omw_68
38m ago
Regardless of whether some people saying Death to America only mean it idiomatically, we know not all of them only mean it idiomatically since they have proven, through action, their non-idiomatic desire for Americans to die.
Agreed, and I would also ask the following: Of the people who say "death to America," but really only mean "down with America," what percentage would inconvenience themselves to prevent a terrorist attack on Americans? What percentage would genuinely feel bad if such an attack took place and succeeded?
omw_68
43m ago
The thing is, I could believe that (I personally enjoy talking about people being first against the wall when the revolution comes, Sirius Cybernetics Marketing Division style), except that I assume the people excusing your excerpt would also take significant offense at similar (or lesser!) directed from the wrong people at the wrong people.
Yeah, I was thinking something similar. If members of the Beitar Jerusalem football club were to start chanting "death to Arabs," I wonder how this person would react.
Besides, when Arabs or Persians chant "Death to America" and such, they know how it will be interpreted. I'm not big into political correctness, but if you KNOW that something will actually, in good faith, be interpreted in a certain way, and the listener is not performatively getting offended, well, then people don't really owe it to you to search for a charitable interpretation of what you have said.
omw_68
2hr ago
Man, who cares?
RandomRanger, apparently, among other Israel-haters.
Neither the US nor Israel would just bomb one specific girls' school for kicks, it makes no sense.
Of course not. But Israel-haters LOVE to seize upon these sorts of events.
Anyway, my point was about his lack of credibility, not about the event in particular.
I am very certain that the US military considered the possibility that Iran, known for threatening to close the straits of Hormuz for decades, might close the straights of Hormuz.
I tend to agree with this. I would just add that RandomRanger doesn't have much credibility when it comes to these sorts of issues. Earlier, he indicated that he was "confident" that Israel had bombed a girls' elementary school in Iran. Recent news reports are suggesting that if it was probably the United States. Of course it's too early to know for sure what happened -- and certainly too early for anyone to be "confident" that it was Israel.
It looks to me like RandomRanger is so consumed by hatred of Israel that he just isn't capable of critical or objective analysis when it comes to any issue that involves Israel.
omw_68
1d ago
I would guess that you are overstating your case, but I do feel like for a few years now we have been drifting into a kind of Mississippi Burning type situation in which Group A gets to abuse Group B and commit crime with near impunity while Group B gets prosecuted for lawful conduct.
(By "Mississippi Burning" I am referring to the 1988 movie which depicted the Deep South in kind of this way. With the benefit of hindsight, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Mississippi Burning had been a wild distortion of reality.)
To me the trend is rather alarming. Law is like money -- it exists if and only if people believe it exists.
omw_68
1d ago
They gave up as much territory as the IDF was willing to seize without even trying to fight for it and then stationed troops to prevent any other Syrians from trying to fight the invaders. I'd call that "unconditional surrender".
So you decline to tell me WHEN this unconditional surrender took place? I'm asking so I can look it up and see if there is any merit to what you are saying. It's a very simple question. You claim that Syria "pretty much unconditionally surrendered to Israel" -- I am asking WHEN this unconditional surrender took place. What month and year?
Because their ground forces are totally inept, because they have zero tolerance for casualties and because they have no coherent strategy for actually winning wars.
I disagree, but let's assume this is true for the sake of argument. In that case, I will modify my point as follows:
Israel clearly has the power to roll in and cause mucho damage in Jordan; same thing with Egypt; same thing with Gaza; and same thing with Area A. But as the saying goes, one of these things is not like the others.
omw_68
2d ago
It seems to me that a piece like this hinges on the assumptions that the concept of "fascism" exists in a way that rationality can show and then instances of it can be identified through the application of shared, dispassionate scientific evidence and logical argument, and further, that "fascism" is universally and obviously "evil" in some incontestable normative sense (also proven through the application of rationality, I guess?).
Yeah, it's interesting to think about the mentality that produced this piece. I mean, if the MAGA movement is harmful, why not just argue that it's harmful? Why is it so important to label Trump/MAGA as "fascist"?
Perhaps I am speculating a bit, but I strongly suspect the reason is that in the Progressive mindset, once a person (or entity) has been labeled a "fascist," it becomes morally permissible to use just about any means to oppose that person; to deny that person his rights; to use political violence against that person, to be gleeful at anything that harms that person, no matter how unfair or unjustified, etc.
omw_68
2d ago
I've recently come up with an even more biting definition that's guaranteed to please no one, yet I think fits most actual "use cases": fascism is using communist means to achieve non-communist ends.
I tend to agree with this, if by "communist means," you mean the sort of overly aggressive ways that communist regimes have traditionally trampled on human rights -- secret police; arrests in the middle of the night for speaking out against the regime; gulags; mass surveillance; etc.
I think that in practice, when a person is accused of "fascism," that's what the accuser is trying to imply --(1) that the person is using or supports these sorts of tactics; and (2) that the person is not a Leftist or Communist.
omw_68
2d ago
there's a good chance that at least one of them would call me a nigger. Or whatever the modern, PC version of it is.
I tend to agree with this, but it seems to me the problem is not billionaires per se but rather what you refer to as "modern PC"
omw_68
2d ago
What it means is that if you are convinced that Iran controls Hezbollah, you should probably also be convinced that Pakistan controls Lashkar-e-Taiba. Lashkar-e-Taiba is believed to have directly attacked India before
I'm kinda skeptical about this - can you give me links?
A country has never even used a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear-armed state, much less a nuclear-armed one that would retaliate by destroying every major city in the attacking country.
I have a few questions, the first two being hypothetical:
First, if you were in charge of Israel; and a nuclear bomb exploded one day in Ariel; and you were 80% sure it was Iran behind it, would you give the order to destroy every large city in Iran? What if you were 100% certain, but if Iran claimed it was a rogue general who had ordered the strike?
Second, if you were in charge of Israel, and one of your cargo ships were seized, and you were pretty sure Iran was behind it, would your response be informed at all by whether or not Iran had a nuclear arsenal?
Third, do you agree that at least until recently, Iran was led -- in large part -- by religious fanatics?
Fourth, are you disputing my argument that since (1) Iran had repeatedly attacked Israel; and (2) Iran's leadership has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, it follows that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, there is a serious risk it would attempt to use them against Israel?
omw_68
2d ago
Technically, the idea that Iran controls Hezbollah is speculation
I'm not sure what this means. Iran controls Hezbollah, or at least it did until a few days ago. As far as your claim goes that what Iran does with Hezbollah is "pretty typical foreign policy," it does not seem to me that you have sustained this claim.
Anyway, you don't seem to dispute that (1) Iran substantially controls Hezbollah; (2) Hezbollah has repeatedly launched attacks directed at Israel in general; and (3) Iran's leadership has, in substance, called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
To any reasonable person, this is pretty good evidence that -- at a minimum -- that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, there is a serious risk it would attempt to use them against Israel.
omw_68
2d ago
I am inclined to defend the billionaires because the people going after them aren't going to stop there. Rather, they are just looking for a non-sympathetic target. I guess you could say something like "first they came for the billionaires"
Besides, I find the billionaires to be rather entertaining. I enjoy reading about their luxury bunkers in New Zealand; their mega-yachts; their mistresses; etc. No billionaire ever called me a n*gger, so to speak.
omw_68
3d ago
I think that India and Pakistan probably support paramilitary groups aligned against the other (although they deny it), and India and Pakistan even recently had a short conventional war, yet nukes did not fly. That even though Pakistan is a pretty Islamic country.
I'm not sure what to make of this, since you are kind of speculating here. Are you able to identify any countries for which there is solid evidence that their behavior is analogous to that of Iran? Please include the names of the analogs to Hezbollah.
Also, do you agree that (1) Iran substantially controls Hezbollah; (2) Hezbollah has repeatedly launched attacks directed at Israel in general; and (3) Iran's leadership has, in substance, called for Israel to be wiped off the map?
omw_68
3d ago
In the same way that Hoover Dam was.
Ok, I understand your point. I am pretty sure that a law aimed at securing good jobs for men, if it were large enough to put a big dent the wealth transfer imbalance from men to women, would have to be explicitly designed for this purpose. Which means that a feminist freak-out would be triggered.
I do concede that something smaller could be done on the down low, though.
omw_68
3d ago
I have an objectively hot female friend who would be a total catch for any guy. Very confident, green flags around being able to fit in with guy-groups, heaps of hobbies, etc. She's single at 32 and doesn’t seem to have had meaningful relationships, and isn't hooking up or anything.
Assuming she is childless, almost certainly she is being wildly over-picky.
omw_68
3d ago
Given Iran’s war success thus far, might the insurance actually be profitable, and Lloyd’s is merely paranoid?
Just speculating, but I would guess that the main concern is correlation of risk. If Iran takes out one tanker, it raises the chance significantly that a second tanker will be taken out, a third, and so on. So there is a real possibility of an insurer getting wiped out.
I assume that for similar reasons, my business insurance policies do not cover acts of war even though my office is located in North America and therefore the risk of loss due to war is pretty small.
omw_68
3d ago
I've come to believe that a lot of it isn't really Western Men obsessed with female validation. Thanks to the internet, its actually millions upon millions of third world males obsessed with bobs and vagene. But for the receiving woman... attention is attention.
I would say that American society was very gynocentric in the 20th century, i.e. pre-Internet.
Most importantly, the trend of forcible transfers of wealth and social status from men to women was in place long before the Internet. The idea that men suck; that women don't need men; etc. was also well established by then. The taboo against saying anything negative about women as a group wasn't firmly established yet, but it was still floating around.
omw_68
3d ago
There's a market that refuses to sell these policies at a reasonable price, we are selling them, therefore they are below market.
The linked article seemed to imply that no insurance was for sale at any price.
I'm reading "reasonable" to mean "affordable" as it is typically used colloquially
I read the word "reasonable" a bit differently. So for example, suppose the payout in case a ship is lost is $100 million; and the chances of the ship being lost are 1/1000. In that case, a "reasonable" price for insurance -- in my opinion -- would be $100k plus extra money for profit and administrative costs. Perhaps $110k.
Of course, the issue that the insurance companies are facing include increased risk AND correlation of risk. If the chance of losing a vessel goes from 1/1000 to 1/100, you can't necessarily just multiply the premiums by 10. Because if one boat is lost, then perhaps it means that the chances of losing another boat are much higher. So that by writing the policies, the insurance company is taking a serious risk of getting wiped out.
In any event, I don't necessarily have a problem with governments stepping in and helping with insurance market failures. I can definitely appreciate the isolationist, America-first idea that the US shouldn't be bailing out foreign shippers trading between foreign ports. On the other hand, the Persian Gulf is kind of our turf. If we take the attitude that we are just going to walk away from the situation, safe in the assumption that whoever ends up in control their is going to sell oil to us and our allies, we risk creating a power vacuum for the Chinese, Russians, or whoever to step into.
omw_68
3d ago
So I suspect we're just waiting to achieve a critical mass of men who are capable of saying "no, we're doing it anyway."
There are just a lot of men out there who are obsessed with female validation. But I agree that on the current trajectory, it's almost inevitable that women will lose their disproportionate influence over public policy.
omw_68
3d ago
There was, and it wasn't particularly controversial.
Was this initiative explicitly aimed at creating good jobs for men?
omw_68
3d ago
There is no likely future where women retain their rights and privileges.
Well I think one possibility is technological changes which are so radical that these relationship issues are moot. e.g. robot waifus, artificial wombs, etc.
But I agree that absent radical changes in technology, feminism is ultimately a self-correcting problem.
omw_68
3d ago
What's your reason for assuming the interventions needed should target men and male behavior.
I think this touches on the biggest stumbling block in any societal effort to address the "relationship recession," such as it exists. Any proposal is going to affect men and women differently. If there is any perceived disadvantage to women; or if the perceived advantage for women is less than the perceived advantage for men, then women will freak out and society will have a very hard time adopting such a policy.
Here's an example:
We'd also need to raise wages for men who can not attend higher education, whatever the reason.
I agree that this is a good idea. When a man's finances improve, he is more likely to get married; when a woman's finances improve, she is more likely to get divorced (or stay single).
Ok, but suppose there was a policy proposal to create good jobs for men. Kind of like the Hoover Dam project in the 1930s, except with better safety standards. I assure you that feminists would freak out. The whole thing would be revised and water down until the majority of the benefits were going directly to women.
I think that absent some huge technological shift (e.g. artificial wombs; robot waifus; etc.) the only real solution is to wait for more traditional (and more fecund) subcultures to grow in influence.
omw_68
3d ago
"at a very reasonable price". This would amount to subsidizing foreign shipping companies by offering them below-market pricing for their insurance costs
I'm a little confused by this. How is it that "very reasonable" = "below-market"?
omw_68
3d ago
There's the famous statistic that at one point 17 women reproduced for every man. But if you trace down that claim, it's likely that such an event happened during our hunter gatherer past, not during civilization.
If I had to guess, I would say that /u/thenelection is correct, that it was actually the rise of agriculture which resulted in such an extreme ratio. But even if the ratio is "a more reasonable 4:1," that's still consistent with my claim that man is naturally a tournament species. It seems pretty clear to me that most men would build a harem if they could get away with it. And that most women would join a harem if it were socially acceptable and the economics worked.
Well do you agree that over the last 20 years, Iran has had a lot of official events which included treading on and burning American and Israeli flags?
Can we agree that the most effective way to destroy Iran would be to take out their food and water infrastructure so that the population dies of hunger and thirst?
More options
Context Copy link