ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3hr ago
It's leveling the playing field the same way retards of all walks of life can demand accommodations from the cradle to the grave, and push all the externalities of their misbegotten existence on the schmucks around them who are still dumb enough to try to be productive.
Which is why an elite cluster that wants to survive maximally unenslaved needs to hurry up and establish (or retain to the greatest extent possible) an aristocracy of the Abel-bodied those who are dumb enough to be productive on their own before their own AI puts enough of them out of work for said people to [have to] force this kind of settlement on them.
Perhaps such an elite will come to the conclusion that they must subsidize the conditions required for classical liberalism far beyond the point they economically make sense. That is the best way we have to create such an aristocracy, for in such a system, it is the worthless who are forced to subsidize the worthful by their disproportionately suffering real, measurable harm to their psyches created by the existence of things they don't like.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
8hr ago
· Edited 8hr ago
I remember being told not to touch any of them because they were dangerous
This is the thing I can't properly parse yet- where being able to obey "don't touch, that's dangerous" doesn't necessarily imply "now that you, without questioning or arguing, accept "it's dangerous", you may now know why it's dangerous" (and move on to that stage where you blow up a bunch of soda jugs and watermelons). Then again, I don't have kids yet.
You do a lot of staring down the metaphorical barrel with this stuff and it's odd nobody ever fully acknowledges that. Because yes, them being motivated enough to get to the gun and using it is always a risk. Doubly so because it is a technological terror of a mechanism not found in nature; we don't do that calculus with knives or rope since they're everyday items yet have to consciously do it with guns (I believe hanging ends more kids with a death wish than guns do even when they are available, but I honestly don't feel like verifying that).
It just occurs to me that maybe accidents were more common when the physically smaller guns were the standard home-defense fare simply because they were guns perfectly sized for a kid to use in the first place (and hence more closely resembled the size and weight of their toys at the time). Yeah, revolver triggers are really heavy in DA, and a shrouded-hammer DAO design might be safer because of that, but if my hands are that size I can see me getting enough of a grip on the gun to be able to yank the trigger hard enough to fire it. (With an exposed hammer, I could use my entire hand or some other object to push the hammer down if it's too stiff for my thumb.)
That said, those exact firearms are arguably ideal for actually teaching a kid to shoot. I'd rather give them a pawn shop .32 than a full-size handgun or even a .22 rifle simply because it's not this boat anchor of a thing... which inevitably lends itself to said kid (who is indeed paying attention) getting dope-slapped unnecessarily because they're using so much of their strength to hold the damn thing up in the first place that they can't pull the charging handle back without the gun tracking off to the side. The adult does not know they probably should have told the kid to do this because they're inherently strong/tall enough to never have needed to do that.
Of course I think the real correct choice for this application is a vz. 61 Skorpion (with the shoulder stock) simply because it's harder for that to point the wrong way and easier to actually use, provided you also put one of the really big charging handles on it. But that's also an order of magnitude more expensive than "coincidentally child-sized old revolver" and it's not as simple a manual of arms as "finger off trigger, break it open, loose rounds in, double check finger off trigger, grab cylinder area and close it up, left hand back on grip, [cock hammer and] shoot", so...
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
12hr ago
Democracy only works in an area where consent of the governed is equally geographically distributed.
In Washington, it is not.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
13hr ago
· Edited 12hr ago
a curious infant goes and shoot himself or something else
Even a 5-pound trigger pull (the average full-size handgun, compacts are generally worse) requires some significant finger strength to actually fire, and you're at a mechanical disadvantage if you're trying to shoot yourself (that's really not how guns naturally point- you can only really pick it up one way, where the dangerous end faces away from you). We know that 6 year olds can do this because they've been in the news for shooting teachers before, but before then, maybe not so much.
Revolvers and guns with exposed hammers are more dangerous because the hammer on the back, when cocked, makes the trigger pull light enough for any infant to use- so if you're investigating the device like a very small child might and are properly fuzz-testing the controls, a 3 year old could easily fire it.
The most dangerous age is the one where the kid recognizes what the device is, points it at another kid, and pulls the trigger- for all media with a gun in it that a child is likely to see, and all of the [toy] guns they may themselves possess... well, that's how guns are used, right?
It's not like the other kid is likely going to do that characteristic side-step that gun people do if you point a gun at them; they don't fully understand the implications of "loaded gun is pointed at you" either. They might understand it means "danger", but it's in the abstract, or kid with the gun does that so quickly you don't actually have time to react. (Kind of like how deer will just wander out into the middle of gun ranges.)
And this is indeed unique to guns; injuries caused by play-fighting with knives tend both to be self-limiting (it hurts before you are fatally injured, whereas with the gun it only hurts afterwards), rely on the physical strength of the user to work (not a limitation with a gun due to its nature as a self-powered tool), and the danger is obvious to any child who has ever cut themselves.
It's perhaps more accurate to say that the exercise of political power is automated by guns, in the exact same ways (and with the exact same effects) that conventional warfare is automated by nuclear weapons [so the outcome is generally "don't even try"].
When each man is his own nuclear-armed nation-state, MAD doctrine applies and thus limits the scale and scope of conventional war. The Khmer Rouge or the Hutu don't rack up that kind of body count if every man, woman, and child can simply shoot them. (Genocide doesn't discriminate by age, and under those conditions, you probably can't kill them all. But in the dawn of the decade, in a particular Western country, a nationwide Kristallnacht-style movement was killed in 3 rounds. Even a revolver holds more than that, and if everyone has one...)
(The typical "but does 2A cover nuclear weapons" question is far closer to the mark than I think either side realizes. It's just a matter of degrees. One notes the same question will apply to AI usage in the long run.)
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
14hr ago
You're equating actual borders to metaphorical borders.
I’m doing no such thing; I’m just describing what is already being equated, and why.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
20hr ago
as long as the behaviours discriminated against aren't cherry-picked
Of course, the converse is also required: when they are objective, they must be permitted to stand without critique, rather than be falsely claimed of secret cherry-picking.
Could Trump do it by "asking nicely" - i.e. doing the same in secret rather than in public? Yes, he could, but then he wouldn't be Trump.
I actually don't think he could.
And the reason for that is specifically to force a response from the public- if it was back-channeled, then it could simply be "we'll think about it" until he's out of office.
But once you involve the electorate and force that question into the public sphere, that's a different question entirely. And in this case, with respect to "well, are you going to war over this or or not?"... the majority of the voting public enjoys the tax break they get from not paying their young men funding their military properly; either way, the US wins.
But the second best is to get the same benefits of the sovereignty - freedom of movement, freedom of military deployment, freedom of exclusion of others, freedom to mine the resources - without paying any money at all, but Denmark gets to keep the nominal title.
It's not lost on me that this is some of what a settlement with Canada would likely involve (for the same issues apply to it as well), and the fact the US can pull this off does undermine its "we'll just run to Europe" strategy somewhat (did Denmark actually defect from the EU here?). Claim associate membership all you like, they won't do fuck all to defend you.
the "long time allies" aren't that much of an allies anymore, and become less of an allies every day, so not much loss
Well, refusing to pay your workers properly has costs. If old women refuse to realize that if they want sovereignty, they have to take the hit and pay for young men to do it, this is what it costs. Too bad they're unable to pay them- they spent all that money on collecting all those migrants. Moral causes aren't free.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
I think that the idea that a sovereign nation gets to enforce its national borders is still a controversial one in contemporary discourse.
Depends on what you mean by "borders". Because when you say
a boycott-worthy offense
That is Blue enforcing its [version of] national borders. It just looks weird, because their borders are "inside or outside of our economic system" (which is how they define who "us" is/who they are as a culture), not "inside or outside of a physical location" (which is how Red defines who "us" is).
It's the exact same impulse for social cohesion preservation, it just looks different because they define their nations differently (and in a maximally self-serving fashion; Blue benefits from infinity migrants to destroy the cost of labor so denying the Red framing with "muh poor migrants" makes sense, Red benefits from zero migrants to preserve the cost of labor, so denying the Blue framing with "terk er jerbs" makes sense).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
It’s not a race.
You're not classifying it correctly.
Affirmative action is anti-white racism- we're not disputing this fact.
Therefore, any name that sounds white? Straight into the trash can.
What they actually look like is secondary- as the example shows, it's not only completely possible, but normal, to be racist against someone bearing the same skin color as you.
Did you really think racism was merely "skin color bad" and a license to say slurs? No. It's an assertion that all you're ever going to be, because you have [genetic trait], will always be bad. That's the underlying meaning the slur carries, and why they even exist/are deployed in that sneering tone in the first place.
It’s not a population we did slavery to no debt owed to them.
You misunderstand. Fundamentally, you understand that you owe everyone else everything, and are just haggling over the speed at which your obligations increase.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
And to a volunteer organization anything in the form of "I am unhappy, therefore you should do more work to make me happy" is a threat. It can overwhelm the amount of work people are willing to take on for the organization.
If they respond with hostility to some formulation of "I'd like to keep you happy how about you work with me to appease your concerns" then fuck them.
I don't have much else to add here outside affirmation that this is indeed its own special kind of hell, and noting that this kind of behavior is in the Simple Sabotage Field Manual for a reason.
They just also sometimes have a magical belief in the value of certain peoples.
And hence one of the objectives of management is to make sure that magical belief is placed in the value of the peoples working for the organization. If they can't, then they must be excluded.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
I would have assumed they could have just picked off to fill their classes with University of Michigan quality white hispanics.
You put racists in charge of implementing a racist policy, and are somehow expecting the race they hate to not be underrepresented?
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
I try to use oppositional or oblique framings to questions when it's something more complicated than a fact check that I'm querying about.
I tend to get relatively poor or confrontational results when I ask it questions like that; the AI tends to assume the user is adversarial, and not actually seeking to understand unless pushed back against verbally.
Reading between the lines of analysis remains an effective way to figure out when the bot is wrong or seems to not want to say something, which was quite surprising to me. But then again, how surprised should I truly be, given it only truly "knows" about what humans write down rather than any private or discussed analysis?
Better to have an earned-reward system, even if that earning is such a basic threshold that not clearing it is an obvious sign of social malignancy.
Yet the fundamental problem is that a provably fair metric for this justifies discrimination.
Everyone knows that "scientific X-ism" is starting from the conclusion first and working backwards. What happens when you don't do that and still come up with X overrepresented in the set? (And "couldn't graduate from high school" is a stronger signal than the traditional examples of race or sex. Scientific credentialism, perhaps.)
Hence the answer of "never ask that question, also sacrifice the time and potential of people who can graduate in such a way that sufficiently soothes society's guilty conscience about discriminating against the failures".[1]
Which means that there's a tendency to make society feel guiltier about that- that as society perceives itself as even richer, more sacrifice should be demanded from everyone to get over the fact that some people are better than others.
(Example: in 2020, American society got an absurdly generous stimulus package (of both money directly, but also of time, as it was illegal to work. Within 3 months, in every major city, protests broke out with the goal of increasing the amount of sacrifice to compensate for the existence of social malignants. That's what the cries of "Black Lives Matter" ultimately mean.[2])
So why the continued farce and the presumption that there is some sort of "right" to ~12-14 years of education on the state's dime?
Assume the above is true, and take the view that high school and college are just one very long IQ test. Those 12-14 years [so basically, most of a productive person's youth] taking the test are ultimately forfeit[3]. That level of sacrifice is required- a tax, if you will- paid to the societal consensus.
In return, that consensus will commit violence against socially malignant persons older than that (who "were given every chance and now deserve the outcome of prison or death"). In other words, past the age the youth have sacrificed for this protection, we no longer pretend a malignant person "could have been a future doctor or lawyer" no matter how many [crocodile] tears are shed.
Asian countries do this too, but to a far greater extent to the point that men and women who fail tend to kill themselves. This is because by failing, they're permanently demoted into the class against whom all of society, including themselves, agrees discrimination is warranted. (If they didn't believe this, they wouldn't be taking the honorable way out- that's why that type of suicide is "the honorable way out" in the first place.[4])
[1] These human beings are, in a fundamental sense, bad harvests. Ancient peoples made many sacrifices [including perfectly good human beings directly] to prevent bad harvests, but the purpose was more likely for any member of society to be able to ease their consciences and understand they did all they could if the harvest was bad anyway. (When the bad harvest is a human being, the moment that human's life ends in imprisonment or death does not qualify as being sacrificed. Actively having chosen to be an opponent precludes this from being a sacrifice.)
[2] The term "omnicause" describes this effect in the general case, but is also designed to destroy any other local system of sacrifice by insisting upon the primacy of typical American blood feuds like racism, sexism, anti-/semitism (depends on the day), etc.
[3] It is no different than any other child sacrifice. Yes, the one being sacrificed survives, but they have sustained very serious injury for no other reason than the religion of the people demanding it. Sacrificing babies to Moloch for a good harvest has the approval of everyone...
[4] ...including the child who will be incinerated. The holiest children play their part.
UBI, for those who forswear politics and vow to embrace lowest common denominator slop.
In other words, you must sell your ability to do politics to receive the UBI.
At a personal level, we call that "slavery"; at a State level, we call that "The Republic of South Africa". (Complicated by the fact that South Africa wasn't post-scarcity at that time, so if you had genes that were [at that specific time] a reasonably-effective proxy for "unproductive with respect to the people with actual financial power" [inconveniently visibly marked on your body from birth], you had to sell your ability to do politics to have the privilege of working for a living.)
This is why communist nations are all authoritarian: the populace itself has forged this exact bargain and collectively sold itself into slavery.
Or in other words:
UBI, but only for Party members.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
I'm not even sure society is ready for post-scarcity: it's not at all clear to me that everyone would be better off if we could all stop going to work tomorrow and still get paid
You already tried this experiment. You got 3 months of peace... after which a massive wave of burning, looting, murder began.
UBIs simply aren't compatible with people spending it all on politics, because the people who still do have to work won't be paid enough to keep them un-enslaved.
You already see this now in Western countries where scarcity is itself a scarce resource- where politics isn't yet sufficiently lucrative for sane people to pursue it- so you end up being ruled by a combination of people who have nothing but time for politics (Karens, dogwalkers, old people) and those whose positions inherently pay out in political power (bureaucracies/HR/academics).
Only if your socialism is of the national variety.
If it is, you'll understand that you need exceptionally well-educated students to spread the Revolution and defend your glorious Motherland from enemy pig-dogs. The system is already communist: taking more would be counterproductive, for you need to keep your smartest properly motivated to export/maintain the Revolution by force of arms, so you need to compete with the nations you'd use those arms on. (Exposing them to the bottom 90% would degrade their desire to accept the unequal tax rate, for the same reasons we're talking about now.)
If it is not, you'll understand that exceptionally well-educated students are the enemy, which is why intentionally handicapping them is morally correct. This is still the same communist-type redistribution- from worthful to worthless- but in this system it's front-loaded because this kind of communist lives in a post-scarcity environment where the smart people have already solved all their problems (so you don't need as many of them, which makes them a threat, which means you need to redistribute that superiority lest they turn it on you)[1][2].
For the National Socialists, they're still working on that, so they can't do this to anywhere near the same degree (and it would undermine the "national" part). Indeed, one further notes that National Socialist is a society in which the male and female roles in society co-operate (which is arguably a large part of why women/redistributionists instinctively hate systems that were more National than Socialist in the popular culture- which is why Red Tribe and Nazi Germany are equivalent to them).
[1] Which gives rise to the Harrison Bergeron story- which I notice describes Cain's perspective of the logical consequence of Abel realizing more gifts than Cain is equivalent to/inherently grants him power over Cain, and hence why Cain must kill him.
National socialism is a compromise between the two (which doesn't itself guarantee competence- the US is more competent than China was more competent than the Soviet Union was more competent than the Italian fascist). When there are no more conditions of reality that the inferior need the superior to destroy, the superior must be enslaved lest he realize.
Which is why Blue states are that way, despite being full of (on paper) superior people. Abel is, quite rationally, afraid; Abel sees it as sinful to build a weapon against Cain, and what modern post-scarcity societies are grappling with is if God will punish Abel for defending himself. Because the Protestant Christian answer is "yes".
[2] The prototypical example of this is arguably the Khmer Rouge (under the assertion that post-scarcity was imminent and possible with existing technology and would arrive once the collective population of Abels were exterminated). They were wrong, of course, but the justification for "kill anyone who looks intelligent" makes perfect sense when viewed through this lens.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
5d ago
Do people really identify with the cause of the South now?
If by "cause of the South" you mean "very specific slave-based political economy", maybe.
But if by "cause of the South" you mean "anti-do-what-anyone-else-tells-you, accepting that you go your way and I go mine, and [to a lesser extent] that fighting if neither of us can do that is good and necessary, even if we die on our feet rather than living on our knees"? That's the reason the General Lee has the Stars and Bars on it (and why it's the symbol of the Dukes of Hazzard in the first place), and is also why even in other nations people reach for this symbol (for they have no native culture of their own) to evoke that particular kind of childish American-style liberty.
That's kind of what "States' Rights (to [insert your favorite moral opprobrium here])" misses- the entire point of that is so that you may do in your area what you and your people have decided to do (i.e. good faith is assumed, per liberalism). One notes that "States' Rights" also includes "to murder your children and get away with it so long as you are a woman", but most don't actually realize that because they're focused on Muh Slavery.
despite not advocating for that goals of that previous movement
I mean, yeah, the Nazis would have put all of Ukraine in concentration camps if they could. The Ukrainian Nazis are generally fighting the Russians (re: Azov) so obviously they don't advocate for that goal; so does the "never ask a white supremacist the race of his girlfriend" thing.
I think there's a lot of emphasis on words and not really on actions, but you have to be paying attention to said actions to know that.
I have a TL;DR of the current tensions and situation here and here.
This was what was supposed to happen in the 2025 election, and I think that if it had Canada [as in, its bureaucracy] could have ultimately kept a lot of its power as it renegotiated its posture as an American satellite state without interference from said bureaucracy (who were clearly intending to let their Opposition go and do this, based on the polling at the time).
But what happened instead is that legacy Canadians (the 65+ set, specifically) dug their heels in and halted that reform. (I'm reminded of the "hick boomercons all voting Trump"; this is the Canadian version of of that.)
Trump's negotiating style, which personally targets those people specifically, didn't help the Reform cause.
The current problem Canada has, and it's not being talked about very much, is that it's actively growing apart in a way (in the "forming legitimate State capacity to self-govern") it's never really done before. I was shocked in early 2025 (before Trudeau stepped down) when Premiers were running around having foreign policy discussions- in a federal system that's functioning properly, that's not supposed to happen- but it is here because most provinces depend on the US for something like 90% of their economy (cities less so, and as you'd expect, cities voted for the war).
Generally the pattern with Canadian politics- which has been true since before WW1- is "try to be independent, succeed, give up anyway". Which I think we're seeing right now; while I underrate European willingness to make a trade deal whereby Canada keeps most of its industry (because Germany needs that industry running to prevent a Worker's Revolution in its nation... which, ironically for America, is what Trump represents) maybe I'll be surprised by what they allow.
But I have no reason to believe this arrogant stunt by the capital/Eastern Canadians won't end the same way.
If only these Canadians hated Washington more than they did their own countrymen- sure, the "quick, pay our countrymen so they'll fight for us" is coming now, but this is all just fair weather talk. Maybe part of that's American urban vs. rural propaganda (against which Canada has no institutional defense, why Red correctly sees Blue-aligned Canada as an enemy nation, and if you've read much of @FCfromSSC's theses I think this unravelling is a blueprint for how a larger American wind-down could potentially occur, though the US has strategic realities Canada lacks, like a navigable waterway in the Heartland).
It's quite unfortunate, too- one notes that there were no separatist calls in 2022 even when the West came to Ottawa to protest; all were waving Canadian flags. There is an identity here, it's just that for it to be real, it needs to involve all of Canada- right now, the rallying point is Orange Man Bad, but when Orange Man leaves office and the policies continue on track (because it makes solid strategic sense for the US to do this, and it'll get worse under a Blue administration because [unlike Reds] they won't give a damn about what's good for the Midwest), what happens then?
Most Canadians are assuming this isn't the new normal. I disrespectfully disagree.
Alternatively I'd love to read a write-up (past or future) by you on it.
I'm sure I'll eventually end up doing this provided my meds hold out, but I'm really not sure what else I'd actually say other than "Canada is not a political monolith, everyone who has to pay for this hates this, why does Trump care more about future Canadian economic viability than Canadians themselves do?".
(Then again, I was a fan of him the first time; that was before I met someone that established further evidence that how he functions is typical for people of his type and somehow manages to inspire leadership. I don't know why that happens, I just know that the effect is real.)
Canada will just crack up rather than accede to US suzerainty.
The funny thing about current American negotiating posture is that the people it affects correctly perceive it as a deal with/calling out them, directly.
If electoral and social systems for reform were still as functional as they were in the 1980s this would go a lot smoother but those systems have atrophied in all relevant areas as well, ironically thanks to the US.
I honestly see it as a public declaration of "Your country is now under new management. Here is an absurdly generous severance policy that contains everything your line workers ever wanted. The layoffs begin in 3 months."
(The executives and tenured personnel threw it back in their face claiming "they built this company", and are flailing around trying to desperately undo that decision. But they needed the help of departments they fired 20 years ago to have any chance of this working.)
Reminds me a lot of Elon buying Twitter.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
7d ago
and as AI becomes more undeniably scary, that may begin to eat into the Red political base
How many software engineers [or others directly threatened by AI] are not Blue-no-matter-who, though? Those are the people mostly worried about this (and partially because capex on data centers kind of ate the market's appetite for software, though one notes that once those data centers are available there still needs to be software engineers capable of using them)... but from what I can tell most of them (except for perhaps Dallas/Fort Worth) do not vote Red so why cater to them?
If nothing else, Red really needs AI to be too cheap to meter [and very cheap to develop] because control of it (and therefore access) is currently in the hands of misaligned intelligences their political opponents. So their tactic is going to be about maintaining the existing "you want your men in government to make sure that your enemy can't use AI to explode your world" threat and not a more general/civic-responsibility "AI will explode the world" message from Blue (and indeed they are in fact guilty of lying about this- stamping their culture war views into their models, claiming that's "safety", then letting development in the real X-based directions rip). Techno-luddism is kind of a Red stereotype in the first place anyway.
The strategy from Blue should arguably be more of what they're already good at: credentialism. You need humans to check that the output is correct, so why not seek some legal protections for that should that change overnight? (That way, even if the highly credentialed [= average Blue voter] are reduced to universal-basic-jobs, it's not going to upend the social order; they'll still be well-paid simply for being the kind of person who is better than average at computers. The fact the Blue side is full of Progressives may significantly degrade their ability to make this point precisely because they were the ones who entangled "safety" with "can't do a wrongthink" in the first place.)
Astra+ level models with very low error rate and 300 tok/s output totally can replace most knowledge workers.
Until it comes time to actually interact with a human being or check its work, of course; if work X isn't done properly and something screws up the superintelligence is still not accountable.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
7d ago
I'm mostly thinking of the GIUK gap here (though to be fair that's a bit far north to be particularly concerned about a new vector for submarine warfare, rather than the one that already existed) and of the Northwest Passage; now the US formally controls both entrance and exit from any Atlantic port, real or imagined (re: Churchill).
So at that point it really wouldn't matter what policy we set; the US can just override it- not that they couldn't do that before, it's just more blatant now that they (more or less) have actual territory there that isn't able to be meaningfully contested by either Russia or China (yes, Alaska exists, but the naval bases there are in missile range; Greenland, not so much).
Maximum trolling would have been Canada striking a military protection deal with Greenland first (it's not like they're not already using our small arms) but to be honest Denmark probably has the more capable military already.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
7d ago
What’s up with Carney? It’s a good bit though.
Nominative determinism.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
7d ago
The native communist eskimos might invite Russia or China in just out of fit of pique, or in a corrupt bargain.
Yeah, but I thought we were discussing Greenland.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
7d ago
So basically, Greenland/Denmark has decided that they will accept (or rather, not resist) military occupation by the US, it's just that the "who runs the government" part is still Denmark's problem (or Greenland's, should they so decide).
Provided the text of the deal backs up that interpretation, Greenland is now de facto conquered American territory. (It sounds like a very Chinese way to run a conquest, honestly.)
One wonders what the implications for the other Arctic-holding State to the US' immediate north is, as this agreement inherently (and formally) threatens all Canadian trade capacity with non-US countries.
I do suspect that Canada will be next simply to ditch the boat anchor of military obligations and accept a similar deal as reality, because I don't believe for a second that any recent move on our part to try and desperately appear as a real country is at all genuine. Indeed, the only re-investment being made is to the navy... in that they actually bothered to buy some U-boats submarines, and I can honestly see a trade made for American foreign investment actively invited towards Atlantic Canadian facilities when it comes to the US' navy (in a way that benefits the only voters keeping the current government in power, of course- the auto workers were always fucked, but there will be zero immediate electoral consequence to that).
If anything in that "negotiation" survives it's going to be a similar type of US occupation. Should have bought the jets when we had the chance.
Stare into that abyss, and that abyss also stares into you.
More options
Context Copy link