I am centrist when it comes to the topic of abortion. On one hand I am thrilled with the idea of killing unborn babies, but on the other hand I am not willing to let women decide anything.
In Germany, police in full riot gear, e.g. during demonstrations, do not wear name tags, but they do wear numerical codes. If any police misconduct happens, that means that the court can find out who is the officer in the video.
Even there you have number of masked units under SEK and MEK task forces which wear masks and baklavas exactly to prevent their identification by criminal organizations in order to protect their private life. And this is also not exactly rare - even in the article, these units conducted over 500 operations a year in Berlin alone - so we are probably talking about 10+ operations daily across Germany.
Given that ICE is actually also conducting their operations in environment where there is literal presence of professional smugglers and cartels, protecting their identity is not something I'd say is out of bounds. This recent shooting as well as attack on officers before only prove the point.
I'd put it as very high, probably 80% plus. They were the first who mobilized their army in secret with first preparatory actions such as calling reservists and readying railroads as early as July 24th, with partial mobilization on July 28th and full mobilization on July 30th. The issue is that the mobilization was at the time something like launching ICBMs - once you start, it is almost impossible to reverse as it would leave that country vulnerable to attack from the other side. Mobilization included plans of trains, supplies, weapons, armies moving around the country. You could not just stop it on a whim.
In fact as soon as Germans learned of this days later they panicked and launched all their plans several key days later and the rest came as a domino. Interestingly enough, the fact that Russians mobilized earlier meant that Germans actually had to send some troops on Eastern front even before they won incredible victory at Battle of Tannenberg, which made the push to Paris weaker and quite likely cost Germans the war. If the situation was different and Germans were actually the ones who would just mobilize and strike first - as they are actually described by history anyways - they would have been in much better position strategically and tactically
Yes. WW1 was not inevitable, in fact it was not inevitable even after the assassination. Even before the WW1 there was Agadir crisis of 1911 or Balkan wars of 1912-1913 and those were resolved peacefully. There was also constant shift in alliances and circumstances - such as Germany basically admitting that they lost the naval arms race with Britain which worked to lower the tensions.
The world before WW1 was highly complex and multipolar one, where each great power had multiple goals often with different opponents. In fact the tragedy of WW1 is that most nations stumbled into it due to various factors, especially the momentum of mobilization that made the clash inevitable. The events got out of hand and all sides of the conflict ended up with a situation that they did not want to see. If there was some other reason - even something in Balkans - that set out the conflict, it could end up with completely different results.
“write Anti-ICE messages”
Haha, this reminded me of the story where somebody was in charge of creating some company gift with print order of something like Microsoft in font Segoe UI. Needless to say, this was literally what got printed on the gift :D It ended up as highly sought after memorabilia for company veterans.
georgioz
11mo ago
Kamala seemed kind enough
How did she show her kindness? She was not a nurse or a mom of large family or anything like that. Quite the opposite - she has no children of her own and she worked as a prosecutor. Not exactly a profession I would mark as kind. I also remember this video where she was invited for some talk with kids as part of NASA space week. At best she came out as cringe, at worst she had a vibe of slightly drunk and slightly unhinged childless auntie.
Is there something that I missed where she was very warm, loving and humane?
georgioz
11mo ago
Hmm, Merriam-Webster dictionary definition
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
My example of heroin addict perfectly fits this dictionary definition.
georgioz
11mo ago
I don't consider it one of the "weakest ones" and I often find that people trying to argue against hypocrisy are extremely low credibility
You do not even get the point, which is that even people arguing for hypocrisy are 100% hypocritical in some of their beliefs. In that sense they argue against their own argument.
The central example is obviously something more like people taking a pseudo-neutral stance of a rule while applying it only one way in practice
So you have never in your life do anything like that ever? If you did, you are a hypocrite and thus you should stop arguing by your own admission. Unless I am talking to the second incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Sure, you however even have variants of prisoner's dilemma that are mapped for real world situations - such as iterated prisoner's dilemma that can be used to study problems like nuclear arms race. You can even include various real world information asymmetries - e.g. lack of information about opponents capabilities, their confidence and information about your capabilities, their level of "spite" so their willingness to act erratically etc. You have different games modeling economic behavior used to construct various types of auctions between many players etc.
The point being, that your original claim of how most game theory arguments assume a small number of competitors and perfect information is incorrect. In fact you could model the cancell culture as an arms race variant of group prisoners dilemma between two coalitions.
georgioz
11mo ago
Returning to the “right-wing violence is more common than left-wing violence” topic, I’ve been paying attention to how it’s covered in mainstream tech-adjacent media.
I think it is defined quite poorly. Most media cite this study from Cato institute. Just look at the entry for 2020: four deaths by rightwingers and 1 death by leftwinger. So if you did not know, the 2020 BLM summer of love year was actually more violent from the right by factor of 4.
georgioz
11mo ago
Most game theory arguments assume a small number of competitors and perfect information
What are you talking about, the most famous prisoner's dilemma is actually built around absence of information. You have games which are so huge that they are named as social dilemmas with potentially millions or even billions of players such as tragedy of commons.
So if I take you at face value, you would be against any social cancellation for any reason that is let's say currently not against the law? What exactly is the threshold? What if somebody just repeatedly posted on his tiktok that he hates niggers and faggots? What if somebody was sentenced for pedophilia, but is out of prison now and it all got public knowledge? Is there any threshold for cancellation in your eyes - which would of course make you hypocrite as you would fall under argument #4 where you just carve some exception. Or you or are you some free speech anticancellation purist?
Even then, you can be a heroin addict openly admitting that you take it and that everybody who takes it including you is morally weak and you can be correct. You can fulfill the dictionary definition of a hypocrite to perfection and still be correct, as the validity of your argument is independent on your own person. That is why it is a fallacy.
Argument 5
You forgot to add #6 - that argument from hypocrisy is an age old argument, which considered as one of the weakest ones in any debate, the official name is tu quoque fallacy. I will give some reasons why this argument will not win many people - including in this very same debate where the right is now digging up quotes from AOC or Kamala Harris calling for cancelations and showing how they are hypocrites. It is a weak form of ad-hominem. You are not attacking the argument, you are attacking the person giving the argument. For instance even an active heroin addict can rail against taking heroin. In fact he may have a unique position as an active user to effectively argue against it. Just pointing a finger that he is an addict and thus his argument is invalid may not be the best one.
Here, I can show how you are a hypocrite. Are you against cancelling people from their jobs if let's say they have a past of engaging in pedophilia? Are you actively against public sexual offender registry or against people requiring to offer proof of clean criminal records which exists solely to cancel people from any potential jobs or buying property etc.? If not, then you are a hypocrite and you are in fact for cancel culture. So shut up and delete this post you fucking hypocrite.
This one always sounded very weak to me, mostly because what if there actually is fire in a crowded theater? Apparently even the sentence itself is incorrect compared to the original which also included the word falsely. It is also interesting to see, that the same argument was used in 1919 against somebody protesting draft service in WW1 under enforcement of Espionage Act and his anti-draft speech was likened to falsely crying fire.
Not exactly a stellar argument either historically or even on its face.
More options
Context Copy link