domain:noahpinion.blog
TheDemonRazgriz
4m ago
I would give a pretty strong endorsement to The War Zone (twz.com), although they’re more news than analysis, really, and so maybe not quite what you’re looking for. A lot of defense industry news and more technical articles as well. They do have their biases (in the current conflicts that’s fairly strongly pro-Ukraine and mildly pro-Israel, if memory serves) but they generally keep them in check and provide very detailed and thorough reporting. I’ve been reading them for a long while now and they rarely disappoint. In the early days of the Ukraine war they were probably the single best source for a picture of what was going on, even breaking some events first at times, and they have a decent level of access to officials and industry types to get interesting stories.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
7m ago
Thank you for that!
AvocadoPanic
25m ago
Tell that to Kyle Rittenhouse.
Common knowledge coalesces day by day.
The Constitution never held power, and neither did the courts, much less the body of law supposedly founded upon and adjudicated by them. Constitutional Rights as such protect nothing. If the power to secure protection of one's rights exists, it comes from somewhere else in our socio-political constructs, and effective politics consists of isolating its location and securing that power to be wielded by one's own agents.
To the extent that this power exists outside formal structures, then effective politics consists of coordinating efforts outside those formal structures, a point so obvious as to border on tautology.
To the extent that formal political structures exist for the sole purpose of containing and channeling both power and the pursuit of that power, the above is a statement that formal political structures have evidently failed.
Or perhaps I'm wrong. I would invite "Rule of Law" proponents to explain what they see happening here, and how it fits into their general model of how sociopolitical power works.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
42m ago
but at the same time, the first task in a case of a guy with a deadly weapon is “live to be prosecuted.”
With state capacity and prisons today, you're better off dead.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
47m ago
I mean I think it’s a consideration, and im not sure that I’d personally “get strapped” before going anywhere, but at the same time, the first task in a case of a guy with a deadly weapon is “live to be prosecuted.” And especially for marginalized or contentious groups, if you’re a target for violence, you need to either get out of the danger zone or be ready to defend yourself.
As far as LEOs, they can’t be everywhere. And I don’t think the reasonable assumption is “well, I’ll just hope the cops have it under control. My first option, personally is to not be there. Don’t do things that make you an obvious target of political violence. That probably doesn’t work for Jews who look… like Jews or wear kippahs or tassels. I’d say the same of gays who act in flaming ways, visible minorities, women etc.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
49m ago
I do feel like it's self consciousness that made me flinch from those stories when I first read the book, although it was also the fact that I was going in thinking it was the precursor to Lovecraft and assuming that meant tentacles. They've grown on me since, I connect particularly strongly with Hastings in Our Lady of the Fields, but they do feel out of place in the modern context of the King in Yellow. Maybe it's the non-western elements of your upbringing? I still think back fondly on one of my best friends from primary school - a Bangladeshi guy named Raymond - for convincing me that romance is an important part of stories, I would have missed out on a lot of excellent poems and great stories, and a lot of flirting with ladies, if I hadn't listened.
celluloid_dream
59m ago
To get those numbers, I assume housing supply is rising, but is still artificially held back in order to keep it as a viable-but-not-good investment?
That sounds a little crazy to me. If you could fix the problem faster, surely you should.
Tree
1hr ago
If you could, why would you not spend a few million to inflict hundreds of millions in damage to the enemy?
I suppose the smart, the russian-soviet way to spend money and lives, is to use AA missiles to shoot down cheap drones, or to kill one of their guys in exchange for one of Ukraine's, so that russia can brute-force its way to victory and its population to extinction. Much more sporting.
You could just start suicide bombing tons of people in moscow or something if you just want to do damage to your enemy, but that will just backfire and weaken your position.
Well yeah, your plan is ugly and weakens ukraine's position, as you note. This plan was beautiful and gave russia a black eye. Apples and Oranges.
If you liked the magic ship series you should definetly go back. The assassins series is set in the same world (but a different location) and is arguably superior.
I'd recommend all her books except the soldier son series. She likes to challenge or torture her characters but I found that series too bleak for my tastes.
yofuckreddit
1hr ago
In my (admittedly most extreme) example we're literally talking about people who start by murdering, raping, and robbing other people their whole lives.
Then they have more children, addled by drugs from birth and neglect from the jump. Who kick things off by consuming vast quantities of resources from families that adopt them. The exact same problems, but geometrically multiplied for each generation. And they're fast too, because getting knocked up the first at 16 means more meth quicker.
These are rare examples, yes. Fractions of a percent. But to repeat: it's not a morally superior stance to look at the rivers of blood and treasure consumed by tiny fractions of society, then to just throw up your hands and say "oops, guess we can't fix it!". It's the absolute worst version of the tragedy of the commons.
TIRM
1hr ago
critique of a nebulous “elite”, the only point of which is to spread a general mistrust in whoever happens to be in power
But enough about their wise and desirable traits.
My main complaint about the other side is their unthinking reflexive trust and support for their favorite elites. Seemingly changing their opinions and values on a dime when "the science" or some cabal of would-be technocrats sends out new positions for right-thinking people to hold.
There's a level of distrustful contrarianism that is maladaptive. The opposite of is is not necessarily wisdom. But conservatives are onto something vaguely distrusting our self-appointed elites. Correctly recognizing that taking orders from the vanguard of the opposition is not a good idea.
SkoomaDentist
1hr ago
How dare you suggest anything like that?!
SkoomaDentist
1hr ago
Why would the ukrainians do that? They must have ulterior motives.
Indeed. What possible reason could the Ukrainians have to make the war more costly for Russia by striking against targets that Russia can't easily replace. It truly boggles the mind... /s
TIRM
1hr ago
essentially nobody in the West has a stake in Gaza that makes it worth protesting about.
American Jews with family in Israel or even family killed on Oct 7. The last American hostage held in Gaza was released a couple weeks ago. A "let our people go" walk is relevant to some Americans.
remzem
1hr ago
Not really, you want to do damage to conventional weapons, not nuclear fleet. You're in a conventional war, you won't win with random deep strikes on weapons that aren't being used in the war. You could just start suicide bombing tons of people in moscow or something if you just want to do damage to your enemy, but that will just backfire and weaken your position. The pro-russian people tend to think more strategically and the pro Ukr in emotional displays. So they are eternally confused by eachother. It reminds me of the battle of the sexes.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
1hr ago
Or you know, suicide you. I think the hint is large enough at this point.
gattsuru
1hr ago
I woke up today and didn't have "read Josh Blackman being too charitable to the squishy center of the court" on my to-do list.
gattsuru
1hr ago
Not sure I could advise anyone I care about going to a protest armed either. Just having the CCW puts you in an untenable position here -- you get pushed to the ground by an unarmed person, now you're in a no-win place.
From a tactical perspective, perhaps. From a process one, that's either a demand to show up to a flamethrower fight with your fists, or to surrender the public square to the first group that brings violence.
Really we need a renewed commitment from law enforcement to do their jobs and stand between the various groups and let them each say whatever.
If you've got a unicorn, I'll take that, too. But while it's been an issue in previous cases like Kessler or Dolloff, it's not clear that it's what matters here. These particular protesters have been doing this walk for a year without serious counterprotest, and none of the news reports (for whatever you believe them) suggest that the attacker was operating with counterprotesters. This was, as far as I can tell, out of the blue.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱέ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν
1hr ago
Hah I have read almost all of these except for the Black Jewel. And never finished WoT rip. Thanks for answering though. Malazan is the bomb.
SSCReader
1hr ago
Depends on the exit poll. You can find 56% (Guardian), 52% or 49% depending on where you look. I took the high end because if that doesn't count as droves then neither does any lesser number. You could split it and say it is roughly 52% plus or minus 3 maybe.
Really we'd have to define the terms of what does greater problems and droves mean before any of the numbers can tell us anything. For me "droves" would have to be over 60% at least and consistently getting under 50% would be greater problems attracting X. But that's really just squinting at it and going off vibes. One could make reasonable arguments for very different numbers I am sure.
Tree
1hr ago
It seems like this was purely (if it had been more successful) intended to try to provoke a nuclear response.
Isn’t there a more parsimonious explanation for ukraine’s behaviour? Something like: ‘Let’s do as much damage to russian military equipment as possible, because, we’re in a war, and that’s what you do’.
The russian supporters ever-renewed surprise and outrage at being attacked back never fails to entertain. Why would the ukrainians do that? They must have ulterior motives. Yesterday on twitter the hallucinated reason was to ‘torpedo the peace talks’, the peace talks that, until then, putin had shown zero interest in, and they duly decried as absurd.
Thank you very much.
More options
Context Copy link