UwU
10d ago
The population would mostly flee and be happily snapped up by European union which needs wagies. Baltic sea navigation wouldn't be improved, actually seizing the Baltic state could possibly make western Europe close the Danish straits.
If you read the latter part of his post, I think it's pretty clear he means we shouldn't mind the Baltics getting invaded, but of course correct me if I'm wrong.
I kinda hold a similar opinion. I don't really want to care about the Baltics. But they are in NATO, and we (the US) are allied to them, so we do have to mind the Baltics getting invaded. If there's a politically feasible way to extricate ourselves from having to protect the Baltics, like somehow removing them from NATO, then I would support it.
UwU
24d ago
I don't see why your argument wouldn't also apply to the most recent operation where they used B2s as decoys for other B2s.
UwU
29d ago
Not a vegan but it seems internally consistent. Yeast are indeed living things, just like plants! Since vegans haven't quite figured out how to photosynthesize yet, they still need to eat living things to not starve. Yeast is just acceptable casualties.
UwU
1mo ago
This is predicated on Iran not developing a nuke in the next few years without the most recent conflict. It's impossible to know with only public information, but at least the US and Israel believed Iran was close enough to one to warrant an attack.
UwU
1mo ago
No clear evidence that their nuclear program is knocked out, a pretty strong incentive now between the outcomes of Libya, North Korea, Israel and Iran for any country that doesn't want to be a colony of either the eastern or western bloc to develop nukes.
This would be true regardless of whether the US conducted this strike or not. One might argue that allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons without any sort of kinetic response would have encouraged state actors to pursue nukes even more rigorously.
UwU
1mo ago
What I'm okay with: Enforcing immigration laws, deporting illegal immigrants. I'm fine with "breaking up families", arresting people at their workplaces, and deporting parents of citizen children with them in tow.
What I'm not okay with: Masked men in plainclothes forcibly ushering people into unmarked vans. As long as they are unmasked and wearing uniforms, or unmasked, plainclothed and are obligated to give their full name and badge/ID upon request, I'd have no problem with it. Yes they may lose the intimidation factor, but it's a necessary trade-off compared to normalizing mask wearing thugs kidnapping people off the streets.
UwU
1mo ago
Also, my P(Doom|no slowdown) is like 0.95-0.97
I think the main point of contention is this. As evidenced by discussions up and down this thread, for most people, the number is closer to 0.05 than 0.95, so there's no political will to do the other things you suggest. A real-world example: Anthropic. When the OpenAI engineers quit the company because it wouldn't slow down for safety, they didn't shoot the remaining employees, instead they created a competitor to sprint faster with the belief that if they reach AGI first, it'll be better aligned for humanity.
UwU
1mo ago
What if you believe that when you reach the finish line, there's a 5% chance that the track will blow up, but if the other guys reach the finish line first, there's a 10% chance the track will blow up. Also you believe the other guys don't take the risks seriously so they won't stop running. Is "sprint harder" a valid option?
UwU
1mo ago
The denial of cert is likely strategic for the conservative justices. Alito and Thomas will probably strike down the assault weapons bans but the rest (Barrett, Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) probably couldn't get a clear 3/4 majority in favor of repealing the bans. Therefore for the ban proponent justices, it's better to deny cert and revisit until the court make-up changes, or at least until the current dissenters change their minds, rather than bringing the issue to a vote today, and have assault weapons bans be upheld.
UwU
2mo ago
The second sentence doesn't strictly follow the first. Stealing from an out-group (e.g. the faceless forgetful hotel patron) is not an indication they'll do the same to an in-group. On the other hand, cheating is necessarily harming an in-group person (the romantic partner), and as the current romantic partner you should be worried.
Think of the "I against my brother; I and my brother against my cousin; I, my brother, and my cousin against the world" proverb.
UwU
2mo ago
I guessed like 10 years. 400 years is insane! My first impression is that this is malicious compliance by some disillusioned engineer to highlight the absurd state of the project.
UwU
2mo ago
So there were no guarantees. Zelensky was an obstinate fool for not wanting to give up 50% of all future sources of Ukrainian natural resource revenues for a chance that a future US president in 5-10 years will have an excuse to intervene on their behalf?
For what it's worth I believe Zelensky played it wrong a few months ago and he should have been more diplomatic. But I disagree with how you are framing the original mineral deal and it was not foolish for Ukraine to be hesitant about it. In fact, the new mineral deal, being much better for Ukraine, proves that it was not a foolish decision to reject it.
What security guarantees did Trump give to Ukraine through the mineral deal? Under what circumstances will Trump send troops to Ukraine?
UwU
3mo ago
My original issue with this was that I interpreted this question as rhetorical, but if it's not, let me know:
Why should anyone brainstorm alternative ownership with a thief in the middle of a robbery?
My point was that it can be perfectly fine for someone to believe the current capitalistic system is psychopathic, categorize it as such, and still having to participate in this system because that is the system that exists right now. Sure, by participating, they are in a sense being hypocritical, but it doesn't mean we should invalidate their position because of this. It's a "don't blame the player blame the game" sort of situation where individual players can still brainstorm how to make the game better, while playing the game because they don't control how the world works.
BUT, and this is a big but. I pattern-matched your original comment to something like "You benefit from personal ownership, which you believe to be immoral, and therefore your critique of personal ownership is invalid." However, it's possible my analysis was off the mark and you were instead making a different argument entirely, such as challenging their internal consistency or the falsifiability of their standard. If that's the case then I will apologize once more and bow out of this discussion.
UwU
3mo ago
I agree broadly but if the following is the standard to judge hypocrisy, then clearly just living in a communal-type environment doesn't absolve the OP of his sins, so to speak.
However, you are posting here. On the internet. A medium that requires a computer of some sort that could be not-deprived to someone else. Moreover, you repeatedly responded to others. This entails further use of time depriving the device to others. It also implies a surplus of time, and thus material resources you are depriving others of, that enable the hobby rather than sharing like a non-paranoid should. These resources are deprived from benefiting other possible beneficiaries and potential users by virtue (or sin) of your use. Your use and expected ability to use is demonstrating a de facto, even if not de jure, ownership.
UwU
3mo ago
I apologize, I should have been more clear. The "we should improve society somewhat" meme only refers to this panel, not entire the comic in which it originated.
I still find it problematic that a person can't criticize any fundamental pillars of a society while "benefiting" from them. Like, how can we expect the OP to not "take advantage" of personal property ownership by your standard and still be able to function in a capitalistic society? Are we supposed to disregard any criticism they have because they themselves are forced to participate in the society as it is currently structured?
UwU
3mo ago
Yes I think blanket birthright citizenship is a mistake and we should at the very least repeal it for those whose parents came here illegally.
UwU
3mo ago
Yes, I agree that it is cruel to imprison an individual in harsh conditions for entering a country illegally, but it is probably both reasonable and necessary, by some measure, to do so if they are a violent gang member
Yeah, if they are a violent gang member. He hasn't been convicted in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. The US shouldn't have sent him straight to a foreign gulag without a conviction.
UwU
3mo ago
- The guy was born here, but left the US as an infant
- It's highly probable that he did not have a passport or else they'd have mentioned it, so it's very likely he returned to the US through illegal means and not at a lawful port of entry.
- He did not speak English.
- He was arrested with two other likely illegal immigrants from Mexico.
- He was held but released after his citizenship was verified.
If anything this proves the system is favorable to people like him, or at least working as intended.
UwU
3mo ago
Maybe the longer term play is to create so much political spite around this that the next Democratic president will be forced to return all the exiled gang members from CECOT to the US, instead of merely to stop paying for them or something. This of course will be disastrous for the local community and also be quite unpopular politically.
UwU
3mo ago
The order needed to be clarified with respect to the "effectuate" part, but it seems they upheld the "facilitate" part. The administration had the same interpretation. At 11 seconds, the WH press secretary said:
The Supreme Court made their ruling last night very clear um that it's the administration's responsibility to facilitate the return not to effectuate the return
If you don't agree with this interpretation, that's fine, but it's disingenuous to frame it as the district court rebelling against SCOTUS when it is using the same interpretation as the White House.
Yes, charitably, both can be misogynistic. Saying that a woman is secretly a man is mainly an attack on female politicians in the US, you don't see conspiracy theories that Biden or Trump are actually secretly female. In this way, it's misogynistic since it's an attack that disproportionately targets women.
More options
Context Copy link