DirtyWaterHotDog
No bio...
User ID: 625
DirtyWaterHotDog
1d ago
"Don't paint the devil on the wall"
For a while now, the Left has made a past time out of calling Israel every bad name under the sun. In contrast to those accusations, Israel has behaved honorably in victory. Over the last century, Israeli moderates have proposed many 2 state solutions despite overwhelming victories in wars that were started against it. They've withdrawn from territories they've won and prisoners of war were treated in line with the western standard. Despite every war being started by the Arabs, the left labels Israel as the evil ones.
More recently, (Sharon) acted with generosity by withdrawing from Gaza in 05. In return they got rewarded with Hamas. Through the Arab spring, Muslim nations performed the worst acts of violence on each other, as the western left cheered on the revolutionaries. During this period, Israel remained a peaceful place for its resident Arabs. Yet, 2 newly empowered enemies emerged with self-professed genocidal intent (Houthis and Hezbollah). They're armed by Iran, who through proxy, attests to the same genocidal intent. Once Iran starts developing nukes, the west once more, tried to extend an olive branch. JCPoA (Iran Nuclear deal) was signed. And once again, this generosity was rewarded by resumed development of nukes. Yet, in the eyes of the western left, Israel remained the evil one.
This is where the the first domino fell. Netanyahu solidified his power because the Israeli left was left with no political space to maneuver in. Israelis hadn't changed, but the clearly rising antisemitism among the western left and its Islamic neighborhood pushed Israelis to vote for the one cynical hawk in town : Bibi. While politics shifted right, the average Israeli remained a normal person. 2012-2023, Israel greatly expanded labor permits so Gazans could work on the Israeli side. (~200k daily cross border workers). At home, things were stable.
Then you got, Oct 23. Frankly, the reaction to the tragedy was despicable. I was shocked by the complete lack of empathy from elite western institutions and a "they had it coming" undertone. I think this broke the average Israeli for good. Imagine if your daughter got raped and murdered. Then your friend says "she had it coming". I know I'd see red. A century of accusations being called the devil. If you're going to be called evil either way, might as well go scorched earth and solve the problem once and for all.
Think about it:
- If Iran's nuclearization is inevitable, then why stop at precise assassinations? Makes more sense to cripple their nuclear infrastructure for good.
- If a ceasefire with Gaza means another Oct 23 in a decade, then why not raze Hamas for good ?
- If the next generation of politicians are going to be antisemitic, then why not conduct major military actions while the boomers are still alive ?
DirtyWaterHotDog
1d ago
Trump's truth social posts suggest otherwise.
Wouldn't be surprised if it's the other way around. Trump encourages Netanyahu to go for the attack. The hawks in Israel have been aching to go at it for the last decade. Not only would the US have to complicit, it would need to have given an explicit go ahead.
I'm surprised that the Islamic Republic of Iran has stood for as long as it has. The urban areas don't want the conservatism. Khamenei is at death's door. Succession is unclear. Economy has been doing worse YOY and elite human capital leaves the country on first opportunity.
I know the Persians are a civilized people, so they may not resort to brute force violence. But, 30 years of stability under a continuously deteriorating economy is unheard of.
DirtyWaterHotDog
20d ago
There's definitely an averseness towards the median Indian. I mean the demeanor of the average Indian immigrant: Kumail Nanjiani in Silicon Valley, but additionally unkempt, ponchy and flaunting a chicken neck. In my experience, Indians immigrants are the least fit and worst dressed of any ethnic group. OKCupid was primarily rating this subset. No wonder they were rated terribly.
How Indian do you look ? Often, Indians can blend into other ethnicities with demeanor, accent & fashion changes. Gets you past a person's initial mental block.
As long as Indians have their basics out of wack, it's pointless to discuss their attractiveness. Kumail's transformation is a good example, if slightly exaggerated. I can give other examples. Women are obsessed with Dev Patel and Sendhil Ramamurthy[hot]/[not]. Both look like average Indian dudes in their less-handsome roles. Many Indians are blessed with thick hair, beards and eye brows. Play to those advantages and you'll get +2 boost.
The woke are right about one thing : representation. Women want to date the man of their dreams, but the dreams are manufactured via media. With Indian men getting fresh representation in sexy-man roles, there now are Indian men who women pine for. It's on you to fit into those molds. Additionally, it helps that Brown has become a generic identity. If you don't want to be Indian, you can be brown.
4chan/twitter hate for Indians can be safely ignored. A woman who goes swimming in those sewers is probably too nuclear for a simple man any way. There are exceptions ofc, but as football fans like saying, "[too much ball knowledge means too much ball knowledge].
DirtyWaterHotDog
20d ago
suspect is undiagnosed BPD
Looks, intelligence, wit and mentally healthy. Pick 3 ?
DirtyWaterHotDog
23d ago
No more than there is a genocide going on against minorities in Muslim nations. There is strong pressure for displacement. But, I won't call it genocide. We need to reserve that word for the real deal. Can't be diluting definitions for war crimes. (Might be a lost cause)
America has low standards for granting refuge. Indian Sikhs have a 50%+ refugee approval rate despite facing no violence since 1990 and being quite rich by Indian standards. Hell, I'd argue Indian Sikhs are treated a lot better than Hindus in India. (legally and otherwise). White people have a reason to feel unsafe in South Africa. They should leave. They should likely receive refuge by the current standards for refugees in the US.
DirtyWaterHotDog
23d ago
When has policy ever been about the numbers ? It's about sex appeal.
Utilitarians can be surprisingly blind at times. Covid wasn't sexy. No spectacle, no myth building, no clear narrative. Deaths were slow, honorable & blameless. Ofc people don't care in proportion to the numbers.
No movie or even harrowing video to speak of. Hell, there wasn't even an iconic photo. Statistically, I know the Bengal famine killed a lot of people. But viscerally, my emotions are tied to the photos of piled up bodies, literally (not figuratively) looming vultures and 1st hand stories of families prostituting themselves for food. There is a villain (Churchill). There is intrigue ( what if they hadn't diverted reserves to Australia). There is a story.
Plane crashes are sexier than car accidents, which causes disproportional worry. Tuberculosis, a 'CURABLE DISEASE' !! kills 1.25 million every year. No one cares. Malaria kills 600k every year. Yet, the most visceral image of it is Bill Gates releasing non-viral mosquitoes to a room of white people. Covid is no exception.
The Ukraine war went from being sexy urban warfare 'Hordes of migrants, tanks built up in front of Kyiv, hot women crying and destroyed cities' to more conventional unsexy warfare in the woods. No one cares anymore. Israel and Palestine keep producing visceral imagery at an unheard-of rate, and it stays sexy.
Tragedy has pretty privilege. It's all that matters.
DirtyWaterHotDog
26d ago
Bay Area != East Bay.
He's paying a lot less in Oakland than he would be in SF / South Bay / Berkeley. There is a large undocumented/recently-documented population there, who works at or lower than minimum wage. You can get it down to ~$150/month (4 visits). That's not too bad.
DirtyWaterHotDog
27d ago
Love how starvation and disease suddenly become acceptable excuses.
Yeah, how do you think most people died in concentration camps ? (Extermination camps != concentration camps)
DirtyWaterHotDog
27d ago
That isnt my experience. Colonialism is frequently presented as one/all of.
-
Yes it was extractive, but still more competent than the natives.
-
Yeah, but we civilized them.
-
They killed themselves in civil wars after we left anyway.
Worst of all, even in 2025, Colonial powers have little remorse for their actions.
France still lays claim to the 150 million in Haitian ransom. The British refuse to accept blame imposed on Churchill for the Bengal famine. The portugese inquistion was famous for grotesque torture in Goa. The Spanish straight up genocided the entire now-world despite knowing it was their germs causing it. Not many apologies to go around.
Yes, they werent as effective as communists or nazis at killing. And they werent as comically cruel as imperial japan. But, these were still fairly fucked up periods for the colonized nations. IMO, Pretty close to slavery.
DirtyWaterHotDog
30d ago
No radiation leak from any nuclear facility in Pakistan, says IAEA amid buzz after Indian claims
Addressing a press conference, Air Marshal AK Bharti said that Indian forces did not know about the site. He said, "We did not hit Kirana hills, whatever is there."
During a press briefing on Tuesday, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal was asked about social media buzz on ‘nuclear leakage’ in Pakistan after the Indian strikes.
“…Those are questions for them (Pakistan) to answer, not for us. Our position was made very clear during the defence briefing. As for your question, the Pakistani minister has already made some remarks on that,” he said.
India explicitly denied hitting nuclear facilities. The buzz was manufactured by media/social-media accounts.
DirtyWaterHotDog
1mo ago
The obvious hypotheses are valid, but boring. Yes, men are worried about being cancelled. Yes, online alternatives (dating apps) disincentivize in-person courtship. Yes, if women have better outcomes than men, they don't need men. Yes, by forcing men to be same as women, men aren't doing the things men were supposed to anymore.
I want to go in another direction : 'Revenge of the Nerds '
Culture reflects the traits of economically ascendent groups. So far, the 21st century belongs to introverted tech-nerds. Therefore, the next generation has traits of introverted nerds.
Our American culture has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long (at least since the 90s and likely longer). That doesn’t start in college, it starts YOUNG. A culture that celebrates the prom queen over the math olympiad champ, or the jock over the valedictorian, will not produce the best engineers.
Vivek is correct, about his youth at least. 90s Cincinnati was a place that valorized the Jock. Aspirational Americans looked to become a partner at McKinsey, BigLaw litigator or to own a Auto showroom. IE. to be a charismatic man in a suit.
But Vivek appears to have missed the last 30 years. Right after his youth came Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. The nerd became cool. Over the late-90s/early-2000s, the nerd was an ascendent underdog. But, NY Finance clearly stood atop the American caste system. Then 2008 happened. The financial crisis destroyed finance's chokehold on the American psyche and nerds swooped in with the 1-2 punch of the Social network & Iron Man. It was done. Nerds won. The first generation that's grown up under nerd-supremacy is reaching high school, and families can now see the fallout.
Woke culture, dating apps, asexual movie leads can be traced back to tech & nerds running the show. Influencer-media allows basement dwellers to become role models overnight. Like it or not, that's nerd culture.
I don't dislike nerds. I like them and am one of them.
But I dislike 2 aspects of nerd culture.
- Anxiety
- Nerds are anxious. And nerd culture is built to work around these anxieties.
- Repression
- Nerds are horny and embarrassed about it. On sexuality, nerds are dishonest. Their dishonesty leads to a weird disconnect between their behaviors behind the scenes and media they endorse.
- Nerds want to wield power and are embarrassed about it. On the surface, they endorse universality and equal treatment. Power corrupts, and now they too want to wield their newfound power. Once again, disconnect between stated ideologies and the irresistible temptations of power.
This worst aspects of nerd culture aren't more or less degenerate than what came before. But Nerd culture (and as a result our culture in general) has failure modes that are a result of this unique tendency towards anxiety and repression.
Personally, I'll take a jockish and fertile culture over a nerdy and barren one any day.
DirtyWaterHotDog
1mo ago
- fake france
- fake NY
- fake midwest
- fake seattle
DirtyWaterHotDog
1mo ago
The credible/non-credible forums can be alright. /r/noncrediblediplomacy , /r/crediblediplomacy, /r/noncredibledefense, /r/credibledefense
DirtyWaterHotDog
1mo ago
That's why I specifically compared it to other bicameral systems.
slow down the passing of legislation
Can't slow down a stationary object. The Senate can only limit the power of the house, a house that already moves at snails place. The Executive and Courts wield their power independently.
give a seniority track to successful politicians
Works better when people were dying at age 50. When the average age of the Senate is higher than the life-expectancy 100 years ago, you know something went wrong.
reserve of statesmen
All elections become popularity contests. Why make the senate elected, if the goal is to bring in experienced statesmen.
The American system was created for a different America. A white-protestant nation run by proven men who rose up the ranks through merit (college, military achievement). 75% of the Senate had a college degree in 1945, when less than 5% of the nation had gone to college. The need for fund-raising and media-access meant that running for office was exclusively limited to the elites. This meant a high degree of consensus on what America should be. Therefore, they worried about the excesses of democracy.
In 2025, America is a diverse nation with public-office having exceptionally low barriers to entry. Consensus is nonexistent and core values of various groups are at odds with each other. In such a place, the system should encourage compromise. This means giving power back to the house.
If an downstream institution can unilaterally torpedo a bill (Senate filibuster), then the house would never go through the painful process of reaching compromise. The congress can override the president, but not the senate.
DirtyWaterHotDog
1mo ago
On filibusters and the Senate..............
The US senate is an odd institution.
The house does the legislation. The executive executes. The courts maintain constitutional sanctity. The states already elect governors to represent them. What is the role of the Senator ? It made made some sense until the 1913 (17th amendment), when Senators were effectively subordinate (selected) to Governors. That way, state elections served as a useful way to remove both unpopular governors and senators.
An elected senate is just odd.
- The Senate isn't representative. (Californians have the same representation as Wyoming)
- The Senate can't do anything but block. (Net negative institution)
- The Senate can filibuster, the House can't. (1 man anti-democratic weapon)
Most democratic nations don't have anywhere near as powerful of a Senate (or equivalent institution). The Indian Rajya-Sabha & House of Lords can only delay a bill by a short amount. A balancing counter-weight also makes sense in a parliamentary system where the executive (Prime-Minister) is selected by the house (making the house too powerful) unlike the US where the President is separately elected.
This means, in India, a person only thinks about 2 elections. Once for their state (governor, who selects senators) and once for the nation (house, which selects the executive). A British person only thinks about the Commons.
In comparison, An American must think of 4 elections. The governor, senators, house reps and the President. That's exhausting. Only takes 1 lapse, 1 midterm rando, to block legislation for the next 6 years. Doesn't the US already have enough checks-and-balances ? The house churns every 2 years. The last time someone held onto Senate+House in a midterm was in 1978.
I am just learning about the 17th amendment & the history of filibuster. so bear with me. Some wikipedia exerpts:
Those in favor of popular elections for senators believed two primary problems were caused by the original provisions: legislative corruption and electoral deadlocks
Appears that it made things worse than better. In an era where they were capable of pushing constitutional amendments, it's hilarious to think that they were complaining about deadlocks. Yeah buddy, try getting anything done in 2025.
Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the United States Senate allows the Senate to vote to limit debate by invoking cloture on the pending question. In most cases this requires a majority of three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn (60 votes if there is no more than one vacancy),[3]: 15–17 so a minority of senators can block a measure, even if it has the support of a simple majority.
Interestingly, the most important change on senate filibusters was also made in the same decade (1917). Clearly they knew filibusters were a bad idea. House filibusters were eliminated in 1842 ! Not sure why they left it half-complete in 1917.
DirtyWaterHotDog
1mo ago
China is fine with nation-wise oppression of minorities. They have no issues with oppression of Muslims in China, Hindus in Pakistan or the Chinese in Malaysia.
Second, the Muslim identity is primarily an Arab identity. East-Asian and great-lake-African muslims are oppressed all the time, and global Islam does not care. (note: North African islam is not the same as Subsaharan islam). These are the Muslims that matter to other muslims.
Do they just think they own Pakistan as a counterweight to India
Yes. It's less friends, and more that Pakistan is a client state of China. Pakistan is Turtle to China's Vince.
and Pakistan is happy to be owned?
No, but what option do they (Pakistani Army) have ? IMF isn't giving new loans anymore. Even the Saudis stopped giving freebees. Big daddy China is all that's left. Anything to be in opposition to India.
DirtyWaterHotDog
1mo ago
The rivers are already shut off for all intents and purposes. Pushing it further can set scary precedents in the sub-continent.
India could go upstream and cut off rivers at the source, but Pakistan's best friend (China) controls even more important rivers upstream. If China did a tit-for-tat than India would lose a lot more than they'd gain.
It's the main reason I consider Indian inaction to the Chinese annexation of Tibet to be the worst strategic misstep of a newly independent India. And for those who say 'India did not have the resources', Tibet is a defenders dream. All supply lines are cutoff for half the year. You can't lay siege, you can't set up shop, you can't invade. Well, I have enough reasons to dislike Nehru already. But here's one more.
In the months surrounding the People’s Liberation Army’s October 1950 entry into Tibet, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru read the same cable traffic yet drew radically different conclusions. Patel’s 7 November 1950 memorandum to Nehru warned that Tibet’s fall would erase the Himalayan buffer, expose India’s “almost undefended” northern flank, and reveal “China’s carefully laid plan to establish its domination” across Asia. Nehru, by contrast, saw the episode as unwelcome but unavoidable; he registered a formal protest, yet pressed ahead with recognizing the People’s Republic of China, advocating its U.N. seat, and negotiating the 1954 Panchsheel Agreement. Their divergent assessments shaped Indian policy for a decade and still frame today’s debate on how the annexation might have been answered differently. (sauce - O3 mini with search)
Ofc Patel was on the right side of history. Everything I read about him makes him seem like a 'Lee Kwan Yew' style pragmatic statesman that India needed. But ofc, Nehru chose naive optimism as he always did. Oh, how I wish the man had just gone to Cambridge and been a brown Francis Fukuyama instead.
DirtyWaterHotDog
1mo ago
I've had a few moments where I thought I was watching fake videos or Indian propaganda. Then looked into it and turned out the Terrorists/Pakistanis are really that comically evil.
No wonder The Boys fell off after season 2. Can't compete with reality.
Few corrections, observations and 'smells' that imply this time it may be different.
1. It's overt - The attack was claimed by the Resistance Front (Lashkar-e-Taiba LeT). Pakistan operates many terrorist cells in the Kashmir area with different levels of overt and covert involvement. LeT is about as overt as Pakistani intelligence involvement gets. Why be so obvious ? It's so overt that Pakistan's defense minister almost let the mask slip off.(ignore the twitter handle, video is real)
2. It's timely - Last week, the new Pakistani General Munir (defacto leader) gave a fiery speech highlighting Pakistan's militant islam identity, Kashmir and Hindu-Muslim strife. It was big new in India even before the attack. Makes it look like Pakistan really want war.
After indiscriminate firing in the beginning, terrorists singled out non-Muslims to kill them. Separately, sources told CNN-News 18 that terrorists checked people for circumcision (this part is unsubstantiated) and asked people to recite ‘kalma’ to identify non-Muslims and shot them (is substantiated) — ‘kalma’ in Islam is a declaration of faith and serves as the allegiance to God. Those who could not recite it were deemed non-Muslims and were shot.
3. It's cruel - The pointed slaughter of Hindus has everyone pissed. I mean, really ? How comically evil can you be ? Almost as if Pakistan is provoking war.
There have been bigger terror attacks in the past
No. Which brings me to #4 and #5
4. It's extreme - The last time as many civilians died to Pakistani terror attack was during 26/11/2008. (India's 9/11). The only reason India did not go to war back then was because Congress's pro-muslim stance makes it impossible for them to sell aggressive rhetoric towards Pakistanis.
5. It's the right people - Unlike the congress, a war with Pakistan comes with better optics for Modi. Both Modi and Munir are seen as hardline strongmen, more conservative than their predecessors during 26/11.
India will identify, track and punish every terrorist and their backers” and would “pursue them to the ends of the earth. The time has come to raze whatever is left of the haven of terrorists.
6. It's the right signals - The military build up is higher than usual. America has taken a suspiciously weak stance in condemning Pakistan & Modi has said surprisingly little (when it is saber rattling, nations take strong stances. When it is real, they hedge). In such situations, Modi jumps on it and makes strong statements. This time is eerie silence. Like the calm before a storm. In time of silence, the words that get spoken are more important. Modi made a speech in English. The speech was for the world, not Indians. His phrasing was ominous. I expect there to be cross border action at the very least.
7. It's the right incentives - India is internally stable, while Pakistan is in crisis. Pakistan uses war to stabilize their nation. India avoids war because it risks destabilization in Kashmir. This time around, local Kashmiris have been silent. India feels confident that a hot border won't hurt its stability.
All in all. While this may still be a nothing burger. There are indications that this time may be different.
What I expect will happen:
In wars, nations have desired outcomes. India and Pakistan do not want land on either side of the border. Primarily, Pakistan wants to destabilize Indian-Kashmir and India wants to stabilize it. Likewise, India wants to destabilize Pakistani-Kashmir.
Short term - Full scale war is unlikely to impossible. Air strikes are near guaranteed. Given the non-commital language adopted by Modi, I expect an un-easy calm and sudden retaliation. Pakistan is reeling from internal strife. Modi has time. If Modi is feeling it, he can try to secure new vantage points near the line of control, but that seems unlikely.
Long term - Hindus will continue to be aggressively resettled back into the valley. Security levels will stay high. Ie. Freedoms of non-BJP operatives will stay limited in Kashmir. Infrastructure development will similarly continue. Kashmir's stability after the attack will come as a huge relief to Modi. It lends credence to the idea that Pakistan has ran out of traditional avenues (saber rattling, funding local opposition and activism for Kashmir's independence) for retaliation. The abeyance of water-rights agreements with Pakistan would allow for resumption of various half-built dams.
DirtyWaterHotDog
1mo ago
And for a while they were doing good. India was a languishing in socialist democracy (hindu rate of growth) and a Bangladesh was still finding its feet as fledgling nation. In the 20th century, Pakistan was in a better place than India or Bangladesh. In the 90s, they nearly doubled India in GDP-PPP/Capita terms.
Even as a badly run but stable nation, Pakistan has a lot to offer. It has tons of rare earths. Pakistani-Kashmir is heaven on earth. Punjabi river systems are well-suited for industrialized agriculture. I would much prefer for Pakistan to thrive as nation of 250 million people, than this clown show they've been running.
DirtyWaterHotDog
1mo ago
Temporary victory, but I'll take it. Nice to see pro-transit efforts can't be unilaterally blocked by Trump.
You can't fight Pakistan for the same reason you don't pick fights with a pig. Pakistan doesn't point a gun towards you. Pakistan points a gun and its own head and threatens to shoot. Every Indo-Pakistani war was started by Pakistan, because India has nothing to gain from it.
War doesn't work, because war creates unpopular deaths for India while creating martyrs in Pakistan.
Economic retaliation doesn't work because Pakistan has no economy to speak of. Resource bottlenecking doesn't work because they are already on the verge of famine. Anything more will mean civilian deaths.
Full decoupling does not work because we have long borders. The US can't enforce a border with Mexico, and that's all flat land. Imagine trying to maintain a border up in the Himalayas. Don't even get me started on their nukes.
The failed state of Pakistan is a nuisance past redemption.
If Pakistani leadership stopped to think for a second, they'd realize that India is their natural trading partner. Afterall, these trade routes go back millennia. Karachi is clearly aching for maritime trade with India's west coast. Lahore is 30 miles from Amritsar. Faisalabad is 100 miles from Amritsar.
Geographically, Pakistan's urban areas hug India in the same way Canada's hug the USA. Can you imagine if Canada arbitrarily decided to have zero trade ties with India. Yes, Pakistan is client state to China and could trade with them. But China is too far. Beijing is closer to Anchorage than it is Islamabad. After 100 years of poisoning the well, I am aware that India-Pakistan peace is broken for good. But, what a waste.
Yes, 1 borough of 1 city containing 1.6 million people. All this outrage over 0.5% of the nation's population ?
60% of commuters use public transport in NYC. 3 types of people drive into NYC : Rich people, Blue collar workers and suburbanites who would who have been forced back by RTO policies. Rich people can pay the toll. RTO suburbanites would be compensated by their companies. Hourly blue collar people would rather save time and make a few more dollars.
I don't know if you've driven into Manhattan before, but it is a total shit show. Tolls or not, I can't imagine anyone wanting to drive into the city by choice. Congestion pricing takes what is a universally miserable experience, and makes it tolerable for some while incentivizing the rest to take the less-painful path (transit). It is a as close to a universally good thing as you can get.
DirtyWaterHotDog
1mo ago
Saved ! Great song. Thick basslines make lives.
I meant October 2023.
More options
Context Copy link