The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
No bio...
User ID: 174
Israel is absolutely trying to topple the regime, Netenyahu has made this very clear.
He's said it, but he hasn't done it. I don't believe that Trump would be scrupulous of them doing so... or that the Israelis would actually ask if they thought it would work.
Netenyahu has made this very clear. Reporting is that Israel had a window to assassinate the Ayatollah but was vetoed by Trump, with Israelis claiming it would end the conflict.
"Reporting". Anyway, it wouldn't end the conflict, there's plenty of Ayatollahs to take his place.
Iran and Israel is a special case because they can't reach each other to invade (and if Israel could, they don't have the manpower). And Israel probably isn't trying to decapitate; they're probably not trying to topple the regime (which would lead at best to chaos), but incapacitate it technically. Israel and Gaza is probably a better view of what it looks like when one side is totally outclassed. And Ukraine/Russia for near-peer fights. Total war, WWII style, is still off the table because of the nuclear spectre; a fight between China and the US seems like the only way to get that in the near term, but it will look different than any of the current conflicts because it will be far more about naval forces at least at first.
"Learned helplessness" carries the meaning that the helplessness is false and the problem is internal. "Traction" suggests, or at least allows for, the possibility that the problem is external.
Right, he was using a women's strategy and women's strategies don't work for men. Maybe that would have worked if he'd seen her reaction, decided he wouldn't get stabbed (or "HELP, AUTHORITY, REMOVE THIS CREEP"), and then asked directly.
But the direct methods of trying are forbidden for men (see above in all caps) unless they succeed, and the penalties have done nothing but increase.
Don't worry, it's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that if you can get through the opening chords of "Smoke on the Water", you can buy any guitar you can afford.
One's whims cannot enslave oneself. One who is free to indulge one's whims is truly more free than one whose responsibilities result in them being constrained to a much narrower and (to them) less desirable set of choices, and certainly more free than one whose actions are externally constrained by a paternalistic entity for their own good -- even if it really is for their own good.
Someone needs to wrest the banner of self-improvement, fitness, hygiene, stoicism, etc. from the Tates of the world and divorce it from the more toxic aspects of masculinity.
The latter can't be done. What feminists deem to be the more toxic aspects of masculinity are essential to it.
Iran's rhetoric and actions match. There is no reason other than wishful thinking to believe they are willing to consider anything other than active enmity with the US.
Why would it move me? If indeed he was correct and the French weren't worthy of liberty, it does not change what liberty is. That some people, allowed liberty, will destroy themselves and others with the latitude thye have, does not make liberty into "not liberty".
Jolani is at least pretending to be an ex-terrorist. Iran is steadfast in its hatred of the US.
The current Iranian regime has always been hostile to the US, they have always been open about it, and they have consistently made this clear in word and deed. There is no reason to believe otherwise, except perhaps the polyannaish idea that one can always smooth things over by diplomacy.
They have been consistent in both expressing "Death to America" and calling the US the "Great Satan" since the formation of the current regime.
The US and Israel have been working actively (e.g. Stuxnet) to prevent it.
I hope it doesn't. The average Iranian is not a lover of their regime, which is why we see regular protests despite the authoritarian nature of their government.
The protests are probably just Western-sponsored nonsense, perhaps with some sponsored by the Iranian intelligence services to sucker any dissidents out in the open.
Iran has no blood feud with the US.
Iran certainly has a blood feud with the US. The people of Iran as a whole may or may not (depends on just how bad the Shah was, and how much they blame the US for that), but the current leadership (as a class) does. They encourage chants of "Death to America". They refer to the US as the Great Satan. When someone tells you in no uncertain terms that they are your enemy, it makes sense to believe them.
It is true that if Iran were to just do whatever it wants, they likely would mess with the Little Satan (Israel) first. I don't know if the Ayatollahs are even crazier than the Kims, and would nuke Haifa and Tel Aviv as soon as they got the bombs. But it's definitely a possibility.
Ideally, the responsibility is not imposed.
And this is where the fearless leader gives a great sigh, and expresses his regret of the need for the harsh regime he is about to impose.
Freedom is freedom, and responsibility is responsibility; they are different things, and one does not come with the other; rather, they are opposed. Responsibility places limits on freedom; the more responsibilities you have the more tightly constrained your actions, whereas freedom is a lack of such constraint.
I won't claim this dynamic never happens, that would be silly, but you're not really engaging with the idea if you think it can only be invoked in this sense.
There may be some platonic ideal of some other way in which it is invoked, but in practice any time someone says "this is not liberty, it is license", it's because they don't want you to have liberty.
Burke, indeed, is explicitly saying that -- he's saying that people who don't "put moral chains upon their own behavior" (meaning the French, apparently) are not qualified for liberty.
An imposed responsibility vitiates freedom.
The key flaw in his plan was his inability to anonymously exit the heavily videotaped area that is Manhattan.
Eh, if he'd ditched the compromising stuff (like the gun) at some point he probably could have brazened it out.
No, they do not. One only says "freedom comes with reponsibility" when one wants to vitiate the freedom claimed. It's saying you have freedom, "but". (And nothing before the "but" matters)
That's just ad hominem. Who gives a shit if it's a tyrant's excuse?
The tyrant is a tyrant because he's taking away your liberty, in this case by claiming it is not liberty at all, but "license" (which is liberty that he doesn't like).
Who is “they”? Best I can tell it was mostly the parents and school trying legal tricks (presumably to protect their reputation or something)?
And the judge, and the police, and the lawyers who came up with the idea of the "Covenant Children's Trust" to hold the copyright. The "nothing to see here" routine has worn all the way through.
Freedoms come with responsibility, as they say
The "they" who say this are generally authoritarians, who sometimes write unintentional parodies of Bills of Rights in the form of paired statements of the form "You have the right to do X, you have the responsibility not to do X unless we say it's OK".
No, the presence of virtue is virtuousness. Freedom is something different.
Is that more or less than played up the Steele dossier, or reported that Trump commandeered the Beast, or denied the validity of the Biden laptop?
More options
Context Copy link