remzem
1yr ago
You might not, but the left certainly cares based on all the cancelings: Netflix protests around Dave Chapelle, Spotify around Joe Rogan, the insane backlash to J.K. Rowling, and those are people that barely stepped out of line and were/are basically leftist in most other ways. Pretty much any right wing personality online has a hate mob that seems to be more obsessed with them than their own following is. Look at Andrew Tate recently or the other one whose name I can't remember and didn't manage to find online because a search for 'right wing twitch streamers' just brought up nytimes and cbs hit pieces complaining about them in general.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/technology/twitch-livestream-extremists.html
Controlling the culture is power, it's clear the left understands this, not surprising that the right is starting to. Giving an inch was their biggest mistake in the first place.
remzem
1yr ago
Makes sense if you see the lawsuit as being actually about the company recouping losses and reputation. If you see it as the Cathedral trying to destroy anything that threatens them i.e. wanting to destroy fox news in general, then going after their top show makes more sense.
remzem
1yr ago
I always saw it as a way to maximize soft power gains after the allied victory in ww2. It wasn't enough that their victory was a sign that the allies were stronger, it had to become a symbol of how virtuous they are/were. The nazis practiced eugenics and were race obsessed, the nazis were evil. The allies are post-racial and blank slatist, the allies are good. That sort of thing.
It was probably important given the rise of the USSR as well. The US and other western countries iirc Britain needed to put distance between themselves and their own eugenics programs to maximize soft power gains after the war. Didn't the nazis even argue that western countries had similar programs to try and get off the hook for crimes? I don't remember tbh.
I think the other posters are right about other trends, industrialization, nation states etc. already at work, but when it comes to the bump after ww2 specifically this makes more sense to me. Might makes right was a hard sell after a war as ugly as ww2 so to continue with the aggressive expansion and feed the military-industrial devil they'd made a pact with in the west they needed to paint themselves as the good guys righting the world's wrongs.
It being mostly virtue signalling also fits with the large gaps in stated and revealed preferences when it comes to interracial marriage, school and neighborhood choice etc.
remzem
1yr ago
I mean you should take this write up with a grain of salt as Dean is pretty openly a pro US neocon, who regularly argues pretty loudly for US foreign military interests. Before I get dogpiled just read their posting history, it's almost all they comment on while staying out of all the other juicy western culture war topics the rest of us are suckers for. All countries involved in proxy wars have their own internal issues and politics that factor.
On the other hand there are 3 places in the world in which Russia has / plans to have a foreign naval base. Sevastopol in Crimea, Tartus in Syria and a planned base in Sudan. Syria was clearly a proxy war, Ukraine is, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
The red sea sees a trillion dollars pass through each year and is of huge geostrategic importance. I think the 1st and only foreign naval base China has in in Djibouti. So there is plenty of incentive for the US to be manipulating things behind the scenes. Even if they haven't clearly backed a specific separatist force yet.
I got through two pages of your post history with every single post (on here, reddit is dead) being a post defending US foreign policy. I have a life man, I can't be expected to spend all of it reading effort posts, and if you want to be seen as not a neocon you really should maybe try and not do everything in your power to appear as a neocon? Sometimes it can be hard to square the image we project to the public with our interior views of ourselves I guess. What label do you prefer? US imperialist? Atlanticist? Someone Russia touched in a no-no spot?
I mean someone in the small scale question thread asks if Sudan is a proxy war, something that could be answered by a simple, "There is a lot of incentive foreign powers could be involved but we can't for sure say this it is or isn't." Instead you write up a 5 page rebuttal on how there is no way the US could possibly be involved in another proxy war after it's history of endless proxy wars, when there are actors involved that are already in proxy wars by info dumping a Wikipedia article on recent Sudanese history.
The problem with this sort of argument and a problem that persists with motte style arguments, is that the information that is most valuable in international relations, is also the information you are least likely to have. Long ass effort post write ups summarizing easily available facts are almost always worthless and the endless gaslighting by the "experts" to trust the bare facts and ignore your "conspiratorial" instincts is obnoxious. Which is why it's terribly misleading to just rattle off a bunch of known facts about recent Sudanese history without pointing out the very obvious incentives foreign actors would have to be involved. Are foreign countries perfectly capable of fucking themselves? Yeah. Do foreign actors often give them a push when it's in their interests? Yeah. In the interconnectedness of the modern world and the power certain states have within it, it's almost impossible for any war to not have at least some hint of proxy war to it. That isn't chauvinism, that's just how power works.
Also, how is Obama letting the middle east handle (offshoring) it's proxy wars not just some inception tier proxy warring?
remzem
1yr ago
By that definition there has never been and can never be a proxy war, as no one has zero agency, all groups the US has employed in its proxy wars had a choice to say no. Convenient for someone that is such a US foreign policy apologist.
remzem
1yr ago
Maybe if you hadn't spent the last 30 years destabilizing every region (including your own country) for pure greed people would have a bit more trust?
remzem
1yr ago
Because what was written doesn't make sense
If you indirectly force or empower someone to wage a conflict they could not, or would not, do without your support, that's a proxy war.
Let's pick out parts of this by excluding some of the not relevant or's.
If you empower someone to wage a conflict they could not do (wage) without your support, that's a proxy war.
If someone wages a conflict that they would want to as long as you were not outright stopping them, that is not a proxy war.
These statements contradict, the second is too broad. If you're enabling them or encouraging them but they want to do it anyways it's both not a proxy war and a proxy war.
Reduces to basically any conflict in which a powerful foreign country influences the conflict, while w/e party within the state they're enabling wants to wage a conflict, not being a proxy war. So nothing can be a proxy war as long as you can find some faction within a country that doesn't like current leadership.
remzem
1yr ago
I thought it was clear that I don't think he is wrong he is just being misleading. Like a magician that draws attention to something else while they put a card in your pocket or w/e. He's infodumping a lot of factual information that is true, but leaving out that there are some pretty big incentives for foreign powers that are currently not on best of terms to be getting involved. And also the nature of these situations means that the bare facts are never the whole story. Countries just don't announce to the public their coup attempts or w/e. Unless it's on accident or leaked it's not information that ever gets out. So I felt it needed context.
I mean he's wrong on other things like Syria not being a US proxy war, but that was further down thread and not part of the initial post.
remzem
11mo ago
Yeah, it's generally more efficient to cut and then bulk than to do a recomp at maintenance. It is possible to gain muscle while on a deficit but it depends on certain things like, starting body fat %, training history, previous training history, size of the deficit. If you have a higher body fat % it's easier to maintain or gain muscle on a cut (until you get to a low bf%), if you're new to training it's easier to build muscle, if you have previous experience lifting but took an extended break and lost muscle mass your body will put it back on faster than an untrained beginner and if you diet more slowly it's easier to maintain or gain muscle than if you lose the weight fast.
Still important to train while dieting though to maintain as much muscle as possible, and usually cutting diets have even higher protein targets.
remzem
10mo ago
Who do you guys think blew up the dam?
Russia pros
-
makes the area downriver nearly impassable in the short term, with the counter offensive kicking off kills that front.
-
could make crossing even upriver more difficult with much more mud to cross for a landing? This would allow them to concentrate forces on the donetsk / zaparozhne lines
Russia cons
-
humanitarian disaster and large escalation. Would make western populations more willing to keep writing the blank checks for the MIC
-
could threaten the nuclear plant within their own territory (this seems like a con for anyone in the region, Russian or Ukrainian though)
-
most models show more damage to the left bank of the Dnieper which they control and have fortified after the Kherson withdrawal.
-
cuts off a large supply of water to Crimea
Ukraine pros
-
Escalation, assuming a successful false flag would allow them to push for more western military aide. Ukraine's war is less against Russia and more against the minds of western populations as their continued support with elections upcoming is all that is keeping them afloat.
-
Long term (weeks to months for the banks to dry) easier to cross upriver to regain the nuclear plant.
-
potentially wipe out Russian minefields, troops and fortifications located downstream.
Ukraine cons
-
freezes the entire Kherson front right as the counter offensive seems to be kicking off.
-
damages their own territory, humanitarian disaster, threatens nuclear plant.
Edgecases:
-
God is laughing his ass off, Historic high levels and lack of maintenance due to war lead to failure of the dam on accident right as a major offensive is about to start and major escalations (attacks on civilians in Russian territory etc.) had just begun.
-
Some crazy high quality deep fakes? I guess it could lead to chaos and unbalance things downriver? Throw one side off? Would think they'd have better information sources for either side than twitter posts though.
remzem
10mo ago
Maybe I'm just burnt out on 4d chess takes after the Trump era, but I feel like it's real, even as someone that is entirely anti-nato to the point I would turncoat in a second if i had a chance to damage the alliance. Prigozhin actually reminds me of Trump after following the war the last year. Issues with emotional regulation that border on mental illness, or maybe drug issues, or both. Something goes well and he's singing everyones praises, something doesn't go well and he jumps on telegram and calls everyone names and goes on a rant.
Seemed like earlier in the war he banked on the successes of Wagner relative to the rest of the Russia military and Shoigu who fucked up the initial invasion and took forever to reorient. Used his successes in Bakhmut as currency to keep himself afloat after his outbursts and tirades.
Then going into the Ukrainian Counteroffensive he seemed to be banking on continued Russian failures to keep him untouchable but when they didn't materialize and even western sources started to comment that Russia is starting to adapt and get the rust off he's now found himself in a corner. All the insubordinate outbursts were remembered but now he is losing his pull due to the regular Russian military finally (sorta) getting it's shit together.
Think it could be real and he is just that desperate. Seems more straightforward than all the other theories, Occam and what not.
Russia recently required PMC groups to all sign up so they are under direct command of Russian MoD. Prigozhin refused, and if he doesn't sign up his funding gets cut and even with his money he won't be keeping a 30k+ mercenary group afloat for more than a couple months.
I really think he was banking on Russia's failures in Ukraine vs his successes to catapult him into power. He released a really bizarre, even by the standards of propaganda in this war bizarre, video a few days ago. Claimed that the Ukrainian offensive was actually going well for them and that the Russian military was failing, Ukraine was already occupying Tokmak, Russia lied about Donbas shelling because the Oligarchs needed the war. Yes, the Oligarchs that the west thought would rise up and oust Putin for getting their western assets seized wanted the war... Really out there stuff given even western sources don't claim much success so far and there is video and picture evidence that the territorial losses aren't real.
Maybe he just realized his time was up and figured this is his only shot at Shoigu. Too often people try to ascribe rational motivations to other humans when really people aren't very rational. Prigozhin more than most.
I think the more interesting question is why is Wagner following him? Are they following? Is it just a loyal core? Because without some assurances or other info they'd have to be suicidal as well. He's not a military leader, he doesn't actually direct Wagner forces, he's just the frontman. I'm more interested in what the power players within Wagner are up to.
remzem
10mo ago
Ok, I will post high effort sneers like the rest of the posters from now on.
remzem
10mo ago
It seems bizarre to me that the paleocon sorts, after having been cast aside by their masters, so quickly fall back into nationalism. They endlessly complain about how identity politics are wrong because they treat groups as monolothic blocs when in fact those groups are made up of individuals that may or may not benefit from the policies being pushed, or are often just being used by grifters for cynical gains. Then they seem to completely lack the ability to take that same perspective and apply it to international relationships. It's almost like they aren't truly protesting identity politics, they are just sad that the masters hand is on a different dog.
There is no foreign poilcy that benefits Americans. There is no policy that benefits Americans because America is broken divided place full of different factions that have competing and contrary interests. The enemy of my enemy is my friend might be an exaggeration, but in these situations the enemy of my enemy is useful seems like a fair statement.
The average anti-nato person isn't rooting for Russia to take over the world and create a universal empire. They are simply rooting for their local elites to lose a bit of face and power. Yes that means the foreign pawns of those elites might also lose power, no that doesn't mean that every Ukranian is going to be tortured to death, because anti-nato sorts are capable of nuance and recognize that Ukraine, much like the US, isn't a monolith with a lockstep populace.
It's just embarrassing to see people rooting for an empire that hates them. All so they can continue with some empty moralizing, the illusion that the country has some kind of benevolent ideology and there is more to politics than power.
remzem
10mo ago
Other competing elites and their viewpoints gain power. Specifically in this instance the US maximalists and war profiteers that want / think they can keep the US as the sole superpower despite it's obvious decline and decay give way to the "America first" group. More isolationist and at least grudgingly accepting of a more multipolar world elites and the ideas / policy that come with them.
Instead of a Biden starting wars you get a Trump ending them. Though preferably someone that is more stable than Trump and doesn't need to dick measure for ego with rival nations as often.
I did, OP is directly quoting me in that "completely oblivious" section in an obvious low-effort (effort doesn't equate to word count, despite what mods here believe) boo outgroup post. I reported and called him out on it and as is more and more common in the west these days the authorities ignore the crime and go after the person calling it out.
It's a running problem. Someone posts a 5000 word (((Parentheses))) screed on here and you have no idea what to do about it, maybe they get a warning several thread derailments later. Someone calls the poster a schizo moron (which they are) and they're banned.
remzem
10mo ago
Only really true in a technical sense. Trump negotiated the 2021 Withdrawal and oversaw the reduction of troops. Biden delayed it from May to August. It was clear the establishment, whom Biden represents, wanted the war to continue as they had been dragging their feet and not actually preparing things. Establishment politicians in congress also regularly tried to stop other troop reductions during Trump's term.
like so
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/ndaa-trump-germany-troop-cuts/index.html
bipartisan from what I remember, but the isolationist elite / warmonger elite distinction isn't as straightforward as Republican / Democrat despite Trump and Biden being republican and democrat and being the most notable representatives of the respective factions.
remzem
10mo ago
Currently in Germany, 1 in 5 voters say they're unhappy with their coalition government, for example.
Is this considered bad in Germany? 20% are unhappy? (I checked and its not a typo the article says the same thing)
Seems like politicians anywhere else would be overjoyed to poll that well.
remzem
9mo ago
We tried it and it doesn't work.
The problem with this system is that all it takes is one person or group noticing and it falls apart. There are even incentives to defect.
People 0-998: Race doesn't matter, people are all basically the same and race doesn't impact their potential.
Person 999: Here are well sourced statistics showing blacks are x times more likely to be murdered, blacks are x times more likely to be imprisoned, poor, etc.
Those stats being provably true gives the persons argument more weight and gives them a path to political power. While at the same time ignoring reality has left a huge ideological weak point in your system. Even if you pivot to pointing out that blacks have far higher murder rates and mostly interact with blacks, which explains the increased chance of being murdered, you are now a hypocrite because you've spent years saying race doesn't matter and your system of polite white lies has ended.
remzem
9mo ago
There might not be a communist revolution every time, but there is a constant churn of people offering fixes to the supposed problem of inequality. They then obtain sinecures for themselves and waste tax payer dollars on a problem that we wouldn't have if people accepted hbd and didn't ignore differences in iq or things like time preference.
Also, accepting is different than ignoring. Accepting explicitly requires you to not ignore. You have to first admit that race differences exist to then accept them and move on. After that yeah you can just behave as if they don't exist if you want, but that awareness has to be there in society. Otherwise someone can defect and say, "Did you know black people are poorer than whites?" In the world where people are aware of and accept but otherwise ignore race differences people will simply point out the 1 SD iq differences. In a world where race differences are entirely ignored that person becomes the mayor of Chicago or something.
remzem
8mo ago
remzem
8mo ago
That's true, they seem to specifically conform to authority figure narratives. It seems like more of a very online American thing, maybe they're still functionally conformists in the 'good neighbor', or religious sheep sense, but due to America's decaying social fabric lack any sort of social group to conform to and so tend to adhere mostly to w/e the prevalent authority narratives are.
If you don't let Jewish NGOs buy up your legal system and manipulate your elections by prosecuting anyone resisting it's anti-Semitic don't ya know?
More options
Context Copy link