domain:savenshine.com
Hadad
17hr ago
It'd be a very odd right-winger of any sort who concerns himself with the Congo. Even a genuinely Christian soul, selfless and eager to help, would probably not then pair it with anti-American conspiracy theories. More than anything, the guy codes as pure crazy, but definitely crazy from a liberal direction.
That said, he's absolutely fucking cuckoo for cocoa puffs, and no one should take any sort of vindication. I'm a right wing man and I don't think him being a Democrat or a left-leaning weirdo is a slamdunk against progressives in general. This guy is actually just mad, and he would have done some mad thing no matter what group he attached to.
hydroacetylene
17hr ago
Whether ADHD is real or just hasn't been spanked syndrome, I highly doubt it's caused by food additives.
hydroacetylene
17hr ago
We have no indication he doesn't, even if abortion is a weirdly prominent issue for him.
hydroacetylene
17hr ago
Would anyone mind if he treats this as a nomination?
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
17hr ago
I’m just looking at his particular interest in Africa, and food insecurity in Africa and tge Congo. None of this sounds like a guy with right-leaning tendencies. He does have a grandiose agenda and vision for how and what he’s going to do in DRC, but the choice of “American hunger to control black people in Africa” has no right-coded hooks, but does have left-coded hooks (international food security, American Empire, etc). This just doesn’t read like even a center left idea. This sounds pretty progressive in its choice of location and race-hierarchy and America-booing. I don’t think anyone remotely MAGA, NRx, or dissident right is going to glom onto “people in Congo need my help because America is using food to control black people in Africa.” They won’t because this isn’t on the list of concerns right leaning people would have. Right spaces tend toward nationalism, religion, masculinity, and similar issues. He doesn’t care about any right-coded ideology at all.
hydroacetylene
17hr ago
There's definitely conspiracy theorists of all stripes who believe the colored population is being controlled with food.
hydroacetylene
17hr ago
Probably neither of them voted republican, though.
hydroacetylene
17hr ago
An interesting factor here is that a number of not-themselves-nuclear powers in NATO(including Poland, but also Turkey and the Netherlands) have technically-American nuclear weapons in their arsenals. Absent this program I'd expect Poland and Turkey, at the very least, to have their own nukes.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
17hr ago
You are being intentionally obtuse. You are obviously intelligent enough to parse Ignatiev’s actual beliefs, yet you intentionally flatten their nuance whenever they appear to deviate from your simplistic framing.
Let’s assume for a moment that Ignatiev is forthrightly representing his own beliefs. He wishes to abolish the cultural belief that appearance and ancestry should confer any prestige or preferential treatment upon any individual. He, like any committed critical theorist, believes that an inherent quality of “whiteness” — not simply a broadly European phenotype, but the cluster of meaning and historical importance retroactively applied to people with that phenotype — is a belief in a hierarchy in which white people are in some sense more important, more valuable, etc., than non-white people are.
In that sense, it is also true that he wants to “abolish the black race”; not to abolish the African phenotype, but to abolish the idea that anyone should care what ancestral group an individual appears to descend from. However, it means something different to lead with a call to abolish a powerful, hegemonically-empowered group than it does to lead with a call to abolish a more vulnerable, historically-persecuted group. When it comes to Jews, it makes sense for Ignatiev to say that Jewish people have just as much a right to their own private religious beliefs as anybody else, but that these religious beliefs should not be made into a template for policymaking, nor should Jews be treated as any more special than anyone else. (As they are in Israel, which is why Ignatiev has repeatedly expressed opposition to the existence of Israel.)
In this framing, anti-Semitism is bad specifically because it is one example of a larger category of beliefs: namely, that an individual’s ancestry or inherited religious beliefs should have any bearing on one’s treatment of, or expectations about, that individual. It happened that the context of the conversation Ignatiev was having centered around a Jewish-specific issue. (And one on which, as @Stefferi pointed out, Ignatiev came down on the side that did not advantage Jews rather than the one that did.) Had that conversation been about a black-centric issue, he would have said that anti-blackness is a crime against humanity.
Now, if all of these beliefs are his actual beliefs, there is no hypocrisy there at all. He is a standard-issue hardcore blank statist secular progressive who wants to abolish nations, dissolve unchosen bonds between individuals in order to liberate them to pursue a life of pure self-discovery and voluntary commitments. There’s no secret undercurrent of wanting to see Jewish people secretly privileging themselves while dissolving other macro-scale unchosen identities.
And of course you can say he’s lying, and that in fact his commitment to blank-slate liberated individualism does actually have a secret exception clause for Jews. (This appears to be your claim.) But then, if you’ve opened the door to accusing him of cynically lying, why are you certain that he’s honest about wanting to abolish whiteness, but also certain that he’s lying about not thinking anti-Semitism is any worse (or any better) than any other form of bigotry? Why couldn’t he be making a bombastic call to “abolish whiteness” because it’s catchy, provocative, and likely to get him a lot of attention, interview requests, and speaking engagements? Why is it that you believe Jews are liars, except when they say negative thing about white people?
Like, Ignatiev’s contention is that there is a society-wide belief that phenotypically-European people are more special than other races, and that’s it’s somehow important to keep them pure and make sure they continue to hold all the important positions of power in as many advanced first-world countries as possible, both because they’re entitled to those countries (“we built them”) and because they’re more qualified to competently run them, whereas other races would fuck it up. That’s what he means when he talks about “whiteness” and what he has explicitly argued for abolishing.
And this appears to be a pretty accurate descriptor of your beliefs! You do think those things about white people! When I’ve expressed enthusiasm about miscegenation between white people and East Asians, you’ve reacted with shock and horror, because you take it for granted that preserving the genetic purity of the white race is of considerable importance. When others have argued in favor of skilled non-white immigration into white countries, you’ve expressed fervent opposition because you don’t think non-whites would be responsible, capable, conscientious wielders of power within white countries. Basically you want non-white people to stay in the parts of the world that currently have all the non-white people, because you want them to stay separate from white people. You’ve made this explicit! The caricature of “whiteness” which Ignatiev attacks — one which, in truth, vanishingly few white people in the 21st century believe in — is the reality of your belief system.
If you want to claim that Ignatiev is making sone larger, more genocidal claim about wanting to directly harm all people of fair skin, or all people of European descent — and also that he wishes to exempt himself from this by retreating into a defensive and subversive Jewish identity — then you have to actually contend with the substance of his stated arguments.
ABigGuy4U
17hr ago
There is a rumor that Saudi Arabia put up a lot of the funds for the Pakistani bomb project, and as a result has an agreement that they could get a shipment of nukes if they ever decided to ask for them.
It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.
There’s nothing preventing such a transfer. The problem is, if whoever you gave them to uses them, the victim is probably going to hold you liable for that and respond accordingly. And second, who would you trust with that, long term? Alliances sour, governments change and maybe in forty years they are pointed at you.
hydroacetylene
17hr ago
Isn't there probably some deal where Pakistan will sell a nuke to Saudi Arabia if Iran tests one already on the books?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
18hr ago
Okay, I'm also confused now.
Dean
Flairless
18hr ago
Gaddafi did fall to a NATO air campaign stopping and then reversing the civil war's progress, which at the time of intervention he clearly had the momentum in. Had Gaddafi had a nuclear weapon, it's extremely doubtful the NATO air campaign would have occurred, and without that, he would have been doing the butchering.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
18hr ago
It's weird that "National" refers to the US and Canada together here (the NBA has one, previously two Canadian teams). The last guy to call them one country got a lot of grief for it.
Can you explain how the context contradicts my summary? He vocally supported ending the white race, while at the same time declaring anti-Semitism a Crime against Humanity. That was my statement, and your context does not refute that in any way. Sure, he made that affirmation in order to defend himself from the accusation of anti-Semitism for his position on Harvard food accommodations but that is no matter. What I have said is not changed whatsoever by the context you provided, he simultaneously held both positions exactly as I described.
FistfullOfCrows
18hr ago
That doesn't mean the Holocaust deniers are right.
I have bad news for you.
kky
19hr ago
If you want my opinion, keeping your IT job is mostly about working for the right company (responsible, hasn’t overhired, good market prospects) in a critical and productive, usually backend, capacity - not on puff projects funded by zero interest debt. Easier said than done, I know, but the team I’m currently on has survived multiple rounds of layoffs at my company completely untouched. In software, boring is extremely good. Management is not immune to cuts, on the other hand.
You’re right that domain knowledge transfer is a serious problem in tech. The one thing I’d say is: the best people tend to be good by virtue of their ability to learn fast and learn as a function of general principles over rigid specifics. I personally haven’t had much trouble moving into new jobs or domains. Then again, I wasn’t even a programmer initially - I learned on the job. So maybe I’m not the best example, since my case is already weird.
Overall, I empathize with pretty much any cynical take on big industry and tech in particular. Industry leaders have not shown great judgment over the past couple decades. That said, the best advice is always some combination of work on your skills and build good relationships, and be prepared to pivot if it comes to it. The one good thing about the modern industry is that your individual labor does have value and you can take the value of your labor where you want - it’s fundamentally inalienable. Keeping that idea close to heart helps you stay sane.
sohois
19hr ago
For the ones I've played:
3 - Only played the DS remake; it was ok. I kind of agree with your description, it wasn't terrible to play, but really felt like it had been left behind
4 - This the good shit
5 - Meh, didn't grab me much. Another one where I probably left it too late like 3
6 - Yeah pretty goated
7 - Same
8 - I appreciate a game that tries new stuff but it was just fucking weird
10 - personal favourite
12 - As I posted below, yawn
13 - Can't believe I actually beat this piece of shit instead of giving up
15 - Really a lot like 8, they threw all kinds of shit at the wall but forget to bring it together into a cohesive product. Some of the stuff in here is my favourite in all of the games, but it feels like the designers spent all their time deciding on new foods to carefully render and making fishing minigames instead of completing what they set out for.
16 - Story reminds me of 15, they do a lot of setup then about 2/3rds in I guess they ran out of time so they throw it all away and just rush to the end. Otherwise competent.
FFT - Not as good as tactics ogre
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
19hr ago
Eventually, either Iran ruling committee #133 decides to surrender or the central government looks like a pathetic clown show and the nation disintegrates.
"The nation disintegrates" isn't necessarily a desirable outcome.
wayfarer
19hr ago
result in massive international penalties for countries A and or B?
yes
also, it would be hard to find country B with nukes willing to sell them one way or another
lets say that Slovenia decided to buy nukes from Pakistan: then people in Pakistan can sell them out (at no risk to themselves) or go into insanely risky operation
if things leak before Slovenia gets nukes then you have decent option of sudden coup one way or another
also, even if Slovenia buys nukes it is not very valuable by itself - you also need delivery methods
also, what Pakistan would need to get (or Pakistani officials) to make it worth it?
basically any part may blow up in face of all involved
WhiningCoil
19hr ago
I don't think that's what originalism is. Every time I've seen people argue, claiming originalist bona fides, they bring up the surrounding context. The debates, the letters, the journals, and any other written record they can find from the founding fathers. They aren't considering the words on the page in a vacuum. If anything, that's what the "living document" people do. They ignore all the context around around the founding documents, squint, abuse semantics, and decide the words on the page mean whatever they want them to mean.
wayfarer
19hr ago
Thanks! That kind of fact-checking is valuable to reveal manipulation by SS-men.
sohois
19hr ago
I did find I was constantly tweaking my gambits, most on account of status effects. Another difference I remember was that with the OG license board, I could give all my characters some low level spells, like Protect or Shell, so the whole party would work together to keep those protection spells up. In Zodiac Age, you tell your single white mage in the part to keep everyone protected, it's virtually all they do it takes so long to cast 3 times in a row, and then it's nearly worn off! Meanwhile they aren't healing or curing status effects.
This was what really put me off the game back when I played the original. IIRC, I had every character basically playing as a red mage, never bothered with skills, and just unlocked the strongest weapons available whenever I found new ones.
It's a name for a region encompassing deep east Texas as well as parts of Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
More options
Context Copy link