JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
6mo ago
because you can't pay for iCloud in Russia
Here's the source of the problem. If you live in an anti-civilization country, don't be surprised some Western civilization things are not working for you. It may be not your personal fault and you may not have another choice, but that's the problem and everything else is downstream from it. Apple and Meta products aren't built to cater for users that live in anti-civilization countries and never will be, and it's not reasonable to expect them to. Your choice is using R-Fon and Vkontakte or suffer what you must.
JarJarJedi
2yr ago
pregnant people, but not women.
Doubleplusgood duckspeak! I do bellyfeel.
JarJarJedi
2yr ago
Right, The Joos scared Americans with their absolute Depotism into complete inability of even thinking about criticizing them and Israel (of course outside every university campus, the Congress and every leftist newspaper and thousands of leftists blogs and the BDS movement - the only tolerated political movement in the US literally openly dedicated to destruction of UN member state and inevitable genocide that will ensue - but let's not count all that), and yet on any right gathering there's a bunch of people that attribute literally anything bad that happens to "the Joos" and pop constantly into any topic reminding us that "the Joos" invented everything bad, from cancel culture to vaccine mandates, and from gender transition to income taxes, and they control everything too. Somehow the absolute Despotism doesn't work on those people. Must be those tin foil hats, I knew they do something.
JarJarJedi
6mo ago
Please explain which word in the description "Hamas operatives" that I used is giving you the trouble?
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
The reason why Democratic views used to be more pro-Israel, is because the Israeli population used to reflect a more liberal view of the conflict, and now it really doesn't
Erm, what? What timeframe are you talking about? Israel has been moving towards more conciliatory and liberal view of the conflict for decades now. It evacuated Gaza in 2005 (forcibly uprooting many Jewish communities) and tolerates Hamas shelling the southern cities for 18 years since, with only sporadic limited response carefully calculated to punish Hamas, but not endanger their rule. One of the main reason of the current catastrophe is that Israel got so immersed in the liberal concept of "peace is inevitable, Hamas is just representing the last throes of retrogrades that can not tolerate the inevitable coming of peace, but they are weak and dying off" - that's why such thing as "peace festival" on the border with Gaza with virtually no protection beyond token security guards meant to handle people who got over their norm of mind-altering substances - became possible. That's why most of the smaller towns and villages had no armed guards and had weapons locked up - something one couldn't imagine in the vicinity of Gaza some years ago, before "peace process". Israel has been moving to the liberal side since early 90s, at least, and the more they moved there, the more the Left hated them. It's just American Jews and Israeli Left made titanic effort not to notice it, but now it became a bit hard not to notice.
we believe even terrible have the right to vote, and self-government
Do you really? The left never seems to have any problem with leftist dictatorships (too long to list here). Sure, they may recognize Kim is taking it too far, and maybe Pol Pot made a goofie or two, but otherwise dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't seem to represent any serious problem. If there are some staged "elections" where the ruling junta always wins, then everything is completely perfect. The treatment of the Islamic dictatorships seems to be very situational - while some Islamic dictatorship get some critique, most of them are silently ignored (especially the rich ones donating amply to Left's Places of Power) and surely absolutely none of them gets as much hate as Israel does.
Now, if said Palestinian government passes anti-LGBT laws or whatever
If??? If??? Are we talking about real Palestinians under Hamas (or Fatah) rule or some Celestial Palestinians existing only in Harvard classrooms? Of course, since most Palestinians that are discernibly gay are either dead or fled to Israel years ago, this is more of a theoretical question. Hamas does not "pass laws" - it just throws you off a building.
then we'll treat them like we do other countries with no leverage on us - sanctions and such until they embrace the loving arms of deviancy, or whatever
Not only this is a lie, you know this is a lie. Many Muslim countries have such laws, and there are no sanctions.
In the long run, if this is all old news by Election Day 2024, it'll likely be forgotten
I'm not sure how it matters if it isn't. I see no group on the Left that even theoretically could switch their vote or stay home (in significant numbers) except one - American Jews. For some of them, it has been really shocking how much their parteigenossen hate them. But, unfortunately, I do not see any way that would move them to vote for Trump. It's just not something decent people do. Maybe some of them will stay home, but given that most of them live in deep blue areas anyway, it won't change anything. So, some Democrat will be elected with 70% of votes instead of the usual 89% - who cares. So, my prediction - absolutely nothing will change in 2024.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
...I'm not sure where to even begin with this statement. I cannot form a sensible model of a thought-process that would have this statement as its output. Could you elaborate?
Elaborate what? You pre-declare that US intervention must be a failure and the only question is when we recognize that failure. In that model, of course it'd be a failure. I just don't accept that model as something having to do with the reality.
Do you agree that the american occupation of Afghanistan was a failure?
Irrelevant for the question being discussed.
That if we had only pushed harder, been willing to commit more, worthwhile outcomes could have been secured?
No, I think if they pushed smarter, and been willing to do different things, then yes, they could be. It's not a direct function of dollars spent or boots standing on the ground. At least not that alone. But again, this is irrelevant for the question discussed.
That is a pretty wild response to someone pointing to three decades of extremely ruinous policy failure.
Again, policy failures in Afghanistan are not relevant here, as we're not talking about Afghanistan.
If no one knows anything,
I didn't say "no one knows anything", I said exact picture years ahead is not possible to predict right now. That's not the same thing at all. If you demand "before we do anything, tell me and guarantee me you can exactly predict what would happen in a multi-factor hyper-complex event 10 years ahead" - then of course you won't be able to do a single thing. That's not how things are done. You have a general goal, and general means of achieving it - in this case, trim Russia's ambition of territorial conquest in Europe, and giving Ukrainians the weapons - and then you adapt your tactics depending on the circumstances arriving.
you criticizing the people who don't want to spend a lot of money and resources escalating this war
The war is already "escalated". That choice is past us. The question is - does the "collective security" arrangement in Europe survive, or do we go back to "every little country for themselves" and the inevitable endless bloodbath that follows that. There's still a chance to preserve that order, but it is going away fast. And more we talk about "when we already recognize we lost everything and should give up?" the sooner we lose everything, including all this nice cushy civilization we enjoy so much. It's much more fragile than commonly thought.
Is politics literally nothing more to you than good fucking vibes?
I can't even begin to understand what you mean here, but let me assure you in one thing. Contrary to the belief popular on many college campuses, adding swearing to your argument does not make it more convincing, it just makes you look more unhinged.
Prove it. Support that statement. Why is it better? On the basis of what data? What leads you to this conclusion?
Observation of the existing facts. When somebody literally proposes as a solution for the war the situation from which the war started, I conclude he's either ignoramus or is lying to my eyes. When somebody proposes a bunch of non-sequiturs as a supposedly logical argument to a goal - I assume he is either bad at logic or is lying. Carlson has been proposing wildly illogical concept of if we let Russia consume Ukraine, Putin somehow would be friendly to the US (this is laughable to anyone who listened for the last 5 years of Russian propaganda, which has been full of mouth-foaming anti-Western paranoia, and their whole geopolitical concept is rooted at opposition to the West, which is weak and decadent and soul-less) and somehow commit himself to fighting China (despite Russia having zero motive for that and tons of motives to the contrary) - and doesn't even bother to support his fantasies with anything but other wild stories (like the stupid biolab shit). That makes about as much sense as saying if only we helped Hitler to introduce common sense banking regulations, he'd be off the whole Jews thing - about that level of silliness. Vivek is simpler, he's just playing ignorant. He's proposing a solution which he must know - since he is not actually dumb - is not solving anything because that's where the war started. But it sounds nice to people who are ignorant in the matter, and makes him sound like he has solutions for everything to people that want somebody to have solutions. And also to the people who think "fuck Ukraine, better give that money to me!" but are ashamed to say it aloud, so they are looking for someone to say the same but in a smart way, so it doesn't sound asshole-ish but geopolitically smart. That's all his play, the whole con. Fortunately, he's also irrelevant since there's no chance he'd be anywhere near any real power anytime soon.
They do, though, from the West.
Correct, but that will be drying up as soon as we achieve "agreement". The war is over, why waste money anymore?
Figures from around June place total US military aid alone at around $50 billion since the start of the war
The correct figure of the aid actually delivered (not promised, not allocated, not potentially available if the President wants to, but actually sent) is a little below $20 billion. The economic assistance about the same. The total figure (military and economic aid) is about $38 billion. To compare, US spent in Afghanistan about $110bn (only military expenses, not counting humanitarian/economic aid) Source: https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/factcheck-washington-post-false-claims-about-size-of-us-aid-to-ukraine/
These figures, however, are hot-war figures. Once the shooting stops, sustaining this level of investment will be politically impossible. That's my whole point - the situation now is radically different from the one that would be when the "peace" is achieved.
in the ballpark of Germany's annual military budget
Germany is not really a good benchmark, even they agree now their military is hilariously underfunded and is not capable of any serious task. They were mostly relying on US coming in if any shit is going to go down, and that's why Trump was screaming at them to shape up (to which they reacted with derisive laughter).
and yesterday they successfully struck an airport in Pskov
Ukrainians are pretty good at pulling of spectacular one-off strikes where Russians don't expect them. It's a great thing, awesome for morale, and keeps Russians on their toes. But it doesn't win a war. It doesn't even win a battle. While Ukrainians successfully neutralized the threat of naval invasion on the south, the sea blockade and the constant bombardment from sea-based missile carriers still continues, and Ukrainians can do nothing about it. If Russia is allowed to upgrade their Black Sea fleet (which is largely blocked by Turkey not letting them pass into the Black Sea in war time), the threat of the invasion from the sea will be restored, and given time, the Russians will find a solution for Ukrainian sea drones too. Again, the current situation will change once the sanctions and the wartime impediments will be removed. And the sporadic harassment of Russian airports, while great at embarrassing them, does little to decrease their strike capability, which they regularly exercise against Ukrainian (mostly civilian) targets, and which are limited only by available rockets/drones - again, this capacity will be hugely increased once the sanctions are off.
Now most Western newspapers are freely carrying reports that it seems to have been the Ukrainians.
I can write a report claiming it was Martians. The factual basis would be about as strong. By the grace of Almighty, we still manage to maintain some freedom of speech in the West, but that also means anybody can "freely" publish anything in the papers. If we talk about Pravda, if something is printed there, you can be sure even if it's a lie, it's an officially approved and vetted lie. In the Western newspapers, it only means somebody thought it will bring clicks. And so it would.
Do you see any sign that Western support is in jeopardy because of it?
Do I need to explain the difference between a strike at enemy's vital economic asset at wartime and initiating warfare after a ceasefire agreement, in peacetime?
Ukraine can do whatever it wants
Not if we achieve "peace in our time". In the middle of the war, it's one thing, peacetime is quite another.
such as when they firebombed a university in Donetsk
Spare me the histrionics. Donetsk is a war zone city, and that building is no different from any other building, thousands of which were destroyed (by both sides, but mostly by Russians). The fact that an organization calling itself "university" (no idea what kind of education it can do in the middle of the war zone, probably none) owns the building means absolutely nothing. And if your best complaint about Ukrainian atrocities is that they set on fire a roof on a building that required three (!!!) ladders to extinguish, no damage, no casualties, then I say Ukraine is doing an unexplainably bad job at striking back, they should have much more impact on Russians than that.
"well, they are being invaded by an overwhelming power that does not adhere to any principles after all" (as with the pipeline now).
Again, strike at enemy's economic capacity is a long-existing principle of war, and Russia did that - and much more, as they had striken at purely civilian infrastructure like electrical grid in the middle of the winter, clearly to maximize impact on civilian population, not just blew up a pipeline in the middle of the ocean. Trying to present this clearly legitimate act - which, I emphasize again, not proven at all, but legitimate even if we assume for a second it was Ukrainians - as some kind of outrageous atrocity only emphasizes the dearth of any other examples. If you had anything else but the pipeline and a wooden roof on fire, you'd mention it - but you mention these ones, so I assume that's the best you have. And man, is it weak sauce.
Claims to the contrary, that there is any threat to Western support from actions that Ukraine takes against Russia, should be furnished with evidence.
You can evidence it amply from the speeches of red tribe politicians. Carlson is now in all out PR war against Ukraine. He was also the one who tried to force (and still is trying) the idiotic biolab conspiracy. There are many others that are on the crusade against Ukraine on the red side. On the blue side, it's all pro-Ukraine now, but it will change in a moment once they'd have "peace in our time" signed.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
What is your evidence that Vladimir Putin is a genocidal maniac?
Him directly causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people may give a hint. His propaganda claiming Ukraine is a "fake" nation and truly belongs to Russia may give another. But for some Putinverstehers nothing would be enough - they have Russian propaganda bookmarked to justify anything.
JarJarJedi
18d ago
Thank you for this thoughtful and well argued observation.
JarJarJedi
6mo ago
using them apparently interchangeably with "anti/pro American strategic interests"
That's nonsense. Having war in the middle of Europe is not German or Polish or British or Spanish or Greek or any other European interest. Russian imperial plans is not "American" problem, it's the problem for everybody who is part of what we call "Western civilization".
That's not the same thing really as being 'pro Western civilisation'.
True. They are allies. That was my point.
Putin actually leans into a lot of Christian elements
Of course, Russia's ideology has always been that they are the "true" Christians and all the non-eastern-orthodox Christians are heretics, and thus taking over Byzantine inheritance and serving as sole protector of the Christian faith is the Russian destiny, thus it's called the "third Rome". Putin invented nothing here, he just reheated the policies of Russian Empire. Of course, this implies inherent conflict with the West, who also considers itself the continuation of Greko-Roman civilization - they are the fakes, and Russia is the true heir, so until they recognize this fact, there can be no peace (though there could be some temporary tactic armistices and alliances, of course).
"Russia is the enemy of American-led global supremacy"
Again, nonsense. Russia is the enemy of the EU as much - likely more - as America. Of course, if you want to go back to the Holy Roman Empire, maybe Russia isn't the enemy of that, but it's the enemy of everything the Western civilization is now, and not just tactically, but strategically - at least until it abandons the "third Rome" ideology, which definitely won't happen while Putin is alive.
I personally believe they assisted or overlooked Ukraine in destroying the Nord stream pipelines and therefore participated directly in crippling "western civilisation" for the foreseeable future.
You can believe whatever you like, but some German politicos being bought by Putin is not really a sign that Europe wants to submit to the glorious Russian empire. Some politicians, sure, would like a share of Gazprom billions, no doubt about it. But those politicians don't represent much beyond their own greed.
JarJarJedi
9mo ago
Blacks will never accept being an underclass any more than whites would,
True, and that's why the only solution is to abandon the framework where the measure of equality is the equality of statistical outcomes between races (or any other large population-wide categories, for that matter). This framework is not something that is inevitable and it's not something that is necessary. I don't care how many people who have the same eye color as me and the same nose length as me are rich and how many are poor. I care if I'm rich or poor, I care about whether my family and my friends are rich or poor. I care about whether I could be prevented from being richer or made poorer by unjust means. But wide-area statistical frameworks are meaningless to me - unless they are made meaningful by adopting them as political and cultural framework that is dominant in the society. There's no inherent reason why US should have adopted the racial framework. To be an "underclass" you should first be a "class", and "classes" are entirely arbitrary. Stop obsessing about them and the problem will be gone.
give blacks an area that they control completely
Who are "they"? Any man that can prove a drop of African blood? That's much more people than you think. What happens to other people living there, if they don't want to live in the racist paradise? What does it mean "control completely" - does it secede from the US? What happens to people that want to keep living in the US and keep being US citizens and keep having US laws? I don't see why for example a black professor at local university would suddenly want to subject himself to a regime that may not be able to sustain any universities at all. Doesn't he have any rights?
Grant this area leave to write its own laws as it sees fit
Areas can't write laws. People write laws. Who will be choosing these people? Will it be mass combat or lottery or how are you planning to choose those people? What if there would be 10 groups of people writing ten competing sets of laws - which group is the real one that gets the full control? How this control would be enforced - will US army and police participate if armed conflict happens? Will it blockade the area if there would be threat of violence spreading out? What about if they decide to build a giant meth factory and ship it to the US? Or even much worse, a giant generic drugs factory, without respecting any US drug patents? Will there be a complete trade embargo?
Then declare that outside this zone, racism has been solved. Blacks get the exact same legal status as everyone else
They already have this status, why we need the racist paradise to achieve what we already have?
No AA, no hate crime laws, no special privileges, we implement pure colorblind enforcement of the letter of the law.
Again, we can do it right now - why we need the racist paradise? What if the blacks don't want to live in the racist paradise, but want to keep living in New York and California, only better than they live now? I'm not sure what exactly having the racist paradise zone achieves. If you have a mechanism that can stop the racial grievances, I don't see why you can't use it without that, and if you don't have that mechanism, what did you achieve then?
I think he's right that the colorblind 90s aren't coming back
The past is never coming back, but we're coming into the future, and it can be made better than the present, if there's a will.
JarJarJedi
9mo ago
I'd assume the ones in Britain are predominantly relatively recent arrivals, so they still communicate in their native tongues.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
In Israel there's no "refugee camps" as far as I know. They are either on "territories" - which are under military administration, and yes, military administration can - and does - set up checkpoints, as needed for security, but they are not exclusive to the places called "refugee camps"; or they are in "Palestinian Authority" territory - inside which they are in security control. When entering Israel-controlled territory, again, from PA-controlled territory, there would be security checks - as there would be when crossing any border between areas where people don't exactly trust each other. But this has nothing to do with "refugees". I don't think PA limits movement inside their zone of control - I may be wrong here, not too up to date on the details of their security. Israel does limit entrance for non-citizens - but that applies for every non-citizen, nothing special for "refugees" here, every country I know would somehow regulate entry of non-citizens.
people who lost their homes.
That's the point. None of them lost their homes. None of their parents lost their homes. Maybe their grandparents abandoned their homes 75 years ago - but how many generations should be enough to start getting some other homes finally? By pretending there are some mythical "homes", which current occupants of these places "lost" - despite none of them every living there and most of those not existing already, and those that exist having no chances to be given to them after 75 years - they are only perpetuating the situation where living a normal life is so much harder. I don't think it is reasonable - and probably hasn't been reasonable for half a century now.
JarJarJedi
2yr ago
Because an army of mindless psychopathic murderers is a bad way to conduct wars. And releasing them into society when they're done service would be even worse.
JarJarJedi
2yr ago
Marines are trained to kill though
Yes, that's one of the things they are trained to do. But I really hope that's not the only thing they are trained to do. Knowing when it is appropriate and not appropriate to kill should have been part of it too.
but in a way that maximizes your safety and doesn't really take into account that you'll be fighting some drug ridden mentally ill lowlife but an actual enemy combattant.
How does it make any difference? I'm sure if you choke an enemy combatant for 15 minutes he'd die just as well as a mentally ill lowlife. Anybody would. That's what I don't understand - he knew what would happen and he must have had other options. Why did he choose this one?
JarJarJedi
2yr ago
Race is a stronger predictor of crime than poverty in the majority of the literature that looks at this.
That very well may be - but I don't need a predictor if I can get the actual thing measured!
I didn't say you needed it. I said that it was valid.
Possible, but why invent such proxy if there's no need in it?
You are making inferences about reality based on metrics and proxies.
Well, yes, but there are more direct metrics for the quality of schools, why anybody would be interested in metrics that are secondary or tertiary?
The correlations between black and every single relevant metric are higher than practically anything else.
Ok, there's a correlation. But so what? There are a lot of correlations: https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations Given that I have access to direct metrics, how this correlation is more useful to me than correlation between butter production in Bangladesh and marriage rate in Kentucky?
JarJarJedi
2yr ago
You made a baseless assumption "what if everything you know as reality is wrong", without producing any argument as to why, and when I refused to accept it, you try to mock me as if I represented myself as Truthbearer. I am not bearer of anything, I have eyes and ears to witness the reality, and that's enough. If you want to challenge that, you are welcome, but you need something more than bare assumption of "what if everything you know is wrong". That's not "disagreement", not in any useful sense, it's just baselessly refusing to agree for the sake of contradicting. To have disagreement, you need to have some contrary argument or evidence, not just bare declaration of "nonsense".
Unfortunately, looks like you don't have any more. I agree, this position can not be enjoyable for you. Good luck next time.
JarJarJedi
2yr ago
So Putin just says that instead his shtick about Nazis.
What exactly is "that"? If Putin said "we must spend 200 thousand lives to invade Ukraine because having a democratic state next to us makes me look bad" - then I'm not sure the society would collapse, but pretty sure the war effort would. The society there has more than one lie, so removing just one is not really enough.
What if the now truth-telling western elites let it slip that what you're saying is nonsense?
What if the Sun were made of Gauda cheese, the quarks are unicorn farts, and the Earth is a giant corn tortilla glued to the back of an enormous turtle? I have no idea. It's a counter-factual hypothetical for which I have no answer and in which I have no interest. In reality, this happened: https://youtube.com/watch?v=N0IWe11RWOM This is not some random talking head. This is the guy who was US President for 8 years, and called "Lightbringer", "Miracle Worker" and "kind of god" by the same elites.
JarJarJedi
2yr ago
demand that Palestinians be given full citizenship and equal rights within the existing state of Israel
And by Palestinians they mean anybody who wants to claim part of Israel, which would lead to immediate destruction of Israel because 9 million country can not exist after granting citizenship and full rights to the same amount of hostile foreigners. Imagine US importing, say, 300 million Chinese at once and granting them full citizen rights. Only no, it's not the same - Chinese people don't really hate Americans that much and didn't spend the last 80 years trying to kill as many of them as possible. Maybe, say, US in 1943 asked to import 130 million Germans. Surely not all of them are Nazis, so it'd be OK, right?
If you want to argue this just the first step on the slippery slope that inevitably leads to genocide
I not only want to argue that - I want to argue that they know it, and that's exactly what they want.
you're just being treated exactly like everyone else.
Name any other country that is considered illegitimate until it accepts a hostile population equal to its own. In fact, name any other country that is not considered having sole discretion at whom to grant and withhold citizenship. Does Japan control who gets Japanese citizenship? Does Switzerland decide who gets to be Swiss citizen? Does Israel have the right to decide who gets to be citizen of Israel - without external interference? Oh no, no they don't. At least as far as BDS is concerned.
So wait, this is a couple of random professors, an ex-Russian journalist, a writer and one Ukrainian politician, so popular she didn't even bother to participate in the last elections, chatted about how "colonialist" Russia is - and you describe it as "planning how they're going to partition Russia"? You can't be serious.
I mean, if one can harness woke terminology to put some heat on Russia, that would be the first and only time where wokeness might come to some use, but there's absolutely zero chance anybody outside the room it happened in and any time after June 23, cared about what happened there or it had any effect on the surrounding world. You can not seriously believe this is how "planning to partition Russia" looks like. This is how "waste of taxpayer money" looks like. I hope they all had good time, at least.
I'm not saying they're right, but they're basically using the same logic.
So you are saying people can lie using the same words and same patterns as people telling the truth? Like, I could say "X is true" and be correct, and something could say "Y is true" - and be completely false? How could that be! You blown my mind!
Really, I think "people can lie by saying something is true while it's not" is not an argument against something else being true. Yes, they can. They are liars. So what?
JarJarJedi
2yr ago
The issue here is not sanctions per se. Imprisonment is a legitimate law enforcement tool too, but if you advocate for Jews to be put in camps, you made several wrong turns on the way. BDS advocates for destruction of Israel (which inevitably would lead to genocide) and that's their goal. B, D and S are tools to achieve this goal. I still can't name any popular movement that calls for destruction of any country. And come into any university campus, and stand one day with "Free Palestine" sign and other day with "Support Israel" sign and count how many times you are spit on and how long does it take before somebody sucker-punches you and steals your sign - and you'll see for yourself its popularity. I mean, surely, US invaded Iraq, and kicked Lybia's ass and there's the Iran thing and so on - but I don't see anybody proclaiming Iran should be destroyed, and Kurds or Iraqis or whoever should take over. Sure, there are sanctions - which probably are very unpopular on the same campuses - but nobody says "Iranism" is a conspiracy to reforge our minds, and without it there would be no reason for Iran to exist. But for BDS, it is the goal. It's not because Israel did something or didn't do something. It's because there is Israel.
we literally had a conference where they were planning how they're going to partition Russia,
Who, when? I mean, Russia being fully formed fascist state, I wouldn't mind somebody finding the cojones to think what to do about it, instead of mumbling "we can't let things escalate" while they are escalating - but who are "they" and how exactly they are planning to achieve that? I'd like to read that plan, where could I find it? Does it include Ironman, Superman, Hulk and Flash stealing all Russian nukes, or do they just magically turn them off? I am very curious, please help.
JarJarJedi
18d ago
This is just a payment-processing system, not a whole new currency.
Yes, but if the processing system uses dollars and US banks (or banks that eventually connect to US banks) then US can control it. Dealing with a ton of different currency without having an intermediary one where you can align everything to the single common measure could be challenging...
PAPSS's governing council appears to be populated by the top officials of the central banks of its member countries.
Yes, of course, but what happens if there is a conflict between them? Say, one government has a lucrative trade in goods that are frowned upon by other governments, and wants to use this system to facilitate it? What if two members have a fight and try to block (or steal) each other's payments?
JarJarJedi
18d ago
It is understandable that they may have different interests than the US, and thus want a monetary system that can not be controlled by the US. The question is, who will be controlling it then? Somehow I doubt it being controlled by Zambia or South Africa or any other African state would be better for the long-term perspectives of it, and in general African states - especially ones that are located close and thus most in need of common currency system - aren't best known for always valuing cooperation over conflict. Of course, they could elect China or Russia or Iran to be their master - but why exactly would that play better for them than the US?
They could try to implement a truly decentralized zero-trust system, but given as nobody really done it on the national scale, I'm not sure they have the expertise or the guts to try it. Would be an interesting experiment though, but there are so many failure modes there that it could only be of any value if successful.
a $200 million trade between two parties in different African countries is estimated to cost 10% to 30% of the value of the deal.
That sounds horrendously expensive. I wonder is that because of the risks? Then of course homegrown systems would be cheaper - by just ignoring the risks, until the next rugpull.
JarJarJedi
20d ago
I'm sorry but I vastly prefer "degeneracy and blight brought about by modernity and late-stage capitalism" - aka civilized living in good conditions, decent income, nice job and all trappings of modern civilization - to "mostly functioning nations" (side note - did you notice how "mostly" became the most deceitful of words in English recently? Take "mostly peaceful"...). Given how many people move from "mostly functioning" to "degenerate late capitalist" nations and how many move the opposite direction, I somehow suspect I am not a rare exception.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
It tastes like alien cat piss, it has a bunch of spooky chemicals and there's absolutely no reason to drink it when there are many better alternatives.
How would that look like? You can't just average what 300 millions of people think and get some meaningful picture. It's like composing an "average person", having one testicle, one teat and half a penis, and expecting that construct to give you a meaningful insight into how males and females behave.
As for why talk of persecuting Jews is dangerous, I think there are some examples in history that demonstrate that pretty conclusively. With that, the idiotic theories some of the less educated members of the famous-American community are periodically airing out are nothing new, and have been circulating for decades, some for centuries. Absent proper mental hygiene, some get infected and then sneeze it out in public. With prompt treatment delivered in time, there's nothing dangerous to it, if that's where it ends.
I'm not sure which part made you think "anti-white racism is fine"?
More options
Context Copy link