JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
The US DID give up Poland without trying! That's a thing that really happened!
Nope. Solidarnosc had a lot of support from the US, though it was not all in the open. Reagan lead a lot of it.
With Hungary and Czechia it was different - those were already considered owned by USSR, so it was USSR atrocities in their own space rather than the US losing to them.
From this we can deduce that US global prestige suffered less from scenarios in which they didn't try than scenarios in which they tried and lost.
If it didn't try, what "prestige" you are talking about? Prestige of doing what? Sitting in their corner of the world and silently watching as USSR eats the rest of it?
I was referring to Kiev, the first capital of the original Rus state from which modern Russia claims cultural, linguistic, and religious continuity.
That is an extremely tortured argument. Like claiming US must invade and annex Italy because our culture has so much connections to Romans. Kiev, as you know, is the capital of Ukraine, and not Russia, and while it is true that Kiev, at certain times, was the center of the civilizational entity which gave birth to many other that eventually become modern entities including Russia, treating this as a claim that "Ukraine was an ancient part of Russia" makes as much sense as claiming "Rome is an ancient part of the US". It's just ahistorical nonsense based on shallow TV-news-level knowledge - which is exactly why Putin is using it btw, his target audience knows "there was something with the name vaguely resembling "Russia" in Kiev at one time, so that means Kiev always belonged to Russia".
despite having been easier for them to conquer in the current war on account of their terrain and their population not having gone through the cultural separation from Moscow and St. Petersburg that the rest of Ukraine has.
This has nothing to do with the population or what they would want or not want. Pre-2022, the territories were mostly conquered by using Ukrainian internal turmoil and weakness to capture control. The population wishes had precisely little to do with it - it's not like Russia is a democracy or cares what the population thinks - people that think wrong just get jailed (or die of mysterious illnesses, or fall out of windows, you get the idea). Once they expanded their interest to the territories which couldn't be easily grabbed, the default mode became just bomb the shit out of it until nothing but barren scorched earth is left. Again, nothing to do with "cultural separation". It's not like Civilization games when there's a "cultural vote" among the population and if the culture of other country wins, this city joins it. What actually happens Russian just bomb this city into dust, and it matters preciously little what the former occupants of the former city thought about St. Peterburg's culture.
JarJarJedi
4mo ago
"yes" is not an answer to the question "Where does that definition come from?" If you believe there are some objective "country goals", you should explain who is entitled to set them and how. I mean, "country" can't speak to us and tell us what the goals are. So what is the mechanism by which we know what are the objective "country goals"? How would one make sure, for example, that investigating corruption by somebody named "Donald Trump" aligns with "country goals", but investigating corruption by somebody named "Hunter Biden" contradicts them? Please describe the decision chain here that allows to make an objective decision not reducible to political power balance between competing partisan fractions.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
Capital punishment is not a medical procedure and you shouldn't make it look like one.
Why not? When guillotine was invented, execution of the enemies of the state was a public spectacle that was explicitly designed to terrify and intimidate the population (and, to some measure, entertain it, with the idea that however bad you've got it, at least it's better than that guy). I think the government has since improved to a point where it has much more widespread and efficient methods to terrify and intimidate the population, and does not limit itself to the worst of the worst of the criminals anymore. So there's no point in spectacle, why not get rid of it and get to the end point of it with minimal amount of hassle?
JarJarJedi
6mo ago
I am not sure what exactly Russia is constructing (a fascist empire would be a good general description but it lacks specific details) but it has very little to do with what we understand as Western civilization, and it is ideologically opposed to it. You can call it "civilization-state" in the meaning of its own, peculiar to that state, civilization which is built on the principles alien to the Western one, and that's exactly my point.
JarJarJedi
6mo ago
And the reason they don't because it's only needed when you can't use iCloud, and you can't use iCloud when your country is debanked for starting a war. I don't know how Apple's internal project management works, but I suspect a task "make data migration work if my country is under sanctions" is not very high on the list.
JarJarJedi
6mo ago
So what? What would it accomplish?
Hopefully, reframing the conversation from "greedy capitalists kill grandmas" to "healthcare policy matters and we must pay a lot of attention to it and demand much better from The Experts (TM) and relentlessly shame those who dared to lie to us and lead us to the mess we have, and demand from the future ones to be candid with us and provide solutions that look better".
that would still be true
I hope that if by some miracle we found in ourselves, as a society, a way to move conversation from murdering CEOs to discussing policies, then we could also find a way to improve those policies or at least have people en masse understand what those policies are and what are their consequences, so it won't be as easy for the next Gruber to deceive people. I don't exactly expect it, but I hope.
And Congress, like most institutions these days, cannot be fixed, only replaced.
Replaced with what? How? The founders of the current government have done a lot of work to lay the philosophical and practical foundations of the system now in place. It is true that it has diverged from the original intent significantly, but at least if we proclaim as a goal to return to that, we may rely on that work to understand what has to be done and why. What is your foundations and where you want to move, beyond destroying the US government?
JarJarJedi
8mo ago
Where I live, I have no idea what ideologically most of people are, though since it is quite red area, I have my suspicions, but I don't know about each person specifically.
Ideally, I do not mind living around people who disagree with me on ideology, provided the disagreement is not too far. If somebody thinks we need to raise taxes and spend the money on public works projects like building a park, maybe I disagree but I'm fine living with them around me. If somebody thinks enforcing laws is racist and we should cut the police budget and use the money to distribute free drugs to drug addicts and perform gender transitions to kindergarten children - I'd rather live in a place far, far away from that person. It probably will be hard for me to draw the line per policy, but usually such things come in a package, and having lived with the results of applying that package to day-to-day life, I'd rather not go through that again.
JarJarJedi
9mo ago
I care when people say that whites should be discriminated against or disadvantaged, because I'm white.
And so should you. That's why "no discrimination against any group for any quality" is the right answer. The law should be blind to arbitrary class categories.
The actual, current black community, or whoever they choose or designate from among that community.
Why do you think such a "community" exists? So far there's no any indication of it. Black separatists do exist, but they are tiny and vast majority of black people has no idea who they are and if they do, they do not support them. If there would be a unified black community that would show interest in separatism, there could be some discussion about it, but what's the point of discussing making deals with entities that are entirely imaginary?
No one of any race has to go there, at all, ever.
So why anybody would? Why they don't just stay right where they are and keep demanding reparations from the US? What is going to stop them?
That would be for them to sort out.
What do you mean by "them"? The US just declares on 1.1.XXXX the US laws stop working in Atlanta? That's not what any lawful framework in the US could ever allow. And I don't see how it wouldn't just invite Sinaloa cartel (or anybody else quick on their feet) to capture the territory by force and not give a whistle about your racist paradise plans at all?
We check goods at the border and confiscate contraband.
You know how well it works on Mexican border, where the counterparty is the actual functioning government that kinda wants to help us with that? Now imagine how well it would work when the government on the other side actually actively wants it not to happen. You will confiscate exactly nothing and you will have zero control over it.
The rest of your questions seem to be predicated on people being forced to live in such a zone
If any of the populated area is turned into the racist paradise, the people living there would be forced to either live there or lose their homes, jobs, social environments etc. Why would they agree to that? Say, why Oprah would want to live in this racist paradise enclave, if she's already a billionaire in America? I think she'd certainly prefer keep living in America - as she does. If there would be any desire on the part of the black Americans to live in something like that, black separatism wouldn't be a political nonstarter. Yet, it is.
Moreover, why limit ourselves to American blacks? There are millions of people who already enjoy this deal - living in a places where US does not control it, and doing whatever they want there, mostly. Yet, we are witnessing millions of them, day after day, at great personal expense and risk, to try to get into America and stay there. Why do you think black Americans - who already enjoy full citizenship right, full access to welfare services, significant representation in all power structures and undying admiration of at least one powerful political movement - would want a worse deal than Haitian blacks want? I see no evidence and no logical reason why they would, and this makes this whole scheme doomed and useless.
so you need to give them a demonstration of good faith,
How do you know they'd take it as a demonstration of good faith? I don't see any indication from them that they would. Again, black separatism is not exactly popular, and if people understood what it actually means - e.g. losing all access to all the welfare state goodies, US citizen benefits, etc. - it's be even less popular. If they think US is built mostly by their ancestors (let's no argue how true it is but assume that's what they think) but they aren't getting their fair share of it, how giving them a soon-to-be-shithole area and absolving ourselves of any responsibility of what happens there would sound like a good deal? They want a fair share of everything, not some scraps that somebody decided to throw to them and lock them out of the rest.
JarJarJedi
9mo ago
American blacks go their own way,
Go their own way where? Liberia? I don't see them doing that voluntarily, why would they go to some shithole, they are as American as everybody else (and more than myself, a relatively fresh immigrant, for example). Or just ethnically purge Atlanta and ban whites from every coming in there? Why Atlanta then and not New York or Santa Monica? How that's supposed to work without destroying every principle of American society? I mean sure, if you imagined you are building a simulation from scratch, you could add a rule "black and whites live separately" and see if it works. But this simulation has already been running for a while, and I can't even begin to think that "their own way" would mean in this context. What if they think their own way is keep living in America, just as they did - does it mean whites have to get out?
Black-white conflict will never cease in this country so long as blacks continue to lag so far behind other races
I don't think it's true. A lot of countries have ethnically heterogeneous population, and a lot of countries have a lot of issues and concerns connected to that. But nowhere (at least not among developed countries) it's as central to literally everything as in America. And it is getting worse. Which also, paradoxically, means it is possible for it to be better - because it has been. And it has been deliberately made worse, for very practical partisan political reasons. If Americans, as a culture, find in themselves to sacrifice their partisan interests to their common culture interests, if they still want to make it better and not just to win over the other team, no matter the cost - it is possible for it to be better. Will it be all ok and nice? No. Shit's probably will be going on for decades, and there would be low-key racism and low-key hatred for a long time. But it can be much better than it is now, and the only thing that is really necessary if for people to want to make it better.
unilateral disarmament by blacks, despite no structural changes that could plausibly lead to a future favorable outcome for them
The only way there could be "future favorable outcome for them" is a racist regime actively (and by our current standards, absolutely outrageously) discriminating against people who are not them. Nothing less would make a dent. Even if that were possible, it may persist for one generation, while people who saw the reverse regime are still alive and still feel guilty for it. The next generation would not feel this guilt. They will inevitably demand justice. And then what? How do you give them justice? The only way you know?
JarJarJedi
9mo ago
The San Francisco guy preached to birds and animals, but didn't hit anybody with flaming logs. That's much better IMHO.
JarJarJedi
9mo ago
Sounds like an extreme maniac (of course, it's probably false anyway). I mean, if the prostitute has already been paid, all he had to do is to tell her "go away, I don't want your services" (or, maybe, just have her sit in a corner for 10 minutes - though for a virgin probably even 5 minutes should be enough - just to be believable and then make her go away) and she would - who wouldn't be happy to get paid without doing any work? If she hasn't been paid (in which case, wtf was his father is thinking?), then pay her and see above. WTF does he need to do with the flaming sticks and what exactly she got beaten for? She was just doing her part of the deal, she didn't do anything wrong. It's not even claimed she was the devil or sent by the devil or anything like that - she was just a hired worker that came to do her work, what the heck she deserved to be beaten with a flaming stick for? This is an insanely messed up story!
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
The interesting twist here is that the haste with which Iran propaganda blamed Israel for that forced them then to claim that ISIS is actually working for Israel and the US, which is beyond hilarious.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Nonsense
I was talking about the partisan structures specifically, not the government structures, and about open and openly practicing Marxists who do not hide their ideology and openly come to elections with it, not Soviet spies pretending to be regular Americans to get to governmental secrets. Maybe "infiltrated" in the hindsight wasn't the best word to use as indeed it also can be used for clandestine activities, but that's not what I meant. I meant if you are an open and genuine Marxist, and do not hide it, you would be much more at home at Dem party now than back then, and conversely, there are many more such people in the party now than there was back then. I would imagine back in Stalin's era there were much more hidden Soviet spies (who we can assume being Marxists by default) in partisan and governmental structures, and even if Russian spies are there now, they aren't probably Marxists anymore. But that's not the part I was talking about.
I'll address the other points later, hopefully, a bit busy now.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
When was the last time you saw ordinary Republicans protesting for those things?
Republicans are usually much less supportive of intervening into other countries - even tyrannical ones - when they don't mess with us.
Biden has issued statements calling for democracy in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc, against their Marxist-Leninist regimes
If you look from proclamations to actual actions, though, you see that the policy towards tyrannical regimes is always softened - that happened with Obama, and that is also happening with whoever pulls Biden's strings, which some say is the same Obama. Be it Iran, be it Cuba, be it China - beyond some perfunctory words, it's never any serious action. In fact, it's plenty of the actions in the opposite directions.
The think tanks and NGOs that catalogue the human rights crimes of these various countries and demand democracy are also pretty much always staffed by progressive democrats.
I don't know what these NGOs have in their files, deep in their computer drives, but if you look on their public stance, the impression one gets is that there's about two countries that ever commit human rights crimes worth discussing - one of them is the US, and you can easily guess the second one.
Of course, if you take the longer view you will Democrat Presidents taking military action against Marxist-Leninist movements quite regularly throughout the past century.
Well, if we talk about the whole century, the Democrat party wasn't as thoroughly infiltrated by the Marxists as they are now. Marxists were mostly on the fringe, and they are full mainstream now, with wide representation in all institutions of the society. Thus, of course, what has been then and what is happening now is rather different.
Is it possible to make it so I won't get posts from people I have blocked when doing the janitor duty thing? I mean, I support the right of people whose day is not complete without whining about the Joos to whine to their heart's content, and having blocked them, I don't care about it any more. But when my whole janitor duty screen comes out composed of whining about Joos, it really doesn't make me happy to contribute my time to it (which I am otherwise happy to). Also, the Joo-whiners probably won't consider me a fair arbiter of the quality of their contribution anyway, so it's better both for me and for them if I don't score their posts.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
In broader context, at least what I saw from that person until I blocked them, it appears to be on the mark. If not to a particular comment, then definitely to the particular personality.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
lol
I think I understand the argument you are making here, though there could be a possibility it is too complex and nuanced for my weak mental facilities.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
But I think it’s beyond clear that Poland couldn’t be conquored by Russia
Whole Poland? Probably not, at least not in the near future. But some borderline territories, for starters? Say, the corridor leading to Königsberg, now known as Kaliningrad? Why not. Do you imagine President Ocasio-Cortez sending the best US troops into the harm's way to defend places with names like Szypliszki and Stańczyki, which no CNN commentator could even pronounce - especially if it comes with the risk of global nuclear war? I think a lot of people would object to that.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Putin’s skulls on her wall,
This must be the reason Russian Sberbank paid her husband for "lectures" and why she approved sale of Uranium One to Rosatom after a modest bribe. All that was leading to nailing Putin's skull to the wall, somehow. Must be one heck of 3D chess.
JarJarJedi
2yr ago
Interestingly enough, you don't pray that you do. It's always the other guy that has to do the work. Always others that are imperfect and need God to correct them (and, of course, even God needs your advice in that - there's no way He Himself could figure it out without your input! After all, he's only God - and the rumors are, He's at least 2/3 Jew at that, so no wonder!) Always praying for the other guy to be saved from his ignorance and delivered into the light, never for yourself. How selfless! It is really admirable.
JarJarJedi
2yr ago
Ethnic/Cultural representation is considered to be important by many
Sure. Astrology is considered to be important by many too, so is the sacred status of cows (India has a billion people! If we go by numbers, I think we should talk about cows much more than about the White House!). That doesn't mean it makes any sense, and if your answer to "how does it make any sense" is just "a lot of people agree with me" - then probably you know it doesn't make any sense, but can't gather the strength to defy your peer group and get your mind free. Maybe one day.
JarJarJedi
2yr ago
You literally asked me if my criteria for declaring someone my superior is “more Aryan”. Don’t pretend you didn’t make it racial.
I also asked if it's a longer dick, so let's get into the gay angle too, right? I just enumerated the known definitions of "superior", without having or implying any idea which one is yours. I thought mentioning the dick would be enough to make sure this list is made in mockery of the whole concept, not as a suggestion for it, but of course, it wasn't.
That said, if you are fine with eugenics, I am not sure why the racist angle offends you so much. Even if racist eugenics is wrong (which I am not sure if you believe or not, but it's immaterial) - it's a small wrong. It's like an argument between two theoretical physicists about quantum theory - one may come out right and another may come out wrong, but they both are and remain respected scientists, and their ideas, even is occasionally wrong, would still gain them respect. If eugenics is fine, the only sin of racist eugenics is they get some small details wrong, not that the whole thing is morally abominable.
but also because Jews are a generally high-quality, high-human-capital population.
Again, thanks, but fuck that. As a Jew, I don't want my shield against the fires of Auschwitz to be "high-quality genes", by any definition. Neither I want anybody else's. Either we agree that we don't do "genetic engineering by murdering people" thing (and forced sterilization and other things - which can not be "non-violent" by definition - are only a small step removed from it), regardless of how sure we are we got it right this time (we didn't, we never will) - or we are in the deepest pits of Hell, and no rationalization ever changes that.
Real eugenicists, of the turn-of-the-century progressive-aligned variety, stayed focused on removing actually dysgenic elements from the population
Yeah, I remember, the forced sterilization programs and the Nobel prize for lobotomy. Thanks but no thanks.
Also, weren't those the same guys that were super-worried too many Jews are getting into Harvard and Yale? They finally solved that problem, I hear, took them a century but it's done.
JarJarJedi
2yr ago
Of course if somebody in the government does something we don't understand, it always because they have their ineffable ways, which can not be understood by mere mortals. Never attribute to inefficiency and rigidity of humongous bureaucracy what you could attribute to ineffability and unknowable reasons.
This is true, but that initial enmity has officially ended in 1930s by FDR, and turned into an alliance in the 1940s and had highs and lows since then. You seem to be making some kind of a point that there was one constant policy over seven decades of USSR existence, but it was a multitude of different policies. Sometimes US chose to fight, sometimes they chose to sit aside, sometimes they chose to ally with USSR against common enemy.
I'm not sure what you mean by "credibility" here. My point is very simple - if US chose to never fight, it would not lose any specific wars to USSR, but it would lose everything, and in that hypothetical world, we'd still have USSR right now, probably owning most of Europe, Africa, Latin America and China owning Asia. Fortunately, we live in a better world - the one when US sometimes chose to fight, and ultimately won, even despite losing some wars. I don't see any possibility of avoiding any lost wars in advance, except giving up from start and not fighting at all.
More options
Context Copy link