domain:science.org
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
13hr ago
We allow, even encourage, some very long comments, and I think it'd be helpful to have a way to fold the comment itself without hiding it's responses. Some sites have 'click to show more ' on long posts.
The CSS highlighting of new comments since last page load is fantastic, though.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
13hr ago
I do not believe that "Americans who think positively of Viet Cong" and "Americans who know Viet Cong's calling card was using innocent villagers as cover" are sets that overlap too much.
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
13hr ago
I'm a liberal who's been here for a while but doesn't post very frequently. I wanted to argue about the core disagreement I think I have with the prevailing political views and values on this forum. Specifically, whether this disagreement is real or just against a strawman, and if it is real, what are the best reasons why the disagreement is not serious enough to justify conclusions like "despite all their craziness, I would rather the woke have power than people with TheMotte-like views".
I think the prevailing views and values here are anti-individualistic and anti-meritocratic. To make more precise how I'm using these terms
-
Individualism means people should be judged based on their own personal qualities and actions instead of based on groups that people assign them membership to. Since the groups someone belongs to often give you information about their personal qualities, this needs to be made more precise as a conditional independence statement: conditional on someone's personal qualities and choices, judgements about them, their obligations, what they deserve, etc. should be independent of the groups they belong to.
-
Meritocracy means that positions of influence and power should be given to those best able to wield them in service of society's goals. While you can get into a lot of arguments about what society's goals should be in corner cases, for most practical decisions---who should become a doctor/lawyer, who should get research funding, who should run a company---this rounds off to two soft consideration: competence, that when someone wants to do something related to their position, they actually can, and personal virtue, that people don't use their position in ways that help themselves at the the expense of others.
The first point of argument is whether these definitions are reasonable and deserve the good connotations that "meritocracy" and "individualism" have. Therefore we should discuss what the point of these terms is and why they're considered good things:
-
Individualism is important for motivation---if people know that they're life outcomes are dependent only on them and their choices, then they have the strongest possible motivation for improving themselves as much as possible. Secondly, most people are happiest when they have a sense of agency and control over their lives. Individualism maximizes this control.
-
Meritocracy is important to make society as effective as possible in achieving its goals---this is the standard "if a surgeon is operating on you, you want to surgeon to be as competent as possible" argument.
Note that neither of these justifications are about "fairness" or anything like that (even though they line up with a many widely-held intuitions about fairness); they're both just very powerful instruments for achieving whatever terminal values society actually has at the bottom.
Now as for why I think this place does not follow these values, it might be most productive to focus on a very specific example instead of a billion arguments about racism, skilled immigration etc. A few weeks ago, J.D. Vance made a statement that citizenship in the US should be based on ancestry instead of individual choices and beliefs:
If you follow that logic of America as a purely creedal nation, America purely as an idea, that is where it would lead you. But at the same time, that answer would also reject a lot of people that the ADL would label as domestic extremists. Even those very Americans had their ancestors fight in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. And I happen to think that it’s absurd, and the modern left seems dedicated to doing this, to saying, you don’t belong in America unless you agree with progressive liberalism in 2025. I think the people whose ancestors fought in the Civil War have a hell of a lot more claim over America than the people who say they don’t belong.
I am under the impression that most posters here who care about American politics would 99% endorse this statement, even though it's pretty strongly violating meritocracy and individualism---judging people based on what their ancestors were regardless of their own qualities and competencies. Now, in the quote the the alternative is judging based on if "you agree with progressive liberalism in 2025" for rhetorical punch, but the way it's framed, he likely would also be against the alternative of e.g, "whether you agree with 1995 tolerance and colorblindness"---otherwise the entire frame of the argument wouldn't be against deciding belonging based on personal choices.
So now the specific questions:
-
Does this place actually overwhelmingly support JD Vance's statement?
-
Is this statement actually anti-individualistic and anti-meritocratic as defined above?
-
Are the above interpretations of meritocracy and individualism reasonable and consistent with anti-individualism and anti-meritocracy being very bad things or are they just word games?
Totalitarianit
13hr ago
Do those human rights exist if neither side chooses to enforce them?
Hamas has relied on the concept of human rights to win the ideological part of this war. They don't believe in it, but they know we do, so they weaponize it. Western liberals demand Israel enforce this idea of human rights because they are the more capable and, supposedly, moral side. Liberals invoke human rights when it comes to Israel, all while Hamas intentionally holds their own people hostage in order to create a moral dilemma and pit Western countries against Israel. The Stockholm syndrome cannot be denied.
Imagine for a moment if Hamas and Palestinians knew these human rights would no longer be upheld by other countries. Would the majority of Palestinians continue to support Hamas? Maybe they would, and maybe they would rather starve to death or get blown up than cede ground to Israelis. My instincts tell me that a majority wouldn't continue to support them, but then again I'm a Westerner and can't really put myself in that situation. What seems obvious to me though is that the cost-benefit analysis for Hamas continuing their strategy appears much more feasible when you have 3rd parties supplying aid and moral support.
I acknowledge that what is happening to Palestinians is horrible. I don't wish it on any human. However, third party empathy is Hamas' greatest weapon. Israel knows this but Westerners don't, and I do not expect Israel to cave to outside pressure. What this means (and what it has resulted in thus far) is an even more prolonged ordeal, where more Palestinians die and Hamas gains more support from other countries. Maybe this will result in Israel's demise at some point. It's a brilliant strategy by Hamas, but it will come at a great cost because Israel will not succumb to the empathy games directed at the world's liberals. They believe that might equals right and nobody has been able to prove otherwise.
hydroacetylene
13hr ago
Potshots at civilians picking up groceries is a war crime.
hydroacetylene
13hr ago
Hamas probably does not have track of all the hostages.
There are no American hostages being held by Hamas:
https://www.ajc.org/news/meet-the-two-american-hostages-still-held-by-hamas
There appears to be two American citizens who were fighting in the Israeli military who were killed on October 7th.
yunyun333
13hr ago
it is impossible to prevent civilians from starving because Hamas takes all the food.
Pretty much no one was starving to death before Israel implemented more stringent aid restrictions this March.
anon_
13hr ago
International humanitarian law recognizes that starvation is no longer a valid weapon of war.
Indeed, which is why Hamas should stop starving the populace of Gaza.
Hamas, as the governing body (such as it is), is the one obligated to provide for their own people's food. This whole thing is predicated on the idea that feeding Gaza is the job of literally anyone else on the planet except the actual people who are responsible for doing so.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
13hr ago
I understand what you're saying, I don't really see it as a different category of problem. Germans and Poles and Russians and Ukrainians have all experienced living in places for centuries only to find that the government of that place suddenly no longer considered them citizens. So did Russian aristocracy, Cambodian bourgeoisie, East African indians, hell millions of Americans have arguments around this.
This seems like another special pleading case where the Holocaust is considered particularly exceptional and gives the designated descendants of the victims a gold card to break norms that everyone else is expected to observe.
Either way the argument that the Holocaust justifies paranoia doesn't really absolve anyone of anything. If I'm dating a girl and she refuses to commit because "she's been hurt before," I'm not obligated to tolerate it and consider her a loyal girlfriend despite her disloyal behavior. Commitment is commitment, and mixed loyalty is mixed loyalty, even if it is justified paranoia rather than pure avarice.
Supah_Schmendrick
13hr ago
yunyun333
13hr ago
Guerrilla warfare certainly isn't uniquely Western but is positively viewed and admired. Most Americans seem to have broadly positive views of the Viet Cong, whose calling card was using innocent villagers as cover.
FistfullOfCrows
13hr ago
Now put the situation in the greater context of what the UK/US did in the founding of Israel, the wiping out villages, the absolute inhumanity of the IDF in the Intifada towards the Palestinians and the fact half the western world decided to back Israel to fuck everyone in the region. And you just might start to consider when they say From the River to the sea, they might have a point.
Supah_Schmendrick
13hr ago
Supah_Schmendrick
13hr ago
Given that IDF service is mandatory for everyone except the haredim, asking an Israeli about their opinion on the IDF is literally "do you like yourself and your neighbors?" - not terribly meaningful, or a useful reflection of Israeli opinion on state policy.
Supah_Schmendrick
14hr ago
If Hamas had the military power to actually accomplish this, that would make their actions less pointlessly evil.
As I understand it, the original conception for Oct. 7 was a surprise Hamas break-out, coupled with a simultaneous large-scale Hezbollah offensive, would pincer Israel and overwhelm its local defenses, potentially sufficiently to spark sympathetic uprisings in the West Bank or among Israeli arabs as well.
Notably, the Hezbollah component of the attack didn't happen, and good for the Israelis that it didn't because in terms of raw numbers of fighters and weapons, Hezbollah had a lot more than Hamas (prior to Operation Grim Beeper and collateral airstrikes, at least).
kky
14hr ago
I wound up using the golden halberd for my entire playthrough because there simply wasn’t anything better along strength/faith lines, except possibly magma sword. To be honest, it wasn’t the most pleasant experience, especially since I got the halberd immediately on starting the game. There was no real progression from then on, outside of some buffs. So I’m not sure I’d recommend it, even though it can certainly carry you through. Jumping heavy attacks are the key, fwiw. They knock the target down fast and give you free hits. I tried a couple of ranged options but never really liked them - the damage really wasn’t there compared to melee, especially considering that you have to drain your healing for the privilege.
If you’re really having trouble, use summons. I used them for the two bosses you mentioned, then tabooed them for myself because I got both of them on the first try and felt like I was missing out, then brought them back for a couple of the later bosses when I found I wasn’t particularly enjoying the game any longer and just wanted to hit the full clear.
Supah_Schmendrick
14hr ago
About as insightful a comment as "Eh, they are not 'free Palestine' raped yet" would have been about Oct 7th.
Except that's a meaningful statement - "the acts of war undertaken so far have been insufficient to compel a favorable political resolution" - just glibly phrased.
Supah_Schmendrick
14hr ago
If you are the Israeli government, then yes, the lives of your citizens are more important than the lives of an adversary. That's what it means to be a nation-state.
Same for the US. I would expect the American government to prioritize the lives of Americans held abroad above the lives of citizens of enemy - or even of third party neutral - countries.
marinuso
14hr ago
South Korea probably wants North Korea to remain exactly as it is.
If the NK government falls, the refugees will overwhelm South Korea. Even if the NK government peacefully reforms, the migrants will overwhelm South Korea - it will take generations for the NK economy to catch up, and in the meantime the North Koreans can travel.
South Korea would be forced to implement immigration control that would make Trump blush (or maybe even Netanyahu), and against what are technically their own countrymen to boot.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
14hr ago
The response would be police because the Canadian government wouldn't actually say "get fucked"; they'd track down said native group using both their own resources and those the US provided. A world where the Canadian government would say "get fucked" is one different enough that Canada could indeed be invaded over it.
Mantergeistmann
14hr ago
I'll go a bit further: if Hamas were white evangelicals wearing MAGA hats, rather than brownish Muslims, a large amount of the people claiming Israel is doing warcrimes would be calling for the IDF to take its gloves off and turn the land into a parking lot.
Stellula
14hr ago
Are the Israeli lives more important than the lives of the Gazan children or not?
Because at this point the Israelis are holding the children hostage too.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
14hr ago
before they would start looking like North Korea
Which is to say, stable and at peace (if an uneasy one) with their neighbors?
Not for the bison? They're heavier, but less gangly.
More options
Context Copy link