@FlailingAce's banner p

FlailingAce


				

				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2022 September 09 19:25:25 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 1084


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
FlailingAce


								
								
									
								
								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 09 19:25:25 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1084


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Again and again you've read a headline and not managed to make it to the details.


Trump admitted to sending arms to the Iranian protestors, but those arms never made it to Iran. They were given to the Kurds to pass on, but the Kurds kept them for themselves. Trump says this in the same interview where he admits to sending the arms. He also, as should be blindingly obvious, sent them after the revolution was already underway.


It is completely unacceptable for you to keep spouting such low-effort nonsense. That's not how we do things here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That link is paywalled, but assuming it's correct, releasing frozen assets is not the same as giving them money. And giving them money in exchange for uranium is not the same as giving them money in exchange for the promise not to enrich uranium. So, not exactly JCPOA. Regardless, speculation on leaked details of the negotiation is basically just self-gratification. I'm certainly holding my judgment at least until we see terms in an official agreement.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Others have discussed your fixation on the school strike, but as far as I can tell your entire understanding of the conflict comes from propaganda headlines.




Their first plan was to overthrow the government




That was never a stated goal. You should know that.




the theory of a mass spontaneous pro American popular uprising




There was already a mass spontaneous uprising, and there still is an Iranian dissident movement. If you're actually curious there are plenty of interviews available with Iranian activists who will explain this for you.




the strategy morphed into a mass bombing campaign




No, that was the strategy from the beginning. You can't 'morph' into a bombing campaign, you need to have the bombs and their launch systems already in the region - but besides that, they started bombing on day 1, hour 1, so this is an insane claim.




a vast amount of munition was wasted




Sorry, says who? The accuracy of US munitions has been incredible, and 99% struck their intended military targets. 'Wasted' here only makes sense from a strategic perspective of 'we shouldn't be striking Iranian targets to begin with' - in other words, your reasoning is circular. The war is bad because we're wasting munitions, and the munitions are wasted because the war is bad.




This ended with the largest loss of aircraft in a single day since the Vietnam war




Another emotional headline. It's also false. The September 2012 Taliban raid on Camp Bastion destroyed nine aircraft. But you saw the headline somewhere and decided to uncritically repeat it.




US missile stockpiles being too depleted to continue




This may be an even more ridiculous claim. The number of missiles in US stockpiles is quite literally Top Secret. But I guess you've concluded from all your military expertise that the real reason for the cease-fire was that the US has no weapons left?




They are desperately seeking an off ramp and trying to get something they can show as a win.




I gave an argument against this in my initial response, and you did not address it. Instead, as I've demonstrated, you threw out a bunch of wrong-headed and often simply false claims to back up your emotional reasoning that the war is bad. Maybe you can do better with your next response?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It seems clear that MAGA is searching for an off-ramp whose taking they can sell as a win.




I'm getting tired of this whole concept. I understand that a lot of people think the Trump administration, and apparently the US military at large, are all fools who can't think more than a few days ahead. But Trump had an offramp if that's all he wanted, it was called accepting Iran's demands during the negotiations. Instead, the US held firm to their nuclear disarmament requirements. This is a clear signal to me that the administration does in fact have goals in this conflict beyond improving their poll numbers. In other words, it's pretty clear to me that MAGA is not searching for an off-ramp, and I would love hear what evidence you have for holding the opposite position.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It’s that there is a specifically autistic catharsis around someone who was perceived to be ‘getting away with it’ apparently no longer ‘getting away with it’.




No, just regular catharsis.




This is why I think autists are drawn to clear cut extreme ideologies like corporatist fascism or communism that define enemy classes and establish strong rules for the in group and out group.




Autists are drawn to extreme ideologies because they have a logical consistency that makes sense in a theoretical framework, but fails upon contact with the messiness of real life.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm confused by the quarantine idea. It seems obvious to me that the best way to grind hours of experience playing chess is by playing online, which is not gender segregated. Perhaps even more valuable is playing against an engine and doing analysis of games. Do people really think that lack of tournament play in open divisions is what's holding women back, or is this just an excuse/cover to try to get rid of the women's divisions?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


That is, in fairness, not the Catholic teaching. Sacred Tradition is held to be authoritative, but with less authority than the divinely-inspired Scripture (so if there were ever to be a conflict between the two, Scripture wins).




I think you'll find this is not the case. Catholics hold Sacred Tradition and Scripture to be equal authorities, as they are both divinely inspired. What you have described is quite literally Sola Scriptura. If Catholics believed this there would be no disagreement over this issue.




I grew up in a non-denominational Protestant church which absolutely would've rejected the idea of tradition having any sort of authority (which is the bit that makes it sacred).




The confusion here is what constitutes tradition and authority. If that church's pastor told an adherent, say, 'you can't live with your fiancée before marriage or you will have to leave this church' - that would be authoritative over the adherent, based on that pastor's interpretation of scripture, which is what 'tradition' means. But it would not be as authoritative as Scripture. If someone could demonstrate from Scripture that this tradition/teaching were false, the paster would presumably need to recant it. That's what the Reformation was all about, identifying traditions that contradicted Scripture and trying to fix them.


In other words, the paster would disagree over which traditions are authoritative, and how much authority they hold. He would agree that any traditions of men should be held up to the standard of Scripture, and if Scripture contradicts the tradition then it must be discarded. But things as simple as holding a service with worship music and Bible teaching are not in Scripture - they are traditions that do not contradict Scripture.


If on the other hand you mean that your church rejected 'Sacred Tradition' in the sense of 'the specific traditions of the Roman Catholic Church' then, uh, no duh.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'd be happy to go into more discussion on this, but just as a first point, Protestants don't reject Sacred Tradition, they simply give it a lower status than Scripture itself. This is how the Bible tells us to treat Scripture. 2 Tim 3:16 - Scripture is God-breathed, i.e. it has a unique ontological status. Or Proverbs 30:5-6 - "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar." Likewise we are given the positive example of the Bereans, who "searched Scripture to see if these things were so" in Acts 17:11 - in other words, they judged the teachings of men by testing them against the Scriptures. This should be an obvious principle.


Those who hold Sacred Tradition to be on the same level of authority as Scripture are the ones with a burden of proof. And it's quite a tough burden to reach when you actually look at the historical context of Church teachings, with such fun items as multiple co-existing Popes writing against each other, or dueling 'ecumenical' councils that came to opposite conclusions (see e.g. the Council of Hieria vs Nicea 2). Catholics also had to invent the concept of 'Development of Doctrine' to cover the fact that their Sacred Tradition has clearly and significantly changed over time.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is a pretty weak response. The Pope can't threaten to excommunicate Vance because Vance has the option to leave on his own? The whole point of the threat is that Catholics believe they will be damned to eternal hellfire if they leave the church, willingly or otherwise. You can't 'just schism' if you're a believing Catholic. Now, the threat perhaps doesn't hold weight with some Catholics because they don't actually believe in their religion (Biden being one example) but Vance doesn't seem to fit that description.


The threat of the Pope excommunicating a leader is a real and legitimate one. The stronger argument against it is simply that it hasn't been used in modern history.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Oh, I hate it. But it's the hand that's been dealt.




I'll disagree with this part. The implication seems to be that the Trump admin is uniquely bad in this way (are we forgetting Hillary Clinton's public and private positions?)


But I don't even think this is bad. Why in God's name would our politicians tell us what's actually going on in Iran, while it's happening? You know there's a war on right? One of the primary tools of both the military and the state department is deception, or at the very least strategic ambiguity. If Trump came out and told us his actual specific war aims, the biggest beneficiary would be Iran, who could adjust their own strategy to better defeat us. It's obviously in the best interest of our country to dissemble or outright lie about our goals.


I suspect the objection you would make is that 'the American people shouldn't be lied to'. Okay, why? We're a representative democracy, where we elect particular people to positions of power because we think they will be best suited to wield that power. We hold elections on a regular schedule, where we assess the individuals and their records, but during their tenure in that position (short of impeachment) they can act with impunity. This is by design!


So my question to you is: what exactly would you do differently if Trump was clear and open about his war aims? I would wager 99.9% of those complaining online a) have no potential way to influence events and b) are not really affected by these events either way, outside of gas prices. Of those who are actually involved, they almost certainly have a much clearer picture of what's going on and why. For the rest of us, this is just geopolitical theater, and we should not sacrifice strategic advantage so that you feel better about it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You are using a circular definition of 'progressive'. The things that did change are progressive by definition because they 'progressed'. The ideas that didn't take hold are not progressive because they didn't 'progress'. Using this simplified logic we can tautologically demonstrate that 'progressive' ideas will always win out, we just don't know which ideas were actually progressive until they succeed.


Is trans women in men's sports a progressive issue? Because the Olympics just rolled it back. If society reaches the concensus that this was wrong, will you still claim it as a progressive position, or just let it fade into memory, deny that it ever existed? Shrike mentions a few such issues before, but how many more are there that we don't even remember? This is the standard progressive playbook.


I do agree though that sexual deviancy has been normalized. That's why people of moral character need to stand on principle and not roll over to what's popular.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Fun video I thought. They kind of give the game away though with the message at the end: 'You will drown in our BLOOD.' Bro chill.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The US did not start this war with Iran, they have been at war with Iran for decades. Unconventional warfare is warfare. Proxy warfare is warfare. Iran has by-and-large been the aggressor in this war, but they do so in ways that are below the threshold of conventional war and usually deniable, which may be why you are confused about this. The Western mindset, for the past few decades at least, has held this idea that low-level conflict in foreign countries is just the normal state of the world, but any conventional conflict with uniformed soldiers is somehow beyond the pale. Militias can ravage a population and hold entire communities hostage, and nobody bats an eye, but a Western military uses long-range munitions on military targets and everyone loses their mind! The opposite should be the case.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Wellness Wednesday for March 18, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There's some interesting science behind the speed of your lifts - that is, the velocity of the bar on its way back up. In short, the last few reps before you reach your limit will be notably slower, with the very last being a struggle session. You don't need to reach that last blow-out set to see results, in fact I would recommend to avoid it unless you have a spotter, but you do need to reach the point where you feel yourself slowing down in order to get good results. That's also why too light of a weight, even lifted 1000 times, is just cardio.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Not just military goals, but diplomatic ones too, are closely held secrets.




Maybe you missed that part. The state department has publicly facing documents describing our goals in our relationships to different countries, but they also have secret documents for the same, because the true motivations behind many of our actions are not the same as the gloss that political actors put out in press gaggles.


Beyond that, you're asking for




the aims of the war.




In other words, what our military objectives are. This is exactly what I'm objecting to. If we said 'our aim is to take out Iran's missile program' or 'to find and destroy nuclear facilities' or 'to kill XYZ leaders' or 'to stabilize oil shipping in the Strait' etc. etc. - now the enemy knows exactly they need to focus their strategy on to stop us. Surely you can understand that?


Even beyond that, the US has communicated the causes of the war, you just apparently don't think they're being clear enough. E.g. "Which is it? Are we taking out their nuclear capability or are we helping protestors?" When in reality, there are many interlocking reasons for the conflict and many of the actors, even within the US government, have different motivations. It is an error to try to simplify and say "This is the real reason," but it does appeal to people to try to do so. That's a big part of why many people say things like, "It's all because of Israel," or "It's all because of oil," and cease thinking further. It absolves them of the difficulty of weighing multiple factors.