domain:savenshine.com
stuckinbathroom
8m ago
Hypothetically, if India were to blow its hot nuclear load on Pakistan—in which case, as you mentioned, it would likely suffer the worst disaster in history—would India then have the (nuclear or conventional) wherewithal to prevent, say, a Chinese invasion of the contested northeastern borderlands? Or other violations of its territorial integrity?
If not, this may be reason enough for India not to pursue escalation to nuclear war, even if a nuclear exchange with Pakistan would technically be survivable.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
10m ago
If she's having fun with the new hot guy but didn't think you'd find a possible replacement for her
Sure, but now you're into the "this is just cheating with extra steps" failure mode.
Note that this is a failure mode because "being poly" is being used as a weapon/to get one over on the original partner and not actually in that partner's best interest at all. But then again, it's that [attitude], and not necessarily the object-level, killing the relationship; other than shits and giggles/not actually liking the partner I don't understand why anyone would do this.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
22m ago
I suspect many of the early outspoken advocates for polyamory were asexuals (or at least people with atypically low sex drives) who were inadvertently typical-minding the more conventionally-sex-driven people in their vicinity, assuming that - "well, if I could easily overcome my (vastly lower than typical, if not nonexistent) romantic/sexual jealousy, why can't everyone else?
You aren't the only one who has come to that conclusion.
I still believe this, for that matter, especially that last part about "if you're doing this, please just shut the fuck up and enjoy the sex, you're scaring the normies with your Ace Pride". Not having a strong emotional response to this stuff can be an absurdly powerful relationship tool, but incredibly destructive if paired with a personality type given to using that as a weapon (normies, predators) or as a means to go 'lol, I'm smarter than u'.
maybe if you literally don't feel at all jealous when thinking about your girlfriend getting railed by another man, it might mean that you don't actually love her as much as you claim to? Just a thought
The implication that I'm still invited in that case would be doing a lot of the heavy lifting; but there are relatively specific/unlikely circumstances that would need to be fulfilled for that to occur (and "fucking some random dude for basically no other reason" does not qualify).
TheDemonRazgriz
24m ago
I wouldn't say they're angling for nuclear war, exactly, but I do think they believe they'd win one if it came to it. The political situation in both countries makes it very unlikely that either will back down, not this early in the conflict at any rate. India's Hindu-nationalist government absolutely cannot be seen to take a targeted anti-Hindu terror attack lying down, and has been putting out a lot of rhetoric about national strength (think of the "India superpower by 20XX" memes). At the same time, their chosen method of retaliation was quite restrained, and optimized for the appearance of strength: it was flashy and geographically-expansive but does not appear to have actually caused much damage. So it can satisfy the voters' need for blood while also giving Pakistan every opportunity to still back down. The Pakistani government, for its part, has been through a lot of internal turmoil in recent years and, on top of the general autocratic impulse/need to look strong for the audience at home, would surely appreciate a chance to rally the public against their hated foreign enemy as a simple distraction. It is possible that Pakistani intelligence encouraged, or even orchestrated, the Kashmir terrorist attack as a deniable means of starting a conflict -- but even if they didn't the government will not be too broken up about the situation.
It is difficult for me to see either side backing down absent some sort of externally-brokered peace talks (which don't look very likely, at least not yet). But it doesn't need a conspiracy to cause a larger war, just good old-fashioned power politics, and there are many steps of escalation for the two sides to go through without resorting to nuclear weapons. Both sides seem confident that they can beat the other in a conventional, limited war. If that confidence holds on both sides then escalation is likely, since both sides know the other is willing to fight without breaking out the nukes.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
40m ago
I heard it was a Mirage 2000...
But agree 200% on the importance of skepticism at this point in the conflict.
urquan
I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, even there was wickedness.
40m ago
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
41m ago
IDK, that would be really out of character for them, an that alone might be a problem, irrespective of how bad that joke really is. Trump has been "unserious" from the start, so he can do it.
sodiummuffin
42m ago
I don't see how bisexuality changes that. If you're a woman with two bisexual boyfriends, how does being interested in other women affect whether you're "by definition not invited" to M/M sex? Without adding a girlfriend you're not having sex with women either way. Bisexuality isn't required for a woman to be interested in two men having sex, as seen by (for instance) the market for yaoi.
urquan
I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, even there was wickedness.
45m ago
The holy spirit is in all of us, so is it really wrong for trump to call himself god?
- The Holy Spirit only indwells within Christians; in Catholicism this is mediated by being in a state of grace, which by all appearances Trump is not.
- Yes.
urquan
I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, even there was wickedness.
46m ago
· Edited 36m ago
Yes, this is very true. I personally know people like this. Typically there's the belief that he was a philanderer and a cheat, but had a conversion experience.
I guess it's just the vain hope that someone, anyone, will stand up for their belief system in the public square. I believe Trump's views on Israel have also influenced this -- it's hard to overstate how much a large segment of American evangelicals are passionate about the state of Israel and believe defending it to be essential for the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. The only way I can explain it to non-evangelicals is to say that the view Israel with the same quasi-cultic fervor as many Catholics view Fatima: this is the revelation of the end-times!!!!!
So when Trump moves the embassy to Jerusalem, it's seen as a statement of affiliation with Biblical prophesy.
Felagund
49m ago
Why are you recommending extramarital sex right after invoking your religious affiliation?
urquan
I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, even there was wickedness.
50m ago
· Edited 30m ago
If anything, joking about becoming the Pope is, in my mind, a positive in that it places the papacy as a position of value.
Yeah, this is exactly how I felt about what Trump meant by it -- "Man, wouldn't it be great if I were Pope! Look how cool the Pope looks!"
TheDemonRazgriz
52m ago
UPDATE Multiple Pakistani news outlets claim that Pakistan has shot down two Indian Rafael fighter jets. Some Indian news agencies are now reporting that a jet was downed.
I would caution against taking these early rumors too seriously. Propaganda claims and people just plain being wrong on the internet run wild in the early phases of anything like this. It is undoubtedly true that the Pakistani army is firing artillery across the border and that skirmishes are happening between the two sides in Kashmir, but the organized Pakistani retaliation has almost certainly not started yet. Their national security council was summoned this morning (that's morning their time, as in, just a few hours ago at most) for a closed door meeting and has not yet made public statements declaring or claiming a response (other than the vague ones I highlighted in my previous post).
For the shootdown claim specifically I am skeptical. In the initial Indian attack their jets used long-range weapons and did not cross into Pakistani airspace, making an interception of those jets unlikely. Any subsequent shootdown would have to be from further Indian attacks into Pakistan, which do not appear to have happened; as part of Pakistani air raids into India, which also do not appear to have happened yet and would more likely be part of a more organized retaliation operation which, again, has not yet happened; or from air-to-air combat over Kashmir which certainly could be happening, but would be a big deal compared to the usual (and confirmed) infantry skirmishes and artillery duels. I have seen this claim as "2 Indian Rafales shot down", "1 Indian MiG shot down", and "1 Pakistani JF-17 shot down". We don't yet know if any of these various claims are true.
I will say I am particularly skeptical of the specific double-Rafale-shootdown claim. These would be brand-new jets for India; they would both be relatively difficult to bring down and, more importantly, would almost certainly not be used in a high-risk situation this early into a conflict. It would be a pretty big deal if they were, and frankly it smacks of war-fever propaganda to me: "yeah, they hit us with some missiles, but we took down two of their best jets! Pakistan (still) strong!" Not to say it's impossible of course but both sides' media have incentive to lie about this kind of stuff, and a history of doing so.
We will know more soon.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
1hr ago
There's a big argument on Right-wing Twitter between so-called "classical liberals" and the advocates of Christopher Rufo's aggressive tactics toward wokeness in higher education. I find myself in the middle but leaning more towards Rufo, which was reinforced by a recent Quillette article criticizing him. One paragraph in particular gets to the meat of the disagreement:
An example of this new curriculum is a course on wokeness taught by Andrew Doyle, the British pundit behind the popular anti-woke parody character Titania McGrath. Doyle assigned Rufo's book America's Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything to his students. According to Rufo, the remaking of the college was an effort to "provide an alternative for conservative families in the state of Florida to say there is a public university that reflects your values." This makes it sound as if a university exists to reflect the ideological biases of its customers, rather than to help disseminate knowledge and foster understanding. As Jonathan Chait wrote in New York magazine, DeSantis's scheme to take control of the college demonstrated that he's "not seeking to protect or restore free speech, but to impose controls of his own liking."[1]
"Classical liberals" like to hit sentimental ideologues with cold hard facts. Advocates of the rosy theory of communism are confronted with the reality of communist states. Those with an overly sentimental view of the 1950s are hit with facts about how homes were smaller and most families had no more than a single car. Religious people are shown the evidence that their holy books were written by men, not Gods. But when people point out that their sentimental, idealized vision of "the free and open academy" is not working, they just circle back to the nobility of their vision and chastise people for deviating from it.
A true "classical liberal" would treat his ideas the same way he treats everyone else's, as hypotheses to be tested against reality. "Academic freedom" sounds good and all, but what happens when it's implemented in real-world universities? As the "classical liberals" freely admit, the results are often not stellar. So what's their solution? Doesn't seem they have one. Referring to DeSantis's takeover of the New College of Florida, Jonathan Haidt wrote that, "I am horrified that a governor has simply decided, on his own, to radically change a college. Even if this is legal, it is unethical, and it is a very bad precedent and omen for our country."[2] Haidt seems to object not to the specifics of what DeSantis did, but to the notion that any radical changes could be made to even a single college unless they're driven from within the academic caste. There's nothing "classically liberal" about the notion that an institution is entitled to receive money from the taxpayer while not being accountable to said taxpayers' elected representatives. But that's the "classical liberal" brain-worm.
What is to be done? Critics of Rufo are right to note that in his zeal to, in his words, "recapture the regime and entrench our ideas in the public sphere," he's often vague about what, exactly, those ideas are. The whole conservative movement doesn't know what it stands for. Rufo, who speaks about the importance of "faith" and hired a literal former porn star, is no exception. In my view, the solution is not erecting a franken-ideology of "American values" but doubling down on truly classical liberal /libertarian ideas.
That means austerity and the ultimate goal of privatization. The Quillette author is horrified by the vision of competing universities that market themselves to students on ideological grounds. To my mind, that's exactly what we should want. Just as our free market in food results in much obesity, a free market in higher education will result in many echo chambers. But just as not everyone chooses to overeat, not everyone will choose to attend an echo chamber. The kind of university people like Pinker dream about will be more likely to arise under such a regime than under the current regime of unaccountable institutions flooded with public money and asked nicely to respect academic freedom.
The "classical liberal" recoils in horror at the idea of woke students going to school in an openly woke echo chamber. They should be exposed to other points of view! The result is more often that "classical liberals" are exposed to woke student cancel culture mobs. "Classical liberals" should recognize that they're a minority. They will not win back control of academia from within and are ideologically opposed to outside aid. "Partition" is the solution most likely to give them what they want.
WandererintheWilderness
1hr ago
I think this works with one straight man and two bisexual women, but might not work with the average straight women and two gay men. I think jealousy is much more likely if your partner is having other sex to which, by definition, you're not invited - sex the very thought of which might enrage you. If you're all bisexuals, and your other two partners are doing nothing together that they haven't also done with you in the mix - who's counting? But a straight woman with no interest in watching Boyfriend One sodomize Boyfriend Two might get upset if they're spending too much time together instead of on her.
sodiummuffin
1hr ago
He meant that, if you have 1 heterosexual and 2 bisexuals of the opposite sex, everyone can still sleep with everyone else. If there's nobody else of the same sex being heterosexual doesn't affect the number of combinations.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1hr ago
but I'm afraid you did this yourself a while back with your precise definition of tackiness. I realized that throughout the rest of that thread I was very careful to use alternate language whenever I was tempted to say tacky in a context that didn't fit your definition, which made me realize that, as fun as your definition was, it didn't really reflect how people talk in real life.
On the one hand I'm flattered anyone remembers my writing.
On the other, this comment really makes me step back, in that I had a lot of fun writing out an elaborate definition of tacky, and thought I was doing so in good fun towards an enlightening descriptive view of reality; when apparently an intelligent reader would interpret the comment as a proscriptive definition.
Raising the questions: Am I bad writer? Or are the people I think are using too elaborate definitions also just having fun and hanging out?
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1hr ago
Also, I'm curious for your thoughts on the polyamory debate? I actually considered tagging you but didn't want to call you out hah.
Well, now that you're asking, my current opinion on Polyamory is very 2007:
Labels are for soup cans
Any attempt to create new rules for human sexuality seems to me to ultimately turn into an attempt to create opportunities to rules lawyer around human sexuality. A certain class of person tries to use the creation of a community or a movement around human sexuality to find opportunities to badger people into having sex with them even if they don't want to. Free love, polyamory, parts of the gay rights movement, much of the trans rights movement.
I never really had any interest in the community aspects of polyamory, or the whole lifestyle/polycule thing, for that reason. It mostly seemed like an elaborate way for people to take advantage of each other. There was a time in college I enjoyed reading stuff like Dan Savage or Sex at Dawn, and I don't think much of the theoretical case can be easily brushed aside, but I was never a true believer in the concept.
For me and my wife, bringing a girl home for a threesome occasionally was a lot of fun, but is now largely a hobby we no longer have time for, like golf or backpacking. Our adventures in bringing in an extra girl were fun, formed excellent memories and long lasting friendships, and lead to remarkably little drama. I highly recommend it if you get the chance, much like the Grand Canyon, it's one of the few things in life that doesn't disappoint.
I do have to laugh and think of Solon's advice to Croesus when I read these rose-tinted takes on the joys of lifelong monogamy in posts dunking on the plyggies.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1hr ago
In some ways yes, in others no.
I mean, yes, social media and all.
But there's other recompense. It's a lot socially easier and more common to be a single mother without a husband and simply offer no explanation for where the kids came from.
Shrike
1hr ago
Interesting, thanks! Looks like Pakistan has mostly SRBMs and MRBMs and cruise missiles? Pakistan definitely doesn't have the strategic depth that the US/USSR have but I don't know enough about ABMs and in particular India's ballistic missile defense program to know if that gives India much of an edge there.
Definitely makes striking the launchers prior to launch easier though!
KingOfTheBailey
1hr ago
It turned out that gender woo was way more memetically contagious than (it appeared|its advocates thought|its advocates were willing to say). I think poly will prove to be as contagious or worse; we just haven't seen the floodgates from legal recognition yet so it's still "a weird SF/alt-lifestyle thing". Poly requires new people to be poly with, once the people you were seeing have moved on, and that means evangelizing to normies. And if you believe that most people are not capable of practicing poly without causing xkcd#592, this boils down to going up to people and saying, "hey, have you tried this sweet new infohazard?"
I was once briefly involved with an attractive ENM girl who only wanted something casual, and while that might sound the start of a salacious story that'll makes the reader say "tfw", it was the most stifling period in my dating life. Anyone else I wanted to see, I would have to have the "poly conversation" with, and I couldn't bring myself to do that. It just felt too much like peddling bad memes to decent women, and after I missed out on a couple of relationships with decent girls that way, I decided it was better to be single than help worsen the modern dating world.
And once I broke things off, it turned out that even a relationship that casual couldn't go back to being a friendship. Either she was only keen to hang out as friends because of the possibility of adding a sexual element to the friendship, or breaking things off hurt too much to stay friends. Whichever was true, poly opened a branch of the decision tree which only had bad outcomes.
Rov_Scam
1hr ago
I remember seeing, at the start of Trump's first term, a meme on Facebook with a picture of Trump walking on the beach with Christ and the caption "Obama kicked you out, but I brought you back in" or something similar, and there have been several preachers of standing unknown to me who have stood on stage with Trump and called him Christ's vessel here on earth. The first item was probably the work of redneck fringe Christians who don't bother going to church or leading lifestyles that could be described as anything approaching biblical, and the second is probably from the wackaloon end of actual practicing Christians, but these poles are far enough apart to suggest that there's a broader element among religious people who think that Trump is doing God's work in a way that they don't attribute to normal politicians. Even openly religious politicians like Mike Pence or Rick Santorum never seemed to receive the kind of awe that Trump does, probably because they're humble enough to realize that such adoration is kind of sacrilegious.
DiscourseMagnus
1hr ago
Do you think they expect Pakistan's arsenal to get considerably stronger?
That is my assumption, yeah. At the moment, nuclear war between Pakistan and India wouldn't actually be an MAD scenario; Pakistan would be completely destroyed (and you can't get any more destroyed than that) while India would "merely" suffer the worst disaster in memory. Pakistan and India have similar-sized nuclear arsenals (in terms of number of bombs - India's bombs are much stronger), but India is of course much larger, and they also have much more sophisticated nuclear delivery systems; Pakistan's arsenal is dangerous but it's currently one of the easier nuclear powers in the world to foil an attack from. In the future they'll most likely be more evenly-matched and a nuclear war would actually spell the end of both India and Pakistan.
Ha! One more for the list then. It's still possible that no aircraft was shot down at all, too.
More options
Context Copy link