domain:farhakhalidi.substack.com
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2m ago
Alright looks like I made a breakthrough in unretarding the sql queries. Perhaps it's a bad sign that I had to work so much against the framework I'm working with, but I can't think of a better way. Have to chip away at a few more things, and then on to unretarding the content import / sync.
How are you doing @Southkraut?
Tree
3m ago
Nonsense. My family's full of them, and they usually don't deny it.
I don't have to take the words of christian apologists at face value. Their mythology, rules and actions betray an extreme hostility to sex. You yourself, in the middle of arguing christians aren't anti-sex, can't help but insult sex as "soulless pleasure seeking", whatever that means. Just accept that you're anti-sex and stick to the ascetic line.
remzem
5m ago
It was pretty embarrassing that most of the arguments against Iran having a nuke revolve around them being not just crazy like the North Koreans, but crazy religious zealots that don't fear death so MAD wouldn't apply. Meanwhile our politicians are encouraging Trump to listen to God and ignore anything else and claiming their support for Israel is based on religion saying it will benefit us not on any real world analysis.
Because we had 8 years of Obama and then went straight to Trump I think a lot of people forgot why the neolib + neocon version of the Republican party died off, with some RINOs wanting to return to "saner old days". Seeing it suddenly revived this last week really just shows what a broken and inferior ideology it was.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6m ago
Some soldiers are going to have more sympathy for the people they're being told to bomb and shell than they would for Durka Durkas. This will cause reliability issues, of the sort where they don't want to fight, may sympathize with the enemy, and may even defect. Some soldiers are going to have less sympathy, because Y'all Qaeda/Soros-Funded Pedo Antifa killed their kids. This will also cause reliability issues, of the sort where they commit uncontrolled atrocities, which in turn remove the ability to control the intensity of the war. Both sorts of reliability issues make it very hard to return to a state of peace.
I do not think it really matters if a Tyrant tries to go full first-strike Vernichtungskrieg or if they play it like Platonic Lincoln and scrupulously attempt to maintain rule of law. People look at those two scenarios, and they imagine that there's a clear difference in the scale and character of the initial inputs, so obviously there should be a difference in the outputs, but the mistake they're making is in the assumption that the inputs are driving the process. If you have a forest dried out by six months of drought, it makes approximately zero difference if you start a fire with a cigarette butt or a flamethrower; two hours later, you will not be able to tell the difference between the resulting fires, because the exponential growth of energy-release will utterly eclipse any variance in the initiating inputs.
However it starts, whichever winner comes out the other side might possibly still call itself "the United States of America", maybe, but the likely scenario is a dirt-poor, fanatically-paranoid military dictatorship populated by heavily-armed, criminally-inclined murderers with severe PTSD, huddled in the dark, dreaming of electricity and clean water. And sure, "there are levels of survival we are willing to accept", but people should at least be clear-sighted about what they're walking into. It will not be clean. It will not be quick. It will in fact be the worst thing that ever happened to you and everyone you know and love, by far, and it will neither reverse itself nor end for the forseeable future.
I will note that you are, in fact, still talking about a lot more than small arms here; mortars are far, far more effective than small arms, and are not something the Blue Tribe is currently trying to take away from private citizens
I'm defining small arms as weapons you can build in your home and pack on your back. Mortars are absurdly easy to manufacture out of ubiquitous materials, and I think even the people nodding along with that sentence are still overestimating what "easy to manufacture" and "ubiquitous materials" requires; you do not even need metal. And again, our armed forces were united against the Taliban to a degree that is unlikely in a civil war here. It still wasn't enough.
MathWizard
Good things are good
7m ago
Do you believe that it's actually truly subjective? As in, it's okay for someone to kill someone else as long as they don't consider the victim to be a person? There's absolutely nothing wrong with people slaughtering "non-persons" as long as the non-person is sincerely believed by the slaughterers, and if people go around doing that you will have no complaints?
Or do you perhaps have a more nuanced and less genocidal belief about personhood grounded by something beyond mere subjectivity?
muzzle-cleaned-porg-42
FConSCC/Hlynka flow emissions since 2022
10m ago
I get a feeling you are overinterpreting a metaphor.
Yes, I used the word "path". I wasn't really imagining any step-by-step path, I was thinking , dunno, folk thermodynamics or folk gravity surfaces. A path for society to lurch from current equilibrium/stable attractor state to some other equilibrium, whatever it is, by reducing the barrier between the two, reducing the required amount of "pushing" by propaganda alone. The end state does not need to be well mapped and planned, because as you say, such social engineering is no really possible, that is just the nature of metaphor. Naturally, itis more credible to have a vision to lurch towards.
I do think that when individual in modern West finds him/herself in some of the common romantic/sexual paths, there is no single reason but multiple reasons that makes those choices feel the path of least resistance. Same reasons make any other choices (such as trad "date seriously, propose and get married before having sex") appear something so weird and impractical that is not even on their map. Yet in Victorian England or even more traditional cultures, random individual faces multitude of reasons have heavily encouraged marriage. After all, several parts of the society and technology changed along the way to current morality from Victorian morality, neutralizing those reasons (electrification, post-industrialization, usefulness of college education in post-industrial economy, the pill, world wars, several waves of feminism, mass media). Victorian family culture was sill so powerful have we sill have some remnants like Christmas and playing Queen Victoria's favorite Wagner piece for the wedding march.
I do admit this is no grand social theory, it is a handwavy justification why I thought to use word "equilibrium", which I chose as I had brief mental image and I wrote two-paragraph off-the-cuff comment. I don't know how to evaluate whether I emit "Hlynka flow" and don't really care to. Like, I am not really sure what exactly is the point. After reading your other comment in nearby thread, quoted below for convenience , I think we are nearly agreeing? The push against smoking included much more than anti-smoking education in schools: bans in many public and private spaces that are enforced, taxes, fees, inconvenience for selling and marketing tobacco, varied media campaigns not limited to the equivalent of odd sex ed class. School health education about harms of smoking hopefully contributes to anti-smoking, but wasn't decisive on its own.
So reiteration of my point: if the intention is a society of no premarital sex, then abstinence-only sex ed in schools will be much easier time having an effect if there are other policies in place that make the abstinence-until-marriage lifestyle sound more enticing, realistic and attainable than other lifestyles. "Wait until marriage" certainly is not enticing to 15 year old if people get married at 30 (if at all) and it is easy skip both waiting and marriage. But if they introduce bunch of other reasons to make early marriage more favorable, then it becomes easier -- such as, make college more family friendly (everyone can come up with other favorite policies to push, I am not a think tank).
Hadad
19m ago
A shame if the bunkers themselves are truly impenetrable. In that case, we'd have to destroy everything except the bunkers.
remzem
21m ago
The missiles aren't sitting on the mountains, they are under the mountains. For some sites like fordow it's unlikely even the largest conventional bunker buster in the US's entire arsenal would be able to penetrate. We don't have the power to simply destroy entire mountain ranges. Not even counting nukes.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
23m ago
Leftist political argumentation baffles me, and looking at all the different ways to analyze things in a conservative way (textualist, originalist, etc), I fail to find any similar differentiation on the left side of the law. This isn't the first time I've felt this way about left wing judges. They seem to be far more activist.
Breyer wrote a book defending his "pragmatism"--you could read it and see what you think. I haven't read it.
I agree with your general point. The liberals on the court have a tendency towards viewing a case through the lens of "do I agree with the policy at issue," and then proceeding from there. The conservatives are more likely to come out all over the place depending on where their textualism or originalism takes them. When I heard him speak in the early 2000s, Scalia was quite critical of the "hippies" in Texas v. Johnson but thought the first amendment required that result. Thomas' dissent in Lawrence v. Texas noted he thought the law at issue was "uncommonly silly" and he'd vote to repeal it if he were in the Texas legislature, but that it was constitutional since there is no general right to privacy. That sort of "I don't like this law/conduct, but I think the constitution allows/protects it" conclusion seems to only come from one side of the Court.
Hadad
24m ago
Realistically, there is no international law that America disagrees with, and that especially includes a rule of "you must let yourself be overrun by undesirables". I would personally sign up for Trump's Golden Gestapo to mow down orcs by the boatload.
remzem
25m ago
Realistically they are bound by international laws about refugees that they are unlikely to tear up. Also considering both the UK and France have a nuclear triad you don't want to destroy one country just to end up with 2 new nuclear armed foes in a few decades.
Hadad
25m ago
In your worldview, am I to understand that the reason China doesn't start World War 3 is because it fears America will bomb Taiwan into oblivion, and thus, if at any point we seem like we can't glass the entire place, they will invade?
Hadad
28m ago
I'm more confident in this administration's ability to enforce our territorial sovereignty than previous ones. We don't actually need to let them in, no matter how many there are.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
28m ago
Hypothesized chain of causality:
America expends large numbers of munitions on Iran > this lowers China's risk of making a play for Taiwan over the next ~5 (10?) years > China makes a move for Taiwan > both juggernauts slug it out > during the conflict, global trade collapses > depending on who wins the conflict (or if it even ends, it might just turn into a stalemate with occasional explosions), global trade potentially never recovers, and the world bifurcates a lot > we all are worse off as a result
remzem
30m ago
Given how much damage the middle eastern refugee waves did to the US and Europe it would be nice if our Senator's knew that Iran's population is larger than Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria's populations (at the point of their regime change attempts) combined.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
31m ago
Same, but I'd prefer neither much more. I think the two of them have much more in common with each other than they do with our current system.
Hadad
32m ago
No. It is true. There is no "may". These things I mention being complicated and multifaceted doesn't mean there is a chance or a scenario in which population is not critical in their determination.
It remains "may", because as said, scaling a population up doesn't necessarily improve its military or state capacities.
America was superior to Iraq (2003), and Syria, and Afghanistan, and Libya. Did our intervention in these countries go well for America? No, they did not.
The wrong goals were pursued in all of these cases.
It does not matter if America is superior to Iran. It matters if America can achieve what Ted Cruz wants to do, in the way Ted wants to do it, at an acceptable cost. If Ted Cruz does not know basic facts about the capacity of Iran to impose costs, how will Ted be able to know what costs Iran can impose?
I asked this to another, I ask it to you: at what point do you think the US military asks Ted Cruz to handle logistics? This is not a Senator's role. The country's population numbers are not an important concern for him. They are trivia.
remzem
34m ago
and though Iraq now has a population of ~45m when we invaded in 2003 their population was only 27m, Afghanistan's was 20. So if it's relative to the points of our regime change attempts in those countries Iran has more like 4x the population. The potential refugee wave would be larger than Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
rayon
waifutech enthusiast
36m ago
Man I really have a whole talmud to properly internalize heh, thanks for the advice. I really like the idea of Ben Franklining here but that might be temporarily off the table given the current situation.
if a partner is fundamentally not interested in a woman as a person, if he gets no great positive utility from caring for her and knowing she's happy day-to-day, if he's not the kind of guy who can notice and spontaneously help if she or a kid are struggling
Well uh see, that's... kind of the crux here. I am very interested in her, I care for her greatly and derive a lot of satisfaction from my savior complex doing it (in fact I have inflicted quite a bit of my residual rat programming on the unwitting gal, to which she took pretty well even). The problem is twofold: I can't express it "visibly", and accordingly my acts of service as it were don't scan to her as explicitly romantic gestures (which she needs), even as she acknowledges the care in the same breath.
I know this is going to look like a massive red flag from her but I assure you I really am that oblivious, the anime comparison wasn't metaphorical, so at least some frustration on her part is warranted here. To be perfectly blunt, I am the type of nigga to be texted "please educate me :3" at night and respond with "actually I think you're taking your lessons well so far, good job!". This has not been bad enough in the past, but the rift is growing, even as she clearly still perceives me as a potential partner and continues to reject dates IRL in my favor.
This is not to say that I don't feel frustrated too; if the above sounds like mixed signals - yes they fucking are, so to some extent I stubbornly hope that if a woman sends you mixed signals, she herself is confused and wants to be told what to think about us, and that I can learn how to drill that into her before the rift is unsalvageable.
phosphorus2
37m ago
This all may be true, to an extent (it's obviously not as simple as adding people means more state capacity).
No. It is true. There is no "may". These things I mention being complicated and multifaceted doesn't mean there is a chance or a scenario in which population is not critical in their determination.
But again: so? I'm confident America is superior regardless.
America was superior to Iraq (2003), and Syria, and Afghanistan, and Libya. Did our intervention in these countries go well for America? No, they did not.
It does not matter if America is superior to Iran. It matters if America can achieve what Ted Cruz wants to do, in the way Ted wants to do it, at an acceptable cost. If Ted Cruz does not know basic facts about the capacity of Iran to impose costs, how will Ted be able to know what costs Iran can impose?
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
39m ago
I find it simultaneously hilarious and kind of sad that you think Trads are "anti-sex". You've clearly never interacted with a sincere Catholic or Orthodox Jew before. (Or Mormon for that matter)
You have the causality exactly backwards. Trads, as a general rule, are pro-natal/pro-family-formation first and thier disdain for the liberal mantra of freedom from consequence/responsibility and "soulless pleasure seeking" is a result of them being pro-natal not the cause.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
42m ago
Why can't people like me even be given the solace of hopelessness?
Because the hopelessness is a construct of your own making. With very few exceptions, most of romanceless men are not like someone with Down's Syndrome longing for a college education that is literally beyond his potential.
I am not religious, but I kind of sympathize with the Christian idea that despair is not just counterproductive, but sinful. Yes, it's comforting to escape into despair and hopelessness and just say "No matter what I do, it won't work, so no sense in trying." But sometimes things are hard and difficult but still doable, and you would just prefer not to do them.
I doubt there is something deeply awful and abnormal about you. Maybe there is, and if so I'm sorry, but I can't diagnose you personally. But I get that we are given a lot of really bad, if well-meaning advice, like "just be yourself." (I got that one too, and it did me no favors.) That said, when your life is not working out for you, contrary to the fellow I was just arguing with about how grand and free medieval peasants were, no one has ever lived in a period with more freedom to remake, reinvent, and choose our lives than today. That doesn't mean everyone gets to be happy and fulfilled and get everything they want, but every incel-type guy I've ever known has basically had no serious personal defects that would make him literally undatable, just a lot of bitterness and resentment and unwillingness to change or put in the necessary effort. Why do you see so many men who shouldn't "rate" (they are definitely not chads or three-6s) pulling relationships? Are they just blindly lucky? Or do they persevere with some luck and effort - maybe a lot of luck - but mostly persistence?
Hell, there is even the redpill- "Game" apparently works, though I personally dislike the manipulativeness of that entire scene.
I can't tell you not to give up and abandon hope, but I cannot honestly feel sorry for you if you do.
remzem
47m ago
Russian and Iranian cooperation seems more just to counter the western empire's expansion collaborate to avoid sanctions and so on. They share some military tech and iirc Russian trade with India is through Iran. Other than that economically they are less interdependent, and if the war went bad and Iran closed the strait of Hormuz and hit Saudi Arabia's oil fields it would put Russia in a spot to make a pretty huge profit and a lot of pressure for the west to back off sanctions to stabilize their economy. This threat is ironically probably a more effective weapon against the west than a nuke.
I think China would be far more likely to come to their aid. They are a huge energy importer and Iran is crucial to their overland trade routes. They recently committed to a half trillion dollar infrastructure project in Iran, etc. Already heard of a couple Chinese warships entering their waters and some cargo planes flying in and out. Guess it will depend on how things escalate.
see the comment here. This may be little more than a disagreement over semantics.
More options
Context Copy link