ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
There is no doubt that Iran is currently hostile to the US, but the kinds of statements issued by countries currently engaged in hostilities tend to be pretty deranged generally, so I don't know if what they're saying should be enough to take them as expressions of genuine irreconcilable hatred.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I agree that comparing the slogans to observed actions is a good way to gauge whether or not the statements carry weight. But do the observed actions of Iran indicate a burning irreconcilable hatred, or standard-issue hostility, the likes of which various states have entered into, and exited from, countless times throughout history?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
They encourage chants of "Death to America". They refer to the US as the Great Satan. When someone tells you in no uncertain terms that they are your enemy, it makes sense to believe them.
Why? It makes about as much sense to me as believing any other political slogan.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
An aversion to quagmires and wars of questionable outcome seems to make a lot of people (...) think that any American intervention is some kind of ill fated, possibly bloodthirsty action.
"An aversion to quagmires" is probably my core objection, so I was curious how you're going to address it, and I can't say you offer much of a response. To begin with, the argument is not so much "any American intervention is some kind of ill fated, possibly bloodthirsty action", and more "don't listen to literally the same people who were in charge of the previous quagmires" and "please, I am begging you, give me the barest semblance of an indication that you learned anything at all from recent history". Specifically: what do you think made the previous interventions fail, why do you think everybody arguing for them missed the factors leading to their failure, why would this intervention fare any better, and why do you think you're not missing any factors the same way interventionists missed them recently. Bonus points if you answer: what consequences will you accept if it turns out you're wrong.
Notice also that I said "interventions" in plural. Iraq was not the only example of one, and you know it. Interventionists had free rein over the region for most of my adult life, they regime-changed like half a dozen countries, and they made a mess out of everything they touched. The fact that we've spent the last decade witch-hunting literal nobodies for crimethink like "men and women are different", but these people still get to be taken seriously, is a testament to how sick our societies are.
As an aside, to illustrate where I'm coming from: In political terms I am completely disinterested in the outcomes of the world apart from America.
What are the practical consequences of this? Would you give the throne to king Zahir Shah, instead of forcing him to renounce his claim to it, if most of his country accepted his reign? Would you cut Israel loose, if it brought the rest of the Middle East into the fold?
Said regime hates the US with a burning passion
Also an aside, but I find it hard to believe. Please don't flood me with official statements of said regime, because I don't consider them particularly meaningful. I may be typical minding, but from what I can tell politics inherently demands such levels of rat-fucking, backstabbing, and shifting allegiances, that anyone who holds reins over any country, of any significant size, being able to hold to a grudge in such a principled manner would be almost admirable.
Oh yeah, I wouldn't do that on a highway. Did jumping into the conversation straight from the comment feed screw me over again?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
While I don't disagree, I'm not sure if naked reliance on anecdotes and confirmation bias is much better.
Why not? People are not that bad at coming up with heuristics that work for them. They have their limit's, of course, and offer no way of resolving disagreements, but it's really not a bad way of looking for the truth.q
At least """rationalists""" (I really can't type this with a straight face) pay lip service to Bayes, updating their opinions in the face of truth, etc.
Paying lip service to something, but not doing it is worse than just not doing it.
While they're still human, that at least forces one to think about their thinking occasionally.
Can't remember who it was, but someone wrote a book about how smart people aren't any less prone to falling for bad ideas, they're just a lot better at justifying them. This is all "thinking about your thinking" accomplishes.
It does take the majority of the drivers knowing what they're doing, the rest can be soft pressured into it, which is what happened to me the first time I participated in the maneuver. But it does fall apart without a critical mass that's on the same page.
It prevents jams, and OP's "switch lanes ASAP" idea is what causes them.
I’m guessing it’s not a coincidence that the video is from Idaho?
I've seen it done in big European cities, in moderate / moderate-high traffic. In fact, under low traffic you might as well not bother, since whole point is using the road efficiently, which is a lot less important when there's few other cars around.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
So simple i makes one wonder why they didn't, and what are the chances of them not doing it in the US.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
As soon as you see a "lane ends ahead" sign you should be trying to get over. Don't ride to the very end and then expect to squeeze in.
I pity the fool who has never experienced the sublime beauty of the zipper merge.
This is so 2010's.
Look, I used to care about these periodic flameout posts, and I used to try to come up with solutions that would make hanging out here a little more enjoyable. I never got much of a response, and when I did it was usually in the form of this womanly exasperation that I haven't yet singlehandedly solved the problem.
On top of that, I am yet to here of a single space that gives half as much of a hoot about how rightwingers are comfortable there, as this place cares for the comfort of leftwingers, so it's hard to believe there's something uniquely wrong with this place.
What's the point? A better question is, how come you expect people to drop everything, and try to find one for you?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Also very funny to see any pretense of "rationalism" or truth-seeking completely fly out the window to be replaced by personal anecdotes and confirmation bias.
Point of order: all rationalism is, is exactly that under a few layers of misdirection. Abandoning it is the good and honest thing to do.
And what is thus solution supposed to achieve? Europe has no birthright citizenship, and they still hand them out to anyone that stays long enough. End result is the same.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
She objects specifically to bullying and cruelty.
Can you give an example of either? I haven't seen anything that I would consider crossing into bullying or cruelty territory.
I don't think people should obsess over her, stalk her,
No one is stalking her, she had to google her name herself to even come across the content that upset her. Obsessing over someone probably isn't healthy, but it's not bullying or cruelty either.
regularly post vicious comments about her. Just disapprove, ignore, and get on with life.
Why? It's completely normal to comment on the public behavior of very public people, and there's nothing "viscious" about that, even if the comments are negative.
If she wants people to keep their disapproval private, she can keep her behavior private.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
...because regime change wars clearly worked out so great for us in the past...
Iran is also not at war with the US, so the US could do that too, if it wanted.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
That doesn't seem to work out very well for them, other countries suck and all of their people want to come to America
Same was true for Rome vs non-Roman Europe, but it didn't stop the empire from collapsing.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Well, I did actually get tinkering time this week, but not much to report. I did manage to chip away at the retarded performance of my db queries, but will have to continue to do so, and what's more I will also have to go through the same process for importing content.
How are things on your end, @Southkraut?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Breaking news: Trump
Why, after all these years, can't we learn a simple lesson such as: wait two weeks before even beginning to formulate a conclusion about "breaking news" related to Trump, especially if they originate on Twitter/Truth?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I actually warmed up to welfare over the years, though I strongly disagree with it's unconditional dispensation. In my ideal model any healthy male would need to enroll into boot-camp or equivalent conditions to get a pay-check. The conditions could be relaxed depending on one's health, but essentially, you'd have to break some sweat before you get anything. UBI and other unconditional schemes, or even the "pure formality" conditional ones, are the ultimate evil.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Christina Buttons? I think it's doable, but not under the "out and proud" model.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
What, specifically, is the evil being done here? Criticizing her? Not praising her loudly enough?
Factorio would still be a banger. Creeper World would probably improve significantly.
I wasn't trying to contradict any of your reasoning. That's why I said that propaganda is what you say, and then I elaborated further on what you were missing to understand my point.
Oh ok. I thought when you said "You're approaching this from an angle where propaganda is something I don't think it is" meant that you are disagreeing with me, and that your elaboration was less "oh, we disagree less than I thought" and more "here's what you missed, and these factors is what lead you astray in your reasoning".
Fixating on the idea that the 'left' can't have a Joe Rogan, Rush Limbaugh or anyone else when the only reason such people have relevance in this context is that they are not 'left' seems asinine.
I mean, it sounds like you know exactly what I'm saying, you'd just prefer to talk about something else. Which is fine, for the future you can just say something like "yes, there are limits to what they can do, but it's more than enough for them to get what they want".
Anyway, I don't think it's asinine when they're spending so much time crying about no having a Joe Rogan. If it was not important for them, they wouldn't want to have one.
I mean, how could Rush Limbaugh have been so popular whilst laughing about gay people dying from AIDS? Why can't the left have their own radio shock jock?
They're not asking for a carbon copy of Rogan, except with leftwing opinions, they're asking for someone with the same cultural relevance.
I'm pretty sure we can find many historical examples beginning / ending hostilities within the same generation.
I thought the question they were discussing was whether or not Iran has a blood feud with the US? Maybe I misunderstood something, but how would you describe the concept if not a 'burning, irreconcilable hatred'?
I mean, yes, all those things are quite typical of states currently engaged in hostilities, and yes "hostilities" implies they are currently your enemies. "Blood feud", on the other hand, would imply that the hostilities cannot be ended by means of rational persuasion, and will continue to re-flare no matter how conciliatory one of the sides is.
I'm not even necessarily denying the idea that such a blood feud exists, I just don't know if the statements from the Iranian government, no matter how deranged, are a good argument for it's existence.
More options
Context Copy link