drmanhattan16
No bio...
User ID: 640
It is also the case that Scott is a rich man with a literal harem.
How does he have a literal harem? As far as I recall, he was in a polycule with Ozy and one other person. Is there some more information about his relationships I'm not aware of?
But doing the opposite of a bad thing, doesn't make that a good thing. The liberals say you must interact and be friends with these people, but the conservatives/nationalists say you must not interact or be with these people. I chafe at both rules, or the single rule of "I get to decide your friends". Since we cannot have unlimited friendships, and we don't have unlimited options, the rules are two sides of the same coin.
I don't think that's the liberal position. Arguing that one ought to be friends with people of a different race/sex/gender/etc. is the progressive position.
Obviously morally unacceptable. There are arguments for doing it, but they are dwarfed by the power of the arguments against bombing population centers without some kind of impending mass disaster. As far as I know, there was never a time where the danger posed by more selective bombing (or just not bombing) was so immediate and high that it could justify destroying entire cities.
I am fine with the idea that Christianity doesn't require its adherents to be pacifist. Nor do I oppose the idea of collateral damage, though there are substantial requirements, in my view, on who is allowed to claim the victims of their attacks qualify.
Tangentially, I also do not agree that the examples you gave constitute something morally acceptable.
Just so I can understand, if Christians were burn down a city, you'd say they had a moral requirement to do so from a place of sorrow and concern, not hatred?
it's in the air, thanks to a decades long process of conservative retreat from the institutions making room for the Left.
Is this what you meant by "Long March through the Institutions?" I have never heard that phrase be used to describe conservative retreat over leftist entryism.
Huh, why? I mean, I think a case can be made that a lot of these progressive ideas are Marx-derived, but I don't see why the idea of the long march through institutions requires that the effort be explicitly Marxist.
The original phrase was coined by a socialist and is often used by people who do think the Marchers are all Marxists. We have neutral words, like entryism, and it's possible that the OP meant something neutral, but I'm on a platform where I don't think people are so obviously using it as a perfect substitute for entryism.
I'd similarly like to see proof of it being organic. I see no reason to grant it null hypothesis status.
I'm totally fine shrugging my shoulders and saying I don't have proof of that, because I'm not going to do a deep dive into the NFL and its politics. But then we're left with the position of simply not knowing one way or the other.
By 2021 the March was over and done with.
I was indicating what incidents I could find that matched the description. I don't know what the OP was necessarily referring to sought to indicate what seemed likely. But even granting your point about Atheism+ and all that, why should I assume the NFL was subject to the same thing? Atheism+ was about the split between people who would go on to be SJWs and the Skeptics/Anti-SJWs.
If the NFL made helmets saying "all lives matter" do you think blue tribe would just shrug, because they don't support grooming? There's an infinite number of messages you could be putting out that "should" get positive attention without alienating anyone, but only blue-coded ones ever get put out.
Whether the blue tribe would shrug isn't the point. We're asking about the intention behind the slogans and rhetoric being deployed, not whether one tribe would or wouldn't react.
Moreover, one issue with this line of analysis is the asymmetry in what ideas are part of the status quo or not. The idea of non-whites facing systemic discrimination isn't in the water, it is the water. Why this matters is that people who don't have an axe to grind against the status quo on this point don't, in my view, engage with politics the same way as those who do. Put simply, as long as blue-coded messages are the water and red-coded ones aren't, you cannot point to the disparity in promotion and claim a conspiracy because people don't need a conspiracy to "support" the water.
But it’s also the fruit of the Long March Through the Institutions.
I know nothing about the NFL and its cultural context. That said, this phrase is typically meant to imply that there was some kind of anti-democratic, inorganic effort by leftists (meaning Marxist, not just progressive or necessarily radical) to take over the NFL. I would like to see some proof of this sort of thing. A cursory search of the issue with the helmets and endzones saying "stop racism" or other anti-racist slogans suggests this happened in 2021. You don't need much "Long Marching" to make an institution think that it might get them some positive attention if they were to do this while not alienating enough people who would disagree.
I don't think I ever said it was a review of the book. I summarized and paraphrased from it to focus on the big picture while retaining the elements which would be understandable and of interest to any casual readers. I greatly encourage anyone to read the book if they have time, there's more in-depth coverage regarding the doomed efforts to save Kido Butai and technical details of Japanese planes as well.
Secondly, while I agree that basing so much off of only one source is suspect, I don't think that suspicion is validated when it comes to Shattered Sword. The authors worked with other historians recognized for writing excellent books on related topics, such as Mark Peattie and John Lundstrom. They also spoke with Japanese counterparts to get their side of the history. Not to mention that the citation list is available for anyone to pick apart if they wish, but even looking at that would reveal that they're relying on works which are considered accurate and worth reading even today.
I also personally think that men are more loyal, generous and less cruel then women in certain circumstances, but it is extremely hard to find any papers that would paint men in better light then women.
What convinced you that the issue was the papers were being suppressed instead of a lack of evidence for your belief?
I want to eventually get some grasp on feminism as a whole. While I can find pro-feminist writings and arguments easily, I find myself unable to find anti-feminist arguments of a suitable quality.
Therefore, I'm asking for recommendations on anti-feminist arguments, books, etc. Ideally, these should be as evidenced, charitable, nuanced, etc. as one would expect from the older SlateStarCodex posts. They don't have to be perfect, but I'm going to be less engaged with someone trying to tell me the feminists are all stupid or evil or some combination of the two.
Is there something wrong with this? I mean I doubt the person who said it is some kind of doctrinaire Marxist criticizing profit(or at least, I doubt that they're criticizing Home Depot for profit), so they're criticizing construction as something inherently bad.
I think the argument the argument very much is about the profit part. Fleshed out, the argument is that profiting from an action incentivizes you to convince others to want that action. For example, for-profit prison systems would advocate for sending more prisoners their way.
Whenever the mainstream US news covers the humanitarian disaster in Gaza (and the suffering is absolutely horrendous), the underlying subtext I get is "Israel should stop assaulting Gaza". But there's another path that would also end the humanitarian disaster, and that's the unconditional surrender of Hamas.
They probably would argue that Israel has obligations to support humanitarian aid into the area, both legally (international law) and morally, as the formal state with a much stronger military and large amounts of US backing. It's worth noting that this was exactly what deBoer's position was (is?), and he's hardly as bad-faith as some actors.
Would you prefer to be dominated by Russia or DC?
What does Russia have to offer in return? Dominance by Moscow?
Say what you will about globohomo, you're probably gonna have a fatter wallet by joining it over not.
I wasn't aware of this, and I think my comment suggested my lack of knowledge about the Crimean independence issue. This is a fair rebuttal to the point. I don't think this changes my view that Kiev and Moscow's relationship to Crimea aren't equivalent enough to call both of them tyrants in the same measure, and I do endorse the idea that if Crimea wants to be free, Ukraine should seriously consider letting them be as such.
I'm not familiar with the repressions you're speaking of, got a link?
Well, it's not as much as you imagine. My expenses are low and I work a tech job, so $10k isn't too problematic for the time being. But that's my commitment to the current international order. I find that order valuable and want it to continue existing, so material support makes perfect sense.
When the rules say, "every option to influence other countries is allowed except the only one you're good at"
Those other options are literally all of soft power. I understand the distaste for letting charisma and popularity dictate all things, but if Russian soft influence can't compete, that's hardly anyone else's fault. Get good, as they say.
I would certainly hope that the post-Maidan government sought to ratify its legitimacy after Yanukovich fled. If parts of Ukraine desire to secede, that desire should probably be listened to. But I don't consider it unreasonable for the government to assume that anyone wanting to do so has to engage with the existing systems in place to depart, not automatically be considered independent since a non-democratic change just took place. I understand the concern that they wouldn't agree, but there is nothing wrong with at least trying.
It's just so far out of the realm of possibility that Ukraine captures Crimea, let alone the other lands that were taken. It would cause hundreds of thousands of military deaths on both sides. And hundreds of billions of dollars. Minimum.
I don't have any illusions about the sheer difficulty of even coming close to Crimea, let alone actually taking it. This war is going to be slow, I accept that. I recognize that a lot of people have died and many more will continue to die. As for money, the US is drowning in it. If that can be thrown around to send Russia on a path away from its current one (and hopefully not one even worse than this), that's a wise investment.
The theory that if we don't stop Putin here he'll take over Poland, then the Baltics, then the world! It's Hitler at Munich all over again unless we DO SOMETHING!
I have no idea who you're even referring to or how popular this conception even is. The stronger argument you should contend with is the message this sends to every other wannabe conquerer in the world, in particular China.
Yes, if we spend a couple trillion dollars and send in troops we can push Russia back to the 1991 borders. Maybe there won't even be a nuclear exchange.
The odds of nuclear exchange are very, very low. You should look up Russia's nuclear doctrine, it states that it won't use those nukes unless its actual core territory is threatened. What it has taken in Georgia might qualify, Crimea and the other Ukrainian gains are highly unlikely to count.
How much of the cost are you personally willing to bear? Would you spend $10k of your own money, $100k, volunteer in Ukraine, fight in Ukraine?
If I could donate $10k and be guaranteed that enough people would do so to ensure Ukraine is stocked to the gills on modern military tech? I think that would be a reasonable offer. I have human impulses that keep me from doing as much, but I can't really justify those. I am unlikely to have $100k any time soon, but depending on how much of my savings that would translate to, sure.
As for volunteering or enlisting? I'm a homebody. Not really my thing, and I wouldn't change that any time soon. But I admitted as much in my original comment to you, I said I have very little personal stake in the conflict. The closest is having a Ukrainian friend.
Overwhelming advantages have existed before, and have observably gone away before. thinking that they can't go away seems to make them go away faster.
I don't think it can't go away at all, but it seems to me like the US is sitting in a pretty comfortable lead against Russia and China. It also has a great many people working on ensuring that gap doesn't shrink and ideally expands much more. That's ignoring all the nations in the world which benefit from the US-backed order and thus also support it, either by having market ties or even agreeing to buy American military goods at a scale which makes those units cost less.
Especially the idea that Ukraine is going to reconquer the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine or Crimea and then what?
Those are parts that all sides agreed were Ukraine's back when the USSR broke down. I have no reason to think Ukraine is going to engage in pogroms or other repression against its ethnic Russians. If they want to leave, so be it, but I'm not expecting a reverse Holodomor.
I have no problem withe ethnic Russians in Ukraine asking to secede. But that land first needs to be returned to Ukraine, and then we can go on.
Sometimes I think we just have to let countries do what they will.
This is the naturalistic fallacy. Since imperialist powers have a tendency to naturally want to expand, we ought to not interfere too much, or so it goes. I reject this argument entirely. We can and frequently do insist that people not follow through on natural desires - rapists do not get to escape punishment simply because they felt the very natural desire for sex. This holds for nations and their leaders just as much.
To allow Ukraine to be destroyed for a theory is not worth it IMO. We had our chance to win, and we couldn't do it. Russia beat the sanctions and stopped the counterattack. Now it's a meat grinder. How many more young men must die for a theory of US world order?
What theory are you even referring to? The idea that Russia will collapse? I said that would be nice, not that it would happen. If Russia fucks off and gives Ukraine everything including Crimea back, I'm happy with that too. Russia's regime imploding would be superogatory.
Secondly, it is unfortunate that the Ukrainians are disproportionately suffering in this conflict. But that's literally how reality works - war affects the people near it, not the people away from it. If China invades Taiwan, the Taiwanese will suffer more than anyone else. If they all fled, people would call them cowards for not being willing to defend themselves.
Thirdly, you should watch Perun's videos on Ukraine. He's done a fairly good job of arguing that Ukraine can win (not easily, but still) if the West provides far more support. Russia is holding for now, but they can't do it forever. Either more people will have to be recruited, or more spending will have to go towards the war. My understanding is that they plan to spend a third of their total budget on the war in 2024.
It may take years, but I do think that Russia can be defeated. At horrendous cost, yes, but the tree of liberty requires the blood of patriots and tyrants.
I have no idea what your point is. I don't see any issue with America exporting security to nations it doesn't border, especially when those nations have neighbors who have less-than-ideal respect for things like the sanctity of national borders in the current status quo.
Wait, who is the secondary? My understanding is that the polycule was a thing of the past.
More options
Context Copy link