starless_sea
No bio...
User ID: 1533
So what about the German right-wing conspiracy that got busted? On one hand, they seem pretty crazy with conspiracy theories and actually believing that the German people would support a coup. On the other hand, they don't seem like random nobodies but the kind of people you would want on your coup if you were to do a coup.
Link to news story: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63885028
Some random thoughts:
-
Was this conspiracy realistic? Or was it just a big larp? (Are all coups big larps?)
-
How strong were the Russian connections? Are the arrests a blow to Putin?
-
Why do the conspiracy thing when you can just do normal politics in AfD and actually get power the true and tried way [insert reference to well-known, democratically successful German right wing leader]. Or if you insist on conspiracy, you can at least march trough the institutions, it seems like the better option? And if you really need power nownow, why not just take the exit option (e.g. move to Russia and make your own auth-right comune there?)?
I'd be happy for someone who has an actual take or an interesting perspective on this to create their own top level thread.
I disagree. If you invite the whole world to your country by voluntarily hosting the World Cup, you should expect the world to show up. If you do not want people in your country who do not conform to the rigid social taboos of your culture, you shouldn't host the World Cup.
Wearing an armband is not shitting on anyone's culture or forcing anything on anyone. Being annoyed when your invited guests wear innocuous armbands that are perfectly fine in their culture is rude.
I'm European.
Also, OPs argument seems more American to me. "My house, my rules" and similar mindsets are very American and signals that famous rugged individualism. We in the old country are more graceful hosts IMO.
Like you know how brides bans certain colors for the guest clothes, or makes all their bridesmaids wear the same dress? A very American thing IMO.
starless_sea
1yr ago
A common trope is that spies gets tapes of some politician doing something immoral or illegal, which is then used for blackmail. Allegations of this is rife, e.g. Trump in Moscow, Epstein, etc. Do we have any clear example of this actually working? E.g. some politician pushes policy X. Years later it is revealed that this was because of blackmail from Y. An example of failed blackmail would also be interesting, e.g. some politician saying "Y has an embarrassing video of me which they are using for blackmail, but I won't give in!" followed by Y releasing the video.
(I guess most of the time the blackmail is more a way to generally pressure someone and keep them in line. I also know that most cases probably wouldn't become known to the public)
starless_sea
1yr ago
-
So "larp" is colloquial and sloppy. With things like these, that seem to have little chance of success and members that are quite detached from reality, it's often inferred that the reason these guys are loading up on guns and talking about coups is not that they actually want to do a coup, but instead more that they want to be the kind of person who does a coup. Hence the "larp". I guess there's danger in psycho-analysing people through the news though. Still, I would imagine that ex-special forces guys know a thing or two about coups and wouldn't plan something that's obviously doomed to fail. But maybe I'm just overestimating the jarheads.
-
Seems like the likely scenario.
-
I guess I just assume people are rational and intelligent and that people with strong political convictions take reasonable steps to reach their political goals. I just need to downgrade that prior, when I read it aloud I myself realize it's stupid.
starless_sea
1yr ago
Yes, it would be rude for a guests in Qatar to walk around in drag and chant "Are there any men here ready to fuck!?". But that's pretty far from wearing an armband with a rainbow on.
starless_sea
1yr ago
A rainbow armband is not an expression of contempt and disrespect for Qatari culture. And once again: If Qatar doesn't want any rainbows anywhere, they can just not host the World Cup. Inviting people and then policing details in their dress is rude.
This highlights a general disagreement I see. Pro-Palestine arguments are often based on high principles of human rights, international law, democracy, etc. Pro-Israel arguments are often based on pragmatism, political reality and a flavor to might-makes-right. The second kind of argument just clicks better with me, I guess this might be some moral foundation kind of thing. I can see the morally pure argument for fighting the Dane until he gives up all he has unlawfully taken. But the Dane seem to be well settled and well defended, and if your side would have won the wars of yesteryear, then you would be the ruler of Denmark today and you would be equally unwilling to give back to the Danes all that you'd taken from them, so at some point it's just time to accept reality and move on. (It's easy to claim the moral high ground and lofty principles when you are in a position without power.)
Or maybe I'm just unconsciously seeking out the arguments I like from the side I unconsciously want to like and the arguments I dislike from the side I don't want to like.
starless_sea
1yr ago
I'm not pretending that this is about clothing. Clearly there's symbolism in the rainbow armband, I'm happy to acknowledge that.
I'm feeling like this debate isn't going anywhere, it mostly seems to be you making uncharitable assumptions about me. If you want to know anything concrete I'm happy to answer you, but I've stated my position and I don't see that you have argued against it.
starless_sea
1yr ago
Someone spread an embarrassing video of him, but it's not clear if any blackmail was involved.
starless_sea
1yr ago
"Russia" is not a monolith. There are plenty of Russians, some quite powerful, with lots to gain from destroying the pipeline.
starless_sea
1yr ago
evidence that this conversation has been mostly me making uncharitable assumptions about you.
That's a... very American way of thinking.
Why are you pretending you think this is about clothing?
But ok, only 50% of this debate has been you making uncharitable assumptions about me. It feels like more when you are on the receiving end.
that you are resorting to sophistry on this topic because you know the position you back is contrived.
And it continuous. Seriously man, try to show some kindness.
Anyway, since this seems to be only meta-discussion and no actual discussion at all, I'm out.
starless_sea
1yr ago
Simple solution: If you are so quick to offense that you cannot tolerate armbands with rainbows, you shouldn't host the World Cup.
starless_sea
1yr ago
Here's my proposal:
10% of what a kid pays in income taxes instead goes to their parents*. Kids can opt out of the program** and just pay regular taxes instead if the want to.
This aligns all incentives pretty well. There's a degree of luck in the program but it doesn't look like the kind of luck people dislike or feel is unfair.
*payments are in proportion to time spent being primary custodian during ages 0-17, to handle adoptees, strange family situations and avoid an adult-adoption loophole.
**opt-out is granular, e.g. you can chose to opt out your dad but not your mom.
So the counterfactual is that Sweden was super happy to form a joint investigation. In which case, I could well imagine some Motte-poster writing how this indicates that the saboteur was a state actor within NATO, as the likely explanation is that Sweden is paying NATO ransom by basically handing over the investigation to NATO Denmark and NATO Germany. The Motte-poster would go on: If Russia was the suspected culprit, Sweden would like to do its own, thorough investigation to verify against the statements of Denmark and Germany to check the trustworthiness of their old friends and hopefully-new allies (and also to hone their skills at these kinds of investigations). Such an thorough investigation would be dangerous if it risked finding the "wrong" culprit, as the investigation results might leak: much safer to involve NATO Denmark and NATO Germany if the results might be "wrong". Heck, it might even be the US pressing Sweden to do their own investigation, since they don't trust the Germans.
Did anyone say "Sweden not joining the investigation would indicate NATO culpability" before the news broke? Or just supply some stronger reasoning to as why this indicates a NATO culprit, taking the counterfactual into account?
starless_sea
1yr ago
Given that, the only solution where the Arab residents of that land get to enjoy the benefits of being citizens of a liberal democracy, is that they are citizens of a liberal democracy jointly with the people who encircle them on all sides. And that means a one-state solution.
This seems totally unworkable to me. Why aren't you addressing the glaring counterargument: This would make Jews a minority with a high likelihood of mistreatment ("it can work pretty well" is hardly reassuring)?
Here's the other side:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4z3bWxf2twThlc3xSmdTul?si=48EYBBJsTfuJklH8hRDw4A
I didn't listen to all of it but it seems to do a kind of Motte and Baily. Paraphrasing:
-
"People are always complaining about teachers and schools, nothing new under the sun." (geh, I wonder why?)
-
"The real problem is poverty."
-
"No-one is saying that children doesn't need phonics instruction"
-
"Whole Language is a philosophy, not a practice."
-
"Whole Language will not work if we don't address class size."
-
"If we put a good teacher with eighteen kids and give them time and space to do what they need to do, then all of these things will be successful."
-
"Sold a Story is angry that people making money while making money for this journalist."
-
"The market economy of the US depends on poverty to thrive, thus market forces will never overcome poverty."
-
"Social reform must precede or at least be concurrent to in-school reform, while both must seek equity, not accountability."
Anyway, thought it would be good to have some contrast. It's hard not to snark though. I can see how the argument that teachers should be autonomous and free from commercial influence from publishers, big standardized tests and political silver bullets can be convincing to some, but it's so far away from how I see the world. In my world, lack of competition or accountability will cause stagnation and rot, and idealism isn't enough to prevent this.
starless_sea
1yr ago
https://twitter.com/BadBalticTakes/status/1623606025071783936?s=20&t=PXShQfsqToxfHV3qYYjzkg
Hersh himself acknowledges how the pipeline would be politically unviable during Russia’s full scale war. That means the continued existence of the pipeline is far more valuable only to someone who could replace Putin and change the course he wants Russia totally committed to. Putin’s top priority is remaining in power at all cost. He would sacrifice an incentive to replace him & end war.
starless_sea
1yr ago
But you have to explain why the Qatari should allow a symbol of support for behaviour they have criminalised.
Literally my first post:
If you invite the whole world to your country by voluntarily hosting the World Cup, you should expect the world to show up. If you do not want people in your country who do not conform to the rigid social taboos of your culture, you shouldn't host the World Cup.
starless_sea
1yr ago
I don't see the contradiction. The Qatari government is bad for expecting their guest to conform to their rigid social norms. FIFA is bad for allowing Qatar to host the World Cup. People should not go to the World Cup. Three true statement, no contradiction.
starless_sea
1yr ago
It seems entirely plausible that whomever had the video released it just to ruin Crawthorn without attempting to do any blackmail. Or that they did a "traditional" blackmail for money, not the kind of political favors blackmail I'm discussing here. And if they did a blackmail, why wouldn't Crawthorn tell the details, or go to the police?
starless_sea
1yr ago
Related hypothesis: UFOs are a US intelligence recruiting effort. "Come work for the government and learn if any world-shattering conspiracies are actually true or not."
Economy+politics 101 question for someone who knows: Let's say that the central bank of country A raises the interest rate a little bit. Which groups gain and which groups loses from this? What if the reverse happens and the central bank lowers the interest rate, are the winners and losers reversed as well then? It seems self-evident that people with lots of loans and few assets (e.g. new families with unpaid student loans who just took on another loan to buy an expensive home) would lose from higher interest rates, is that correct? What's a fuller picture of the interest rate special-interest groups?
Let's say I'm a young professional with a good wage, some minor investments and no major loans. For purely selfish reasons, should I want interest rates to go up or down?
(Much of the media discussion about monetary policy centers on what's "good for the economy", I think we should discuss the redistributive effects more. Does that make sense?)
starless_sea
1yr ago
So I'm working on a hobby programming project, and I want to use these new ML bots that are all the rage to speed up progress. Is there a "how to code faster with GPT-4" guide somewhere? The state of the art is progressing fast, were should I go to make sure that I keep up to date with developments?
So I was doing some reading on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I was vaguely pro-Israel before with disclaimers on how both sides are bad (like most others here I presume), but I just felt more and more pro-Israel the deeper I read (I'm not trying to astroturf, this is my true feelings on the matter). The Israeli demands during the 2000 Camp David Summit seem reasonable. The Palestinian leadership seem weirdly comfortable with ridiculous conspiracy theories about Israel trying to undermine the Al-Aqsa Mosque etc. The ban on non-Muslims from the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the ban on non-Muslim prayer on the Temple Mount, are both reprehensible. Every nook I look into, it seems like I support the Israeli side and the "both sides are bad" cases that I expected to find is largely missing.
Has anyone else had the experience of their position markedly shifting as the read up on the issue? Are the Israelis just better than PR, cunningly doing bad things to the Palestinian side under the radar, while counting on that the Palestinian reaction will be performed with much worse optics? What's the best moderate Palestinian take on an acceptable solution for a workable two-state solution?
Also, what are your predictions for the evolution of the conflict. Say that the year is 2043 and condition on no end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it: what does the conflict look like then? It seems unlikely to cool anytime soon, and the long run seems like a race between Palestinian demographics and Israeli economy, where I think Israel has the upper hand, especially if they are liberal with technological mass surveillance.
More options
Context Copy link