose in taxes, you make up by not needing to save tens of thousands of dollars for something that you personally won't make use of.
Those are the primary goals right now, so that's what would likely change the fastest.
Now, Democrats have indeed become somewhat corporatized, but unlike Republicans, they aren't "pro-business," so they have no excuse to allow companies to "donate" to their campaign, in exchange for a few favors.
They get voted out, or put under pressure to stop (at cost of losing their re-election).
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@Khalkara
"Yeah.. To stop the mass slaughter of civillians. They didn't start the Libyan war."
1. You're moving the goalposts, and flagrantly lying.
You started by saying " The vast majority of NATO members didn't have anything to do with those 4 countries mentioned by OP."
I responded by saying that NATO (& most of its members) did, in fact, have direct involvement with all 4.
So when you get called out for lying, your first instinct is to say, "yeah b-b-but when WE do it it's okay!"
Just admit you lied dude, you're supposed to be the 'defenders of democracy', and me the bot- not the other way around.
2. My mistake, ISAF was in Afghanistan, not Libya. This, though, makes it even less justifiable, since the reasoning behind invading (WMDs) was entirely fake.
See? I can admit when I said something wrong.
"No, I'm not being selective. NATO isn't a country, its a voluntarily defensive alliance"
How does that at all refute what I said?
My point was that you tried to wash individual countries' hands of the crimes, despite them signing off on it, and simultaneously claiming that they are a "voluntary defensive alliance".
I never claimed they were a country, so stop putting words in my mouth, thanks.
If they're an alliance, then they all hold responsibility for their actions, since they are collectively united in policy.
You can't have it both ways, sorry.
"that badly try to smear NATO as an offensive organization"
Could you explain to me how conducting airstrikes over another country, killing tens of thousands of civilians no less, is defensive? It is, literally, offensive.
You are taking your military force and projecting it outwards. That is by definition not just defensive.
Which NATO country was Libya threatening with its actions?
Where in Article 5 is it written that a non-NATO country, not posing any attack to a NATO member state, can be bombed??
"Why can't you people just be honest and admit you're ok with Russian imperialism?"
I, personally, am only okay with it conditionally.
If the US gets to invade a country, slaughter innocent civilians, and leave with no punishment--- all while benefitting from the stolen oil fields--- then any other country should be able to do the same.
I am not pro-Russia per se, I am anti-hypocrisy.
If the imperial power claiming to abide by universal human rights then demands and forces others to, despite reaping the benefits of violating those rules, then it can be expected to be challenged.
Basically- unless Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump, and Biden are all captured and presented before the ICC, then there is no chance in hell Russia would ever consider doing the same for Putin.
You don't get to reap the benefits of being a hypocritical destroyer of nations... without others doing the same.
15
-
@EUenjoyer
"EU" has no shell, it is not a civilization, but an organization. By this logic, once the EU/NATO expands to Finland, it still needs a shell for Finland so it needs to expand into Russia! Where does your "shell" stop? What exactly defines a buffer zone?
Unlike a nation, the Western alliance is just borders and agreements. And I think Finland, being non-aligned and having no issues with Russia due to that commitment, is a perfect "shell".
And by your logic, NATO has no rights upon the Russian population. Do you think the U.S would be okay if Chinese warships set up a naval base in Cuba? Of course not! National security affects everything, including quality of life of the country.
An agreement needs to be reached where all parties are satisfied, not just one (ukraine).
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Ukraine: "In public schools, you will speak ONLY UKRAINIAN!"
vAtNiKs: "In Russian regions you will learn BOTH languages. In Sakha, ethnic Russian children have mandatory schooling in Sakha".
See the difference? Russia actually respects regional cultural identity.
If you wanna call me a propagandist, then maybe you'll listen to the Polish, Hungarian, and Romanian governments, who've all voiced similar complaints about THEIR ethnic minorities' language rights in Ukraine, following the 2019 language law which bans its use in public schooling as a primary subject, and which demotes official status in any area where less than 10% of the population uses it.
That's an ethno-nationalist approach to unity, artificially imposing that which you could not do diplomatically and democratically.
Doing it forcefully is "fine", but I expect all countries claiming their support is based on "fighting authoritarianism" to stop sending a single cent to Ukraine.
Poland was a good start.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@Proud Murtadd
I did.
Homosexuality was illegal in Greece until 1951. The only reason that same-sex marriage is legal is because, despite still not being legal in Greece, the European Court of Justice ruled that homosexual marriage is officially recognized in all EU member states.
They had to do this in 2018.
Just because Greece has a vibrant gay culture, doesn't mean that its laws are the same. Which is exactly my point.
In the Islamic world, the opposite is true. In Jordan, Bahrain, and Iraq (all of which have legalized homosexual practice), not everyone hates homosexuals.
To the same token, Nigeria, another very Christian country, has criminalized homosexual behavior and marriage. I don't think I need to tell you about Russia- it's the same case there.
You act is is tolerance of marginalized social groups is some inherently un-Islamic trait, but it should be pretty obvious that this isn't the case. Non-Islamic countries can be less tolerant than certain Islamic ones.
It's also not timeless. Like I said with Greece, a society has to work to get to the point of acceptance, no matter the religion. Give Islam time to mellow out, and secularism will win out every time.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Maniesh Ramanayake
Don't be so zealous, you're exactly what scientists try to avoid.
Just because something isn't reviewed yet doesn't mean it's false. Much like proponents of the 'free-market,' scientific research doesn't exist in a vacuum. In the real world, everyone needs money, and repetition studies are the least likely among scientists to be conducted, because it doesn't make headlines. For example, for 40 years, Americans were fooled into believing that sugar was healthy and fat was unhealthy. This research was supported by peer-reviewed, double-blind studies from Harvard. It was later discovered that these studies had been funded by the Sugar Association, and the data was tampered with. It was completely indistinguishable from quality research.
And in any case, logically speaking, as with most modern amenities (like "arch support" for your shoes), they aren't needed. How did people live before baths? Wouldn't the smell have been too horrible for people to stand, as is suggested by history? Something must have neutralized it.
13
-
13
-
13
-
@juliee593
I think this may have gotten worse after the Industrial Revolution.,
Even if there were plenty of teen parents (which there probably were, since life expectancy then was ~60), I think they were raised by the entire village or tribe.
And, children and teenagers were put to work on the farm immediately, so "parenting" was mostly "go play as long as you have done the day's labor" Great sense of early independence and capbility since you mostly went off to play with the town's kids together, less mental issues
So I think that every child then had the wisdom of the entire group, not just 2 people like today. And the parents can;t just brush off 5 other trusted adults telling them that they're wrong, there is a system of "checks and balances" there
The longer it goes on (families isolated from frequent contact with many elders), the worse each family can become. Like evolving from generation to generation, insulated from outside correction
13
-
@elfatzeqiri7202
I have spent much more than 2 minutes, and the conclusion is the opposite. The Slavs migrated to what was called Dardania in the 7th century. Serbian rule was well-established from the early 1200's with the Nemanjić Dynasty and lasted until the defeat to the Ottomans at the Battle of Kosovo.
Only after the Ottoman Turks took over, did Albanians start to migrate into western Kosovo. Then when Tito came to rule, they were transported to Kosovo as cheap labor. This is why there are so many of them in Kosovo today- it's all very new.
I'm sorry, but there is no evidence that either the Illyrians (who only lived along the Adriatic Coast and didn't ever live in Kosovo anyway- so Albanians could be Illyrians, but then they could only claim Croatian coastline, not Kosovo which was deeper into the Balkan land, the Illyrians never lived in Dardania)
or the Dardani (no evidence of Dardanian culture being Albanian- the first mention of Albanians in writing wasn't until 1248, decades after Serbian Kingdom ruled Kosovo and had a culture and presence there for hundreds of years).
It wasn't even Albanian, it was written in Latin. The first evidence of Albanian language in writing comes from 1462! So Albanians will never be able to prove that they are Dardanians- they couldn't even create a writing system until the 1400's. We don't have any writing about Albanians before 1462, and we don't have any records of the Dardanians' culture.
So, what evidence do you actually have? Please, be precise and give dates and times.
I just want to remind you that Kosovo itself is a Serbian word.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@Alfonso88279
Um... Saudi Arabia is one of the worst offenders, and its been a staunch ally for 100 years.
US does business with China, Vietnam, UAE, Laos, Colombia, plenty of African nations (Eritrea, Sudan, Egypt, DR Congo, etc).
I don't think your case is very strong here, and I think most Americans are either deluding themselves, or lying, about America's real reasoning for trying to regime change a certain country vs. supporting it.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@zayan6284
What? That's simply not true.
"Life" doesn't begin at a single, fixed point- that's the issue with your mentality.
If you want to define life as the moment of conception, then there is no difference between an abortion and picking your nose. You're dispelling cells from your body in both cases.
If you want to argue that "life" starts with sentience, then you've got to ask what, exactly, that is. According to most biologists and embryologists, it begins with the full formation of the nervous, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems. In other words, around 22 weeks, the current legal cutoff.
If you want to define "life" as potential human life, then you're stuck back at the same question. What is human life? Is it a cell (millions of which we routinely destroy, both consciously and unconsciously), or sentience? (whose date has already been determined, and which modern abortion practices respect).
Sorry dude, but you need to accept that you're wrong.
There is no clean starting point for "life." The world isn't so black and white, there are no perfectly good or bad guys here.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
@Raj-dy2cn
No, it's not. Nigeria has a larger population than Western Europe, so imagine Spain, France, Germany, Austria, and Italy in one country. And "sparsely populated" doesn't make sense because despite having a bigger population, Nigeria is much much smaller. Same with Egypt, Ethiopia, DRC, Morocco, etc., all very dense for their size, concentrated in a few cities or coasts.
And even THAT doesn't matter because I'm not talking about the number of people.
I'm talking about combining a bunch of historically rival tribes with conflicting interests forcing them to create a government together.
That's why I used so many large countries; Africa is more diverse so it has more variety of tribes in a smaller area.
11
-
11
-
11
-
@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
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@TheTokkin
Wow, that was insane. Easily the dumbest, most wishful thinking I've seen all week.
You're unironically an idiot.
"A chance to build something better"
You think that a Libyan state will just magically spring from nowhere once a Parliamentary vote is established? What exactly do you think people vote on? Infrastructure, food security, unemployment, education- domestic issues. Can you guess what Gaddafi was working to improve during his rule?
"Just because the people of Libya failed"
You mean, the loud minority of rebel fighters that received training and backing from the US? Yeah, they failed.
"doesn't mean that the policy was a failure: it's perfectly possible that they might be do so in the future"
This is what boils my blood the most. You are comically naïve- ideological, childish in your approach to nationbuilding. You think the principles come before the material gains, and are willing to sacrifice people's lives just to satisfy your own finnicky little needs.
Do you think that before democracy, all countries were unstable messes just waiting to emulate the Constitution so that they could start 'being good'? What a load of shit.
"I agree its risky, but the risk is partly why I love it"
You're sitting comfortable in your developed nation, of course you "love" it. You seem to treat politics like it's sports. But I wouldn't expect anything else from a Westerner. Especially an American.
The people of Libya don't need stability 'in the future', they need help NOW. The Tripoli government is a radical Islamist faction, I find it laughable that you think women or minorities would have a better life there.
Slaughter the Tripoli government, if you really stick ot your values.
But I'm sure you'd survive just fine down there, since you're so committed to putting those values before everything else. Spend a few months there and tell me how great the American plan is.
Let's see how much you love "risky" when your next meal depends on it.
I fucking hate people like you-
you're no better than a Maoist or a Jacobin; you refuse to base, or at least temper, your principles based on what's actually going on in the world, and stubbornly stick to your values for your personal emotional reasons, no matter how detrimental they are to real, living people.
And I hope you're willing to extend those same sentiments to your allies in Saudi Arabia. The entire family would need to be murdered. Same goes with Naftali Bennet, and Bibi in Israel. And the UAE, and Brazil, and Hungary and Poland. Be my guest, please.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@Aymg
I need a map for you to prove that, and the previous names of those cities.
Are you joking? Donbas is one of the largest Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine, and almost 1/2 people there are Russian.
"Why don't we leave Chechnya?" They invaded Dagestan, August 1999. Saudi Arabia was giving Chechens money to start a khalifate in Dagestan (which was part of Russia). They wanted to bring jihad to Moscow.
We could not allow this, and they invaded Russia, so we fought them.
And if you say that the cities in RS were built by Bosniaks, and that is the reason they should be in Bosnia, then why doesn't Ukraine give back Odessa?
It was founded by Tsarina Elizabeth, nothing before it. Russians built that city.
Do you think we should have that, too?? It is your logical thinking, no?
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@kirathekillernote2173
The US also kept afghanistan dependent on them, never trying to build an actual country but a vassal. Trying to impose its way of life onto a country clearly not prepared for democracy.
If they really valued the education of those afghan girls and women, they would have invested into the country infrastructure and finances, instead of using poppy fields for cheap opiate supply
Frankly if the US had allowed the Soviet backed government to stay in power, which would have collapsed in 1991 along with the ussr, afghanistan would be a much better place than it is now. But no, they had to train rebel groups, arm them, and send them in just to destroy afghanistan so it wouldn't 'fall' to the soviets.
Like a child angry when another has a toy, "if i can't have it, no one can"
11
-
11
-
@AmandaFromWisconsin
You're missing the point. Imagine if another ethnic group, while under occupation of a foreign empire, multiplied like rabbits, and then retroactively claimed not only the territory, but also the culture, of your culture's birthplace.
From an American point of view-
Imagine an alternate history. For sake of analogy, let's say the Chinese manage to occupy the entire United States. During that time, Mexicans (who are favored by the Chinese for their loyalty) slowly populate the East Coast (Philadelphia, DC, NYC, Boston, etc).
When Americans get their second independence from the Chinese, the Mexicans secede the East Cost from the rest of the U.S..
They then claim that it's always been a part of Mexican culture, while also destroying national monuments dedicated to the history of the U.S.
That is a rough equivalent of what is going on in Kosovo. Yes, the Kosovans deserve self-determination, but that doesn't take away from the historical robbery that occurred under the Ottoman Turks. Were it not for them, Kosovo would be almost entirely ethnically Serbian.
For a more immediate example, should we allow SoCal to join Mexico because its population has become majority Latin American now?
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@ZackWolfMusic
Lmao dude which university are you studying at, what major?
I have a hard time believing that you're in aerospace and refuse to accept the fact upon which all of our global navigational systems are based.
If the Earth is flat, why can't I see the North Star from any place on Earth at night?
Why are some constellations only visible from certain places on Earth (and they aren't far apart either- according to the flat Earth model, I should be able to see the Southern Cross from Catalonia in Argentina, and also be able to, from the northernmost tip of the same country. I can't.)
That rules out the possibility that the atmosphere "clouds your view," because the distance between two points equidistant from the Equator (or, in your model, the Ring?) is smaller than the distance between two points in the Northern Hemisphere (or "semi-circle") from both of which the North Star is visible.
In other words, the boundaries where the atmosphere "gets too thick" blocking the view of fucking gas giants (or "Firmaments"), is completely put of line with reality, and conflicts with the observable properties of our atmosphere.
If I can see the same stars from Mongolia and Norway, why can't I see them from Egypt and South Sudan? Because the Earth is a sphere.
Not to mention there are complete videos of rockets with cameras attached going to space.
Though if you dismiss it as fake, then you'll have to provide evidence that the video had been doctored, and if you can't, then you're admitting that evidence does not matter to you, because you leave no room for your worldview to be challenged if everything that you disagree with just happens to be "fake."
That and, because of the force of gravity, anything as large as Earth would collapse back into a spherical shape under the weight of its own gravity.
Oh, and the Earth faces the moon at different angles throughout the month, but always casts a circular shadow; something impossible with a disc.
10
-
10
-
10
-
@pepperVenge
I don't think that the US would take that risk.
Russia knows that it wouldn't in a conventional war. It has, simply put, less to lose by threatening nuclear war.
The US knows this too, and may think twice about even trying. A cornered animal is more likely to lash out, after all.
And btw, the US is doing nothing near the level it did with China in the 1990s. It understands boundaries, it only selectively chooses to enforce them.
Its likely that, since keeping the Bering Strait open is in both Russia and China's interest, the US (despite having the bigger military) wouldn't dare to block it.
Russia, even after the end of this conflict, will become the world's breadbasket again, with a hand over North Africa, Turkey, and most importantly Middle East's throat.
Holding potential Arab Spring and Levant migration to EU as a bargaining chip is more powerful than you think
I don't think I have to mention how quickly stores around the world would go broke without Chinese products.
Most finished goods still come from there, and the US does not have the capacity to replace even a fraction of what China makes. They would also face pressure from Europe to end the blockade.
You don't need to have the bigger military to win a conflict
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
And Republicans wonder why they're the last group that it's okay to hate in this country 😂 the broad stereotype fits damn near perfectly!
Usually from the South, Bible-thumpin, loves hamburgers and meat in general, poor, obese, poorly educated, proud, loud, is obsessed with tactical-grip everything (because the government will obviously come at his door one SWAT member at a time), hates the environment, loves trucks, mowing the lawn, football, wears Oakleys, doesn't understand technology....
the list goes on and on. They're a distinct 'type' in American culture.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Not all liberals. Just the loudest, most annoying ones. Same goes with conservatives, I think.
American media (on both political sides) thrives on attention, so they sensationalize anything and everything to get viewers glued to THEIR SPECIFIC television channel and make them money through ratings and high metrics.
The vast majority of Americans, I find, are wonderful people, but naivete is one of their greatest weaknesses, even in young people. They're easily fooled by corporate and government messages, and are isolated from each other in their homes.
The Internet has helped with this, but the only way we can "make America great again" is by releasing the national tension- get all the bile and hateful words out, then make up and start over.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
@hankbridges7824
No, you wackjob. You can't control a plant- a part of nature. It spreads too fast, too easily.
This has been going on fpr 40 years, Reagan said the same thing you just did. He failed. So did Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump. You can't contain it. Open clinics to get addicts away from cocaine, and allow businesses to operate legally. If someone's gonna make money from it, it can at least be them, instead of cartels
9
-
@narusenval
When people talk about "attractiveness," they usually refer to one of two things:
facial symmetry, strong bone structure, outstanding features (like pretty eyes, lips, nose);
or whatever is beautiful in a given society.
Either way it's worth talking about, because the first set of traits is pretty universally considered beautiful across human cultures, indicating genetic health, and the second point is still researchable within that society
(for example, lip plates aren't a universal sign of beauty, but they are attractive in certain African tribes. So their effect is similar to the universal traits, it just only applies to the African tribe.)
I hope that wasn't too jumbled, but from what we know, attractive people have it easier in life. Better friendships and relationships, easier time holding down jobs, less harsh sentences in court ( ! ), and a whole host of other things.
It's super important.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@ClownCarCoup
That's an unreasonable standard to hold any country to, though.
At the time of the American Revolution, only about 30% of people wanted independence. The other 30% wanted to remain British subjects, and the last 40% were undecided, neutral, or ambivalent.
That a country isn't completely, 100% unanimous in its desire to remain united isn't reason to break it up.
Or, if you do believe that, then Scotland shouldn't have to get England's permission to secede, even if not all Scots want to leave;
Hawai'i's independence should be accelerated even if most (non-Native) Hawai'ians want to stay a part of the US;
and Crimea would be completely within its right to secede from Ukraine even it is was "illegal" and even if not everyone on the peninsula wanted to secede.
Saying that self-determination should trump national sovereignty is a slippery slope, and is only pushed by those who think they'd be immune its weakening effects.
If the US is willing to actually give away its Pacific territories in the spirit of honoring the will of a secessionist minority within the country, then I'll also advocate for Crimea to return to Ukraine.
Puerto Rico can't even vote for its own leaders, Guamanians have 10% of their whole island turned into a military base, and Marshalese still have radiation from the Bikini Atoll tests.
If the Balts and Poles can secede for more abstract political reasons, than the others have an even better case to leave, too.
9
-
9
-
...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
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
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
-
@johnrogers235
I don't think he's wrong- there's plenty of research poking into the issue, before Weinstein even became a grad student. This took me all of 5 minutes:
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.bi.65.070196.002005
https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/28/22/4474/2383801
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867401800064
What's very important to remember, even more than the content, is the situation itself. You are watching a Joe Rogan podcast/interview, on YouTube. To turn a phrase from Mark McLuhan, the medium is the message.
The context surrounding the information you're taking in informs you of its character and, possibly, validity.
In this case, a biologist has taken 3 full hours, and at least a few more to plan and arrive, to do a media appearance.
In most scientific fields, consistently doing that often indicates a lack of current research
(you can only devote so much time if you're constantly doing public speaking events) or a lack of credibility
(Ken Ham, every Theology PhD, Bill Nye- yes, him too. Marketing yourself as a scientist generally tells you that there is a reason to do so unrelated to actual science).
Most scientists- especially prolific ones- genuinely don't have the time to interview, or to hone their communication skills.
I was only able to find 2 publications where he was directly involved, and most scientists haven't registered a website with their name as the domain. Or a Ted Talk, or multiple media appearances. Again, not damning, but something to consider.
That's also not to say that every single person on Joe Rogan's podcast is a 'fraud', but if someone is well-known and just so happens to be very media-focused, don't ignore that.
Dr. Oz does have an MD, but he does weekly TV appearances on his own show. That's crucial information and should be the lens through which you look at what he's telling you. Oftentimes it's so obvious (because it's woven into your knowledge of them to begin with), that you can forget that it's there altogether. Don't miss the frame for the painting.
Sorry for the text block, just bored and wanted to help out, since I was waiting foe his reply too lol
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
I feel that Bulgaria and to a smaller extent Slovakia will have a more difficult time taking this plan to its conclusion due to cultural ties.
They are still Orthodox, Cyrillic-script countries with intertwined histories, and there may be a reluctance among the public to support such measures in a democracy.
Poland, Estonia, and Lithuania, on the other hand, will probably push for the program the hardest; Poland in particular has been pushing for the dissolution of the Russian Federation for decades.
I am unsure of what America's specific goal is, but I can almost guarantee that they will agree to and continue to find the program itself.
I think that Russia can counter the strategy if it utilizes its resources more efficiently and develops it's economy. Soft power matters.
As for the countries, I don't know whether this is good for them. Trading one superpower for another is still risky— Eastern Europe is politically useful to the U.S. as a buffer region against Russia, but I don't think American policymakers actually care about its well-being. The countries could end up like so many Latin American states if they're not careful.
In the end, while they should strive for economic and political independence, geopolitical realities cannot be ignored and these countries need to find a strategy that balances freedom with security.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
I must respectfully disagree, as an American who has visited Poland and Russia for most of his life. There are certainly dumbasses in every country, as you said, but none are as noticeable or as numerous as those of the American variety. I simply notice more loud, rude people here. And I live in Chicago, and visit Warsaw and St. Petersburg, so I think the comparison is fair.
Americans, in my experience, are well-meaning in their actions, but they have no cultural base upon which to base their behaviors, and so resort to individuality as a source of fulfillment.
9
-
9
-
@maro7125
So what? Commonalities do not guarantee prosperity. Poland is struggling politically and economically, Japan's population is aging and shrinking because they insist on keeping it "pure," and it's extremely expensive and difficult to find a job in Norway.
Every country has problems, being totally homogeneous will not solve them. In fact, it puts you into a bubble of thinking, because the values and ideas are all based in the same culture. Don't forget that the United States, Russia, China, India, and Brazil (the more important countries globally) all have diverse populations.
You want to live in an Aryan paradise? Be my guest, but don't drag the superpowers down with you. They're busy making the world better for everyone.
9
-
@vredacted3125
...What are you smoking? The Sofia Chronicle mentions Novgorod in 862, while the Novgorod Chronicle mentions it first in 862.
If it was founded in 930, then where exactly did Oleg come from to capture Kiev?
In fact, what was his goal of securing a trade route 'from the Varangians to the Greeks' if he was coming home to nothing?
You need to cite these "archeological surveys". With no evidence, your opinion is worthless.
Rus' was not exclusively the southern region. You're still trying to draw a line around a specific territory like it is a modern country. You're misunderstanding history at a basic level.
Like I said before, according to every Chronicle that survives today, ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́ was originally just the lands wherever the Роусь conquered. The Роусь then became the name for the Slavic tribes that lived there.
Rus' was founded in Novgorod by Rurik, therefore the people there are Rus'. Simple as that.
I don't care which events you think legitmize your EXCLUSIVE claim to the legacy of Rus' and I don't care what a dead Ukrainian scholar thinks of it either.
You need to explain WHY those events mean that only the southern part of Rus counts as Rus.
You need to provide the primary evidence, here. Dates, names, figures, explanations.
I could say that my opinion is "indisputably proven" by some Russian scholar too. So now what?
Unless you understand how and why it is indisputable, you are just blindly believing what someone tells you. So please, explain.
Don't just give the events, WHY does a military campaign against Constantinople mean that only the southern areas are Rus?
About the rest of your comment: Moscow conquered Novgorod, so what? You JUST said that Kiev attacked Constantinople. So attacking another city doesn't mean that someone isn't Rus.
Also if you put "democratic" in quotes, saying that it actually wasn't democratic, then why does it matter anyway?
Sounds like you're saying that Novgorod wasn't democratic anyway so what difference does it make, and how does that mean that BOTH cities weren't still ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́? Kiev was ruled by a Velikiy Knyaz, that's not democratic either.
So why are you using the "democracy" argument when Kiev doesn't reach that standard either??
I agree that Muscovites aren't anything like Rusyns. They also aren't anything like Permians, Omskites, or Krasnodarians.
Each city and region has its own culture, this was true during the Rus period too, how does this prove that Moscow wasn't Rus? THE RURIKID DYNASTY MOVED TO MOSCOW, RUSSIA.
The Dynasty that founded the Rus lands which you're claiming belongs only to Ukraine, started in Novgorod, Russia, and ended in Moscow, Russia.
Also, I am ethnically Rusyn. Ukrainians aren't Rusyns. Don't try to claim that, too.
The Boykos, Lemkos, Hutsuls, and other smaller groups have a distinct Carpathian culture that a Kyivan would not recognize before 1921.
9
-
Victor Cr
(Before I start, this is coming from an American of Russian descent. I've been visiting my family there and speaking extensively with friends for the past 7 years. So, I think I know a little bit about the mindset, and as a bonus I'm fluent in English! Best of both worlds! :D)
Jokes aside— generally speaking, most Russians support Putin, at least to some extent. There is an understanding that, corrupt he may be, Putin dragged the country out of the economic chaos of the '90s, and he's miles better than some "Western puppet", as we say. I think the last thing Russians want is to become the next Afghanistan, so we're okay with- admittedly- a ruthless and threatening leader capable of defending the country.
Unsurprisingly, you'll find that the older the Russian, the more radically supportive they are of Putin. It seems that people lose a sense of nuance after 60 or so- I hope it doesn't happen to me.
As for the younger part of the population, most are ambivalent towards Crimea, as it doesn't even affect their lives. I personally think it was historically moral to take it (back), but I honestly wouldn't care if we didn't have it. It's expensive, and most Russians prefer Spain for vacations anyway. Hopefully that answers your question! From Russia with love!
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
This is my issue with your thinking: we already tried a Russia without 'Putler' in the form of Yeltsin, and it failed spectacularly.
It's this liberal idea (which I feel Gorbachev had in his mind) that if the people have freedom, everything will magically work itself out!
It didn't, and with Putin gone, it won't. Democracy and economic neoliberalism is not the creator of prosperity, but rather a symptom of it.
Like it or not, there need to be strong national policies to build domestic industry and genuinely raise quality of life. You could open yourself up to the West completely with a few IMF loans, but all that does is kill your own companies and allow the foreign ones to dominate your market and- attempt to, recently- dictate your politics
(even though the Ukraine conflict is not justified, the fact remains that Western companies are an extension of Western political power, and that is rarely good for developing nations).
England developed the first industrial capacity in the world- textiles- by banning all imports from India.
Now they advocate for the exact opposite, achieve the growth that they got.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
I guess this depends on where you want to draw the line for 'traditional', even within Eurasia there have been botanical developments that bring non-native species to an area that later become 'traditional'.
For example, most high-class Western European cuisine following the fall of Rome, was primarily focused on imported spices from the Middle East and China. Very little thought was given to domestic food culture and dishes were often more a display of status (ie peacock's tongue, peaches from China, etc).
Russia's quintessential dish, borscht (which likely originates in Ukraine), is made with beetroot- an ingredient that only appeared from the Mediterranean in eastern Europe in 13th-15th centuries. Before that, sorrel or hogweed was used. So even that is not "native", in the same way that tomatoes aren't.
Even chicken comes from China- pretty sure that's from Adam himself, in Mandarin it's 'jungle fowl', harkening to where it was originally wild. Apples were originally bred in Central Asia. Buckwheat comes from east Asia.
And so on.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@polovyym
"-that apparently we discriminate against Russian speaking people which is untrue"
Are you fucking kidding me? The 2017 language education ban was so harsh it deteriorated Ukraine's relationship with Hungary, to say nothing of Russia. It somehow got Romania, who also hates Russia, you condemn your government.
Forcing bilingual speakers (and/or monolingual speakers) to put their native language in the backseat to Ukrainian, from 11 years old, is knowingly diminishing the fluency- and use- of minority language speakers in Ukraine.
That goes for Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, and Moldovans.
Imagine if the US forced the Natives to learn English instead of allowing them to freely speak their native languages.
-Oh, wait. They did that. It's in the textbooks now, as a stain on the country's history.
Let's not forget about Lvov's Russian media ban (books, movies, TV, and songs), which is still in place to this day.
No discrimination? Who are you trying to fool? Yourself?
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
I think Russiphobia comes in different forms from different nations:
The Baltics probably (understandably) feel what I call "civilizational threat" from Russia— not being annihilated through violence, but economically, cilturally, and eventually militarily absorbed into a behemoth, never to be seen again.
Poland has some of that, but moreso a bitterness and chip on its shoulder over having been subjugated by the Russians. They themselves had zero qualms about conquering and Polonizng areas of Rus that they captured after the Mongols invaded. They're just mad that they lost the geopolitical game.
Speaking of games, the UK— its Russophobia is markedly different. Its origins are likely in the days of Empire, when the Great Game over Central Asia made Britain feel threatened that Russia would eventually "steal" India away from them.
This carried on into the Soviet period, with the USSR supporting uprisings in British colonies which drained the UK's resources.
The same can also be said for the US. Initially they were actually friendly with the Russian Empire, with their friendship peaking around the 1830s— but conflicting economic interests and especially the Revolution set them ideologically and economically at odds with each other.
Japan just doesn't like that the USSR took the Kuril Islands from the Japanese Empire.
Each element of "the West" has its own historical reason to hate Russia, but they're mostly either historical grievances, or the economic threat posed by another large, resource-rich country competing with them.
8
-
I think it's worth mentioning that House (ignoring for a second that Hugh Laurie just plays him) probably knew he would win the bet, but not necessarily because Chase is just a hunk of meat to the women.
The situation played to House's advantage, too: if you're at a speed dating event, chances are the women that showed up are already more likely to give someone their number. Even House, who put off every woman (besides maybe the fake cop?) still got a few numbers.
At another place, like a bar, both parties can be more picky and take cues based on things like approach or ability to dance, etc. You could even argue that pheromones platy a role. And, of course, the interaction itself.
Also this is a fucking TV show, to the people that are still convinced that "all women are shallow". We all are, to an extent, but the longer you know someone, the less their looks play a role, because you literally get used to their attractiveness.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@mysticalmisfit33
If atmospheric interference were true, I wouldn't be able to see stars at night.
Granted, you think they're right next to Earth in a "firmament" but that comes with its own set of issues
(it could not physically hold itself up, how do asteroids work, why are some stars visible from behind other stars only if you change your point of view, if it's a single glass plane, etc).
But I'd still ask, why am I able to see planes much farther away than a coastline?
If it's just the atmosphere, why can't I see infinitely, or at least far enough to see a coastline?
If it's the sun's fault, why doesn't my visibility change at night (why can't I see the lights from the coast at night, and not in the day; if the sun is causing me not to see through the atmosphere?)
There are too many observations that counter your single one. It's simply not true. The Earth is round.
8
-
8
-
@Kizdo69
Only a naive, spoiled brat would use your logic.
You can't be free when you're dead.
You aren't the last generation of your country's history. If staying oppressed means your entire culture can survive, then (most people) would happily make that sacrifice, something Americans aren't very familiar with.
You're effectively an island, and have never faced any existential threats. You've never had to make that choice.
Any land invasion came from an ocean away, and you inhabit one of the best pieces of land on Earth. Everything necessary to survive and thrive has been handed to you on a silver platter.
Fertile land, calm rivers, natural harbors, temperate climate, weak neighbors, the whole nine yards.
So of course you'd insist that it's easy to choose freedom over safety— you barely had to fight for it!
If you're ever occupied by a foreign power, maybe then you'll understand.
Until then, keep your trap shut.
8
-
8
-
8
-
@luisromanlegionaire
..One that can't be blocked.
England, Portugal, Germany, Norway, Netherlands, Spain, US, Canada, all have this.
They have hundreds of miles of coastline, meanwhile all of Europe gangs up on Russia if they feel like it will gain access to the ocean.
Can't have a prospering Russian naval economy, now can we? That would be dangerous!
8
-
@maquacr7014
...Are you kidding?
Dagestanis aren't ethnic Russians, but it is still a part of Russia.
This is especially funny since you were defending Bosnia's right to have all of its land, when half of it is erhnically Serb and another chunk is Croatian.
You either support Russia's right to Dagestan, or you support Serb nationalists who want the Serbian areas to be a separate country
(like you wanted for Dagestan, too-- so don't be hypocritical).
You can't have both.
Back to the point-- the KSA invaded Russian territory. They bombed metros, and killed ethnic Russians. What other reasons do you want?
You're also forgetting that
A) jihads in the past always spread, we avoided an ISIS situation (which proves me right-- the jihad was not just going to stay in Dagestan).
B) There are millions of ethnic Russians living in southern Russia. When Shariah is implemented, what do you think they will do?
Be nice to the infidels?
We could not allow this to happen.
If you like jihad so much, please move from Bosnia to Saudi Arabia, I'm sure you'll love it.
And you didnt answer my question. Since RS cities were built by Bosniaks, so they belong to Bosnia... do Russian cities in Ukraine (Odessa, Mikolaev) belong to Russia then?
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@Noximien
She's an interviewer, not a zoologist. Mentioning the urine coming out of the eyes highlighted the vast anatomical differences between them and humans- and that extends (as the brain is a part of anatomy) to the social structure. Even bonobos, extremely close to us in evolutionary terms, have an entirely different way of initializing intraspecies interactions, which has affected their entire developmental history.
Imagine that, but underwater and you're prey instead. Oh and you have a mating season, and your brain is much less functional. Of course the outcome would be different; egalitarianism would get you killed. Not so with humans, once they evolved the ability to sweat, eat meat, and create tools.
Lobsters do not have the same social structure as humans, period. It is fallacious to conclude that hierarchies should be encouraged because lobsters happen to have them. It's a fallacy and completely unsupported by science.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@gabbar51ngh
Well, the USSR wasn't exactly communist or even socialist lol, it was authoritarian. And that's a political, not economic, system.
The assumption isn't wrong- beyond a certain threshold, the wealthy work because they want to, not because they have to. Zuckerberg and Bezos could both retire tomorrow and live like kings for the rest of their lives, and still have billions left over.
Also, they aren't self-made. Both received lots of early help to start their business. Bezos' step-father was a wealthy businessman who propped up his first ventures, and Zuckerberg's father personally taught him to code, and paid for specialized education. Not everyone has that opportunity.
Nor did they actually "earn" all of their money. Did Bezos work 200,000,000 times harder than one of his employees?
And we tried lowering taxes, all it does is create boom and bust cycles. Reagan slashed taxes, the economy took off. His policies of deregulation expanded the tax base... and then caused Black Monday and the Savings and Loan Crisis. Bush did the same thing, deregulated the banks... and it caused a fucking Recession.
The idea that supply-side economics is based on, the Laffer Curve, has its limits and only works when taxes are past a certain point. They are nowhere near that point. It also assumes the altruism of businesses, which is laughable.
It wouldn't work, sorry.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@monadyne
You're operating under the presumption that we're here solely to debate the merits of his ideas and nothing else.
This is YouTube comment section, not a Socratic Seminar, so of course we're going to talk about his character.
Is anyone faulted for liking their presidential candidate as a person when making a choice? No?
Then let us discuss, thank you.
Also, there is plenty wrong with his ideas (not least of which that IQ is a subjective measure, and that 'capacity to learn', or intelligence, can be improved with practice, and whose average score worldwide increases yearly, forcing the testmakers to change the test measuring a supposedly inherent trait. Or that intelligence is measured in a number of different ways, about half of which are not covered by the test.)
And that's just his insistence that IQ is a reliable measure of intelligence. We can get into his ideas about race if you'd like.
~~~
My point is, don't try to police the YouTube comment section. Your individual comment isn't going to stop the shitshow, so sit back and enjoy.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Mendoza Juan
You're asking me about my best argument, but won't respond to any of it.
Where in my post did I deny science? Neurons in fetuses develop at ~22 weeks. Nerves are what facilitate thoughts and feelings, so before ~22 weeks, they are physically incapable of feeling pain.
What is unscientific here? Please explain.
I'm saying your philosophy is subjective!!
You just repeated what you believe, you haven't added anything! What is the evidence that the sentence is true??
You need to define your terms, or you're just saying nothing. What specific criteria make something alive?
No, it's not. The fetus is not alive.
This is the problem, you're not explaining what specific things about the fetus make it "alive."
My point was- "alive" is subjective. Bacteria is alive, but nobody makes coughing illegal.
I gave you the biological reason a fetus is not considered alive.
By saying "neither should the mothers" you're already imposing your values. You think the mothers shouldn't be doing something- that is your belief... your value.
No one's asking for a special pass. Especially not "Stacy," who has to put up with your bullshit when she's forced to carry her rapist's baby to term.
I'm pathetic? Look in the mirror.
This is the world you want?
"How were you born?"
"My daddy raped my mommy, she didn't want me but the GOP said she has to!"
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@badluck5647
It's not the intensity of the work but the expectation surrounding it.
Japan has become so thoroughly Americanized that working at a business is not only a part of life but a social value there.
For example you may not need to actually do huge amounts of work, but you do need to stay at work to show 'committment' to the company.
So you might have nothing productive to do but still need to look busy because you're expected to remain in the office.
You cannot under any conditions levae before the boss leaves.
And if the boss goes our drinks and asks you come with, you simply must. Not doing so is a social taboo, not just a business decision. If the boss asks you to keep drinking, you keep going.
If you do not, your entire social circle is in jeopardy, possibly your job.
So the result is miserable feeling of no control while at work and no time after work for personal enjoyment, and crazy hours doing either insane work or mindless pencil pushing.
Bureaucracy is insane, they still require you to have a fucking stamp custom made with your name because of how many documents you need to fill out throughout your life for even simple things.
It seems like they have taken things that were developed to be a means to an end (doing business, paperwork) and turned them into a ritual valued for it's own sake.
And the funniest part of all is that they worship these social norms that were imposed on them by the Americans after the war.
It isn't even a traditionally Japanese societal organization, but a perversion of the Western one, with a lack of the history that shapes the understanding of these different aspects in society.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
By official metrics? Certainly not. The US, in international corruption-level studies, usually ranks in the high teens. Out of ~200 countries, not bad!
..Until you consider that lobbying is not counted as corruption, which it should, only because it's considered legal in the country in which it's practiced. At that point, measuring by sheer volume (close to 3.5 billion)- the US should rank at the very bottom.
The most marked difference between the US and developing countries is that corruption is hidden much better here- you don't have flight agents asking for a $300 "transactional fee" like I did a few years ago in St. Petersburg, in addition to the standard costs for rescheduling a flight. There is no pocketing in the U.S..
However, (relevantly) Congress' tax plans, national underdevelopment in both physical and digital infrastructure (my internet was more reliable in Poland), and a generally poor social service net all point to corruption at higher levels, with far-reaching impacts. Quality of life here is very high (that will happen when you have 250+ years of uninterrupted industrialization, safe from foreign powers), but corruption is actually higher than most people think.
Sorry for the text block.
7
-
@daxasd3270
You'll have to show me which studies you are referencing for your claims, because the Russian heartland's genetic pool is full of the (mostly east slavic) haplogroup R1a. In fact the only place that has a higher percentage is Poland, but Ukraine has less than both of them.
Also, how can you talk about Russians being a mix of anything when, as you said, modern Ukrainian is very influenced by polish? (40% of spoken vocabulary is taken from it!)
Ukrainians (Ruthenians, or Rusians) could make that claim before the Commonwealth occupation and heavy Polonization, but the language now is almost 1/2 West Slavic.
Also I hate to bring this up, but the reason for the repression of the language was precisely because it was polonized. Russia wanted to re-unite the former territory of the Kievan Rus under a single language, as it has been.
Ukrainian and Belarusian were both influenced by another language, so they were seen as having deviated from the unbroken line of East Slavic language tradition.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I don't deny that this would put a dent in Russia's goals for European geopolitics, but the idea that "Russia hates the West because they're scared of a free, strong, prosperous country right next to them, then their people will get mad at Pootin and revolt!"
--Is such a naïve, childish view. About the same as "they hate us for our freedoms".
Straight from Bush's mouth, and even Americans agree he wasn't very bright. So why do they enthusiastically parrot this talking point?
Do Westerners see Russians as children, with no object permanence beyond their neighboring countries? Even if we assume that view, the Baltics already exist. Nothing has changed-- and enormous Western investment, access to technology and prosperity built on hundreds of years of slavery and colonialism will do that for a country.
Also, if we are using 'miracle' in the typical sense, such as Japan, Germany, or China, Poland's case is not miraculous. Its growth does not approach those examples, and still loses a lot of intellectual capital to England in particular, but also Germany.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The larger picture is even more interesting, and nefarious:
When Eisenhower had a heart attack in 1955, it galvanized the US public (and scientific community) to eliminate the perceived threat
(I won't comment on how warlike and simplistic I think the reaction to this event was).
From the emerging research, two major hypothesis sprang: the sugar one, and the fat one.
Dr. John Yudkin (in the UK) led the sugar-hypothesis, positing that it was the excess of complex sugars getting processed in our liver, unable to be fully converted, that the body turns into fat cells.
Meanwhile Dr. Ancel Keyes, an American physiologist, led the fat-hypothesis, stating that dietary unsaturated fats led to people getting fat.
It is worth mentioning that Keys had some... 'help', if I'm not mistaken, from the American Sugar Association, a lobbying group which had vested interests in keeping sugar on grocery shelves.
Key among Keys' (ha!) evidence was the famous Seven Countries study.. which was also found to have been tampered with. The original study contained 21 countries, with no association (or correlation) between dietary fat and cholesterol levels, but Keys seems to have cherry-picked his own data.
In the end, with the help of the companies, and a huge smear campaign, Yudkin's career ended with him discredited and destitute.
Only 40 years later are we discovering that, once again, money interfered in politics... and now, despite the fact that everything is 'fat-free', we have 40% morbidly obese, and another 30% on top of that overweight.
This is why I try not to give money to any Western food establishments, good or bad.
Bad apples and such.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@6Oko6Demona6
No, you're wrong. South Korea is very advanced, but their people are miserable. Suicide rates are high, stress from work is high, all came from the American system of "make as much money as possible" imposed upon them.
Wealth does not equal high quality of life, sorry.
And I'd say the Cuba problem is more because of the embargo the U.S. placed on all Cuban goods? And then trying to dissuade other countries from doing any business with Cuba?
The military interventions were awful. Why don't we ask Libya, Afghanistan, Congo, Guatemala, Iraq, and Chile how they're doing after the U.S. democracy?
At least Russia tries to be nuanced in its reasoning. The U.S. blatantly lies— who calls themselves the "beacon of democracy", but installs Pinochet?! What a sham.
Whatever from Russia takes, the U.S. always opposes.
Not because they're a 'violator of human rights' (why doesn't the US stop trading with China, Saudi Arabia, or Israel then?), but because they stood as a geopolitical counterweight.
Now China is doing this, and the US suddenly hates them, too. I wonder why...
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@Harahvaiti
Obviously-- Russia's architecture is almost exclusively Byzantine (until the USSR, then entirely new styles were invented). Croatia is the same, along with most of Europe.
But some places have more distinct, or "indigenous", styles than others. Chinese military outposts are what inspired Japanese pagodas.
No other culture has produced anything similar on its own- all other similar styles come from China, not invented independently.
Same with Roman architecture.
All of Europe uses it, but no other cultures have actually come up with their own style. They all just copy older civilizations.
The few truly "native" styles are probably Egyptian, Mesoamerican, Indian, Chinese, Greek, and Arab.
All others are a mix or derivation.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@TheUnnamedAssailant
Hey, sorry, missed your reply.
I agree that the dynamics between dense tribe & dense city are completely different,
but my point was just that the nuclear family model (more common in the suburbs) is a very new concept, and so 'taking the father away' isn't the death knell for a whole society, depending on context.
And I don't think blood ties matter as much as people think. That's a very Anglo-Saxon obsession. Their fascination with age=status=power is unique, Russians for instance care about family, but don't make a big deal about bloodlines or connection by blood.
Hell, even the Romans had two words for 'father': genitor (biological) and pater (father figure- incidentally, the one we use).
Perhaps the most quintissential expression of this obsession is Southerners loving how far back they can trace their ancestry "my daddy, his daddy, his daddy's daddy" etc.
I think that father figures can come from beyond bloodlines, and frankly the emphasis should be placed on the quality, rather than the blood origin, of the caregiver. That may even be a good defense against societal collapse as you'd described it.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@deryck-kr2tl
True, but they were much more honest about their intentions, and as a result, the ideological underpinning that allowed them to colonize never fell apart like it did in the West.
When the Cossacks (contracted by the Tsar) rode up to a new Khanate or city, they didn't claim to be there to civilize or because they're better than the native Siberians.
They simply said, they were there for the Kremlin and wanted to form an alliance, in exchange for loyalty to the Crown. If not, they would have to fight.
Some even mentioned the need for security from the Mongols (a buffer zone).
That hasn't changed, and the Russians were (relatively) more tolerant of the natives, and less zealous in their massacres (so the Circassians for example are still in Russia now, despite being persecuted. Many US tribes are simply gone.)
So there isn't a strong desire to change, especially since the regions benefit from access to 2 oceans.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
Ironically, your comment and our reframing of the situation is even more (if not exclusively) the American way of seeing things.
Valuing the individual (and framing an entire country as an individual) with the right to make decisions is quintessentially American.
Instead of seeing countries and the people within them as parts of a larger whole, you hyper-focus on the "free Nations (wow) choosing their path".
No country is willing to accept a large foreign force on their border. Its mere presence and potential ability to project power is a threat. You seem to understand that perfectly well when analyzing Baltic and eastern European states and their proximity to Russia, but seem to forget that Russia has the exact same sentiment with regards to the US.
So, instead of taking all of this into account and working to create a solution that all parties can agree upon, you dig your heels in to your personal values, deem them universal, and refuse to make a larger framework that would ultimately leave the larger powers pacified, and the smaller nations secured.
I find it rather strange that a student at a German uni would come to such a conclusion, though I suspect you studied elsewhere and then moved there. I also think you're rather young, since you fail to see the larger picture and just want the end-outcome immediately without building the institutions and policies necessary to sustain it.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@davidfaraday7963
"Either they" is referring to the only subject in this thread- Sweden.
You really need to brush up on your grammar.
'Admit' as a verb has two meanings- one, meaning 'confess', and two, meaning 'to allow someone/thing to enter a place'.
In the context of the example I gave, I am talking about Ukraine's admission into NATO. Got it?
Regarding the actual context of my example: there was fierce debate over whether to even announce that Ukraine and Georgia would be allowed to enter NATO.
Since no real political commitments were made, any public statement concerning their membership would be meaningless, if only to spite Russia.
Germany, Italy, and France were the main opposition to such empty promises, while the US nad UK were the main proponents. Ultimately, the US' camp won out and the announcement was made.
2 weeks later, Russia entered Georgia.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Tespri
I'll debate.
While Trump's and Obama's policies are similar (which kind of shits on the whole idea of him being an outsider), he tends to amplify their negative consequences.
Both Trump and Obama, in practice, were tough on immigration. But Obama kept families together and sent them back across, or processed them if they could prove they were fleeing cartels out to kill them.
Trump, on the other hand, separates the families arbitrarily. You've got the whole family on lockdown, why would you rip a mother from her child at that point? What function does that serve?
Obama and Trump both continued wars, but only Trump has a childish love of them.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, all under Obama. But Trump wants to start more wars. Trade war with China, war with Iran, loves waterboarding, the whole thing. He's a hawk, and he even hired Bolton.
Obama tried to make amends with countries, while Trump aggravates them. the Iran deal got Iran to stop building a nuclear bomb and (with American inspection and supervision) build a nuclear power plant instead. How is that a bad deal? They could have been an ally in the Middle East, but no! It's a "bad deal" because we're not making money. Politics is not business, Trump needs to learn that. Short-term profits never beat long-term strategic gains.
6
-
6
-
@kurousagi8155
Yes, it does. Are you seriously going to try and argue that the US having a check on its power is worse than having no check on its power? LOL dude
Atrocities haven't gone down since the US came to power, in fact they've sped up with the dawn of the Cold War, and post-USSR events (Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, I could go on).
So the only difference between now and a less unipolar world is just how much power the US has. Of course the US and its citizens wouldn't want that, but it's going to happen anyway.
Your media will clutch its pearls and pretend like things are getting worse, but they're exactly the same, with the sole exception of: the US is losing its influence.
And in my opinion, more geopolitical options are a good thing. Ask Africa! They're loving China actually building things instead of flying rich people over to film poverty porn
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Shadow__133
It's just that America has so thoroughly Americnaized Japan that, to its people, Japan is exotic enough to be interesting but Western enough to be approachable.
Western people tend to like exotic things if they are "surface level": tangible things, like music, food, crafted goods, vacation spots, etc.
They tend not to actually like eastern culture, though: intangible things, like values, worldview, societal organization, even politics, they view as either backwards or a threat.
They only like foreign culture if they can keep it on a shelf.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@oats6452
Not that simple.
You're assuming that there will always be a better job that you can do, without considering the realities.
Companies, as a trend, have come to expect more experience and a smaller salary from prospective employees.
This is especially apparent in IT and/or dev positions where more experience in a language is required than said language has existed for.
People can't just switch to trades instantly, so 'get a better job' isn't necessarily possible in your area. Not everyone lives in a city. If everyone did just go into trades, trade salaries would drop because workers would be less scarce. Then the argument would be 'just go into IT'.
Basically, your 'advice' is good for a single person. If everyone followed it, there'd be no wage stability. If trades are valuable, and everyone goes in, their value drops, and everyone leaves, making them valuable again, then everyone returns... and so on.
Your worldview and the solution you provided relies on people willingly going into fields that don't pay well because they care more about the position than the money. If you benefit from those services (nursing, retail, education, restaurants), then you don't get to lecture people about what they should do.
6
-
@MrCurbinator
Yeah, but we're only getting that single scenario from Hollywood. I wanna see the alternative for once
In fact, it might be a real slap in the face (literally and figuratively) to see the main character get beat up, really badly. Build up to the fight scene, slow down the frames, music suggests something heroic is gonna happen, an-
NOPE.
Cut the music, close up of him getting knocked to the floor.
Getting his ass beat for over a minute. No track, the just sound of punches and him struggling to make it out alive.
It's like the movie reminding you, "this is what it would look like in real life. Also, you're watching a movie"
Then, you can make him build back up. Do a reverse scene at the end
6
-
@tsytryna4014
Yes, you're right. In the Hypathian Codex, "ѡ нем же оукраина много постона".
The document is referring to Pereyaslav Principality, which was a border with the Golden Horde. This term оукраина did not refer to a single, specific place, as it was also used to describe Kyiv's borderlands of Pskov and Ryazan.
Not to mention, even though modern Ukrainian makes a separation between "окраина" and "украина", Proto-Slavic does not. *krajь only meant "edge" or "border", nothing else.
You are free to research the etymology yourself; the definition of "edge" came first. Ukrainians re-interpreted it later, after their national identity formed.
There is nothing wrong with this— Denmark also means borderland. Ethiopia means "burnt face", but do they complain about that?
Rusyns and Ruthenians are interchangeable, but neither of those are Ukrainians.
They took their name from Rus', but that name only applied to people living in the Carpathian Mountains. Their regional designation is Carpatho-Rusyns, after all. They are nowhere near Kyiv! I should know— I'm a Hutsul by blood.
Yes, the Ukrainian language has been more conservative— what is your point?
American English is closer to Old English than modern British English. Does that make the U.S. closer to English culture than... England?
Russian went through 2 reforms, if you look at old texts it is identical to Ukrainian. There was no difference, only one piece of the Tsardom changed and broke away.
I assume in the last part you're talking about the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
It was called Russia starting with Ivan Grozny, not Peter I. You must be confusing the Tsardom of Russia with with Russian Empire.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@crazypolite
You being Canadian makes very little difference in my impressions of your political worldview.
You're near identical to Americans, culturally and politically (sorry if that grates you, but that's my thought).
"I'm also not above saying that if it weren't for Russia, U.K, and the USA, I'd be speaking German"
Well, that's progress. Your southern neighbors haven't advanced past crediting the third nation on your list. It was a Herculean effort from all parties, but the Soviets did the brunt of the warring.
That's an interesting characterization. I don't see it that way, especially if you take both countries' histories and actions into context, but feel free to see it how you like.
I personally see Russia as traumatized: after having been attacked by the Poles, Germans, Vikings, and Tatars, then invaded and subjugated by the Mongols, it vowed to overcome its geographic vulnerability (completely flat land open to invasion) by expanding. That mission continues on to this day to avoid another Genghis Khan, Napoleon, or Hitler.
The US has it easy by comparison. Surrounded by oceans, far from the world's problems (rather, the impacts of them) and is free to be as ideological as it wants, because nuance is only needed when you're in competition for limited resources.
I agree with the dynamic between the two but I would hardly call the US democratic. It acts in its own self-interest.
I'm glad you recognize the hypocrisy, again it is a step above what many of your southern compatriots believe.
No, those are very much opinions. You listed adjectives, not numbers. There is no objective criteria for any of them. All you've done is display your personał feelings.
Again.. every country is 'in it' for ulterior motives. That's self-interest.
Was the US being democratic when it supported Syngman Rhee in South Korea? Or Chiang Kai-Shek in China? Or Pinochet, or Batista, or the Shah?
All countries act in self-interest. You're drawing a false line between countries you like and ones you don't.
Russia will support who it supports as long as it benefits them. The US will support democracies as long as it benefits them. When it doesn't, it will do as Russia does.
It already has: see above.
And no, the Soviets had fundamentally different goals. The Nazis had no grand vision, they wanted a slice of the world for Germans and that's all they would focus on. The rest, Japan and Italy could carve up.
They wanted to eliminate entire races.
The Soviets wanted to spread an ideology to others- not kill them, but make them Soviets as well.
6
-
6
-
As a genuine question: what is Europe's "goal" with Russia?
It seems simply to react to its actions, condemning them, and trying to stop them, but never saying what it ultimately wants.
Unless Europeans have forgotten, if Russia's economic influence (in oil and gas) is contained, Russia will cut off from Europe completely. If it were to economically collapse, tens of millions of people would suffer, and Europe would likely face another migrant crisis. It would be like another 1990s period again.
Do they want regime change? Last time Russia had a Western (business) friendly leader, Russia's quality of life suffered greatly. Russian companies were outmatched by older, established European companies, causing decline in domestic production and capital flight.
I genuinely do not understand what Europe is aiming to do. If they want a "Western-friendly" government to come to power, Russians (and the Russian economy) will almost certainly suffer, at least in the short-term.
But Russia was also rejected from NATO, so they are clearly not allowed into the club, since without Russia, it would not have a reason to exist.
So if Russia cannot be integrated into the West, but they need to be made friendly to the West... how is this intended to work?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@razvananghel7492
Yes, it does. Relative to Ukraine, it has had a much longer presence in the region.
Bear in mind that it was first annexed in 1783, which is only 7 years after the United States was founded. Should the U.S. give up its entire territory, since if Russia doesn't have a claim after ~250 years, then surely the U.S. doesn't either?
If you're going by that logic, then give back western Ukraine to Poland- the historical inhabitants of "Lviv" (Lwów) are not Ukrainians!
If you want the borders to be reset to when the Tatars were still the majority, you should be prepared to do the same for people who feel that their land was taken and is unfairly being ruled by your country, too.
How far back do you want to stretch this? Should France, Spain, England, Portugal, etc, all submit themselves to Italy because Romans were the historical inhabitants of these countries?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Lol dude, not how it works. "Cmon, be democratic!" is the most naiv, childish sentence i have seen today. Like a child cheering for a superhero.
Democracy comes after prosperity, not before.
If Afghanistan is given something to lose, an economy, they will stop hating the West, or at least not attack it. Saudi Arabia has an even more extreme ideology, but they are trading with the west and simply focus on developing themselves, and regional politics.
This could be true for afghanistan too, but your pride prevents you from engaging with 'the enemy' because it signals to the world that you lost. Push an animal into a corner, and it will lash out. If anything, with nothing left to lose the taliban may shrug its shoulders and attack you again.
What are you to do, bomb it? That has been happening for decades, they are starving to death, they have nothing left to lose thanks to your actions.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I take issue with this.
The name Russia was not invented by Peter I, that is a Ukrainian ultranationalist myth, with no more evidence supporting it than the idea that Russians are actually Finns/Turks/Mongols/whatever.
The Byzantine name for Rus, Ρωσία (Rus-ia) first appeared in 1387 and was used interchangeably with Rus throughout the 15th century, continuing into the 17th century.
Even as far back as Pope Gregory VII used Ruscia when writing to Iziaslav I.
The name itself is much older than Peter I and referred to Rus. When western Rus fell to the Mongols and later Poland-Lithuania, it referred to what was left of it (Novgorod and Vladimir-Sudzal).
But even if you think Russia only started with the Grand Duchy of Moscow, then 'Russia' has still been called Rus since its inception.
It never stopped calling itself Rus, even after the Mongols took over. There is no record of Katherine having to force people to call themselves anything.
Also, Russia is not an offshoot of Ukraine. If you want to argue that Ukraine is the original Rus because of geography (since Kiev was its capital) then you have to address the fact that Novgorod was the founding city of Rus, and that Oleg traveled south and captured Kiev. By this definition, Rus started in modern Russia.
You're also ignoring that the Rurikid Dynasty died in Volhynia and only survived in Moscow, after Mstislav IV did not produce any children.
And the fact that the Western Rus lands were Polonized so much that they stopped calling themselves Rus and started calling themselves Ukrainians. Thankfully Belarus avoided this fate.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Your view of Russia is honestly delusional. On all counts.
For one, its vulnerability is also an asset— nobody thus far (besides the Mongols) successfully occupied all of Russia with brute force. Any invading army would get stretched to breaking, whether by land or air.
Secondly— Russia TRIED to become a second power, a large force within the sphere of Europe.
Right after the USSR, Yeltsin showed almost comical eagerness to play along with the US geopolitically.
How was this kindness repaid? By sending US Treasury employees to Moscow to liberalize its economy and completely destroy any quality of life from the USSR. That meant hyperinflation, collapse of institutions, and a complete selloff of state assets.
Before you say that it was inevitable, Poland was put under the same 'transition' program, but was given different parameters which conspicuously led to stabilization and enrichment. Why did they insist that Russia privatize EVERYTHING, when Poland had been allowed to keep its courts and state-run companies intact just a few years earlier?
It was malice. Kicking the enemy while he was down.
Russia learned a difficult but valuable lesson: America is an ill-intentioned country.
Acting "normally" by abiding by the rules doesn't work when they're actively trying to make your standing in the world worse— that means domestically, too.
Had the USSR not spread communism, the US would still have tried to sabotage it, because it simply doesn't like peer competitors in any area.
Lastly— Putin inherited a shithole from Yeltsin. Go watch old videos of the breadlines and empty grocery stores that resulted from capitalism entering Russia.
Or just ask any Russian over 40. They'll gladly tell you what life was like under "Gorby" and his drunken successor.
You might not like his authoritarianism, but he inarguably improved the quality of life within Russia. If that makes you mad, ask yourself why.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@itry2brational
"You get paid what you are worth"
No, you get paid, at a MINUMUM, what the government has thankfully forced companies to pay. The minimum wage.
We used to have child labor, and literal SLAVES who worked for nothing. $0/hr.
The idea that the "market" can be trusted to work out a fair equilibrium between what workers want and what companies want is ridiculous. Companies will do literally anything, legal or illegal, to pay workers less.
It is precisely unions and revolutions, among other things, which keeps them in check. Telling someone "don't focus on unionizing, make yourself more valuable-" is just telling us that you're on one side of the equation, fighting for companies.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@lamarmcalister2449
Oh, so the U.S. should become a theocracy, then?
I'm sure a small group of people (or, as you put it, one man) won't take advantage of that and proclaim themselves ordained by God to rule... oh, wait
You're fucking ridiculous. Secularism is not anti-theism. It is unconcerned with religion, not opposed to it.
The Founding Fathers wanted people to be free to believe whatever they so pleased, but to not let that influence their earthly political decisions— or at least as little as possible.
They went our of their way to not mention a Christian God, going so far as to say 'Laws of Nature and Nature's God' and 'endowed by their Creator' (all nouns were capitalized in that period) because Enlightenment values (and the example set by King George) compelled them to exclude the idea of a theocracy of any kind. No mention of Jesus, the Bible, Moses, nothing.
It wasn't one man making the choice, it was the entire team.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@careyfreeman5056
I don't know why everyone parrots this talking point.
It's gaslighting to say that "NATO never wouldve expanded if Russia wasn't so aggressive!"
BS, there was never a moment where they weren't trying to expand to new members.
Pressure was put on Finalnd for decades to join, the former PM admitted this in a CNN interview a fee months ago.
Even when Russia was at its weakest and barely able to take on Chechnya, NATO expanded to include Poland. What threat was Poland facing exactly???
This isn't just voluntary ascension, it is a concerted effort by the US to gain military access as close to Russia's borders as possible.
So given that, we have 2 scenarios: Ukraine is 'joined at the hip' as you say, but without official membership, and occupied land, giving Russia the ability to attack and NATO without a cassus belli. And preventing Ukraine membership indefinitely.
Or, Russia could have waited for them to officially join, and then they would be truly surrounded by US forces. Don't try to pretend there is some magical 3rd option where the US disbands NATO. That has been requested for decades and the US has refused.
So which of the only 2 realistic options do you think is better?
6
-
6
-
@TheWoollyFrog
I'm talking about both past and present.
Past, because it has affected the maritime economies of the countries in question (where Russia couldn't do trade in the Pacific for 9 months out of the year as a result, this was only solved in 1897.
Present, because it still affects the speed with which goods can be delivered around the world, takes billions to build and tens of millions to maintain. This affects 1) shipping capacity 2) shipping price.
"So, icebreakers are not expensive today"
Yeah, right. Tell that to the U.S. government. ~$1B/unit.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34391/191#:~:text=As%20shown%20in%20Table%201,%242%2C619%20million%20(i.e.%2C%20about%20%242.6
"Sure, they are not empires but they don't need to be in order to have a good gdp and gdp per capita."
This is all still because of port access. The many countries of the EU can economically develop through trade, because the bloc allows them to use Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, ports to sell and receive goods. Russia was denied EU membership because it was "too big."
So, what other options are we left with? China? We already border the Pacific as they do, are able to traverse their waters, and they're in an economic war with the U.S.. So much for free trade.
And Vladivostok still freezes, increasing shipping costs.
Even if EU membership were allowed, how would that work? Russia's best and brightest would leave en masse (many already do), European goods would destroy domestic production, and make Greek crisis look like a child's plaything.
Your solution does not address the reality of Russia's situation. Tourism has a limited capacity- not everyplace can be a hotspot. Every other industry relies on supply chains, and marine trade is crucial.
"And lastly, the answer to all your worries is free trade"
This assumes all countries will be beneficiaries and act in good faith- they do not. The U.S., for example, blocked Palau's membership into the WTO unless they repealed their recent law banning turkey glands from being sold in the country (which was causing cancer in its residents).
More vulnerable nations are thus subject to continued to exploitation, just by the U.S. instead of a regional power.
I suppose that's something you'd like, though.
"Turns out you can move stuff into your country by road or rail without the need of a warm deepwater seaport OR having to pay a neighbouring country tariffs and taxes."
Okay... I've gotten my Karelian fish to Murmansk... now how do I send it to Brazil for sale?
OH, RIGHT.
Your analogy was so pea-brained I almost fell out of my chair. To cross maritime borders and access markets outside your own continent, you need ocean access.
If Russia tried to send everything via rail, its goods (maintenance fees for its own rails, and transit fees for foreign rails) would become so expensive as to be uncompetitive with seafaring countries' alternatives.
I can't believe I have to explain something so simple. Sending goods by water is ~10X cheaper than ant land transport. No amount of good governance will make a dent in that gap.
Unless Russia gains a warm water port, we will forever remain poorer than the coastal countries. This is still true today, with Atlantic-facing countries richer than Central European ones.
"dOn'T tElL mE wHat iS aCcePtAbLe tO dO"
Indeed, don't. You're American, you've never known what that's like.
Perhaps when the West Coast becomes uninhabitable, you'll get a taste.
6
-
6
-
@alexandraolvera5903
Thank you for the insight, but the problem is not easy to change:
their only experience (what they see as "society" as a whole) was that, during Russia's Westernization times, things were better for them.
As Putin became more and more authoritarian, things got worse.
Their entire lifespan, period when they were aware of developments, is 20 or so years.
Of course, it is not that simple: things were much, much worse under the last President Yeltsin, when Russia was fully embracing the West.
But since they were all born after that period (2000s and later), they laugh and say that older russians are just brainwashed by soviet propaganda.
Ironically, it was the rejection of western ideas (open democracy, completely free markets) that allowed the russian government to reign in the mafia, some of the oligarchs' money laundering, collapse of public services, etc
I wish more russians would stay and come to an 'agreement' with the oligarchs and government:
you can keep all the money you stole, but stay out of politics!
And to the government: stop siphoning all the money to Moscow, and stop allowing china to steal natural resources!
6
-
6
-
@cbass6879
More complicated than that.
Putin is actually an authoritarian, not a dictator- important distinction, he is beholden to the oligarchs and manages their interests. Unlike Kim Jong Un, he doesn't have absolute rule.
Also, he was democratically elected twice, but after 2012 is when things got ugly.
This is also when he reportedly "snapped", after seeing the usa violate the same international law touted as Russia's path forward.
From then on, Russia has been devoted to acting as an ideological and military threat to the West.
And he actually did fix the economy. You might think it's shit, but even now that the poverty level has gone up and goods are dwindling, it is still better than Yeltsin (whom Amerivans seem to like for some reason) left it.
He acted wisely on the back of high oil prices in the 2000s and rebuilt a lot of the country.
The loss in economic growth happened before Crimea with falling oil prices (though it certainly didnt help it), so any Russian president during that time would have taken the blame for "he made Russia shittier".
And diversifying takes a long time, and consistent support from either foreign investment or domestic development, hard to do when wages are higher than China but lower than Europe
That thing said, Putin is not a good strategist. He can toe boundaries and exert power well, but his planning in the very long term is shit.
He could have reformed the government, eliminated corruption, and drew Ukraine into Russian sphere through economic means, many Ukrainians would actually welcome that f it means better life.
But no he has to start a war and divide the Rus people even more
6
-
@RogerwilcoFoxtrot
Oh, you mean one of the thousands whose non-Taliban families were lucky enough not to be killed in a bombing campaign?
You're right, it will resurge when it happens- that's why Western powers need to stay out of its affairs and let the matter fizzle out. That includes the Soviets, who triggered the creation of the Taliban.
As for Iraq, their territory, like Afghanistan's, has few natural assets, like rivers or arable land. What little they do have is controlled by Turkey, with the Tigris and Euphrates originating in Anatolia.
They need a practical, if brutal leader to keep society together and negotiate with foreign powers if it is to develop independently.
Preferably secular.
If only there were a leader like that... OH, WAIT. There was, and the Yanks killed him.
And oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was speaking with the ambassador for Iraq and Afghanistan!
My Persian friend mourns the loss of secularism in Iraq after the Revolution but doesn't realize that the Shah was just as oppressive to the religious, and sold Iran's natural resources to the UK for cheap.
Just because 2 people who moved to the U.S. don't like a current regime, doesn't mean the people don't.
If you want to sling around anecdotes, though, consider what the man who put the Iraqi flag on Saddam's statue had to say 15 years later:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9wC6W7EJpg
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
-
6
-
5
-
@romanroman1850
I'm aware of its history, but even under that logic, the media ban makes no sense because they're not taking anything 'back' from Russian-speakers.
Lvov grew quickly in the 1250s because of many Polish migrants coming into the city. In 1339 Casimir III of Poland captured the city and started to Polonise it.
In 1358 the city became the seat of the Roman Cathokic Archdiocese of Lviv, which made into a Catholic center of influence.
By the 15th century, it had prospered because of trading rights given to it by the Polish Crown, and the immigrants to the city (Poles, Germans, Czechs) had become Polonized. It was, by that time, almost fully culturally Polish, although it was surrounded by Ukrainian towns and farms.
I mean hell, the architecture there looks distinctly Polish/German, most of historic old town is built in that style, and even the little remaining fragments of the High Castle are the stone pieces built under Casimir III.
Where exactly is the propaganda? It was founded by Rus' (east Slavic culture before it split into 3), then became a center of Ukrainian culture, then for the rest of its entire history until very recently, it was totally polonized.
Even during the Hasburg rule, 86% of the city's inhabitants spoke Polish.
In 1923, after WWI, it was intentionally recognized as part of the Polish state.
It was only under the Soviets that Ukrainian language started to be used in the city, instead of just the farm areas. They reopened Ukrainian-only language schools that the Polish had closed. Under the Soviets, Lwów University was renamed after Ivan Franko.
When the Nazis invaded, it was only because the Ukrainians there had been under Austrian Hapsburg that they weren't massacred, because they were "aryanized".
The Soviet government did it's best to expel the Polish population and, because of the Curzov line agreement, it became a part of Ukraine. At the time, the city was still ~67% Polish.
It is thanks only to "Imperialist Russian" actions that Lvov is now Lviv, and majority ethnically Ukrainian.
So again, why is there a Russian media ban in Lvov? Wouldn't it make more sense for it there to be a Polish language media ban?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Chris Christian
No, they care about their nationality, or culture.
The exception is America, where you so thoroughly destroyed the African cultures of the people you enslaved that they had to create a new one- "black" culture.
Same with other groups. Asian groups were marginalized, though not enslaved, so while they have their culture, they still all identify as 'Asian American.'
Polish people care about Polish culture. Scots care about Scottish culture. Italians care about Italian culture.
What the fuck is "white" culture? Yoga and Starbucks? Playing videogames? Fucking your cousin?
There is no unifying experience that binds white Americans together. The Puritans that created you hated song an dance, which is why there is no "white" music- every single American genre comes from black people. There are no common expressions, ideas, or traditions.
Because America is not about those. You come here to shed them, and create something new and different.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Mark Prothro
Not nearly as much as you'd need to meet even domestic demand, though.
California has a sizeable amount, but China, by fortune of geography
(which— fun fact— is the main reason the United States is successful and even rose to prominence to begin with),
has most of the world's existing reserves.
Note I said reserves, not output.
China dominates both anyway. It simply has the most. More than the entire Untied States' by a factor of over 30.
Sorry.
California's not a reasonable option anyway, are you really going to tear down billions worth of development just to pollute the area and stick it to the Reds?
California says no. And it's an eight of your entire economy.
Not worth it.
Wyoming has some promise, but again, it's a miniscule fraction of the total global reserve.
Even if all of Shenzen's factories just disappeared tomorrow, if Americans want to keep using their fancy gadgets, they will still depend on China, indefinitely.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@kellikelli4413
What do you think the s in MSG stands for? MSG is a salt.
And it's naturally occurring-- you definitely don't get migraines from it. Pizza has it, because of tomatoes, ketchup has even more of it, so do fish, mushrooms, aged cheese (real Parmesan, Pecorino Romano, etc).
Unless you want to tell me your hot dog with ketchup makes you need to lie down, you're just definitely lying, or experiencing a placebo (where you expect something to happen, so your body creates that reaction whether or not it's real).
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Yep, same here: past freshman year of highschool, every history and/or civics teacher basically said either "life's gonna suck for you guys" or "on behalf of the older generations, I'm so sorry we've put you through this".
Feelsbad. Honestly climate change is probably gonna keep getting worse- countries will only start racing to truly (desperately) invest in nuclear and renewables once massive protests erupt... and by then, it'll be too late.
If I even have children of my own, it makes me think, how much of life as I'm experiencing it now will be nothing but a distant memory in the future?
Will there still be bees in the summer? Will capitalists make trillions more off the new hand-pollination industries required to keep us all from starving?
Will the next generation ever know what a mild summer, or winter, is like? Will the sound of chirping birds be something they'll need a national park visit to experience?
How many species of animals will they be told in school that exist? How many languages?
Not to contradict the whole video, but I get the feeling that we're all sleepwalking off a cliff, and that looking back on it, we'll wonder how we ever let things get to where they are... "now" (40yrs in the future).
Like a huge, irreversible loss, that leaves humanity with no lesson to learn, and leaves us all more deprived, less connected to our past-- as lesser than when we started.
5
-
Mendoza Juan
Embryology and biology have not determined that is a human infant. The fact that you even used the term "infant" reveals how little you understand to begin with.
"Life" isn't a set thing; its exact boundaries are unclear. The Catholic Church believes that a zygote just after conception is equivalent to a human life, but doesn't explain on what basis it makes that claim.
Bacteria are "alive", are we all committing involuntary manslaughter by destroying millions of them every second, then?
No- it's about human life?
Okay, then what defines that? A cell with human DNA? What happens when in-vitro fertilization fails, should the doctor be sent to prison for involuntary manslaughter, too? Are the parents accomplices? Yes, no?
If yes, then people that can't naturally get pregnant are taking a huge gamble when deciding whether to have children, right?
If no, then what is human life?
You conservatives don't seem to understand- the things that seem obvious, upon close inspection, aren't at all. It's like your arm: look at it, touch it. Seems pretty real, right? Solid, even.
Look closer. It's full of pores, and dead skin cells constantly being recycled. Not so solid and your skin is constantly becoming 'another set' of skin.
Look even closer. It's made of molecules, none of which are 'skin', mostly water. Go even deeper, it's all atoms and nothing's even touching. 99% of atoms are empty space. So, how exactly is your arm solid and real, when only 1% of it is material?
Same with life. There is no set, objective definition. "Life" is a human label which generally works, but fails with specifics. So, we instead look at what's moral: if a thing cannot feel pain, then 'hurting' or 'killing' it is impossible. So, before the embryo's nerve cells develop at about 22 weeks, abortion is legal.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
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
-
Not sure how Americans go about it, but Europeans tend to stay at a fixed density per square meter. What that means, in real life, is that (for example):
to reach optimal density, you could do two things- build 3/5-story houses next to each other, with a little bit of greenspace in between each, or opt for 10/12-story "high-rises," but space them farther apart, and add lots of greenery in between.
Although, designed well, I think that even multiple 10-story buildings lined up could work fine, too. There is a reason most people want to go to big cities, after all.
It's not money, because property values have soared, and yet people still flock.
Why?
There are loads of people and masses of things for everyone to experience!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Well, I don't think that's ever coming back, sadly.
The creativity and utopian feel of the early internet happened because it was so small and new at first--- you got a sense of "wow, technology of the future, so cool" whenever you went on.
The novelty has worn off, and now instead of going onto the internet to escape the real world, I increasingly find myself logging off to escape the internet. It's become too big, and long ago started feeding back into the real world, becoming a part of it instead of just a receptacle for it.
But hey, it was fun while it lasted no?
I was around since 2007 YouTube so I feel the same way about it.
IMO 2012 was its last recognizable year in terms of the same feeling, shameful to see it now
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@tacostwiceaweekMAX
No, at the time the Saudis paid over $200K to stay a collective 500 nights, Trump personally owned the hotel. They paid in December 2016:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-hotel-in-washington-d-c-to-open-ahead-of-schedule-1454901018
https://web.archive.org/web/20161002024408/http://www.fox5dc.com/news/204637134-story
And he only gave the Trump Organization, which through which he owned the D.C. hotel, in January 2017, finalizing the transfer in mid-January.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38587628
He received the Saudi money. All of it.
He's gonna get impeached.
Even if that doesn't work, this is a permanent stain on his Presidency that can never be undone. It's shameful that he was this careless and reckless.
Not even going to bring up that his fucking kids are working in the White House with him, and the only reason he's not thrown out on his ass, out of the Capitol, for nepotism, is because of a legal loophole.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Well, from a purely technical standpoint, nobody but Kavanaugh, Ford, and their friends at the time, know. The only thing we can do is look for evidence, and the evidence suggests that Kavanaugh is lying about not having assaulted Dr. Ford.
He lied about the names on his calendar- he was clearly into some weird shit back in the day and doesn't want to admit it. (Unless you actually think Devil's Triangle is a drinking game.)
You might say that it wouldn't sound good given the circumstances, even if he is innocent, and that's why he lied. But he should have still told the truth.
Lying under oath is a decidedly stupid thing to do, and the only reason I can think of for lying under oath would be
A) he doesn't have the judgement to know that honesty is paramount in court, even in bad situations, or
B) The stakes are high enough for him to lie in court because it's preferable to the alternative- indicating he probably raped Dr. Ford.
Either one is a great reason that he shouldn't be a Supreme Court Justice. He doesn't have the mental composure to stay calm under pressure, and he's very morally inconsistent.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@crazypolite
I would also disagree, but with what you said. America made arrangements with Europe following the end of the war, opening European markets up to American goods and military bases in exchange for protection. This also included supporting extremely corrupt governments in Italy and Greece to stave off communistic movements.
This wasn't done for the wellbeing of those countries- it was done explicitly for American business interests. Self-interested, like any other nation.
Sure, that's true, but again, the amount of hate you're feeling towards the Russian state is disproportionate to the amount of 'dictator-support' it's actually done. Virtually every nation supports nations that benefit their position; and democracies are relatively new to the world, so (because Europe and Russia have always been at odds, and Europe happened upon democracy first)- Russia does subvert their governments. But not because they're democratic, but because they're European.
And it's really rich that you genuinely named real-life countries the same way a comic book written for children would.
"Bad guys"? Really? Iran's theocratic government was a response to the US/UK backed coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953 because he wanted to nationalize its oil fields... which would threaten the UK's colonial holdings. Cue running and crying to the CIA.
Assad kept stability in Syria and prevented it from becoming another Libya or Afghanistan. The US already tried arming 'moderate rebels', it never works. Thank goodness it failed here.
And China has seen enormous economic growth over the past several decades, lifting billions out of poverty (no, they weren't 'caused by the CCP's actions'- they lost their cultural connection to the dynasties, but they were poor then, too). Venezuela was already suffering from poor government by the time Maduro showed up- the oil wealth had been siphoned into the president's pockets.
Again, your naiveté with respect to the 'goodness' of entire nations is stunning. To the US, geopolitics is a sport. Hiding behind two oceans, you can afford to sit back and moralize from an ivory tower. You have security, and have never been put in a situation where you have to make a hard decision when threatened.
Why did Russia invade Chechnya? Because Islamists had been bombing southern Russia for years and finally formally invaded. Why did China inavde Tibet? Because it contains the source of all of China's rivers. Survival matters. Sorry.
...Actually, you did war with and annex half of Mexico to secure your borders, so I suppose you understand. Or, when the US stationed missiles in Turkey, pointing them at Moscow. The Soviets sent their own nuclear missiles to Cuba, and the US was so adamant that "you can't do that, only we can!" that they almost ended the world over it.
5
-
@crazypolite
That is true, Italy was rather amusing during that war. Ironically, France has a good track record with wars, but only in the last major 2 did it flounder. But that wasn't my point- I wanted to highlight the differences between Soviets and Nazis, and why being occupied by the former is much preferable to the latter.
Yes, a scarred nation. Although I think you're taking what I said rather literally. No one is losing sleep over Genghis Khan, but we recognize him as the first in a cycle. It wasn't the validation, but Hitler was. His invasion of Russia is still in living memory. And people do not forget what their parents tell them about such a horrible event. It matters to us. It matters to me, personally.
You say that I should take a step back, but you immediately follow with 'one side is always for good and the other always for bad'. That's not apolitical or objective, it's the most black and white, childish view of the world I've ever seen anyone claim.
The rest of your comment is equally as silly. 'Thank GOD I'm more American!'
You're not convincing anyone with that argument. The US is undemocratic as well, it is simply more subtle. The Patriot Act directly violates your (since you're an American now) 4th Amendment. Your racism hasn't died after 400 years, and you have supported dozens of dictatorships around the world. How in the world is that the mark of a democratic nation? You still haven't answered this.
Canada was sterilizing its native population well into the 1970's, and there are reports it is still happening. Your claim that you are free would make an American laugh- he would tell you that your freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms are restricted!
Free? You may have it, but you restrict others from having it. Was the Guatemalan farmer free when President Arbenz was overthrown by the CIA? Is the Yemeni mother whose child was killed in a bombing with American-made bombs free? Are the first nation women free? They did not vote to get sterilized, that is a human rights abuse. No better than us.
As for being 'hung up': Again, the past events are mirrored by more current ones.
Frankly, I don't respect any Canadian or North American opinion on this matter because you have never experienced it yourself. You will never know the feeling of genuine existential threat. Russia's heartland is flat. And unlike America's it has zero natural defenses.
Imagine you have a border with China (give Vancouver another 10 years and it might come true!) and Afghanistan. That is Russia's current situation (replace Afghanistan with Islamists in Dagestan). We cannot just 'let it go'.
The Mongols were just a symptom of an unchangeable geographic problem:
The only way for Russia to secure its borders, is to expand.
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Playing devil's advocate here, some recent comments from Mesa and Camacho supporters (Morales opposition party leaders) have outlined the allegations of fraud beyond simple delays in between the quick count and official count, including default electronic registration of people who didn't vote (dead, out of country, etc) as Morales supporters, and hand-tampered ballots.
Of course, the report is (I think) published by the OAS, which leaves me suspicious, but it is important to remember that Morales has been accused of what Trump recently did- packing the Supreme Court with ideologically likeminded justices to get major decisions through in his favor. Unfortunately, even though Bolivia was prospering under him, it doesn't leave him immune to power grabs. We likely won't see the truth for a long time, especially if the OAS report has any U.S. fingerprints on it.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@maro7125
Poland and Hungary can't keep their citizens happy.
Here's the way I see it: the more proud you are of "your people," the more obvious it is that you have nothing else good in your country, otherwise you'd be proud of that instead. It's like a last resort.
Also, please name the Islamic country that borders Poland, or Hungary.
Don't forget that Poland has a Vietnamese population (and had a very large Jewish minority before...) and Hungary has a Gypsy population. The idea that a country can be, or should be, pure, is lunacy. Ask Japan's shrinking population what happens when you stay "pure."
I'd also offer to ask the Habsburg dynasty, but they were so genetically pure that they all died.
Humans aren't meant to be isolated. We're animals that move, meet other groups of humans, and mate. It's in our nature.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@badluck5647
But that's not what I mentioned, you didn't address what I actually said. I'm aware that Russia's exports don't extend far beyond raw materials- that is my biggest gripe with leadership there for centuries.
I was referring to its revitalized high-tech military sector. Namely, nuclear-powered devices, aerospace tech, and cyber security.
I also said that Russia doesn't have good soft power. Redundant point. You weren't paying attention to what you read.
And it's not. Again, pay attention. I was talking about future events. We are observing climate change happening. The Northern Sea passage is almost completely ice-free now.
The U.S. will lose its self-sufficiency if climate change continues.
Namely, the Southeast will become unlivable.
The Great plains
(which already are showing severe topsoil depletion, because the English and later Americans were too pea-brained too understand that the Natives' slash-and-burn technique built up the soil. It isn't natural)
--will need to change its industries, and the Great Lakes region will be all that's left, the South will become subtropical like Florida.
Russia, on the other hand, will become a food superpower- Siberia will thaw and become arable. Russia already became the largest exporter of grains a few years after sanctions in 2014.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@vredacted3125
No, it is incorrect. Just because Italian sources say it, you think it's the ultimate truth?
Maximus of Lakedaimonia referred to "Muscovy" as both Ῥῶς and Ρωσία. Different words for the same thing.
Muscovy or Moskowia was a term that first circulated in the Polish royal court, and appears to have been invented to diminish Rus claims over the parts of Rus that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had previously captured and were trying to Polonize.
That Italian document you are referring to, the first written mention of Moscovia in 1500, was printed right around the time the Milanese princess Bona Sforza was married off to the Polish King Sisigmund I.
It was a political name, created not because it reflected the truth but because it benefited the Polish.
In fact if you won't believe Russian claims, there is outside evidence of how the Rus saw themselves. Jacques Margaret, a French captain who served in Russia wrote to England:
"foreigners make a mistake when they call them Muscovites and not Russians. When they are asked what nation they are, they respond 'Russac', which means 'Russians', and when they are asked what place they are from, the answer is Moscow, Vologda, Ryasan and other cities".
The transition between Rus and Russia is slow, and it always referred to all 3 parts of the Rus: modern day Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. Only later did Latin start to distinguish between 'Ruscia' (Russia) and 'Ruthenia,' (Ukraine) neither of which were called Rus.
You may not like it, but Rus was founded in Novgorod, Russia. The Rurik Dynasty moved to northern Rus (Russia) after Kiev was destroyed.
Rus is Russia, sorry.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
EDIT: sorry, commented before watching
I'd like to propose an alternative: don't do anything at all.
Especially in the case of Iran: it was well on its way to becoming a secular democracy, had recently (1952) elected Mohammed Mossadegh. But, because he nationalised Iran's oil (which was held by the British Empire at the time), MI6 went crying to the CIA to overthrow him.
They did, and installed an aggressively pro-Western figurehead in the form of Reza Shah Pahlavi. He was so harsh and especially anti-religion that the Islamic clerics became a symbol of freedom against American oppression.
That's how the Iranian Revolution gained so much popular support.
If the US had simply let things play out on their own and not intervened, Iran would likely be a secular democracy right now. And it appears not to have learned its lesson: apparently US service members think that it wasn't intervention that was the problem, but bad execution.
It's like Edward Scissorhands trying to perform surgery on a baby, insisting "no no I can do it"-- while the rest of the staff beg him to stop. Just step out of it-- the 'competitors' (Russia, China) really only act out of pre-emptive fear that you turn them into another Iran. Or, god forbid, Afghanistan.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@kazoode
He's a very apt comparison.
All three have careers making overinflated promises and/or lies with only superficial results.
Where's the tax plan that will be cheaper for everyone, with "the best" healthcare?
Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall, but even if you stretch it to say "they'll pay indirectly with our trade deal," we've still got a deficit with Mexico, and he shut down the fucking government to force Americans to pay for it!
He thinks coal can be clean (given his gestures at the rally, it seemed like he thinks you actually clean the coal, but even if we assume he knows it's a metaphor, he's still wrong).
Hillary Clinton isn't in jail. He failed at that too.
Drain the swamp— his Treasury Secretary literally worked at Goldman Sachs! He's an elite— the same kind Trump bashed on the campaign, and then he hired him! His Education Secretary has never been to a public school, or stepped foot in one in her life! She has no qualifactions for that job!!
You know what she and her family have done? Donated millions of dollars to the Trump family over the years and his recent campaign.
If that's not "the swamp," nothing is.
He's a conman. When the energy dies down and the edgy 16 year olds take a step back, they'll realize they were just naive children being taken advantage of. Frankly, I could say the same of his adult supporters, too.
They're all vulnerable in one way or another, and they're being promised things that aren't happening.
He's perfectly comparable to a psychic and snakeoil salesman! Period!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@dansands8140
That's what literally everyone says, and rationalizes within whatever context they can.
If anything, I think looking at the United States' development points to the fact that it definitively wasn't your individual efforts or any quality of Americans that made them successful.
You just happened to get lucky, over and over and over again.
No other territory on Earth has so many geographical blessings: an enormous, interlocking system of rivers that outflow to sea. The largest contiguous piece of fertile farmland in the world. A landmass largely wiped of any real threats, courtesy of Old World diseases. Distance from any European or Asian power.
And that's just what the colonists started with.
Your power has nothing to do with the fact that you're American- your culture, values, efforts, none of it matters.
You just sit on the only landmass that's protected by two oceans and with an enormous, protected breadbasket heartland. Did you work for any of that? Did your 'good decisions' grant you that? Or was it nature, and luck?
Any culture that settled in the East Coast- Greek, Spanish, Dutch, Chinese- would have seen a similar rise to prominence. Sorry
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@bluerath
Also, the ones "easily overtaking them" are still not disproving the trend I outlined, Anchorage OP city, France is secretly huge, why geography makes the US strong, Dutch engineering, starlink, Israel stronk, and so on
I'm not pining for pro-whatever country videos (climate change= Russia superpower video was poorly researched) but I wish he'd look into the nuance of the 'adversarial' countries just once
Turkmenistan Plan To Close the Gates of Hell, perfect idea (it's true too)
Why there are no Israeli passport stamps
The logistics of building a trans siberian bullet train
Why Iran produces so many doctors (and why they leave)
Etc
His video style always shows countries not in the west through a monolithic lens, or through geography, but never through development projects or as an actual place people live in, with things going on in the country (exception is china)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@MrAlexkyra
Well, like it or not, Russia does not appreciate American troops inches from St Petersburg, so it will likely have a seat at the table.
This is what is known as a conflict of interests.
If you think so, then why are no Ukrainians understanding of the actions taken?
They say
"well it's such a shame that Russia was rejected from the Western system... oh well too bad, now let us surround you"
Also, it is absolutely possible. The U.S is allies with Israel and Saudi Arabia, which is even more of a dictatorship (ruled by 1 family) than Russia.
So why the double standard?
You seem to forget, Europe and Asia have invaded and burned Russia many times before.
The fact that only 80 years have passed since the last invasion attempt should give you a clue of why Russia is not ready to listen when Europeans say,
"you know about NATO, that organization created by the Americans to contain the USSR? Well we are going to keep expanding it, don't worry though!!"
What naivete is expected of Russia? The closer NATO gets, the fewer political (and economic) options Russia has.
Ironically, doing this is bringing it closer to China, giving the Americans reason to keep expanding it. Closed circle.
You also seem to forget, that this isn't just countries asking to join. NATO has to accept all of them, and did, despite the U.S assuring Russia it wouldn't:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between
5
-
Firstly, it's very unlikely that we, the people, actually "run the show." Politicians need to make money and keep their jobs, and "donations" by corporations do that much better than a silly vote. Money rules, not law. Not you.
Secondly, the idea that your semi-automatic can stop the force of the U.S. military, is a fucking joke. What is a civilian-grade weapon going to do against an Abram? Or against a military grade weapon, for that matter? The classifications exist for a reason- civilians with the capacity to defend against the national military makes a very unstable country- one that can't defend your right to carry a weapon, period. Stop being delusional.
Gun restrictions need to be implemented based on type, and self-control of the customer. Or you can continue to support a status quo that lets children die. Your choice.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I'm sincerely curious to know which "local culture" in the U.S. wouldn't want (optional, like everywhere else!) guardianship to be simplified, improved, and cheapened. I can't imagine a Texan so proud that he wouldn't want the best care for his sick parent(s) while he's working. Please, tell me what you mean.
Perhaps they wouldn't appreciate the means by which it is provided (taxes are apparently the devil), but the outcome would be beneficial to anybody who needs help.
Also, homogenity does not mean complete sameness: Switzerland has a culture of independence much older than that of the U.S., but that doesn't make its citizens too stubborn or just plain stupid enough to ask for help when it's really needed.
If you're referring to conservatives who don't agree with the program, make it optional! The number of people needed to service the incoming elderly population, divided by 330 million and spread out across all tax brackets, wouldn't make a difference in your bill each month. That is assuming the wealthiest bracket doesn't tax evade, as is so often the case. Hopefully that gives you something to consider.
Just because America is large, doesn't mean it can't have universal programs. Unless you think Medicare is a waste of resources on the greedy elderly.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Finnic Patriot
Okay, so
1) Lack of infrastructure? The tribes that have kept their identities the most are the ones with the Trans-Siberian railroad running through their territory. Sakha is the biggest example, but Buryatia and Bashkir are also fine.
It is the more isolated tribes that have dwindled and lost their culture over time— the Nenets and Yukhagir, for example.
2) Possibly, yes— but neither you nor I are qualified to make that judgement. If you do, it only reveals your personal views.
3) The policy of Rusaification was only really undertaken starting with Alexander I.
Before that, Russia's goal was to expand territory through whatever means necessary— be that conquest, treaty, or trade.
It was done in service of a buffer zone between Moscow and an eventual Eastern army, not a ethno-state.
You're right, but it wasn't all done without reason. Crimea was evacuated because of its geographical importance to the Black Sea— Stalin could not let ethnic Tatars side with the Nazis when they invaded. Same with the Volga Germans, who were moved to Kazakhstan (hence, Volga).
I don't agree with these mass deportations and killings, but at the time it was a risk the USSR could not afford to take.
The groups not seen as potential detectors— Kalmyks, Buryats, Kamchatkans, Caucasians, etc, were largely left alone.
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@avradio0b
That's probably not it, either. The Scandinavian countries have a very high level of financial stability (free healthcare, university education, childcare support from the government). And yet, they're facing the same issue as all the other Western countries.
It's sad to say, and maybe a knock on your pride as a progressive-minded person, but the only places that have high enough birthrates to be sustainable are countries where women's education and rights are significantly reduced.
The OP is right, it is a "dating" issue.
A perfect cause study: Israel is a highly educated and wealthy country.
Yet their birthrate is a staggering 3.0. Why? Simple.
Orthodox Jews. Most of Israeli society (modernized, liberal values, women and men have equal rights) has a brithrate basically near 1.5.
But the Orthodox community, which restricts women's rights and essentially forces them into the role of homemaker, has 6-7.
The same is true of Afghanistan, sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest areas of the Muslim world. What do they all have in common?
A lack of women's rights.
I know everyone says that financial stability would prompt them to have children, but they're all lying to themselves.
They'd take that newfound financial freedom and enjoy it. Not spend 18 years of their lives raising kids.
Just like Scandinavia and Western Europe, which already have those extra guardrails and have low birthrates anyway.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@badluck5647
NATO intervened in non-NATO affairs numerous times, specifically in Bosnia.
Also, just because they're all apart of NATO doesn't mean it's the only military doctrine they follow.
Libya has nothing to do with NATO, yet most NATO countries joined in bombing it, led of course by the US.
The US bombing didn't even have congressional approval, so what exactly are your assurances of "we'll only attack if" even worth??
We all know the real game. US goal is to stop any Eurasian power from rising. It will do anything, legal or not, to do so.
It has already done so with USSR, manufacturing coups all over the world and funding corrupt campaigns in Europe (Italy + Greece). But I'm sure it's real this time, dont worry))
So excuse Russia if it's just a little paranoid about the expansion of a military alliance that has shown willingness to break it's own rules, or operate through roles as members outside of that alliance.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@pepperVenge
Shortened,
'Can do' doesn't mean 'will do'. Plausibility matters just as much as capability.
If the US goes too far, not even Europe will throw support behind it, making the effect lessened and the action toothless.
Russia's access to its own side of the Bering is not disputed, so US blocking it would garner no support and give Russia the blameless right to counterattack.
China's 9-dash line is different- it only becomes legitimate if no-one challenges it, and since there's no consensus on the borders, the US can challenge it without handing the Chinese a legitimate excuse to attack.
Russia's sovereignty over its own territory isn't under question, and attacking Russia directly is something the US won't do- they refuse to set up a no-fly zone, potentially shooting Russian planes, or letting Ukraine fire into Russian territory.
(which was my whole original point- they don't attack Russia directly, that's a fact. And since the US has better armed forces, the only answer to "why don't they then?", is MAD).
I don't deny what you said, but I think you're trying to disprove a different point to the one I'm making.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@richhagenchicago
No, you shouldn't have, and I am very glad you didn't, and never will.
"No country, not us"
Well there is the problem. You are more than happy to protest the US destabilizing and messing up the world... but action is never truly taken. However, when a rival to the US is doing the same, they need to be stopped!
So you fail to realize that, in the current system, your "upholding of values" just leads to a one-sided outcome: the US gets a scolding, and China/Russia/Iran get military action. This is unacceptable.
I do, but I do not believe it. NATO is an extension of American military power. Show me the instance where a coalition of European NATO members called the shots-- they are equal members of an alliance, no?
Europe has no political or military autonomy, it is all directed by the US. They can formally protest, but no country will ever act against their master.
I referred to Israel and Tibet because NATO's justification for bombing Libya and Afghanistan were human rights abuses.
I see a selective application of force-- only bomb if they are rival nations or connected to rival nations. Saudi Arabia beheads people for adultery, yet I see no NATO warplanes flying over Medina.
And your last statement is exactly why Russians hate the US- it pompously sees itself as a "father figure", despite being the youngest nation in the world.
It thinks that its way is best, and that other nations need to be treated like children- hence the language of "we need to put [head of state] in his place!"
"Putin needs to be punished for its aggression"
Then so to, do you.
Americans need to suffer for supporting presidents that have wreaked havoc on the developing world.
Let's see if you survive a period like we had to, in the 1990s. Imagine, gangs on every street. Social services, gone. Bribery everywhere.
This is what you get when you trust the US to intervene in your affairs.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Born2BWild
I personally think that Crimea should belong to Russia, but not like this.
It's been ethnically Russian for almost the length of the existence of the U.S., so it has a claim to the area (unless the U.S. is willing to give back the land it took following 1783 as well).
Problem is, Premier Krushchev just went and gave Crimea to Soviet Ukraine in 1954, no say from the residents.
In 1991, I think Russia should have negotiated for Crimea (although I find it strange that all pre-Soviet borders were restored, except for that one).
In any case, they had an opportunity in Yalta and they missed it. This was under Putin as well, so deflection isn't an option.
They should have either done it then, or paid/negotiated for it in 2014, legally.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thank you. Paine here seems to have a massive blind spot regarding the end of the USSR and the chaos that followed— pretending like "everyone wanted Russia to be like Europe and just do business".
The former Soviet Republics were all preyed upon by US-government-employed economic advisors, whose advice led to state firms being sold for pennies, hyperinflation, and a complete collapse of investment (even compared to Soviet standards).
The US communicated very clearly to Russia what it does to countries that it deems too weak to be worthy of respect.
Russia simply took that lesson and ran with it. Hence Georgia and Ukraine.
Become strong in a conventional sense first, then work on business.
You can't foster investments if foreign powers are constantly pushing your leaders to make poor decisions, on account of there being no military consequences (deterrent) for meddling in their domestic affairs.
In fact the whole "maritime vs continental" idea is short-sighted: she is correct about which types of countries are on either side of that framework, but she doesn't realize the dynamic that fuels it.
Those that have geographic security, and those who don't.
All of the maritime powers are states which have geographically stable and protective borders. Australia, New Zealand, Britain— islands.
Canada and US: virtually islands, surrounded by sparse lands or oceans.
Western Europe: protected by distance and the Northern Plains. Europe was itself continental until coming under the US umbrella.
All of these areas are insulated, instilling a natural sense of security. China and Russia are large and much less protected. China was for much of its history until its Pacific coast became a vector for states to use.
4
-
@ianofliverpool7701
If you can't, then there's no helping you. If you're so utterly impatient that you refuse to listen to another person's detailed critique, then you're a lost cause.
If your mind has really been turned to mush, here's an easy, digestible little soundbite for you:
At 9:14, PJ mentions the case of a German woman, refugee activist, supposedly being abducted and killed by a migrant from Morocco.
He conveniently omits that the man was only held as a suspect, yet his point is presented as an instance of migrant violence against Germans, when that hadn't been determined. Innocent until proven guilty.
To top it all off, the man wasn't even a migrant! He was a truck driver legally living in Spain. Hopefully that isn't a problem— after all, conservatives don't take issue with immigrants, as long as they're legal.
Here, the original article in German (just use Translate), spoonfed to you:
https://www.br.de/nachricht/oberpfalz/inhalt/vermisste-sophia-loesche-aus-amberg-polizei-kuendigt-neue-informationen-an-100.html
There are plenty of English articles on the story, as well.
So, so suppose I simply think his point is entirely fabricated, as opposed to "disagreeing with one of his points."
That being said, 'West is the Best" is too vague statement to be defensible without context, which is why I hate that PJ uses it as a tagline.
Best in what?
Quality of life? Sure. Depends on where in the West you mean. I certainly wouldn't lump the U.S. together with Europe or Australia in that regard.
Freedom? Again, that's subject to change. Is Japan Western? It's Westernized, so is it Western?
Can the "West" be generalized like that at all? I'd argue that you're better off in South Korea than you are in, for instance, Ukraine.
Happiness? Definite no.
Get my point? Hopefully you, being so "very far from dumb" could absorb all that?
4
-
@zero signal
Russia did not destroy Kievan Rus' heritage, it is its heritage.
The line of succession goes seamlessly from Novgorod (Rurik) to Kiev, to Sudzal, to Kiev, to Moscow, to St. Petersburg, to Moscow (present day).
Yuri Dolgoruki was part of the Rurikid Dynasty and, since he took the throne and moved the capital of the Kievan Rus' to Moscow, Russia is the political successor to the Kievan Rus'.
There was never a "break" (раскол) between Kievan Rus and Russia. One turned into the other.
The Rurikid (Kievan Rus') Dynasty started in Novgorod and continued in Moscow!
Then, the Romanov Dynasty was taken from the same bloodline.
Meanwhile, Ukraine was ruled by Cossacks in the Hetmanate. It was not a dynasty at all. It cannot claim political succession. No Rurikids took power there.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Russian here.
While I agree that it's about human lives in addition to NATO expansion, it's also about history.
Russia actually had a chance to become wealthy and democratic in the 1990s, but the U.S. economists brought into Russia advocated for 'shock therapy' to violently pull Russia from communism straight into the capitalist system... and it failed horribly.
Russia's state enterprises were bought up by oligarchs, and Western banks were happy to launder money from Russia for as long as they politically could do it.
This isn't even mentioning that Clinton illegally meddled in Russian elections to re-elect Yeltsin. Guess what that did for the wealth of average Russians.
Russia's actions, however cruel they may be, are a way to get back at the U.S. for ruining its chance to become like Georgia or Estonia (Russia wanted to join NATO, but was refused. It wanted to join EU, but was also refused due to corruption and "large size"... nevermind the fact that some current EU members are already corrupt).
The West told Russia "no" when it asked to join the European system, but it gave no alternative. No path to democratization without economic ruin. It essentially said "no, we want to keep you poor and isolated."
So, what other options does Russia have?
It is cruel, but it seems no one is offering a hand to work with Russia. Membership was off the table even before the 2008 war, and when Yeltsin was friendly to the U.S., Russia suffered economically.
So I ask you- in this situation, what does Russia do? Just allow Western companies to rob us like last time? Allow ourselves to be economically exploited, and politically manipulated, like last time?
Allow missiles to he pointed at us at all times? Agree to one-sided economic deals because of threat of those missiles?
It seems to me Americans' long term goal is to weaken Russia enough to where it can be used as a resource farm for the West.
An Africa in Europe.
So yes, it is cruel, but we are left with little choice. We were rejected from Europe..so we go back to what we know.
4
-
4
-
@MiStuSia16
Seems like nobody can answer my point. The person I originally commented on has fallen silent...
Again: Was Stalin supposed to just let the Germans steamroll Poland and get right up to his border?
Or was it smarter for him to give the USSR as big of an advantage as possible? Please answer my question.
My point, by the way, wasn't about the brutality of Russian soldiers, but of the need to "ally" with the Germans, knowing they would destroy Poland either way.
And it is rich that you're trying to make the Germans out to be better than the Soviets. They were nice to Russian civilians, too--- there is even a photo of a soldier sharing his last ration with a civilian woman.
What you Poles consistently fail to comprehend that the Soviets were, in fact, better for the Poles than the Germans.
Would you prefer an alternate history where they kept Poland?
Sure, they would genocide the Poles out of existence forever.... but at least they had "class" and could run a country, unlike those Soviets! At least they kept their streets clean, all the easier to transport you to the chambers!
Who cares if they turn Poland into Germany, at least they were polite!
Your country's view of history is coloured so heavily by emotion that you honestly believe a regime set on wiping you from the face of the Earth for Lebensraum is somehow better than living under Russian rule.
The only reason you're alive to bitch and moan about it too, is because the Russians weren't as brutal as the Germans.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Badmunky64
Part of the problem, as former Daily Show host Jon Stewart has mentioned many times, is the 24-hour news cycle.
It started in the '90s with CNN and its 'fantastic' (profitable) coverage of the Gulf War. I especially despise the "I'm a reporter on the ground with my eyes squinted because things are tough out here but look at how valiant I am for doing it!" tactic.
Fox, of course, copied the hell out of it, but leaned more towards newsrooms with one-on-one (anchor-viewer) messaging, hence its ability to project extreme views, while CNN has leaned into panel debates, giving the viewer the novelty (s)he wants and the false sense of superiority for listening to a 'discussion.'
It really is a cancer. I'm not saying we should go back to the 'three channels' model, because I like options, but CNN should broadcast things from Ted Turner's collection in Cartoon Network to make profits, instead of creating drama from a dog with a cone on its head. Or something just as dull.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@spencerkitchin2985
Rules for thee, not for me?
the problem is that you're more than willing to say "that's bad!" but you are unwilling to suggest anything that could change the US' behaviors.
Frankly, I see no world where the US is actually humanitarian and peaceful. So, by saying "what the US did was bad, but WE HAVE TO STOP THIS OTHER COUNTRY", you are creating a scenario where the US gets a finger wag, but other places like Russia, China, Iran, etc. get real action taken against them.
You expect the US to magically change its way, but it has shown that with or without a rival power, it will abuse its own, and wreak havoc on smaller nations if they don't open up to trade and Americanization.
Absent any evidence that other countries being peaceful would motivate the US to do the same, you are basically one-sidedly condemning any country that threatens America's power, while tacitly allowing America to continue.
If America gets to abuse its power, what exactly is the moral problem with allowing others to do the same?
4
-
4
-
4
-
@DaveSmith-cp5kj
Yes, I do realize what you said. And I'm saying that you're brazenly lying through your teeth.
I've personally been to St. Petersburg, Warsaw, Gdańsk, Kraków, Hel, Vienna, Frankfurt, Vancouver, and Shenzen. My friends have all been to various other cities throughout Europe, Asia, Australia and South America.
You're wrong— you still failed to describe why you think that Europe and China's public transports are worse, whereas I described in detail the ones I most frequented.
I could just as easily argue that the Soviets outdid the Brits when building their hypersonic passenger jet— it functions, after all! And that's all you need!
...In case the sarcasm wasn't apparent, the experience of riding public transport in places that aren't the U.S., and my willingness to do so again, was much higher on Europe and Asia.
They're faster, cleaner, and most often cheaper to use than the shitty American versions. And no, they aren't dirty, and they don't squeal like a pig. That is a distinctly American problem, that hasn't been fixed for a decade.
And yes, obviously they aren't perfect. Did you even read what I wrote?
(certainly not to the extent of "20 minutes late due to track repairs" at least once a month)
London's Tube is famously late, but it's still better serviced and maintained than NYC's or Chicago's systems.
And it's much older than either of those systems, yet England managed to upgrade it multiple times. Why can't America?
Nobody's even asking you to make it bigger, just keep it in fucking shape! At least do the bare minimum!
As was mentioned before, England's former prime minister can afford to use private services, but chooses not to. And people preferring it doesn't really say much, except that they enjoy privacy and can afford to have the best of both worlds:
I'd much rather relax on my way to work than stress over traffic. But have fun in your asphalt playground.
Stop ignoring things that challenge your worldview, like a child with his fingers stuck in his ears. Pay attention.
Give evidence, please. What qualities (besides, "it exists!!" Well, no shit) make the American transport better?
I've been to all three continents, and compared them all. Have you?
4
-
4
-
4
-
Air Em Out
1) Just because the Middle East stoops low (not even getting into the fact that America's fascination with its oil culture is the reason they even feel the need to), doesn't mean we need to stoop lower. I thought being American was about steadfast values?
2) Yes. Europe, get this, is also 2,000 years old. Of course it's going to cause more damage. I don't think it unreasonable to believe that, given enough power, any other country would do the same. I don't think I need to mention Japan's, Russia's, or China's war crimes to prove that to you.
3) You're deflecting. We can't go back and correct history, but we can learn from it. I can understand getting back at an oppressor, but copying the brutalities of the nations your founders swore off? Disgraceful.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@siamangape8853
From the Palestinian's point of view, you shouldn't be occupying the land they had lived on for 1,000+ years. You can say "this is our homeland, we were here in ancient times!" But that's ridiculous- you can't make political claims from a religious book. Would you accept if Italy claimed Spain and Portugal? Or if Turkey claimed Mongolia? Stretching your claim back 2,000+ years makes no sense.
That's why they don't see you as being native to their land.
In terms of modern history, Israel successfully convinced England to let Jews migrate back there, but nobody asked the Arabs already living there if they wanted this, or if they could even hold 6 million more people on their land.
In 1948, England drew borders for both the Jews and Palestine Arabs, but because the Jews arrived without considering the wishes of the Arabs, they never considered it legitimate. Imagine someone breaks into your house and barricades the kitchen. The police come and make you give away your kitchen, to make everyone happy. Is that okay to you?
That's how Arabs in Palestine feel about you.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@JimmuTennothefirst
"For a country the population of France and Germany combined"
Well, you seem to be holding Russia to a strange standard.
Nigeria and Brazil each have even more people than Russia- India has 10x more- can you name any world-famous firms from these countries?
You act as though Russia is just a deviant from the norm, when it is not. You fully ignored what I said- France and (west)Germany have had 70 extra years without Soviet policies, and arguably even longer since the Tsar never encouraged domestic goods production.
Russia has only 30 years to develop, and this is with decade of Eltsin years, and the competition of established firms with large, advanced factories to out-compete Russian.
And I am aware of what you are saying, do you think I am naive? Putin is kgb, economy is not something he cares about. I do not like his plans for the oil revenue from 2000-08. Even though quality of life increased, Russia is still dependent on natural gas.
But, I am also not stupid enough to to think that violently removing a leader will magically bring prosperity and 'democracy', like the usa likes to say.
The man from Iraq who put Iraq flag on statue of Sadam now regrets his action. Stability comes before democracy. Not after.
And Americans cannot seem to understand, so they invade with the logic of children.
Give Russia time. It has only been 30 years.
It took China 50 before any real brands (Huawei, Alibaba, DJI, Lenovo) enter Americans awareness
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Wolf99555
It may not feel like a burden to you, because you're used to it and see the positives, so your psychology ha adjusted to the condition. However, that doesn't make it not burdensome.
If, for instance, you ask a person blind his whole life if he'd rather be able to see, he'd probably say no, or if he says yes, it's because of mere curiosity, not desire.
Then ask someone who once was able to see, and now is blind if they'd take their vision back, and it's more likely they'd say yes, with a strong motivation rooted in desire.
It's not that you don't know what's best for you; clearly you're living a good life and are probably happier than many people without the disability. But there are also people just as happy as you who are completely normal.
The disability isn't necessarily a curse or a blessing. It's just there.
And, never having known anything else, you simply don't know what you're missing. Life will go back to normal (in terms of how you feel), but you'll have increased mobility and a longer life to live. Those are objectively good to have, even if they don't have an impact on your emotional state.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@gari1633
Wtf are you talking about? The 90s was the only time in Russian history when private property law was respected.
Or did you already forget about the massive privatization? How do you think that was possible?
If property law was not respected, all of the businesses created would have been quickly seized by the state. Instead, under Yeltsin, the state assets were given to private owners.
In fact, this is why there was so much enthusiasm in the West and companies willing to come in (like first McDonald's in Moscow).
The companies felt safe that their investments would not be lost.
"except they managed to purge organised crime"
Bruh. Skinheads are still around in Poland, Ukraine, and Russia. This is not the big factor for economic development.
Poland's institutions (civil society, courts, state run companies) were allowed to transition a little bit more slowly than Russia, giving them more stability to plan.
That's the main reason.
Russia was pressured to privatize everything right away, which meant the government needed to get its money only from taxes.... taxes on what businesses?
The Western ones could not fill the entire budget. And the Russian ones did not exist yet.
There was suddenly no money for police, social services, etc. Then everything fell into chaos. Do you understand now?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@FenderPlayer-hx7ml
Lol, found the Boomer (or Doomer, couldn't care less).
Free college? No.
We want taxation to be put into tuition. We all pay in, we all get something out. Simple.
Wages they don't "deserve"? What the hell does that mean? How much is ""deserve""? $5.50 an hour? $6.00? How about $6.25?
I don't think you have a number, because you haven't put any thought into this— you just feel mad that we want what you got free of charge.
Boomers had their college either paid for, or extremely cheap thanks to the GI Bill and being a superpower. We can still afford it, so why not do it again? I think you've got some personal problem with it.
No, companies give millennials bullshit like that.
We'd like paid maternal and paternal leave, paid sick days, and vacation time. You know, like every other country on Earth.
Kindly go fuck yourself
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@shelbyleach4860
Yes, it is incumbent that you provide references. Without a link, or at least a reference, I cannot know whether you just made all of that up in your head. Until you can show me that someone else did research and found that information, it isn't evidence.
From my point of view, it is still opinion (because I have only heard you tell me this.) Do you understand?
Thank you for finally providing something with substance. I am assuming, now, that you're talking about this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778
You spent all that time typing, when you could have just posted the link. Again, I'm not doing your work for you. Show the link.
I read the paper. Iain Mathieson wasn't investigating ancestry, he was investigating genetic admixture of Neolithic populations. Not once in the paper were the genetics of modern Albanians or Slavs mentioned. The DNA which he analyzed was 5,000+ years old, and he didn't compare any of it to modern DNA. Are you sure this is the right paper?
Maybe just post the link next time, so there's no misunderstanding.
No, it's not my opinion. I don't care whether or not it's true, but 'Glorious Tom Chang' (the person I replied to before you came in) seems to care. He said, "it always was albanian land populated by albanian people".
I am pointing out that there is no evidence for that claim.
Wait, so finding remains in Kosovo "doesn't matter", but you're still trying to say that they've been in this region much longer than Slavs? But that doesn't matter, right? You just told me it doesn't, so why are you mentioning it?
No, not really. Every survey of the region that we have shows (because Ottomans only surveyed by religion) that Muslims were a minority (less than 5%) in Kosovo by the 15th century. In the 18th century, Ottomans persecuted Serbs and drove them north, while the Albanians slowly multiplied to become ~70% of the population by the 20th century.
They weren't "always there", they just had more children than the Serbs and slowly took over.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@michaelm3691
Um, yes, there is. It's one of several recognized types of inteligences, and the reason you don't think it exists to begin with is precisely because of what you said later: it can't be quantified.
This is the fundamental flaw of IQ tests— if we're measuring the untrained biological capacity to grasp and solve new concepts or problems (if that can even be done— you can improve your IQ score tests, after all, how innate could what they're testing really be?), why do we only measure STEM fields?
Because those are fields whose solutions are concrete.
That doesn't mean there is no biological component to any other type of thinking.
For instance, Einstein was said to be so creative (seeing solutions where others didn't) because, upon autopsy, it was discovered that his brain's hemispheres had not separated properly, leaving his frontal lobe as a single mass with no gap to transit neurons over.
And yes, while context matters in gauging intelligence, that's why we try to filter out any situational differences. Hence the standardized test.
You yourself said that the dumb person would have difficulty adapting to a new situation, where the smart person wouldn't. You really don't think the same applies to people with inherent social deficiencies?
People with autism have to develop a 'mask' by learning what others have as instinct. When a new situation arises, they don't have any new information to use, whereas the brains of neurotypical people simply work around the situation. That's an example of what I'm referring to— a gap in social intelligence.
Some people naturally pick up on the flow of conversation better, have a better sense of how intonation holds attention, are naturally better at making jokes or keeping the flow of conversation, these are all things you can learn, sure, but they all come to us naturally—
to some more than others, and those abilities are what emotional/social intelligence refers to.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@hejiranyc
You must be kidding. You spelled them out yourself.
Your parents ran a successful business, to the point that they were able to retire 10 years before the average.
You stumbled through life not really trying, and still made it. In your own words, you were even exquisitely lazy.
Since you said you're in your 50s, the macroeconomic conditions when you grew up were FAR better than they are now. That's to say nothing of your parents, who likely ran their business in the tax-cut-spree 80s.
And, outside of the rooftop Koreans fiasco, you likely haven't faced societal disdain on the scale that Arabs, blacks, or Latinos have.
I think I can safely assume that your parents were never stopped and frisked, or jailed on dubious charges.
You did say you were rarely ever on the end of discrimination.
You contradicted yourself multiple times. You half-assed it through college and work, yet you figured everything out on your own.
You're not rich, yet you can travel the world extensively and- by your own admission!- are in the 1%.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@БОРИСБЕККЕР-к6х
This will not happen. Unless you are talking about ethnic genocide, there is no way to "wipe Russia off the face of the Earth".
Split it up? Not an option, ethnic Russians are the majority in almost every region in Russia. Militarily invade? No, they have nuclear weapons.
Redraw it along ethnic lines? Again, not an option, as Russians make up a majority in eastern Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Transnistria, and northern Kazakhstan. They might actually gain territory if you did that.
Much like China, India, and the United States, Russia is simply too big to ever stop existing. Too many people, too much territory. No one can conquer it or occupy it before the Russians re-unite it.
4
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@scruggs6633
Yes, they are. At least from the social point of view.
I don't see liberals pushing prayer and creationism in schools, setting up Ten Commandment statues in courthouses, blocking access to health clinics (not just for abortions, but because they don't want people using contraceptives), teaching abstinence without proper sex ed, opposing gay marriage, opposing nonwhite political representation, and spreading their asscheeks open for the rich in the assumption that they'll 'invest in the economy' instead of taking the simpler route of just taking the tax-cut money...
We might have an "overbearing" economic view, but at least we aren't busybodies obsessed with what goes on in others' bedrooms, or whether or not we take Adam and Eve Studies 101...
3
-
3
-
@Dan16673
Actually, it in some ways did. The term Karōshi ("overwork death") only first appeared in 1969, and became more prevalent in the '80s. The modernized pace of life of Japan, fueled by government investment into infrastructure, architecture, firms, etc, had introduced a new level of work stress the Japanese hadn't come across.
That aside, it doesn't matter who "tells them" that they should or shouldn't be proud of something. I just wanted to show you that being homogenous doesn't solve your problems. And praying that America does the same will not produce any results.
Nobody addressed my other points. Poland ranks 46th in the world on happiness, and they're disproportionately "pure" in terms of racial makeup.
Plenty of mixed countries have high happiness levels, as well.
This indicates that there is little to no actual benefit from being a homogenous society. There is simply no causation or even correlation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Jake Brown
I am very well aware of the etiquette of debate, but if you'd like me to be polite, I suggest that you do that same. I would like to note that the reason I addressed you in such a crass manner was because I also assumed that you were American; I cannot fathom of anybody else who would defend such a large, complex nation with a simpleminded approach to its foreign policies.
You do not seem to make any attempt to restrain yourself when addressing the value of other people's lives despite not having known even a fraction the the potential people you are referring to. If you'd like to scorn me for calling you stupid, then perhaps you'd like to apologize for calling somebody's culture and people worthless- sincerely at that. That is, with no reasonable doubt, universally unacceptable to say, even on the internet. You do people no favors by telling somebody to cease existing and for their entire homeland to follow suit. May I ask you, what do expect to happen afterwards? For them to commit suicide? To leave your sight? This I cannot understand. I, for one, consider the Pakistani culture to be beautiful one, having founded one of the five hearths of civilization- the Indus River Valley. On a personal and modern level, my best friend is Pakistani, and he displays more intelligence and open mindedness than most of my former teachers.
You never did address your self-contradiction in argument; regardless of what you chose to define "bigot" as, you later denied having been one and reasserted yourself as a possible ignoramus and a snob, to both of which I agree. If you're going to argue, cover your tracks. You look like you're making things up as you go along, which, from the looks of it, you are.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
No, not completely. While most of the natives died out due to Spanish diseases, the US still put a depressingly large amount of effort into killing off the rest of the native population. The Trail of Tears comes to mind, but if you'd like more examples or a link, I'd be happy to follow up.
Libertarianism is statistically improbable, to be extremely generous. The amount of people, say, using a road could never supply enough money to keep its entirety in proper shape, and the same goes for most public services. Of course, the higher the population, the more feasible that becomes, but portions of a good or service continually under partial construction or expansion become slow and self-depleting in the long-term. This becomes especially problematic in rural areas. By its very (individualist) nature, it is one of the least efficient forms of societal organization.
Hence, it has never naturally come to fruition, and never will.
Also, given the human tendency for self-interest, why would you entrust your roads, electricity, or anything else to a corporation? They're prone to monopolization, and unlike a politician, you can't vote them out of their job (and importantly, income). Where do you get such a strong trust for for-profit entities?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dnciskkk9037
Oh my god, learn to spell. If you're the average type of person Peterson attracts, then I have even less respect for him as an 'intellectual'.
Your argument is silly, you could extend it to whatever you want--
"JP believes in Jung, Mihály Csikszentmihályi (Personality Psychologist) doesn't, they disagree, that is it. What is this?"
If you think nothing matters, then nobody should debate anybody, right?
Why are you acting apathetic about it now? Lots of people think they know the final answer to the question "Does God exist?" That's why the debate sold out!
Faith is belief without evidence. The debate was not about faith, it was about facts. Peterson was trying to prove, directly or indirectly, that the supernatural exists, that's what the whole debate was about. Otherwise he would have said "My faith can't be changed by facts!" and left.
Don't be silly here. You know a Wolff-Peterson debate would matter, and make them lots of money, but he doesn't want to.
Think about why he (not you) doesn't want to.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If you are vegan, I hope you take Vitamin B12 supplements. Because meat of relatively new to the human diet (in evolutionary terms), the only nutrient we have had time to become dependent on is that one.
This should be evidence to you that humans need meat— grass creates B12 naturally, but it contains silica, and humans die if we ingest it, so eating animals is the only way.
That being said, I agree the meat industry is literally and metaphorically covered in blood, and change needs to happen. I just hope you've done your research before switching, many get sick (to be nutritionally healthy as a vegan, you need to eat foods from all over the world. In the past, this was impossible, but currently it's the only moral option.)
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
-
If oligarchs are not allowed to run the place (ie if the transition is done slowly, so people aren't starving and hold onto their vouchers), then it is not really shock therapy. Poland was treated much better than the rest of the USSR, probably because the West wanted to weaken the RSFSR's power, so it made sense to keep Poland stable, rather than ruin it.
Its institutions were not forced to privatize everything all at once, and Balcerowicz was the chief architect, unlike with Yeltsin who mostly took help from the outside (Sachs, Scheifer, Gaidar).
Not to mention, Poland received much more money, relative to its economy, from the IMF then Russia did (when taking into account capital flight).
Overall, there was a political incentive in the West to turn Poland into a 'bulwark' against Russia, so they invested in it heavily.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Shad Jones
As awful as Putin is (human rights and press-wise), I'd prefer him over a CIA-backed candidate on our new elections, following his 'disappearance.'
Russians are not fond of West-friendly leaders— under Yeltsin, Russia may have been free, but it was piss-poor, and had its national wealth largely robbed by investors.
Not trying to diss Ben Franklin here, but he wasn't correct:
Safety is worth a loss of Freedom, because you can't be fee when you're starving, or when you're dead. Self-determination doesn't guarantee prosperity, especially when you're constantly barraged by foreign interests, something the U.S. had the luxury to avoid in its infancy as a nation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@DailyMusic
It being "madness" doesn't discredit the Crimean people's genuine wishes at the time.
Independence from Ukraine being impractical doesn't therefore mean it's okay to send a post-Soviet branch of the KGB in to silence people.
To that extent, though, remember that the "cutting off" (I assume you mean the Dnipro Canal) applies to Ukraine just as much as it does to Crimea. The Dnipro starts in Russia, passes through Belarus, then Ukraine, and flows into the Black Sea.
Would you make the same argument for Ukraine being "mad" to oppose Russia because Russia could divert or dam the river and permanently ecologically destroy Ukraine?
That's the language of appeasement and I'm frankly shocked that you're willing to use it after all that's happened since 2022. I guess it doesn't matter when it's your guys...
Anyways, the autonomy thing was never considered by Ukraine to dispel Crimean fears of Ukrainianization.
And frankly, the Ukrainian Parliament disregarding the 1991 election vote where most voted to leave Ukraine and sending soldiers in to take Crimea by force (never mind the later referendum in 1994) dampens the idea that they defended their borders for the sake of democracy.
The Crimeans weren't allowed the right to self-determination. The Rada (a few days before the annexation, on the 23rd) repealed the 2012 law that gave Russian legal status as a regional language within Crimea.
Were it not for Turchynov's veto, Crimeans would be forced to learn only Ukrainian in schools, and all legal documents and bureaucratic matters would have to handled in a lanuage they didn't even speak. And the law was repealed in October of that year anyway, but the Rada showed its intentions even without the annexation as a justification.
I'm not saying that the annexation was correct, but surely Ukraine could have done anything to even pretend that they didn't want to turn Crimea into ethnically Ukrainian land, despite supposedly being a democracy that respects multiculturalism.
About the UN— it isn't very good at its job. Somaliland should be separate, Basque shouldn't be part of Spain, yet the UN didn't do anything to endorse or propose a referendum.
In either case, Somalia and Spain quickly shut it down. Leaving elections up to a legal body that isn't capable of organizing them isn't a good solution.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pepperVenge
No, I'm not grasping. I'm explaining why certain lines, even in the US' case, won't be crossed.
I'm not sure how else to explain it to you:
I think that the US still believes- especially given how recklessly it has acted recently- that Russia would actually attempt a nuclear attack, consequences be damned.
I also did address that point on China, though indirectly, in the first comment. Pure capability works in tandem with plausible defensibility.
That is to say, if Russia's sea lanes within its own EEZ are actively blocked, it will be much more willing to counter because there is plausible reason to do so.
There will be much less, if any, backlash from the "international community" because, whatever they may think of Russia, they are all party to agreements that state a country can counter-attack when its sovereignty is violated. To willingly disregard the norms that they themselves abide by and benefit from would be politically untenable.
Now back to the China point.
In the late 1990s, the US sent warships right next to China's border with Taiwan to defend it. This would be unthinkable today because, in the eyes of the world, China would be justified in protecting its borders- so the economic and political fallout of aggressively preventing another US encroachment would be reduced compared to, say, Russia in Ukraine.
The US knows this- which is why it hasn't done anything like that since, despite repeat violations.
Regarding Ukraine, you're ignoring that the US hasn't done many other things, despite repeat calls from Western countries. The vast majority of the rejections follow the same core logic: doing this would bring us in direct conflict with Russia, which (despite what you said, which is true) we don't want.
If you're convinced that Russia would lose, why the American hesitation? Why might that be?
Because I'm right. MAD works, and doing something that gives Russia plausible reason to respond indiscriminately (and defend those actions) is politically /unthinkable, even in the US.
For example, despite lots of Baltic, Polish, Lithuanian, and European pressure, the US has refused to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Washington also makes Ukraine promise every time it sends weapons that it won't fire beyond Ukraine's own borders.
Consider what they are avoiding here.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@marnie9063
No, that's not what I said was happening. I was talking about labor and re-education camps.
The Uighurs aren't being killed outright, they're having their Turkic culture erased.
Being forced to enter the camps by the government, prevented from prayer or speaking Uyghur, or even having a beard, and only allowed to speak Mandarin and forced to sing songs about the Party. Then, forced to work in plantations for much less than the average Chinese, or in cities far from their own cities and culture.
This is no way to live.
And as for Adrian Zenz, I question his motives, but not his evidence.
There have been plenty of other people and new evidence (see my previous comment) outside of his problematic work.
If you have proof that he's faking it all, please link it here.
3
-
3
-
@Luke_Go
If I had to guess, he is referring to KAMAZ, which supplies much of Russia's domestic non-car (bus, tram, trolley, etc) needs.
Russia has (I believe) ~570 electric lines across the country, with a fleet of 800 in Moscow alone.
Just because it is not well-known, does not mean it is unimportant or not successful.
But I would not expect anything less from westerners, who only deem a country prosperous when it has a large, consumer-focused company ("rUsSiA dOeSn'T mAkE sMarTphOnEs hEhE").
Neither does most of the world. Only 4 countries do, so why is this a benchmark?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@rick323
"Maybe" No, really.
The fundamental core of post-Ruthenian identity wasn't developed on its own, it is a mix of Russian and Polish cultural identity.
There was never a Ukrainian cradle of civilization separate to everything around it, like Vietnam's relationship to China and India. It's distinct and its identity has developed independently— with foreign influences, but the continuity is distinctly Vietnamese. Not so with Ukraine, whose identity was forged from the interaction between two distinct older cultures.
That doesn't really justify Russian action, but it is illustrative of European attitudes over the centuries.
Do something bad. Then when the effects of that bad thing are permanent and you benefit from them, screech at anyone else doing the same thing if it threatens your ill-gotten benefits.
Poland permanently benefits geopolitically from Polonized buffer states between itself and Russia, yet it can't stand the idea of those buffer states being controlled or aligned with Russia... Despite the fact that it was more than happy to do that when it was in control. Hypocritical to its core.
The real reason for Russian action is to keep US military infrastructure as far away from Russia as possible.
If NATO had disbanded in 1991, none of this would have happened.
Finland is a perfect example. They weren't in the alliance for 70 years and Russia gave them no issues because they agreed not to invite American troops onto their soil.
It's a simple agreement, yet the US and Western Europe are so proud that they cannot even accept such meager terms. Their way or the highway.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@АндрійКовальчук-о8ч
Because the agreement was kept private for decades, and has only now been de-classified, _after) the U.S. got what it wanted through lying.
Surely you can read English, yes?
These are American documents, conversations between Soviet Foreign Minister Эдуард Шеварднадзе and Secretary of State James Baker. Read the 2nd paragraph on page 3:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/dc.html?doc=4325678-Document-04-Memorandum-of-conversation-between
Baker guarantees Шеварднадзе that "there would, of course, have to be iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction of forces would not move eastward."
Or the conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Baker?
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/dc.html?doc=4325679-Document-05-Memorandum-of-conversation-between
Page 6, 2nd paragraph:
"If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction of forces for NATO one inch to the east."
Read the American documents, and tell me they're "Russian propaganda." Go ahead, do it. Try and convince yourself.
You're the one who's been fed propaganda. You might not like Russia, but that doesn't make America perfect just because they oppose Russia. The false promises were known to the U.S., England, France, and Germany.
They were just kept private because it would make them look bad. Of course the diplomats would deny it. You believed them?? You're as naïve as a child, then. Silly Ukrainian.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Adam-dn5oc
Yes, that's right! The point's clearly gone over your head, so I'll say it real nice and clearly:
cracking your joints isn't a long term solution.
Your knuckles, and every other joint in your body, reform the nitrogen bubbles very quickly. Going to a chiropractor who looks to crack your (whatever body part) is pointless. You can go back in a few weeks to another chiropractor and receive the same diagnosis-
"you have x pain, x range of motion! Let's crack your joints to fix that!"
If you're able to re-crack of all those joints within a short time period, then what has the chiropractor actually done for you?
"Popping/cracking your joints can provide relief by relaxing muscles and improving range of motion."
That's the problem, dumbass- they don't!
Explain please, how the fuck joints have any effect on the tension of muscle fibers, or the tendons connecting to them. They don't interact with each other!!! How the fuck does your chiropractor explain it to you?!!! I'd genuinely like to hear what comes out of his mouth. Please, 'enlighten' me.
Range of motion, are you insane?!! Forcefully jolting your joints and muscles around is the exact opposite of what you want to do to increase range of motion!! If your range of motion is decreased because of muscle tightness, jerking them around like ragdolls will only cause you to pull, or god forbid tear, one of those muscles.
Same with joints or tendons. They aren't dislocated shoulders, you can't just yank them back into place. They need to be trained, over time. They can gain or lose flexibility, depending on your habits.
Oh, and "spinal subluxations" aren't a thing. They have no medical definition. It's complete jackshit.
I can't believe these basic concepts, easily discoverable through personal physical experience, are lost upon you. This is really sad to me.
3
-
@Adam-dn5oc
Yes, I did.
What you're advocating for is anti-scientific and physically dangerous. Every second spent convincing someone that people shouldn't jerk their own necks around like a dog's chew toy is worth it.
If chiropractic isn't a long-term solution, then why the hell do you support it? It isn't an emergent solution to some incurable problem- you could spend similar amounts of money on an osteopath, massage or physical therapist and stop having to go to them altogether within a year's time! With the same- permanent- results!
Also, you don't re-align your tire by pushing it back into place. Bad analogy.
And that (not popping your joints on your own) is why you should instead focus on what's keeping you simply moving your neck or back along its full range of motion to begin with.
General medical consensus is that cracking your joints too forcefully or too often is what perpetuates pain- you know, the thing that you get done with regular visits to a chiropractic?
Wow, it's almost as if that's not what I'm referring to. Imagine getting fully "healed" by a chiropractic, coming back a few weeks or months later, and having the same issues be "solved." Still have "spinal subluxations"? (you didn't address that, because it's horseshit and you know it is)
"We'll just crack your joints again! You're fixed! ...see you in a few months, when your harmless air bubbles reform!"
Also, if ("may take multiple visits") really is the case, then please show me the study(ies) that demonstrate what part of the spine can only be fixed with numerous sessions of pushing against joints and popping air bubbles.
It's not an opinion. What you said is false.
Cavitation just describes the phenomenon of cracking your joints. Small cavities of air inside the synovial fluid in our joints collapse, causing the "cracking" sound. More of a pop, really.
Nerves shouldn't stretch- actually, they can, but this causes injuries, such as carpal tunnel, if we're talking about nerves in the hand.
If you meant to say that "stretching" nerves improves their movement through our joints, then you're wrong about that too. The restriction of nerve movement is- surprise!- inactivity, and subsequent muscle tension. Stretch the muscles, and your nerves will be fine. I should also add that "stimulating the nerves" happens all the time- otherwise you wouldn't feel anything. You'll have to be more specific.
Now, imagine being so spiteful and dumb that you resort to name-calling instead of addressing the rest of the arguments.
I'm not taking shit from a man who believed that you can regenerate complex parts of the ear by pressing on a spinal joint. Look up your brilliant founder.
Instead of acting like a 5-year old, you wanna start discussing facts? Or retreat back into the world of re-enacting murder scenes in a pseudo-doctor's office?
With a camera, of course- everyone knows that the best doctors have to advertise how good they are on YouTube.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@garetclaborn
While that makes sense in principle, it's futile.
Unless you wanna die like a Confederate solider, I suggest investing more time into fixing your democracy via your government's "weak points"- elected officials relying on popularity to keep their job. Or you know, the whole idea of a democracy.
If you want to fight off the members of the armed forces who side with "the gubmit", and shoot at an Abram or sink a Nimitz class supercarrier, be my guest.
I'm not that hot-headed. Or dumb.
As for crime, you're seeing it as this choice made by an one-dimensional, evil person. Ever wonder why people rob banks?
If they're not dumb teenagers looking for fun (because there's nothing to do in their little hicktown) it's because someone needs to eat, and is getting desperate.
Take that argument back to school shooters. Conservatives are happy to trace it back to a cause and absolve the boy(s) of their atrocious act, but balk when confronted with, for instance, the roots of black-on-black crime.
It's hypocritical to its very core.
Sorry about the text block; I type a lot.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@crazypolite
My apologies. Next time I will include quotes, and write less. I think YouTube should have a quote system by now.
"North AND South American issue that's taken too long to cease"
Yes, I know. My point was simply that it is difficult to call one's country 'free' when not even (all of) its own citizens have equal rights. The difference in mindset between Russia and US is large, but in practice at local level things are the same; they are "worked out", and our courts are slowly improving (one thing I congratulate the West for, sincerely).
"If you give them too much or even any sort of a welfare compensation for previous atrocities, it leads to freeloading behavior and cycles of poverty"
Perhaps. But I also know that the US has a difficult history with racism, and many grandparents today still remember "whites only" very well. I don't expect any country to change so quickly, so while government help may discourage their independence, that is not mutually exclusive to being at a disadvantage.
Of course nobody is racist like in the 1950's, but your black populations are still poorer than the white. This is because of a refusal to loan houses, cars, well-paying jobs, and so on. This effect lingers today. So while the US is not 'racist' anymore, it discriminates based on race because other differences can be exploited.
"as conspirators and activists would be shot on site.
"
Haha, yes. Though many Russians would disagree, I acknowledge the political situation.
"Ridiculous. The biggest country on the planet wants to justify to me why it 'needs' more land..? Seriously?"
Yes. In case you're not aware, Russia is cold. Over 60% of the land cannot be used for agriculture. Our harvest season is 3 months long. In Europe and the US, it is 8! Most of that land is unusable on its own- it cannot support a population beyond 200M. When we reach that limit, and the population starts to age, we will have very big stability problems.
I expected you, as a Canadian, to understand this very well. 90% of your country lives near its southern border. Trudeau's dream of 100M population will hit a wall very quickly. Your territory is simply unsuited for growth and prosperity.
We have a similar problem.
You can never be an independent nation- you could be self-sufficient, but with a small population, subject to the US; or you have a large population, but be economically bound to a food exporter. Not unless you have land that can support a population, and be defended. Canada has neither. The only source of growth it has is oil, and Chinese investment.
Again: it is difficult to understand unless your native territory is under genuine threat. Russia is flat. Poland, Turkey, and the Baltics host American bases. Without a geographical defense, Russia will suffer in the case of an invasion in the same way it has before. The only way to stop it is to secure a territory that A) can sustain a populace, B) be defended.
"Who's going to invade you? No one wants war"
I don't know. But Stalin did not suspect Hitler, nor did Alexander I suspect Napoleon. I personally think a greater threat is bombing or droning.
"All that aside, I'll say it's nice to talk to you with your opposing opinions. Discussion is what will solve problems."
I agree. One thing I do hate about American leftists, is their refusal to speak with anyone outside of their political view.
I appreciate the conversation and understanding your worldview, and would be happy to continue it, if you so wish.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@legodfatherfrog3253
Like I mentioned in my other comment on this thread, you can counter the drug lords by draining them dry.
For every one you lock up, 5 more will spring up. Only a fool keeps doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
Governments that fight drugs are just pandering to their socially conservative base to make them feel "big and strong!" and feel like they're tackling drugs head-on! Kill the bad guys, like in the tv shows!
That's not how real life works. Make getting off drugs (once you try them) as easy as possible. Open rehab clinics that wean you off anything- no jail time (if you've only affected yourself), just recovery.
Most people do drugs (that can ruin your life- weed, alcohol, psychedelics don't qualify, but opium derivatives and synthetics do) because something's wrong in their life. Make access to social services more widespread, and give re-vitalize the economy by investing in blue-collar jobs that even poor people can get into.
Essentially, drugs are the symptom of a shitty life, and sometimes no amount of good decision-making will fix that. There needs to be help from the outside. When your life is great, why would you take drugs? To numb yourself... from your amazing life?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@artcurious807
I agree! We should try that, but if I'm being honest, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Most politicians already do that, if not through business or diplomatic visits then through expensive vacations.
The real issue is, they see the world in a different way.
How to explain it?..
Because they've likely been raised rich, or have at least gotten used to the lifestyle, they don't think on the same scale as the average person.
If there's a problem with one region of the world, they aren't forced by circumstance to stay and think about how that region could fix it long-term. Instead, they'll just fly somewhere else.
Is D.C. too lifeless? I'll just go to Paris! "Problem solved!"
To them, sprawl isn't a problem because it doesn't have an impact on their lives, and they don't experience it nearly as often as we do.
So I don't think exposure tp better infrastructure would help. They'd already see it through the lens of, "this is one of those places that is charming, and getting to it is no problem for me."
What we need to do (sorry in advance if you're on the political right) is change the conservative attitude towards housing, like NIMBYs and very autocentric zoning codes.
Also, repeal Citizens United. Once corporations' hands are cut off, they won't be able to persuade those of us less-educated, to reduce the profits of automakers and suburban developers, by encouraging more sustainable mixed-use housing.
But sadly, hell will freeze over before that's wrestled from the grip of almost literally every company in the U.S..
So I comment on YouTube to numb the pain.. :(
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EpochUnlocked
No, you're confusing capitalism with markets. Markets have existed for thousands of years, whereas the concept of capital
(I'm referring to assets which not only hold value, but can be used as investment to accrue more value- namely stocks, since the idea of capital first came in the form of corporate stock, pioneered by the Dutch in the 19th century)
-- is relatively new.
Capital can be gained involuntarily.
Again, value accrued from, say, slave or child labor, is still value.
A rigid political system also doesn't mean economic control-- China is a great example. Markets, but authoritarian rule.
The system can reach the point you're talking about, but the areas where centralization works best is with essential parts of a society-- public services.
We obviously can't have an all-private toll highway system, because rural areas- being unprofitable- would just get neglected until they completely get cut off.
Same goes for healthcare and especially public transport- British Rail tried to privatize under Thatcher in the '80s, and it failed miserably.
You are right about the wastefulness of the U.S. gov't, but that's not exclusive to them. Companies are notoriously wasteful, too. Poor management of assets almost killed HP, and Amazon's piss-poor conditions starkly contrast to Bezos' wealth. Not to mention every boss who's ever spent a payraise on fancy things for himself.
Without the taxes you're "burdened" with, the quality of the road you use to drive to work, the air you breathe, the quality of the water that comes out of your tap, your mail, the rights guaranteed to you by your company (no more than 16 hours a day work), would all slowly go to shit.
3
-
@EpochUnlocked
If you don't mind me asking, then, which state are you currently in? Barring geographical advantages (Southern states don't have ice form in their asphalt every year), high-tax states have generally higher quality roads than low-tax ones.
Same with public schools-- my friends from Indiana knew significantly less about history, geography, math, science, etc, than I did. But I only went to a public school, albeit in a more liberal state.
Private school sounds great, until you realize that there is, statistically, going to be somebody who can't afford to go.
And, because somebody needs to do rote labor jobs, telling them to get a better job just passes along the problem to someone else. It's not a real solution.
And as for your crappy employment-- doesn't that sound like the state's job to fix? The company certainly won't-- they still haven't, or you wouldn't have told me that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@colormedubious4747
That's a very poor argument, and it's very tired and annoying. I don't like communism myself (it's too extreme and doesn't take into account humans' natural self-interest in addition to their capacity to cooperate), but communism didn't kill tens of millions.
World War II did. You could argue that the Civil Wars of Russia and China killed millions, that Stalin had 5 million military officers killed, and Holodomor.
Even being very generous with our death tolls, the total barely passes 20 million (Civil Wars- 8.5M, Stalin- 5M, Holodomor- 7M.) That's across two massive countries and several decades.
There are plenty of good reasons to oppose communist ideologies, but the "millions of deaths" quip isn't one of them. It's tired, and wrong. By the same logic, no ideology should exist because they all have a similar capacity to kill (Dutch & British East India Companies, chattel slavery- slaves were considered capital; resources that produce profit).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@elliekwong3180
I fully agree. In February 1990 Secretary of State James Baker promised Gorbachev, while.discussing German re-unification, that NATO would not expand one inch eastwards.
In exchange, re-united Germany would be allowed into American sphere of influence.
Less than 10 years later, they broke the promise.
I agree, and understand that the US cannot be trusted. But I was saying that EU membership will inevitably lead to NATO membership.
Nikita saying that the two are not the same, he doesn't understand that the West does not abide by laws and rules.
They just pretend, to attract ordinary people to their country, increase population, make the country stronger.
Once their foot is in the door, they will not stop until they have rockets placed as close to Russia, and China, as possible.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@DaveSmith-cp5kj
You can, but neither transport system exists in a vacuum. If you fund roads (like the U.S. has been for decades, with billions of tax dollars) then of course roads are going to be the better way. If public transport is funded (buses, streetcars, and bullet trains), then it will be the natural choice.
Right now, Metra and Amtrak suck. Really, really badly.
So while you can choose it, there's only so much rail screeching, delays, and huge gaps in takeoff times you can handle before you take the path of least resistance.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hernando Malinche
"Russia was absolutely screwed over by the Mongols in 1200 to 1400s"
Yeah, so was everyone. Fucking China, with 2000 years of civilization and technology, fell to them, and were then ruled by the Yuan. Same with Persia. The only reason Japan survived is because of typhoons, and Poland was too far away.
"Constant struggle with Poland and Sweden"
Yeah.. that's how borders work. Was France weak because it was constantly fighting Britain? Or the other way around? Your threshold for 'not strong' is extremely low and not very logical to begin with. Also, ultimately beating Sweden, absorbing Finland for centuries, and denying Poland statehood for a large chunk of its own history doesn't seem too bad from the Russian perspective.
"Russia was weak in 1830's not being able to get Constantinople"
No, Russia was in an optimal position to take it from the dying Ottoman Empire. Seeing this, France, Britain, Austria, and Sardinia, all ganged up to prevent this from happening.
I don't know what you expected, but any country facing that kind of alliance- especially one just starting to modernize its military- would lose. If the Ottomans didn't have that support, we'd have Constantinople instead of Istanbul right now.
"Even now Russia is weak"
Yes, its influence is lessened considerably. That being said, the West gives it no credit at all for bouncing back so quickly following the collapse of the U.S.S.R.. Meanwhile, China never competed in the Cold War and so didn't spend all of its money spreading its ideology or restructuring its entire government and economy. Given its performance geopolitically today, after having lost over 1/5 of its land and 40% of its industrial capacity, Russia punches well above its weight.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@PresidentofAntifa
Let me explain, since you don't seem to have a full grasp of any political context:
The US' claim to have the right to not only lecture, but act against, Russia, is premised in the universality of international law. Ukraine is a nation-state whose sovereignty is enshrined in intentional law, and as such cannot be invaded.
The US makes its arguments specifically from this point of view. It isn't making two separate, yet independently true statements— no, it qualifies Ukraine's right to self-defense upon the law being universally applied and self-evident.
By supporting Izrael and its blatant disregard of international law, then, it belies its lack of real commitment to the principles that it claims justifies action against Russia, and for which reason it lectures Russia.
So when we say that the US can no longer lecture Russia, what's meant is that the basis upon which its lecturing stood, is no longer the case. There is no practical reason to lecture anyone if the central tenet of your argument is incorrect.
The US has proven through its own actions that international law doesn't apply equally.
This has always been the case, but it especially nullifies any practical reason it might have to lecture others because it's directly involved in the violation here.
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
-
3
-
3
-
@jdeuraud1096
China did not build them all. And you are trying to shift away from my point: the US, despite all of its wealth and power, is unable or unwilling to provide basic services for most of its citizens. The wealth and power just makes the fact much more pathetic.
"when Africa defaults on their loans China is going to take that"
By whatever means necessary. The US must be brought back down to earth. It gained most of its overseas bases and territory from Europe in WWII. The Europeans got them through colonialism.
I see that as far, far less moral than a "debt trap" (not exclusive to China, and never called that when France does this is Africa, or US does in Micronesia).
"The US has the #1 commercial rail system in the world"
Why do Americans have a psychological need to both rank everything, and insist they are #1?
I think it is projecting some kind of insecurity. No country self-assured in its achievements would need to scream it at everyone so much.
The US has the longest rail network, yes. But it is not as efficient as other countries, because it is older, and it is not even necessary. You have many rivers and could use barges for cheaper.
"the reason we do not have a major passenger rail system is because we like our private automobiles to much"
This reminds me of our nationalists who say, 'we don't need your silly Western technology, we have our own things here!" A very nativist, "look how much cool stuff we have" sentiment.
And it is not even true. Zoning laws simply disallow any infrastructure to exist which could eventually be connected with a transit network. Would you like to know how I know you're wishfully thinking?
The areas that have been grandfathered in (before the zoning codes) are usually the highest-selling. Those dense, non-American styled places are the most valuable and the most popular.
You do not even allow a free-market, which you love so much, to dictate what type of housing you have. And here you sit typing to me about what every American wants.
Maybe they want a Soviet-style microblock neighborhood? Too scary?- let me rename it: a Lisbon-style "megablock" neighborhood, fancy!!
"(My first new vehicle was when I was in the US Navy.)"
Well, this explains a lot about how you think. Did they tell you that the US has never lost a war, like they do in the Army? Well, if not, I see your spending habits are just as sensible. Was it a Charger or a Mustang?? :)
"I’ve owned 5 properties and my top pay was 65K per year"
This is not the majority of Americans. It is like telling Marie Antoinette about the starving French, and having her list you her dinner menu. Your problem is country-wide, it is not solved just because you have it good
"You ever done this on your own property?"
Not mine, a friend's dacha. We have bears instead of quail))
"that has become an issue in every developed nation"
Whose fault is that? Which event usually causes obesity to spike? Maybe, the introduction of certain companies, from a certain country?...
"you can be so fucking ignorant of the US after watching this vid"
Me, ignorant? I have lived there. I do not understand why immigrants come. Unless you are dirt poor, it is no country to build a life. It seems you are ignorant-- every problem I stated, you replied with your single, individual experience. You seem unable to consider that there are 330M population, and trends persist across them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Astrobrant2
No, she didn't.
The question was whether there's any concern (that is, from the White House, since he's asking her, its Press Secretary) that Herman Caine contracted coronavirus at the President's rally.
As an addendum, he asked whether the White House's Coronavirus Task Force was doing any follow-up to track any potential cases from that event.
She answered by referencing Caine's memorial website (not her, nor the President's by any indication, opinion) which just said, "We don't know".
That's not an answer to "are you concerned at all?"; it's an answer to,
"Are you sure he got the virus from the rally?" It's a non-answer.
She completely ignored the addendum, which leaves the status of Oklahoma's near-future COVID numbers unknown.
Do you (and others) just assume when something vaguely sounds like an answer, it must be one, then? Use that thing between your ears, before it shrivels up and disintegrates.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mikicerise6250
I find that distinction laughable- the economic engines of the EU (France, UK, indirectly Germany)
and the most anti-Soviet countries (Poland, Baltics) all took part in the crusades you are trying to distance them from.
They only reconciled after the damage had been done. An empty gesture.
In fact, it was precisely because Russia, at the time of Putin, seemed to be moving to democracy, that Germany in particular (if you'll remember the speech in Munich in 2008) was so willing to invest in Russia.
Not sure what you mean about glorious empires, even Putin acquiesced to the idea of Ukraine being independent, in his recent nationalist writings.
He simply views the two as so intertwined that it only makes sense for their politics to be closely aligned. As America and Canada, he put it.
If Ukraine had followed Minsk II, a good deal of this could have been avoided. I don't think Putin's stated reasons were why he invaded, but I do think the real reasons could have been averted.
3
-
@cgt3704
You described Romania to me. I now have to ask: what has it achieved? It sounds like you have all the same issues, just with a different political alliance.
You said it yourself- you have massive brain drain (especially to UK), corruption, bad infrastructure,, etc. So was aligning with the West, and opening up your market right away, even worth it?
What do you have to show for it, Pizza Hut?
I am not saying you should "give up", but I think your strategy is bad, Greece is still worse now than it was before joining the EU. Will you tell them to "never give up!"?
You seem to put a lot of faith in this idea, that being with the West will eventually make things better, with basically no evidence to show for it.
Poland and Baltics are really all that come to mind, but this comes from their smoother transition to capitalism and technology transfer.
There was a political motivation to get them away from Russia, so the countries with money and colonial legacies made sure they succeeded.
Not sure what to tell you about Putin, literally anyone was better than Yeltsin, you have no position to lecture others about ideals and values when we were starving to death.
He is not perfect, but he is much better (even now) than the results we got under the Western-supported leader.
And none of what happened in 2000s, stabilizing the country and economy, was "easy". We are sacrificing the political process, yes, but if we put all our efforts into one goal and fail, there will be nothing left. Better to stabilize the economy first, then transition to more democratic.
We tried what you are suggesting (Glastnost first, than Perestroika). It failed
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jawnhansen235
The funny thing is, there wasn't much, if any, ethnic fighting in Yugoslavia. There was a joke, "so, when this guy [Tito] dies, we're going back to shooting each other?"
But, because America's notion of freedom needs to come above everything else, Yugoslavia was bombed, and the Balkans are right back to infighting again.
Bosnia and Croatia are in spats over sea access, North Macedonia almost got into a war with Greece, Kosovo, Albania, and Serbia are a mess, and Slovenia is infested with Albanian mafia.
Freedom indeed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Omar_E11
"wE hAd nO iDeA"
The West has had decades of experience to draw upon, why don't Americans ever learn? Iraq, Afghanistan, Congo, Guatemala, all happened before Libya.
The U.S. just doesn't understand nation-building, fundamentally, because it has never seen true hardship.
Its land is easy to govern (flat, arable land with many rivers). It can never get through its thick skull, the fact that other places require strong, centralized, often brutal control to keep the territory from falling apart.
Progress happens slowly, and the Americans are like impatient little children.
The Obama administration just needed an enemy to grandstand against, one that threatened their economic interests, and it chose Libya.
Yes, Gaddafi was a brutal dictator. But he was the best that country had, and if the Americans were so thoroughly unaware of the difficulties governing a massive desert, then they should just stay out of others' affairs.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Been saying this for years now, when arguing with pro-life people.
The fetus (if considered a life) if technically "under the care" of the expectant mother, so regardless of the cause-- abortifacients, malnutrition, medical complications-- the woman could then be charged with involuntary manslaughter, or 2nd degree murder if deemed intentional.
This, ironically, and deliciously, would have the opposite effect Republicans likely intended: the birthrate would drop, and they'd seethe about how un-Christian we're all being for not procreating)
No one has been able to answer the question, likely because saying "yes, they would" would reveal how ridiculous the legal reasoning for treating a fetus as a person really is. And, by extension, the Scriptural worldview that underpins it
3
-
3
-
@jay-xj1om
I'll just say a few things: You're failing to take into consideration the fact that rent, childcare, healthcare, transportation (transit vs. car- gas, insurance, maintenance, etc), and food and drink are all markedly cheaper in Germany.
You replied to a comment about the Danish minimum wage, but went on a rant about Germany? Not sure what your point was. The vast majority of people I know (let's use your example, from Germany) are hesitant to even visit the U.S. because of the lack of a single-payer healthcare system.
I think I'd be much more comfortable with that than the copays and deductibles I have to pay in the U.S., even assuming I have insurance there's no guarantee they'll cover it or that every service I receive even for something non-urgent which I planned ahead of time, will be in-network. That leaves me thousands in debt and, for the non-STEM degree American, is financially devastating.
"Anyone with a STEM degree and some prudence can get to $100 Million in the US (or Switzerland) before even hoping to see $10 Million in the EU."
I hope you're not suggesting every one of them actively manage their portfolio; that doesn't actually work without insider knowledge (illegal) or luck (as the name suggests, unlikely).
The ROI on capital gains are for the wealthy, most people simply don't trade and that isn't a compelling argument against certain private services made public. Martin Shkreli will be just the beginning.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
SirVixIsVexed
LOL LOL LOL LOL
Am I speaking with a person, or a broken record player? It doesn't really help your credibility, if you were looking to convince me of anything. You remind me of me, at 12.
Anyway,
"LOL So what?!"
So, a justification is all you need. Irrespective of religion, history has shown us that religious dogma has little impact on the behavior of any single adherent. Conquistadors slaughtered millions of natives who resisted the spread of Christianity throughout the Americas.
Secular ideas haven't fared much better. Stalinism and Maoism have eradicated tens of millions and warped entire societies.
Why can't you understand that the capacity for murder and conquest is not bound or even amplified by religion? Even Buddhists have committed (rather, are committing) genocide, in Myanmar.
Scriptural text can and will be interpreted to a society's will. Islam is no exception to that. You ignored the fact that they were capable of maintaining stable, peaceful societies on their own.
Needlessly? You're making a strange distinction— which areas did the Muslims need to conquer? Why did Europe need to conquer that land?
"Taking back" is bullshit. Just because a region has people practicing your religion, doesn't make it yours. The Middle East wasn't even a part of Europe geographically.
To be frank, I found that last part rich, considering how much of the world Christian Europe would go on to conquer, colonize, and ruin.
As for the Westboro Baptist church, stop dodging. My point wasn't their scope, but the capacity for people to become extreme regardless of ideology.
I'm aware that all countries currently issuing capital countries are Muslim. Australia and Britiain did the same not long ago. Again, religion plays a smaller part than historical context.
And as for your last thing, I don't even know what to say. That's just completely the opposite of true. It's leftists that try to justify Islam being a 'normal' religion. It's usually rightists who can't see it as anything but a death cult, which certainly won't encourage Muslims to see your side of the story. They're doing the grueling work of de-radicalizing an entire Tori tomb religion, so please let them get to work. If you wanna keep speeding garbage go ahead, but we need to finish up. This either goes somewhere or it doesn't.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@GETJUSTICE4U
Thank you for your insight.
I agree that microchips make economies of scale easier, but that isn't Russia's problem. It already has sub-90nm domestic chip capabilities.
The issue comes down to
1) funding— new projects are extremely expensive to get off the ground
2) specialized tools. Russia still lacks crucial components in the semiconductor supply chain
Zeiss is the only manufacturer in the world of the lenses used to etch at sub-5nm scale (using EUV). So Russia would not only need to produce its own chips but also every component needed to make the chips.
That's what will take decades, filling in gaps in the supply chain does not happen overnight. Electroplating, lenses, machine tools, mechanical engineering design, lithography, all need to be upgraded first.
Then the consumer-grade chips and tech will come.
Basically Russia needs to achieve what China already has; its own consumer tech infrastructure. Oppo, Vivo, Huawei, Alibaba, TikTok etc.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@vernie7882
Man, like it or not... they advanced the entire Russian Empire into the 21st century.
We take for century Russia's current level of development (which isn't super high anyway), but there is a very decent chance that, under Tsars, Russia would be much like Cuba under Batista had been: fabulously wealthy in a few areas (Moscow/SpB/Kazan triangle, Vladivostok, Transcaucasia) and a winter ghetto outside of those.
I suppose many eastern Europeans would smugly say that it's already like that, but at least there are some basic amenities (electricity, housing, education) which the Tsar would have balked at giving to his subjects.
If there is one thing communism is good for, it is throwing off colonial shackles (Africa, SE Asia, Cuba) and rapidly industrializing into tertiary industries. Otherwise they'd all be agricultural countries, ripe for Western 'investment' until the end of time.
It has been decades since the US committed itself to 'investing' in poverty in Africa, yet it was China that spooked the US into actually building infrastructure there, instead of just sending highschoolers there on mission trips or Boomers on safari tours.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Fandom guy
The "carving up, " so to speak, of the Middle East, was an awful decision. But the U.S. did not need to exacerbate to issue further. It had plenty of precedent as a historically neutral nation to back out of "helping" Britain orchestrate the overthrow and destabilization of Iran in 1953 and (later) the support of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Instead, it fanned the flames of an already unstable region.
The Soviet Union should not have incurred upon Afghanistan, but I think it's arguable that most of the Middle East's problems today are a result of the way the U.S. reacted to that incursion.
The U.S. is the reason that: Iran is radicalized, Afghanistan and Libya are in ruins, Saudi Arabia is committing a genocide, and Israel exists, period.
Britain and France got the ball rolling, but the U.S. had a more active role in actual damage.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TruenoBestWaifu
...Really? The country that bombed civilian hospitals, tortured people (blacksites) on its own territory, illegally supported rebel factions in Syria and invaded Afghanistan, composed a coup d'etat in Libya and Iraq, has a piece of Cuba's sovereign territory, whose CIA tried to assassinate Julian Assange, sold weapons to Saudi Arabia (another dictatorship, totally ok though, NOTHING like Russia) to commit war crimes in Yemen, that overthrew countless democratic governments?
If anything, the US is even better than Russia in that regard. Who's really special here? You can list what Russia has done, but bear in mind the list above.
Everything Russia has been accused of, America has also done, in recent memory too. But only one of them gets punished for it. Ask yourself why.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@farzana6676
We won the war, by capturing Berlin. What is so hard to understand here?
Yes, absolutely, we were 'hiding' behind the snow. Taking advantage of geography is not something I would prohibit or fault or prohibit anyone for doing.
This goes for the U.S., Britain, and the U.S.S.R..
The major difference being, that our geographical advantage didn't come with actual protection- the Germans' tanks had already gone into Russia before winter hit. The Soviets still had to fight for every inch of their territory.
Meanwhile, the Americans and Brits were never invaded by land.
The Brits got bombed to hell, so did we. The Americans never faced anything even near their soil (Pearl Harbor was 1000's of miles away from their homeland, and meant to cripple their Navy, not their population.)
Our geography slowed their invasion, theirs prevented it altogether. That's why they're hiding- we weren't. We had to fight.
And again, yes we did. Hitler's reaction to our productivity alone proves his fear, not of the snow, but of the Red Army:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUgV8_meyo8&t=7m20s
80% of German casualties despite Stalin's stupidity (having most military officers murdered out of paranoia) sounds like a win to me. The Soviets also killed more than twice as many Japanese as did the Americans, I mention again.
Bear in mind that the U.S. had to invade Vichy France, because *Europe had fallen*. The vast majority of the continent had already been conquered by 1942, and the U.S.S.R. had been fighting back for over a year with no Lend Lease.
In that time- no American help, no winter- the Soviets held Moscow and the gateway to the Caucasus.
Sorry, but we did hold our own. Get over it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
- - Most humans, in the period between us just eating plant matter and the dawn of the Stone Age (i.e, when we were omnivores but didn't invent tools) would just chase our prey to exhaustion. Weird that you chose a lion as the only animal we could eat, but anyway: once the animal collapses, we'd just break the flesh with our hands and eat it raw- Inuit tribes still posses this ability. Operating on your logic, you could also say that all scavengers (vultures, crows, some beetle species, etc.) should die because they can't kill anything by themselves, and shouldn't eat things 'the unnatural way'. There is nothing wrong with using tools to your advantage- if our ancestors had gone vegan, you wouldn't be around to complain about it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TheTurinturumbar
Respect, in the context which I speak of, does not equate to acknowledging any truth in a belief. It means keeping your opinion neutral to mine, regardless of what you believe it to be. There is no hurdle to jump over when having respect for somebody's possession of an opinion; everybody can do that due to the fact that nobody can suppress anybody else's thoughts. I simply expect you, as a normal person, to reasonably present your own argument instead of blatantly bashing mine with no evidence to boot. I would like to know on which planet (subjective, anyway) by common moral standards it is acceptable to insult somebody's entire worldview and act like a 5 year-old in the process.
As for the discrepancy, I have no reason to believe what you say. If what you say isn't true, then why should I believe that a Communion should be held at the same esteem as a Latin pancake recital? Your opinion is in the public eye, and most people have a hierarchy of ideals to live by instead of only targeting those that they don't like and trying to get rid of them. As for your example, I personally agree with you there; I see no significance in Sacraments, but understand that your opinion is just as subjective as mine, and by your definition holds no true value.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jake Brown
May I ask you if you've been reading your own comments? There was a 2-month gap between two of your comments but, as far as I'm concerned,
"Arrogant yes, ignorant sometimes, patriotic definitely, but a bigot? No not at all."
and
"If you wanna call me a bigot... also partially true. However ignorant I am not."
are very clear contradictions. You cannot work your way around the fact that you don't even bother to be consistent in your defensive stance. I'm also really surprised that you were called intelligent by Maximilian when, from what I can tell, you're the opposite of that. If you proclaim yourself as a footsoldier who blindly fights for his "wonderful" (awful) country and does not give your own actions a second thought, I can honestly say that you are retarded and deranged.
However, what surprises me the most is that you've come across this video, hopefully watched it entirely, and then are able to comment on the assured correctness of drone strikes, even though there's clear video evidence right in front of you that it isn't. May I ask you sincerely, were you ever near an IED blast during the Vietnam War? I think you may have gotten brain damage.
If you'd like to hear why I think that the U.S. is an inferior state (not nation, it is nowhere near united), feel free to leave a reply. And, in case you're wondering, yes, I am (sadly) a citizen of this godforsaken country.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1) Anecdote isn't data. 2 unhappy people doesn't mean all of Crimea didn't want to rejoin.
2) If you insist on personal stories, here:
I was visiting Poland some years ago, and met 2 Crimeans of Ukrainian descent. Asked them what they thought of the annexation. Can you guess what the answer was?
They said they were for the "reunion".
If there was any place where they could voice their displeasure with Russia and feel safe, it was Poland. Yet, they didn't.
Frankly I think you've done no research on the topic as the evidence is overwhelming.
The referendum in 1994, when Russia and Ukraine were allied; Gallup and Pew polls conducted in Crimea, the Canadian Free Crimea polls, Ukrainian polls, German polls, all bring back the same answer.
Before, during and after the annexation, the Crimeans overwhelmingly supported the move.
If even Ukraine's own voting data shows consistent pro-Russian votes in the last 3 elections, I don't know what else you need to get it through your skull.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ravencadd
Like it or not, diplomacy will be the final stage in this war.
Even if (in a Western wet dream) Putin is ousted, it is unlikely that any version of Russia will accept (potentially indefinite) American military presence so close to its borders.
So even in the unlikely case where Putin is ousted, the war will probably stall, then continue.
Ultimately, something will need to be proposed.
And, since your ideal version is off the table (Russia incapacitates itself by withdrawing, gives back all territories, allows Ukraine into NATO, etc), a compromise must be reached.
I think that leaving Ukraine out of NATO, but able to ally with individual Western countries- like Finland currently- is the best way out of the conflict.
Do you have any alternative ideas that don't risk re-escalating an eventual ceasefire??
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@captlazer5509
It only means personal freedom when that's your only option.
Ever stop to think why you were so excited when you got your first car, why it meant freedom to you?
Because a teenager in the US has no other options. None.
Greyhounds only go city-to-city and Pace buses don't cover all neighborhoods, so if you wanted to go somewhere like your friend's house or a party... you're basically trapped at home like a 1950's housewife.
In Europe, on the other hand, teenagers don't have that kind of reaction, because (thanks to clean, efficient, bus and subway services) they don't have to wait.
While American teenagers are sulking at home or begging mommy to be driven to their playdate, Europeans can just go right away. They had the freedom all along.
Tell me, who's got it better?
To your other point:
You do realize that Germany didn't start over from square 1, right? They invented the car, "Motorwagen" in the 1860s, and the Volkswagen was founded during WWII.
You act like, postwar, they suddenly had no automakers or accumulated know-how, and just through "grit and a can-do attitude!", they made a car industry. Not true at all,
Know your history.
2
-
@captlazer5509
Haha, you're trying so hard to spin having a larger transportation system as being worse😂
It's not just how expansive the system is, it's the quality. I have been to both New York and Chicago, and both their transit systems make me want to jump on the tracks. You Americans are uniquely awful at building anything public.
Skip if you want, but this is what I thought of both:
New York's was extremely dirty and small, clearly built with no future plans in mind, It was always crowded (why haven't they built out the most popular stations?) full of awful smells (rats, piss). It was also disorganized, why are there 3 separate levels each disconnected and requiring different payment types? Why are the tickets machines so old and slow? The entry passages, too. No automatic door, just a turnstyle. Very old.
Chicagos was better, but still horrible by any European country standards. Cleaner than New York, but still garbage was everywhere, many stations are placed in the middle of a highway. The "L" cars were small and cramped, and poorly designed. The buses don't announce their next stop (broken speakers?) and you need to pull a string for the bus to even stop. No dedicated bus lanes for most stops in either city.
The inter-state transit was even worse. Both Metra (Chicago) and Amtrak were slow and ticket prices were very high for such a slow train. Every time either one turned slightly on a track, it squeals like a pig. And all 3 modes of transport were very, very loud.
Should I go on?
Moscow's by comparison is a marvel. Now maybe you, obviously with firsthand experience with both, could tell me what you think??
You are right- Spain has more. But you are holding a poor standard, since Spain has the most in the whole world, behind only China.
It is like saying I am a bad basketball player because I am not Michael Jordan!
Russia has at least some high-speed rail, reaching beyond 200km/hr. You have none.
To experience something amazing like that, you have to travel outside your wonderful country, since your homeland simply cannot provide it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, I can't speak for your teacher, but I would have to assume he's being superstitious. There is currently no evidence to suggest that vaccines somehow affect the development of the brain, especially at such a large scale.
There is, however, recent research suggesting that a lack of bacteria in the microbiome may be the cause of autism, or at least autism-like symptoms in children.
Namely, many children who display these symptoms have elevated amounts of the Clostridia strain in their guts, along with high levels of propionic acid (as a result of the former).
This is caused, and is most likely to happen to you, if you had an infection as a baby and had to be given antibiotics.
If you've got the time and money, you could badger your doctor to have a sample of your feces analyzed- if it shows the above signs, you could potentially cure your "autism."
I would, of course, research further to make sure you have all the necessary info, but if you're an American, there's at least somebchhace that you don't, in fact, have autism, and that you can be cured.
It's ironic, too— all these years, people have been freaking out over vaccines, when the real cause in the the rise of autism in the U.S., is a lack of bacteria, not too much of it.
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@leonardu6094
Also, transsexuals are shown to have physical characteristics in the brain matching closer to their "gender" than their biological sex
(specifically an area of the frontal lobe that controls sexual behavior):
J.-N. Zhou et al., “A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality,” Nature, 378:68-70, 1995.
Same with homosexuals: it's largely epigenetic. The more males are born, the more likely that each successive child is homosexual.
It's a survival mechanism employed in the mother's womb, wherein certain hormones and brain matter is altered, making the child gay.
It specifically serves to pacify the other males in the family, as too many can lead to violence (reduced chance of survival) when competing for women.
Also, I'm genuinely curious, besides your emotional reaction to homosexuals in public (even though facts don't care about your feelings) why you care so much about them.
Are they hurting you? Why do you want to force them to have relations with women?
Why do you care?
2
-
2
-
@cats0182
Your username should be Two-Face, because that was a great false dichotomy!
Europeans only pay marginally higher taxes for a lot more benefits- the taxes apply more to the wealthy than the middle or lower classes.
If your idea of choice is being bankrupted because you make just enough money to not qualify for Medicaid but not enough for a private insurer, or having only one way to move from place to place which somehow qualifies as 'freedom,' then go ahead. Enjoy.
Americans seem to take after Henry David Thoreau- very big on building their own house in the woods, proclaiming rugged independence.. while having dinner every weekend with the Emersons, whose forest you've been occupying for a year.
You love the freedom of driving, which you can only do with a government-mandated ID, on publicly funded roads, with regulations put on your car to make sure it doesn't spit lead into your lungs, or kill you on impact. But of course, seatbelts are oppressive too, right?
Self-delusion at its finest.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Angelo Stevens
No, there is. You just don't see it that way, but that doesn't make what you think true.
If the murder (or perceived murder— even if you think Floyd deserved to die, you must acknowledge that someone who believes he didn't, would naturally be enraged and called to action) of a man isn't justification for rioting, then I don't know what to tell you.
"I can't breathe" is what Floyd uttered before the police killed him. It's become a motto for the rioters.
Explain to me again how it has nothing to do with the police killing people.
No, it isn't less dependable. It's been around since the Civil War, and never had issues since its inception. Much of the US' early infrastructure was based on mailing routes, and in places where polling stations weren't built, mail-in voting was used for decades without fail.
Why has it become an issue only now, when the Republicans stand to lose from it being used? I didn't hear Bush sounding the alarm.
If mail-in ballots are so unreliable, why does the military use them every single year??
And yeah, the Democrats are urging some voters to go in person— because those ballot harvesting boxes were set up by California Republicans and labeled as "official", which is a federal crime.
They only backed off after they got caught.
They're pushing for early voting because mail-in takes time to process.
Republicans are more likely to vote in person (lots think coronavirus is a hoax) so their votes will get counted first. Trump will probably use the initial results (before absentee and mail in ballots are counted) to declare himself the winner of the election.
And I don't like Biden, he's a creep and he's a liberal. Don't lump every person voting blue with him or his ideas.
We're just trying to get Trump out of office so we can fix the economy and get this country running properly again.
He bungled the response to the virus, the economy is starting to tank even in the tech sector.
Trump is a failure.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Max_Mustermann
1) You STLL haven't answered my question. Answer it next time, or don't bother replying. You certainly won't get another reply from me if you keep trying to evade it.
2) Wrong-- there was infighting within NATO on the issue of Ukraine in 2007, with Italy, Germany, and France opposed to the declaration (due to zero feasible pathways for membership for Ukraine), with the US and UK on the other side.
The US eventually won out.
Also, a former head of NATO, involved in Finland's recent ascension, has gone on record saying that there was political pressure placed on Finland to join long before its decision.
On the point of a referendum: 1) you're lying, NATO membership is based on certain military and economic requirements, and 2) if that were the criteria every state was held to, Ukraine would never have even requested to join.
In 2007, the percentage of the population that wanted to join was barely breaking double digits.
It was the post-Maidan government, not the people, that wanted to join.
On the nuclear sharing: that's like asking the wolf how the sheep are doing.
How do you trust the very source you're supposed to be analyzing, to paint an accurate picture of itself?
It has every incentive to downplay the scope of its operations.
Do you give anyone or anything else- American police, corporations, Russia- that enormous benefit of the doubt? I swear, your brain must shut off when in a geopolitical rivalry.
Case in point: Germany has no nuclear bombs of its own per se, but hosts US nuclear bombs on its territory.
You can couch the reality with flowery language all you want, but the truth is clear: "sharing the nuclear alliance's deterrence mission" includes sharing weaponry.
2
-
@Max_Mustermann
"So my answer is no, the US wouldn't put nukes near the Russian border."
FINALLY. Jesus. Was that so hard?
"to which I answered that only a few NATO states have nukes and-"
That wasn't answering the question, either. Accusing me of moving goalposts, but refusing to give a one word answer?
"don't usually ship them to other states"
Again, that argument is useless as an assurance to Russia. What is stopping the US or a European state from eventually changing their mind and shipping them to Ukraine?
They refuse to negotiate with Russia on pretty much anything even before February, violating the Minsk II agreements, so what guarantee does Russia really have that this scenario won't happen in the future?
It would not even have to be predicated on Russia's actions-- when Russia was at its absolute weakest, in the 1990s, NATO still existed, and kept its open door policy, and expanded eastwards. In spite of the perceived threat (USSR) being gone.
What reason at that time did it have to keep going?
If you want to cite Georgia, we can talk in more detail about what caused those wars.
This to me demonstrates a deviation from the 'principled' stance of 'don't invade your neighbors and NATO will dissolve on its own" (which itself is laughable).
"on what basis you are accusing me of lying"
Because you said, "and we joined because the majority of people wanted to based on a referendum."
-When that just isn't the reason states are admitted. Like I said, Ukraine's population didn't even want to join by a very wide margin and its government still sought to join.
It has nothing to do with the will of the people.
" which is why there weren't talks of them joining prior to Putin's invasion."
...Bruh.
"NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO."
Bucharest Summit, 2008
Please, stop claiming things falsely to bolster your argument and accept what the actual reality is.
NATO could have dissolved in 1991 and Europe, Russia included, could have been part of a pan-European security architecture. This was proposed multiple times but (chiefly) the US shot them down. This is the consequence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fedeonio555
I don't think you and I agree on what "kneeling" means. To me, it is a repeat of the 1990s:
1) no institutional/international power- the US/EU control most of the institutions, like SWIFT, and will arbitrarily use that control to extract political and economic concessions.
See France's treatment of West Africa, US threatening Palauan membership in the OAS over refusal to import American meat scraps, Africa generally (30 years and only now Chinese infrastructure is pushing industrialization).
2) Allowance of corruption if it suits the West. With no easily protected borders, traffickers and smugglers and easily slip through and cause epidemics, CIA-trained militias could "liberate" Chechnya so it declare a jihad on Moscow like last time, etc. Laws will routinely be broken if Western companies can take resources for cheap, in exchange for kickbacks to oligarchs (already happens now tbh).
Basically with no goodwill towards a bloc of states devoted to weakening you on every level, you must overpower them or succumb to their influence.
3) No economic development. With the implicit threat of violence, trade deals can be extracted that wreck the domestic capabilities of the country.
This already happened in Greece with the EU, though they convinced Greece rather than coercing them. They still have not recovered financially from that.
Take the US, too. Trading with China has transitioned the market to service sector, but left manufacturing regions with nothing to do anymore.
The same, but more drastic and violent, happened in Russia a few decades later.
Get the idea?
The economic and political power that comes with controlling all the services that Russia uses and goods that it imports means you can threaten to do things which are entirely legal (sanctions) in hopes of making them do what you want.
This is much more achievable if you control their access to global trade, i.e NATO turning Baltic into an American lake.
Well, it's already happened, so you will see in the coming decades moves to restrict or control Russia's trade capacity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Евгений Увин
Edit: I wrote this comment before reading all of yours. What I wrote is obvious to you already, so I'd advice skipping over it!
Russia and Poland, despite having a long and very violent relationship, complement each other perfectly as languages. In Polish school, when I was learning the language's vocabulary, I could always reference Russian if I needed to check how a word is spelled.
This is because Polish has two ways to spell the "Ж" sound (spoken like the J in Jacques)— "ż" and "rz." The Russian counterparts to these words, though, only use the letter R.
So if I'm not sure how to spell river (rzeka), I look to Russian, see it's spelled "Река," and the answer is clear!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@geetee2392
You really wanna tell me that Evangelicals successfully putting the Ten Commandments' tablets into courthouses and state capitols around the country doesn't worry you?
The insistence of millions of Americans that creationism be taught in schools and evolution be outlawed?
The promotion of (here's a secret: they're largely Christian) charter schools, by the Secretary of Education?
Or the recent attempted appeal of abortion (irrespective of your view on that, the power of religious movements to reverse political decisions?
Or the politicians promoting America as a Christian nation, insisting our laws are based in 'Judeo-Christian' values?
I also don't think it's accurate to put either religion into a vacuum. Radicalization doesn't come about solely by the merit of a religion's doctrine (not to say that it doesn't contribute at all, but): Context matters.
Iran was set to transition into a secular society until its Prime Minister was overthrown in 1953, followed by decades of forced Western-style rule, causing a religious backlash.
Indonesia is a relatively free country, with the largest population of Muslims on Earth.
Saudi Arabia is showing signs of secularization, though time will tell if the current Prince is deposed for this.
My point is, history matters, and extreme dogma is often a defense mechanism in the face of a threat to survival. 'Christian' nations also happen to be wealthy, and had longer periods of time to develop secular culture (the Franks' old civilization, vs. the Bedouin tribes being united for the first time in their history, by Muhammad).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stephenjenkins7971
Well, why would they? Mexico is a dysfunctional rump state of its former self.
It cannot (due to geography) project military power, and whatever soft power it manages to project are due to the large Mexican population in the US.
Mexico has been neutralized as a threat since the 1800s. So of course the US has no reason to be aggressive.
But looking back, when Mexico had much more territory, and was within striking distance of New Orleans, the US had no qualms about being aggressive, eventually taking 50% of Mexico's land.
In short, You seem to be looking at events backwards- "Mexico has good relations with the US because it doesn't present a threat."
The reality is, Mexico no longer presents a threat to the US, therefore, the US has good relations with it.
And that's fine, you might argue even logical.
But the US cannot simultaneously operate under that framework and pretend that its values are freedom and democracy (overthrowing elected socialist governments, even non-aligned ones, as recently as 2019, removes any deniability).
I just wish the US was honest about its imperial position.
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
-
2
-
2
-
@ekesandras1481
It sounds like you're just listing negative things on purpose, or perhaps you're showing everyone how deeply shaped by Western media your view of Russian history is.
There's plenty more to celebrate than that— Soviet policies (universal housing; free healthcare— however dubious in quality, they were among the first to do it; respect of minority cultures), apolitical achievements (inventions— Mendeleev table, the entire concept of a montage, the nuclear plant, etc— mostly minor holidays), religious events (New Years and Easter are already huge).
If you want recent national events (which I want to point out is a bizzare standard to hold Russia to, considering no other Western country holds yearly celebrations in the same manner)—
victory over Georgia, whatever you may think of it, is something that Russia can look to in a positive way without being internally divisive; revival of the Orthodox church post-USSR; emergence from the 1990s slump in the 2000s.
Don't be obtuse— Russia already has one of the highest number of holidays per year.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@solid7468
Yes, this is true. Though it may be hard to say whether they learned at home, since most speakers would have actually spoken it in the home (but, there exclusively).
There is even a phenomenon in post-colonial countries called домашня мова (home language) where, even after independence, the people all use the colonial language in public.
Ironically, the 2014 intervention was what likely kicked off Ukraine's modern nationhood
(since, unpopular opinion, the idea of a Ukrainian nation was not finalized until after the Revolution- the Ukrainian Tsarist elites still considered themselves 'Little Russians').
This is why many are just now learning it in school, because the language that formed in the western part was never allowed to be recognized.
But many on the farms would have used it as the домашня мова. But the cities were Russian, hence the need to teach Ukrainian in official capacity now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Okay, here are a few:
Not all animals are killed inhumanely, (slowly and painfully)— this is in fact something I would advocate for with you. Animals that are killed need to live good, stress-free lives (humane, and makes them taste better as cortisol alters flavor), and killed quickly with as little suffering as possible. But no, it's still murder right?
How about this? We've bred animals to be the way they are— an American cow is no bull, nor is a farm pig a boar. If we were to release these animals back into the wild, most of them would starve or be eaten. They'd suffer anyway, but we'd be wasting food (sorry! I'm talking both about the animals, and the plant life they eat btw) in the process. At this point, there's not much we can do with them besides let them live in captivity, and just raising and wasting time and energy on animals, letting them live and die without providing anything for us, isn't a good way to be sustainable.
From a purely historical perspective, our bodies have adapted to eat meat. The simple fact that we can even digest meat indicates that we have evolved to do so, and that people who were able to, passed their genes on more successfully than those who couldn't.
It is, in some sense, written in our genes to crave and eat meat. But we deny pleasure to ourselves in pursuit of higher ideals all the time, so what's the big deal here?
Here's what:
Humans need vitamin B12. You could, in theory, isolate it and take pills for it, but that seems to scream that veganism isn't natural or healthy, if a commerical, industrial product is needed to sustain our new lifestyle.
A common argument is that animals don't actually produce it, but rather ingest it themselves, ridding humans of the need to eat them as a gastronomical middleman, so to speak. That's absolutely true, but many vegans forget that it's synthesized by bacteria found in soil. Soil contains silica, which is toxic to humans, so if you were to get B12 directly from the source, you would die.
Finally, culture and politics are tied into this. Would you protest against the diet of the native population of Greenland, which is exclusively carnivorous? How about places whose geography simply can't sustain a biodiversity large enough, to feed a population on vegan food? You in America may have the luxury of importing almost any food you like and forget about availability when thinking about food choices, but most others countries don't, and have to make do with what their (usually colder, drier) climate can provide them.
There are some arguments. Thoughts?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
@ilmor8430
Bear in mind that I am citing zero sources here and this is all personal opinion.
Probably because Germany has embraced them much more readily. France has a very paradoxically fragile sense of self, and simultaneously a very bloated sense of its own past and grandeur. A disconnect between an imagined France and the one in reality.
As such it insists everyone to conform to French standards, fearing societal collapse otherwise, while Germany, having humbled itself after WWII, does not.
Add to this the fact that (much like the projects in the US)
France built public housing for the middle class which immigrants also occupied, then ethnically Gallic French moved back into the cities, physically separating the banlieues from the rest of society—
And in my opinion, you have a recipe for social unrest.
They, trying to avoid disunity, isolated a community within France and radicalized it along religious lines.
And I'm not sure what can be to reverse it now. Russia and Germany have had more success with integrating Muslim populations. France has a big task ahead of itself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@doggosuki
I'm sure Peterson is fascinating to listen to, but you're only working against him by typing novels in the comments to "clear up" what he's said.
Again, if he's such a great communicator, why do his supporters need to clarify for him all the time? Why do his supporters think they even can?
They're not words coming from his mouth anymore, so what makes your interpretation of his words any more correct than mine? (which itself is problematic because he's a clinical psychologist whose terms aren't consistent and can't be defined. Not the mark of a good practitioner.)
Even using terms like "cultural Marxism," without defining them clearly at least once, in regards to the specific tenets of the ideology and express actions and goals of its followers, should be alarming to you.
If he's hiding behind plausible deniability, he either has no confidence in his ideas, or has a reason to shield them from public scrutiny.
Bear in mind this is the same man who believes that atheists don't actually not believe in God (when the criteria by which genuine belief is determined is based solely on conscious thought.)
Please, scrutinize your heroes. You can become better than them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dominykask0742
If by supernatural you mean, beyond testable and measures means, then sure. Something supernatural had to have happened before the Big Bang, because everything in our universe follows our natural laws (physics, thermodynamics, etc).
I don't, however, see why that automatically means that a deity, much less something sentient, would have to have caused it.
Also, multiverse theory is based on a simple concept, that every change in the universe that occurs is simply a branching off point between two events— for example, you either propose to your wife or you don't.
If you did, then this is the universe where that happened. So what happens to the possibility that you didn't? Everything in our universe is tangible in some way, so you can't just wave it away as "it didn't happen".
It has to be expressed somewhere— in another universe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Howard675
Lol, you'd still have to pay- restaurant copays! Don't forget deductibles, and a monthly food insurance policy!
Problem is, paying for food and paying for healthcare are totally different endeavors. Very few people are visiting the hospital as often as they eat- so the costs are spread out in larger chunks. I also can't reduce my need to eat by being healthy, like I could with hospital visits.
When it comes time to foot the bill, most people couldn't afford to pay out of pocket- but we all collectively agree that if we pool our money, and operate on the (generally true) assumption that we aren't all going to get expensive injuries at the same time, everyone can be covered.
It's sort of like fractional reserve banking, but for healthcare. So, insurance is in fact necessary. The cost to actually have an operation done would still be too much for most people if they paid in cash- the overhead is large, but not that large.
The problem is companies arbitrarily raising prices for things that cost next to nothing to produce. They need to be stopped.
2
-
2
-
@rouskeycarpel1436
My point is that they are capable of doing things like that. And they have clearly done it before.
Take the assassination of Tatarsky, a military vlogger who was actually involved in fighting. The bomb that went off in a coffee shop and killed him, hospitalized 19 other people. Clearly Ukraine isn't squeamish about hurting bystanders if it suits a goal.
To your other points— Dugin, as you said, isn't directly involved in the fighting, and doesn't actively contribute to the war effort.
I still don't see how you go from "no ordinary civilian" to "as much of an enemy as any Russian military officer". Dugin has no direct command of any military apparatus. How exactly is he responsible?
As for the separatists— you are trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist. ~12,000 people have died as a result of the bombings. Even if we consider only 5% of those to be civilians caught in the crossfire, that's still several times more than the recent Moscow shooting.
I don't believe their cause is just. In isolation, I would agree.
But politics does not happen in a vacuum, and incorporating Ukraine into the American military umbrella (via Nato) would further cement its military and foreign policy directive control over Europe.
The US cannot be allowed to become a unipolar hegemon again, its power and influence must be halted and shrunk.
We've seen what the US does (a la Afghanistan) when it feels no one is there to challenge it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@KernowDamo
I suppose so, but I see no point in pointing that out when the intended goal is to bolster support for him to stay in power (to avoid another Libya situation).
It seems similar to denouncing Hamas, done for optics and credibility in the neoliberal lens— but, notably, not for achieving any practical political solution.
If we're going to purity test everyone, then I expect everyone to precede any statement about Egypt, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, or Eritrea with a full-throated endorsement of collapsing their governments, too.
Instability and the resulting suffering be damned, they're bad guys who've gotta go! That's all that matters!
It's a ridiculous, tunnel-vision view of politics and I don't understand why it gets trotted out against anti-Western states only.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@leme5639
France's oppression of Brittany, Catalonia and especially Basque's close call to independence, Northern Ireland breaking away from the UK, (technically not in Europe but still) Kurdistan's independence movement
In North America, Hawaii's suppressed independence movement, California's flirtation with independence, Texas' brief calls to secede, and some minor rumblings about Yucatan.
The channel's selective nature when discussing which countries to support splitting up should really give some insight into what their bias is.
The channel creator is Polish, so it makes sense that he'd want to politically hurt Russia.
Most Poles I've spoken to are personally very bitter over having lost their empire to the larger Russian one. Some even talk about retaking Lwów, as it was Polish right up until WWII.
They're a nefarious force that, through their diaapora, have an outsize influence on US policy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrispatriot
Lmao dude
No, efficiency is the right term to use.
Humans have a certain number of hours they can work per day, at full attention. If you, as a boss, try to work them harder than that, you will receive diminishing returns for each extra hour they are kept working.
Past a certain point, the costs actually become higher than just letting them go home
(in the form of reduced productivity, workplace mistakes which take more time and money to correct, reduced employee engagement, etc).
Sometimes, in the case of Japan or Korea, it gets so bad that people don't have time to do anything outside of work. So, no dating, no kids, no new working population. At a certain point the devotion to "working hard" gets so bad that it starts to destroy the same foundation that allowed it to prosper to begin with.
People don't have the money or time for raising children, so the next generation is smaller, they need to pay more to support the retiring older generation, and this shrinks the economy.
Also, I think it's funny that you think Elon Musk is the best example of efficiency. You didn't have to tell us that you're anti-academia, the Elon Musk part was enough to realize that :)
He isn't the head engineer, or the project manager at Tesla. He didn't even found the company.
Similar with SpaceX- he's not an aerospace engineer, and most of his funding came from the US government. He didn't earn those higher profits, he just got free handouts in the form of taxpayer money!
I am sure someone at Elon's companies is working to increase efficiency, but not him. He's not smart enough.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@StickNik
"No one can know"
But we can make an educated guess; it's not a complete mystery.
If we assume the House M.D. world is based on ours, then at least a few dictators were probably toppled in that world, too, with results similar to ours: disorder, and a greater number, albeit less centralized and/or headline-worthy, deaths.
If Chase wanted to change world events, he should have become a politician.
Instead of a single figure we can all hate, a thousand African militants do the killing now. Same in the Middle East.
Chase was naive here, misunderstanding that democracy doesn't happen despite the circumstances, but because of them.
Isolated nations have an easier time developing in the absence of threats. Bonus points if the land is fertile and there is no infighting (which was present in the House universe's Africa).
Sorry for the soapbox, but people sadly form their real opinions on the outcomes of TV shows, despite them being literal fantasy. You need to look at the real world to solve its problems— not a script.
2
-
Have to disagree, the idea that the Soviets started the war is bullshit.
Hitler, if given the chance (which, I mean... he tried about 4 years later) would have taken over all of Europe. Partitioning was the only logical choice in the face of Germany's ambitions. It's not like the Soviets approached them and asked to do that. Hitler himself said, "When Germany's life is at stake, even a temporary alliance with Moscow must be contemplated".
So if you're going by that metric, no, the Soviets did not start it. Ribbentrop pursued negotiations with Moscow, not the other way around. And, in case it wasn't obvious enough, Hitler invaded first!!
What you said reminds me of neo-Conederates who think the Union started the American CIvil War because they responded to the Confederates... shooting first.
As for liberation... yes. Putin had 15 years to diversify the Russian economy and yet he didn't. With the enormous natural wealth he could have created a wealth fund that would dwarf Norway's (their plan is similar, but more beneficial to the common people). Instead, it went to geopolitical strategy and military.
I don't think he'll be leaving anytime soon, but hopefully he'll pick someone who understands that soft power (economy) = power. Before it's too late, and we're all in China's pocket.
2
-
2
-
@revolverDOOMGUY
"the idea that we were "bullied" into entering NATO is absolutely false"
I didn't say that. I was responding to your point, "Russia on the other hand bullies people into joining their sphere of influence...The problem isn't that American is pushing militarily speaking"
I said that most of America's allies are allied because America at one point or another rigged their elections or installed a dictator, and their government worked with Washington.
I am surprised that, as an Italian, you do not know your own history. Do you know why the Fronte Democratico Popolare lost in 1948? The CIA forged letters, gave $100M's to right-wing parties, used money from the Marshall Plan -- meant to help rebuild Italy-- to rig your elections instead. And you wonder why it is so hard to find a job in Italy now...
"Those "overthrown leaders" were not actually elected leaders"
In most cases, they were. Sometimes, the US did not even give the country a chance to elect a democratic leader before installing their chosen dictator.
-Salvador Allende in Guatemala: democratically elected, overthrown 1954
-Shukri al-Quwatli in Syria: democratically elected, overthrown 1949
-Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran: democratically elected, overthrown 1953
-Sukarno in indonesia: democratically elected, overthrown 1959
-Patrice Lumumba in Congo: democratically elected, overthrown 1965
This is not even a fraction of the list. South Korea did not even elect a leader before the US installed Syngman Rhee, the CIA used Imperial Japanese troops to fight the Chinese Communists, they militarily occupied Haiti for decades, overthrew Mexico's government twice, and on and on.
The only reason you like the US is because your country is rich now, and your government will forget the crimes they committed if you can be pampered like mammoni
"it's a sovereign nation, with a democratically elected president who was not in bad relations with Russia until Russia itself decided they wanted Crimea back"
You are getting the events in the wrong order. The Maidan protests happened first, then Crimea.
It is strange to me that many American Senators were present during the revolution, and there is some question about who orchestrated the rooftop shooting in Maidan that made the regional protests turn into a Ukrainian revolution against Russia...
Look at the list I showed you again. Is it so strange to add just one more?
"You are putting Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden on the same plain as Zelensky"
Ironically, I think Hussein should have been kept in power. How is Iraq doing after America's brilliant operation there?
I think Zelensky should be kept, too: it is the glorification of WWII Nazi collaborators (Ukrainian version of Mussolini) and downgrading Russian to a regional language that I have issue with. Despite the fact that most Ukrainians speak it, and 30% of the country speak natively. Banning Russian books, teaching in schools, etc
"then they made riddicolous demands to be basically in command, then they constantly tried to re-define what NATO was supposed to be"
Mostly because they were a power much larger than Europe. If they joined, how will Soviet equipment be used? Different military philosophy? Does the US get to station wargames in Russia? Do Russian troops get to do the same in US? The 2 sides had fundamental differences, and needed to be resolved.
Making Russia replace its entire military still causes a problem, what happens when they have a disagreement with US and Russia happens to produce most of the NATO artillery/tanks? What then? How are disputes between such large powers, on the same side, resolved?
"The inequalities between U.S.A and mexico are as you say, but again, America is not constantly flying it's jets over the border and menacing military action every 2 weeks"
Do you have amnesia? I will repeat again: it is because the US doesn't need to.
Mexico has no strategic land, it can do nothing to the US.
You are praising US for allowing Mexico to keep the crumbs, after it has already stolen the whole loaf of bread
"Let's take Canada...an indipendent entity from the United States"
Lol, no. US is largest trading partner, 75% of ALL trade is with them.
90% of Canada's population lives within 100 miles of US border, Canadian Shield (mountain region) covers most of Canada so most of their land is useless to live on. Canada's only connection between east (Toronto) and west (Vancouver) is a single highway. It is extremely vulnerable.
It is independent in theory, but if it ever opposed the US in a way they could not resolve,
Canada would not last 1 day on its own
"Yes it might do some sanctions here and tear some deal apart, but it will not attack unless a country become a legitimate threat to itelf"
So you admit that it is not just defense? It can attack a country by destroying their economy?
Also, NATO did attack.
Afghanistan and Libya. NATO took control of the no-fly zone in Libya, and had direct control of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, bombing and killing 10,000s of women and children.
"we have NO INTENTION of conquering Russia!"
You seemed to have no issues stealing our money away.
Yes, the oligarchs were Russia's creation, but why did the West take their money even knowing it was stolen from Russian people? Italy is directly responsible for this, many oligarchs bought homes in Italy and luxury Italian goods and cars.
You were getting rich off of Russian workers' stolen money
"Putin could have removed them"
Yes, I agree.
I never said I liked Putin or that he was perfect, but he was better than Yeltsin and was at least trying to give Russia geographical security against NATO. If they were going to expand anyway---
(since you are unable to tell me how Russia could 100% guarantee that American military would not keep expanding to its border),
---I say again: what did they have to lose??
"They rebelled againist the Zar but couldn't take on Putin?"
The Tsar did not have machine guns and riot gear. The secret police is much more advanced now, harder to change.
Like Roman concrete, the more time passes the more rigid everything becomes
"we put our shit toghether and kicked most of Mafia out of power in the '70s"
Part of the reason you had to deal with the Mafia after WW2 (even after Mussolini arrested pretty much all of them, he doesn't like competition) is because the US pardoned so many of them, which allowed Cosa Nostra to re-establish themselves.
"Russia on the other hand, instead of growing or showing some maturity and become a liberal democracy after decades of oppression"
How many times do I need to repeat?
After the fall of USSR, no one in Russia knew how to run a capitalist economy.
So Clinton and later Bush sent their economists to "help" Russia... by throwing it violently into capitalism ('shock therapy').
It failed horribly, the government had no control and (ironically) Bratva (Russian mafia) ran everything.. until Putin came to power, and arrested or killed them, like Mussolini did. Not perfect, but better than being a part of the West. We tried that, and all it got us was pain and suffering.
You never wanted to help us, only hurt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@happyelephant5384
"Mostly for good purpose"
You're willing to believe and support anything as long as it benefits you personally, I see.
The US continues to commit atrocities around the world, the only difference is Europe is their colony, so nobody can complain.
Germany can't do anything even after it found out that Denmark was helping it spy, Ukraine won't do anything even though the US keeps supporting its corruption (just like Russia did, just a different country doing it to you now).
No one cares about Palestine, or Yemen, or Afghanistan. Or Palau, or Bolivia, or Mexico.
When Russia does something bad, "we have to do something about this and stop them!!"
When America does something bad? "Oh my goodness, what a horrible mistake! It won't happen again, we promise! All is forgiven"
It's a horrible double standard, and this is what Russians mean when they say the West is Russophobic.
They are more than happy to have military power themselves, and sphere of influence, but don't let anyone else do the same.
Hypocrites.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RedXlV
Oh, and no European country ever really gave up their colonies.
France and the UK still LITERALLY have colonies— sorry, "territories". Nevermind how they got to be part of those countries to begin with.
The UK still uses the Commonwealth to its advantage in trade deals, and France maintains Francafrique— 85% of West African colonial budgets are to be kept in Metropolitan France. This was established during postwar "decolonization" under threat of coup by France.
So the arrangements that made France rich through colonialism were never dismantled, just reduced. They now reign much like Britain did over India— employing a local government to steal for them in exhcnage for a cut of the spoils.
That's not getting into neocolonialism by the US— how did Guam and Puerto Rico become "territories" again?
There's also the IMF, which keeps African countries in debt slavery, and the implicit threat of coups (Lumumba in Congo, Gaddafi in Libya, Damiba in Burkina Faso, Namibia, Mali, Guinea, etc).
And of course the minor players— Denmark still owns Greenland, Netherlands still benefits from owning Aruba and Antilles.
The only real decolonized former empire is ironically Spain.
I don't know where this romanticized idea of 'Russia, the last holdout hiding in plain sight' narrative came from, but it's laughably wrong. Probably from a Pole.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thebossmana
If you don't mind, I'd like to know which section of the university you're referring to, and proof that it was, in fact, constructed after the alleged assault of Dr. Ford. I'd also like you to show me video, audio, or quotes from the preceding days proving that the Prosecutors had any sway over the proceedings, including but not limited to witness testimonies.
The problem (and the reason for my requests) is, I simply don't know who's right here.
That being said, it puzzles me why, being the majority party hosting the court case, the Republicans didn't include or call to the stand Kavanaugh's friends or people at the party, or Dr. Ford's therapist, who could have provided dated records of her recalling of the incident several years prior.
It also puzzles me that Kavanaugh lied about what 'Devil's Triangle' means, or the fact that he didn't want to say that he'd be open to an independent investigation. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
It sounds to me that you're brazenly lying through your teeth, or were gullible enough to believe the first thing you heard.
The verdict is literally not out yet. That being said, I personally think Kavanaugh raped Dr. Ford and doesn't want the bad PR. It would be easier if he had fessed up to it earlier on, she might have forgiven him and he could've gotten his seat. But he had to drag this out and to add insult to injury avoid simple questions and spew half-truths in court.
If he really is innocent, he's really bad at showing it.
Oh, and those documents, please. Back up your claims.
2
-
@robertkleiman
Lmao, you're equating Nixon's presidency to now?
It's true— the U.S. brought China out of Maoism and into capitalism.
But the Americans were stupid enough to believe that free trade would magically bring democracy. That's the problem with Americans; too naive and self-infatuated. Afghanistan and Iraq will magically get democracy after we show up and install our government!
That's not even the point.
It's not the '60s anymore, and no U.S. company will ever come back once they've tasted foreign labor. In fact, there's a new trend, now that China is modernizing— Southeast Asia! Vietnam and Indonesia will be the new China. And after that, India! Then Africa!
After that, robots will likely do the work.
Jobs are never coming back to America. Sorry, man. It's too expensive. No amount of patriotism will convince shareholders to pay exorbitant amounts for workers who already don't like manual labor.
Capitalism and nationalism are like oil and water. There's nothing a company loves for profits like overseas labor.
And China is more powerful than you think. A much, much larger domestic market than the U.S. and the most fertile tracts of land on Earth ensure that if you cut them off completely, China would still survive. After all, they did for 1,000 years. The Europeans were the ones who came looking for trade routes to them, not the other way around.
And if China's manufacturing "means nothing," why is the U.S. bidding with other countries for masks produced in China? Shouldn't America be all-powerful and not rely on another country?? China already bought IBM and makes BJI's drones, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Huawei, and on and on. It does produce its own things, and will only get more prolific with time.
What a joke you and your ideas are. Open your eyes. The Dragon is waking up, and it'll be everything you think you are right now, but with an extra billion people to boot. For shits and giggles.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kasugaryuichi9767
By that logic, Albania's hopes for joining with Kosovo should be crushed, permanently.
Same with Tibet and Xinjiang, Northern Ireland, Catalonia... is this really a status quo the US is ready to uphold?
To the same extent, Chechnya will never be allowed to leave, either.
You ask "so what"? What else is a nation based on? Governments do not form in a vacuum, the only reason the US deluded itself into thinking this could happen is because the English colonists, ironically, formed a different nation.
But in every other case, it's built on the basis of language and culture, with few exceptions. Sorry bud.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DaveSmith-cp5kj
You ignored what I said. I did compare the U.S.'s public transport to that of Europe's, Russia's, Australia's, Asia's, and S. America's.
All of those places have better transport— let me repeat myself— the CTA is small, cramped, and dirty compared to:
St. Petersburg's Metro, Warsaw's Metro, Frankfurt and Berlin's Metro, London's Tube.
It's a physically smaller, dirtier area than every European underground I've been on. There are fewer seats, their design is space inefficient, they're uncomfortable.
The same can be said of Metra and Amtrak, with the added insult of screeching while turning due to poor alignment with the track. They're both slower than the European models and are always late— I've never had that problem with Europe's trams, subways, and trains (certainly not to the extent of "20 minutes late due to track repairs" at least once a month).
That's just first-hand experience. China and Japan's bullet trains simply don't exist in the U.S.— it's deemed too expensive and difficult to make by our government, even down the extremely dense Atlantic seaboard (where they could actually be profitable). And they go over 200 mph on average, rarely if ever delayed.
Explain to me, with evidence, why exactly America's system is better. You can't just say that "it is", and hope that it's true.
What qualities does the U.S.'s transport have that make it equal or better?
Also, like I said, politicians need security clearance in case of a threat to their life, as a result of their job.
I'm just saying that famous people, with enough money to use a private jet or chauffeur, can sometimes choose not to. Public transport has its merits.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fuerstmetternich1997
...You must be joking.
"we have uperior moral values" no, you don't.
1) They aren't superior and
2) You don't even abide by them, so what are we even discussing here?
Which values was the West abiding by in Vietnam? Or installing Pinochet??
Or overthrowing Iran's DEMOCRATIC government in 1953? Or Guatemala's government in 1954? Or Congo's in 1961?
All you've talked about is serving your own interests. You have done nothing to prove you have any redeemable values.
You seem to only use them as a cudgel against your geopolitical enemies, while doing the exact things you accuse them of doing.
And no, it wouldn't be far worse with Russia, China, or Iran. It would be better.
Those countries, borne of the Old World, with a history of balancing alliances in the complex, messy, REAL world-- aren't extreme ideologues.
Russia is willing to do business with a country no matter its ideology.
Meanwhile, the US embargoes Cuba because it refuses to do whatever the US wants (open its country to Western companies + exploiting Cuban workers).
The world has already been ruled by China-- why do you think the Europeans set sail? To have the privilege of being able to do business with China.
The world was more peaceful then. Certainly China wasn't spreading Confucianism by gunpoint.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
people will come up with new reasons.
Sometimes it is because things are zero-sum: why is China interested in Taiwan? Not b/c it's "afraid of a prosperous democracy on its border!!" that's been the case for decades, and China has advanced well past Taiwan anyway.
The real reason is because Taiwan, being a US ally, presents a threat to China's access to trade through the ocean. The US wants to control that access, because it can get political and economic concessions from China by threatening it.
The US meanwhile has nothing blocking its access to either ocean.
So even if all memory was erased, China would still want to secure its access to the ocean. If any country opposes that, there would be a conflict of interests, and fighting.
You could replace China, Taiwan, and US with any other countries, it is geography which creates these conflicts, not people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DimitriosDenton
In the universe you're suggesting, there would be thousands more deaths than the dictator could ever inflict.
Do you know how many people would be killed at the whim of a doctor, or anesthesiologist, because the patient pissed them off, or because they have a grudge, or because the patient has no respect in society (socially conservative doctor treating a criminal/drug addict/illegal immigrant; liberal doctor treating high-ranking gun lobbyist, racist, wife beater, etc)?
If you want to do body counts, you need to look at the bugger picture. The real bigger picture.
Allowing an entire class of people upon whom the rest of society relies to play executioner would kill far, far more people in the long run than a genocidal dictator could. How many more patients come in per day to hospitals around the world? Imagine just 1% of them are killed. How many tens of thousands per year?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@artemisrafti3956
No, I think I did. The stabilizing force in the 20th and 21st centuries is not the US' global dominance, but another factor entirely.
Since it is impossible to separate the two, you cannot really prove that it is one or the other looking at it alone.
But, looking at past examples (Rome's wars against Parthia, the Punic Empire, the Macedonian Wars. etc) shows that the Pax idea is flawed altogether.
1) It's not sustainable. It isn't a binary state you can just invoke and 'have stability'.
It is a natural part of a cycle, and states rise and fall with it. Every so often, enough fall that one rises above the rest.
2) It's self-referential-- Pax Romana was for Rome, not peace enforced by Rome onto others.
Pax Britannica, ironically, was upheld by the Concert of Powers established in Vienna, a multipolar Europe.
Anyway-- the 90s and 2000s were hardly peaceful, I see no reason the US should ever be the sole superpower again.
It abused that privilege, and the rest of the world wants to avoid the fate of Afghanistan.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidcadman4468
That sentiment has been repeated throughout history. Think of the horsemen and carriage operators.
"If these newfangled machines take over, there'll be no jobs left for real people! The beginning of the end!"
New jobs will emerge to meet the new requirements of keeping a self-driving car in usable condition. Who's going to service repairs, (should a car gain this ability) deliver food to the trunk instead of parking, leaving, and coming back?
Aftermarket parts stores will see a boom as people pay more attention to looks, now that functionality is taken care of. Who will staff them? Marketing for the cars, stores, and companies making the parts?
Come on man. I'm just bullshitting here at this point, but there will always be more jobs as long as we're in a capitalistic society. I'm very sorry you lost your job; your employer should have at least given you paid retraining, but to move forward, people need to either adapt, or be left behind.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@morefiction3264
So, the Austrian School and 20th-century liberalism?
The former is anthropologically unsound, as the theory rests upon the assumption that macroeconomic activity is composed exclusively of individual, rational choices.
Humans, meanwhile, are self-interested animals— literally. Hominids.
Group dynamics and thinking vastly differ from individual choices, and even then those choices are rarely ever rational.
In fact, one of the biggest issues with the Austrian School of thought (though it has contributed foundational features to economics, such as the ideas of marginal subjective value)
— is its outright rejection of macroeconomics as being distinct from microeconomics— is why I don't wholly believe in it.
Much like Darwin's work on evolution, it is indeed a good start.
But, also like Darwin, several of its core tenets are simply wrong, and mainstream economics is well past the point of venerating outdated information.
I certainly hope you've read past the 20th century section in the library.
As for liberalism, it worked, until it didn't.
The sciences ate away at philosophy, and the idea that humans are Enlightened, rationally-thinking beings. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for a better world, but the liberalist principles used to justify the pursuit of that better world are simply flawed. The fundamental goal of becoming rational masters of our own destiny shuns the collective side of our existence.
Ironically, Christianity was always contradictory with liberalism. Individual rights? No, they were priveleges given by God. The tribe is most important, etc. Very collectivist.
I suppose with it fading, the counter-balance to liberalism faded too, and we got neoliberalism in its place.
—Precisely the thing that's making younger people reject capitalism.
2
-
lkfvhg
???
Islam itself isn't detrimental to a society, as much as you would like to think that. I don't see Qatar, the UAE, or Oman doing poorly (in terms of actual living standards). Granted, their economy is based on oil, but the rise in prosperity was all done relatively recently, under a fundamentalist Islamic rule.
'Civilization' is not dependent on religion at all- it simply molds to it. Most of the Middle East's problems today stem from Soviet-American involvement in the region, as well as being colonies. That will tend to cripple a nation's ability to govern itself, not having done so for hundreds of years.
The coup d'etats in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan aren't exactly helping stability either. The U.S.-supported groups that killed Qaddafi and tried to kill Assad is also ruining any prospect of stability.
Ironically, these regions had virtually nothing but small tribes and sand before Islam politically united them into larger regions. Just stop intervening in their elections and questionable practices (because that is what every country does to industrialize, sorry, fact of life) and they'll develop normally.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Austin Martín Hernández
Nope. Economics 101 will teach you about products with inelastic demand. When companies get the chance, they monopolize their industry, or turn into an oligarchical cartel.
Case in point, AT&T, Comcast, Charter, and Time Warner have spent millions snuffing out efforts to create local, mesh-based Internet connections.
They're significantly cheaper (because these companies overcharge— what competition? They just sue or bury the local ordinance in legal fees and paperwork), yet there are few of them in the U.S., despite high demand.
The free market doesn't work. It's a concept— good in theory, not in practice.
Let's not forget Martin Shkreli shooting insulin prices through the roof, to $800+. People can't just shop around for a substance that literally keeps them alive, especially if they're poor.
The free market doesn't work.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Shenzhou.
It's a simple explanation, but not a good one.
Your answer only told me how the barbed wire was put there, not why it was only recently installed when the government started to discourage practices like keeping a beard and speaking the Uighur language, which has nothing to do with Islam.
They say it is to combat extremism, but if it really was, they'd just discourage religion, not try to destroy their entire culture and replace it with Han.
And yes, I'm aware of the history of the area, but it has been independent from China for much, much longer.
Only during the Ching Dynasty was the entire area occupied. Before that, China had no control over the region, only the east. Why can't they be left alone?
They don't even travel to the Han portion of China, they live in the desert and could easily be contained there. Why are you bothering them?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Mike Forti
No, you're wrong. And you don't seem too bright, either.
You think that a mother with a "big tummy" is a baby. If you sincerely believe that, answer me this: is a cell alive? You shed trillions of skin cells, sperm cells live and die inside you, every type of cell in your body is replaced in 7 years; so if they're alive, then you're committing murder all the time.
At the moment of conception, a "baby" is just a single cell. Is that alive? When it splits, it's two cells. Would getting rid of two cells be murder?
When the baby pops out, it's clearly alive, so again, think: when exactly is that pile of cells "alive?"
Come back with a concrete answer, thank you. And maybe for once in your life, think logically about why there is a cutoff date for abortions.
P.S. The left hasn't been "sneaking" anything- they've been yelling it at the top of their lungs. The right, however, plays dirty, because it knows what it does is immoral. So it has to be subtle until people don't realize what they're supporting (like hosing down black people in Birmingham) and it's too late. The damage is done.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ViriatoII
Costa Rica is an exception the the rule— and it happens to be a center for cooperatives and social enterprises, something very opposed by American policy.
They succeeded in spite of it, not because of it.
Panama is one of 2 (possibly 3) countries with access to a key global trade chokepoint, and is able to profit off it of (not just through enormous transit fees, but because their status also makes for good tourism).
I'm referring more to Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, and El Salvador, all of whom the US exploited for cheap labor and natural resources for decades, and are still recovering.
Hell, Mexico's cartel problem wouldn't exist if the Mexican government didn't agree to outlaw weed just because the US did it first.
2
-
@ViriatoII
"Being exploited for cheap labor is not necessarily super bad"
You've clearly never been forced to work in a factory, or worked a hard manual labor job, then.
It's no fun. The hardest I've worked was as a contractor, 9-10 hr days, with 15 minute lunch period. Constant physical activity, no breaks. That was only for a few months. It was wrenching.
And that's a luxury to someone in a sweatshop, or even working a field in the US.
While it's great for the country (and certainly it's leaders), this doesn't always translate to transitioning into middle-income economies.
India and Africa have been working those types of jobs for decades of not centuries, where's their reward? It only works if the government is willing to leverage its resources and work for its own people— something not likely if you're kowtowing to a Western corporation.
And you'll have to explain what you mean by 'society and culture'. The Guatemalans are descendants of the Maya (who are also still around today), you've seen the ancient pyramids, no?
As for the marijuana point, I was talking about the cartels. And how America specifically caused Mexico's problem. Which it did, in the 1920's.
If you haven't thought about it before, now you know. What is your response to that?
I don't care what other countries do (in all cases, gangs use drug trade as a way to make money and continue existing), I'm talking about Mexico right now.
So I'm hoping you're either able to justify what America did, or acknowledge that it was wrong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheHamsta101
Or maybe, they don't like their country being split apart along arbitrary lines?
Or, if along ethnic lines, then inconsistently applied across Europe?
No one at the UN or in washingston dc is calling for England to give back Northern Ireland or Scotland, or for Spain to give independence to Basque or Catalonia, or Brittany from France.
Hell, if we're going by ethnic lines, why is Republika Srpska a part of Bosnia?
Yet they froth at the mouth talking about Chechnya, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Uighurstan, and Crimea.
Can you spot a pattern?
Your real reasoning for wanting these changes isn't altruistic or good. It's playing into the plans of the Anglosphere to keep any potential competitors small and weak.
As it has been for centuries.
2
-
2
-
@shoutphire5548
This isn't happening as long as Putin (or whoever else) is in power, catering to the oligarchs and skimming some off the top for themselves.
In fact, this has happened in reverse- Yukos was a valuable investment and profitable venture in Russia, but Mikhail Khordokovsky was charged with fraud, then while imprisoned charged with embezzlement.
There is some doubt as to whether any of that was true, but most of his wealth was liquidated... guess where it all went.
Same with the former Minister of Finance in Russia, advocated for privatization of a state-owned gas company to increase efficiency production... a few mot has later, is arrested for corruption, the charges were led by the man director of the state-run company.
The oligarchs are draining Russia so they can live their final 20 years in extreme wealth, at the cost of literally everything else. It's such a primitive, short sighted and pitiful way to act.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@obligatoryusername7239
Again-- in this scenario, Russia has already invaded. Do you think America is truly willing to destroy Russia, itself, and the entire world?
MAD is meant to be a deterrent, so its effectiveness (and, I assume, what you are trying to tell me) is that Russia would never consider invading in the first place.
But I am asking- if it is done in a moment of weakness, where immediate threat is gone and immediate nuclear response is impossible, do you think the US will resort to MAD after the fact?
You are asserting that any nation would resort to nuclear war on principle of sovereignty.
I simply am posing a question-- if it really does come to that, would the prospect of a nuclear winter, hundreds of millions of dead Americans, and irradiation of most of the US outweigh the right to retaliate on principle?
I am saying that I think it would.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Snow White
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. They're not the worst people, and you just ignored the fact that what I said was true.
Even if it's only some of the people, do they deserve the worst punishment because they listened to their doctor for medical advice??
Also, you're wrong about who's taking them. America is 5% of the population, but takes 80% of its opioids.
Most of the people using hard drugs were first legally prescribed opioids- not getting them from parties. You're just plan wrong, bud.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis
You can buy food, but not nutrients. Fast food will leave you tired and malnourished (even if you get fat, your body won't have the vitamins it needs to function), and many places (inner cities) don't have any grocery stores, unless you want to make a 3-4 hour trip to the suburbs every week.
Also, doctors can and do prescribe cocaine- they're used as anesthetics. And they're legal. Same with meth: amphetamines is just the scientific name for Adderall.
Get your head out of your ass.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@GabrielGabeRodriguez
I guess, but in Europe, there are places where you can drive comfortably (Autobahn, anyplace outside of a city really), and places where the public transport system is great. In America, there are plenty of places where you can drive your little heart out, but (short of San Francisco), no comparably good public transport systems.
Americans just really, really suck at building them. Even Russia, of comparable size, has better public transport between cities in a vast tundra, why can't Americans do that in a mild temperate climate?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Relaxatihon
1) Tech has improved, meltdowns are near-impossible now with alternatives to depleted uranium being developed. It happens very rarely and it literally goes off with a bang, which news media loves to report, that's why people are so afraid of it.
Car crashes happen every second, yet we accept them as normal. Plane crashes are very, very rare, but lots of people are afraid to fly for that reason, despite air travel being many, many times safer than cars.
Same issue here- meltdowns are big and scary, yet no one bats an eyelash at the number of people dead from black lung or explosions. Nuclear isn't actually less safe, human psychology just isn't rational.
2) The waste is a good thing- I think I'd prefer having to decide where to put it then watch it all dissipate into our air (coal, oil, natural gas). The waste is compact and we can store it. It's infinitely easier to manage than fumes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
@joeiborowski9763
Nope- it is rather nice (in the cities, rural areas have issues but I have also seen hookworms in the south (usa), soemthing usually found only in 3rd world countries).
Of course it is not world-class, I never said that. Simply that it is good, and it is universal. A Russian diabetic will receive his insulin pen, while an American (unable to afford) would simply die instead.
This is a sad state of affairs, even more shameful since you are so wealthy yet can't "get your shit together" on basic things.
And... yes, you proved me right. $680B is not far off from $1T, Delhi's economy is larger than many European countries.
You are picking the wealthiest country on earth (California economy is larger than even most Western European countries) and using that as standard for Russia, as evidence that it isn't keeping up??
If that is the case, you might as well include 90% of the world lol
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Morwenna1220
No, not really. At the time of NATO General Secretary de Hoop Schefer announced that both Georgia and Ukraine "would become a part of NATO", interest in Ukraine for membership was barely in double digits.
If it were held to a vote, instead of the ruling party deciding the interests of the entire country, and the US taking advantage of that fact, then the vote would fail.
So I'm not really sure what you mean by "would never have sought to join nato". That sounds like empty assurances to me. It is not the first time the West has done that, either.
Most of their current international influence was rooted in them not being beneath lying, cheating, stealing, and colonizing.
"As usual Russia creates its own problems"
If Europe genuinely attempted to integrate Russia into Europe, instead of exploiting its economic and political weakness immediately after the fall of the USSR, it would not as paranoid ans hostile as it is today.
Russia did not create this problem, the West did.
Every Russian stateman's (Tsar, Emperor, or Premier's) worst fears were confirmed when Russia fell under Western influence- and the country was absolutely ruined for over a decade as a result.
The economic policies and political reforms that the West instructed Russian leadership to do, seemingly were designed to keep it destitute.
You could argue "well Russian leaders made that choice", but you would also need to concede that the West has never had Russia's best interests at heart, and that when the formalities fall away, they really deep down just wanted to plunder our natural resources and human talent, which they did.
I have seen people unironically tell me that it was Russia's fault to be so naïve as to think the West would honor any agreements or good wishes between us. And you wonder why it is aggressive. The oldest Russian motto was re-affirmed in 1991: “I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”
Security against whom? Well, now we have our answer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@scottanderson691
I'm aware that statistics are more a measure of, "if we run this set of variables X number of times, then this is how often we get these results". This is why people misunderstand the weather.
But repeating the thought process of the statisticians themselves, for aske of accuracy, provides no practical use.
For all intents and purposes, given the enormous sample size, repeatability, and good methodology, the data regarding obesity can be extrapolated to the entire American population with a 99% or higher confidence level.
The results go well beyond statistical significance or p-levels.
TLDR; Americans are, indeed, fat
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anthonyantoine9232
Yeah, I second the idea that culture, not ethnicity, plays an outsized in happiness.
Even then, who's to say you can't get along with people from other cultures? History is all about the bad, exciting parts. No one ever mentions the millions of Jews who lived normal lives in Europe for a thousand years before World War II, or the American expats living in Manila, or anything else. You don't need to speak the same language or even share the same culture to feel like part of a community.
The whole "homogenity" thing sounds good on paper, but humans are pack animals, first and foremost. We cooperate before we compete. The only tribal boundaries left are the ones we set as individuals.
I.e., Who do you give yourself permission to hate?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sure! You must've gotten the impression that all millennials are single-minded idiots (NPC is the term now) who just want regulation for its own sake— the way we're portrayed on Fox News and such.
The truth is, most of us— you know, normal people— just want regulations only where they can improve our lives. A lack of them, too!
Example: unions are important, (don't want slave labor again, the 1890's should not be repeated) but over-paying workers, especially to do nothing, sends infrastructure projects in places like New York skyrocketing. Automation may not be the most human-friendly option, but those same displaced workers can work on other projects!
Anyway that's just a drop in the ocean of reform needed in this country.
But you can't just yell promises into a podium that you can't keep ahem, Tr__p. You need nuance; and there's plenty of it with the young generation, TV propaganda be damned.
2
-
Not sure if you know this, but the "I don't see race" argument is pretentious as fuck. Racism, at least in its original meaning, was the idea that whites were superior in intellect and morality, and non-whites (save Asians, who even the racist bastards couldn't deny had contributed too much to the world to be called "dumb"), were not.
No one is, or should, try to make people forget what race they are. Thousands of years of history and culture is attached to each- if you can even describe to me exactly what a "race" is. Liberals' goals are to make all people and their cultures have equal footing.
In the U.S., it might make sense to "forget" culture, mostly because whites destroyed what little culture Africans and Native Americans could save after slavery. Everywhere else, people have their own traditions, and want to keep it that way. That's why we "label."
2
-
2
-
@yosefmacgruber1920
1) You must not understand how airplanes work very well.
Generally, autopilot will take over the duration of the flight, with the exception of the takeoff, landing, and taxi. i.e., all the basic functions that a driver tends to behind the wheel in the form of starting, stopping, and turning.
Pilots are still expected to be mindful of the plane's flight, and only extremely new models can land themselves (which was my point- we are just barely scratching the surface, and it will take decades to reach the consumer market at large scale).
2) They can, but again, pilots need to land and navigate the plane in poor conditions. This is why every runway is plastered in guiding lights.
3) Not sure what you're saying here- I'm just being realistic. I'm extremely excited to see electric, self-driving cars take off, but hyping yourself up will leave you with deflated expectations.
4) Obviously, the cars (the drivers, rather) will travel cross-country. I'm just basing my prediction off of what we currently have, which is precisely what I said- navigational systems can't deal with snow and poor visibility yet. Tesla's entire lineup freaks out under bridges and in snow, thinking every snowflake is a lane line. It's simply the reality right now.
When the cars come to market, they'll be allowed to self-drive in certain regions/weather conditions, and drivers will need to take over in poorer conditions, or farther north.
5) They do, but radar and especially lidar- the main technology behind getting to Level 5 (as opposed to the current 2) cars won't work in some regions without en entirely new technology or workaround.
For this reason, liberal cities will receive the earliest forms of the technology first, because most of them (in the U.S.) are in sunny or temperate climates.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
John Doe
Um, how exactly can everyone be self-sufficient, short of abolishing the government?
Even farmers rely on the government. Subsidies to corn and soy crops, technology to increase yields, publicly funded roads to ship harvests, all come with the help of the government.
There's no such thing as "free" if you think it means complete independence from the government.
There was never such a thing, it was a myth. Created, ironciallly, to promote settlement out West.
While the government couldn't reach people that far west back then, the United States is remarkably well-connected right now.
Your objection to losing your freedom is silly— you already register your location and identity with the government (driver's license, social security number).
What extra thing, besides your vague, unfounded feeling of independence, would you be losing here?
2
-
2
-
@jonathangeorge787
Technically speaking, the new government was not established legally.
The Parliament made an 'exception' and violated Ukraine's own Constitution on multiple occasions to oust Yanukovich-- an impeachment would need to have been conducted, a Supreme Court Review, then a Parliamentary vote with 3/4 majority.
And the line of succession (Yanukovich's Prime Minister) was not honored, either-
imagine if, in 2008, Obama was blamed for the Recession, ousted, and instead of Biden taking his place, it was McCain. Would have been a complete break of the continuation of the Presidency, and in a country where laws are respected, would have been challenged.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikicerise6250
1) I was thinking of Afghanistan.
2) You said "crusades, until Iraq came back to bite them".
Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq are all fair game, you should have specified.
Germany was one of the main European contributors in terms of troops in Afghanistan, France also. Both were part of the ISAF. It took Germany until 2021 to completely withdraw.
As far as Iraq goes, Spain, Italy, UK, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia, Romania (are you sensing a pattern with the last few?), Denmark, Bulgaria, to name just a few, is no small contingent.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Hooksleft-1
According to the Bible (if you really take it at its word):
Noah— a 600 year old man— somehow went to the North and South Pole, got polar bears, penguins to come with him, along with enough animals to feed them, and took them back to the Ark without them dying of heat stroke in the Middle East.
That's not even taking into account travelling to Australia for koala bears, or to Madagascar for its endemic species.
Or the fact that at the time of the Ark's construction, woolly mammoths were still alive on Wrengel island in modern day Russia, so he'd have to brave the weather and bring them back, and enough food to last them for months, too.
And preserve the larger animals' food, and keep enough gazelles for the cheetahs, fish for the bears (both European and North American!) another place he'd have to get to— let's not even get into the South American Amazon and its numerous species— and to even get the polar bears and koala bears, he'd need to build more Arks to get them onto the main one!
Not to mention adequate ventilation to keep the animals dying from methane poisoning (animals fart, don't forget) and all with only wood and with a shipbuilding crew of eight, as specified in the Holy Bible.
None of that is even close to possible with modern technology, so how do you expect Noah to pull that off?
Or address the fact that, if the olive trees all died in the Flood, then it couldn't have been the first tree whose branch the dove brought back to Noah, because olive trees take YEARS to blossom.
And of God "helped" him by making the animals passive, or not eat each other, or created the olive tree from nothing, then why couldn't He have just snapped the sinful people out of existence?
Why put Noah through all that? He is omnipotent.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The immigrants themselves are generally a positive force for any country— they tend to be highly motivated to succeed, given their situation and determination to rebuild their lives.
This, and the fact that increased manpower is good for any economy, makes them a mildly positive force (because money does need to be spent to accomodate their new residency).
That being said, the cause of their immigration is something that should absolutely be stopped.
Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Nicaragua, Tibet, and the like, should all be restored and then (militarily) LEFT ALONE.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Debre.
You may not care about the stated reason, but those were the motivations of the Americans who, at the time, promised Russia integration.
And you can't really make the argument in hindsight, since none of this had actually transpired yet, and I think much, or at least some, of this mess could have been avoided if the Americans had actually followed through on their promises.
You act like it was completely inevitable that Russia was going to act this way--- and that it's a good thing the U.S inflicted pain on them proactively, because look at how aggressive they've become!
I have news for you: that's not how the flow of time works.
It moves forwards, not backwards, and whatever you may think of the Russian state in the long run, it had genuinely tried to open up economically and politically during the Yeltsin/2000s Putin years.
The poor treatment of it by the West (Washington rigging Yeltsin's 2nd election, on principle alone, should have been enough to convince the Russians to get aggressive (the US did in 2016). But they continued to try and engage.
The extrajudicial killing of Gaddafi was what crossed the line.
The West's continued spite and isolation of Russia created its aggressive behavior, not the other way around. We were duped. Never again.
2
-
@Debre.
And, interestingly enough, you (unlike those Americans) have the benefit of hindsight.
Has the isolation of Russia done anything to stop it? The ruble's value against USD more than halved, and nothing changed.
Russia can barely do business anymore- and nothing changed. In fact, sanctions spurred a domestic food industry revival.
You have 8 years of evidence to suggest that punishment will not alter behavior, and yet you're committed to this idea because... "we need to 'be tough' on Russia!"?
In fact, the further isolation may actually increase the chances that Russia attacks. It was never brought into the international economy, so it had little to lose by engaging in such behavior. America plans to cut it off from the SWIFT banking system, isolating it completely.
If the state survives, what is there left to leverage with? What exactly is America's plan here?
They've even taken to sanctioning before invasion- so if they're sanctioned either way, why not create a buffer with the West?
America's plan, currently, is all stick and no carrot. You can have your ideological reasons to hate Russia, but incentives are not appeasement.
Give Russia something precious to lose (an integrated, diverse economy?), and it will be more willing to negotiate with the countries upon whom Russia would then depend.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Unknowngfyjoh
...What? Kiev was always a Slavic settlement, first as a tributary under the Khazars, then captured by Rus and made into its capital, then Mongol yoke, then Polish occupation + Polonization, then Russian occupation + Russification, then Soviet rule, and now here.
In that entire span of time, only the early history was independent (as capital of Rus). Otherwise, they have never been a state
Ethnically though, they've always been East Slavic, though their culture and values changed when they were Polonized.
Also Cossacks weren't just Polish, mosstly Ukrainian, Tatar, Polish, Russian.
More like a social class than ethnicity, like cowboy
2
-
@Netizen's United
Cleaner, safer?
Cities subsidize the suburbs.
They don't generate any economic activity of their own— no shops or public places, just houses. You're quite literally mooching off of the people you despise.
Biting the hand that feeds you.
So even if what you said were somehow true— it can't last. You're coasting on borrowed money. Your way of life cannot and will not continue.
Your grandchildren are gonna need to make some tough choices that you didn't have the balls to.
All that being said:
Safer? Is it safer for children to be chauffeured around all the time and never learn how to fend for themselves?
You tell me which you think a trafficker would target. Suburbs are almost always empty, no one fucking walks in them. Except for kids, because they don't have cars.
In the city, more people are out, so more potential criminals, but you're always within earshot. If anything happens, everyone knows right away.
On the other hand, if you're a kid in the suburbs and aomwthing happens, you're fucked.
I was one of those kids who had to walk, the city was always safer for me. And don't get me started on your opioid problem.
Safer, my ass.
Cleaner? Not really. Suburbs are most wasteful per person and frankly, I don't consider barren grass lawns to be a sign of cleanliness. New York is dirty, sure, but it's the exception, not the rule.
Chicago, Tampa, Austin (it's blue, too), San Francisco, are all cleaner and better serviced than whatever backwater subdivision you crawled out of. Chickenwire houses and dingy little grass patches =/= cleaner.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AyleidCraft
Sorry for text block-
A chore to watch, as in, it's an onslaught of information. YouTube's layout has, if you haven't noticed, changed over the years to be more and more like a slot machine.
It's harder to find good content without the Featured Section, now you've really gotta look for it. The first few things I see are always Recommended and news videos.
(Pre-roll ads I get, but) double unskippable ads, in-video sponsors, optimization (every video is stretched to ~10 minutes) and content that isn't super easy to reproduce every day, animations, video essays, just random videos, is becoming rarer and harder to reliably find.
Everything starts to look the same so when I go on to watch people Broadcast Themselves, half my time is taken up looking for something good, instead of a vlog, gaming channel, or text-to-speech Reddit video.
How is it like a slot machine, then? It gives out rewards randomly. Most of the time when you click, it's just average. But every so often a really good video comes up and keeps you coming back. And this is intentional. YouTube slowly changed its algorithm from virality (hence keyboard cat, Chocolate Rain, Evolution of Dance, Lazer Collection) to retention; ever since Google bought it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Father Man
But it wasn't. The Ottomans had plenty of Christians in its empire- it allowed those outside the state religion, unlike the Spanish and French, to live in their empire. In fact, it depended on them, as non-Muslims had to pay a tax (yeah, I know that stinks, but it's either that or a Muslim Crusades, your pick). So to suggest that they were going to forcibly convert Europeans is ridiculous.
In case you're wondering, yes, Albania is Muslim because they converted to avoid those taxes. You could blame the Ottomans for requiring a non-Muslim tax, or you could ask the Albanians why their faith was so weak.
So technically you're right, but you'd also have to blame the Europeans, since the Ottomans didn't force conversions.
You know, personal responsibility.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@scroopynooperz9051
They've been doing that for a long time, now. They simply have never bought into globalization's myth. They participated in it to benefit from it, but never adhered to its doctrine.
For example, semiconductors. They could have saved money by not investing in R&D for their own companies-- buying from ASML and TSMC is much cheaper, for much higher quality, in the short term! But then a trade war with thw US comes along, and the access is gone.
Thank goodness they developed their own chip tech, huh?
Same goes for food and finances. Sure, they could leverage financial instruments to boost the status of their currency... but those same institutions are based in Europe and run by the US. That's why it's important to have foreign and domestic reserves, and minimize even domestically-held debt. They and Russia have the largest gold reserves, too.
Same with food. I'm sure it's cheaper to not build enormous silos that seem overkill for your population's annual needs... but the economic system peddled by the West is not a force of nature, it can always collapse.
TDLR, don't buy into globalization, always have a backup plan
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Peter A.
You've hit the nail on the head, which is why we can't take a position on God, or (at best) assume he just doesn't exist.
By nature of being supernatural, no religious person can prove a god's/goddesses' existence- (s)he transcends the means by which we can prove anything, so to assert that "there is a god" is an unfalsifiable statement.
And since the natural world presents us with huge numbers of design mistakes, cruelty, and internal consistency (no breaking of natural laws), there is no reason to believe that any sort of agency is behind the universe.
Not to mention religious stories' strange conformity to the geographical location and human knowledge they were formed in, almost as if humans, and not a deity, made them up..
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Testimony_Of_JTF
I can respect a commitment to not being hypocritical, but it is not enough to simply have the "right" ideological framework.
The things we are discussing are real events that have already played out, and have effects on the likelihood of similar future events.
Basically: the US has gotten away with a lot, and benefitted from it.
If we do nothing about that, then any country wanting to do the same has a defensible excuse to do it (since "what the US did was a long time ago, that's why we're letting it slide" is a horrible argument).
So unless you call for the US to be cut off from all Western technology in the same way Russia has (for crimes in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc etc), I cannot believe you when you say that you're against Western imperialism.
What would this look like? The Netherlands, which controls ASML, needs to immediately stop shipping any chips to Taiwan if they are intended for US companies, since those are chips which it used to bomb civilians.
It might make civilians suffer and cause regime change in the US, but... well, no one seems to have an issue pursuing that goal in Russia, so why not apply the same logic to another imperial power?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is the alt-right calling card, don't you know?
Ever seen interviews with flat-earthers? Or Evangelicals?
They're always disingenuous- frame it as "oh, just a bunch of folks like you, hanging out, golly!"
They hide the agenda part of their meeting as much as possible, and try to turn it into "just a cool event for freethinkers like yourselves! Aaand if we come to some political conclusions, then that's just how things turned out!"
If people understood the end-goal of alt-right discord servers, or chat rooms, or livestreams, etc., they might not be so eager to join. Understanding that you're being played to the benefit of some fat, rich fuck's wallet, makes "the new counterculture," a lot less rebellious.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
James Davis
First of all, learn English better, please. Proper grammar is key.
Second of all, unless you want to flood New York City, Philedelphia, Hartford, Myrtle Beach, and every other East Coast city in the U.S., we can't afford not to switch to solar.
Third of all, send me links proving that climate change is "incomplete." Show me the data that says the rate of ice melting, atmospheric pollution, and water level rises aren't caused by increasing methane and carbon-dioxide levels in the air, produced by cars and factories.
I'm waiting.
2
-
2
-
x92811
200 years of hiding behind oceans will do that for a country— no matter how inbred its citizens are.
Put the U.S. in Russia's situation, but replace the players so it makes sense.
Get this:
For hundreds of years before the U.S. is founded, it's forced to fight from all four sides— the Navajo Nation, The French Canadians, the Mexicans, and the Sioux. They have immunity to your diseases this time. Your nation is caught in the middle.
Then (no imagination needed here) you're colonized by a foreign power, but (bc Russia missed out on the Renaissance due to the Mongols) you don't have the Industrial Revolution.
You finally gain independency, and conquer from sea to shining sea. Great!
Except the East and West Coast are frozen. So you have to go through the Gulf of Mexico to trade, their water is warmer. That means you have to pay royalties.
You know about all the rivers that connect to the Mississippi? Well you don't get those.
When WWII comes around, all your cities get bombed, instead of one harbor, and you lose 30 million working men by the end of it.
How's that economy looking?
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
-
@jlighter1
The answer there is simple. It pledged, in 2008, to make both Ukraine and Georgia full NATO members.
You might not agree that Russia was forced to do anything, but from its own perspective, that potential state of affairs was unacceptable.
If you want a counter-example, the US was "forced" to threaten nuclear war over nuclear missiles in Cuba.
Cuba is also a sovereign nation, and the US had no issues stationing Jupiter missiles in Turkey, but freaked out when the shoe was on the other foot. In that moment, from the US point of view, Cuba had to be forced against its will.
It's a simple reality— alliances don't exist in a vacuum; there isn't a reality where "every state has the right to join any alliance it wants!".
That's not how any state has ever acted in history, and you're ridiculous for thinking Russia or any other country should act that way.
Especially after what NATO did in Libya (no Article 5 trigger), it's not a defensive alliance. It's a de facto arm of the US military, and it's extremely dangerous.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ConorMcgregor322
Yes, you did. You still haven't addressed any of the points.
Are Polish neo-Nazis and nationalists not marching through the streets with banners that say "Polska dla Polaków'?
Are they not yelling "nie czerwona, nie tęczowa, tylko Polska narodowa"?
Did PiS not just pass another abortion restriction?
Are the police not beating protestors in the streets?
Is the Catholic Church not aligned with PiS?
Did Patryk Jaki not say that "zatrzymanie islamizacji to moja Westerplatte"?
Answer a single question, you weasel.
"Absolutely no reasons" and stop sticking your head in the sand. I just gave you six. It's happening. Now tell try and tell me that it isn't.
Go ahead, I dare you to try.
You also haven't changed your comment to say that it's not laughable that a country would do what the Nazis did.
I gave the example of Israel cleansing away Arabs like the Germans did to them, you replied with... nothing. You didn't reply.
It's not laughable. Poland could do it again. It's started against LGBT, it might move to Jews or Vietnamese.
"Putin wants to recreate the Russian Empire" give evidence, when did he say that?
I acknowledge that it is an authoritarian country. But it isn't fascists. I've already said this. Russia doesn't target its minorities like Germany did. Not even close.
And, unlike Poland, it doesn't want a single ethnicity to be in its territory. Poland has many, many supporters of this.
"strong nationalism due to historic Russian oppression" how does PiS' actions have anything related to Russia at all?
2
-
@recoil53
"Decided not to be a looming threat"
Sounds like its mere existence is a problem to you.
Since Russia in the 1990s already opened up completely to the West economically, culturally, and politically, and that apparently isn't enough for it to stop being a "looming threat", what is good enough for you people?
Willingly Balkanize ourselves? Give you all of our natural resources for free, rather than for cheap, like in the 1990s?
You list off these standards purely to denigrate Russia as if it hasn't already tried reaching them and paid dearly for it.
Westerners will never admit that their entire societies, their international bloc, has done very bad things to a country that currently threatens them.
You won't admit it for China (century of occupation, Opium Wars, Nanking) Russia (1990s forced privatization) Iran (overthrew their democratic government) or North Korea (destroted all civilian infrastructure in Korean War) because accurately painting any one as an aggrieved party puts fault on you.
It lessens the power your self-crafted narrative of being "the leaders of the world" gives you.
It shows you for what you really are: opportunistic, greedy empires who've found that they can extend the shelf life of their dominance by pretending to have moral authority, in spite of being the same empires they lecture against becoming.
2
-
2
-
@jpoeng
Sorry, needed to blow off some steam.
Too many Southern acquaintances have annoyed me with a profound unawareness that everything they hold near and dear was not, in fact, granted to them by Jesus in 1776.
It just irks me sometimes, the fetishization of being isolated and 'self-sufficient,' while also reaping the benefits of being precisely the opposite of that.
Anyway, I think it has a few problems.
Only half of the states' Electors are Constitutionally bound to vote for whomever the populace chooses. Not to mention, the winner takes all system. I guess it cuts down on states candidates have to campaign in, but also narrows their source of income, and turns fundraisers into corruption begging to materialize. PACs be damned.
Oh, and Election Day isn't a federal holiday. Or even on a weekend. T_T
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Sovereign_Citizen_LEO
Sure, they have their own design team- but they also have trillions of data points on the trends going on in their marketplace.
They invest money to create a rough copy of what's popular, and (because they're such a big company) price it just a little bit lower than the competitors... what do you know, they've gone out of business!
Also, they don't copy or steal designs directly, but Chinese sellers do. And they also sell on Amazon, and take business away from the inventors and patent-holders.
Amazon hasn't cracked down on it at all, and if a buyer or seller tries to warn others about it, Amazon will delete their review or inquiry.
That's not even my point. In the U.S., hard work will only get you places if you're also lucky. There are plenty of people who've worked their ass off their whole life and gotten little.
Either "work hard and you'll succeed", or "life ain't fair".
You can't have both.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
BusterPlanet
1) Sounds like someone's never been fat before! It makes your life much, much worse.
2) You ignored every other point that I made. Stop cherrypicking.
"This is not a commie country"
Bismarck's Germany was the first to invent public healthcare, the USSR was just the first to make it nationwide.
Also, most capitalist European countries pride themselves in how much better their system is than US.
So I'm not really sure what you are trying to prove.
"And again, dude, dont come at me with "whataboutism"
Also you: "the US did some shady sh*t, but.."
You're ridiculous. Accusing me of doing something which you clearly have no problem doing, when it suits you.
You started off with a comparison. I simply replied to your comparison by going deeper.
I have lived in both countries, and in many ways, life in US is better.
But it comes at the heavy cost of your sanity.
Pace of life is much faster, there are almost no vacations even for high earners, poor infrastructure (yes, Russia's is better- 60% of Russia is like Alaska. Alaska's infrastructure is poor, and is mostly comprised of roads. Russia's is mostly rail.)
You have money, but no time to spend it. Your life becomes a cycle of work. You are not living anymore.
This is the trap. It looks like paradise to an immigrant, but by the time they have realize the negatives, it is too late.
Europe is much better than both.
Also, "extremely shady history"? Again, if you are comparing the two countries, which you just did, this is no standard to judge America as any better than Russia. At least Russia's Native tribes still exist.
"Oh, and in WWII the Nazis bassicly reached Moskau which is pretty emberessing."
Considering that they occupied most of Europe, it's not embarrassing. The only reason Britain (and US) escaped Nazi fighting was because of water.
80% of Nazi deaths were in the USSR, America just cleaned up the crumbs.
"And did you forget that you also had the Japanese to worry about?"
Did you forget that the reason the US dropped the bomb was to stop the Soviets from invading (they already killed 700.000 Japanese in Manchuria), and taking the northern half of Japan?
They also refused to attack the Soviets even when Hitler asked, I wonder why...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, funny enough, Abrahamic religions largely assume that people are inherently sinful- hence the Fall of Man at the end of Genesis. So from a theological point of view it makes perfect sense. Of course the Bible implicitly makes clear that nobody wants to die just because they know they'll be cured of a disease, or are promised happiness in the afterlife, but conservatives have a knack for twisting ideas to their benefit.
You mention atheists have somewhat opposite views, and I would agree, but only partially. Dharmic religions are more consistently positive about human nature, but fail to see its capacity for evil. Atheists, on the other hand, don't have a system of beliefs, so they go either way. Really depends on personal experience as you (presumably) choose not to follow any one rigid philosophy. So before you dismiss all religions, look carefully. You might come to the conclusion, as I have, that humans are just self-interested, and their behavior will be a mix of nature, nurture, and that instinct. Or maybe not.
Cheers
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidbourne8267
'Talking points'? Could you point out where I was incorrect, then, if these are just talking points? Because I gave concrete examples.
Did Musk not receive an initial multi-hundred-million dollar NASA contract before he had a single viable product?
Did he not hire rocketry engineers so he wouldn't have to do that himself?
All I see, looking at the actual timeline of events surrounding the development of his companies, is an average at best 'leader' who does literally the same thing as any other founder.
He's not an engineer, or a rocketry expert, or especially Tony Stark.
The reason he succeeded-- again-- is that the US government sees great value in making itself independent of Russian rocket tech, and so sponsored SpaceX so it couldn't fail.
Similar story with Tesla; no Chinese EVs allowed in the US so it was very important to develop an American one.
This is evident in both cases from the amount of subsidies that they receive:
To date, Tesla has received ~$4.5B in subsidies, and this doesn't count the untold billions it will avoid paying as a part its tax deal for setting up its Gigafactory in Nevada. Those unpaid taxes are gonna cost Nevadans.
The SpaceX subsidies were difficult to even count, but rest assured it is more than the Tesla subsidies. This isn't even counting the $6B in tax credits they've received.
With benefits like this, you don't need to be a genius- or even remotely competent- to actually "run" your company.
He's just the figurehead-- and the fact that he sleeps and does nothing but work at the Gigafactory? That's pretty stupid as well, humans need stimulation or they start to lose decision-making skills. "Never sleep!" is a great line, not a good real-life strategy.
But we'll see how Twitter plays out, and you can tell me how incredibly smart he is :)
2
-
2
-
@kasperiization
You're missing a key point in your equation: "Russian influence" didn't happen in a vacuum. The US threatened any country that did business with the Soviets, with heavy sanctions. Not unlike Cuba or Iran today.
If the Soviets were allowed to trade (note: markets =/= capital) then every citizen's quality of life would have improved, including Estonians'.
It wasn't bad Russian policy that hindered development, but aggressive US containment strategy. So when the USSR fell, the US poured millions into your country to keep it out of competing Russian or Chinese influence. It was always just about using your country as a resource colony and military base. The fact that your consumer goods improved was a nice side effect, but the US doesn't really care about that.
Lastly: for all the improvements you just listed, they are all creature comforts, and don't reflect the viability of Estonia.
Case in point: since liberalization, Estonia's manufacturing capacity has disappeared, courtesy of following the US' guidance.
A good 1/3 of your people have left for Western Europe and will never come back, and Tallinn is sucking the rest of the country dry.
I'm glad you finally had some good comfortable decades, because they will be your last. Eventually your population will get so small and so old that Estonia will cease to be anything but a NATO outpost.
Hope you enjoy being the token member of the Western bloc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hejiranyc
Oh, and since your family falls into the most stereotypical line of work for Korean immigrants, of which there's a documented history:
You, unlike immigrants from Latin America whose entry was severely restricted in 1968, forcing them into low-pay, low-mobility jobs (typically agriculture), probably had an easier time getting into the US to begin with.
I also know that, despite having "no connections", you weren't the only Koreans immigrating. Far from it.
I can safely assume (though stop me if I'm wrong here) that you leaned on other Koreans for help, and vice-versa. Were probably part of an immigrant community.
There's a good chance that you got started working in produce, and were lucky enough to have help from a wholesaler.
After saving up, your parents probably bought the dry-cleaning business from the said wholesaler, or took out a bank loan.
Both of those things- not getting discriminated against and getting a loan, before the rise of credit scores- would be much less likely for another non-White ethnicity.
Again, not to dismiss your hard work- every business requires it- but it just astonishes me that you'd even question me pointing out advantages when you yourself said you were very lucky to begin with.
My larger point: the US has changed, inflation makes saving harder, and the strategy you took is not a good instruction for anyone outside your generation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hj925
You need to be more specific. You never once named what 'Eastern' project you're taking about.
If you're referring to North Korea, then you just spewed out a lot more words than necessary to avoid saying,
"you're right, I was wrong. The Americans aren't liable to public pressure any more than the Russians are. And my attempt to distinguish the two was biased by my own beliefs."
The US currently has 800+ officially confirmed bases around the world, and in numerous instances they aren't wanted there but bribe or threaten the government so they can stay (Guantanamo Bay, Okinawa, South Korea, Taiwan— Chiang Kai Shek also faced student uprisings against the US' presence in their country, northeastern Syria).
Your waxing poetic about how special of a case North Korea was doesn't change the fact that the US is as persistent, if not more, than Russian is, once it gets its hands on a country's territory.
That's an obviously bad, insidious thing when a rival country does it, but something tells me you'll find a way to spin continued unwanted US presence as a good thing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Out of genuine curiosity (I swear, I just don't know the answer), how does the U.S. know that Russia interfered? I mean, the implication being that it affected the outcome of the presidency. Facebook ads is totally up Russia's alley, it has a very developed cyber-culture, etc.. All governments do that, or attempt to, to some degree or another.
My question is, how could that have gotten Trump elected? The Presidency is decided by the Electoral College, and the pool of people from whom the electors are chosen were already established (in addition, electors can't be Congress(wo)men, so they aren't bound by law to elected by the popular vote).
There is the argument that they could have hacked our voting booths, which is admittedly easy to do, but the influence, numerically, (because only a quarter of voting machines have no paper trail at all) isn't enough to sway votes in a country where only a few states are "swing-states." You could of course say that Russians are physically in the U.S. and have physical access to doctor some of the votes, but that's a whole different issue.
Anyway, my question still stands: what's the evidence? So far, I've seen Crowdstrike say it detected attacks on American vote-counting servers whose tactics are distinctly similar to Russia's, but that's about it. What do you think?
2
-
@heartminer5487
That's true, but if self-interest is based on avoiding something for as long as possible, then it does contradict greater good.
For example, let's say a village uses a fishing pond.
If everyone only catches 2 fish, everyone in the village can keep using the pond, because the fish have time to reproduce, and provide everyone with a new generation of fish.
But if everyone starts catching 3 fish (short-term), there will be less and less fish to reproduce until there are zero fish left (long-term).
Everyone is self-interested, and everyone loses the the greater good.
Similarly, if the social credit system isn't as good as the Chinese think it will be (at the moment); a person can be self-interested, and just wait until he makes a mistake or unknowingly does something that gets him in trouble. Then he realizes the system needs to be removed.
Or, everyone can act for the greater good, and protest as soon as other people have their score unjustly lowered.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is an oligarchy, not a dictatorship. Putin does not control the oligarchs, merely manages their interests.
Same problem with Stalin- the West deliberately misinformed its citizens about the nature of USSR political structure to keep them motivated to contribute destroying it.
(I am not saying that Stalin was good, simple that he was not a total dictator, more like the captain of a team).
And I do not think anyone actually cares about international law- if violating these laws confers a benefit to the country in question, and the violations are being enforced unequally, then it makes no sense for Russia to stop.
The US government was summoned before the ICC for war crimes and allegations of torture in Afganistan and Palestine. In response, the US denied the charges and sanctioned the ICC.
Europe has not sanctioned the US over its human rights violations, has not made the lives of American citizens worse... so why is Russia treated differently?
If the "international community" truly cared about the principles, it would apply the same measures against the same crimes (human rights violations) committed by both countries. Yet, America gets to keep trading with the EU, because they and Europe are on the same team.
It was never about human rights. It is about limiting the influence of competing powers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iHaveGrudgeAgainstUT
If you think an appeal to authority is the best way to reach a truthful conclusion, then there's something wrong in your head.
I don't need to remind you that these are the same doctors prescribing ground-up rhinoceros horns for virility.
Just because he is a doctor, doesn't mean he is trustworthy. I can't believe you'd be dumb enough to think that, especially after their historical knack for getting things wrong.
American doctors used to say that women weren't allowed to run because they'd get heart attacks, and Chinese doctors used to send their patients home with instructions to reorder everything in their house to chase spirits away.
In any case, even a modern doctor can be paid by the Chinese Communist Party to lie, because it keeps their official image clean. They don't want any more revolutions, they want to stay rich and in power.
Speaking of rich, that woman isn't. Having a foreigner pay for a private visit to the doctor's could get her in trouble later on— I should know, criticizing the government got my great-grandfather taken away. Private hospitals are, by their nature, more expensive than the public ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, neutral towards me. I'd really appreciate it if you were. If you refuse to even respect me on a very shallow level, then I can definitively conclude that you're a horrible person.
I can't take your argument seriously while you keep misspelling "ridicules."
That actually wasn't very insulting. Insulting a person's entire belief; what they stand for, is far worse than some half-Norman curse words you sling at me.
I find it fascinating that atheists, who so often pride themselves of being "freethinkers" (which is B.S.) and who are constantly searching for new knowledge- especially in biology- refuse to use the unknown as a benchmark or an inspiration for what they can achieve. Jesus' resurrection may not be possible now by conventional means, but what if scientists 200 years from now discover a dormant gene in the skin's DNA that allows telomeres to regrow and the dermis to regenerate? Religion is a faith, not a science. The two should not have to clash. They should help one another, that would be much more productive.
I would still respect that person's opinion, regardless of its vileness. That isn't to say I won't try to convince him otherwise or tell somebody before he hurts someone, because there is (contrary to what you apparently think) a huge gap between believing in a hell and creating one on Earth.
You're correct, people of another worldview will unfortunately go to Hell in the Christian doctrine. That's just how we see it. But that does not make us infinitely worse than a person who actively hates people. Christians (in theory) should love everyone, regardless of the sins that they've committed. Our job is to prevent people from Hell. All a person has to do is to sincerely confess Jesus as savior once. As an added bonus, you can become a deist if you want. You keep the evolution (which is only slightly contradictory to the Bible) the quantum physics, etc. And you'd be saved. You'd just have to confess.
1
-
TheTurinturumbar
Fine. You got me there, but respect does not mean that you do me the great honor of insulting my beliefs by calling them irrational. That is not an exchange of ideas, that is an argument waiting to happen.
I never said that I didn't respect your opinion or that your horrible grammatical skill made it any less reasonable. Those were all your assumptions. I don't see what favor you think you're doing for me by correcting yourself, but if you think that you're somehow making me feel stupid for accusing you, you're not.
I still don't see any point in reiterating whatever that slur of curses was; let's just assume that you're correct in saying that it's a vicious attack to get it out of the way.
You're correct, then I'd have evidence of God's existence. However, trying to prove a non-physical concept is impossible, which is why we have faith in the idea that Jesus is our savior. The issue with trying to prove a human concept is that our knowledge of salvation can only be "a priori." Sad but true. I didn't even start a conversation with you; you just butted in of your own justification (your ideas will be "Shot down". They will not simply be shot down, that is the decision of the commenter. I'm fine with that, but you have to present your own evidence. You haven't shown me any reason why God is irrational.) You are basing evidence on a good physical basis, which is fine for observing phenomenon that are practical in our everyday lives.However, relying on realism (a subjective worldview) to assess a faith whose existence isn't bound by realism is not a good strategy. You haven't even set the boundaries for what is rational, so why should I believe that "rationality" is some universal concept? Rationality, as stated before, changes with what we discover can be possible. By definition, if my belief is in line with my reason to believe (which I've said before: Makes me happy), it is rational.
If a person assuredly will not hurt anyone or create a hell on earth, then what reason should anybody have to change his ideas? I don't recall ever hearing that you can be a moral policeman who beats anybody that doesn't fit within a "rational" understanding of the world. Why should anyone care if that one person isn't a carbon copy of you?
In any case, you're correct. We all deserve to go to Hell, but not because we're monsters or because we're infinitely less perfect than God. You seemingly willingly, actively distort the way that Christians see Hell. We don't want to go to Hell, and we don't support that God sends people to it; neither does He. It is simply in His own policy that sinful people cannot go to Heaven. I do not actively wish or endorse that fact that Hell is even a place to go, We deserve it, but we don' think that people deserve it in an active sense; it a passive "default area." The only remaining place to go. I already said that our job is to prevent people from going there. If that doesn't get through your thick skull, I don't know what will.
1
-
TheTurinturumbar
I'll "disregard" the first part of your argument since we seem not to have starkly contrasting ideologies there. Not trying to ignore what you said, I'm just tired of it.
Now, starting with, "Rationality does not change.."
You may think that my faith is ambiguous, and that's perfectly fine. I am perfectly fine with reason being thrown out the window. That is the truth; you cannot prove or disprove anything because we, as humans, rely heavily on one logical assumption or another (in your case, realism) to prove things "rational." Faith is an anchor for me, if an irrational one, because it cannot be disproven or proven any more than "the sky is blue" can. The evidence is just fun for me to ponder. Summed up: I acknowledge my irrationality despite learning swathes of it (which is subjective anyway) but I enjoy my faith because it makes me happy.
You just created an "us" (non-religious) and "them (religious)." Guess what else that has led to throughout history? You also used him as an example for my obligation to oppose an assumedly ghastly idea but later propose that he isn't so bad after all? Keep consistent with the pictures that you paint of people, please.
Sinful people is all of us, yes. We are all born with ancestral sin and the counter keeps rising after that. Only after we A) commit a sin in hatred and B) Reject God do really go to Hell. Why should a person's involvement in an action automatically mean that I support it? Just because I oversee a reconstruction of a basketball court into a prison to house my murderer-cousin means that I want to do it?
Would I stop him? No. There is no place for them to go to. In my perception, these would be (and are) normal people that go to Hell, but they simply can't go anywhere else. God won't defy Devil's will not to have them there (crazy as it sounds) and He won't defy people's will (knowledge of the world and its perceived functions) while they reside on Earth. So, we end up in a situation where God could only intervene into an area where everybody had the concept of a deity in their heads (ancient Israel) and had no reason to intervene after (Catholic Church probably rigged the timeline) ~33 CE. So, sure. According my morality, God is doing something wrong (would love it if everyone could spend eternity with Him) but he is doing what is necessary.
1
-
TheTurinturumbar
Have you not remembered the whole point of you starting this conversation with me? I was annoyed with you butting in (which is obviously allowed, no need to correct me there professor) and that you had no sense of common courtesy with the way you blatantly denounced my argument whilst not producing any reasons or counter-evidence. I did not waste all that time and energy going into the rationality of my religion, that's what you dragged me into. I do believe that, within the mutually established boundaries of realism, religion holds 'rational' value, but we've been discussing the objective value of theism and anti-theism. So that's why I threw it out the window, and would prefer if you didn't attempt to bring it back into the house. You did not defend your position on the innate subjectivity of the universe through human perception, and I'll probably die five times before anyone can do so.
Science, by its bare definition, is the careful observation of the world through experimentation. There are plenty of christian scientists who do this, as well as the famous quasi-scientists - children. I believed in god as a child, and was always looking for new things to know. Did I not, to some extent, do science? Back to fairy tales. I'm not sure if you're referring to my religious belief, or what I said about subjectivity. If it's the former, you have yet to disprove the rationality of it because of your own assumptions about reality and many other things (uneven distribution of gasses after the big bang, more matter than anti-matter, dark energy, the constant acceleration of the universe going faster and faster- must have started from no speed at all, the creation of life, etc.) I'm just as curious as you are about the naturalistic processes that took place with these events, but I don't choose to isolate my five primary senses as tool for doing so. If it's the latter - subjectivity- you haven't defended that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
That's a fair example, and I'm sorry that your children had to go through that, but you're grossly oversimplifying a crucial factor here. You're trying to make religion and judgement upon others mutually exclusive, when it's a universal trait of children to notice others' differences. I myself was insulted by my fellow classmates from preschool to elementary school for having glasses. This is the case with 99% of my friends as well for various other traits of theirs, and I'm almost certain that it's happened to you or you've seen it happen in one form or another.
Religion, in your case, was just the means by which those kids decided to be brutally honest with yours. (Not saying that your kids will go to hell, they were just telling them exactly what they knew.)
While it's true that Christianity, Catholicism in particular, has some negative connotations and ill effects- as was seen when one of Bill Cosby's recently outspoken victims did what he told her to because she was told in Catholic school to obey authority- it does not mean that religion as a whole is bad. Christianity in particular calls not to judge others (Romans 14: 1-13) or if you must, judge yourself of the same thing first. You said you lived in the Bible Belt. I don't know how closely people actually follow Scripture there, but if the adults tried to prevent their kids from judging yours, or at least did not address your lack of belief in a similar manner, then you'd have no reason to assume that this generation in particular is 'ruined' because of religion. You might not believe me, understandably so, due to how traumatic it must have been to hear your child ask you if he was going to hell, but please take into consideration the fact that these are children, and they change over time. You, in effect, judged them in the same way they did your child.
A history lesson, if I may. The Catholic Church is one of the oldest still-standing religious hierarchies in the world. It was, during the Reformation, accused of selling remittances to "Purgatory" and was duly weakened. Many European settlers that first migrated into America were Protestant, and the Catholic Church only managed to slip in later on. So it makes sense, with its reputation for corruptness and a small population to begin with (although it is now the largest) that it would steadily decline. And, from my own firsthand experience, I can understand why nobody goes to Catholic Church. It's boring as hell :). I'd also like to mention that, when I went to Catholic school, I did not like the idea of Purgatory (it's fake) and challenged my teachers because of it in spite of practicing the same general religion.
Now what I don't understand here is why you try to generalize religion as a whole with your bad experience, or that you say that religion is the enemy of education. Religion, in a purely pragmatic sense, is a form of education. Religion, I will say firsthand, is the enemy of deep thought, but aside from doing epistemology and cosmology lessons from scratch, there is no reason why religion should hinder established subjects' credibility in the minds of young people. If it does, that's not good, but it can be fixed.
That last statement is indeed true- are you implying that it makes religion worse? Much of what you have today, including your own existence, is because of Byzantine Christian and Islamic scholars providing the resources necessary for Europe to come out of its Middle Ages shambles and prosper. My final point: do not generalize; think for yourself. Atheism can and will, if left unchecked, do the same as religion does today, only with the roles reversed.
1
-
*****
You've missed my point. Children, naturally being judgmental, will notice differences among their peers, and religion, despite being "brainwashing," is no more useful as a social-splitting tool than atheism would be in a largely atheistic society. Your point about not believing is a bit moot as (from the children's perspective) if they don't believe, then there is no hell to them; as you said.
Creationism, I also believe, is a bit shaky in terms of the world's origins, but you have not provided a reason for your not believing in a deity. I find that the very nature of the universe without a deity itself requires many other leaps of faith that you clearly do have. You believe in naturalism, which you as an atheist cannot deny. You believe in realism, and the idea that our brains accurately pick up what we perceive. Looking at theism from an Occam's Razor perspective, theism is much more logical to believe in; it only assumes one thing. You cannot rely on intuition to tell you what to believe in, that is intellectually dishonest for an atheist ("In my thinking it is... absurd").
My problem with atheism, as you have mentioned, is that it has no ethos; no moral hierarchy coupled with masses of inconsistencies. For example: morality. Some atheists such as yourself say that there is no set of rules. In that case, what is technically stopping you from committing adultery, slaughtering your family, and robbing a bank in all one day if there is no objective morality tied to atheism? You would only suffer a gunshot or, at worst, years of your life, and then it would be all over. Nobody would deliver justice to those harmed, end of story. Those who object to this in any way immediately compromise their own consistency because their opinion of right and wrong indicates a moral code. Atheism can be held responsible for negative things if somebody uses the justification of subjective morality to defend a crime that they commit, as mentioned above. Like it or not, atheism has implications of its own that cannot be denied. Otherwise you'd just be running away from the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With all due respect, the Golden Age of Islam did not see a decline in scientific advancement, any more than the Dark Ages did several hundred years earlier. These are both modern-day myths started in the 19th century, borne out of a societal sense of superiority to 'backwards people.'
Just as the 'Dark Ages' saw a boom in political and architectural experimentation, so did the Islamic Golden Age see a boom in historical documentation and preservation (of Ancient Greek and Persian texts) and huge advancements in mathematics (I remind you of Muhammad Al-Khwarizmi, the inventor of algebra, and Ibn Al-Jayyani, who was one of the inventors of the sine function.
It may not fit your worldview, but Islam, as any other religion, is fairly neutral in that it is always subject to interpretation by humans. The extremes of interpretation are, of course, bound by the literal words in the holy book, Islam being the most violent in its call to action, but that doesn't mean its political success bore no fruits later on.
Islam has helped the world, and I think you need yo accept that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, as a person who has traveled and lived in both Russia and the U.S., I can say that yes, the economy is worse off since the sanctions, but I've also noticed something strange. Russia appears to be broadening its domestic manufacturing industries, because Russian-made products are popping up all over the country's aisles. Call it austerity measures, but Russia is hunkering down for the long term, unlike Caspian's assertion, and if it can diversify quickly enough, its economy should be safe.
Regarding the political process, I am also worried about Putin's successor (or lack thereof). Even my friends and family don't know who can replace him, though I imagine it will be another oligarch, who will gain the experience to "become" Putin again. Overall, I think the reports are over-exaggerated, as with all press, and though Russia will definitely see harder times, it will not ever die.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GoatzAreEpic Maokai
Hey. I know I'm a year late here, but I'm dealing with the same problem. I've been addicted (unable to cut back) on watching YouTube for about 8 years now. I've watched the site grow and change, from its earliest days. Tdlr is watch in moderation.
Complex answer is this:
Ever think back to the way YouTube was when your first used it? When I did, in 2008, there wasn't a Trending Tab. There were no ads and clickbait wasn't a thing (until the "RE:" video girls). Vevo wasn't a thing, and people weren't begging for likes and notification bells and Patreon.
Most importantly, two things: People made things because they had a passion for it, and the sidebar wasn't broken.
Currently, everything seems like it's for money. I can't go a day without seeing a sponsored video, or clickbait title for views. Back then, people spent months or years just making things because why the fuck not lol (Lazer collection, YouTube Poop videos, even FRED)?
Even better, when you scrolled down, the other videos weren't just from the same channel, or popular youtubers, or TV shows. It was so much easier to find cool content then.
That's what I think I miss the most.
So I'd recommend you cut back— don't completely stop, because YouTube still has a lot of amazing new creators, but remember what YouTube has done to try and keep your attention— they're desperate for it. Don't give them the satisfaction, and take full advantage of what YouTube has to offer instead.
Good luck!
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks for answering, but your reply is disappointing, to say the very least.
As I wrote before,
I don't remember the name of the place. Private dealers may have changed de facto policy now, but this was well before Sandy Hook, at a Polish-owned arms & blackpowder dealer. No questions asked, my relative just bought two long guns, showed ID, paid, and left.
The only regulation I could find in Wisconsin's stipulations to private guns sales were as follows:
'Wis. Stat. § 948.60, et seq: May not transfer firearms to anyone under the age of 18, or otherwise prohibited under state law.'
It's important to note the legal grey area of not mentioning federal law, despite its precedence over state, in writing. Private dealers don't need to disclose sales anyway, but it even allows for plausible deniability should a licensed dealer 'forget' to ask the customer to fill out a 4473 form, because (and I can't believe I have to tell you this) the law is not pristinely followed. Plenty of children are taught creationism in schools, weed is sold in stores in Colorado. Need I say more?
I'll, for the final time, repeat this in detail to get it through your thick skull.
The 'gunshow loophole,' as it is referred to, is a flaw in the regulatory reach of the U.S. government. Private dealers, at gunshows, don't need to have a FFL, or ask a customer to fill out a form. The law states thusly:
'(a) It shall be unlawful-
(1) for any person-
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; ...'
The problem with that statement is, there is legal room to spare with the phrase 'engage in the business of.'
There is no system in place to make sure that private dealers know who they're selling to, or for the federal government, with its statutes, to evaluate which unlicensed persons are selling arms at quantities, frequencies, and within the boundaries of 'engaged in the business of.'
Assuming a busybody could instantly know the life story of a dealer, know that they're selling in legal limbo, and sue them for that, every time it happened, then the system would work fine.
It doesn't work like that.
A crazy person (or a Chicago gang member) goes out of state, and goes to a gunshow. The dealer, not being required to do a background check (only federally licensed, not private, dealers need to have you fill out a 4473 form), has no probable cause not to sell to a customer and doesn't want to stall the sale. He sells, crazy man has a gun.
Crazy man kills people.
In a normal country, the government would institute a tighter check on private gun dealers, requiring them to send all sales through a FFL specialist, background check and all. Even those who still don't comply would be deterred by the possibility that, if he sells to a murderer, and the sale is traced back to him, he could go to jail. Deterrent.
In the U.S., however, whenever a teenager goes and shoots up his school, the NRA swoops in saying "not all gun owners!" and Fox News tells you "let's not focus on the politics," and the private dealer never gets found out. No deterrent, so the (theoretically) massive amount of untraceable sales aren't incentivized to check their customers. Keep on shootin', y'all!
That is the loophole. No requirement to check, because no laws to check.
Got it?
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
-
1
-
1
-
@ChrisVillagomez
Lol, they are the same people. Sorry.
Both are East Slavic, descended from tribes living in the area since Roman times.
"Ukraine" did not begin to exist as a concept separate from Russia until the 1300s.
Modern-day Ukraine has been settled by humans for longer, but the people there never saw themselves as Ukrainian.
Originally, there wasn't even a nationalist concept of either "Russia" or "Ukraine" (nationalism is a new concept)-- rather, there was the Rus state and its subjects.
After the Mongol invasion destroyed the Rus state, the Rus line (royal family, government) died out in southern Rus, but survived in the north.
In the time that Moscow took to regain Rus' independence from the Mongols, the southern portion of Rus was captured by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and was being Polonized.
It was at this time that the people living there had their culture, language, mindset, modified into something separate from the original conception of "part of Rus".
Hence, even the idea of Ukraine came strictly in relation to Rus, later Russia. Russia continued the government that originally ruled the entire Rus lands, Ukraine did not.
This is why they have to resort to arguing that they as a people are connected to Rus-- because they have nothing besides that.
No continuation of power, un-tainted culture, founding city (Novgorod).
By the way-- Kiev is even older than Rus itself, so would that not make it entirely something different?
They cannot have it both ways-- either they accept the legacy of Rus and embrace the cultural significance of Russia's role, or reject it and all the claims that come with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mirankrka3715
That's simply untrue.
There is no existing consensus on this issue, which comes down to a simple lack of evidence. The cognate was proposed in 1854, and since then we've come no closer to a definitive answer. That should tell you how little there is to say about the Dardanians. There are precisely zero Dardanian (ever) or even Albanian (until 1462) inscriptions to work with.
The issue with trying to link ancient words to a modern language is
1) The existence of the Albanian language is only acknowledged in text as late as the 15th century. So to try and link it with an even older language with no text at all is very, very shaky and nationalistic ground.
2) Especially since most of the connections (like Uscana or Epicaria) are place names, and don't need to come from the same language or culture to be preserved to the modern day.
And very few Illyrian cities resemble any Albanian word today. Just because Georgia is a state in the U.S. doesn't mean it's populated by Georgians. After all, London is a Roman word. Language is fickle. A few cognates don't constitute a proven theory.
Again, Albanians' claims mean very little in the face of a lack of evidence. There is no way to genetically test which haplogroup the Illyrians belonged to because there is no continuous record of their existence, so we can't compare to any modern populations. And even if we could, the 'Illyrians' would have been absorbed into surrounding populations (like Hungarians and Finns being white).
No, please stop lying to me. There is significant debate and (more importantly) uncertainty regarding who the Illyrians were. I'm sorry, but to the same extent Bulgarians can't claim Thrace or Russia can't claim Scythians, Albanians cannot claim Illyrians. There simply isn't any documentation or record of a connection. The best we can do is piece together loanwords from other languages and placenames. That's very little.
As for your last point, again that's unsupported. And frankly ridiculous. To the same extent the Albanians are native to the Balkans, so too are the Serbs.
They've been there for over 1,000 years now. That's as old as any European nation-state. So unless you want to contest territory based on standards that would collapse Europe and give it back to the Romans ("they were there first!!"), you have to recognize that Serbs have a place in the Balkans, and hold the same status as you. The contention is Kosovo, which (again, unless you want to kick French out of France and give it back to the Romans) is their cultural homeland.
Ironically, Kosovars recently tried to register Serbian Orthodox churches as UNESCO Heritage sites- after having tried to destroy them 20 years earlier. Their request was, of course, denied.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
@jlj5487
Yes, you can. "Searching" is much easier now thanks to the Internet, and if you live in a crappy city, then you're going to have to work around the bus schedule. Tough.
Also, I still don't get why it's somehow wise to buy a car in the expectation that a job you applied to, will pay off your increased expenditure per month.
Secure the job first, then get the car.
Or, just get a crappy car. Or take a taxi. A one-time interview is not worth sinking your next 5 years into if you don't actually, you know, GET the job.
Don't put all your eggs into a single basket, is what I'm saying. Multiple taxi rides is still cheaper than the monthly plan for a car.
Not to mention parking, gas, insurance, maintenance, etc.
1
-
@jlj5487
Ah yes, your one example is proof that you should always buy a car if there's a chance that you'll get a better job!
I don't know what disqualifies me from talking about the job hunt— literally everyone over the age of 16 can speak with authority on the matter.
If it was that hard for you, then maybe you should just move. What city did you live in anyway? The only place I can think of that's both rundown and lacks cars would be L.A.. Even Chicago and Detroit have public transport. Unless you're a migrant worker trapped in Dubai, I have doubts about your story.
Even assuming your anecdote is true, that's not a reason to spring for a car without having a job that can pay, at the bare minimum, for your auto loan— you know, the means by which you get to the job?
Take that fucking taxi. That it's "out of the way" is his problem, not yours. Again: is (even) a $50 taxi ride more expensive than an auto loan?
Let me put it in simpler terms, since you seem to like examples:
_"I was looking for a job, and got a callback. My interview is on Friday! So on Thursday, I'm going to buy a car with a payment plan.
...Turns out I didn't get the job, but I've still gotta pay off this car, with my current income... uh-oh."_
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
-
@Rib_bs
No, it's real. Best example:
Mikhail Fridman (born in Western Ukraine, hated the Kremlin so much that he was exiled) has had his assets seized in London and kicked out of the company he co-founded, all because he is a "Russian" oligarch.
Same with Stoli's CEO- hates Putin, moved factories to Latvia, but r*tarded Americans throw out Stolichnaya just because it sounds Russian.
Or the Milan university that asked a professor to stop teaching about Dostoyevsky, or also teach about Ukraine's great writers in the same course.
Or Russian Blue cats being banned from European pet shows! Did they support Putin too?!
Sorry, but Russophobia is real.
And as much as I hate this war, and the Russian state media propaganda, it is actually correct this one time.
If you don't want them to keep brainwashing Russians, then don't give them such good material.
1
-
@glossygloss472
Lol, not really. Not for the vast majority of Americans. We spend almost twice as much per person and receive equal or worse health outcomes than other countries with single-payer systems.
Also, "most most health science patents" is bullshit because health science has little impact in a country with 40% obesity, almost 70% overweight population. Clearly it's failed, and patents don't translate to effectiveness. It just means companies have filed a lot of patents to make money off people's uninformedness on health.
More pharmaceutical companies isn't good either; most of the patents they file are tweaks of existing drugs to get around patent law. A larger number of companies doesn't guarantee better service, and in America's case there's really only a few.
"Innovation" Not sure what to tell you here, that's not quantifiable so it's not reliably comparable. What does that even mean?
"Cures" again, extremely vague. I get the impression you're speaking from your heart and not your brain.
"The only problem" you described is what we're trying to fix, but you insist that single-payer would do away with all of those benefits, which simply isn't true. Insurance companies might get the boot, but pharma companies will actually be forced to compete for customers and innovate instead of pocketing enormous sums for their executives.
1
-
1
-
@fjbz3737
First of all: use indentations. No one wants to read your text block.
Second: "Leftism" is too broad a term to even try and classify or put strong boundaries around. the fact that you are trying to sell me a universally shared characteristic shows me how little of it you understand.
A "belief in improving the well-being of people around the world" is meaningless, since it could apply to numerous right-wing ideologies as well---
(whether or not you think they work doesn't change the fact that you and a right-wing populist and/or a libertarian, under your "leftism" definition, share the same goal).
"which is most practically conducive to that end"--- that, again, is your idea of well-being. I don't support the continuation of this war, at all, but I simply don't agree with the proposed solutions or actions. "Finlandization", for example, worked great for Finland and Russia, for decades. A neutral, non-NATO Ukraine would be a feasible solution for both sides. Zelensky himself is moving towards this conclusion as well.
"And in this case, I would much rather America to occupy the status of global hegemonic superpower than Russia in its current state, in some hypothetical universe where it is"
Why, exactly? Russia, for all its faults, doesn't have nearly the same penchant for destabilizing faraway governments as the US does. It is not ideologically driven to lecture other nations on how to live, which values to have.
If the last 20 years are anything to go by, following Russia's advice for Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan would have yielded a more stable Middle East region than what we currently have.
If "Russia in its current state" is problematic to you, you should oppose the US' position as hegemon just as much, if not more- Yemen is far more severe than Ukraine, yet nobody cares. Afghan civilians are currently starving, Holodomor-style, due to American sanctions... yet Americans will never see Biden like they do Stalin, because he's on "your team."
This is my original point.
You fail to see that your values, applied to this war and into the future, are not creating a better world. They are just propping up one, equally brutal, imperial power, over another.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vandarkholme8548
Well, if we are specifically looking at the consequences of imperialism, rather than the countries that do it, then yes Russian imperialism is far better.
Their treatment of native people whom they encountered (possibly taken from the Mongols, or the fact that they have always lived with other tribes) is not rooted in a drive to 'spare the Indian, save the man'.
Their philosophy is much more simple: we need this land as a buffer to protect ourselves from the East, and you're on it. Ally with us, and we will leave you alone. Don't, and we fight.
Of course, many didn't ally, and many cultures were lost, but there was not a blind belief in the superiority of Russian culture and a need to 'civilize' the tribes.
But even those that lost against the Kremlin got to keep their native language and culture for the most part.
Case in point: there is no russian version of 'reservations,' and there are native republics that have mandatory schooling for all students (white included) in the native language).
What can the us point to for its colonial legacy?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kruger7796
All you said in that entire paragraph, multiple times and with varying levels of exasperation, was "You're wrong!"
Next time, please explain WHY you think that.
NATO in of itself isn't necessarily threatening (Russia isn't concerned about a direct attack, nuclear arms on both sides make that impossible). What Russia is worried about is indirect means of destabilization.
For example, Chechnya in 1999. Whatever you think of the first invasion by Russia, surely you understand that the second was not justified.
In August 1999, several thousand Chechens, funded by Saudi and Western backers (Shamil Basaev among others), invaded Dagestan and declared a jihad on Moscow, with the intent to break Caucasia away from Russia, effectively Balkanizing it. So, NATO-member funded insurgencies, as we've seen before.
Or we could look at how NATO treats countries it deems weak enough to directly engage. Libya, 2011. Gaddafi agrees to suspend his nuclear program in exchange for Libya's sovereignty being respected (not officially of course, his son who was in the room makes that claim— and I, given similar events occurring with Gorbachev in 1991, am inclined to believe him).
Not a decade later, the US reneges on this agreement— even if you don't agree, Libya made public calls for the US to pressure Israel to do the same— and NATO directly leads airstrikes against Libya via the ISAF.
Not NATO member countries, NATO itself, in an official capacity.
Which NATO member did Libya attack to trigger Article 5 and prompt this attack? I think you know that the answer is none.
NATO is a threat. It has attacked a country outside the terms of its defensive pact before.
And there is nothing to suggest it won't do so again unless dissuaded by a nuclear strike.
But again, Russia's concern in indirect: NATO gives the US access to Ukrainian territory, and allows them political and social power projection on Russia's southern border.
We've seen how Ukraine on its own has cooked up the 'Bilhorod Liberation Force', imagine what bullsh** the US will attempt.
NATO can still conduct invasions through proxies because doing it that way gives them plausible deniability— even though both parties know who is behind them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelkatz275
Okay, you've asserted that they do (call into question the validity of his viewpoints), but you still haven't answered my question of HOW.
Where do you make the connection that merely "associating" with Solovyov (if you consider appearing for an interview to be associating with him, personally or professionally) ddnigrates the correctness of his viewpoints?
As an example:
Sachs asserts that, during his time as economic advisor to Boris Yeltsin, the "shock therapy" doctrine that was advocated for Poland was simply not allowed to be carried out in Russia.
Every single request he put in to DC for funding Poland's government, he received. When he did the same thing in Moscow, he almost always got rejected.
From this, he concluded that there was an inconsistent approach to the funding aspect of shock therapy, and that the US fumbled its opportunity to transition Russia to a capitalist economy, ruining it for a decade.
Solovyov would agree with this sentiment, based around the same facts: the amount of funding Russia received was indeed less than Poland— with a population 4x as large.
The amount given to the respective economies was clearly unequal, when the advice given by the shock therapists was to give Russia at least as much aid as Poland, proportional to its economy and population.
The US government did not even heed the advice of its own economists working with the Russians.
Sachs and Solovyov are drawing similar conclusions based on the same set of facts. So I'm struggling to understand how the conclusion is somehow less true just because Solovyov believes it?
How is it less true because he believes it? I'd like to know.
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
-
1
-
1
-
@zzman305
"Probably not" More like absolutely not. Not even the Soviets managed to cause as much long-term damage as the Americans, across such a variety of countries.
Both sound equally bad.
I'm still not seeing why you think it's better if "we" kill someone "not one of us" rather than someone who is.
And I think I'm justified in a tu quoque when you just tried to downplay American assassinations and beef up Soviet ones, just because... USA #1?
Equivalency is just a matter of fact here. Both murdered, don't justify one just because you're "on their team." Fucking ridiculous.
I'm not sure what you think the Cold War has to do with morality- it was a measure of ideological, economic, and political power, not who's ideas were "right". Propping up Pinochet, the Iranian Shah, Batista, Savimbi, and so, so many others, is not moral.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hey, just wanted to float a video idea!
I originally posted it in Adam Something's comments, but realized that his urban planning content centers more around opinion-based critiques, and may not be the best platform to explore this specific topic
I love your video about the extensive traffic-calming measures in the Netherlands, their preventative approach to city design, etc. That got me thinking, could you explore more... "exotic" forms of design philosophy?
Thailand's system, with most people riding motorbikes, is best described imho as organized chaos-- with a lack of roads, everyone operates like an ant in a colony, communicating only to their immediate surroundings and "flowing" through the traffic.
India has a similar system afaik, just with a more diverse range of vehicles (and cows).
Germany's approach is also interesting (might have been your video? will update
EDIT: It was a video by Kerleem, also in the Netherlands!)
A holistic approach to making driving as clean and smooth as possible--- very hard driving test, ie barrier to entry only responsible people have the patience to pass, preventative approach to roads (unlike US) which keeps damage costs down in the long-term, and very, very strict RoE when on the road (always yield right to a faster car, or risk a slow and painful death!).
Thoughts?
Love all the videos!
1
-
I've been saying this for years, introduce psychological testing into Congress!
The only problem— no, problems,—are these:
1) There would be massive opposition on moral grounds, from both sides. There would be talk of violating principles of freedom for years.
2) If it were to be implemented, it would fall into the modern-day trap of being labelled "fake news," or "conservative propaganda." The point is, whenever it doesn't benefit a certain candidate, (s)he will suggest that the tests are biased, or that there is a conspiracy against them.
3) The most important thing, I think. There has been a largely unacknowledged fact in political circles for a long time now: most Presidents, statistically speaking, aren't normal. There will always be some psychological quirk to them— there has to be, to even want such a ridiculous job and not go insane from the work, in the first place. The only exception, I think, was Jimmy Carter. He seemed the most normal of any President in living memory.
If these hurtles can be overcome, then I suppose we could weed out the crazy candidates, and actually (slowly) make America great again.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@devindevon
1) Why do you keep posting the same comment everywhere? Why devote time to support UMG?
2) That would be something our descendants would do- unless you think we just don't care about the Library of Alexandria (much of whose more popular content had already been re-copied elsewhere, notice the parallels) but still set the world's collective knowledge back several hundred years.
Granted, music isn't that applicable, but why not just keep them rather than let them perish?
"You were never going to hear the masters anyway" Yeah, but at least someone could have! Now nobody will, ever.
And yes, having something preserved or fortified is valuable. Most medieval history is known today because wealthy patrons didn't skimp on materials- instead of paper, they used parchment, which lasts 1,000+ years. So yes, "titanium remasters" will be useful. Not to us, but to later generations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@House of the Diamond 8
No, I'm asking you for specific examples of him allegedly doing that. He does often pivot to a larger issue but he always goes back to the question asked of him by the end, ans answers it.
Specifically, he's answered that question you posed by saying that he would adopt the Green New Deal and rework America's energy policy, specifically its dependence on fossil fuels. Why'd you lie like that?
"Free public tuition!?! WHY!?!"
Because those who can afford it, don't go to public universities. Amenities, prestige, connections, are all better at (mostly) private universities, especially the Ivys.
But not everyone can go there, so we make university a public service and disincentivize, or cap, colleges from raising their tuition to whatever their administrators' wallets are feeling that year. Grants are a poor way to distribute funds- both in terms of who "deserves" the money more, and in terms of efficiency, cost-wise.
Stop using hyperbole, it's making you look even less capable of thinking with nuance than before- that's not saying much.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hunterkage2842
Doesn't really matter, the larger point you are making about the state of Russia's military is the same. And it's untrue either way.
I would need a source for that claim, since
1) Ukraine's gains were tiny, and Russia has already leapfrogged past Avdeevka, and
2) Russia hasn't launched an actual offensive yet. They are retaking towns but it's not an all-out assault like Ukraine did.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "cannibalize their own military". Russia does frequent rotations, and has 400,000 in reserve. Ukraine's President, by contrast, just signed a bill lowering the conscription age to 25.
Why would they need to do that if they weren't... say, cannibalizing their own military? They are running out of willing fighters, while Russia is just ramping up.
Same point with the economy— it is suffering not from contraction, but from overheating.
There is a labor shortage and unemployment is basically zero, so real wages are rising fast. The central bank needed to raise interest rates to cool the economy down or risk a meltdown.
Your next point is probably the funniest. I will grant that Ukraine does have Western weaponry, but most of it is older. And as German Leopards and Patriot missile systems smoldering in Ukraine right now show us, the supposed "advanced" nature of these weapons systems doesn't really matter in an actual wartime scenario.
They can all be taken down with a cheap drone costing maybe a few thousand dollars.
You can call it a sign of primitive development, I call it intelligent use of resources.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "demilitarizing his own military", can you give an example of a specific action that indicates that? Like a policy change or something. Smells like vague, wishful bs to me.
The gas export ban, so far as I can tell, is due to the increased consumer demand that I mentioned earlier (economy getting too hot and growing too quickly). It's also becoming spring, so people become more active, drive more, and drive up demand.
I am not sure what delusions you are harboring in your mind, but it is likely Putin planned this out in advance. The US would have turned Ukraine into a NATO member had they not intervened.
In case you forgot, the US has something of a track record with getting physically close to a country and then sending "freedom fighters" or "moderate rebels" in there to destabilize the country.
Not because the government is incompetent or bad (if that were the case, you would not be allied with Saudi Arabia) but because they don't like threats to their global power. Russia, apparently, is that threat. It's almost flattering.
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
-
1
-
Thank you for discussing my country! It always delights me to see people taking a detailed and nuanced look into Russia, as opposed to eating up the nightly news, like most people.
Unfortunately, only until Putin leaves power and (most likely case) a business-minded oligarch steps in, will Russia see moderate progress in diversifying its economy. It has huge potential, but after 2012, for reasons that are debated and still unclear, Putin stopped catering to Russia's soft power and focused instead on military might.
It is such a shame, because we have a highly educated human capital and, by scale of individual country, one of the largest wealths of natural resources in the world.
Another issue I see is the mafia, which has been unofficially expanded in wake of government apathy and corruption. But that's a longer conversation, that I don't want to bore you with.
What do you think? Can Russia be saved?
1
-
I certainly hope so, and I agree with your sentiment to an extent. The communists never really practiced their own philosophy, because they neither emphasized worker freedom or eventual elimination of the state. Truthfully, while Russia did make great advancements in the quality of life for many of its people under the Soviet period, it was doomed to fail from the start.
Russia's societies had been historically centralized and authoritarian (which worked for it), so it was unlikely that a complete reversal of national ideology would work. However, I see the younger generation of Russians (i.e. me and my cohort) changing the political landscape within the next 20-30 years. Until then, it's anyone's guess how the country will progress.
As for Eastern Europe, I see an eventual progression in their quality of life, so long as they can maintain Russia's economic neutrality (we do control Europe's oil, after all.)
1
-
I can only hope that you are correct. As far as I can tell, Russia's elite have always been just about as greedy as they are now. But what I think changed was the general expectation of those same elites.
I would like to point out, as I think Americans are quite unaware, of the importance of public policy, or at least a facade of it.
"Freedom" in America (to the extent it actually exists) is preserved almost entirely by the widespread belief that the country is free. Think about it- America has a litany of problems: over-consumption, mass obesity and depression epidemics, legal bribery and tax evasion at the national scale, all of which could threaten the foundations of individual liberties.
However, there is a disconnect between the nightly news and the quiet suburban evening you get back to when you turn it off.
Why? Because, at the local level, generally speaking, the people believe and therefore act as though they are free. This includes law enforcement, retail, banking, and all other facets of life.
They could easily cheat the system and take advantage of the average American- it's done on a larger scale all the time. But they don't, for that reason.
Back to Russia. During Soviet times, the mantra of workers' freedom was so widespread that no one could disobey it publicly and not get noticed (although the system was different- it was corrupt from the start, but still). Similarly, no one could completely indulge in capitalistic, materialistic wealth and greedy malpractice because some level of respect for the system existed. When it broke apart, though, the oligarchs had a field day, and stole most of Russia's wealth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SeanCrosser
I think a key difference in those arguments is the dynamic between either side in each analogy.
The USSR collapsed on 1991, and NATO had no functional reason to continue existing.
Russians are (at least in European Russia) truly native to the area, so the argument can't be made they're occupiers who need to be expelled.
Russia wanted to be integrated into the West, but instead of mass capital investment (akin to West Germany postwar) it was robbed— US Treasury employees served as advisors to Moscow under Yeltsin's new government, and through their policies the entire post-Soviet region fell into comical levels of poverty.
Russians (and many other post-Soviet countries) have genuine reason to be wary of US influence.
NATO, in their analogy, predates Russia and its member states genuinely harmed Russia's civilian population. Russia was reacting to an already existent force at play. It, in Russia's view, is an aggrieved party.
Israel, on the other hand, created its own strife. Yes, it's surrounded by neighbors who hate its very existence— but they want to because Israel commited atrocities to even begin existing in the region, and has territorial claims against most of its neighbors.
You could say the same is true of Russia— but Russia's impetus for expansion is to achieve political stability.
Israel, meanwhile, could achieve political stability by adhering to its 1967 borders— but refuses to, because that's not its actual primary goal. It wants to create a Greater Israel, as Smotrich has recently confirmed.
Israel started its own problems, and refuses to compromise. Russia made genuine efforts to become part of the Western system, and lashed out when it was rejected for seemingly no stated reason.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeremymcmains9280
Nobody's denying your sacrifice, but the cause you're fighting for isn't one we support. From what I understand, you were introduced to a whole different way of life, a different world, full of vibrancy and a deep sense of knowing exactly where you're placed and what your goal, your purpose is.
I felt something similar when I was religious, and was finishing up Christian camp. Everything in the world fell into place, and just seemed... right. Everything I looked at had this sheen on it, this sparkle that lit up my mind and constantly reminded me of the larger reward. It was better than any drug.
I hope that sounds familiar, at least a little, so I can voice the opinion of civilians.
In spite of that experience, that little slice of paradise, being so real to you, it's still terrible. From your point of view, it was a part of a larger mission, but to the Iraqis? Afghans? The list is long, now: you were a scourge and a ruthless killing machine.
Not even getting into the fact that destabilizing governments hurts more people than it helps, and that Bush and his top advisers knew there was no reason to invade as early as May 2003, you need to step out of your perspective. It's a rude, sobering splash of cold water, but it has to be done.
Americans can't go off into the desert killing like that forever. You need to reopen your eyes, and see things for how they really are. As beautiful as it is, that sparkle only exists in your head. And there are other ways to chase adrenaline.
1
-
1
-
@Racko.
Not for long. With China's recent advancement into 7nm semiconductor tech, noth fabs and designs, Taiwan will have no 'silicon shield' to protect itself-- its industry will no longer be irreplaceable, so nothing would be lost by destroying their factories.
Of course, the US would be stuck in a bind, because it officially subscribes to the One China policy, and doesn't recognize Taiwan. Ot is trying to have it cake and eat it too-- to control China's access to the ocean
(why would you even want to control another country, since your own geogroaht is already protecting you? What more do you need?), the US would need to cut off ties with China and all the consequences that come with that.
It's not ready to do that, so when the time comes, it will be stuck
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
-
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
-
@KarterBigs
It's late, I'm tired and can't tell if you're sarcastic or not, so let me just say this:
You are not any more free in a car than you are on a bike or a train. Tracks/roads for all three of these transport methods are planned and controlled, so "Big Brother" has already won, if that's your worry.
I like my car, but it's a pain in the ass. To maintain, to drag through traffic, to pay insurance for. On the other hand, I can sit back and relax on public transport— catch up on work, make phone calls— not be constantly focused on the road.
I don't get the fervor that people have with owning a car— as a machine, it's beautifully designed, but it's a lousy enforcer of freedom. Roads are government funded, after all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Max_Mustermann
"You didn't ask for a one word answer"
Yes, I did. Both times:
"do you think they would refuse-"
Do you think they would refuse, or do you think that?
"do you think the US" is also a yes or no question. Do you think the US is, or do you not?
Both are yes or no questions.
"Also, do you honestly believe that any of this is about Russia feeling threatened by NATO in a military sense?"
Yes.
"That somehow NATO or the US would invade Russia or attack unprovoked?"
No, and that's not what I claimed.
NATO's function is not to marshal resources to attack Russia, or even to defend Europe against it. It is, broadly speaking, to project American power.
The director of the National Endowment for Democracy has said on record that they do openly what the CIA largely did in secret 25 years ago.
USAID has been caught trying to artificially manufacture an anti-Castro uprising in Cuba, by using a US-government-controlled social media site-- getting a critical mass of users onto it, then pumping anti-government messages onto the platform.
We have seen the use of SWIFT as a weaponized political tool against Russia.
You might think that's good, but Europe continues to do business with Saudi Arabia, who is much worse than Russia on human rights. You might reply with, "well I think both should be cut off!" Great.. is anything really going to happen? Probably not.
Since we've established that morality isn't going to be a priority for anyone, the only question that remains is: why should the US or Europe decide who gets to do international banking? No one country should have that much political or institutional power.
That's my larger point here: the point of NATO and every other Western entity is to reduce Russian options in case of a conflict, of any kind.
Hungary was recently punished for aligning with Russia in the conflict-- this would not be possible if Russia and Hungary had a land border, this is the aim of the bloc. To defeat before the first move has even been cast.
It's not about human rights-- France exploits West Africa to this day, the UK still won't let the Chagos islanders back onto their home islands, and has recently arrested hundreds for criticizing the monarchy.
They don't actually care about human rights a principle.
The reason they're doing that to Hungary isn't human rights-- if they really believed in those principles, Europe's actions would be radically different in every aspect-- it's to align their political bloc against Russia, no matter either side's human rights record(s). Plain and simple.
So, yes, Russia doesn't want its sphere of influence taken, but why is that a bad thing? Who in their right mind would just roll over and let that happen? We've also established (hopefully, if you actually read) that neither side is really all that benevolent-- this isn't a question of good vs evil, but competing sides.
I just wonder if anywhere near the number of current people would support US military aid to Ukraine knowing that the outcome is the same either way-- aligning with a political bloc for economic purposes. Surely, you understand as (I assume) either Hungarian (referencing 1968) or (because your English is good) a Balt, that your prosperity relies on the exploitation of the Third World.
1
-
@Max_Mustermann
Are you going to keep up the habit of ignoring whenever you're shown to be wrong?
I just wanted to point it out, since it places in serious doubt your ability to reason.
If you can't be bothered to check what's already been said, why should I believe what you're about to say, too?
Anyway-- your reasoning doesn't seem to be shared with the US itself.
China is helping Africa build infrastructure and follow its model of development
(not like being exploited for cheap labor for decades is better than a "debt trap"),
yet the US strongly opposes it.
By your logic, I simply hope you're consistent enough to say that the US doesn't get to dictate to Africa whom it does business with.
And, just to be clear, the USSR had a much more difficult time developing than Europe-- it wasn't given a Marshall Plan after the warm in fact it was heavily sanctioned from the start of its existence, despite being no better than Tsarist Russia in terms of human rights.
So again, the point I'm trying to make is, the US is not a benevolent force and neither is NATO-- so why are you defending it?
1
-
@Max_Mustermann
You're looking at it from an individual point of view. Like I said before, your (specifically Western) prosperity is based on the exploitations of others.
Russia is bad, but it doesn't have the reach nor the desire to 'democratize' other regions of the world or less technologically advanced societies.
It is comfortable letting faraway countries do as they wish and develop at their own pace.
In Africa's case, US alignment meant constant lectures on how to 'do better' with little substantive help unless it also benefitted the US.
China, for all its faults, helps those countries in a more substantial way: infrastructure.
So to your point: the US will only really help you if it's beneficial to itself (weakening Russia is, so Ukraine would in fact be wise to do that- Latin America, not so much).
However, that also means accepting US hegemony, and that comes with issues: openness to US businesses means rising obesity, mirroring similar problems (income inequality, privatization and collapse of social services, something the USSR was actually rather good at maintaining), and generally losing your political freedom in exchange for material comfort.
Basically:
the "benefit" of aligning with the US is limited to a select few (which calls into the question the idea that 'ally with the US' is good universal advice), the effects are limited, and they come with heavy drawbacks.
Ukraine could, alternatively, declared itself politically neutral and picked the best from both worlds.
But no, it chose to throw itself to one side after a revolution that required its own Parliament to violate its Constitution twice.
1
-
@Max_Mustermann
1) I want to point out, again, that you ignored the fact that you were wrong multiple times and refused to address any of it.
2) You pivoted at the end of your previous comment about "how countries aligned with x are doing", instead of addressing my point, which was perceived military threat from NATO, not an economic threat from the EU. 2 very different things.
I find it strange that most people fail to understand that the Maidan, initially, was not about distancing from Russia politically, but about corruption within Ukraine itself.
Ironically, much of this corruption was reignited in the 1990s when Ukraine was thrust into capitalism along with Russia.
3) Now, onto your tangential comment:
I didn't advocate for aligning with Russia, my main point was not aligning with the West, politically. I'm not making claims beyond that point.
'that wouldn't have prevented Russia from meddling in their affairs"
That wouldn't have stopped Western meddling, either. You're presenting this as a zero-sum game, when it is not.
Ukraine should have joined India's Nonaligned movement, being sandwiched between large geopolitical forces.
Or, if you really do think that the only way Ukraine could have staved off Russian meddling was by aligning fully with the West-- then you must understand that Russia is rationally acting in its own best interests.
If the alternative is losing influence completely, why would they just let that happen?
"those issues can be addressed"
Not really.
Those issues tend to inevitably arise from being Western-friendly, and they have never been addressed anywhere.
Even Europe still has obesity issues, and it seems the only way to solve them is to expel American influence (like Bolivia kicking McDonalds out of its country), which is something you apparently don't want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cosmonaut9942
"when too much history has gone by in the opposite direction"
Great, so who determines what "too much history is"? A random American YouTube commenter?
Your suggestion is completely useless— it is vague and open to interpretation by whoever is deciding.
"Things like the USSR splitting up and constituent republics going their own way"
What did I just say? How convenient, the perfect amount of history has passed to where it benefits the US geopolitical interests.
Is Iraq too far back now too?
"Crimea has always been a part of Ukraine"
I would hope you weren't so incredibly lazy that you didn't even bother doing a google search.
Crimea has been part of the Russian state since 1783, when it was annexed from the Ottoman Empire (technically Crimean Khanate but they were a vassal). It was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 as a 'gift' to 'commemorate their friendship'. Ask any Ukrainian whether the USSR was actually a Union and not just Moscow. I think you know what they'd say, and if that's the case then Crimea only became Ukrainian in 1991. In 1994 they held a referendum to secede but Ukraine declared it illegal. So much for respecting democracy.
In short, you're flat wrong. Crimea was and is Russian, not Ukrainian.
When even Western polls from before and after 2014 confirm this popular sentiment, you known you have no legs to stand on.
"Should China invade Russia"
It wouldn't really serve their interests. The border between the two is well-established and leaves both with sea access. Ironically it's 'Taiwan' that claims parts of Russia and all of Mongolia.
Really it's the security of large states against other large states that is being discussed here. The US wants to get as close to Russia as possible to project power and extract resources from Russia for profit. Russia understandably wants to avoid that.
The claims don't matter as much as the fact that Europe is flat, and political issues will continue to arise until hard borders are drawn along geographical lines. In this case that means the Carpathian mountains, in Ukraine's west.
It also just so happens that Crimeans actually do overwhelmingly want to be part of Russia, and if the US claims to respect democratic will then they will honor that transfer of land.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericlanglois9194
"My" way of thinking might be "old-school", but it isn't naïve and wishful thinking, as I feel yours is.
Even the wording you used, "progress into the future", is vague and dreamy. What, exactly, does that mean? How will that functionally make people's quality of life better? What is the development plan?
You're skipping ahead to the humanitarian future, without thinking of the journey needed to amass the wealth and stability to be able to do that.
In fact, the sole example you gave, Taiwan, only occurred because of $4B of US aid, along with help from the USAID budget.
The "Asian Tigers" also received such help, and Japan was spared the consequences of losing a war in exchange for becoming a defense against the Soviets.
Similar situation with Germany- in exchange for their Nazi scientists, the U.S. flooded them with money.
But this gets back to the real issue: without the (self-interested) monetary injection from a country that has already industrialized, no country will ever do so ethically. Even with Western help, the citizens will be worked to the bone. Success only comes through struggle. Villages and rural life will be destroyed.
And again, I'm aware of the ambition to be a force for good, but you must at some point recognize that the fact that one of your priorities is an performative abstraction, is a sign that you're playing on easy mode.
South Sudan cannot afford to think of itself in such a way.
1
-
1
-
@ericlanglois9194
No, it isn't. But you wouldn't have that luxury if, when Canada was developing, other countries took the same approach to you.
If, in the 19th century, the English and French had cared about your treatment of Native populations, you'd still be an icy backwater. Or an American state.
So to then doggedly insist on principles you never followed, and don't even consistently follow today (committed to being environmentally friendly, yet Trudeau wants to keep pumping oil), is just hypocritical.
You fail to recognize that you're denying another country the same grace that was given to you.
I understand the want to stay out of messy affairs, but the fact is that these countries will eventually industrialize. When they do, our planet will collapse under their strain. We can either help them now, or wait until they do it in the least safe way.
Your principled stance is ignoring the long-term needs for global stability.
1
-
@ericlanglois9194
Ah, yes, it is [current year]. How silly of me to forget. That's not really indicative of anything.
I am unwilling to "understand that concept" (concede to your view) because no alternatives have been presented. There are virtually no countries that have zero current issues that fall into the categories you described.
Spain suppresses its Catalan and Basque independence movements. Finland suppresses its Sami population. Will you refuse to do business with them? Or are they countries with "a lot to work towards" instead of ones you'll refuse to do trade with them?
You might say that you were talking about arm sales only, but money is fungible, so you'd just be washing your own hands and sitting back as your money goes to murder anyway.
No one's saying it's your responsibility, but you're still choosing to uplift some over others, and I don't believe you can stick to your own principles as a matter of logistics. So, choosing to cut off sales to a certain country is little more than theatre to make you feel righteous.
And you're ignoring the fact that there is no way to develop without A) bloodshed and/or exploitation or B) Wealth injection, which you've already sworn off.
So... what do you suggest? That they figure it out by burning coal to industrialize, until Canada proudly says, "stop that!" through thick smoke. By then, it's too late.
Choosing to be principled is foolish. Your rigid values assume givens that aren't present in the modern world. For one, if you don't help countries skip past the oil-producing phase of development, you'll end up hurting yourselves. By destroying the environment.
1
-
@ericlanglois9194
No, I think you've just run out of reasons to avoid directly addressing my points.
Your "responsibility" is, at the very least, to yourself.
If you don't want the climate to make Canada uninhabitable, you need to trade with less-than-desirable countries. Or wait for the whole of Africa to start burning fuels, and see what happens to the world's climate. Your pick.
Not to mention, you're picking and choosing countries arbitrarily. "Crimes against people" then why trade with your largest partner, the US? Or any country, for that matter?
No one lives up to your imaginary standard, not even you, so might as well avoid climate catastrophe by, if supporting autocracies, at least averting the effects of burning coal and oil, like the Western countries did.
Capische?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@frednicholson
Bahahaha, your grandfather was a wise man. Maybe you should listen to him for once.
Explain to me how you, as an individual, "trying harder!" is supposed to conquer a cartel in your country.
And while your release valve theory- known to the rest of us as brain drain- may be true, that doesn't absolve the U.S. of fault for starting and continuing this crisis.
Bear in mind Augusto Pinochet was only overthrown in 1990. Almost every single person in Chile alive today remembers a time when the U.S. had backed a dictator in their own country. This isn't "ancient history." It's the United States opposing democracy as recently as the dawn of the Internet.
How long ago was that? 29 years. Still wanna ask "how long ago was that?"
Look to Haiti. The men who led the coup d'etat there in 1991 were trained by the CIA.
Or Indonesia, in 1998. The president was ousted by the IMF, backed by the U.S., for trying to stabilize his country's currency, following a financial crisis that was lead largely by U.S. corporations laundering money and defrauding the government.
Or Libya in 2011. How are they doing now? Should the rebel fighters stop and consider that they shouldn't blame the U.S. for what it did to them, 8 years ago? What about the hospitals and schools in Yemen that were bombed a few months ago by U.S. bought planes, sold to the Saudis with knowing intent? Should they just take responsibility for their laziness?
This isn't even a forth of the list.
You simply don't realize how much farther along the world would be without U.S. interference.
It's been so common that it fades into the background, people forget why it happened, and instinctively blame the people in that country.
It's not their fault. It's yours.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hamzamahmood9565
Well, to be fair, Saddam's army was great on paper. But his soldiers were untrained and Iraq has a weak national identity, leading to lower morale than one would see with, say, Iran or Turkey.
And the Taliban wasn't exactly trained by the CIA in a Montana facility for 8 years, given $100B+ in military aid, had the US economically sanctioned by the rest of the West, and given logistics, training, and dozens of foreign legionnaires.
Basically— using Iraq to gloat about US military prowess is like me showing off how strong I am by punching a toddler,
and then sneering when another guy can't beat up an amateur boxer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robfl100
Yes, that's part of the deal— Wagner gets rid of ISIS militants, they get to access the goldmines in exchange.
It's really no different than France's arrangement with all of Central Africa, except Russia doesn't require anything to be traded in rubles, or that the countries NEED to have 50% of their budget physically held in Moscow, or that they get first access to their markets.
You might cope and seethe, but Russia is objectively better to have as a partner than France. In Central and West Africa, at least.
There's a reason they all hate the explotation of Francafrique— it's textbook neocolonial policy. The same economic relations were kept in spite of nominal independence.
So no, what you described is not "about it".
The terms that the countries were made to contractually agree to when joining the CFA (under threat of coup— which France has made good on, many times) were economically draining.
I'm not painting Wagner as angels either, just pointing out that Russia is better than France here and that Russia is, in fact, anti-colonial in its approach here.
1
-
@TheMasterMind144
Yes, I'm aware of 1994. Chechnya WON that war, and they could have kept their independence and left things alone.
What did they do instead? Gather 4,000 soldiers, invade Dagestan, and declare a jihad on Moscow. Brilliant.
Even better is that this operation was organized and funded by Saudi Arabia and the US (via Shamil Basayev).
Doesn't matter that Putin (allegedly) faked apartment bombings, they ACTUALLY invaded Russia.
Yet everyone thinks the Chechen War (the big one, where Russia re-occupied Chechnya) was started by Russia— when it wasn't.
Same with Georgia— you literally ignored the point. So I'll try again, do you think Georgia had a right to oppress its Abkhazian minority group?? Doesn't really matter that Russia meddled; every country does that and you're being selective in your accusation.
Georgia (again, according to Western sources) bombed Sukhumi University and threatened to genocide the Abkhazians. If anything they deserved to be invaded, they might have made good on their promise.
No one blames the US for invading Germany in 1943, after all.
1
-
@TheMasterMind144
Yes, I'm aware of 1994. Chechnya WON that war, and they could have kept their independence and left things alone.
What did they do instead? Gather 4,000 soldiers, invade Dagestan, and declare a jihad on Moscow. Brilliant.
Even better is that this operation was organized and funded by Saudi Arabia and the US (via Shamil Basayev).
Doesn't matter that Putin (allegedly) faked apartment bombings, they ACTUALLY invaded Russia.
Yet everyone thinks the Chechen War (the big one, where Russia re-occupied Chechnya) was started by Russia— when it wasn't.
Same with Georgia— you literally ignored the point. So I'll try again, do you think Georgia had a right to oppress its Abkhazian minority group?? Doesn't really matter that Russia meddled; every country does that and you're being selective in your accusation.
Georgia (again, according to Western sources) bombed Sukhumi University and threatened to genocide the Abkhazians. If anything they deserved to be invaded, they might have made good on their promise.
No one blames the US for invading Germany in 1943, after all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bob Landers
Honestly? Taxes in Texas aren't that much lower than in most other states.
Yeah, there's no income tax, but that doesn't apply to companies, it applies to individuals. So that wouldn't really be a pull factor for the companies in question.
There are, in fact, franchise (business) taxes, gas taxes, 'sin' taxes, and its sales and excise taxes are well above the US average (to make up for the fact that they don't have any income tax).
Personally I think it's a (slightly) more business-friendly environment, lax regulations, and a great bit of marketing on the part of Texas. But to actually live outside of Dallas, Houston, or Austin? Good luck commuting through the dry heat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, it depends. In Russia, you can criticize, just not incite any action (the irony of that is not lost on me). Once you start organizing and protesting, is when you get a knock on the door late at night.
That being said, while the U.S. doesn't do that, it's only because there is a pretense of freedom that's so ingrained into our society that threatening it openly (taking down political opponents) would spell disaster for any politician or president.
When the pretense is dropped, for "national security," the U.S. is no better than Russia or China.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuAAPsiD768
(Me posting this won't garner any attention, but doing actual research and possible action is what gets me put on the watch-list. The parallels with Russia are notable, the U.S. is much more lax, but also does a better job of hiding what it does do.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KronStaro
I think that neighboring countries are actually the worst for objective analysis.
I mean, Poland (Franciszek Duchiński specifically) is responsible for the idea, supported by Ukrainian nationalists, that Russians are Asian, Ukraine + Poland + Belarus are the "true" Slavs, Moskals, etc.
This was made to counter the (ironically) correct idea promoted by St. Petersburg that all Slavs are related, and the pan-Slavic idea under a Russian Empire.
So, while they may have intimate knowledge of their neighbors, I have little faith in Ukraine or Poland to bo objective. I would expect those areas to reliably produce narratives that suit their own interests. Not the interests of objectivity.
And yes, quality of life in Russia is worse than in Poland. Don't forget that Poland received enormous amounts of Western capital and technological information to quickly move it away from Russia, while Russia had most of its money laundered out by oligarchs, whom the U.S., England, France and others were more than happy to service.
Russia is still poor partially because of the same country you seem to defend.
1
-
1
-
@MrInuhanyou123
I think you overestimate Russia's military prowess, and (yes, I mean it) unwillingness to stretch themselves beyond the Carpathian Mountains.
If this conflict has shown anything, it is that Russia's military is a shell of its former self, and even if by some miracle it were to overtake all of Ukraine, it would not manage much farther.
My genuine belief: a peace deal that would leave everyone satisfied (and without further reason to attack) is this:
Ukraine keeps its weapons and training, but does not receive any further training (which would make it a NATO member in all but name).
It must also constitutionally commit to never joining any military alliance, Russian or Western.
It would also need to kick out the Svoboda Party and Azov from its military and gov't, so Russia has zero plausible reason even by its own stated standards, to ever attack again.
Russia gets Crimea and Donbas, withdraws from the rest, and must sign a document that allows Ukraine to attack Russia proper with its Western weapons, should it ever attack again.
1
-
1
-
@kurtwpg
Comment got shadowbanned, lol
Also: no.
You're being knowingly obtuse and simplifying this down to childlike levels of understanding.
Either you're really that stupid, or you're a knowing, willing propagandist.
Tell me why the US freaked out over the USSR stationing a naval base in Cuba.
When people try to gaslight me by saying "the US is trustworthy, Russia is being completely irrational for not wanting its borders to be surrounded by its military alliance!!", this is what I ask them.
When the shoe is on the other foot, the US understands perfectly well what even the mere potential of bring surrounded entails.
Russia's actions are neither irrational, nor started by one man.
Even Yeltsin, in his drunken stupor, managed to publicly oppose the expansion of NATO, many times.
Barring a legal guarantee that NATO doesn't accept members bordering Russia (which the US refuses to agree to), Russia will never stop trying to control its backyard.
If you think it's not an existential threat, one only need look at what the US has done in the rest of the world, when it felt it could get away with it.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tkmushroomer
Yes, exactly that. And it's very telling that you don't want that.
You'd rather have an aggressive, paranoid Russia that you can singlemindedly hate guilt-free, than cooperate with Russia, at the potential cost of your pride.
Absolutely insane.
You can spew back all the times Russia did something to warrant being excluded from Europe, I could reference Finland or Italy or Germany.
Anyway, including Russia in Europe would put a stop to the very things that you think justify keeping it out. By excluding it, you're just perpetuating the same cycle and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Which is why, again, I think you don't want Russia to be a part of Europe, even it if would benefit you.
It would hurt some sense of pride.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ichbinueber18
...Think for just one minute.
The examples of communist governments forming, were always preceded by... democracies? Stable countries with experience?
No. Not even once.
A Tsardom, an occupied Qing Dynasty, an embattled Indochinese, and Latin plantation dictatorships (though, those were formed thanks to the US' meddling to begin with).
All of the real life examples we have, historically, are actually few and far in between, and all share the same debilitating characteristics.
Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, had never known self-governance.
Marx intended Communism for Germany, so find me a proper example.
Spain, for instance, currently has enormous co-ops, and they function just fine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheMacC117
They do, but the US's "nautical area" doesn't extend into Russia's!
It has a clear cutoff line, and beyond that, they have no authority. They especially don't have any authority over Russia's area, so "enforcing" would just be invading.
Are you fucking stupid? It's Russia's backyard too, both agree that the area in-between belongs to neither of them. This isn't the South China Sea. Russia has territory that it legally owns, and the US acknowledges that legally. They cannot blockade Russia's "nautical area". That's my whole point.
They can try, but Russia has already proven willing to throw bodies at a losing war-- I wonder if Alaskans would like their first taste of nuclear-tipped geopolitics?
"sit there, don't bother us, and we'll leave you alone"
Bro, do you have 0 self-awareness? That's what Russia would ask the US to do in Alaska!!
Don't sail into Russian territory, stay over there, don't disrupt our trade, and everything will be fine.
Jesus Christ.
I'll say it again: the US cannot blockade the Bering. If it starts using "it's our backyard" as an excuse, then I think Russia will have a perfect reason to keep Ukraine out of NATO for another few centuries. It's their backyard, after all!
The Bering has US-recognized Russian waters on one side. They cannot blockade that without risking a serious conflict, because Russia would 100% be in the right to, say, threaten to torpedo a US warship out of Russian waters.
If you really wanna keep arguing, go ahead. But the US have no good excuses to blockade legally Russian territory, especially since it's for trade between Europe and China.
1
-
1
-
@Afrobriit
as a poor person with some rich family members-- op isnt wrong.
Take a look at any lottery winner story-- they don't know how to handle their money, so they spend it all on trivial things (cars: depreciating assets), or spend on family (which isn't bad, but) everyone and their dog comes out of the woodwork asking for money.
Before you know it, you can literally blow through millions spending on those close to you, and then you're left with less than you had before you won.
You, at some point, have to set a boundary and get your books in order, and continue to set those boundaries, unless you want to go back to being poor.
Rich people are assholes, but they have trust issues, for good reason: you can never be sure if a person likes you for you, or is hoping to experience some 1-on-1 trickle down economics. Sounds harsh, but we all know people who (like you said) are greedy, that isn't reserved to the rich. So you have to be callous, or you risk losing what you have to your own better nature.
In an ideal world, nobody would be filthy rich and everyone would have basics provided for. But, we live in this world, where people can and do absolutely fall through the cracks, and so you have to (again, within reason) hold onto what you make.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mykel Hardin
That's a generalization, and reflects poorly on your own intelligence. While high-earning conservatives tend to be more educated than liberals, liberals as a whole are more educated than conservatives as a whole (because conservative areas tend to have fewer people, less money, and poorer services like education, healthcare, and nutritional options).
Not to mention the fact that conservatives scanned under MRIs tend to have larger amygdalas- they are more prone to fear and distrust. This also makes them more loyal, but at the cost of emotional reactions to adversity.
This stems from the simple fact that liberalism, as a mindset, tends to develop in areas where people are more exposed to other cultures and ways of thinking; cities.
They shed the primitive evolutionary tendency to fear the unknown group, because they realize that there's nothing to fear (the Puerto Rican at the bodega just isn't trying to rape your kids, sorry Cletus). Rural people, on the other hand, aren't as exposed to ideas and people from outside their little town, which is why poor, isolated areas tend to be more conservative.
Switch places, and the political mindsets will switch too.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Frank72364
No, you said,
"I don’t have to lie to make an argument. If I had to do that, I would be happy."
That would make you (because you believe that I'm lying, and you're not) sad.
And I'm not lying. They don't post previously shown advertisements, or delete ones that they have.
They're decidedly not a good company. Have you forgotten the suicide nets they installed to prevent their Chinese slave-workers from throwing themselves out of factory windows?
Or the fact that they're just as, if not less, eager to sell your information to advertisers, despite claiming to better than Android because they offer more privacy?
Or (and this is why I spend so much time criticizing them) they don't pay any taxes to the countries they do business in, costing the United States alone tens of billions of dollars?
How, exactly, is the link supposed to prove me wrong? I mentioned the original iPhone ad. You gave me something from 2013.
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
-
My larger question is, why does the US think it should involve itself in another country's affairs to begin with? Isn't this violating the "sovereignty" argument? Also, I don't think this fanciful idea would ever work to begin with.
The mere fact that you're voicing this perspective is a symptom of seeing the world in an Anglocentric way, i.e. incorrectly.
You cannot just plaster a democracy onto any country you choose and expect them to do what you've told them to. Cultures need time and unifying events to embrace the idea of democracy.
And, also counter to the Western idea of linear progress, it is neither inevitable nor a sign of higher development to have a democracy. Some cultures got it, some cultures will eventually have it, and some never will.
For instance, Japan. Even though they are a democracy in name, they have been a one-party state for decades and discourage any opposition... not unlike the Chinese. Same with Singapore. The ruling party runs everything, has for 50+ years, and the whole country is a manicured city-park.
I would also ask why the US doesn't intervene in either of these countries' affairs, despite them having more in common with their political enemies than, say, Germany- but I think we know the answer to that already.
1
-
@futuregenerationz
Lol, "the bully". Very neoliberal view of things.
Reduce a country's complexity down to a simple "good guy/bad guy" dynamic.
Also, wouldn't that also make the US liable to be intervened?
It conducts mass murder as we speak- cutting off Afghanistan's Central Bank from recognition by the IMF, and withdrawing all of its aid (which, since it was propping up the last government, is most of the aid) is causing a starvation crisis among its civilian population.
If you want to be more literal, it funds the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen.
If you want to be even more iteral, it is still in Iraq, and killing civilians. Most recent drone strike was Jan 19.
So, should China and Russia launch operations on United States soil until its military is dissolved? occupy the country until it learns to act more responsibly?
If your answer is "no", I want you to explain to me why not. And why the answer is different from when another country does the same thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@asscheeks3212
Lol, "smoke and mirrors", that's why Japan has Honda and Toyota dominating in their biggest competitor (USA)'s own home market?
And Sony, Canon, Nikon, Nissan, Sharp, Epson, Kawasaki, Toshiba, Panasonic, not to mention Nintendo, Suzuki, Sega
What a joke
Also stop repeating the same points, you said that in the other comment. Are you out of arguments this quickly??
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
-
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
-
@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
-
@jesan733
For example, pushback against Biden's passage of the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act), which cannibalized a good chunk of the EU's industry by incentivizing companies to leave to the US.
No self-respecting country or bloc would allow that, but because the US produces most of the weapons in Europe's arsenal, there's always an underlying threat of curtailed weapons exports if they do something Washington doesn't like.
Germany for example would benefit greatly from Russian gas (instead of LNG), but they're politically captured by the US (their weapons are produced by American companies) so they can't even try to be neutral.
They could have just kept on trading, for the same reason the US quietly hasn't sanctioned Rosatom (necessity— it produces almost half of the world's uranium), but no, it was forced to become dogmatic and jeopardize its own economic future to please the Pentagon.
Same goes for France getting snubbed by Australia at the last second surrounding the nuclear-submarine deal— they switched from France to the US despite already having signed the contract. But they didn't do anything besides wag their fists, because any retaliation against Aus would be taken as an attack on the Western military alliance, which they're dependent on.
It fundamentally limits their range of actions. That's what's meant by "cucked"
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
-
@ilyaivanov9283
I think the way it really works, is convenience.
In every country, free speech tends to be permitted as long as it has no power.
For example, in China, anti-China literature is available! 1984 and other works are sold on shops— but you will never find a Chinese author on the shelves. Nor will you find literature from the Dalai Lama.
Criticism is allowed, but the second you translate it into Mandarin, so that the common person will be able to read what you say, then they come after you.
The ssme is true in Russia. There are many anti-Putin radio stations in St Petersburg, but things like TV Дождь are raided by FSB officials because they talk about corruption in Moscow's business class and the Duma— areas where Putin is active and, if word got out, could threaten his money and power.
Joe falls into that category, so I don't think it would be safe for him to come. Unless he has many Western eyes paying attention, forcing Putin to show them "see how safe we are?".
Otherwise, he gets a knock on the hotel door in the middle of the night..
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brendanrichards3159
No, you said he was "a horrible, horrible person, dishonest, vicious and cowardly."
You can certainly make an argument based on dishonesty, even cowardice, but viciousness and being horrible?
Those are terms with no concrete parameters. Those are subjective terms. That was an attack on his character, not his arguments.
Even if I were to discount that, you didn't state that "Aaron Rainbolt said something dishonest".
You said that he was a dishonest person.
You clarified when I asked, but your original statement was, by definition, a description of his character, and not his claims.
Def: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
That is what you did. You used an ad hominem. Just own up to it, I'm not a jury. Please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brendanrichards3159
I assure you, Dr. Freud, I'm perfectly fine!
In all seriousness, please refrain from practising keyboard psychology, it's not a good look. I'm not getting where you see some 'determination' from me- replying to comments doesn't always have an emotional motivation.
It is, for most people including myself, a way to pass the time.
I also fail to realize where I'm engaging in bad-faith debate here- unless you think any questioning is trolling or attack (sealioning)? Hopefully not.
As for your comment:
-Again, cowardice and viciousness aren't easily quantifiable, so I don't think you'd even find a paper attempting to find incidence of both traits in people.
So I agree, but I don't think we could even go through with your hypothetical.
-I said the two were rare because viciousness (tends to, if we're talking about YouTube videos) require an aggressive, almost violent stance against another person. Like, cussing them out in a video. Which is something a cowardly person is unlikely to do.
Viciousness is generally identified through certain actions; cowardice is the lack of (confrontational) action.
-I'm genuinely just curious. I didn't know that EoT deleted dissenting comments from popular YouTubers on his videos (I'm assuming that's what you meant), that's why I went through this thread.
That's very saddening to hear, though I still don't take it as an argument against his points, and because you didn't use an ad hominem, I take it you don't, either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lovemoviesful2
...Many have been there for 200+ years. If you wanna invalidate the timeline back that far, then you're looking at a major redraw of the world map. US territory included.
And I find it telling that the only country that has no historical native population, holds the state's boundaries to be sacred. They have nothing to lose, since they've never lost anything.
If, by some miracle, Mexico takes back all of its lost land from the Mexican-American war, and in 2300 the white population starts to revolt against the Mexican government, will you make the same argument?
In fact, I don't even have to imagine. The US was more than happy to annex Texas after Americans continued to settle it (following Mexico banning them, for bringing slaves into Mexico)-- using the ethnic white population as a cassus belli.
If you care about the values you're claiming to, why not right a historical wrong, and give that land back?
...Hm, because the Texans have been living there for generations? Well, here we go again.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yarpen26
I don't think the argument from Putinists is that those were good examples of democracy, and that they failed in Russia. What they say is that a good example of democracy cannot be developed in Russia.
We are too late in history- too many foreign actors, for an uninhibited nurturing of democracy to happen, especially in an flat area so interconnected to Eurasia.
If we try (as in the '90s), a Western power will naturally swoop in to 'help', and derail the whole thing, using the political vulnerability to exploit natural resources and amass wealth.
The US and Europe were able to develop because they were either isolated and protected by geography, and had the luxury of experimenting, or were so powerful that nobody could interfere in their process, no matter how battered a country became (think France, or England).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheHuxleyAgnostic
Violently interfering? Chechnya invaded Russia, you dolt. August 1999, the Republic of Ichkeria sends a few thousand troops into Dagestan, hoping to split them away from the Russian Federation. They declare a jihad on Moscow. If that's what Russia can expect in its future, why should they be allowed an independent foreign policy? This is ironic when Bush did the exact same thing in 2003, but continued to criticize Russia for having done it themselves.
Also, I said "Westerners", not "you".
No matter what period in history, Westerners will find a reason to dislike Russia. And they don't seem to hold other countries to the same standard.
Oh, and you're even dumber for your last comment. Capitalism is an economic system, fascism is a political one. And Russia isn't fascist.
It isn't ultranationalist— Putin is an authoritarian, but he doesn't believe in the superiority of Slavs or something. Russian society is actually very separate from the military, unlike Italy or Germany.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RTWPimpmachine
Kiev certainly was populated long before most other cities in Rus, but you need to give evidence to the fact that it has evidence of Rus' settlement earlier than the north of Russia.
That is literally where the Rus' came from and we have multiple sources dating to the early 9th century (Byzantine source De Administrando Imperio saying that Sviatoslav I took tribute from Kiev but ruled from Lake Ilmen (right where Gorodische is currently) and Ahmad Ibn Fadlan describing the Rus as living on an island, which is what happens to the Gorodische peninsula every spring when it floods.
Not to mention we have late 8th century Viking amulets excavated in the area, pointing to (if you believe that the Rus are Vikings) Rus presence since the earliest dates mentioned in the Primary Chronicles (late 800s).
I would agree with your last point if not for a few important points:
-Kiev was destroyed by the Mongols, and the Rurikid Dynasty moved up to Vladimir to rule. The political continuity of the ruling class that actually founded Rus kept on going outside of Kiev.
-Western Rus' language was so heavily Polonized that it acquired a new name: Ukrainian. Belarus was Polonized too, but they kept their old name.
When 40% of your language, and your culture, is influenced by an outside power, I hesitate to call you a direct successor to the Rus.
Similar to the Holy Roman Empire claiming to be Rome. While you have control of the capital city, the culture is clearly different (Germanic HRE vs Roman) while a better option is still existing (the Byzantine Empire— which was Greek, but like Russia, came from the original Roman Empire and continued to exist after Rome itself collapsed.)
The major difference here is that the 3 Slavic cultures all descend from 1, so it would be like of Romanian culture ruled the Byzantine Empire. Which was called the Eastern Roman Empire back then.
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
-
1
-
1
-
@PM-oe8sp
It's not exactly kept a secret, lol. You really couldn't find anything yourself?
Google How the CIA and Ukrainian inteliigence secretly forged a deep partnership, article by ABC news.
An excerpt: "The partnership saw the CIA help Ukraine to rebuild its Main Directorate of Intelligence, known by its acronym HUR, which has become renowned for its audacious operations. The CIA eventually directed millions of dollars in funding to help train and equip Ukrainian intelligence officers, and to construct facilities, including around a dozen secret forward-operating bases on the border with Russia. The two services also began conducting joint operations together around the world, the highest level of trust for intelligence services, according to the former U.S. officials."
Budanov, current head of Ukraine's SBU, was part of Unit 2245, trained directly by the CIA. He's literally a CIA asset, by definition.
The US has been leading secret training programs since 2014, centered on a blacksite in Montana, among others. They, as the article mentioned, have 13 bases along Russia's border— and they led raids into Russia to steal military equipment.
They run the logistics for this war, not just through Starklink but extensive intelligence sharing.
I hope this is enough to show you how deeply involved the former is with the latter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@littlefinger4509
LMAO
South Korea overthrew their dictatorial government... you know, the one backed by the US?
There were massive student protests in the 1950s, because the USSR withdrew from North Korea, but the US didn't do the same in the south.
So the US supported harsh repressions of the people's protests. What a democratic-loving country!
You say that South Korea became rich, but how many US-backed countries didn't? Brazil, Guatemala, Congo, Albania, Indonesia... the list goes on and on. You also forget that South Korea was poor for decades, and became rich on accident.
It happened despite the US support, not because of it.
"Cuba is so free they have a dictatorship now"
So does Saudi Arabia... what's your point? The US doesn't care, and you clearly support the US, so why do you care about Cuba, but not Saudi hmm??
"The US doesn't get abandoned by it's allies at first occasion like Russia is"
When the US controls the world financial system and uses sanctions as a weapon to control other countries, it is hard to escape their tyranny.
So only a few countries will reveal their true opinion. You think China doesn't agree with a war that destabilizes the West, after what the UK did to them?
They don't fully support because they have business ties with the West.
"the ones that didn't revolt (in the south) enjoy freedom and a high degree of political independence"
"As someone from Poland i can tell you, Russia beings nothing but misery in this world."
This is hilarious. Are all Polish people this blind and stupid? I could just as easily say that about Poland in the USSR.
You revolted, so while you got oppression, more friendly countries like Belarus and (then) Ukraine got a high degree of autonomy.
Do you think Ukraine should be a part of Russia, like Abkhazia should be in Georgia??
Why don't you want Abkhazians and South Ossetians to be free? They fought, even in the USSR, to have their own SSR. And now you want to impose Georgian imperialism on them, instead of Western freedom?
I used to say that Poland's national anthem should say, Dał nam przykład Bonaparte jak przegrywać z Rosją", but now I see you two have one more similarity:
you will abandon your own Republican values if it suits your geopolitical interests!
At least Russia, for all of its faults, isn't such a hypocritical, self-congratulating country as Poland is, which I can see now.
1
-
@littlefinger4509
"So when did the US sent soldiers to prevent S.Korea from becoming democratic?"
I didn't say that. Stop putting words in my mouth. They supported the South Korean government when they (not the US) put down student protests, in the Yŏsu-Sunch’ŏn Rebellion in 1948, the same year the USSR left North Korea.
"Also S.Korea didn't become rich thanks to the US? So tell me, how is it possible that n.korea which had everything industry and natural resources became the poor one?"
For decades, it was the other way around-- aż tak mało wam nauczyli w szkole?
North Korea had a higher standard of living than the south right up until the 1970s-- only then did the trend start to reverse.
You also don't think about sanctions-- plenty of countries see opportunity for expanding business in North Korea, but can't because the US will sanction them if they do.
This is an example of abuse of power.
"Answer: Because they were given to the Russians, and Russians ruin everything. "
Lol, you're so completely full of bitterness and hatred, and I hope your daily life isn't consumed by it.
And your opinion isn't even true.
Like it or not, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and the rest of the Russian Empire were 90% peasants, and the USSR modernized them so rapidly that they beat the US (which had 250 years of development without wars) to space. That's not ruined.
"and now is democratic."
This seems to be the basis of your argument--- "who cares if the US never really cared about democracy? They got lucky and became democratic (by opposing the US!) so everything's okay now! :)"
You're no naive and ignorant. The US is not a good country, and if you think the Russians ruin everything, take a trip to Afghanistan or Libya, or Guatemala, or Somalia, or Haiti, or.... see?? How many countries they ruined? And you still support them. Disgusting.
""Ukraine high degree of autonomy" you genocided them, just like you genocided people in Belarus."
No, you Polaks are delusional--- even the Soviet archives, which were released by Gorbachev, showed that the USSR didn't target Ukrainians. They did die in a famine, of course, but it was not done to erase them.
Hell, Russians died in the Holodomor too, how does that make sense (if it's "Russian Imperialism"???)
"If Georgia has minorities and it engages in diplomatic solution with them why should anyone go in?"
LMAOOO
Okay then.... if Yugoslavia has Bosnian minorities, and it engages in diplomatic solution with them why should anyone go in??
You're such a filthy hypocrite.
You can't have it both ways. You either are against Western intervention, AND Russian intervention, or you support both.
Pick one.
"Georgia was able to do it with the Ajaria which today have a high degree of autonomy"
Then maybe they shouldn't have BOMBED Sukhumi, and threatened to GENOCIDE the Abkhazians!!
You're the ones crying about Ukraine right now, but when one of your "buddies" does it it's okay??
"Russia is the country of the biggest hypocrites in the world"
Right, we're the hypocrites. Read the above again.
"Worked with Hitler to split Poland,baltics and Finland"
What are you talking about??
Stalin found out about Hitler's invasion a few months before it started, so he could either let Hitler take all of Europe, or just some of it-- which would you prefer?? Ask your grandparents.
President Ryti (Finland) worked with Hitler to split the USSR. What insane garbage are they teaching you there in Czrzszynskiowicz??
"You should be thanking the US for not nuking you when they had the nuclear bombs 5 years before you and saving you from extermination."
And YOU should be thankful that Stalin invaded Poland--- if Hitler invaded, and Stalin did what you think is "correct," there wouldn't be Poland, but Ostland. Even if Germany lost, there would be maybe 15M Poles today.
Is that what you want??
Well, so many Poles are moving to Germany anyway, maybe they changed their minds))
1
-
@littlefinger4509
"There are procedures to do it, so wrong."
Tell me which ones? You only said that whistleblowing was okay--- I pointed out that if it hurts national security, then it's illegal.
So tell me which "legal procedures" should Snowden have followed? List them.
"So you're not really convincing me""
I was saying that about your earlier comment-- there are no legal procedures to reveal "national security" information. Snowden isn't a traitor, sorry.
"It was a plan, which they never followed with. That's the difference"
LOL, how tf is it different? We are talking about intentions here.
You think the US is magically nicer than Russia because it didn't have to kill Assange?
"Russia murdered dozens of journalists, are you able to tell me a western journalist killed by the government?"
Sure.
Gary Webb ("suicide by gunshot", 2x to the back of the head), Jim Koethe and Bill Hunter (for investigating the JFK assassination),
the bombing of Al Jazeera building in Iraq (killing Tareq Ayoub).
In the same war, they also killed Ukrainian Taras Protsyuk and Spanish Jose Causo.
Why have you neve heard of these names? Because Western media work very hard to make you believe that they are the "good guys".
Any foreign press is labeled "misinformation" so you will never hear about the things the US media doesn't want to report on--
because many ex-military work in media, it doesn't matter if a newspaper isn't "government controlled", it technically is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@revolverDOOMGUY
The problem is, there was no guarantee that NATO would ever go away.
The US still dictates Europe's military policy, and the EU has been roping in former Soviet states one by one.
What exactly did Russia have to lose here?
If they had done nothing, they might still have trade relations with Europe.. but they would still be surrounded by American military infrastructure, and trapped by a dominant hegemon for the rest of its history.
(Imagine how the US would feel if Mexico had a longstanding alliance with China, and there was another Cuba on its Pacific border. That inherent geographic/political instability trickles down to the economy, quality of life, business likelihood etc)
If they make gains here, they can at least force a halt of NATO and replication-in-all-but-name (individual alliances with all NATO members, "technically" not joining).
Not perfect, but being located on Eurasia --- (unlike North America, which is an island and has that permanent advantage thanks not to the governments' effectiveness, but to circumstance)---- you need to navigate the chaos and be ruthless to survive.
1
-
@revolverDOOMGUY
"Russia keeps acting in a ridiculously aggressive way"
A single, current, incident does not explain Europe's past behavior. If you want to retort with "Georgia Crimea" etc, let's take a look.
Crimea voted in 1994, when Russia was politically collapsed, to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia. Ukraine's Parliament struck the results down and got their secret service involved.
Georgian forces shelled Sukhumi, overreacting to a hostage crisis, and denied the wishes of independence of the Ossetians. Amnesty International recognizes as such. The concerns of Georgia's minorities were present even during the USSR, but Stalin dissolved the Abkhazian SSR.
Oh, and Chechnya (Ichkerian Republic) invaded Dagestan (Russia) in August 1999, declaring jihad. But we're the bad guys somehow, for pacifying a Wahhabi movement funded by Saudi Arabia.
"The point is being surrounded by American military infrastructure is not a problem if you have literally the biggest stack of nuclear weapons ever."
Bullshit. You think of security as a binary, which it isn't. "If you can use the threat of nuclear annihilation then everything's fine!" is such a pea-brained argument I don't even know where to begin. To start, economic flexibility depends on access to the ocean. Russia has none, and needs to go through Turkey or Denmark to trade. This makes a huge chunk of its economy dependent on the political decisions of a foreign country.
We aren't even getting into power projection, protection of trading routes, regional stability for economic investment, etc.
Let's put the shoes on someone else's foot. If, hypothetically, a Caribbean country were to host nuclear weapons, or even just a naval base, off the coast of the US, shouldn't the US not care at all even if it is the military infrastructure of a superpower being hosted??
After all, they have nukes too, it should be fine, right?? In this hypothetical situation, do you think the US would abide by your worldview? If not, why? Is there perhaps something you're missing?
"Russia had all the options to become a credible democratic nation, hell even PART of NATO"
Russia applied, and told they had to wait. In the meantime, however, the West managed to bomb and overthrow leaders of foreign countries under false pretenses (Iraq, Afghanistan) and (Libya) after lying about security guarantees...
The US demonstrated that its only real rule was "you're either in my club, or you're not. International law be damned."
Is this what countries should aspire to? Kissing the ass of the pack leader? Freedom and democracy indeed.
"the United States, instead of constantly menacing to attack them, helps them economically"
...Are you kidding? First off, no, Mexico's agricultural exports are fresh fruits and vegetables, the US meanwhile has managed to create an obesity epidemic in their country. US auto makers still dominate their market, in spite of the large volume of machinery imports.
Second, yes it's very easy to help a country which can never pose a threat to you. The US took all of Mexico's most valuable land and neutralized it permanently. They came very close to annexing Yucatan. There's no pressure of a challenger, so of course they'll "help" (benefit from outsourcing) now. They won.
Imagine a world in which the USSR survived, and became economically strong and politically unified. It starts trading with Western Europe. That is what actually happened in North America. The U.S. completely dominates everything.
"Russia on the other hand bullies people into joining their sphere of influence. Don't you see?
The problem isn't that American is pushing militarily speaking"
Again, you must be kidding. Virtually all of the places that the US is allied with, short of Europe, are places that it has bullied (coup'ed) into allying with Washington. South Korea, Indonesia, most of South America, Vietnam, hell, even Italy and Greece.
The singular difference between it and Russia is that the US had time (and the goodwill of the British) to develop its industry and economy undisturbed for 150 years. So even if the US has been a brutal oppressor in the past, it can just smother the citizens of allied countries in material wealth to make them forget about its past crimes.
I acknowledge that corruption and pride are a big issue, but- do I really need to repeat it?- the US caused this. Directly.
After the collapse of the USSR, Harvard economists were flown out to Moscow to convince Yeltsin to conduct "shock therapy" in Russia, swinging it as violently into a market system as possible.
It did not go well. This would be forgivable, if the US did not rig the 1996 elections to prolong the Russian people's suffering.
In 2000, Putin succeeded Yeltsin... and here we are. You reap what you sow.
Shouldn't have ruined Russia intentionally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JamNMama1
You won't always be. Especially with regards to (if you worked a normal office job) your back. If not, then your whole body. Spinal surgery runs into the tens of thousands if there's enough damage. Not to mention, why not apply that to everything?
Why should we pay for the roads you use? Or the water you drink? Or your electricity?
If you're so committed to individual freedom, you'd pave your own roads, dig your own well, and power your own computer to write this comment.
But, unless you're Sasquatch, you don't. You reap all the benefits that society gives you, that you take for granted, while complaining about them.
You can't have it both ways- you either get a consistent, reliable service and pay for it; or you don't, and you get nothing but the "freedom" of extra money each month. The rest of Americans agree that we should. That's why Medicaid is so popular among retirees.
If you don't like it, go live in the woods and don't ever ask anyone for help. Good riddance.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@witchdr.phantom7089
Sorry, I went off a little there.
I agree, and creativity isn't bound by political affiliation... to an extent. While he may not be completely right, he has a point.
Conservativism, by its very nature, discourages creativity. Unless it is accepted within a society's existing framework, holding certain things sacred and 'conserving values' holds them hostage, leaving then unable to change.
Creativity, on the other hand, encourages the 'perversion' of existing ideas, be they political or not.
This is especially true in comedy, where older conservatives don't want to be like 'those filthy Democrats,' seeing insults and teasing as beneath them, and modern Conservatives seemingly unable to string together a joke that doesn't use a racial slur.
It's just two sides of human nature, and one happens not to like new ideas. So while you're right that Conservatives can be creative, it doesn't make the playing field even, so to speak.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rose ella
Seized at the border =/= made in Mexico. Most Latin American guns come from the U.S., the world's largest supplier. Mexico is 24th. Japan is #6. Want to know what makes them safer, even though they buy way more? Gun control.
You need to register your firearm, and prove that you know how to use it, and aren't crazy.
And guess what, control of borders also means no control of gun crime. Criminals exist in the U.S., too. Build that wall, and you'll still have shootings and murders. Nothing changes, sorry. You need to control the guns to stop the guns. Simple as that.
Who cares about the NRA? They're an 'advocacy' (lobbying) group, they don't own the idea of guns. Non-members can get them, too.
And answer this:
if more guns actually makes people safer, and there are so many guns in the South Side of Chicago, then why isn't it totally safe there?? I thought more guns made things safer??
1
-
1
-
@Rexxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In chronological order:
Loss of manpower. While African tribes initially did sell other tribes' POWs and/or criminals to Europeans, they eventually ran out. This was when Europeans began taking people of all kinds in raids on the mainland.
Loss of economic potential: being a colony meant that all industrial infrastructure was created solely to send goods and services to other countries. (ex: India's railway system pales in comparison to what it could have achieved on its own).
Lack of unity: when African nations were divided and, several hundred years later, given their independence, the lines drawn were again arbitrary. The tribes within each country have grudges thousands of years old, so forcing them into the same space and calling them a country made civil war (of which there are many in Africa) inevitable.
Think what would happen if Turkey and Greece were forced to be a single nation, or Ukraine, Poland, and Germany. Tell me that those would be stable.
That's basically what happened in Africa— Europe's tribes had time to band together and build borders; Africa's climate does not allow for that. So when Europeans came in, they made borders based on their needs, not Africans'.
Hope this helps
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@manderly33
Are you being contrarian just for the sake of it? This entire segment felt like it, too.
RFK might be insane but these used to be liberal and left-leaning concerns. Republicans were the ones obsessed with burgers and guns.
God you people are so annoying. Europe's standards are higher for a reason.
EU crops, for instance, generally aren't allowed to be sprayed with inorganic pesticides, while they are in the US.
rBGH use is still widespread in the US cattle industry. Antibiotics and antibiotic resistance is also a concern, which is why US beef can't be exported to many places.
Chickens in the EU are vaccinated and so don't carry a risk of salmonella, unlike in the US, where the resulting eggs are washed and sterilized, needing to be fridged. EU eggs can be kept out because the shell keeps them from spoiling.
Add to that the risk of salmonella from the chicken meat.
Food colorings (known to be carcinogenic, such as Red 40 or Yellow 5) are still allowed in the US. Just look at the German version of Froot Loops to see a great example.
In general, the FDA takes a more hands-off approach to regulating, they wait until after an ingredient has harmed or killed Americans to ban it.
The EU requires a company to first prove that the ingredient is safe. They don't have a GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) designation.
There's a whole lot more, but the crops and meat that Americans grow are full of crap. Sorry.
Anything they export would need to follow EU protocols, so they're saving their healthiest foods to export. While leaving the Americans to gobble up the irridated scraps.
Same goes for whatever prepared foods they're selling.
Oh, and whiskey is alcohol, so no real need to poison it any more than alcohol already is one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
OligarchySlayer
Um, anybody who lived through Stalin's purges would have had emotional trauma. Her family damn near starved at points during the Russian Civil War.
And Rand pioneered the philosophy of egoism:
_"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute is self-sacrifice – which means self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial self-destruction – which means the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar.
The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: No. Altruism says: Yes.""_
That isn't a far stretch from social Darwinism. If one is to act rationally in one's own self-interest, especially in the example she gave, it is often to the detriment of others. That she praises this egoism is an endorsement of social Darwinism- an acceptance of it as the result of her ideas.
Atlas Shrugged is about a 'misunderstood visionary', her main character is literally an oppressed Mary Sue.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RedXlV
Lol not even close. What Ukrainian propaganda have you been fed?
You seem to think the Duchy of Moscow first renamed itself Russia, then used that name to somehow trick every other Rus city into joining it.
When the opposite is true.
Only after the Russians broke the Mongol yoke, and reconquered all Rus lands that hadn't been captured by Poland-Lithuania, did the Tsar start referring to himself as ruler of all Rus. That title was earned.
Not to mention, Russia even at that time was the best candidate to claim that legacy.
The "Kingdom of Ruthenia" (which sought legitimacy from the Catholic Pope??) was a Polish satellite state. By that time the native Ruthenian culture had already started to be Polonized.
The Polish themselves certainly had no claim to Rus— they were its adversary even before the Mongol invasion! Completely separate identity to Rus.
So, with Russia having the namesake, Russia being the Byzantine name for Rus (which reminds me, if Ukrainians have always felt themselves the true heirs of Rus, why didn't they call themselves that?), the culture (40% of our language isn't rooted in Polish) and the history (the only one of the 3 to successfully re-unite all former Rus lands at any time), then what is your counter?
That the Ukrainians still live in Kiev? Does that make the Turks heirs to Greece?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is true, but (at least for memes) it's hard to come up with a 'theme' or stereotypical set of ideas for a smaller country. What is poland known for, besides serious WWII history? And maybe Chopin, for music theory students?
There is yet to be a Polish stereotype that breaks into American culture, like gopniks or hardbass or (ironically a polish invention) vodka. Same with Serbia, although wartime music is becoming a meme, and the fight with Albania is also kind of a meme. Same with Croatian, mostly known as a vacation spot.
A country, to be a meme (at least in USA), needs a "brand image". Anyone can give a russian accent because it has very distinct features. Soft consonants, emphasis on wrong syllables, "je" instead of e, v instead of w, etc.
It is harder to create a polish accent, or hungarian, or bulgarian, etc
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@traumvonhaiti
"It doesn't work like that" —like what?
I didn't describe why Kazakh demographics is working. I just said that others in a similar situation aren't working so well.
You said that the Kazakh national character encoursges having children to survive under foreign occupation.
But that is true of many other post-Soviet countries, so that cannot be why Kazakhs have more kids, because we would see that in other places too.
Kazkah culture is not nomadic anymore, and Ukraine (until the 1990s Westernization) was collectivist too. It goes without saying that it is also survivalist.
So again why don't we see them be similar to Kazkahs?
If we use your scenario, I would say it is a mix of things:
Mostly their cultural values. Westerners aren't willing to sacrifice their early 20s to having children and (because they industrialized so early) their family structure is broken, so there is no opportunity for them to have grandparents help take care of the kids under the same household.
In addition to valuing personal freedom, they also value privacy. Most want a separate home so that marital relations can be done in private.
To a smaller extent, economic conditions.
In the farms it is easier to put a child to work and they can actually make money, but in the cities raising a child is hard, without that grandparents support. Children in the city cost money and most people can't even afford to rent a small flat, so nobody has kids.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thesirmaddog8209
If that's truly the case in your opinion, then by the same logic, the Revolutionary War never happened.
America did not have an army large enough to actually fight the British, so they heavily relied on knowledge of their land and guerrilla tactics, while the British insisted on "Classical warfare" (at the time, three rows of volleys, with trumpets and fanfare to boot. Very gentlemanly).
Sound familiar?
You're making an arbitrary distinction between insurgents/militants and armies.
In an environment like Afghanistan, the style of fighting would be the same either way.
The Afghan army isn't going to stroll up with their skinniest weapons just because their "reputation" is on the line.
A war of attrition is much better for them, as evidenced by the U.S.'s failure to secure or even finish building the Ring Road, or root out the Taliban. Not to mention many Pashtuns already have joined, making them a semi-Afghan fighting force.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DenaMarie90
Not always. Medicare doesn't cover everyone, especially if you're in a Red state who politicians refuse to expand its coverage. If, for instance, you're just above 138% of the poverty line, making ~$18,000/year, and there are no jobs in your area, and you can't afford to move to a different area (this is depressingly common in rural states), you're basically fucked.
That's in the most generous case, and in those same rural states, the rules I just mentioned usually don't apply. If you're an adult and don't have a child, you can wave Medicare goodbye. Millions of people fall just in between the eligibility for Medicaid and Marketplace tax credits (low and middle income).
Sorry, but sometimes you don't have control, and you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps. The American Dream is sadly an illusion. Always has been.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MyGraveDancer
..It is ironic that everyone is comparing Putin to Hitler, since "no one is trying to attack Russia" is exactly the line that was pitched by Chamberlain.
Wars happen in a post-nuclear age, NATO in particular has made illegal (and geopolitically unsuccessful) incursions into Afghanistan and Libya.
Both are still in ruins today.
There are also better uses for military presence than just war. It is power projection.
Russia tries to put economic pressure (entirely legal) on a country during a trade deal negotiation?
Well, the US says no, it should get the contract instead, and look at how many US-made weapons and US troops are on the border.
Their mere presence is a threat, the implied threat is used for concessions... I hoped you'd understand that.
For instance, instead of crudely attacking Russia after it collapsed in 1991, it went to the Yeltsin government and lobbied for a "shock therapy" approach to Russia's capitalist transition.
This ruined the country, and the oligarchs that the policy created took so much money out of Russia (laundered into NY and London) that there's now more Russian money outside the country than in.
You don't need weapons to destroy a country. The US has proven that before. We simply do not trust them.
We tried being a part of the West's system, and they further ruined us as a result.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danialyousaf6456
"The amount of people he had starved, hung, shot and had much worse things done to makes Hitler's actionslook like child's play"
No, not really. While his actions (namely, killing off 5M officers and leftover intelligentsia) were brutal, they are incomparable to the damage Hitler caused. Invading and subjugating most of Europe, killing millions explicitly with the goal of eradicating a culture and people, are nothing compared to a bog-standard famine. Even Churchill did that, and no one bats an eyelash because he was on America's team.
Read over (or just read about) Generalplan Ost. Stalin only achieved more than Hitler in terms of death and destruction because Hitler didn't get the chance. He planned on wiping 99% of Slavs off the face of the Earth, and Germanizing or enslaving the rest. It would have made the Holocaust look like child's play, as you said.
As for the rape of Berlin.. this is not a proud moment. But, after all the Soviet civilians that Nazi officers- most of whom were fresh out of training, practically civilians themselves- had raped, murdered, or tortured, many see it as a form of payback. If we're valuing all lives equally, the Germans did far more in terms of sheer numbers. So I question your reason for bringing that up.
Like it or not, he was there precisely at the moment in history when he was needed. He may have been a monster, but Tsar Nicholas II was not going to beat a resurgent Germany. Europe would be speaking German right now, had Stalin not existed. Sorry.
1
-
@danialyousaf6456
"the only reason Hitler managed to invade Europe was cuz Stalin gave him the go ahead"
You're sorely mistaken here.
Remember, it was Britain (infamously, Chamberlain) who wanted to appease Hitler after the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia.
Stalin, meanwhile, was trying to form a pre-emptive alliance against Germany, along with Britain's Communist Party.
Soviet Ambassador to Britain, Ivan Maiksy, asked the Chamberlain government multiple times to form an anti-Nazi alliance, but... "better Hitlerism than Communism" was a common phrase among the posh.
What you just wrote to me, with complete confidence, was completely wrong. I hope you bear that in mind next time you're debating someone. Check your sources.
And thank you, for being courteous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garetclaborn
Okay, then instead of counting on every person in a gun-free zone to have a gun (?) to stop a shooter, how about we subject then to a background test, or in the case of Nikolas Cruz, the FBI not sit on their ass after a recommendation that Cruz be aprehended.
If you addressed the causes behind shootings, you wouldn't need a civilian shootout every time someone feels like they need to express their emotions with a pistol— because they wouldn't be distressed in the first place.
Your reliance on a quick, short term solution every time is harmful in the long run. There are better ways to address gun violence, and more guns will only increase it.
If you really think that gun violence happens for a reason, then the shooter will simply look for a place without a deterrent, and shoot there.
If you think the shooter is irrational, then what does a high number of guns actually do? People will still die in between the first few shots and a citizen brandishing his.
Also, the Vietnam war (regarding Vietnamese call to arms) was against a foreign power. Ironic that your argument is your government is so tyrannical that other nations need to follow your ideology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I get that idea from the hearing. It's likely Kavanaugh did assault Ford. There is plenty of evidence for that. I can go over it all if you wish. For now, because it's all technically up in the air, I'll focus on the hearing. Message me if you want both sides' evidence. Now:
You just said it yourself, he lied in court.
Under oath.
He could be prosecuted for that alone. In fact, the lying is more of a reason to deny him the Supreme Court position than the rape. The (at this point, alleged) rape happened years ago.
How he behaved and what he said in court is a reflection on him now. He's a whiny piece of crap who gets emotional when things don't go his way, and is willing to play dirty (lie in court, yell over others, dodge important questions) to save himself.
He doesn't think of the wellbeing of others, who don't directly benefit him in some way.
Simply put, he's a bad person. He should not receive the Supreme Court seat. I'll cheer when he loses judicial privileges altogether.
1
-
1
-
@Matt-ww9wv
That's true, although like you said, de facto it usually doesn't happen.
And even if it were more expensive than it is now, the amount of people saved (able to work and contribute to the economy, rather than be dead) would, I believe, offset the cost greatly.
Though yes, it generally would be cheaper. Less administrative glut, better ability to prevent, rather than treat, diseases, and better bargaining with companies for medical supplies and a better insurance policy.
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
-
I agree, Americans are extremely gullible. So are Russians, but only in certain contexts. Usually we are stone-faced and analytical, but when we (they, really) have their sense of national pride toyed with, they become very tribal and defensive. Stupid, even.
Also, behavioral psychology doesn't always work. There are too many factors at play to have a direct cause --> effect relationship. For example, simply being aware of the tactics makes you less susceptible to them, so long as you remain self-aware in the moments where the trick is being employed.
Also, you can mitigate the effects of the grocery store by having a list, and forming a habit that counters the default psychological inclination.
Same goes with McDonald's. Red and yellow may mean "hungry!", but not if you know what they put in the food.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeschmoe3665
Contributing little or nothing?
The entire reason nations today consider STEM achievement key to geopolitical primacy (as opposed to Jefferson's vision for a nation of yeoman farmers) is because the USSR beat the US to space and made it freak out.
That set a precedent which still hasn't been broken and dominates global politics and economies.
Also, most nuclear reactor designs today are Soviet, Russia was one of the first countries (after Germany and UK) to have public healthcare and the first ever to have a decimal currency (like 100 cents = 1 dollar).
Russia invented the modern helicopter, the electric tram (or streetcar), rollercoasters (Russian Mountains), the Periodic Table of Elements, the satellite, Tetris, and (as someone else mentioned) the Soviets invented the montage in filmmaking. They also discovered Antarctica, and the concept of viruses.
I agree that the list could be much longer (I only listed completely indigenous inventions and not one's are an improvement, like Edison's lightbulb) but to say "little or nothing " is just being petty and spiteful.
You're objectively wrong.
All countries have their contributions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Colt-fr3hd
You're gonna have to be more specific. Prove that he's an idiot? That he's one of the worst presidents? That most people didn't vote for him?
'Idiot' is subjective, but there is some evidence he's way in over his head.-
He said "I know more about ISIS than even the generals do!"
1 year later and he's assigned fucking Jared to create peace in the Middle East. He sent his son-in-law, a Jew, to negotiate peace in the Middle East. And before you pipe up that he's American first, you think the Iranians or Turks are going to believe that, or even give a shit? No understanding of foreign policy. Sounds like an idiot to me.
January 15 2017, Interview with WaPo:
"We’re going to have insurance for everybody,”
“There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.”
Feb 27 2017, White House meeting:
"Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
... No one knew?! That's the only thing obvious about it, that's been the crux of the issue for years!
It's too fragmented, bloated, and inefficient, and 45 thinks he can swoop in and pass a bill that makes no compromises and takes no time. Jesus Christ.
"One of the worst presidents"-
This one's subjective too, but making most of the Armed Forces hate you by forcing them to abandon the Kurds (the ones who actually beat ISIS, Jared be damned), leaving them to die at the hand of Turkey, is pretty impressive for a single term.
"Most" people didn't vote for him. Hilary won the popular vote (more people voted for her than Trump), but Trump won the electoral college. Again "most" is subjective, but Trump sure as hell didn't win a majority of American votes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry, but I have to disagree here. Especially during the end.
Goldberg's statement "we got rid of titles of nobility" is sadly false. They were denounced in name only. Favoritism still existed (and exists), the only difference is the American societal pretense that people can be persecuted for things like bribery and classism.
Of course, justice is sometimes realized— a true achievement— but more often than not, rich people just don't deal with the same problems.
Examples: The U.S. has faced no repercussions for overthrowing Iran's, Guatemala's, Congo's, or Chile's democracies, because the people behind them had too much status to be tried in international court. George Bush, (and his shitty test scores) got into Yale only because of his last name. The national banks and executives that ran them in 2008 did not face any consequences for the Recession.
Despite all its achievements, and changes over time, America is English to its core— firmly rooted in a rigid class system. People can move around within those classes, but the privileges of the upper classes have not changed.
Sorry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shannonmikko9865
How do you think our oligarchs came to power? After Yeltsin took over in the 90s, the US sent a team of economists and advisors to Moscow, hoping to convince Russia to work with them.
Several teams from Europe and Japan came, too.
The team that ended up convincing Yeltsin were the US Harvard economists, working closely with the US Treasury. They wanted to do "shock therapy"-- basically throw Russia into capitalism so quickly and brutally that everything would magically "fall into place."
As you may imagine, it did not work. The state enterprises were privatized and each citizen was given a share of the new companies- but, because everything had been done so quickly, no one bothered to tell the Russians what they had even received (no one knew how markets or stocks worked since they were born into Communism).
They sold their shares quickly for food and water (because the country and currency had collapsed), and so the oligarchs (former Party members or black market dealers) were formed.
If the US had sent economists not devoted to neoliberalism, there probably wouldn't be any, or as many, oligarchs today. Or not sent anyone at all, that would've been nice.
"so instead of continuing to peacefully supply gas to Europe (who really want it and don’t want conflict"
You say that, but Western companies were looking to drill into Ukrainian gas fields and reduce their purchase of Russian gas- they wanted to reduce the amount of gas money they were giving to Moscow.
The governments weren't trusting of Russia so they tried to rope Ukraine into the EU, to have their own little Russia.
Ironically, this is what caused Russia's aggression.
"If Russia joined the EU they could negotiate fair trade deals"
This is not enough. Look at Greece- pre-existing problems unsolved, made worse once in the EU.
If this were to happen to Russia, the brain drain (remember, EU passport allows visa-free travel) would get even worse.
It's already happened to Ukraine- the migrants coming to Poland increased even more, after their visa-free deal.
"the idea of the US/EU being hell bent on wanting to turn Russia into an exploitation colony instead of a productive alliance member is simply unfounded."
No, it's not. Finnish lumber may be fine, but it has legal protections. Whereas IKEA (for example) was more than happy to use illegal Russian lumber in its products. Russia's lumber is 12% of global total market. They would not give that opportunity up.
They protect Finland's forests because it doesn't inconvenience them.
Also, again- look at what they did in the 90s. Complete looting. Western companies were "officially" banned from participating in early auctions for Russian (former Soviet) firms... yet they came in anyway.
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
-
@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
-
1
-
@The Dali Llama
It sounds to me like you know your position is wrong and don't want to admit that to yourself.
If you think I like Trump, then clearly by brain's not the only one rotting, here.
I despise him- not just as a politician, but- from what has been said of him by acquaintances of his- as a person. He's a shit businessman, politician, and husband.
As I said, the one area where Trump would have been wise to keep troops, he took them out.
ISIS was already defeated and no more lives were being lost, so the "money lost, lives lost, decades without any US success" argument is wrong.
That was his one foreign policy success, and he squandered it. The lone achievement in his dumpster fire presidency, and he chucked it.
If you want to keep living in your bubble, go ahead. I've tried to engage with you on specific points and I don't think I've been unreasonable in my concerns.
That you still refuse to open your worldview to any criticism just confirms to me that... neoliberals? I can't tell and don't care what you are at this point- are a lost cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joellamas184
The USMCA is just NAFTA 2.0, the actual differences in trade provisions are largely to do with digital piracy and little with domestic production (and even those aren't substantial, the trade deficit is still in Mexico's favor):
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/fact-sheets/modernizing
The China trade deal is still ongoing, and the Buy American is too little, too late.
Trump received a briefing in 2017 that a virus was very likely to come out of China, he ignored it. He received direct news of the outbreak in early January, he downplayed and refused to do anything until the 2nd of February, by then 300K+ Chinese nationals had already entered the U.S.. Now we have the most cases and deaths on Earth.
He's also reconsidering opening the country back up by Easter, because 200K+ lives is apparently worth sacrificing to make rich people happy. He repeatedly said it was under control, would be 0-15 cases soon, a hoax, etc etc.
He failed. Americans will die because of his indecision.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DaveSmith-cp5kj
Politicians don't use public transport because they're polarizing figures. Their actions have affected millions of people, some of whom, statistically, are bound to be unhappy and all too eager to demonstrate that anger to them.
There are plenty of shots of Keanu Reeves riding the L. It's only weird if you make it weird.
It's not superior, unless you're a privacy freak.
And get out of here with that last statement.
Every single developed nation's public transport system is leaps and bounds ahead of the U.S.'s. If you've got the name of a country, please tell me, because in my experience, Europe, Russia, Australia, Asia, and even some parts of South America out class the U.S..
The Metra and Amtrak look and feel like an oversized tin can. In no other country has the train screeched like a banshee when making even a slight turn. The L and the Loop are both okay, but they're dirty and cramped compared to Europe.
Names, please. I'm genuinely curious.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markvalery8632
Are you asking for a source to confirm that Stoltenberg DIDN'T say something?... How would that even be manifested?
"Show me that this thing didn't happen" lol
Anyways, I assumed that you were replying to his comment which wasn't banned, so I'll just drop this here anyway:
07 September 2023— Opening remarks by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the joint meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) and the Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) followed by an exchange of views with Members of the European Parliament:
“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.
So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”
Stoltenberg, in a friendly forum where he could have ascribed to Putin whatever he wants, madness, greed, pettiness— chose to pin his motivations on NATO expansion. Almost gave the game away...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charleslombard4432
Agreed! Many in the US see it as the panacea of transportation, but it won't solve all our problems, nor is it even applicable everywhere.
Part of the reason we have roads instead of tracks (besides lobbying and bribery in the 1940s from oil and auto companies) is that the U.S. is big. Really big.
Maintaining that amount of track for towns that barely use it simply easing economically smart or possible back then.
Roads are cheaper to make, and postwar America had no idea how roads could impact drivers and change over time. So that's what we went with.
Oh, and London is the exception, not the rule. I have acquaintances in Poland, Russia, France and Germany. All their systems are cheap and efficient, but only because everyone uses them. Not sure why England's is so expensive, must be the high maintenance costs (the Tube is hundreds of years old, after all).
1
-
@charleslombard4432
Interesting! My friends are from Lyon and Marseilles, and I don't have many details from them, but they seem okay with (as you said) the downtown area of both cities.
It honestly surprises me that London, or any city, would need to charge so much for a ticket to ride, given how many people use it per day- I assumed that would cover at least part of the maintenance cost.
In Warsaw and St,-Petersburg, the metro system reaches a balance between London's and Paris': it is not too expensive, and the lines don't extend too far into the city, anything beyond 10 miles and you need to take a tram or a trolley.
And I am very saddened to hear about the delay to Rueil-Malmaison's line. But it seems that it is taking London's approach now, no? Of course, politicians need to (an American expression) grow a pair, and cooperate with the other party to finish the line, but rushing to finish it may not be the best idea either. That could lead to delays or reparations, making the whole project a waste of time in the end.
Maybe they just lied about the ending date to get people to agree to build it?
Just my opinion, but if there is any context that would change my mind, let me know.
1
-
I still don't like modern art, even less so post-modern.
If Pollock had at least some kind of method to his madness, then I would give him credit where it's due. But in exploring the possibilities of form and asking the question, "what is art?" (which is most of modern art btw), he didn't put any thought behind the actual composition.
Sure, the colors. The radical departure from structure that even Picasso had adhered to. But all of that is inherent to a painting lacking such drastic pieces of traditional artwork. Any such painting would lead you to think about art that way. If you inverted the colors of Jackson's painting, its function- its value to the progression of artistic thought- is the same. It still subverts the same conventions. If I splattered paint onto a canvas, the effect on the viewer, if they aren't told who painted it, would be the exact same.
There is literally nothing about Pollock, besides his groomed image, that makes him a good painter, or even an artistic thinker. Sorry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@achelouss1717
I would argue that, within the context of our world (not some abstracted playing field), he most definitely can be proven not to exist.
To start, anybody who asserts God/ a god's supernatural abilities/properties has no skin in the game, as the concept of something superseding the natural defies any human attempt to observe, and consequently, prove (or disprove) it.
Come to think of it, that's a defining feature of the vast majority of deities, so I could just say that I rest my case, but...
Evidence for any specific God is faulty when you're reading religious texts. (You could argue that they're allegorical or guidelines, but at that point there's no reason to cherrypick the existence of a God as true when the Creation story isn't.)
Abrahamic: Creation story is clearly of Mesopotamian or Egyptian origin; archaeological evidence for a regional flood (not to mention the complete infeasibility of a 600 year old man capturing 2 of every kind of animal alive and bringing them all onto a seaworthy vessel);
a huge chunk of Jesus' life completely absent from Scripture, little to no evidence for written accounts at the time of occurrence; apocalypse story defies the laws of physics;
Contradictory Quranic verses; clear adhesion to cultural norms rather than universal truths (which is an unprovable concept on its own).
Dharmic: Historical documentation of the development of religious doctrine, i.e. incorporation of foreign gods into the vernacular religion; literally too many gods to count with overlapping duties/abilities;
speaks poignant truths about human nature, but neuroscience has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that consciousness is kept in our heads and leaves us when we die, i.e. no reincarnation.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zero-ry2rc
That does literally nothing to disprove what I said. You're not even capable of giving a single example.
Sorry, but everything IS in the Congo. That's the point.
Europe has nothing even close to that cutting through its center. It has a sea. Africa has a forest full of silverback gorillas, leopards, hippos, and poisonous snakes and frogs. Among literally thousands of others animals.
Even the most basic things, bees, are more aggressive and harder to domesticate in Africa. The closer to the equator you are, the more biodiversity. The more competition, the more fierce the flora and fauna evolve to be.
Cope all you want, it has nothing to do with the people and enduring to do with geography, and even then the people managed to build empires right up to the jungle's edges. The Portuguese didn't bow to African kings for fun.
If you can show me how to domesticate an African buffalo, I'll eat my words.
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
-
@EpochUnlocked
"The private sector is more efficient"
"most often, the lowest bidder are the companies that use the cheapest, shortest lasting material and the perform the poorest work"
See any problems here?
Sometimes, the most efficient (in the company's case, gross profit minus gross expenses) isn't always what a society needs to operate a key service well. Not everything needs to be profitable.
Though, by some metrics, a better-serviced public transport system generates more economic activity in the long run than a cheaply-made one that the private sector magically creates. But that doesn't matter to the private sector, which (unless privately owned) is legally bound to its shareholders' wishes, which are invariably short-term financial gains.
Efficiency, even if that were totally inherent to the private sector
(it isn't; the businesses that survive are the ones that just so happened not to make mistakes, but that doesn't mean companies are immune from being wasteful and inefficient-- the ones that waste cease to exist, so our perception of the private sector's overall performance is skewed)
isn't always the primary aim when providing a service.
Also, "you don't have an argument there"?
We'll let your side of the argument when the state stops taxing hardworking people like you to build roads you'll never use. Axe the Federal Highway System and dole it out to private companies- since they're clearly so efficient. I'm sure zero roads will be left to crumble.
In case I didn't lay it on thick enough, that was about as sarcastic as I could get.
You simply don't know just how poorly roads could get under a private system because companies currently only shoulder the burden of maintaining profitable ones.
If the whole system was left up to them, we'd see thousands of miles left completely unmaintained, to cut costs. I sincerely hope, for your own sake, that the private companies don't get to test that theory out.
Or maybe they should. I just hope your vehicle is offroad-certified.
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're celebrating the fall of the only secularist government who has a legitimate claim to the entire country?
You're a naive fool. Just like every other rebel group who takes outside help, you think "Turkey/US/Israel likes me, they'll support me until the end!"
Then the end comes, and you're left with nothing. Syria will descend into civil war, Israel will start ethnically cleansing the south of Syria, Kurdistan will be established, and the only place Syria will still exist is in Diaspora in the same countries that helped destroy it.
I hope I'm wrong and that HTS has made deals with the Kurds, Turkey, Israel, and the US— but if I'm not, your country will understand what life is like without Assad very soon.
May God have mercy on you.
1
-
I would recommend (if you are talking about partnering) India. China, Russia, Turkey, all have long history of military involvement in their partner countries.
I think India can be just as corrupt, but they don't have a culture of invading others, because they have been blocked by the Himalayas. That could change, but if you want political freedom, go with India.
If you want good military, Russia or America. If you want lots of money, China. If you want good trading deals, Turkey.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@社会主義惑星人民連邦
Good historical view.
Actually, Putin's story is different. He wasn't "pretending" to be pro-Western. He genuinely wanted to be a part of the system.
Listen to his speech at the Bundestag, he was a different person then.
After Yeltsin's failure, he probably adopted the idea of "the West will only respect and eventually include countries that are successful in their own right".
He gets to work installing technocrats in the Kremlin and rebuilding the Russian economy, and yet Russia is treated like a third-world country. NATO continues to expand as if the USSR still exists.
The tipping point for him was Libya, according to former aides.
Seeing a person much like himself— unifying and rapidly developing a backwater country, if ruthlessly— be overthrown in a US-backed coup, changed him.
If the US promised to normalize relations with Libya after he agreed to halt its nuclear program, and ended up throwing the country into a civil war— what moral boundary prevented them from doing that to Russia?
Add to that the fact that Russia's woes in the 1990s were largely the US' fault to begin with, and you get a man bent on eliminating US influence in the world.
He tried for over a decade to play nice, and was repeatedly snubbed in both the geopolitical and economic sphere (for example the Pentagon blocking the sale of Opel to Russia in 2008, or opposing the opening of Nordstream I).
Trusting the West was the biggest mistake Russia ever made. Putin's personal evolution is an embodiment of that fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wyattlong8321
That's simply not true.
Conservatives like to "debunk the myth" that FDR helped the economy, by citing the dip or Recession of 1937.
Unemployment spiked from 14.3% to 19%. What they forget to mention, is that FDR inherited an America with 24.9% unemployment.
Even ignoring the fact that government spending— which was central to the New Deal— propelled the U.S. economy by 1941, thanks to the war, FDR brought unemployment down by 6%, at his worst. That, in a single term, is incredible.
I know you don't like admitting it, but he did restore the American economy. America experienced an economic boom under him.
If a fiscally conservative President were elected, Keynesian economics wouldn't have rebuilt Europe, or made America into a superpower.
1
-
@wyattlong8321
Yes, it did. We still rely on the idea today, unless you want to tell me that Trump (and Obama, and Clinton, and Reagan, etc) actually reduced the budget ceiling? Or have you forgotten the word 'deficit'?
Our "greatest period of growth" is a subjective term. GDP was fully fleshed out in the 1930's, so we can't exactly measure "growth" in conventional terms before then. If you have a metric you're using, let me hear it.
That being said, I agree that America expanded massively during that century, but remember this:
-Lewis and Clark were sent out by the Government to chart for them.
-Most "Wild West" towns were sponsored by the Government. Their creation was to increase their Treasury size.
-The 1800's were primarily marked by the creation of the Transcontinental Railroad and the Erie Canal. both Gov't projects.
-When there was 'no regulation whatsoever,' a few robber barons were extremely wealthy, and the rest of America was dirt -poor. Remember tenements? Slums? Political machines? It wasn't called the Gilded Age for nothing. Without regulation, cities were filthy cesspools. People died of starvation, and worked for pennies.
-The Interstate Highway System was (obviously) Government funded and built. We wouldn't be anywhere near where we are today, without it.
About the rest of your comment: if it was geography, then economics had nothing to do with it either way, why mention it?
And yes, it did. What the fuck do you think the Marshall Plan was? A not- government funded handout to stimulate Europe? Do you think the "Free Market" just "swooped in" and made everything better? The Government spent trillions to help rebuild.
I know no one paid the 90% (btw) rate. The effective rate was still much higher than what we're paying for today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hermes7587
After reading this response, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
Those "low value added" industries are the top sectors in terms of international trade volumes.
So, food, gas, metals, and chemicals, all qualify according to what you asked for. And in fact, high-value added goods don't break into the top 5 by category. Automobiles are #6 (per UN statistics in 2023).
So, I don't think you've done even basic research into the topic that you're basing your opinion of Russia on, or you'd have known that you're asking for two contradictory things.
And I think you're vastly underestimating how much work goes into extracting resources— you might imagine a group of dirty workers with shovels, but logistics, machinery, and transport all go into making sure this "low skill" industry keeps moving.
As I said, Russia's contributions are significant in terms of chemical fertilizer and nuclear tech. And basic machinery (where they're competitive).
BTW, I wasn't talking about weapons— Russia (and China) lead the world in new power plant production, Western countries (besides France) simply don't really know how to build them anymore.
It's not a matter of political restriction, but a lack of capability.
And using Iran as a similar example isn't great— especially when Turkey has access to funding from Western companies but chose Russia to build most of its new reactors. Same with Bangladesh, India and Egypt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SergeyMilitaryRankings
Lmao "this is copium to the highest degree"
Even needing to speak in absolutes like that tells me you have no legs to stand on. Putting all your cards in with a bad hand.
Truth is never that simple, and you spoke like a child who doesn't understand nuance or the actual, real details of a situation. Which is fitting for you.
Even a cursory reading of Wikipedia will tell you I'm right.
The Ukrainian strategy was to divert focus to Kherson, make the Russians thin out their northern forces, and then catch them by surprise in the south. In other words, get the Russians out before even attacking.
From Taras Berezovets:
"[they] thought [the counteroffensive] would be in the south… then, instead of the south, the offensive happened where they least expected, and this caused them to panic and flee."
This is a Ukrainian military spokesman speaking. You want to tell me that Ukraine deliberately fought their way through dense fortifications?
They themselves say the genius of their plan was making Russians leave before the attack, then forcing the rest to RETREAT INSTEAD OF FIGHTING.
Literally like I said:
a few initial big losses Verbivka, Volokhiv Yar, and by the time they reached Iziyum, the Russians decided to cut their losses.
Or take a quote from none other than Zelenskiy:
"The Russian army in these days is demonstrating the best that it can do — showing its back. And, of course, it's a good decision for them to run."
Get the idea yet?? They didn't fight and lose every inch of the region. They left early on. How many more ways do I need to put this?
You said that "they were pushed back" and then told me about Kupiansk.
Dude... they got to Kupiansk 3 days after starting the offensive.
Does that remind you of anything I may have said, about early victories BEFORE the decision to retreat??
"so if a country goes into battle and the other side just leaves"
I don't know, that's what the US did in Vietnam, and to this day people are calling it a "tactical retreat".
1. Like I said before, Kupiansk and Iziyum were reached mere days after the start, after that point the Russians left Kozacha, Lopan, and Vovchansk, among others. Even local residents attest to the fact that they left so fast they left weapons behind.
2. "a tactical retreat is leaving an area to regroup and resupply and counter attack"
...Man. What is happening LITERALLY RIGHT NOW? What are the Russians doing in Kupiansk? You already told me.
By your own definition, the Russians tactically retreated.
They're back instead of leaving forever, so they, according to you, retreated.
But it seems you weren't smart enough to notice your inconsistent line of reasoning.
3. A defeat in terms of what? I just said it's not strictly a defeat in Kharkhiv because they were never overpowered and forced to sign a treaty or something like that.
If you wanna make sweeping claims like that you need to back it up. Explain why they were defeated in your eyes.
What criteria are you basing that on?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think this video gets right to the heart of the conservative worldview: Conservatives tend to strongly believe that an agent must be responsible for everything, and that chaos and chance are to be feared.
The way they ask questions: "my daughter played," "I just searched," they all sound folksy because they can't see things as part of a larger system. They can only see it as a bunch of individuals making choices, and I think that addresses most of their other viewpoints.
Religiosity (it couldn't have been chance— God or somebody must be behind it!);
conspiracy theories (climate change can't be real, because how could so many companies do harm whose consequence would be that we all just die? It has to be scientists who are behind this!); and personal responsibility (who cares if you're an alcoholic? Tough it out! You can do this! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!)
They all fall into this worldview. Bad things can't happen chaotically, for no reason, how could they? There has to be somebody who's causing this to happen, that's why things are bad!
They're afraid of a lack of control.
Once you realize that humans aren't completely free-willed, or that groups of people act differently than individuals, or that humans can create things that they later can't stop, you have to admit that maybe you don't have it all figured out, and you might get disadvantaged for no reason.
It hurts to feel vulnerable, but they need to accept it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flame-sky7148
For someone who (I'm assuming) is American, you seem so fond of restricting personal freedom.
Marriages aren't worth keeping if they don't work. A loveless marriage is psychologically worse for the child(ren) than having a single parent. I'd rather be poor than have a damaged view of relationships for the next few decades.
Even if that weren't the case, it doesn't matter- the argument is that the idea of a nuclear family isn't natural.
Extended families- tribes- are what humans evolved to be in. And sex was done by the tribe- all the men had sex with every woman when her time came.
Why did it matter who the biological father was? The son would be raised by all the men, so he is the son of the tribe.
The idea that one person belongs to another is a new idea, rooted in greed and ownership of property.
Among the lower class, marriages were arranged for the betterment of the two families. Men could divorce women, but not the other way around. Women were considered property and men could do as they pleased with them.
Among the upper class, marriage was political. Both families pawned off their kin for greater influence. Men who could afford it had mistresses (glorified escorts) which was accepted at the time. It is no longer.
Nothing about marriage from the 1950's is normal or historical.
Two people fallen in love, a single breadwinner, only 3-4 family members, etc. It's all manufactured by the U.S..
The only similarity I could find was that your ideas about divorce are quite literally medieval.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bubbajay1934
You act as though this was specifically directed at Ukrainians and no one else.
The destruction of intelligentsia was felt just as much by Russian society, Kazakh, Georgian, etc.
I will never understand why Westerners will frame things through a racial, or, where that isn't available, ethnic lens for literally anything political.
It was seen as de-kulakization and encompassed all cultures.
And the idea that it was a 'genocide' is questionable, too- since, if we're just talking about Holodomor, Russians in the south died in the hundreds of thousands, too.
If it was an imperial project to eliminate Ukraine as a nation, then who exactly is benefiting from it, as the 'colonizers' were being brutalized in the same exact way?
If we're talking about further back, then it is no different to any other empire and I see no reason why it is singled out, especially when (if we are claiming that principles are universalist) other European empires still have legacies unaddressed long before the invasion.
Those were never fixed (breaking West Africa out of the imperial Francafrique economic arrangements and French military bases),
ridding Britain of its colonial territories that it was supposed to let go postwar (Chagos is especially sad story),
and the monopoly the US has on 'international' economic and political institutions
(IMF requires 'liberalization of markets' despite none of the Western powers having dveeloped their industries that way, WTO is heavily influenced by American corporate interests in other countries, etc).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EpicBunty
Well, you'll need to unfortunately, that's solely what makes something correct or not.
Besides tempeh and nori (which are tricky to grow industrially), the only way to be vegan is with fortified foods.
Otherwise, the lack of vitamin B-12 causes severe skin problems and eventually permanent nerve damage.
For whatever reason, humans evolved to eat meat and have become physically dependent on a nutrient only animal products can provide (no longer true with lab supplements).
Only ruminants (cows, sheep, etc- anything w/ multiple stomachs) can digest the B-12 found in plants (which we can't eat, because silica, also found in plants, is lethal to humans).
If you want to be vegan, you simply cannot claim to be living "naturally."
If B-12 foritifed foods vanished from your life tomorrow, you'd need to either fly to Japan, or start milking, or eating, animals. Hard truth.
1
-
ThatOne Not sure about Brazil (have you seen the favelas?) but as for China and Russia, well..
China has been, for the last 2,000 years, an agriculturally-focused society (yes, there were emperors, but their authority was directly tied to the success of harvest). It's not hard to find food in China, whenever you end up. You'd have to try not to find a farmer's market. Russia, on the other hand, does in fact have hungry. Especially in Dagestan.
I'd also like to mention (even though I despise whataboutism) that the U.S. has people go hungry too. Not saying "take that," just that corruption doesn't always mean stealing food. It's usually just nepotism and skimming off the top. The Soviet days of "collecting" are long over. We're just about the same as everyone else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@agentorange6085
Some points:
I don't think it's lost on Russia the relationship between India and China, and if anything, it will likely seek to be the prime mediator in any disputes they have (if they flare up to the point of instability). As an ally to both countries, it could likely make a better case for itself than the US, who is blatantly to one side.
My guess is that, unless Russia (finally, one can dream) diversify its economy, it will try to maintain economic partnerships and influence in both countries, and do to China and India, what India does to Russia and the West.
Regarding Japan and Europe: it's worth mentioning, to start, that while Japan as a whole likely values American presence as a counter to China, the Okinawans (where the actual base is located) aren't so happy. Beyond attracting China's military attention, they're generally an annoyance, being a near opposite to Japanese cultural ideals. In 2019, a majority of residents opposed the construction of a new base. Their continued presence is Tokyo's doing, not theirs.
As for removing bases, could you give examples? I feel that the US only does that when there is no rival superpower in the region. I mean, after multiple rape cases in the Okinawan bases, they still insisted they stay and negotiated with Tokyo as such. They withdrew from the Gulf only after Hussein was taken care of. So could you provide examples?
Now, the larger point you made:
The Bretton Woods system isn't technically forced, but... with the US dominating so much of the world's financial systems and trade routes, does anyone really have a choice? You're implying that continued cooperation = willful cooperation. And the US has abused its hegemonic status numerous times in the past, and continues to do so (though under the new pretext of countering China).
The economic development of Europe only happened because of the Marshall Plan, and the Allied victors were allowed to keep vestiges of their empires. Of course Europe would be more than happy to oblige. By the way, the prosperity you mentioned far predates democracy, and the US. Are you forgetting how wealthy Europe was before WWII, too? You act like the US' system is what singlehandedly gave them that power. When it was, in short, colonies and naval power that did.
So no, it's not a Russian mindset. In fact, where they can blatantly get away with it, they do it. The US has leveraged its senior position at the WTO to force tiny nations like Palau (and large ones like Mexico and Canada- i.e. Trump) to accept bad trade terms. They've navally blocked trade between China and Iran.
And counters to this system (Chinese digital yuan, Gaddafi's Afro currency, Russian alternative to SWIFT, etc) are vehemently opposed by US financial and political figures.
About Russian prosperity, you are somewhat correct. Putin is a brilliant statesman, but a terrible economist. Russian industry and consumer goods are faltering, and the business environment is suffering as a result of his drive to funnel Russia's energy into being a geopolitical counterweight.
Europe and Japan have had centuries of time to develop. Western Europe in particular shares geographical security in common with Japan. Their answer is not "kowtowing to the US".
Japan's situation is entirely unique, never have birthrates been so low. Stop trying to do damage control and comfort yourself. The situation is unprecedented and will put a huge strain on Japan's remaining workers, just accept that. Either immigrants, which Japan refuses, or robots, which require healthy workers. The resentments faded from their minds because they won out. Rather, they did until the 80s, we will see how opinion changes.
Same goes for Europe. The lack of bitterness comes from having been on the side of the victor. Russia took the brunt of the bloodshed and received little back. It paid back the Lend Lease in 2007. And its elections, and economy, were meddled in the 1990s by the US.
So please, stop trying to sound profound about how Russia just needs to accept your personal values when you've no idea why it is the way that it is today.
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
-
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
-
@TheHamsta101
Yes, in fact, every country has a place in the grand chessboard. Every country has political connections. Shocking, I know.
"Oppressive bullies"
"play the victim later when they end up without any friends"
Why do neoliberals tend to characterise entire countries as one would individual people- "(Insert country)" is the bad guy, and we've gotta stand up to them!"
It's honestly such a childish, simplistic, and naïve view of geopolitics that I can hardly believe you're being serious.
The 'Serbian sphere of influence' that was Yugoslavia, much like the USSR, was not completely unitary or centralized, as Westerners all too often believe.
In fact, it's precisely because of the mutually exclusive political aims of the Serbs and Croats that led to fissures.
I'm glad you're at least ideologically consistent, and I agree that all of those listed are viable as independent states, ot at least provinces.
My gripe is that the world doesn't work that way, and that the EU will never come to a vote on Spain or France (and would not have for Britain).
They would themselves, however, adamantly urge regions in anti-Western countries to seek independence, a la Kosovo, Chechnya, Tibet, etc.
Not because they (the countries) actually care about those people, but because it would suit their political and economic goals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loke6664
Just a note, the US' situation is much different from Greece's because most of that US government debt is owed to Americans and American firms.
So, they can (technically) work it out among themselves and understand that, for the debtholders to continue their livelihoods, refinance the debt in favor of the government.
In Greece's case, most of this debt was loans taken from the EU (particularly Germany), and there was a deadline to pay it all back. This is, among many other things, what caused the crisis.
I think the bigger threat to America is failing governance, infrastructure, and poor social cohesion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SokarEntertainment
Adolf Hitler, interview with George Sylvester Viereck, 1923:
“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealth. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic... We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”
That sounds distinctly anti-communist. Marx advocated for all workers of the world to unite and seize the means of production. He saw history as the struggle between the working class and bourgeoisie, whereas Hitler:
Debate with party member Otto Strasser-
“Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
He did not believe in the most basic tenet of socialism or communism, that the workers should have power and control over what they produce, nor did he believe in their inherent social equality and unjust subjugation by capitalists.
He was a fascist, through and through.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JNYC-gb1pp
Because... they don't?
"Pledging allegiance" isn't the same as submission.
The Pledge of Allegiance you're familiar with is a pledge of submission.
Being an ally just means you help one another, not that you're "one nation under God Israel".
By your definition, we've pledged allegiance to Germany, Japan, England, and South Korea!
Israel has a strong lobby, but if Obama can oppose Netanyahu, we're comfortably sovereign. Sorry to ruin the fun, but only Evangelicals love Israel as much as you think. Bernie Sanders has opposed their actions in Palestine as well, along with a number of Democratic politicians.
Personally adoring Israel is a Republican thing, because they're Christian extremists. Not to mention that American Jews tend to hate Israel, a lot.
1
-
1
-
@obligatoryusername7239
That's simply untrue. You have a surface-level understanding of Russia colored by whichever cases Western media chooses to show you. Most investment projects aren't politically exciting, so they aren't mentioned.
If it doesn't involve the potential breakup of Russia (wishful thinking by the West), it doesn't get reported on.
Putin, for one, pulled Russia from the brink of collapse in the 1990s, when there were actual calls for independence across the RF. He invested massively in pretty much every region to bring it to some semblance of normalcy after a decade of Yeltsin's incompetence.
In more recent times, he invested tens of billions of dollars (I forget the ruble conversion) into the Krasnodar region, turning it into an agricultural hub. Tatarstan has also received huge amounts of investment throughout the 2010s.
Finally, more recently (and I think out of necessity, I do not think he would have done this otherwise) he has earmarked a lot of money in the 2024 budget for development of the Far East, specifically in reindustrialization and microchip tech.
It remains to be seen whether this will actually happen, it has been promised before and failed multiple times. Of course Russia is still corrupt.
But you take it for granted that Russia is a functioning state, and immediately look for problems within it.
You never appreciate any achievements done by Russian statesmen, unless it's absolutely unavoidable (like launching Sputnik, or winning WWII, even then you try to diminish the scope of our contribution to those things).
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
-
@alcoholandfun243
Difficult to speak to? The pot's calling the kettle black.
~ I replied to your 'gender isn't a social construct' comment; I explained the distinction between sex and gender, and gave examples of the biological basis of non-(male/female) genders.
~ You replied with the same assertion, with no evidence, again.
I gave examples of societies that distinguish between sex and gender as evidence that the two are not, in fact, inseparable.
~ Your reply went off on a tangent. My focus was still the validity of 2+ genders, you chose to reply to the last part of my comment, instead of any other- I would have continued to discuss the science if you had, you know, replied to it. If you didn't want to get off topic, then stay on topic.
Where on Earth you got the impression that I was doing so, I've no idea.
But, let's just assume I was: following this comment, let's only discuss the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of 2+ genders. Deal? Or is that too specific for you?
I never said that you think transgenders shouldn't have equal rights- I was explaining that other people don't, and that's why their protection needs to be formalized, instead of just "politeness." Why'd you interpret that as a personal attack? I didn't once say that you believed that. I was explaining. Again, the pot calling the kettle black. You were assuming my stances.
And I am almost certain that you're referring to bill C-16, and that you watch Jordan Peterson. The entire bill is less than two pages long, and if you'd read the damn thing, you'd know that nobody is required to use pronouns they don't consider true. The law only prohibits people from explicitly advocating for genocide or speaking in such a way to encourage violence against the group in question. Punishment for refusing to call someone (whatever) is not anywhere in that law, or any law.
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/c-16/royal-assent
But, I guess that's what happens when you entrust a clinical psychologist who thinks Jung's work is still relevant to comment on legal issues. And when a bunch of teenagers follow him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xway2
No, you're not understanding the point here.
The presumed terms of the agreement- the Budapest Memorandum- were that
1) Russia and Ukraine are separate countries that respect not only territorial sovereignty, but democracy in general.
2) That all issues arising from their common, un-democratic past have been resolved and both, diplomatically, are operating on blank slates.
Neither was true.
Crimea was un-democratically transferred to Ukraine by Soviet decree, it was never democratically rectified. Nor were they given a chance to self-determine under the new system.
So, when the right of Crimea to self-determine is denied (2014- no int'l recognition), on the grounds that they had already self-determined beforehand (1994), we have an issue.
Unless, the argument is "it belongs to Ukraine now, get over it", in which we would, as you mentioned, throw all precepts of democracy out the window.
I think 230+ years of political and cultural connection to a place, in spite of its undemocratic origin, is enough to warrant allowing the people to return to the country in question, if they wish.
1
-
1
-
@michaeldunham3385
"They couldn't force Ukraine to relinquish Crimea"
No, that's not what I said. Negotiate.
Both parties, did, in fact, do that, but Russia's terms were certainly tempered given their recent economics and political collapse. That was also true of Ukraine, but one had simply lost more than the other.
I suppose that's true, but I don't do it to distract.
I bring up other examples because I want to judge acceptable precedence-- are we really willing to stick by principles which, if actually enforced, would bring enormous shifts to the global political order? Disadvantage some parties and enrich others?
In most cases I think not, because almost everyone has vested interests.
And working on a case-by-case basis generally brings better results.
If you were talking about other threads, you need to specify. I can't read your mind and can't address things unless you express them.
To the Basque and N. Ireland point, I have the same (above) reasoning.
As for Yeltsin, I wasn't lying, but I did miscommunicate. And that's my mistake, I'm sorry.
When I say "he wasn't elected", I'm referring to the fact that he had all the hard work (of name recognition, policy) done for him, as a former leader of the RSFSR.
I didn't mention that it was Yeltsin who advocated for the creation of the office of the Presidency, and the 1st election happened within the USSR. His candidacy was built on the fact that he was appointed by the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation.
So, while he legitimately campaigned, it's a lot like saying JFK got elected because of his hard work from the bottom-up.
And I made the distinction-- the Russian (but not Soviet) media certainly helped him along in the 1st election, though I wouldn't consider it rigged.
Clinton did, however, interfere in Yeltsin's 2nd election. He said, "I want this guy to win so bad."
He sent in political staffers from DC every week to boost his then-abysmal approval numbers. ~$16M in total spent on his campaign-- advisors, marketers, ads, posters, groundwork, etc.
So, in sum: 1st election, technically legitimate; 2nd, not. Got it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CaspianReport
In Germany, maybe. America, India, China, Russia, even Australia could do it- if, for a fleeting moment, they each acquired a populist, authoritarian leader, a la Theodore Roosevelt.
Economies can be swayed rather quickly when the political will allows for it, I think it will happen a little bit too late, but humans will survive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@everhall306
Then through Russia, as the conflict was entirely within Serbia at the time. And you're right, my mistake.
They could have done lighter on the raid itself, as many of the affected areas were civilian- hospitals (which is illegal, btw), cultural monuments, businesses, etc, were caught in the NATO bombing campaign. Definitely didn't seem like a purely humanitarian operation.
And that fundamentally contradicts America's own Constitutional law regarding it's own states.
If, for instance, Texas or Hawai'i (most likely cases) wanted to secede, the US wouldn't let them. But it supports splintering outside of it's own borders? I just don't think it's very fair, hence the objections and "whataboutism" of other ambitious countries.
Plus, that assessment would place both Abkhazia and especially (ethnically and linguistically) Crimea under Russian control. There were attempts by separatists to do the same in Mikolaev and Odessa, too.
Not an easy sell for the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
You made a lot of good points, many of which I haven't considered before.
But, I think you are over-emphasizing the division between the EU and NATO. There are only 6 countries in the EU who are not NATO members. That leaves 21, or ~80%, of the EU as NATO members.
Given the U.S.'s desire to project influence to Russia as close as possible (even before it did anything geopolitically bad, before 2008, it still expanded NATO) it is rather likely that the U.S. will want Ukraine to join.
And it is not beneath the U.S. to support local elements to achieve a political goal.
Your comparison also, I think, is missing the point. In both cases, the reactionary party (U.S. to missiles being sent to Cuba, and Russia to pro-Western demonstrations) acted to expel foreign influence from the region in question. Crimea (and more specifically Donbass) was a way to make sure Ukraine could not meet all EU or NATO requirements, keeping U.S. military presence out of Ukraine.
Same with the U.S. actions- keeping Soviet presence out of Cuba.
Whatever the specifc details of the events are, the geopolitical goals are similar, which is why the comparison was made.
And yes, I agree, the amount of influence Russia had over Ukraine before 2014 may not have been worth losing over a little peninsula.
But Russia's issue is strategicocally focused and economic. Russia's main trading route is through Turkey, and its southern region is the most economically productive. Allowing Turkey (who would easily coerce Ukraine) to navally dominate the Black Sea could cripple Russia economically. Bad trade deals and so forth (along with the new strait planned through Istanbul, allowing US ships in).
The long-term consequences of someone else controlling the peninsula were too large to ignore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gerrymandarin6388
No, I don't think so. I also wager that the CCP sent him here, but the fact is, the U.S. does not make friends based on governance style. It befriends whoever will align with its economic, and ultimately geopolitical, interests.
FFS, it's allies with India, which is democratic, and Saudi Arabia, which is an Islamic, monarchical theocracy.
Democracy has nothing to do with its friendships.
United States isn't too fond of Turkey anymore, despite them still being a democracy. Sanctions and all. Same with Palestine (more specifically, the West Bank). Democratically elected government, yet the U.S. supports Israel, which despite also being a democracy (for Israelis), treats Arabs as second-class citizens.
Get the idea?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArtisZ
No, it isn't. When comparing us to any alternative European or North American power, there is no question at all.
During colonial expansion, Yermak (the Cossack who led the expansion) was more honest to the Natives about the terms of Russian expansion, than the Americans were.
When he approached a new region, the deal was. "Ally with us or we'll fight and destroy your Khanate", versus "We'll both sign this treaty and we definitely won't violate it or have different terms in the English-language copy".
That's even assuming the Natives the US settlers encountered could even speak English.
I suppose that's not the fault of the settlers, as they were expanding into areas so quickly that no one had time to learn both language and serve as interpreter. Still, in the cases where they could translate, the Americans were famous for simply lying.
We didn't have a Manifest Destiny, so no "spare the Indian to save the man" ideology. Of course Russification did occur, but it wasn't as intense (I'll get to that) and it was for more practical, "we need to secure this land against a future Mongol attack" reasons.
We didn't cut off people's hands for rebelling like the Belgians. We didn't put the Natives through boarding schools, or prevent them (if deported— which both the Americans and Russians did do) from returning.
We didn't put them in auctions, or whip them, or sell their children off like cattle, like the Americans did.
We didn't mass rape them and erase their former culture entirely, like the Spanish did.
The fact that you're still around and identifying as Baltic is evidence of that.
We don't force our former colonies to use a version of the ruble, and threaten to coup their governments if they don't, like France still currently does.
We didn't forcibly sterilize Native women well into the 1970s in an attempt to genocide them, like Canada did.
We took over their land, forced them to pay yasik, or fur tax, and put them into indentured servitude if they couldn't. Not by any means good treatment, but CERTAINLY nothing compared to European colonialism. Not even close.
Currently, our Native people have mandatory schooling for everyone in the Native language, and while it isn't up to par with Russian language education, it's— my whole point— better than anything the West has done. Their cultures are largely intact, they have living cultures with internet memes and tv shows and normal things that aren't propped up as show pieces. Just a regular part of everyday life.
How bad was Russification if the West is currently able to exploit Native feelings in Russia to try and fracture it? Want to know why that's not possible in the US?
Because they're all dead.
Don't delude yourself just because your emotions run high. I'm sure your childhood was filled with stories from your grandpa about how bad we are, about how we're barbarians who aren't capable of being a European civilized country. I've heard it all from Polish friends' relatives. From Lithuanians who drank their parents' koolaid.
You're all stuck in the past, and it's not even a correct account of events.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ggoddkkiller1342
Religion isn't the only issue that divides cultures— their similarity has nothing to do with it. It's always about power and resources. Case in point: Fergana Valley. All 3 Central Asian nations which border it (Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) have fought over rights to the land and water in that area.
Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, two TURKIC countries, clashed over treatment of Kyrgyz in Uzbekistan in 2010, fighting in the southern region Osh. 400+ people were killed.
"Pathetic claim" huh??
You can look it up yourself, Pan-Turkism won't work just like Pan-Slavism won't work. There are too many differences between you now to unite as one people. It has been 1,000+ years since the Gokturks, too late now. You all live different lives.
Imagine a single country, but 80M are Turkish and you are the small minority. Would you be okay with your culture being assimilated into Turkish culture?
Your traditions won't be respected and will instead he swallowed by Turkey, because they have more people, they create more media (Turkish soap operas, dramas, music). You will just become an extension of Turkey, there will be no more Kyrgyz or Uzbek. You will speak Turkish only. Maybe Kazakh will survive, but very little.
Be careful what you wish for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nevermind the fact that St. Petersburg will definitely flood, this is great!
But really, I don't understand why Russia didn't just diversify its economy following 2008, Putin (contrary to Western thought) did, in fact, massively improve the lives of Russians while early in office. He could have done more, but instead weakened Russia by deepening its dependence on oil and natural gas.
He could have invested enormous R&D into advanced ice-breaker technology, or undersea transport. Anything, besides warming the Earth.
He's not stupid, he knows climate change is real, so why would he jeopardize the whole world for an unguaranteed boost to Russian prosperity in the short-term, when the damage
(swathes of India dying from heat, Sahara uninhabitable, coastal cities flooding, water wars, melting Russian permafrost and eventual destruction of Siberia)
will do far worse than the capability to trade could ever make up for? I just don't understand the man fully. Perhaps he's just here to make a point to the U.S., and then leave the rest up to us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skylerspringsteen5730
No, the plans for an amphibious assault on England (which was seen as unnecessary is air superiority was gained first, hence the bombings of Britain before invading the USSR) was planned before the invasion of the Soviets.
Hitler even told his generals in 1941, "With Russia smashed, Britain's last hope would be shattered. Germany will then be master of Europe and the Balkans."
He thought of Russia as the bugger threat.
He literally said it, Britain could not stop Germany without Russia, and without Russia, Europe would fall to the Germans. Doesn't get much clearer than that.
And the line about the winter being the main reason the Germans didn't win is a literal Nazi propaganda slogan.
They couldn't admit that the 'subhuman Eastern hoardes' had beaten them, because that contradicted their ideology, so they made excuses.
It was a big help, certainly, but the mobilization of 10,000s of T-34s and the rallying of a massive army was what held the Germans off in the long run. The winter in 1941 was especially cold, but it also came early.
1
-
1
-
1. Bit of a poor argument--- you realize that, in negotiations, promises are made with the intent of leveraging. The US, by using this as a 'carrot', understood the geopolitical reasons behind Russia's desire to keep American military infrastructure out of its backyard.
If nothing else, it proves the US' ill intent: they, knowing full well that expansion would be seen as a destabilizing threat, did so anyway.
If non-binding agreements hold no merit in your eyes, then the Budapest Memorandum doesn't matter, either- MoUs are not legally binding and the promises made to Ukraine in exchange for nukes don't warrant any retaliation because no laws were broken.
2. Citation needed. Putin was genuinely trying early on to make Russia Western, being the first to congratulate Bush on his ascension to office and open to western ideas. But, after seeing the illegal invasion of Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, he realized that the 'rules-based order' was code for Western dominance.
3. Citation needed, again, And even if it were true, that doesn't make him incorrect. I can almost guarantee that you have a strong opinion about something-- you've researched it, and have reasons to believe it's true. I would not consider that opinion unbiased, either- yet you'd obviously (since you believe it) see it as correct.
Certainly no worse than the White House inviting TikTokers to tell them what to say about Ukraine, or the ghost of kiev/pickle grandma stories, which were literal propaganda
4. Yes, it is. The message is clear: this behavior is acceptable. If it isn't, then why hasn't the Eu sanctioned the us economy over its own warcrimes? International law should have no favorites, so why has nothing been done?
If the Us isn't made to pay, then why should any other country? Isn't that an unfair outcome? Sounds like "rules for thee, not for me".
Until the US starts comitting to the values it claims to abide by, it has no place telling others what to do.
Putin's standing at the ICC must be accompanied by Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden. They are all guilty of violating the geneva conventions, in various ways.
5. The maidan revolution happened in kiev only... hence the name, maidan (independence square, in kiev). The east of the country was opposed, and the west supported. Not a nationwide consensus, and taken to a vote it (eu integration over russian gas deal) may not have even passed.
6. no disagreements here, except to repeat my other point: that "promise" was as good as the one telling the ussr that nato wouldn't expand, so no one can use it as an argument.
1
-
@stephenjenkins7971
I'm well aware of those invasions, and we can go over the reasons for them if you'd like.
My point is, why are you applying the standard right now?
You said it yourself, Europe doesn't "have to" condemn the US for any of its actions, and you used Russia's 'getting away with it' as a justification for that.
But if neither side was punished because (contrary to what the West claims) they evidently don't care enough about human rights to do anything,
then what is the real motivation behind springing to action in Ukraine, but not in Georgia or Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia (recently), Libya, etc.?
I think you know the answer, but being honest publicly about it would diminish the West's "international" support for sanctions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bay04riding
Well, while I believe you, the article you cited only displays opposing opinions, and no primary sources or data. But I still think it's true, since the US has an especially hard time agreeing to anything resembling a city. It's a national fear, and it hinders progress. But beyond that, American unions tend to be poorly run due to redundant positions instead of re-assignment, and
I'm sure there's some old-fashioned greed there, too. Unions in other countries don't have this problem with overhead, and I'm not sure why. They get paid about the same if not more depending on country, and get it done at a fraction of the cost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hernando Malinche
I don't think you understand what 'strong' is. Mike Tyson had difficult fights, but that didn't make him weak.
Adversity will occur no matter how 'strong' a country is, so experiencing it isn't evidence in favor of or against it.
The fact that the two powers which had been fighting one another for centuries, along with Austria's support, all felt the need to set aside their differences and back the Ottomans against Russia shows how much of a threat they were. If Russia was so weak, why'd they do that?
As for Poland.. again, 'strength' doesn't mean undefeated or unchallenged, I fail to find any example of a string nation, then, by your definition. Literally every nation is 'weak' if your evidence for 'weakness' is fighting wars against other countries.
I agree, soft power is very much where Russia falls short, and China has massively succeeded there. But that isn't the only definition of power, nor strength. Russia managed to turn Western sanctions into a benefit to their domestic economy, and post-USSR has won virtually every border dispute it has brought up. It doesn't have economic sway (yet), but it does have tact and strategy.
Russia is behind China, but ahead of everyone besides them in that regard. It is also investing in Africa, SE Asia, and the Arctic. If it ever fosters a business environment, it will be a force to be reckoned with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lars7747
Could you tell me which flag is better suited to speak on such things?
I hope i don't have to explain why uk, usa, canada, western europe, are not good candidates either. Or japan, china, indonesia, brazil, argentina, chile, rwanda, sudan, south africa, and so on
I think no one is sinless and you just want to single out a country you personally don't like
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WUSTASS
Just because Russia didn't divide the borders (it didn't-- Stalin, in the USSR, did that), doesn't mean they are the "real victim". You're unable to look at this issue without extremes.
Russia, if we are talking about people, also had its borders drawn by Stalin poorly. Millions of Russians were living beyond the established 1956 borders.
Those were based on Russia's 1700s borders (drawn along the fortifications made by the Empire) and did not reflect ethnic boundaries, either. There are currently Russians in north Kazakhstan, east Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and small parts of Belarus.
If the borders were redrawn along ethnic lines, Russia would still gain the most.
1
-
@WUSTASS
Sorry, I meant to say "aren't the real victim". I knew it was sarcastic, I was addressing your point behind the sarcasm.
Um... Yes. That's how countries have operated for thousands of years. Only the Mongols and Persians were more culturally tolerant, and look how much they've kept.
Polish people often exclaim with pride that Poland was able to occupy Moscow and was very close to assimilating it as a part of the Commonwealth. Then they get mad that Russia did that successfully, but to them?
Fuck off, that's hypocritical.
Have you ever wondered why, for example, so much of Belarusian and Ukrainian is composed of Polish loanwords? Because of 300+ years of Polonization, especially in Ruthenia (now Ukraine).
How do you think the Chinese gained so much land over 1,000s of years? Diplomacy?
This is the way of the world, and no matter how recent it was, any country willing to play that game must also accept the consequences when the results happen to be unlucky.
Hell, Ukraine and the Baltic countries have progressively banned Russian in schools! The game is still being played right now.
As for your point that all of the lands outside the current boundaries were settled that way: Wrong.
Odessa was completely barren before the Katherine the Great founded it in 1794. The northern Kazakh steppes were settled by farmers, not Cossacks. And the little part of Belarus that is ethnically Russian? That's been there for hundreds of years, and preceded the Tsardom's expansion in the 1500s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pissed Off Boi
Part of the problem is modern society skews what normally would have been healthy hundreds of years ago, in different conditions.
Example: Polynesians are naturally fatter and have wider frames than the average human, and have remained healthy for thousands of years. When they were introduced to a Western diet, they started experiencing health problems and the culprit was immediately identified as their weight.
However, their culture simply favored the large and their members reflect that. Of course, achieving that level of fatness (brown, as opposed to white fat; and subcutaneous as opposed to visceral) in modern society is virtually impossible.
And most fat people are simply unhealthy.
Some Polynesians, sumo wrestlers, and Eastern European have physically large bodies with lots of fat and stay healthy, but for the rest of the world, they should eat less sugar and processed foods.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@streetteamtony2672
You came up with 3? That's your grand list? C'mon now.
Matt Gaetz, Roy Moore, Jim Jordan, Anthony Bouchard.
All higher profile cases than what you mentioned. In Moore and Bouchard's case, the crimes were much more severe than what you mustered up.
Let's not forget child marriage which is a very Southern, conservative phenomenon. Or the huge amount of pastors admitting to it. Or the Catholic Church scandal— they're socially conservative, too. Josh Duggar was a conservative.
While I don't disagree that pedos are "bipartisan", (Fogle and Epstein were democrats), certain elements of conservative life— trusting in community authority figures, like pastors, or the supremacy of fathers and elders in general within the family, just opens up more opportunities for abuse.
When nothing and no one is scared or bound by tradition, there's no motivation to sweep things under the rug, as often happens in conservative environments. Plain and simple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamalexander3731
Um, how exactly is the Democratic party 'one of the sole reasons' that global warming exists??
The Republican Party consistently supports oil and has companies (Keystone XL, Trump's coal plan, Exxon campaign "donations", the Koch brother s , etc).
The Green New Deal is supported by Progressives and virtually all climate regulations have been opposed by Republicans
(because we need to "just trust businesses to fix themselves!" —that worked great for CA's smog in the '70s! /s)
And I do understand the definition; I forgot that, unlike you, (ex: Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, McConnell) many conservatives think it simply doesn't exist.
Believing it exists and refusing to change your actions that worsen the problem is hypocritical.
Although if you don't even 'believe' in it, then I suppose you're just dumb.
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
-
@pedrorequio5515
Russia's dominating concern is security, not hate. None of this is done irrationally.
It is all done in anticipation of eventual US surrounding and choking out Russia. They have continued to do this even when Russia posed no threat to Europe, in the early 1990s, even as it was open to democracy and Westernization, the US still pushed for NATO expansion.
They could have easily closed the door, and calmed Russia's fears of being surrounded, and eliminated their need to expand and control, once and for all. But they decided to keep playing the geopolitical game.
As for Iran, I don't think any deal will go through, given their existing alliance with Russia and China. And since Europe is tied to US foreign policy, there is little hope they would ever make an exception, unless they cut ties with the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bigmedge
Ah yes, the 100 bazillion argument. Brilliant.
I agree, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao's famines were horrible. But that's not what Marx laid out in any of his texts. Famine wasn't part of the revolution, either Stalin did that on purpose (not a Marxist idea) or it just happened, still not a part of Marxism
Mao on the other hand was a complete idiot, forcing urban workers back onto farms was a horrible idea. We can agree there.
Now, what are you talking about with stolen tech? Can you give sources?
Space travel had a long history in Russia, even dating back to Tsarist stories. It had a strong place in the culture.
Sergei Korolev was given free reign under the Soviet space program, and the Russians made it there first.
What exactly was stolen, and are you forgetting that the space race started because the Soviets launched Sputnik?
The Americans had no plans at the time, there was nothing to steal.
And how would the Soviets have made it there first if the Americans already had the tech to do it?
It sounds to me like you're either making excuses, or you're confusing the space program with the nuclear program.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think you're conflating firsthand experience with deep understanding. Just because the world you live in doesn't immediately embrace, or actively discourages your propositions, does not mean that they are in fact useless, impractical, or ideologically flawed.
College campuses have, thankfully, been stalwarts against this type of mentality, and allowed their students to see America's flaws quite clearly. I wouldn't entrust a stressed-out, Mad Men style white-collar worker to improve our country- they're busy trying to get ahead, or just survive.
And I hope you haven't forgotten that without the Leftist Dreamland, we'd all still believe that Vietnam was a just war. Black people likely wouldn't be able to vote- nor would gay people. Weed would almost certainly still be severely illegal. A dreamland indeed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Morwenna1220
"And that fear motivated them to conquer, to subjugate and generally to wage war when they had overwhelming numbers and power"
How does this make them any different than the West? France still has a stranglehold on West Africa's economy, UK still has colonies and is trying to dissuade Scotland from leaving, US coups a democratic government for breakfast.... yet nobody tries to punish them.
Nobody, including you, who claims to care really does, or I would see them in the comments calling Bush a "madman" or "bully" or whatever other silly armchair psychology they come up with.
You seem to forget that Russia feels a need to expand... because they were, up until 1945, constantly being attacked!
You act like they just decided to wage war for fun one day. Europe was playing the exact same game, don't pretend like Russia is any different.
Repeatedly and with great urgency
Again, no. Italy and Greece's elections were massively rigged to keep their Communist parties from genuinely participating. Ukraine, as I mentioned, had no interest in joining even in 2008. Only its temporary administration.
"Also Russias economic weakness is their own fault"
Sounds like you don't know much about the 1990s in Russia. It was not Russia's fault.
Russians did not finance Yeltsin's campaign with a $10Billion loan from the IMF. Russians did not launder their own money to London and New York.
Russians (even Russian government) did not all want to privatize everything and drain the government of any tax income.
It wasn't Russians who rigged the elections in Chechnya.
This was all done because of Bush and Clinton.
He was elected, but once US presidents realized how much of a spineless drunk he was, they rigged Russia's elections in 1996 and pushed him to privatize everything.
"they could have done what China did "
They could have, there were many in Russian government who wanted to, but the US economists convinced Yeltsin otherwise.
Besides, for that to happen, the USSR would need to still exist. Gorbachev should have started with economic reforms, then political reforms, slowly.
"In stead of fooling yourself by thinking they were somehow forced by it"
They aren't forced. But, like Ukraine, the US waits for an opportune moment when the government wants to join (regardless of what the people think) and then they legally tie them in.
1
-
1
-
@robertmoore8821
I don't blame them, but again, if you look to Russia's biggest changes, that make it more aggressive/violent... it's almost always an outside power.
Prior to the Mongol invasion, Rus wasn't expansionist, not anymore than other European powers.
But after 300 years of occupation, the Russian psyche is permanently scarred. We simply don't trust outsiders anymore.
So why the aggression towards Europe? Because they historically have tried to strangle Russia and diminish its power as a state, not considering that it has no access to the ocean, no way to trade.
The Iron Curtain is ironic, since it was Germany who sent Lenin to Russia, specifically to destabilize and weaken Russia in WWI.
The only power who ever really tried to work with Russia was France (long after the 1812 invasion), by letting it control Constantinople to trade with Europe and basically give it no further reason to expand. But then the Revolution happened
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pinko-Diamond
"War analyst" lol, the same ones who hyped up Russia's prowess to begin with, to score big military contracts?
Their trustworthiness and judgement is questionable and that's being very generous.
They have a vested interest in keeping the fighting going.
Remember the hesitation to send anything to Ukraine when it looked like Kiev was surrounded? And then, when the tides turned, the money flooded in?
Same idea now. If everyone thinks Russia will win, military investments stop looking so solid.
If the analysts and "journalists" can convince everyone that Ukraine can win, then more weapons will come.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it has its limitations.
This is why everyone says we're in the middle of an information war. There is no 100% accurate information, reporting on anything slightly changes the course of the conflict.
So the person below me saying generals are admitting it's a meat grinder, is unknowingly (or maybe knowingly) contributing to one side of the conflict.
Same as you, trying in vain to tell the objective truth, when no such thing exists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LE64SAM-IAM
Actually, no it's not. Unlike the US, Russia is not claiming to be "the best country on earth, with the most innovative people,
we're perfect we have everything we're better than everyone else and they're all jealous of us!!' lol
Russia has many problems. But it does not have a pathological need to insist that everyone is jealous of them, and that everyone is seething over how much better they are (see the other comment "You're so deliciously mad" haha).
It is like creating a game, just so you can get satisfaction of winning.
Whether the game is good, who cares? I won!
As for Russia being the same things I called the US... we do not have such an over-reliance on automobiles, our obesity rates are not that of the US, only risen in 1990s after the 'good' Western culture and diet came in.
There is a stereotype about Russians being depressed, but really it is apathy, not clinical depression.
And Russians handle depression better than Westerners because the collectivist mindset makes us see past mistakes not as personal moral failings but as symptoms of a problem. We are not so neurotic as you.
So no, everything I gave was very US-specific.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chickenfishhybrid44
This is true, but compared to the rest of the world (outside a few places in China, Indonesia, India) it is simply worse because everyone is on the road.
You have no other options, no freedom to choose.
Housing is cheaper in the US because of more land, yes, but also because of quality. Houses in America are made of poorer materials, insulate worse, and do not last for much longer than 80 years at maximum That is a big trade off to most people.
Also regarding zoning, the US has very restrictive zoning, nothing besides a single-family home is legal to build outside grandfathered-areas (90% of the land).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chickenfishhybrid44
"Plenty" lol
Houses in the US are built of wood, now "MDF" and chicken wire. It is good engineering, more efficient materials cost, but bad for people.
Even if we take the lifespan of the US, or the lifespan of a house, it is obvious. A house built 250 years ago in a village will last today, because it used logs or dense wood. There are many such in russia, central and western europe. Meanwhile, a house from the 1700s is a novelty in the us
Then take lifespan of the house now- us homes are rated for fewer years than a European house, let alone an apartment built of concrete
"do you think there's just no busses anywhere or something?"
With a bus service like Pace, Jefferson, Greyhound... it is better to just not have any buses haha
The servce is worse. They are late, dirty, and have no infrastructure (no separate bus lanes, no lane-split for stops, no frequent service to rural areas, etc etc etc)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@staywokecuhh
Also... you are missing the original point. One would expect a country with so much wealth to be able to solve those issues quickly and become like a Switzerland.
But no, the problems keep getting worse.
The mere fact that I can reasonably compare the US to third world countries, and people reply getting defensive and angry with me, is proof of what I have been saying.
The US is pathetic-- all the resources in the world, and still incapable of using them to establish even the most basic services that Russia, China, Cuba have sported for decades.
A magnificent house with no foundation.
I will also say that the US has the best top research universities. At the high end, US is best.
But for the average person, university is either poorer quality than a typical European or Asian one, or prohibitively expensive.
Many of the Chinese students come to the US not because it is their first choice, but because they couldn't pass the gaokao to get into Tsinghua.
Their standards are simply higher, but some end up settling for an American education.
And regarding the mental health crisis.. you reap what you sow. Feed the people garbage food, isolate them from community, and the outcome is obvious.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Homer-OJ-Simpson
"Russia didn't stop it and they could have. So how could this be a turning point for Put1n?"
It was a turning point because of the outcome. And the steps that the US took to get to that outcome.
Libya could have ended in a negotiated settlement, while keeping some semblance of a functioning government intact.
Instead the US chose to plunge the country into chaos. It was such a colossal failure that even Obama couldn't hand-wave it away.
"My worst mistake was probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya”.
Putin, at that point, the aide said, was then convinced that the US didn't just do it once-off in Iraq.
In a post-Soviet world, the US felt completely comfortable ruining entire nations just because it could.
And it was clear that Russia (given its treatment in the 1990s) was not on the list of countries exempt from the US nation-destroying tactics.
"So how is this a western thing if the Arab League also supprorted it? Bet RT news doesn't discuss that."
Except they DID discuss that, and you were too lazy to even check. There were articles written WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING:
Lavrov pointed out that the UN resolutions on Libya called for measures that would protect civilians in the conflict-torn North African state, “but the result was slightly different, to say the least,”
The Arab League wasn't supporting the no-fly zone because they wanted the West to enforce it, in fact quite the opposite. From Al Jazeera in 2011:
"The bloc also stressed that it had rejected any “foreign military” intervention in Libya, and Moussa said the no-fly zone must be lifted once the crisis has ended."
"Like Russia after ditching communism?"
Have you ever wondered why it turned out like that?
I mentioned the 1990s already, care to take a guess at which country directed Russia's economic transition to capitalism?
Or who helped rig its 1996 elections? Or who helped create the same oligarchs that it loves to criticize now??
1
-
1
-
@carlosdgutierrez6570
I can understand your point, but if you adopt trends and useful changes faster, then I would just say that you're not actually as insular as the US.
How could you adopt them faster if Mexicans pay just as little attention as Estadounidenses? The answer is, there is a difference.
I do agree that Manifest Destiny is big part of it, but I also think that's exactly the difference I was describing.
Since Mexicans' history doesn't have such a strong colonization and destroying the Aztecs (mixing with them instead), you are more open to the idea that your actions can be wrong, and so open to new ideas in general.
This is why Americans are uniquely insular. Canada has connection to the UK, Mexico has connection to Latin America.
But USA? They, as you said, believe they are the best, the center of everything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blakebrown534
If you're going to write a book, at least use pages. Get rid of the disgusting text block.
1. Stop with the paternalistic bullshit, and don't lecture us on what to do. We did that already, and it failed twice. We killed our own Tsar.
The issue is, "standing up to power" never happens in a vacuum, and the West is always sticking its finger into our affairs.
Ironically, they were the ones supporting the Whites, the very same side we stood up to. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't believe your 'rousing' speech.
2. Source needed
What is this meant to communicate to me? Are you trying to make an emotional appeal, or a logical one?
The image is graphic, but ultimately it is just government dissent being silenced, and in that sense it is commonplace. I could just as easily demand the US stop supporting Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Compared to being stoned to death or beheaded, a shot in the arm is merciful. But I don't see you focusing on that first, because you are selective with your interventionist stance.
3. We "allow" it because, believe it or not, it is still better than the West's treatment of Russia. That is scarier to us than the current situation.
In the 1990s, there was a slim window of opportunity to bring Russia into the Western fold-- help it develop an economy, good trade relations, stable democratic processes.
What did we get? Mass privatization, complete collapse of social services, plundering of the country (the money from which the West was all too happy to take), mafia rule in every region of Russia, destruction of industrial capacity and brain drain.
2-3M extra people died in that decade due to lack of healthcare and deaths of despair (mostly alcoholism).
Think of the millions of mothers greying prematurely, finding out their husband drank himself to death after losing his Soviet pension. Or that their son died of a drug overdose (the West brought plenty of that, too).
Now tell me which is worse.
Or better yet, ask someone in Iraq if they appreciate a civil war over Saddam. Now there are 1000 Saddams.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gari1633
Dude, you need to edit your text. Split it up into pieces, you can't be that lazy.
"Lustration" was not the difference. The other countries (Poland, Baltics) receieved more money per person/per country's economy, and their institutions were allowed to transition more slowly. What is so hard to understand here?
Also, the US didn't rug Poland or Estonia's election to keep a drunkard President in power.
How is that our fault, and how would "Lustration" solve that?!
I cannot speak to the efficiency of the Soviet system, since it worked fine for my family, and I don't see why everyone should be forced to compete.
Why? So maybe one day you will get great healthcare, once the market becomes advanced enough... or, you could just give everybody coverage now.
The rails is a stupid argument, since Russia's rail gauge is from Tsarist times. It has nothing to do with communist ideology-- in fact, it is a little more efficient, since freight is able to carry more per railcar.
"Going both ways was unacceptable, because it would reveal advantages of a later"
Then what is ukraine afraid of? If one system is obviously better, then why not do both? According to you, the first one will naturally fail.
By the way, when it comes to public services, European countries run things like Soviets.
Healthcare is not for-profit, neither is transport or most education. So I am not sure what specific things you're talking about.
_"it’s not true that your former government haven’t enjoyed enormous subsidies from germans for agreeing to allow Germany’s unification or from Clinton to liberalise the economy,"
This is hilarious. You think East Germany (the only one required to pay reparations for WWII, West Germany was never told to...)
could finance the rebuilding of the entire USSR??
There were no "subsidies" in exchange for unification, in fact the only promise made was that NATO infrastructure would not move past Germany, and that promise was quickly broken.
"we both know were these money went "
Then why did you just say that we "benefitted from subsidies"?!?
In one breath yo say the West helped us, in another breath you say no help arrived.
I wasn't commenting about rule of law generally, but property law, which is what your original point was talking about. Privatization ensured that property laws were respected, at least for oligarchs and Western companies.
This is precisely the problem- the West shouldn't have taken oligarchs' money.
It was stolen from ordinary Russian citizens and they knew it.
"You know perfectly well that initial economical shock came from the spenditure of soviet-afgan war, chernobyl and low oil prices and inefficiency of the system"
Now you're just pulling things out of your ass. All of those factors were present prior to the collapse, and were the baseline-- things only got worse as other things added on.
Could you explain how Chernobyl affected the economy, too?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gari1633
Lol, "stay on topic" Right.
It skyrocketed industry while leaving other areas unaddressed; the USSR multiplied Tsarist Russia's machinery output by several times, but did not focus on consumer goods.
I presume it has nothing to do with the 90s because Latin America-- many countries starting with capitalism, not communism-- suffered the same effects, though even their treatment was not as extreme as Russia's.
In Bolivia, where shock therapy was first implemented, hyper-inflation was stopped, but unemployment rose to 21%. Not great results. In Chile, it created huge wealth inequality (similar to Russia).
By the way, the architect of shock therapy in Russia, Jeffrey Sachs, later said that even his plan was not followed, and everything was sold off without considering stability or the Russian people.
It was just the US kicking an enemy in the stomach. Sorry
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gari1633
"Not sure I agree with that" Lol, well then what else is there to say? If you simply don't believe it, why engage in the conversation?
Maybe you'll believe Michael Meadowcroft, who led the OSCE observation of Russia's elections.
“The West let Russia down, and it’s a shame,” said Meadowcroft, a former British MP and veteran of 48 election-monitoring missions to 35 countries.
“Up to the last minute I was being pressured by [the OSCE higher-ups in] Warsaw to change what I wanted to say,” said Meadowcroft. “In terms of what the OSCE was prepared to say publicly about the election, they were very opposed to any suggestion that the election had been manipulated.”
In fact, he says, the OSCE and the West had made its mind up about how wonderfully free and fair Boris Yeltsin’s election was before voting even started.
Clinton "helped" the IMF to give Yeltsin a $10B loan, which are not supposed to be used for political purposes, only economic policy.
Yet that money never got used in any public works projects... though Yeltsin did suddenly have a lot more resources to run his campaign.
There were only about 500,000 voting age people in Chechnya, this was still during the war too--- yet 1M pro-Yeltsin votes?
Don't be delusional. All evidence points to it being election fraud, and American interference with Russia's democratic process.
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
-
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
-
1
-
@chico9805
No, they didn't bribe politicians.
They didn't need to, and frankly (thankfully) by the time they fully consolidated horizontal and/or vertical integration, Congress was very hostile to those companies. After the governemnt had to ask JP Morgan to bail then out in the 1890s.
Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and eventually broke up the monopolies, how do you think that was possible if they were also supposedly in the pockets of these same giants?
No. Most of the consolidation was done through predatory pricing (like Amazon does— when a competitor enters your market, adjust the price of your product so low (even if you take losses) that no company can compete, wait until they go out bust, raise prices again).
Or through corporate espionage— which is illegal, and requires state intervention to enforce.
Or simple acquisition.
Eventually your economy of scale simply can't be surpassed and you have a monopoly. All without government interference. Again, the US Government did very little in the 1890s, sharing your philosophy.
Let the markets "work their magic".
My point is we've seen that play out and it just doesn't work. It was called the Guilded Age for a reason.
1
-
@notubist
No, you're wrong. I'm not taking shit from someone who can't spell Louis correctly.
You admitted to me being correct about oil but made an excuse for it.
Same with steel— Carnegie Steel's monopoly had fallen to 50% of US production from competition with Bethlehem Steel. That's still half of the entire market.
It took decades for anything substantial to change, and by the way the only reason was because Kennedy forced them to reverse their price gouging after WWII— but in the meantime, countless people (especially black convicts) were underpaid for their work.
This is precisely the type of thing government intervention is good for.
Limiting exploitation.
"ISPs are regulated by the government"— that's my POINT. Can you give me the specific reason why Comcast, Time Warner, and Cox haven't merged?
They've tried to before, but you seem to think it's because the market just magically regulates itself.
Mind telling me what's stopping them from doing what their shareholders would profit from them doing?
Pharma suing other companies isn't an example of big government actively taking a role.
Even if they didn't take sides, even if we lived in a libertarian country, companies could still sue new companies out of the market. We'd still need courts, this practice wouldn't change.
Or they'd just use predatory pricing, which requires no government involvement and is anti-competitive.
The only thing that could stop those big pharma companies from turning into monopolies (especially with products that have inelastic demand like insulin)?
Care to take a guess?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@happygilmore5948
I can't really comment on Idaho or Utah, because they're the fastest growing by percentage increase (indeed, 2.1% and 1.9%, respectively). But with their tiny populations, that "enormous" increase of ~2% is only ~40,000 people per year. That's peanuts in a country of 330M.
As for Texas, ever consider where most of the migration in Texas is occurring, specifically?
No prizes for guessing- it's Harris and Dallas counties. Travis' is especially impressive. They all exceed the Texas average.
So, what I said is still true.
People dislike boring, conservative places. They'd rather be in a bustling city, no matter which state that city happens to be in.
The only difference with Texas is, they're not dirty and homeless because (credit where it's due) they haven't regulated their housing market to hell.
Oh, and I could just as easily ask you why Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia have lost population, too.
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
-
@shanchip1
..There are. bwc is a thing, and it takes black men and replaces them with whites, and white women and replaces them (usually) with asian women.
It copies the same dynamic. I don't disagree with FD's reasoning for white men being so obsessed w black mens sexuality, but I do think the commenters suffer from an inability, or refusal, to explain their thinking to anyone who doesn't already subscribe to the core ideas understood to be true.
In OPs case, asking those kinds of questions may just be a case of conditioning from porn, rather than knowingly perpetuating the echoes of explicitly racist treatment.
Surely you understand that the effects of something can long outlive the intentions behind those effects
(keeping black people poor-- on the books there's no discrimination today, but the legacy of covenants and redlining mean they are still kept down despite the legal framework to do so being long gone. aka poverty breeds poverty)
Might be the same here-- the dude's friend isn't thinking in terms of race, he is just asking about something he has seen, unaware of the long racial history it represents
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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@artoriassif3728
To be fair, for Russia to amass enough 'civilizational gravity' that it could become inward-facing and have indigenous political changes (otherwise they would be demonized as outside influence, and purged) it had to secure geographical points.
A border made of mountains— the Carpathians the in west, the Caucasus to the South, the Altai and Karakorum to the south, and the Gobi and Tibet to the far east.
Most of these were secured under the Russian Empire, but it was still missing a few key components:
a warm-water ocean port (wouldn't have been a problem if Alaska was kept, rip), and a buffer against the Black Sea.
This would have been Constantinople, and 7 European countries set aside their differences to stifle Russia's dominance by waging the Crimean War, which Russia ultimately lost.
Additionally, the European Plain remains a problem forever, unless it can be conquered or technology can mitigate the need for occupying it.
After Napoleon, Sweden, Hitler, Poland, the Teutonic Knights— Russia has never known a decade of peace where native development was possible.
I suppose the 1910s were the closest it got, but then Lenin came from his boxcar in Switzerland..
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@evolvedape3341
I did argue the allegations. You called the actions in question evil, I disputed that. You noted sympathy of one country, mutually exclusive of another. I questioned that.
If you want me to address the final part of your allegation, that Russia's actions are colonial, then sure.
I don't believe they are colonial.
The amount of manpower the Kremlin has dispatched isn't enough to permanently occupy all of, or even the currently occupied part of, Ukraine.
If it were colonial, it would have taken steps specifically to consolidate control of the land permanently.
Another piece of evidence: the March 2022 negotiations.
They were about finished, with Ukraine having agreed to close its doors to NATO, before Boris Johnson flew in and convinced Zelenskiy to throw out the negotiations. Russia was perfectly willing to rescind all (save for Crimea— that might have benefited the national unity of Ukraine anyway) of the territory it had gained in exchange for keeping US influence out of the region.
This clearly suggests their ultimate goal, and intention, with invading wasn't to conquer.
Hence, not colonial.
Any other silly questions?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eiko4252
Okay—
1) The Middle East is across an ocean. The US goes out of its way to project influence there, Russia can't just leave Eastern Europe, that's where the country is.
2) Even if I granted you that comparison, why hasn't the US been punished then for Iraq and Afghanistan? Why didn't the democracy-loving EU sanction them? Do they only sanction when it's a country they don't personally like?
On the other side of the equation— why was Russia punished? If the West is clearly fine with atrocities like Iraq.
About Yeltsin—
1) That was a domestic action, so it doesn't threaten NATO anyway. My question still remains, why did it keep existing and accepting new members (it doesn't have to) even with a pro-US Russian President?
2) The US supported the Parliament-dissolving President! So much for loving democracy!!
If they're fine supporting someone like that, then why do they hate Putin, who at least pretends to hold the elections?? Why the double standard??
Most importantly— the US helped to rig the 1996 elections in Yeltsin's favor. Again, so much for supporting Ukraine because it cares about democracy "everywhere"!
They literally paid off TV stations to help get him elected with a 6% approval rating, and then he went on to get involved in Georgia. The US didn't do anything then, so they don't even care about Russia invading another country. So why now?
I'll tell you why. It's because the US doesn't care about democracy, or human rights, or freedom. They care about natural resources.
Yeltsin privatized state assets and sold Russian minerals and timber to the West for cheap. Ukraine was ready to do the same. It's all about money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sadbravesfan
Well, he certainly wouldn't be 'black' as Americans understand it, then either.
So, they would need to be destroyed too. If he's aiming for accuracy, and not racial revenge, so to speak.
At the time of Jesus' life, the population that most black Americans descend from was still largely confined to modern-day Cameroon, and would soon slowly spread across the entire continent.
Jesus was, being very generous with his ancestry here, Kushidic at best. More likely (still unlikely, but since we're humoring the idea) Berber or Amazigh, or possibly Egyptian. But he was definitively not Sub-Saharan African. He was Semitic.
For him to have any black ancestry, especially given the inpassibility of the Sahara, is very, very unlikely.
He would have been olive-skinned, or, if there are any insular Jewish communities that avoided the ancient Diaspora, basically like them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zeanu2015
In that case, why not get rid of American culture altogether, seeing as its success and global spread have done the same around the world?
Diminishing musical traditions, imposing American values via cinema, American phrases in other languages, does that mean we get rid of Billboard, Hollywood, and English?
I think you're confusing intention with action. While the outcome of the 'white Jesus' image may have been damaging, it is no different in function from the Korean Jesus (and will liekly re-appear anyway)— it is a cultural interpretation of a mythical/historical figure.
That it was a part of white dominance doesn't mean it has to continue to be, nor can it alone enforce white supremacy if the remaining elements are eliminated.
It may, in fact, hinder progress to that goal— states have started symbolically dismantling Confederate statues— who gives a fuck? If the system is still racist, what it does it matter that we tore down a few hateful images?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Necessitating?
The U.S. had its own interests prior to intervention in most of the countries, and many (Vietnam comes to mind) were simply fighting for their independence (in this case, from the French, supported by the U.S.). They just happened to choose somebody whose political ideology was distinct enough to rally behind against their colonial overlords.
Do you think Ho Chi Minh would have had the same sway if he had advocated for slow reform and negotiation with the French and Americans?
Same with Mexico, Guatemala, Iran (the worst of the U.S.'s failures of the bunch), the Congo, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, to an extent Syria; there's a whole laundry list. The motivation was almost economic; or political, but irrespective of the U.S.S.R.. (because it had already fallen).
And again, prosperity is a relative term. The U.S., as far as I can tell, has a nation "success/failure" ratio of about 1:5. Japan, Germany, and South Korea all ended up becoming prosperous. The rest are underdeveloped, or still steeped in sectarian violence or civil war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@surfboy344
Sure.
The US' current economic power (not just reserve currency status but trade relationships in general) relies on the imposition of force onto countries that don't comply. Whenever a Latin American country tries to sever itself from the US' influence, it gets coup'ed.
If they cannot do that, they sanction it. See: Cuba, N. Korea, Afghanistan.
Moreover, many of its current 'allied' countries were brought into its fold by force (propping up dictators in South Korea, Iran, Chile, Egypt, rigging elections in Italy and Greece, etc).
This goes all the way back to the US popping a nerve at the mere thought of Edo Period Japan simply... refusing to trade with them.
For some reason this infuriated the Americans to the extent that they sent Matthew Perry to force its markets open by gunboat.
Those countries (minus Iran, and to a lesser extent Russia post-Yeltsin) are now all strong trading partners even though US presence was met at some point with fierce domestic opposition in all those cases.
More specifically, the defense industry has tens of thousands of jobs in every state and the arms industry brings in billions to the US economy each year.
And finally, more broadly speaking an iron grip on the world with a massive military gives passive economic benefits. Which country is really going to oppose or do economic warfare with the US?
Only China so far. Everyone else falls in line, because they know running afoul of the US will make them destabilize or destroy your country, legally or illegally.
Only the aforementioned countries (Cuba, N. Korea, Afghanistan, now Russia) have had both the balls to do it and avoided being coup'ed.
Every other government was overthrown or coerced into a trading "partnership".
1
-
1
-
@gabigabi7743
Again, quality over quantity.
Even assuming what you said is true (it isn't; Russia comes in at #4 behind US, India, and China-- it has 7.46% of all arable land. The US is the one with 10%),
quality of land matters.
Russia is placed at a higher latitude on the globe. So even though it has all that arable land, most of it is only usable only 3 months out of the whole year.
The US, India, and China all have more arable land, it none of it is ever frozen at all. Most of it is usable 9 months out of the year.
So their land can produce 2-3x as much food, despite having roughly the same amount as Russia's.
"Stop war mongering"
We will stop "warmongering" when our geography is secure. Do you wonder why China is aggressive with Taiwan? It is because that little island could cut off China's only access to the Pacific Ocean! And it is allied with a country that wants to keep rising superpowers in check!
If America convinces Taiwan to naval blockade, hundreds of millions of Chinese could be homeless within months.
India and US have long, un-blockable coastlines- this is why they are both less aggressive at sea- they face no threats to their naval economy. They're not governed better, they're just lucky to be placed where they are.
Quality over quantity.
I agree Russia could make use of its natural resources, but what use are they if their movement is at the whim of Turkey and the EU?
If Turkey wants to shut down 100% of Russia's exports to Europe, all they need to do is block the Bosporus. Do you understand how dangerous that is? That makes Russia's economy extremely fragile, even more than it already is.
This is also part of the reason why Russia exports oil and software tech. Neither can be blocked by sea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fartyboots
"that is a childish viewpoint"
...yet you then go on to use 'good', 'evil', and 'freedom-loving', straight out of a comic book. Or government propaganda. Nice try, State Department, but I've lived in both countries.
Russia isnt at all as bad as you're describing it to be (though it, like any other country, has its problems), and the US certainly isn't anywhere near as "wonderful" as you're describing.
By the way, your argument just belies your hatred of Russia specifically.
Saudi Arabia isn't democratic, even less so than Russia, yet most Americans are okay with being staunch allies. Israel illegally occupies territory on the basis of a historical claim (sounds like Crimea) yet the US fully supports it.
The US does business with China, whom it also sees as commies reeee yet it does an enormous amount of business with them.
Your personal view of Russia, and the reasons you gave for an alliance never occurring, are flat wrong. Sorry.
Rethink your own thoughts. They're jumbled right now.
Not that I'd want an alliance anyway, but your conviction that the morality of your society is what sets America apart from Russia... is very funny. Look into the democratic activities US has been up to from the Cold War.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seamusin1697
If you think that's an insult, then maybe you'd be better off without democracy, too- with that, comes people criticizing your point of view. Deal with it.
I'd hate to see the moment someone actually insulted you-- if you're European, at least your hospital visit would be free.
Try not fainting next time. Or move to Victorian England, you'd fit right in with the ladies.
You cannot make political decisions in a vacuum-- Russia could just as well align with China and host mock invasions of the Baltic in case they try to take Kaliningrad.
Tell me, do you think they'd like that? If not, why not?
Or, do you want to convince me into thinking that a country should be totally okay with the outcome of any choice, as long as it's legal, because that's how things work in the real world!
Like I said before, the US has shown that it understands EXACTLY why Russia doesn't want a foreign power to have power projection so close to its border (Soviets off the coast of Florida), yet it gaslights Russia by pretending that there's no substantive reason to be alarmed when the same thing happens to another country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Merugaf
You will need to direct me to a source.
I must admit a slight mistake, 37% had a "very posititve" view, another 26% had only a "mostly positive view".
This data is from both 2009 polling and 2021 Radio Svoboda, international and Ukrainian source. (Links= deleted comment)
Still not good when a majority of Galicians are willing to overlook the fact that Bandera was trained by the Abwehr.
They seem not to realize that if Stepan succeeded, there would be no Ukraine.
There would be German-populated Reichskommisariat Ukraine, though.
A hero indeed.
You seem to misunderstand. Finland and the USSR, later Russia, had decades of no issues provided Finland did not join NATO. All Ukraine had to do was not invite American troops into its country, and it couldn't even achieve that.
Russia simply, just like Ukraine, doesn't want a hostile foreign power at its border.
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
-
@MarceloAbans
sorry for text block- read if you want
I'm well aware of the fact that history is repeating- or, at least, rhyming.
You mentioned books, but Socrates hated even those, saying kids' memories would be ruined by them, and more generally "what's wrong with kids these days" etc.
I'm not oblivious to those facts. Fear of what's new is nothing new.
But I'm simply speaking from experience- books don't have variable feedback (unpredictable rewards, like a slot machine: people come keep posting because likes give you an ego boost)- the TV isn't something you interact with, nor can it be programmed to better keep you personally glued to the screen. Sites can.
There are genuine, novel differences between the internet and all other previous media.
And I'm only worried because I'm speaking from experience.
Though I think the predisposition to addiction is inherited, there was at least a chance you'd never encounter a casino, or drink to cope with pain, or gamble (in the past).
Now, if your genetics fated you to get easily addicted, it's only a matter of time before you start using a computer or phone.
And because, unlike books or tv, both the content and structure of the internet are constantly changing, it's increasingly difficult to teach young people (like me- again, speaking firsthand here)
how to manage the lightning pace of information and not get drowned in it.
-Because by the time the next generation comes along, we might be in internet 3.0 on VR, and I no one over 30 will know what the fuck is really going on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thedirty530
Well, unless you are willing to throw Bush, Clinton, and Obama in front of the ICC along with Putin, Russia (and China) will smell the injustice and continue to level the playing field.
Clearly, if the US gets away with it (Europe does not object), then humans rights and international law don't actually matter.
If they did, the US would have been sanctioned like Russia is right now, but in 2003.
But, since nobody cared then, then their "care" for Ukraine now is fake.
Either that, or they're all racists.
So either both sides make amends, or Russia/China continue to act "belligerently" in accordance with what is actually allowable.
1
-
@georges3799
Is it too much to ask you NOT to attack other countries?
Keep your fat, greasy fingers out of the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, and then maybe other countries' leaders will actually follow the example you claim to set.
Screw off, hypocrite. Two wrongs may not make a right, but no one condemned your actions, so why are they 'wrong' when we do it?
I'm old enough to remember the 90s. The US-led transition into capitalism, the mafias on every street, the oligarchs you created (yes, really), the money New York and London gleefully let them steal, and election you rigged for Yeltsin.
You have no idea, do you?
Putin was your own making.
If you hadn't gutted Russian institutions and stashed its wealth away, maybe we'd be in a better situation right now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you have given it a catchy name, especially an alliteration that only works in English, then its scope will never be wide enough to make a change. It needs to be a political and economic plan, not a social activism.
Sounds bad, but social movements rarely generate enough power to change things.
Also, China is spearheading the effort (multiple failures so far), but California has even fewer options.
Once the Ogalala Aquifer dries out, and water levels drop beneath sustainable levels, the entire Western portion of the US will become unlivable. It will serve as a military base, a few Native reservations, and nothing more.
Activism is too late now-- the citizens either riot, or in 20 years feel the full effects
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simongold2739
Lol, I'm not convinced that that's your pfp. You sound more like a middle-aged man from the South. Give it up Cletus, I know you're there in front of the screen! (username checks out lol)
Also, to entertain the gibberish you spouted:
You're wrong. China's bureaucracy is enormous, especially because they have over 3x as many people as the United States. Corruption is rampant there, too.
And even if it wasn't, your logic stops short of finding any real solution.
If the government were small, what would stop Amazon from taking over every industry and then pricing things however it wants? What would stop Martin Shkreli from bringing insulin prices to $800+ per pen? What would stop companies from knowingly lending to people that didn't make enough to pay off the interest rates they advertised, causing a housing crash of 2008?
Why are all conservatives so naive?
You understand perfectly well that people are inherently self-interested, but suddenly when a company is formed,
everyone is altruistic and prefers to spend its money to create new products, instead of taking the easy way and pocketing its income?
Give me a fucking break. Even Apple hoardes its money offshore.
Government needs to be bigger than companies. Otherwise, we'll slip back into the 1920's, with a few wealthy men working their employees to literal death and crushing any new business ventures because the government is too small to force them to stop.
P.S. I need a source for your claim that teacher's unions are the biggest contributors. As of 2018, it was the Chamber of Commerce with the largest dollar amount.
1
-
It does, but in some instances (mainly GMOs, some pesticides) Europe doesn't allow those things for cultural reasons, or a 'just to be safe' attitude, when GMOs are almost unanimously regarded as safe to eat, and improving crop yields.
Otherwise (refusal of American farmers to vaccinate animals, and just pumping them with antibiotics and growth hormones instead, using things like Roundup, liberal use of synthetic compounds, etc.) they're complete dogshit.
If you ever get the chance, eat
1) a slice of bread with butter and
2) fresh tomatoes, while in Europe.
Those are the two that immediately struck me as being an entirely different food altogether, no comparison. American vegetables and dairy are awful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derickz723
1) Nice Ben Shapiro quote, but doesn't bode well for your argument.
2) You know nothing about statistics if you used the term "fact."
So, you probably also don't know how to verify whether that source is true.
In statistics, you either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is no "fact".
You can also manipulate data by shifting variables (p-value, sample size, strata, association strength, etc)
I hope to God (lol) that you don't also think "evolution is just a theory". Same problem, lack of understanding of terms.
3) The FEE is a libertarian think tank; their sole job is to promote a political worldview. They start with the conclusion, and work backwards to create the study that supports it. If you want impartial data, look at economic growth trends.
Interpretation of economic policy efficacy will always have a political slant, but this is just the worst place to start. Try again, new source.
4) You posted the name of the website as your source. I can't click anything to verify, seems shady to me... maybe post the actual link, please?
1
-
@derickz723
Again, no links.
And nope, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You're making claims? Back them up.
Even despite that, I took a look. What are you talking about? The index doesn't give a single score per country, or rank them!
It's a dataset with multiple variables.
If you actually looked, the U.S. is mediocre. Average civic engagement (from the supposed beacon of democracy), environmental status, sense of community, education, and life satisfaction.
Extremely poor work-life balance, below average life expectancy.
Try again.
1
-
@derickz723
If you're too lazy, or bluffing too hard, to post a link, that's your problem, not mine.
And that's what I already did. Are you slow? I described to you how the index works, and you stuck your fingers in your ears.
The U.S. is not at the top of the index, what don't you understand?
The website's FAQ states "Which country is #1? That's up to you! The OECD has not assigned rankings to countries. Instead, Your Better Life Index is designed to let you, the user, investigate how each of the 11 topics can contribute to well-being."
Even in a user-compiled ranking, the U.S. barely made the top ten, and its rank dropped since 2016.
So, why are you lying to me?
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
-
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
-
@kacperolkusz3985
You didn't just say that Poland and Russia are different and distant from each other— you ascribed ill-intention to Russian society as a whole. You called it purely hateful and purely spiteful.
Again, despite the fact that you apparently don't have any connection to the country.
It's especially shameful if you've taken time to study the culture, and come away with nothing but hatred yourself.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I've seen the glee that lights up some Polaks' eyes when they describe almost controlling Russia under Władysław III Waza.
Your country doesn't want a peaceful existence, they want power and revenge, ironically a very spiteful thing.
Multiple Polaks I've spoken to hold similar views— that Russians are sub-human, Asiatic, unable to form a society. No, I'm not lying.
Sabotage isn't unique to Russia; if you think that your allies (and Poland itself) doesn't engage in it, then you're too naive to have this conversation.
I don't know why you brought that up, so I'd like an explanation. The framing of Russia as uniquely ill-intentioned is simply incorrect.
As for the Chechen War— I'm talking about the Second one.
Several thousand Chechen troops invaded Dagestan in August 1999, and declared a jihad on Moscow. That's how the war started.
Given how anti-Islam Polish people are, I'd at least expect you to sympathize with that.
But I suspect you hate Russia even more than you hate threats to Christianity.
Anyways— the first Chechen War was largely unprovoked, although mass ethnic cleansing of Russians isn't exactly something to sit by and let happen either. Regardless of whether or not you think it's justified, it warranted a response.
The Chechens won the first war, and they could have kept to themselves. But no, they had to invade Russia.
The Dagestanis weren't interested in joining their Transcaucasian Caliphate, and they were reabsorbed into Russia as punishment for trying to establish an Islamic State.
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
-
He's really, really bad at presenting his ideas (ironic!) but what he said is true.
The studies most commonly used to argue against trans-athletes competing in the sex of their choosing (so, if a male-to female transition, then competing in female sports) actually address most of the points people like Joe or even Rationality Rules make.
For instance, V02 max, muscle fiber number and density, fast twitch muscle fiber proportion, and heart efficiency all change with hormone therapy, contrary to alt-right beliefs.
Now, whether or not it's okay (as Adam mentioned) to trust a child's judgement about his/her own gender identity, is subject to debate.
But barring a few factors (like reaction time and bone waist/hip ratio), virtually all of the factors that give men an advantage, change during hormone therapy. The issue is, why do transgender athletes keep winning? My guess is the downtime for hormones to flush out of the system is too low, or the athletes are fudging their drug test results to get an advantage.
But the point is, even though he said it horribly, most of what Adam said is true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lots of mistakes in your comment.
First of all, it is an American fault that democracy wasn't installed.
Washington DC sent their own economic advisors and political advisors to Moscow in 1991 to guide the new government policy. They were the ones who told Yeltsin's government what to do, so how is it "not their fault"?
I can't say much about the second paragraph since it is all your opinion, but I can say this:
Ukraine doesn't have a Gagarin, a Gogol (he was ukrainian, but all of his work is about Rus, so you will have to share him with us), a Bolshoi Theater, a Tetris, a Tchaikovsky, anything like that.
Even if we use the ukrainian nationalist idea ("Russia only started in the 18th century!!"), it is still older than Germany, Italy, and the US. And in that time, it has produced a very distinct culture that is known worldwide.
I don't know how it is the slavic soul since, after the Mongol invasion, Kiev was abandoned for centuries. It only started to rebuild and grow population under the Russian empire, when it was industrializing. Kiev is important not for anything it has on its own (what is kiev famous for? everyone knows Red Square, Lenin, St Basil), but only because of its relation to Russia.
Before Russian invasion, Westerners only knew Kiev as a cheap vacation spot.
You also ignore Novgorod, and its old traditions which exist to this day. The veche was older than the one in kiev, and novgorod was the founding city of rus. Same with Pskov veche. And then even in Imperial Russia, Zemskiy Sobor. And the original Boyar Duma under Peter I. Several forms of democracy.
So I don't know what you mean when you say "ukraine did have democracy before unlike Russia". Both did.
Not sure what makes Pozner "shady", could you give specific examples? Is it just because you don't agree with him?
This isn't a "mistake', but it is your opinion presented as if it was fact.
And the last part is the biggest problem. The West and countries who ally with can never acknowledge Russia to be a real country, because they would need to accept psychologically that there is a big neighbor right next to them, and that's scary.
Even after the complete chaos of the 1990s, the mafias, the privatization, the oligarchs sending money earned by ordinary Russians to London and New York.... after all that pain and suffering, there are still ukrainian trying to make people forget or pretend it never happened.
"made many mistakes"... what an insult. They destroyed Russian economy and life. You understand what it feels like to suffer, so why do you want us to?
Why do you refuse to accept that Russia is a country and not just an evil? If the West treated us better in 1990s, if Yeltsin wasn't supported by Clinton... maybe Russia would be less aggressive now. But the West proved that it cannot ever be trusted.
We gave it a chance to help, and they only hurt.
1
-
@stephenjenkins7971
"The US sent ADVISORS to Yeltsin, not governors or anything like that; ultimately the US couldn't do anything that Russia itself didn't want"
Thank you for making it obvious you don't understand the history of that period.
Yes, the US sent aDvIsOrs- but they effectively dictated Russia's new economic policy because, in case you forgot, there were no capitalists or free market economists to summon domestically!
Russia, unlike China, had been truly stripped of any generational and institutional knowledge of how capitalism functioned.
The US advisors, Harvard educated and working closely with the US Treasury, were all Russia had.
" The US suggested for example that via privatization that Russia diversify its economy to multiple sectors and utilize the money garnered from that in other projects"
No, it didn't. The main goals suggested by the US government officials and economists, for Russia were as follows (laid out by Jeffrey Sachs, 1 of the 4 Harvard economists):
-Immediate price liberalization
-Immediate tightening of money supply and subsidies to firms
-Strong safety nets (e.g. the health care system)
-Large-scale and timely foreign assistance
-Commercialization of its enterprises by turning them into corporations with state ownership
-Privatization quick but transparent and law-based
-Large natural resource companies remain in state hands to ensure the Russian government received revenue.
Nowhere in there was diversification or lateral expansion mentioned. The main goal was to get Russia's valuable assets out of the hands of state ownership and into private hands (which American companies stood to benefit massively from).
It is a miracle the 7th point was followed, as the Soviet gas industries were almost privatized as well. Lukoil was a potential domino effect.
"The US did not for a second expect the utter corruption in the process where massive sectors of the economy were sold for literal pennies leading to the oligarchs"
Again, wrong. They became aware of that very early on, yet continued to give unconditional support to yeltsin. It was the economists, working at the same time with the US government, who created the privatization scheme to begin with.
They pushed Yeltsin's team to give everyone a share of a state-owned firms. At the same time, they financed all this (since they had just sold all their assets) by printing more money, inflating the currency.
The people, left with less money than before, sold off those shares (especially since, again- no societal knowledge of capitalism- they didn't know what they were meant to do with these coupons).
The people who bought up those shares would become the oligarchs.
The loans-for-shares scheme only accelerated this process- sham public auctions for the remaining companies were already decided- those oligarchs secretly agreed with Yeltsin to buy those shares, in exchange for money (to counter the hyperinflation they had caused themselves).
"The US could not control or stop that"
This is the problem. All of the previous behavior and enabling a drunkard to sell off everything could be forgivable, if the West had just been unaware of the consequences, and worked to fix them.
But, instead...
Clinton helped to rig the 1996 Russian Presidential election. By that time, his approval rating was around 6%, even lower than Stalin's. Clinton and his administration fought very hard to keep him in power- I remember the quote "I want this guy to win so bad, it hurts". He convinced the IMF to give Russia a $10B loan and funneled it into Yeltsin's campaign.
The US also helped rig the election outright- 1M pro-Yeltsin Chechen votes in 1995, in the middle of the Chechen War? There were only 500K registered voters.
The OSCE leader knew this, but was pressured to stay silent by the US.
This is unforgivable, and 2016 was only a small repayment of their gift.
"Kyiv is the origin of the Kyivan Rus"
*Rus. The name 'Kyivan Rus' was invented in Russia in the 19th century (so, Kievan Rus). It was never describing a separate country or state, but a period in Russian history.
Like Renaissance Italy, Victorian England, Kievan Rus.
You ignored what I said. The only reason Kiev has that importance is because Russian Empire valued it.
If not, it would have chosen another city to industrialize closer to the East.
It was largely undeveloped until the industrial period, it never recovered from the Mongol invasion while Moscow and Novgorod did. Lvov too, but for a different reason (Poland, not Russia, invested in it).
It also isn't the origin of the Kievan Rus- it existed before the Rus state, as a Slavic tribal settlement. The origin of Rus is Novgorod, its founding city. That is literally where Rurik started the country.
"Idk anything about Pozner so whatever."
So why did you bring it up, if you have no facts to show that you're right?
Don't present your opinions like they're fact, add "in my opinion" or "I think" somwhere.
"Bruh, what realm of existence do you live in where the West didn't acknowledge Russia as a country? If anything the West bent itself into pretzels for Russia trying to justify their actions"
I live in the real world- the West condemned Russia for anything it did, while either doing the same things itself or continuing to partner with the US even as it did much worse things.
How can, for example, the UK condemn Russia when it participated in the bombing of Iraqi civilians?
If it believes that Russia broke a universal law, then it needs to apply it to itself. If it won't, then the law is not universal, and there is no reason Russia should follow it.
The US caused this whole situation- see the last paragraphs- and kept trying to stop Russia's economic development.
They blocked the sale of German car company Opel to Russia (remember about that "diversification" you were talking about? Wasn't the US recommending that??), and trying to block Nord Stream I and Turk Stream.
"effectively what the Germans wanted of the Soviets in WWII"
I don't agree with Russia's rhetoric in the war or the conflict itself, but this isn't the narrative it used.
"Don't blame the West for Russia's actions."
...Bruh. You want me to write another book? There's even more that the US did.
"even during Yeltsin, the so-called "puppet" of the West, he tried very hard to convince Clinton to split Europe between the US and Russia "
That was during the end of his second Presidency, and even if it was at the very beginning, it doesn't matter. He allowed NATO to expand its jurisdiction eastwards. How is that imperialism?
"the fundamental issue of Russian imperialism would remain a massive issue from which the likes of Poland and the Baltics; the closest victims of Russian imperialism, would never accept Russia."
This is the fundamental problem. Russia isn't just doing it for prestige; it's for security. Poland understands this very well, its also flat, indefensible land and only gained security recently, when part of a bloc. But this doesn't erase the geographical realities, and it's still apparent for Russia, who would never be accepted into NATO
(under "interoperability", Russia would be forced to only buy and use weapons from Lockheed and Raytheon, making them dependent on a faraway country- with a history of backstabbing- for its security).
Until the US is kicked out of Europe, I see no possibility for stability in Europe. The potential for attack should be treated as attack, see Cuban Missile crisis if you think it's just Russian paranoia.
1
-
True, myths aren't very good to teach. but your assumption that religion, the belief in a supernatural being, is a bad one to make. Whether or not you want to believe in God, Jesus historically existed, was documented by scholars living at the time, and did die on the cross. Now, when it comes to the belief in God, morals ARE very important. If God doesn't exist, what you see is what you get, there is nothing better then what you end up with. Is that something we should be teaching children?
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bryanwalters1041
No, "hippocrate" isn't a word, you dolt. If you meant what you said, then you meant nothing.
And you'll have to clarify what you said next, that was word salad.
You don't want to reply to my points because you know I'm right. And if I'm wrong, then show me!
As a Senator, he gets all the things you're whining about by default. So he didn't just "make a choice" to avoid public services, he's required to use private for his job!
You also didn't mention anything about taxes.
If you do business in America, you should pay American taxes. Does that sounds unreasonable to you? Do you think rich people should have the right to move their money offshore to avoid taxes?
I watched the video (one guy reading an article?), and it left out a lot of information:
Staffers are paid a salary of $36K, which averaged over the initial estimated working hours (40 hrs/week), pays $17.31/hour. The issue is they're working overtime, so the campaign is now re-negotiating with the union for a $42K salary.
This wouldn't be possible with a non-union staff, where they'd be told to fuck off.
Also, I don't support Biden or Clinton, looks like you need to learn critical thinking and dob't jump to conclusions!
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
-
Windy Calyx 7
You're looking at this through a modern, rules-based lens. There is no "right" to do something, there is no ultimate arbiter of permission.
It is simply necessary for national survival, and it is done.
And, "yes", to all of your questions. The world, unfortunately, has given us limited resources, and geography is a zero-sum game. If (in your hypothetical) China did not have the ports, India would prosper, and leave China poorer.
Would that be fair to China, to stay impoverished for something completely out of their control?
In fact, the example with the US and Mexico is exactly what happened. Manifest Destiny sought to control both oceans, and the Mexican Empire was dangerously close to New Orleans (which controls all traffic of the Mississippi River Basin) and so the US looked for reasons to go to war and take their land. Not to mention, the West Coast is chock-full of natural ports for trading with Asia.
Russia simply hasn't had that luxury yet. We came very close— had we not sold Alaska, its southern tip has several warm water sea ports.
And in WWI, France secretly agreed to give Russia control of Constantinople to alleviate it's centuries-long search for a seaport (still not perfect, since it's only the Medditerranean, but still).
Had Russia taken Hokkaido from the Japanese in the 1900s, we'd be in a much better position right now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Windy Calyx 7
Yes, it had and yes, it was.
Though I think you're taking "nothing" very literally.
Of course Russia had something, it just had very, very little compared to what it was capable of as the USSR.
When I say "nothing", I'm talking about standing up to the American military, not some backwater little regions on Russia's borders.
You're acting like there's no difference.
You were the one who asked me why Russia agreed to the Security Council (which the US hasn't followed either, why don't you take your complaints to them?) because it had no means of negotiating with the still-standing US.
Again, are you okay with some countries staying poorer forever because of their geography?
It's completely out of their control, yet you seem to endorse the status quo, which would keep them poor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raducarpinisianu2483
You're right, Soviet consumer goods were lacking in quality-- though they have improved drastically since, and I think your judgement is based more in emotion than analysis.
Russia produces a huge variety of back-end goods, the fact that you measure a country's manufacturing capability based on whether it has its own version of an iPhone is very telling.
You simply don't understand supply chains.
As for your main point, you're wrong. Russia never had an unblocked port. All of the Black Sea ports are subject to pass through Turkey's Bosporus. The St. Petersburg ports need to pass through Denmark, and the Pacific ports pass through Japan's EEZ.
On the other hand, whenever Japan wants to trade, it doesn't need to worry about a foreign power having the potential to block its routes if the politics aren't good.
Same with the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia.... are you noticing a pattern? The privileged stick together and keep other out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sababugs1125
Ah, you're right about that second part, but I'd like to see (if you can find it) the Georgian law recognizing Abkhazian as a co-official language in Abkhazia, because I understood it was for language reasons.
I also thought that they didn't want to be part of USSR, but independent country?
Not to mention the war of 1991, similar reason to Crimea (declared independence from Ukraine in 1994, Ukrainian Parliament declared it illegal and increased control over it).
In both cases, the territories want to "return" to Russia, to re-unite with a larger ehtnic group (for Crimeans, Russians; and for South Ossetians, North Ossetians). Same with Kosovars, Northern Ireland, and Catalonia).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@martinsriber7760
1) Yes, it does. Are you really that ignorant of history?
There are Kurdish groups illegally occupying Syrian territory- right now, as we speak. It has split the country in two.
The mere fact that Panama as a country even exists- conveniently having given the rights to the Panama Canal to the Americans for decades- is a product of the US' intervention in Colombian affairs.
There were serious propositions and desires around the time of the Spanish-American War to fully annex Cuba, as Hawai'i sadly would be. Guantanamo Bay is still under US control, despite the US-backed Batista government being out of power and eliminated for decades.
Where you get this naive, optimistic view of the US' activities, I don't know.
Look to any US involvement after 1950, you will see photos identical to Ukraine-- yet no Western countries ever stop trade with, or denounces the US. I wonder why....
2) All of those were off-limits, too, until the US kept expanding despite Sec. of State James Baker proposing an exchange to Gorbachev, where, if Germany gets to be re-unified, NATO jurisdiction would not expand past Germany, at all.
Ukraine is 'off limits' for the exact same reason: getting surrounded by an organization specifically dedicated to encircling and economically and politically strangling you, is not a position any government would take.
Clearly, it wasn't one Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, etc, took- yet they seem not to apply that understanding to anyone else. Self-centered to their very core.
3) Only France and UK develop their own- the other few countries just engage in a sharing program, making their use and freedom of modification restricted.
The only country that could truly withstand a European nuclear conflict is the US, who is more than happy to spectate from behind the Atlantic. Russia and Europe both know their proximity forces them to be pragmatic. The US has no such needs.
This is why it is not Ukraine that changes anything, but it represents more of the same- US expanding its hegemony, and all the problems that come with it.
"that is its damn problem"
I expect zero response from the US, then, if Russia ever decides to re-enact the Cuban missile crisis. If you think the US might object, could you explain why?
After all, your side should agree: Cuba is a sovereign nation, it's just defending itself, if the US is afraid that is its own damn problem.
1
-
1
-
Liars MUST Hang
No. Most of them were, in fact, Deists, whose philosophy is "what we think": believing in a Creator, but ascribing no religion to Him, believing that rational thought, not belief, were what determined the validity of ideas.
Benjamin Franklin's colleague Thomas Paine didn't believe God had ever interacted with or had any effect on human history, and that religions were, as a result of that, made-up.
These were all men of the Enlightenment, who contradicted Church teachings and, to the extent that they allowed for freedom of religion at all, Christianity as a whole. It doesn't matter what they "meant", they wrote "freedom of religion". Not "freedom between Catholicism and Protestantism". Too bad.
Other religions aren't going away, and we'll open up Satanist churches until the Christians learn that this isn't their country.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adambaker4590
Then the argument doesn't apply to you.
And I'm surprised you didn't recognize that, given what I described was the exact opposite of you.
If you're trained and (assuming you think you'll be face to face with a burglar one day) have nerves of steel, then I've got nothing more to say to you.
I want guns out of the hands of idiots. If you're not responsible enough to wield a weapon, why should I give you free license to kill? Accident or not, there need to be laws in place— not "encouragement", laws— to make sure that if you own a gun, you're smart enough not to panic and use it wrongly in an emergency, or misfire, or even not have it ready when it is needed.
If a gun sale is 'private,' that is, if you show up to a gun sale and claim you're not an FFL, there is no federal requirement for you to ask customers to fill out a 4473 form. Which is a provision of the Brady Act, which I will remind you the NRA bitterly opposed.
That's a fucking problem to me. Nikolas Cruz bought his AR15 this way. Granted, identifying private sellers to begin with will be difficult, but if they are seen allowing anyone to buy and reported, it will be a good start.
That, and reducing inter-state gun movement which Chicago can really use right now.
1
-
@hejiranyc
I find it strange that you mention not needing to kill yourself to succeed, when that's precisely what American capitalism's loudest cheerleaders---
(Gary Vaynerchuk, Casey Neistat, every Silicon Valley success story, MSNBC, Forbes regularly air stories about saving up $100,000s by not eating out at all for years, etc.)
---are most proud of.
And your experience, especially as the child of business owners
(most businesses fail, and no, yours didn't succeed because your parents worked the hardest- isn't that what you said didn't need to be done?),
is very different to most of the US.
Most immigrants have to, assuming your metaphor, kill themselves to make ends meet. Ever seen people working a contracting job, or construction, or farm labor? It's not a "middle path" by any means.
I don't mean to rain on your parade, but your perspective on the economic mobility in the US is, well, given your age, not surprising but still disappointing.
Oh, and about foreigners wanting to move to the US-- doesn't reflect what it's like at all.
My parents thought life would be great here, too- but circumstances didn't line up despite hard work, and 2008 was the death blow.
It's a brilliant piece of marketing- the US has made itself synonymous with "the place where you can have a new life", and in some ways that's true. But overall, the pace of life here is much faster than in most of the world (outside of East Asia), and there's little enjoyment outside of work. The entertainment you do get is corporatized (few non-business attractions outside of parks), and the general quality of life here is... meh.
But by the time that immigrant realizes all this, it's too late. They have a job, family, and can't really leave. So the US benefits from their labor, and keeps pumping out the message: come one, come all! To ensnare new migrants.
Even younger Iraqis fall for it, do they not realize they'd be helping the country that prompted them to want to leave in the first place?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jay-ru-me
No, not really. Your political system is, by design, made to goad you into one party or the other, usually less on politics than you might believe.
For example, the best prediction of whether a presidential candidate will win or not is whether he is taller than his competitor. This prediction has held true (iirc) since the 1920s.
American debates are run like a gameshow, and even the policies you treasure so much are changed once in office.
Did Obama close Guatanamo? Did Biden stop tearing families apart at the border? Did Trump bring back companies from China?
They are all the same, and most people base it on the general image of the person, even if they say they are objective. It's a self-gratifying trait, and almost no one (not me, either) has it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@isodoublet
I don't believe in determinism or predeterminism, at least from a pragmatic point of view, but quantum mechanics only applies to the nano-scale. The possibility of something tunneling through another object, our observation of a particle collapsing the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and retroactive time, all only work when the idea of probability starts to break down.
On a larger scale, where the probability of larger particles (or arrangements of them— you, for example) would do the same thing, are brought down to basically zero.
Not trying to argue, but to definitively prove free will, we need to find the area of the brain that controls it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aimeesmith4754
Also I don't mean to be rude, but the idea that our rights to freedom came from Christianity is laughable.
People were literally exiled from the country (the modern word for state, where we get the United States/'United Countries') they lived in, just for not believing in the right version of Christianity.
The Salem witch trials had people hanged without due process.
The first Commandment specifically tells you what you're not allowed to say. You're not allowed to curse your mother or father, or else you should be killed, your wife should be beaten to death if she speaks up against you, you're not allowed to bear false witness against your neighbor. These are all restrictions of speech, by God Himself.
The Founding Fathers may have been deists and Christians, but their Constitution was decidedly different from the monarchies of Europe, which all claimed that the King had power from God to rule.
Our government was secular, based on Enlightenment ideals, which were in conflict with religious ideas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lasse65
Bro I never once mentioned Sweden... did you really just confuse Sweden and Finland? XD
That's all I need to know about NATO supporters lol, you can't even tell which countries are joining, only thing that matters is the US has new bases!
Yes, NATO officials have put pressure on Finland to join.
Finland's former PM has said this in an interview from a few months into the Ukraine conflict, just after the bid to join was announced.
And frankly even if it was Sweden, it makes no difference.
You can yap all you want about how it's your right, Russia bad, etc. But you cannot tell me or any Russian with a straight face that what you are doing poses no threat to us and that we should not oppose your accession into NATO.
Since you know so much, you should know all about the US foreign policy over the last few decades, all over the world. Surely you know what they did to Iraq and Afghanistan. And Libya. And tried to do with Syria.
None of those countries are better now than before the US got influence on them.
This is what Russia wants to avoid.
Letting the US closer to Russian borders will make ordinary people's lives worse. And if you understand that and you have any sympathy at all, you should oppose Sweden or Finland or anyone else being a part of the US military vassals.
1
-
@Lasse65
"I can very well tell the difference"
Then why did you talk about Sweden, and imply that I was too?
Why didn't you just point out the fact that they were similar from the start and go from there?
You're not making a good case here, I still have reason to believe that you have the comprehension skills of a goldfish.
Just admit you made a mistake lol, swallow your enormous pride.
"Regardless of whether NATO pressured Finland or not, it is Finland's business... not NATO or Russia".
Apparently you have the attention span of a goldfish, too. Are you hearing yourself?
If it's only Finland's business, then the first part of your sentence is wrong! You're saying that its somehow only Finland's business even if NATO also pressured them?
Well then it's not. It's either Finland's business, and neither can influence Finland's choice, or it isn't just Finland's business, and both NATO and Russia have free reign to influence all they want!
The issue is you seem to be excusing NATO's behavior. So which is it?
"I couldn't care less if Russia feels threatened"
Ah, the selfish approach. Then why are you opposed to what Russia is doing right now? They're acting in their own interests, just like Sweden is.
"Wants the protection of NATO IF we get involved in a war"
You don't seem to understand the dynamic here. Russia is only expanding because the US is doing so, too. You might not care whether Russia feels threatened, but not even you can be so delusional and try to say that it doesn't actually feel that way. It does, and that is the reason for its aggressiveness.
Disband NATO, and this will all be over in an instant. The presence of the US is inherently threatening (again, they are an imperialist countty with a long track record of destroying other countries) and Russia is rightfully weary of them getting closer to Russian borders.
As someone who lives near a formerly imperial country, and Sweden itself being a former Empire, I would think you'd understand Russia's concerns.
Same with China. Why control the Malacca Straits? Why invade Taiwan? Because of fear of the US trying to blockade them or invade them (something which, again, they have done many times before in nearby countries).
You have the problem backwards. If Russia and China feel secure that the US will not attack them, they will feel no desire to expand. They do it to pre-emptively starve off a US attack.
I did write "Letting the US closer to Russian borders"— NATO expanded first, not Russia. After the USSR collapsed, there was no reason to keep NATO around. Yet they stayed, and Russia felt threatened, so it decided to fortify against it.
Also, land is zero-sum. Even if Russia goers closer to NATO, NATO now has a longer distance to travel to Moscow. The two parties don't exist in a vacuum.
The reason I brought up those crimes by the US wasn't to discuss their legality. Are you slow? I was giving examples of past crimes that motivated Russia to prevent itself from becoming like them. My point was that all of those examples, legal or illegal, were what convinced Russia that the US could not be trusted even in a world without the USSR.
All of those places (minus Syria, in the west) are shitholes, courtesy of the US and its NATO allies.
This is why your organization must be disbanded. It has so far brought nothing but misery onto innocent nations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SirVixIsVexed
It has a lot to do with Scripture.
Christianity does not explicitly call for war with other religions, but it certainly does not condemn it if there is a good reason (the problem being, that it is extremely up to interpretation).
One could look, for instance, at 1 Samuel 15:18 and use it as a justification for a modern enemy. Or Sodom and Gomorrah for attacks on gay bars. Or the story of Sem, Ham, and Japeth to justify slavery.
Or do away with logic altogether, like a Crusaders who, during their forth exposition, cried "because God wills it!" when motivating the soldiers to invade the Middle East.
That's not even my point.
Scripture and practice are very loosely connected. Only when you interpret it literally do you get ISIS, the Inquisition, and the Westboro Baptist Church.
All religions, and by extension people, cherry pick. Islam went through a scientific and medical Golden Age shortly following the collapse of (yes, I do know the history) the ruthless Umayyad Caliphate.
Things change. I don't see Christians beating their wives for wearing cotton-polyester blends. Give Islam time, and the wars will stop. I suppose the political destabilization by the West could also help things along, too.
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
-
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
-
@craigkdillon
Um, there are plenty. Russia's economy just never got past the initial stages.
But Russia sells enormous amounts of food to the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Military tech, as you mentioned, is all around the world. Even its car industry is locally robust.
Just because it's not selling tertiary products (tech goods, perfume, fashion, etc) doesn't mean its economy isn't diverse.
It is, however, being hampered by paranoid Putin leadership. We have enough natural resources to make anything in the world, maybe minus tropical spices. Once that leader takes over Russia, then we will see.
1
-
@craigkdillon
While I agree that Russia could have used American hegemony as a once-in-history opportunity to spur its manufacturing and bring its momentum up to speed with the rest of the West, you're forgetting one thing:
Free trade doesn't trump geography.
Russia's ports, and cargo transit to other countries, might be guaranteed by the US. But that doesn't stop those same ports from bring frozen 9 months out of the year.
Congress recently passed a budget resolution on icebreakers, costing $1B each. Imagine Russia trying to build a fleet to trade year-round, it would make their goods uncompetitive.
When Russia was first independent, it was dealing with enormous capital flight and money laundering, due in part to the Americans whom they wrre apparently meant to trust.
Add to that an invasion into Dagestan in 1999 (this is why Russia invaded Chechnya, btw) and collapsing oil prices, left Russia with little opportunity to take advantage of this economic situation.
It was only after Putin came to power and used rising oil prices to his advantage that Russia became a 'threat' again.
So you portray it as just Russia not doing the right thing, when there was no one single moment where they could do that. ..Maybe 2012?
Even then, Russia's ability to project power in the Black Sea- and defend against Turkey, who was more than willing to bend NATO rules- was threatened by the expiry of the Crimea naval base.
So, in a sense, Russia just needs better circumstances. Atm, all of its trade routes are implicitly threatened.
1
-
@craigkdillon
I agree with lots of what you said, but you have several oversights in your analysis.
Firstly, while nations are what threaten other nations, you seem to separate them from geography like the two are in different bubbles.
There is significant overlap between geography and how likely a nation is to be threatening to another.
Egypt could be more diplomatic and trade with Ethiopia... but that will not change the fact that Ethiopia contains the source of the Blue Nile, and is a threat to Egypitan interests because it wants to dam the river.
In terms of eastern Europe, yes of course their living standards have skyrocketed. But this all relies on a trade bloc.
Central and eastern European goods are now competitive because there are no tariffs in the EU, and because they can make use of Spanish, French, Dutch etc. ports, since they're landlocked without them.
And if the EU is torn apart by competing interests, between the Western countries and Poland's Międzymorze idea?
Then we are back to the default: geography. In fact, the current system doesn't transcend the boundaries placed by geography, it heavily relies on them.
Why is the US able to maintain a global order to 'free' other nations from their poor geography? Precisely because theirs happens to be perfect. It all comes back to that. The choice between "empire vs. free trade" wasn't created in a vacuum.
To that point, your analysis also seems to rely on the Bretton-Woods (free trade) system... existing forever?
To suggest that international agreements don't last forever isn't exactly crazy, especially when this one relies on America maintaining its economy and military for the next several thousand years.
I can't say exactly what will change, but this system will not last.
Maybe it is a climate crisis that makes most of the US unlivable, maybe it is an isolationist political movement, maybe it is social upheaval, maybe it is overcrowding of world powers and shrinking of the need, or even desire, for the US to guarantee everyone's security, but this cannot last.
The way I see it is this: through a metaphor-
governments can certainly work out all the little details, but the larger brushstrokes are determined by geography.
The Pentagon doesn't need to spend enormous amounts on a land led army, like Russia or India, or navy, like China. Their budget was historically put to domestic policies because they were afforded that opportunity... being surrounded by oceans. Government is the spark, but geography is the gunpowder.
1
-
@craigkdillon
Wow. Willfully ignorant.
Wheat, has been in the top 2 in the world since 2016. Raspberries, buckwheat, sunflower, currant, oats, fish, pork, poultry, the list goes on.
Since 2014, Russia's agricultural output has risen substantially.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iattacku2773
Yes, it is.
Russia followed the advice of Harvard economists working closely with the Treasury-- on a program called "shock therapy", to basically swing Russia into capitalism so quickly that the system would just fall into place. Forced liberalization.
It failed miserably, and is the direct reason we have oligarchs again today, after 70 years of (oppressive, but still) Soviet rule of the state.
This alone isn't proof enough that it's the US' fault, but other things are:
(Bush and Clinton supporting Russia's shock therapy;
Clinton helping rig the 1996 presidential election for Yeltsin, when his approval rating was lower than Stalin's;
and refusing to help develop the economy, eg the US government blocking the sale of Opel (German car company) to Russia, in 2009 when the US needed money badly.
Russia already produces tanks, and has it's own auto manufacturing capacity, the US is preventing no genies-out-of-bottles by allowing this sale. This was just pettiness).
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
-
Those membership fees you love to put in quotes so much, aren't motivated by greed, you know. Even if they do lead to "extortion" (which is more common in the private sector, by the way), taxes are a necessity of living in a country, because pay-to-play models simply aren't efficient enough for anything substantial to function.
In addition, monopolization (which just so happens to coincide with a decline in service quality) is a pervasive problem among companies. American electricity companies and lightbulb manufacturers in particular (see: Phoebus Cartel) have bad reputations.
While you can vote with your wallet with companies, it becomes useless when you need that service (hiked prices for Epipens, Martin Shkreli, government had to step in) or when no one can compete with you (Andrew Carnegie, JP Morgan). Politicians can be even more greedy and corrupt, but (reminder) they're lobbied by private interests, and at least Senators can be directly kicked out of office by their constituents.
The State is a luxury whose services you're so used to, you don't even notice or appreciate them.
1
-
1
-
Mike Bready
Yep. I have to say though, as someone who's heavily versed in American political discourse, there are some differences between the American 'right' and 'left.'
(For sake of posterity, I'm using the two best-known channels here):
-Fox News tends to be better organized as far as its segments go, but the segments themselves are packed to the brim with falsities and appeals to emotion (usually fear).
-CNN, on the other hand, still makes an attempt to report on dry, factual events (i.e. no conclusions drawn, just events listed), but their segments are filled with panels full of arguing people who spend hours talking about nothing. It's actually more annoying than Fox sometimes.
Both stink, and their grubby little fingers are starting to reach the Internet (if you haven't noticed, a lot of TV shows have cluttered YouTube's Recommended page within the last few years. I guess we'll have to find a new safe space- the irony is not lost on me- before Google buys it and turns it into one big advertisement again.)
1
-
@MCsCreations
Capitalism, as the name suggests, is an economic system in which the acquisition of capital is allowed, encouraged, and considered the 'goal' of the system. That's purely economic. Sounds to me like you're a libertarian.
They have a moral 'do whatever the fuck you want' component to them, although that idea (and sorry, but yours too) is self-defeating- if, say, my rights to swing my fist, end at the tip of someone else's nose, then the freedom isn't total and unrestricted.
If it isn't, then I don't have freedom from harm. It's really just the paradox of absolutes, and the reason why nothing like that will ever work (because of the inherent contradiction, unless you interpret 'freedom' as a specific set of freedoms, at which point you've stopped supporting the "total and unrestricted" type.) Not to mention the distinction between 'freedom from' and 'freedom to'. Very sticky issues, not solvable with a simple ideology.
1
-
@MCsCreations
I agree, and thank you for framing it that way.
That being said, I still think that the philosophical underpinnings of absolute freedom are flawed.
While punishing somebody for committing a crime (which, I remind you, is a subjective term) is considered by most people to be 'fair' and 'just,' it is still a restriction of a certain freedom, albeit an immoral one.
This is why most libertarians do, in fact, make an exception to their 'absolute freedom' rule, instead of jumping straight into anarchism: freedoms (or rather, rights) are justified so long as they are not mutually exclusive to another person holding identical rights.
In other words, police are there to punish you, dissuade you, from continuing to punch people in the face. It's been made illegal because it restricts other people's rights to freedom from (in this case) harm.
And while you can do anything you want initially, you're not free from persecution should you choose to do those- I just wanted to point out that absolutes are never a sound ideology to stand on, because they clash with the complexity of the real world.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pretzelcoatlus
Yes, you do. You're using one right now. YouTube, and its parent company Alphabet, are among the biggest violators.
You might tell me that "using it out of necessity doesn't mean I don't protest their breach of privacy!"
I would simply ask: what difference does it make to the company that you're a "silent rebel!" ? You are still giving your data away.
"Don't tell me what to do, chump"
Did you have issues with authority as a child? You are trying to talk down to a youtube reply, haha)))
"I protest what I feel like protesting"
So you protest not according to values, but convenience. You only refuse to use Tiktok, while using YouTube, Google Maps, Facebook, etc--- because it's Chinese. "American spying acceptable, non-American spying NOT!"
You need to face your own motivations. They are not as noble as you pretend to yourself.
1
-
1
-
@Pretzelcoatlus
"Rhetorical toilet paper"
No, I'm telling you to put your money, and time, where your mouth is.
You are willing to bellow about a Chinese app because you're not on it, so "protesting" it causes you no inconvenience.
You don't have to make any personal sacrifices for your principles, so they are never really tested. I don't think you would stand by them if it came down to Google or YouTube.
My point is simple: if you really, truly care about privacy, at least join an advocacy group. Or write to your local government official.
Anything, besides diverting attention away to an app that you have the least amount of power to influence.
You're just hurting your cause, and further proving you never cared enough to strengthen it, to begin with.
Oh and, ironically, neoliberals are the ones clamoring for more Chinese business, so I'm not sure which orifice you managed to pull that out of. Congrats.
1
-
@Dileon
Afghanistan- we've done enough damage, the government can't survive as a democracy in the middle of a fucking desert. The Ring Road is impossible to defend.
Iraq- original stated goal was elimination of WMD's, of which there were none. Iraqi government installed, can't establish control over its own territory.
Syria- Trump forced ground troops to abandon the Kurds. That's near the top of the list on things you don't do to military allies. We can't do much worse, and we're only stationed in eastern Syria, Trump's words, to defend oil fields (delivering it to Turkey, who has made territorial claims on Syria already. The Pentagon is clearly hoping for regime change. The CIA already proposed it years ago.)
Yemen- bombing the Houthis out isn't going to solve the problem, and the damage they will cause to Saudi Arabia, and their subsequent retaliation, will destroy the entire country, civilians included. Bring them to the table and compromise between President Hadi and former President Saleh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@viktoly2499
Lol, but you didnt refute what I said. LNG will never outcompete natural gas through pipes. That stands.
And, at the moment: since thorium plants are in their infancy, nuclear is feared, and renewables are inconsistent--- natural gas is the eco-friendliest option that Europe has to wean themselves off of coal and oil. Hungary has already taken the first step.
You may be right about what you said, but my point was that, from an environmental and cost perspective, the United States will never beat Russia in Europe.
France is the only nation even close to energy independent from Russia. Germany may be, too, but it's coming at an enormous cost to consumers.
Saudi Arabia sees the writing on the wall, and is starting to diversify its economy.
So, short of the entire EU relying on Norway, there is neither the money nor the time for Europe or the world to transition away from fossil fuels while also excluding Russia.
Sorry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@farzana6676
Yes, and does that change the fact that we won? No!
Face it. The fact that Russia can even draw out a game of attrition by receding into its territory, the fact that it has so much land to begin with, is a testament to our achievement over the centuries.
If we're so shitty, we wouldn't even have half the land we currently do.
A few things:
Lend Lease was focused on military supplies, not food.
Stalin ignored 84 separate advisors telling him the exact dye and time of Hitler's invasion— and had Russia's best officers murdered out of paranoia. Without that one man, the war would have been won much faster.
The USSR would have just continued receding into Siberia. Germany would eventually run out of supplies and freeze, and everything would have been taken back, Lend Lease or not.
The war was fought on our front. Meanwhile France opens its legs to Germany like a whore, Britain hides behind the English Channel, and America hides behind an Ocean. Without us, he would've come for you, and won.
America never had to fight on its own land. So don't complain about our tactics.
Also we still won lmao get over it and admit it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fraymond3
Issue is, most people don't have much of a choice- the 'lifestyle' comes later, but the core elements are done out of necessity.
If businesses refuse to open in high-risk areas (which just so happen to be black, courtesy of covenants and redlining) its residents have the choice of either waiting for hours on America's horrible transit system to work in a nicer area (which many do), or find local work that hasn't been out-competed by wealthier areas- drugs, sex work, drinks.
The 'echoes of racism' so often talked about are just the fact that, decades after the law itself was repealed, economic and racial distinctions still go hand-in-hand. Wealth (businesses, families) take time to build and establish, and redlining was only stopped in earnest during the '80s.
The black community was legally disallowed from accumulating wealth, so their lifestyle (coupled with the fact that businesses are still risk-averse) is a response to their economic condition. No one's taking away their agency by saying "victimhood", they just actively choose one of the few options they're given. It's either be a good citizen, or starve.
Hope that helps
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I believe what he is referring to is the the 2019 set of laws, in particular:
all workers in public sectors must first attempt to speak to clients or customers in Ukrainian. If the client then asks to switch to Russian, both parties can continue.
The second one: a 2012 law stated that any municipalities with more than 10% registered native Russian speakers, will have the option of government services (notaries, courts, and most importantly schools).
In 2018 this law was repealed, making Ukrainian the only language allowed in use for government services.
Some have also complained about the ban on books printed in Russia, but this was after February 22, so more understandable.
Lastly, a ban on Russian music unless the artist has publicly condemned the invasion. And the Security Services decide who is on the list.
I don't know how easily enforced this is, but that's generally what pro-Russian people mean when they say *the Russian language is banned! "
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LiterallyWho1917
Agreed. Russia's working with borrowed time, especially in regards to its economy. When oil prices inevitably drop due to Arctic oil drilling, the entire economy will tank. Russia had 20 years to diversify and expand into other industries, but it chose to pick the lowest hanging fruit and stay there- its massive resources.
Essentially, it's the only example of a European cash-crop nation, except instead of tea and tobacco, it exports oil and minerals. It's sad, really, to see a nation with such enormous human capital and potential for creativity (especially in science and engineering) inch closer and closer to destabilizing and starting over, for a third time. This time, with other nations making exponential, instead of linear, gains of their own. I fear for its future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@МногоХочешьНаглыйГугл
One can buy used Western cars in Russia now.
The only new cars coming in are from China, and many don't trust it, they have seen китаезу buildings. Or expensive imported models, but most people can't afford.
Lada does not even have a market share larger than Chery right now.
You cannot solve a problem if you refuse to even say that it exists. Russia's auto industry needs much more support.
Domestic chips do exist but only for military purposes. Russia has not achieved manufacture of sub-10nm chips yet. Elbrus, Baikal, Mikron, none have this capability yet.
Those are what is needed for consumer electronics. Until that is solved, the US will always use electronics sanctions to hurt ordinary Russians.
Large data servers, personal computers, electric motors, everything needs chips.
And about those countries— I am talking about perception, not reality. Russia needs to "feel" safe if it wants to attract skilled workers from any country it wants.
And Germany is still majority German. The Turks have been there since the 1950s and assimilated, the Syrians and Afghans will too.
They still don't make up more than 20%.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1