ZanarkandAbesFan
No bio...
User ID: 2935
The US Navy has not been able to stop the Houthis from shutting down Red Sea shipping, and the Houthis do not have 1% of the resources the Chinese have.
I suspect this is more a question of will than capability.
I think in a more profound sense this is just the failure of welfare states.
I disagree. Compare Scandinavian countries before and after mass migration.
That was a fun read!
Japan is poorer than Italy,
On a per capita basis, sure, but in absolute terms the Japanese economy is substantially larger (approx $4tn vs $2.3tn). China could in theory be a lot poorer than the US per capita and still dominate it as an overall economic unit.
I accept the rest of your points.
My understanding is that political decisions have been made to focus policing on more severe crimes
Like locking people up for tweets?
Britain trying the South Africa speedrun it seems.
You’ve got things precisely in reverse. The best thing about socialized healthcare is that people know exactly who to blame: themselves. For example, in the UK, Canada and elsewhere there is widespread acceptance that, where the healthcare system fails, it fails because there isn’t enough money, and that’s that.
No Brit is assassinating an NHS official because of a lack of care, because they know that the money for great service doesn’t exist. A “denial” or a “delay” is the fault of anyone who doesn’t want vastly higher taxes, ie. almost everyone. People occasionally complain about bureaucratic managers, but the real reason is obvious. There are no villains, just hard financial reality.
While I agree that we haven't yet reached the stage where NHS managers are getting shot (probably due at least somewhat to lack of access to firearms), I don't agree with the rest of your point. People absolutely put the blame elsewhere than their unwillingness to pay higher taxes: capitalism, the tories, the rich (who don't pay their "fair share" of taxes), etc.
Despairing of being able to fix those things, or find money to invest in them, we sold them instead.
Was there a realistic shot at fixing or investing in those areas, or was selling them the only realistic option in your opinion?
Probably because there are black people in the military? I think if you polled people who had been on a BLM protest the vast majority would oppose the US having any presence in Kabul.
It gives infinite excuses for neo-colonialist wars overseas (those tribals in the mountains need to be enlightened about trans rights and feminism by the application of a few 2000 lb JDAMs)
Woke people in the west would be exactly the demographic to fetishize such communities and most vocally oppose bombing them.
Is it really a surprise then that people cheer when someone takes extrajudicial action, much like they cheer for parents who gun down their child's rapist when they get off with a slap on the wrist?
I'm not exactly surprised, given the nature of people. But I'm not sure this works as any sort of justification or equivalence.
but the idea that Europe's incapable of embracing entrepreneurship is silly given that it was the literal birthplace of the industrial revolution.
The fact that Europe was the birthplace of literal capitalism (and this after the US had been established) is an even stronger argument IMO.
Better for some, worse for others. I think the situation is too multi-dimensional at this point to come down unambiguously on one side or the other.
is and also why anyone would go into this industry and put up with the abuse and general scorn.
There are a quite a few industries like that. Working in finance, oil/energy, certain tech companies like Palantir will involve large numbers of people thinking you're selling your soul to an evil cause. I think the answer is simply that most people will take jobs that pay them well, or offer some other form of professional advancement.
I somehow stumbled on that blog post recently as well.
I feel I see it fairly regularly.
Perhaps outright rebellion or separatism is unlikely, but at the very least stability is far more likely under conditions of ethnic homogeneity? With highly diverse populations, you've got a higher chance of different factions fighting each other, and even if they're not fighting you, that's still pretty detrimental to overall security, the economy etc. As you said, this might take a back seat to certain other priorities, but I'd imagine it's generally pretty high up there. Ethnically divided regions might be easier to rule, but they're also easier for enemies to conquer.
To take the Ottoman example (and I could be completely wrong on this, I'm not a subject-matter expert), I doubt there'd be many Sultans who'd would want core provinces like Anatolia to look like modern-day Lebanon.
The fawning defense of Trevor Noah in that article is remarkable. By saying black people aren't French, what's apparently happening is the following:
Noah ... in his response offers a critique of traditional French approaches to diversity from a progressive, multicultural point of view.
On the other side in the ledger, empires as far back as the Babylonians realized that ethnically divided provinces were easier to rule.
I'd imagine that only applied to remote parts of the empire that are ethnically distinct from the heartland. Close to home, I'm pretty sure you'd rather your territory be ethnically unified to lower chances of rebellions/separatism.
non-celiac gluten intolerance,
I mean, this does exist. I'm non-celiac but I can't consume gluten.
After that I never really doubted that the police having more respect for criminals than law abiding citizens is a choice.
I don't think there are many police anywhere that have more respect from criminals than citizens. It's just that different places have different rules/expectations for how criminals can be treated. Unless by "police" you're referring more broadly to the criminal justice system.
They certainly didn't agree on policy - it wasn't an ideological pick.
Thanks for that link btw, very interesting.
Fwiw I thought this post was fine (upvoted)
More options
Context Copy link