@FirmWeird's banner p

FirmWeird

Randomly Generated Reddit Username

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 23:38:51 UTC

				

User ID: 757

FirmWeird

Randomly Generated Reddit Username

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 23:38:51 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 757

The US spends more than ten times as much money on their military than Russia does, and everything I have heard about the US military procurement effort and pork-barrelling suggests to me that Russia would have to spend more than 100% of their entire budget on corruption in order to match up to US figures.

I don't know if it's more damaging socially, but the single biggest argument against reddit usage I can come up with these days is to just post about their moderation team. The Challenor affair was the most visible and egregious (Reddit hiring a chief moderator who did not notice their father tying up a small child in the attic and raping/abusing them for several weeks, then banning people who reported on the story with no explanation) but when you look at people like BardFinn the idea that any conversation is improved by having people like them deciding the rules of polite discourse is just too funny not to laugh at.

Young Britons have it bad? Hardly anywhere near as bad as toiling in a Chinese coal mine or electronics factory.

Have you heard of the Rotherham scandal? I'd say that being discriminated against by the government (which white working class girls are) carries significant costs and problems.

Actually the Stern Gang and Irgun were full of people who just went directly to the easy road of engaging in violence and they got their country. They were extremely productive and former members of those gangs of violent extremists were elected to high office in the country that they won. History is actually full of examples of men who went and took the road of political violence and were richly rewarded for it, so I'm afraid you might want to retract that suggestion.

I don't really think you can put the blame on declining military recruitment efforts on homosexuality. Race-based issues, COVID vaccination policies and the actual actions of the US military in combination with differing social attitudes among the population all seem like far more obvious causes for the decline than anything else, especially seeing as how we have successful historical examples of societies and militaries which didn't really care about homosexuality in the armed forces.

There was no reason for the article not to provide details about what happened during those 26 seconds so I assume they intentionally omitted it because it makes the defendant look bad.

Could you please explain why you think the media would leave out details which make the white defendant look bad as opposed to ones which make the black victim look bad? In every single instance of media reporting on similar scandals that I've seen, the errors have only ever been in one direction and I don't see anything to suggest that this case would be different.

And I'm also making a normative claim - turning to violence is not the easy option reserved for children, but a difficult and sometimes necessary path. Violence is a tool that works in some situations and doesn't in others, and trying to claim that it is the reserve of children and the incompetent is just, from my perspective, wrong. That said it took me too long to reply to this so please feel no obligation to respond.

Please don't imply I prefer a world with more fist fights, when I obviously don't.

What's so obvious about this? You're arguing for a world with less deterrence for unprovoked physical assault and starting fist-fights. You want to make this activity less risky and less dangerous, and the obvious conclusion from that is that you actually do want a world with more fist-fights. What exactly is your position if you're not arguing for a world with more fist fights and unprovoked assaults as opposed to a world with less of these but more self-defence killings? That's a position that one can agree or disagree with, but "I want to make it easier to assault people and start fist fights and reduce the negative consequences of doing so, but I don't want more fist-fights to happen" really isn't.

As I noted, companies sell intelligence tests for that very purpose. Someone must be buying them. If you have evidence that the law means something different than what it says, please provide it.

This argument also supports the contention that the entire cryptocurrency industry wasn't actually breaking the law up until the point that the SEC stepped in and started messing around - "Look, there are multiple companies selling unregistered securities and running unlicensed financial exchanges. Someone must be buying them and using them." There are absolutely companies that make a living doing things which are technically illegal in the hope that nobody notices - and given the enforcement mechanism required for this (a black person suing after not being hired for a job due to this test), you could keep going for years before hitting a case that blows up the company.

The reason that he's running now is because the GOP establishment need to provide a candidate who can sabotage Trump. From the perspective of the GOP politicians currently in power, their preferred outcome is to continue to lose forever because that allows them to never actually carry out the promises they make towards their base, which would interfere with the money they receive from wealthy donors. Desantis is running now because attacking and damaging Trump is the entire raison d'etre of his political campaign - if he was actually trying to achieve conservative policy goals and govern effectively, he'd have to recognise the obvious reality on the ground (the Trump voting base, which conservatives cannot win elections without, is loyal to Trump and not the GOP brand) and work with Trump rather than against him.

Ironic that you accuse me of missing the point when you don't seem to have understood either the original argument or my response. The standard of "legitimate business reason" is definitionally impossible for an IQ test, and an IQ test will also create the kind of disparate impact which means it needs to pass and meet that impossible standard (if it is an actual IQ test).

Whether crytpo companies got away with illegal activities until the SEC stepped in is irrelevant.

You claimed that companies sell and buy intelligence tests for "that very purpose", with the obvious implication being that this is evidence that such practices are not illegal. The reason that crypto companies violating the law in plain sight and carrying on with their illegal business for years before facing any kind of prosecution is relevant is that it is a direct rejoinder to your example.

Upvoted this in appreciation of the cleverness of the reply - I'm a big fan of dirty rhetorical tricks like that.

Without having to put their own forces on the line, and at the cost of a fairly moderate chunk of the US military budget, the US is getting to incapacitate one of their major geopolitical threats.

I keep seeing this take in a lot of social media and I really don't think that it has any relation to reality. It isn't a "fairly moderate chunk of the US military budget" but a massive economic imposition and cost upon the rest of the west. Aside from the direct costs of sending money and arms to one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, the indirect costs from rising energy prices, economic disruption, inflation, sanctions, refugees and the like have made this entire affair incredibly expensive. If the de-dollarisation that the sanctions regime has spurred continues it could ultimately prove to be one of the most expensive mistakes in US history.

Even then, the cost in materiel matters as well. Western supply chains and reserves have been tapped out to funnel that equipment to Ukraine, and those stocks have been considerably depleted (at least among EU member state militaries). While that's bad by itself, it becomes even worse when you remember who Russia's biggest ally is - China. The Chinese government is, presumably, sitting back and rubbing their hands together with glee as they watch the west burn vast amounts of military equipment on a pyre. Every bit of kit that gets blown up in the Ukraine or sold onto the black market by some unscrupulous oligarch is a piece of kit that is not going to be used in any prospective defence of Taiwan - if the US is getting a pretty great deal, you're gonna run out of superlatives when you try to describe the one China is getting.

The money we are paying now to eliminate the Russian military's reserves and ... is arguably some of the best ROI we could possibly ask for.

I do not think that the final tally has come in yet, but I absolutely do not believe that this is the case or that this juice is worth the squeeze. That said I don't think this is an argument that can actually be resolved - the facts aren't visible beyond the fog of war yet, although if you have top secret intelligence verifying the exact capabilities of the Russian military please share it with the class.

reinforce the post WWI norm of "no you can't invade your neighbor"

There has been no reinforcing of this whatsoever, nor is it a norm. The USA has been extremely aggressive militarily and launched invasions all around the world - the fact that they haven't invaded Mexico or Canada means absolutely nothing unless you think it'd be perfectly ok for Russia to launch an invasion of the UK instead because the UK isn't, strictly speaking, their neighbour.

The war was the context of the blackmail, but the capacity for the blackmail was baked into the status quo ante as a result of deliberate central and western European policy choices over the objections / concerns / warnings of US and Eastern European countries.

I don't think this even qualifies as an argument that needs refuting. This loss of energy was understood to be a consequence of military engagement and so because it was a known consequence it doesn't matter? The economic problems and energy supply issues caused by provoking hostilities with your main supplier of fossil fuels are in fact caused by provoking hostilities by your main supplier of fossil fuels!

The energy costs Europe is experience are the cost of a much delayed structural shift away from a nigh monopoly supplier to more resilient import network infrastructure. This is the epitome of a good cost, and will drastically increase European economic safety over the long term.

This isn't happening and Europe is currently undergoing serious economic problems as a result of the lack of fossil fuels. This could indeed be qualified as shift to an import network infrastructure, but the idea that this makes the continent more resilient is farcical. The huge costs associated with importing LNG from the US rather than a pipeline from Russia have no compensating factors, and will continue to act as a drag/tax on the economy as a whole due to the massively important role played by fossil fuels in modern economies. There is going to be less energy, it will be less reliably sourced and it will cost more - this will have a ripple effect through the rest of the economy, and again, I do not think that this is a cost worth paying for the goal of making sure that Kiev can continue to shower the breakaway regions with artillery fire.

That said, the flagrant violation of the sanctions has also contributed - Europe is still using Russian fossil fuels, they're just paying India a premium to do so, and the US doesn't have the stones/capability to sanction India and China. Actually going through with the economic threats and sanctions in a real and serious way, as opposed to paying them lip-service and paying someone else so you can ignore them, would impose such a disastrous political cost that the leaders who did so would be removed from power in short order.

Laconic 'If' applies. De-dollarization has been a thing for literal decades, and continues to be a thing, and will continue to be a thing.

Recent events and sanctions have given that process rocket-skates and supercharged it. De-dollarization is proceeding far more quickly than it was before the war, and the sanctions regime that was imposed upon Russia has contributed to that. You're right when you talk about the problems associated with not using the current global reserve currency, but the problems associated with staying on the dollar are starting to match or even exceed them.

Again, this is a good cost to pay if you are any sort of advocate for a strategically resilient and autonomous Europe, as the cost was going to come regardless.

I agree that European militaries were largely jokes, but the supply chain and logistical issues that this affair has exposed are not minor and will take considerable time and investment to fix. Ammunition factories can't be built overnight. Of course, if you're an advocate for a strategically resilient and autonomous Europe you'd have to advocate for getting them out from under the thumb of the USA so this entire affair is meaningless anyway.

The Taiwan conflict isn't about ground-force kit, it's about naval assets. Which, notably, have not been sent to Ukraine.

I'm taking the Rand corporation's word for it - they're as fanatically pro US empire as it is possible to be, and even they are saying that the engagement in Ukraine is tying up resources which could be used in the conflict with China, which is far more important (source: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html ). Most serious pieces I have seen discussing this topic claim that the conflict is drawing away resources which could be used in China.

Moreover, the idea that this materiel is irrelevant because Taiwan will get blockaded is also meaningless, given that hostilities haven't actually started yet and that equipment could be sent there before they do anyway. Anti-air defences and artillery are absolutely the sort of military equipment that could be useful, and those have definitely been showing up in Ukraine.

The Ukrainian crisis demonstrated that several of the assumptions that might have supported a Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan in the near term were extremely suspect.

I think you're wrong but I don't think that there can be an actual resolution of this with words - so instead I'm going to offer a bet. My position is that Russia is absolutely capable as an ally, that western nations are not willing to shoulder the burdens required to prevent the rise of a multipolar world and the US is in fact incapable of achieving their goals. The US failed in Iraq, is failing in Syria, failed in Afghanistan and failed in Vietnam. The recent history of the US empire's military adventurism has been a long litany of defeats, and I see no reason for that to change. If you disagree, I'll give you a chance to put some money on the table - I'm willing to throw 200 USD in monero into escrow for a bet that Ukraine will not retake Crimea and the breakaway republics by the time hostilities cease.

This is the Kevin MacDonald line: that there is something inherent about the Jews that leads them to "undermine" Western society.

Is it? I was under the impression that Kevin's arguments were far more specific and detailed than that, and I haven't seen a single thing in this article that would actually even reach the level of engaging with his arguments let alone opposing them. I can't blame you for not reading them given their reputation, but this only serves to rebut a strawman of his position. I am no fan of reading lengthy neonazi screeds written by unhinged morons myself, but Kevin MacDonald's work is not that and requires more effort if you want to actually rebut it.

I highly doubt that's your actual problem with what's happening - would you be perfectly ok with the invasion if Russia simply did to Ukraine exactly what the US did to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Being a result of energy blackmail as opposed to war is a meaningful distinction because the energy cutoffs could occur in non-war contexts as well

What?

I legitimately do not understand your position here. If I go to a restaurant that I've been a regular at and decide to chuck a huge tantrum and break some plates and then get banned from returning or doing business with said restaurant, the fact that they could have banned me from entering at any point prior to that does not mean that being banned as a result of my actions is no longer a result of my actions. What, precisely, is the distinction you're making here? How is it relevant to a given incident, at all, that a business could choose to stop selling to me for breaking their rules beforehand? All I can see is playing games with words to disguise the fact that disruptions in energy supplies are a direct result of sponsoring the war.

You can't have it both ways: either the Europeans lack fossile fuels, or the Europeans are still using Russian fossile fuels.

The Europeans lack the ready access to fossil fuels they had previously - but they are still using Russian fossil fuels anyway by paying middlemen like India, and this is having a noticeable impact on their economies.

You continue to misunderstand the design purpose of the sanctions, and chest-thumping bravado is not a superior alternative

The purpose of the sanctions was to reduce Russia's ability to wage war by targeting their economy, and to put pressure on the population in order to achieve a political goal (leadership change/stopping the war). These efforts have failed - the war is still happening and the Russian economy has not been destroyed.

Until they do, 'de-dollarization is proceeding far more quickly than it was before' is synonymous with 'the Russians are sanctioned from the dollar, and are trying to make a virtue of a weakness they've been lobbying to have reversed.'

Incorrect - China has been aggressively pursuing de-dollarisation and so has India. They're experiencing difficulties doing so, of course, because financial systems and currencies have a lot of inertia and moving parts. The Global Times, which is essentially a mouthpiece for the Chinese government, has explicitly stated that the weaponisation of the dollar is driving other countries away from it (though they also correctly note that this process takes time and a lot of nations have complicated linkages to the USD which will take time to unwind) - https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202304/1289549.shtml

The US dollar does not only serve as public good to the international community, it has also been used by the US as a strategic tool, and has become a pillar of US hegemony alongside military power. The US government has also increasingly weaponized it. De-dollarization is of course crucial and is the general trend, but the "de-weaponization of the dollar" is even more urgent.

This may be a retreat to a bailey, but it's still a bailey to the original claim of which types of resources matter between conflicts.

Ok, whatever - a distinction without a difference. I freely admit that a substantial portion of the resources spent on the Ukraine conflict could not be used in any prospective Taiwan conflict. This does not damage my point in any real way - the military equipment is one factor, and the drain on attention, time and decision-making are all relevant as well. Though that said, I will admit that I may have been unclear earlier when I said "at least among EU militaries". I did not exclusively mean EU militaries when talking about the reduction in western capability, and was including the US in that category.

But they wouldn't send significant amounts in advance, for the same reason they didn't go to Ukraine in advance

Huh? They did send significant amounts of aid to Ukraine in advance. I'd argue that "the defence minister mentions the event to the press" to meet the threshold of significant - (and no, I am not talking about the exercise that is the main thrust of the article, but the following quote) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29204505

Russia denies sending troops to aid the rebels, as alleged by Ukraine and Nato.

Over the weekend, Ukrainian Defence Minister Valery Heletey said Nato countries had begun arming his nation in the fight against the rebels.

He did not specify the type of weapons being delivered or name the countries involved.

And inserting some text here just to clearly mark the difference between a BBC quote and your post...

Setting aside that it's a poorly structured list in measurable and general claims, I don't bet in general.

The actual bet is very straightforward and specific - will the Ukraine regain control over Crimea and the breakaway republics when hostilities end? Though that said, given that you're not willing, I'm leaving the bet open for any takers, mainly because I don't think even the people arguing that the Ukraine will win this conflict take that belief seriously enough to put money on it (and I'd love to get some free, easy money from anyone who does).

You don't win wars by being afraid of seriously hurting your enemy, you do so by shattering their will or ability to fight. Putin has made it clear that the roads to those objectives are paved with dead russian soldiers and destroyed russian weapons.

I think you're underselling it - the Russian position has been, since before the conflict even started, that they view western missile interdiction systems being placed in Ukraine as an existential threat (as they believe it would give the US government the false impression that they could initiate a nuclear exchange without reprisal). There aren't just dead russian soldiers and destroyed russian weapons on those roads - there are plenty of mushroom clouds as well.

Putin isn't afraid of losing this war by having Ukrainian tanks rolling into Moscow, he's afraid of being hung from a lamppost by his own people.

I don't think that Putin is scared of the domestic consequences - his approval rating has gone up since the conflict started. Hell, he's actually doing substantially better in terms of approval rating than Biden is. I find it rather amusing that your framing of this paints a picture of Putin's government being substantially more beholden to and dependent upon public opinion than the USA, but at the same time I don't think that's actually true. I think a far more likely motivation for Putin holding forces back in reserve is to prepare for a potential NATO escalation that involves US troops being deployed in force, and this matches up to both the statements of the Russian government and the current situation on the ground.

It's not that somehow Mike just is a man, its mostly that people don't care because his identity doesn't revolve around forcing other people to acknowledge and validate his fetish.

I think another factor that plays into this is that physical instrumentality is an extremely important element/contributing factor towards positioning in male status hierarchies. Trans men, by virtue of the same physiological differences that leave trans women demolishing their cis competitors, almost universally end up on the bottom of these hierarchies as a result. And what happens to men on the bottom of those hierarchies? They largely become invisible. Nobody pays attention to the modal trans man because as a man he is a loser in so many different categories, and people largely don't pay attention to male losers(and get annoyed when they have to), nor do they offer them much sympathy.

If you doubt this, go and talk to any of the non-progressive immigrants you are talking about and call them that, see what happens.

Not who you're responding to and from a different country, but I've actually done this and a lot of them responded with satisfied pride. Maybe you don't think that there's anything worthwhile about being a barbarian, but a lot of men actually really like the connotations of being a powerful warrior unbound to a sinking, decadent society. Conan the Barbarian is a famous character from literature and a lot of men viewed him as a kind of role-model. Hell, I know people who actively try to claim the barbarian label for themselves because of how much they esteem it!

This is something that frustrates me to no end about this conversation. The moment you pay the slightest bit of attention to the corrupt origination of Crossfire Hurricane it becomes immediately obvious that all the horseshit about this not being a political operation is exactly that - horseshit. The FBI knew that the Russian allegations were bogus, shopped the story around to the media, then used those own media reports as justification. I don't think even the most disingenuous of commenters could make the sequence of events outlined in those reports look good, and the only way they can even try in comment threads like this is to just ignore huge elements of what happened (like the FBI knowing in advance that there's actually no Trump/Russia collusion at all).

But starting the investigation isn't out of the question, and people who are super outraged about the start of things ignore that politically, it seems to have helped him, if anything. So I fail to see the cause for outrage.

Except the problem here isn't just that they started the investigation - they helped create the circumstances which justified the investigation and knowingly lied in order to justify the surveillance which was performed. They knew that the contents of the Steele Dossier were unreliable, and they then went and leaked information to the media, in order to create media attention which was then used to back up the need for the investigation. That's the reason why there's so much outrage - not that they dared to investigate Trump at all, but that they did so under false pretences, knowingly, and then shared the information they gained with his political opponent in an important election.

Then wouldn't it be wise for Trump to take steps to avoid being investigated?

Trump is being investigated because of the same political positions that allowed him to gain power. The steps he'd have to take to stop being investigated would mean completely reworking all of his policy positions to be the same as the Bush/Obama consensus - more support for forever wars, infinite immigration, corporate welfare, etc. The moment he does that he'll lose all of his political power, because those positions were what earned him his initial support.

Actually you don't even need to be smart - you can not just do crimes but record yourself doing them (even a few extra photos of you smoking crack for fun), write lengthy messages about them and even have your partners in crime record lengthy messages detailing the crimes you're committing, including the fig leaves you're using to disguise them. You can leave all this incriminating evidence in the hands of random civilians and not give a shit, either, as long as you're on the right side of politics (the establishment side that is, not left vs right).