@Stefferi's banner p


Chief Suomiposter

6 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 20:29:13 UTC


Verified Email


User ID: 137


Chief Suomiposter

6 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 20:29:13 UTC







User ID: 137

Verified Email

Latest Finland update.

UNIONS GEAR UP FOR A FIGHT: Well, they’ve probably been gearing up ever since the government was announced,probably since the election made it look probable that there would be a right-wing government. Still, it was the budget has served as a backdrop for the announcement of a struggle.

Finland’s trade union movement, traditionally one of the most important forces in the country, has seen membership go down, but remains an impressive fighting force when it gets down to it. If they decided to end up announcing a general strike, it would, indeed, truly be a general strike; the entire country would basically stop functioning. Even an individual union section on a field with a crucial societal function can cause considerable havoc, as demonstrated by a sudden walkout of Finnair’s airport staff at Helsinki Airport (connected to a local grievance).

As such, the first actual announcement came from SAK, the central organization of Finland’s blue-collar unions – traditionally the most leftist of Finland’s three large union conglomerates, and the most able and willing to utilize strike force. According to SAK deputy chair Katja Syvärinen:

"There will be walkouts, various protests and demonstrations. Emergency workers have been made available and these demonstrations will not endanger anyone's property or life," she said, adding that there are no current plans for a general strike.”

Then again, the fundamental problem is that there is, really, little in the way to any potential solutions for what Kaczynski considers a problem, since one of the features of the technological society by definition in comparison to anti-technologists is its ability to use technology to stave off any potential threats (through force, intelligence ops, propaganda etc.) The only thing one might imagine possible would be to work from the inside as an accelerationist and hoping that will eventually lead to a collapse, but Kaczynski doesn't seem to believe in that either, believing it will just lead to a wholesale technocratic dystopia.

What's your estimation on the amount of these that have happened in the territories Ukraine has already recaptured from the invasion?

...do you really think that the entire US Taiwan policy can be summed up as "defending LGBT on Taiwan"?

And as a bonus, modern Russian patriotism continues to have uncomfortable levels of attachment (just one example) to the old Bolshevik rule, which the based and trad conservative Western Russia simps choose to ignore time after time.

It's not just the end date, Finland didn't have a fascist government at any point of the war. There was one minor minister from a far-right party for a part of the Continuation War, 1941-1943.

I'm not sure if any political tendency in the US is supporting the "war in Ukraine" that strongly, since they (apart from individual reps, probably most notoriously Adam Kinzinger, a Republican) don't actually support the US intervening directly in Ukraine, ie. starting an actual war with Russia. They at most support continuing sending military aid in amounts that are substantial for Ukraine but amount to peanuts vis-a-vis the American military budget, let alone budget in general.

Should be noted that at the very start of war (Mar 22), Republican supporters, when polled, were more likely to think that US is not providing enough aid to Ukraine than Democrats. One thing that seems to be constant in the graphs is that Dem supporters think that the amount of aid is about right, while Republicans have swung from thinking there's too little of aid to there being too much aid. This would indicate a sheer partisanship effect - though still, even in Jan 2023, slightly more Republicans would say that the amount of aid was about right or not enough than that it was too much (41-40).

It might be that Republicans were more willing to be pro-aid at the very start of the conflict when it still looked like Ukraine might collapse, still somewhat supportive when things were looking good for Ukrainian advance, but now more willing to consider cutting it back when it looks like it just goes into sustaining a frozen conflict, with very little movement on the battlelines. Democrats are just pro-administration and would probably continue to be so if the administration started pushing for a peace treaty.

Unless you are really willing to commit to modern Twitter age gap discourse, there is really a huge difference between 22-year-old Monica Lewinsky and prepubescent sex slave children.

I meant the military fatigues, specifically.

Insofar as I’ve observed on social media, the online American factions really playing attention to Ashton-Cirillo are NAFO shibas, who would support anyone talking about killing Russians, and American conservatives who are casting out to find any evidence of Ukraine being ‘work’ for domestic culture war reasons and also probably because it makes them feel better about implicitly supporting the invading side.

A rather simple explanation for choosing Ashton-Cirillo as a spokesperson would be being one of the few native English-speaking volunteer fighters with media experience compounded with a distinct lack of military experience.

Sure, the military fatigues are a media strategy, but do you really think that the main audience for that one is "only left wing of the Democratic Party"?

Are you referring to the Ashton-Cirillo affair? I'm pretty sure Zelensky's not personally in charge of picking spokespersons for a minor branch of the Ukrainian army that essentially, if I've understood correctly, serves as the actual frontline army's farm team (or for getting rid of such spokespersons if they cause issues, either).

From Podervianskyi's Wikipedia article:

Podervianskyi's works have often been criticized because of his use of vulgar unprintable language. They are written mostly in Surzhyk and include much swearing and obscenities, which make them appear as if they were composed by an uneducated person. Often it seems that the only reason one would read the works is for their comic impact and to hear creative swearing. But this is not the case. The numerous citations from Shakespeare, Nietzsche, Taoism and dzen buddhism philosophers give the idea of several intellectual layers in his works. Although a number of Podervianskyi's expressions have entered Ukrainian slang, he uses crude language to show the flaws and grotesqueness of his characters. Podervianskyi carefully matches up language with his characters. Thus a self-made intellectual spouts scientific-sounding nonsense, while more "straightforward" characters use simple words to express complex things.

"To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Les Podervianskyi. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics..."

Should be noted that much of Marx-ISM was the handiwork of Friedrich Engels, who based his theories on his experiences of working-class life in Manchester, which he both observed personally to a great degree and also encountered through his working-class paramour Mary Burns.

and the fascist government in Finland fought on for an additional 3 years after VE day.

Is this some sort of an irony joke I'm not getting?

What I was commenting on is this:

Who were paying, and are in some form still paying, for the actions of specific Germans during the war. Do we need to be able to trace the causal chain of how a specific German housewife helped the Nazi regime during the war, which justifies her and her offspring pay money to jews until the day they die and beyond?

It's the country of Germany that is paying money to Jews (not all Jews, mind, those who can lay claim to being mistreated by the country of Germany in WW2). This is, in fact, not the same thing as the "Germans", though of course there's a high degree of overlap (most Germans, at least if we go by German citizenship, live in Germany - of course by some other definition one might find most don't, considering the German-Americans and the like, and most people living in Germany are German citizens).

However, if a German citizen moves and starts working elsewhere, he no longer is contributing to German taxes and thus no longer is paying to the Jews, even if he was the grandchild of Amon Göth or Rudolf Höss. On the other hand, if I move to Germany and start working there, I'm now paying taxes that will go for the payment of Holocaust compensations. Hell, presumably I'll be doing that even if I just go to Germany as a tourist and buy a meal, since I'll be paying VAT on it.

Should Germany be paying compensation to Holocaust victims? Probably the direct victims but not their descendants, but that's the decision for the democratically elected German government to make, ultimately. Germany could, in fact, unilaterally decide to stop paying compensations. It might lead to international loss of prestige, but many things do. The reason why Germany doesn't do that is, ultimately, related to the domestic politics of Germany.

The reason why I harp on this is that it's really the crucial difference between talking about Jews being responsible, as a people, for whatever you choose to blame them for and Germans being responsible for Holocaust compensation. It's not, strictly speaking, Germans as a people - it's Germany as a country. Countries can be responsible for their past actions in a wholly different way from peoples, as legal units.

The difference here is that I can, if I wish, ignore all of that stuff and never see any of it apart from random glimpses of Piss Christ when someone chooses to have that debate again or perhaps one of Hirst's works (which are aesthetically generally more pleasing than the apes), whereas at the height of the NFT mania it was impossible to browse Twitter without seeing some ape avatar posting about whatever dumb shit.

3/You are doing far worse, you have no right to judge us.

and although it was only the other day that they razed both Thespiae and Plataea to the ground

The earliest example of "[And you are lynching Negroes](And you are lynching Negroes)" in history?

Yeah, it needs to be emphasized that the apes (and the lions, etc, but particularly the apes) were really some of the ugliest, most offputting "artwork" that's been hocked specifically as a good investment i've seen in some time. It flabbergasts me that the sheer ugliness of those things didn't immediately give the people "yeah, that's not going to appreciate in value expect in very short timelines" reaction.

The difference is precisely that countries are legal units, while peoples are not. A "people" is a mellifluous concept without a fixed definition (and "Jews" certainly demonstrates that better than most peoples, considering how Jews themselves can't agree on who is Jewish and antisemites, as I stated below, have an extremely extensive definition of it); a country is a concrete legal unit.

They knew of themselves as the jewish people, they grouped up as the jewish people and they made declarations and took actions as a people prior to Israel ever being a thing.

Who did? Did all the Jewish people in the world take a vote and agree to be bound by its results, or something? Germans did take a vote to elect the Nazis (and parties that had already indicated they'd work with the Nazis, ie. DNPP) into power; that's precisely one of the things Germany being a country allowed them to do.

are jews liable for the creation of the state of Israel?

The country of Israel was very specifically created by one specific movement, the Zionist movement; as you surely know, there were a lot of Jews at the time who explicitly and expressly disagreed with the Zionist movement, its actions and its goals.

I don't really understand the references to "some Jews" continuing to boycott the Germany or whatever. That would just indicate that most don't, no? It just seems to demonstrate the difficulty that talking about "Jews" as a people as an equivalent to a country is; one can just take any combination of (usually negative) actions by some Jews and then assign blame on them to all Jews, generally. Some Jews unfairly boycott Germany to present day. Some Jews founded Israel. Some Jews started communist revolutions in Germany, and other countries. Same Jews? Usually not, but does it matter?

On the contrary, Germany, being a country, can begin a "boycott" of whatever country it desires (ie. the current Russian sanctions, for example), and that boycott immediately becomes legally enforceable and binding on all Germans and German businesses, at least in theory. There's nothing unclear about this, the basic principle does not require interpretation (though of course the details of the actual sanctions might require it).

What you are saying would have salience and some form of coherency if it wasn't for the fact that the entire modern world is based on the idea that there are nations of people. Like Germans.

There was a country of people, called Germany. It was this country that did various actions in WW2 that still partially (though, in truth, not as much as some people would like to claim) burden the successor country of that country. They do not, however, burden ethnic Germans who had, say, moved to the United States to form German communities there, many of which specifically fought against the country of Germany. People might claim Donald Trump to be a Nazi for various reasons, but it would be at the very least exceedingly rare to claim he is one because he's a German-American, or that his German heritage would make him directly liable for the actions of the Nazi government in the country of Germany.

During WW2, there was not a Jewish country. There is a Jewish country now, and the actions of that country burden the citizens of that country, making all Israelis in some ways liable for the actions of Israeli government vis-a-vis the Palestinian occupation and the human rights violations therein (at least the ones not explicitly resisting those actions). However, that still doesn't make all Jews everywhere liable for the actions of Israeli goverment.

Max Levien doesn't seem to have been Jewish. "Research has established that Levien was descended from Huguenot immigrants into Russia by the name of Lavigne."

Of course, several debates with online antisemites have demonstrated, to me, that he criteria for Jewishness among their objects of hatred are stretchy indeed - you can be Jewish by religion, Jewish by ethnicity, half Jewish, quarter Jewish, have any demonstrable Jewish heritage, just know how to speak Yiddish, have advocated against anti-Semitism, have a Jewish spouse, "look Jewish", have a "Jewish" last name (ie. often just a normal German or East European last name - that's why people frequently seem to assume Karl Liebknecht was Jewish, for example) etc. etc. to get in the Jew count.

This list has 9 Jews and 10 non-Jews. Going by Wikipedia descriptions, Luxemburg, Eisner, Levi, Jogiches, Toller, Mühsam, Landauer, Leviné and Radek are Jewish.

The point was not necessarily tastiness as an abstract category but the variety in the diet. One can now easily sample cuisines in the world at the confines of one's home and even a small town (~50,000 people) will have a variety of ethnic restaurants.

The slow fall of Civ games as the standard-bearer of big picture strategy gaming of course also tracks the ascent of the Paradox map fillers as the inheritor of the same mantle.