Forums / Discussion / General

235,468 total conversations in 7,818 threads

+ New Thread


Featured Featured
Politics General

Last posted Nov 20, 2024 at 01:22AM EST. Added Jan 01, 2017 at 06:26PM EST
18044 posts from 293 users

Bannign them altogether is clear discrimination, however unless they’re on hormone treatments ir makes more sense for atheletes to compete with their biological sex because different hormone levels is why there’s male and female sports

That's why I want the decisions of who can compete or not to be done by rulings and judgement calls by committees and researchers, not Republicans looking to make a scapegoat of child grooming and sexual assault out of a group of people that don't even make a single whole percentage of the population of the United States.

This guy gets it.
Why do you think trans youth are more prone to self-harm in a world that hates and fears them? They aren't ALL delusional predators or something, just people like you and me, and the world needs to see this

Chewybunny wrote:

In my opinion I've come to detest the "right" "left" spectrum, ideological positions we assign to either right or left can be, and often are, shared by the other. There are authoritarian rightists, and authoritarian leftists, and vice versa. There are morally outraged rightoids and morally outraged leftoids. The lines between them blur significantly. So this is going to be long winded, because I want to outline some ideas before answering your question.

As far as "forward-thinking" I don't know exactly what you mean by "forward".
I do not think western "progressivism" can offer any realistic forward thinking solutions anymore. In my opinion the "progressives" have reached a peak with deconstructing everything. Political and Cultural Progressivism is the Orthodoxy in academia, culture, and politics. I think it's final horizon to conquer is what it is that makes us, us. With everything deconstructed to the nth level I feel there is less and less things that are sacred to the left. There is a hatred of self that is rampant among the progressive circles. And it deeply effects the environmental movement with it's blatant anti-natalist positions.

The problem I see it is two fold:
1) that you cannot take on the global without understanding the cost to the local. This is what has been an abject failure of globalism, and what fueled the rise of right-wing populism across the Liberal world. Globalism has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in a span of 20 years, at the cost of putting millions of people into relative poverty, i.e. we decimated the industrial heartland of the US which provide jobs for the lower and lower middle classes, a stable life, all so we can buy cheaper sneakers. So we can buy cheaper clothing. Buy a cheaper piece of plastic, a fun little technological device that provides entertainment over any realistic value.
2) Local Democracy makes global action a near impossible thing to accomplish. In democratic institutions policy is indirectly driven by the will of the people. The politician enacts or votes on policy that best suits the constituency that keep that politician in power. The long-term benefit of solving global issues comes at the expense of near-term loss of the locals. The desire to build 100 solar plants for the long term benefit of the environment is great, but you're going to sacrifice thousands of jobs of oil drillers, coal miners, people who work at petroleum plants, and power stations. Unless you find a way to replace those jobs you will only create a backlash. We saw this most explicitly in 2016 when the Rust Belt flipped from being traditionally Democrats and voted for Donald Trump. This is why I push extremely hard for people to understand the deep-deep seething anger of people living 50 miles outside of major cities.

So unless the above is somehow resolved, there are only a few solutions to the environmental movement, depending on how big of a problem you think it is:

Eco-Fascism – specifically the necessity of an all encompassing totalitarians state that can drive all social and economic activity towards a environmentalist solution.

Techno-Capitalism – that technological sectors of capitalist societies will drive the technological power to fix the environment.

Elon Musk is an example of a techno-capitalist that is focused on the environment. Whether altruistic or not, you cannot deny the impact that he had on EVs, Solar, etc.

What I think is emerging is radical centrism, which is at least somewhat "forward-thinking", but it is also highly part of techno-capitalism, that is, the emergence of technology shaking up the capitalist world. I think this is best encapsulated by someone like Andrew Yang who correctly identified the problems emerging in modernity such automation, hollowed out industrial heartlands, inability for people to even gain the skills needed to participate in the economy.

Imho the best policies should be as follows:
-Radical focus on techno-infrastructure cooperatives. Government can grant extra privileges, leases, change tax codes, etc, for private venture to build inter-state infrastructure; better transportation, better internet, etc. I prefer this to be largely done on a private level because the US as a government simply cannot drop another 4 trillion dollars.
-Government policy that encourages migration away from large cities and into smaller ones mixed with a policy of better smarter city planning, i.e. smart-cities. Los Angeles grew rapidly in the first 20th century, and it's city design is built for the technology and reality of the 20th century. It is massive, inefficient, bloated, and any new construction, or transformation is costly beyond comprehension. You cannot turn Los Angeles, as it is, today, into a smart-city. You can go to Barstow (50 miles north east of Los Angeles) and start building building a smart city. These kind of cities would encourage high-tech, high paying economic sectors to spread out and not be so concentrated in single cities. This will have the dual nature of making politics less radicalized. Smart cities can also be built with far more modern more efficient infrastructure.

The above policy would do wonders for the Rust Belt.
This is detroit in 2009:
The financial crisis destroyed that city, a massive metropolis of a city, becoming an urban hell scape. Imagine if there was a policy to reclaim the broken empty lots, the broken buildings, and revivify them into a smart city.

You can go big too. The Saudis for example have been in the works of building NEOM, an ultra modern smart city with the aim of being a 0 emission city. Yeah it's a bunch of techy buzzwords, but the fundamental technology is there. You can build a better more efficient city, and you should.

Hey, sorry for the late response there was stuff going on this weekend.
I want to make this next part short, then make a second one since I think the "smart city" subject is way more interesting.

>Right-left spectrum

I would like to say that I'm just as tired of this, but unfortunately due to the site we're on and the current discourse, we're not in a very centrist place. Outmoded as it is, there are still hot-button issues.

>what you mean by "forward"

That was actually in response to when you said:

"[leftist] wholly stuck in the ideology of 19th and 20th century thinkers, utilizing language and lenses of the mid-2oth century"

I think some kind of focus on technological progress and resource management is needed, as well as stewardship of our planet, everything else feels small in comparison.

Because if may be frank, I don't see anything worthwhile in medieval mercantile & religious policies and 18th century understanding of labor & social mores from the right. That, and we're no longer in 2016. We've had the time to see the rule of a lot of the "right" and it's utter failures to this day in actual metrics.

Then there's the strongmen worshiping straw-man nihilists, whose policies of might makes right are of the stone age.

I believe in people being allowed to do what they want as private individuals, and the news coming out of some parts of the US isn't good. Texas trying to criminalize a woman who had to induct a still-birth is monstrous, as if that wasn't tragedy enough. Florida is already a state which has tried to restrict the very term of climate change, it's head in the sand politics.

>With everything deconstructed to the nth level I feel there is less and less things that are sacred to the left.

This is what is interesting to me. You think that the Left has lost values, while I think the Right has lost all values. It's alarming, because this is at a time period where a lot of people care deeply/are rabid about politics, more than any other time I can remember in recent history.

Why is that?

Would that mean that those who care are neither right or left (because I can confirm I feel pretty strongly about certain values), or that we have parties/political orthodoxies which represent no one?

The former mainstream left&right parties in France are now all under 5% of the electorate, with even the parti socialiste being under the French communist party.

Last edited Apr 11, 2022 at 12:09AM EDT

@Chewybunny

I agree with the issues about local needs vs global concerns. One can't work without the other. You can't make grand coalitions if there's collapse at home, but inaction will lead to disasters that overwhelm local politics, as seen with recent disasters in the past few years.

However, I don't agree with the dichotomy given between state eco-fascism and corporate hegemony, because both have actually had multiple failures in policy, innovation and in building smart cities. The former has had projects that haven't gotten off the ground, or are tone-deaf while the latter has had more hype than actual results and in fact have more often than enough sabotaged the goal of smart cities. In terms of using private interests to build infrastructure, Australia's internet and California's electricity or even Adam Smith himself can serve as a specific warning against that.

If anything, a lot of the current issues of our world is because of unfiltered 'free' trade big business meeting top-heavy governments. The disconnect of planners from local needs, environment and economics can be disastrous.

We're currently living in the ruins of several different Malthusian environmentalist diktats and Tech-bro big business, and whatever system is used, it should be something other than the both of them. There's been the creation of ecological deserts despite supposedly being "green", charging stations far from local bike paths, transit that goes nowhere (causing even more traffic jams), high tech installations that no one uses because it's confusing or destroying wetlands that prevented floods to make seawalls. Recent efforts of top-down creation of cities just doesn't seem to work. There's too many stories of empty cities right next to overcrowded in countries such as in Myanmar, the Ivory Coast and China.

I do agree that cities such as in the Rust Belt need to be revitalized and tech hubs are too centralized, but there's been the same issue in the UK and France of re-creating manufacturing bases. Expertise can't be rebuilt quickly, and people go where they want to. The US used to be a leader in nuclear and were the first in renewables, and they've squandered that lead, that train has departed. You can fund opportunities, but it's more more difficult to create them.

Giving big tech power won't change that fact, but giving aid to local initiatives have been the programs that worked out the best, and that requires an educated, engaged and motivate general population.

Instead of working against the flow, by creating cities and expecting people to work there, policymakers need to work with the local environment and with the people that live there. On the downside, that means investing in more expensive infrastructure in already lived in cities than building new ones, but the upside is that it's possible to invest in 'forgotten' cities that have people with demands, but not enough capital.

Maybe I'm biased, but I've seen local co-ops, entrepreneurs and groups do better than 'big' public, private or international NGOs. Looking at maps of Brazil, the areas of the forests which have been best protected from deforestation were by local people and Native American Tribes. Italy's hydroponics and vertical agriculture has worked far better than China's empty mosquito infested apartments.

I think Dr. Ursula Eicker and Alexandre Hedjazi had some good talks & papers on the necessity of public participation for any success.

TLDR: Cities take time to build, it's an iterative process. Unless they're completely destroyed, it's better to improve what you have, and work with local people. Small investments in buses, housing, trains, solar panels, power stations and the like are how to build a smart city.

Building up a new city to make up for decades of neglect doesn't work and is a fantasy that has failed multiple times, which is why I think smaller projects over a longer period of time are better, even if that's anathema in politics.

Last edited Apr 11, 2022 at 01:30AM EDT

Nuclear weapons may have prevented World War III for decades but as time goes on, their disadvantages are starting to overshadow advantages. What if someone is crazy and suicidal enough to not care about nuclear winter?

If you personally don't care if you (and others) die and have managed to get appropriate people under your command, you could basically hold the world ransom if you have a large enough nuclear stockpile. Make others cave in to your demands with a threat of a nuclear attack. And threaten to launch all your nuclear arsenal if someone else uses a nuke as well. If you are that kind of person, it's always beneficial for you to be aggressive. Scary thought.

Last edited Apr 12, 2022 at 05:23AM EDT

40kOracle wrote:

Alright Grey, show me how women are being put in second place in their own spaces? Are transgender women not women? Or are they men pretending to be women in your eyes?
And secondly, why the hell are bills coming out to ban trans kids from school sports? If they're supposedly that big of an issue, why aren't sports committees and researchers looking into the statistics of this? Why is it that all of a sudden, all trans kids are to now be forbidden from participating in sports?
Also, for the four transgender student athletes in Utah, only one of them being in the women's section, was it truly worth it for the state's legislature to override their governor's veto of the trans sports ban bill? That number comes straight from the governor, who is a Republican.

Whats the point of a woman's sport if a man can claim womanhood and proceed to set records no woman could ever achieve?

That such a question has become actually relevant in recent times is why this is happening. A new and unwelcome spectrum of possibilities has wandered into the awarenesses of americans and many are set against seeing them occur in thier schools.

The likelyhood is rather irrelevant when once is too many and when prevention requires mere legeslating.

And as for the first paragraph's question; I respond with my own: what's a woman?.

Greyblades wrote:

Whats the point of a woman's sport if a man can claim womanhood and proceed to set records no woman could ever achieve?

That such a question has become actually relevant in recent times is why this is happening. A new and unwelcome spectrum of possibilities has wandered into the awarenesses of americans and many are set against seeing them occur in thier schools.

The likelyhood is rather irrelevant when once is too many and when prevention requires mere legeslating.

And as for the first paragraph's question; I respond with my own: what's a woman?.

For women's sports, we don't need Republicans all of a sudden coming up with legislature to ban transgender women from sports. Do you know how we can make sure that there isn't an inherent unfair advantage like hormones? We can have rulings and studies done individually on each transgender student.
Unless of course you're fine with literally that one single transgender female student athlete in Utah being targeted with legislature. And I'm not saying that by just claiming to be a women that you can then join women's sports. Like for example, the levels of testosterone in the body can be a good indicator. But I want that decision to be done by actual sport's authorities and researchers, not Republicans who see transgender people as the new social target.
And as for your question of what is a woman, excellent question! A woman is basically whatever a society determines what a woman is. Biologically, there is the XX chromosome make-up. But socially/mentally? Different story. And it shouldn't be too hard to think that the human formation cycle while in the womb can mess up and give someone who's brain is designed for XX but ends up in a XY body. For an example of human reproduction going a little awry, intersex people are a thing.

Evilthing wrote:

Nuclear weapons may have prevented World War III for decades but as time goes on, their disadvantages are starting to overshadow advantages. What if someone is crazy and suicidal enough to not care about nuclear winter?

If you personally don't care if you (and others) die and have managed to get appropriate people under your command, you could basically hold the world ransom if you have a large enough nuclear stockpile. Make others cave in to your demands with a threat of a nuclear attack. And threaten to launch all your nuclear arsenal if someone else uses a nuke as well. If you are that kind of person, it's always beneficial for you to be aggressive. Scary thought.

Which is why the idea of a shiny red button that some dictator, president, whatever has that can launch a nuclear attack is a fantasy. Almost every country that has nukes has a long chain of protocols, that would require several layers of important leaders to utilize. I say almost because I don't know about N.Korea on this one – but I guarantee if the North Koreans decided to launch a nuclear attack, they'd be shut down by China first. China may be it's "ally", but a nuclear war on it's northern borders would be disastrous.

40kOracle wrote:

For women's sports, we don't need Republicans all of a sudden coming up with legislature to ban transgender women from sports. Do you know how we can make sure that there isn't an inherent unfair advantage like hormones? We can have rulings and studies done individually on each transgender student.
Unless of course you're fine with literally that one single transgender female student athlete in Utah being targeted with legislature. And I'm not saying that by just claiming to be a women that you can then join women's sports. Like for example, the levels of testosterone in the body can be a good indicator. But I want that decision to be done by actual sport's authorities and researchers, not Republicans who see transgender people as the new social target.
And as for your question of what is a woman, excellent question! A woman is basically whatever a society determines what a woman is. Biologically, there is the XX chromosome make-up. But socially/mentally? Different story. And it shouldn't be too hard to think that the human formation cycle while in the womb can mess up and give someone who's brain is designed for XX but ends up in a XY body. For an example of human reproduction going a little awry, intersex people are a thing.

I appreciate your answer, truly, the refusal to just say such is why "what is a woman" is asked so much of public officials.

The frequent devolution to dodging is more damning to an onlooker than merely stating an unconventional belief. Being unothodox and owning it is respectable, but through dodging a question, that to the average person on the street is the exact opposite of loaded, they prove themselves as dishonest and cowardly.

Yet dodge they continue to do as if the politician's Raison d'etre of lying thier way out of awkward situations is no longer safe to do.

Pity I dont feel confident to respond to the rest of your post. as a moderator has given me a warning against talking about the issues of trans.

Were I you, I would be pissed at being denied satisfaction because of someone else's lack of conviction. To silence the opposition doesnt prove the posession of right merely proving the posession of power.

But I have never been good at predicting what people think here.

Last edited Apr 16, 2022 at 05:31AM EDT

Greyblades wrote:

I appreciate your answer, truly, the refusal to just say such is why "what is a woman" is asked so much of public officials.

The frequent devolution to dodging is more damning to an onlooker than merely stating an unconventional belief. Being unothodox and owning it is respectable, but through dodging a question, that to the average person on the street is the exact opposite of loaded, they prove themselves as dishonest and cowardly.

Yet dodge they continue to do as if the politician's Raison d'etre of lying thier way out of awkward situations is no longer safe to do.

Pity I dont feel confident to respond to the rest of your post. as a moderator has given me a warning against talking about the issues of trans.

Were I you, I would be pissed at being denied satisfaction because of someone else's lack of conviction. To silence the opposition doesnt prove the posession of right merely proving the posession of power.

But I have never been good at predicting what people think here.

Well, thank you for your response. I think the issue with people who voice support for transgender people but refuse to answer the question of "what is a woman/man" haven't looked too deep into why that is, or simply just refuse to answer the question because they deem it as an offense to transgender people. Which is a shame, because a good number of people simply don't know any transgender people. Like for example, my earlier point of what makes a woman in terms of social/mental behavior. Gender roles and expectations have changed throughout the years so massively. For example, an easy one to point out is that pink was once known as a manly color, while blue was reserved for more lady-like individuals.
And on the topic of biology again, human reproduction has shown to be a very imperfect process. We have had cases of Siamese twins, people born with two hearts, and a whole host of other flaws and issues. It is most certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that a human in the womb is given a brain with the chemistry of one sex, but be given the body of the other. Especially considering how there are certain traits that are shared in the formation, like nipples.

Is not that I don't hate twitter, is not that I don't find the left side of twitter on the most part extremely annoying, is that I consider it's opposite 4chan and the fuckers in /pol/ to be worse overall.

Is not that I don't hate twitter, is not that I don't find the left side of twitter on the most part extremely annoying, is that I consider it's opposite 4chan and the fuckers in /pol/ to be worse overall.

I recently saw someone excusing the Russian military by saying that they can't control how their grunts act.

I'd like to repeat here that Countries can actually influence whether their soldiers have a propensity for crimes, with one example with Russia recently rewarding the brigade accused of the massacre at Bucha sends a message. Making war heroes of criminals, excessive brutality in training and military culture, outright orders, prosecuting or not your own soldiers who go too far, it all counts.

It's why Canada had to completely disband their paratroopers regiment, and why the Americans in WWII tried to hang soldiers who raped (at least did more than the Red Army anyway). It's also why leonizing an axe murder by Azerbaijani and Trump pardoning Blackwater just leads to a degradation, it's not harmless.

Misandry is often kind of transphobic if you think about it, or at least a pathway towards transphobia. Inevitably sooner or later misandry will encourage some type of transphobia, misandry isn't really as progressive as people often think (and it's pretty douchy even discounting that)

Speaking of anti lgbt hystaria, florida’s reactionary regime has maniged to do one positive
they have taken away disney’s sovereignity
granted it’s only because disney isn’t openly anti lgbt, but still it’s a good thing

Dont condemn your landlord's politics to his face, kids, not when you cant afford the full rent he'd given you a discount on.

Last edited Apr 24, 2022 at 04:30PM EDT

He wasn't the landlord they made a deal with though, that was the late 60s/ early 70's Florida government, and nobody had changed it since then regardless of views
I guess they're really cracking down on the culture war nonsense to desperately pretend the dems are different from them as they both head towards the gilded age

Disney hasnt been dumb enough to take sides against the local government before, certainly not when the local government has this much public support and are in a position to reconsider the priveledges previous iterations gave Disney.

Methinks this is the beginning of companies re-learning why thier forebears kept mum about divisive politics.

A very expensive lesson.

Last edited Apr 24, 2022 at 06:45PM EDT

I don't mind, but I thought the American Republicans were about non-interference of buisiness? I have mixed feelings, since of all the reasons given to rein in a business it's for Florida's little authoritarian/fundamentalist crackdown.

Should be noted, Florida will apparently inherit Disney districts debts and responsibilities, so we'll see how the consequences that the US right warned about against the US left will play out now that they're the ones who pulled the trigger.

Anyway, I'm happier/relieved to say that Macron has been re-elected and held off Le Pen !

His adminstration will have to work to addresses issues and hope we don't have as a dire a situation (war & pandemic) in the the next five years, but at least France will be able to keep it's relations with others such as Germany.

Working in the rest of the EU would have been pretty akward otherwise.

>I don't mind, but I thought the American Republicans were about non-interference of buisiness?

In this case the state has already interfered by giving them priveledges; the revocation is if anything a reduction of government interferance and in line with the principle.

It's probably causing a fair amount of people to wonder how many other companies are allowed to enjoy similar raising above thier competitors.

Last edited Apr 24, 2022 at 08:07PM EDT

Gilan wrote:

I don't mind, but I thought the American Republicans were about non-interference of buisiness? I have mixed feelings, since of all the reasons given to rein in a business it's for Florida's little authoritarian/fundamentalist crackdown.

Should be noted, Florida will apparently inherit Disney districts debts and responsibilities, so we'll see how the consequences that the US right warned about against the US left will play out now that they're the ones who pulled the trigger.

I'd say the situation with business interference is rather more complex than you're presenting it. What's being rescinded is the Reedy Creek Improvement Act, which in summary declared the region surrounding the Walt Disney World resort as its own sort of county-level government; essentially, a corporate fiefdom, which I'd say constitutes quite a high degree of interference in business. Reversing this seems like an act of in-the-moment meddling with the goal of reducing overall interference in business.

I should also point out that from what I can tell, the Republican stance on government interference in business is divided. On one hand, there are those who side with the line of thinking that created the bipartisan big bank bailout of 2008 (which was proposed by someone who was <a=href"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson">a former CEO of one of those big banks, no joke). On the other, you have the Republicans whose stance leans closer to that of the Libertarians, that government influence in business should be minimized.

Also, it's funny how, apparently, Disney handled debt in its personal fiefdom the same way the US government does: it didn't. Florida should carry on that torch by simply ignoring the debts entirely and hoping nobody notices.

Kenetic Kups wrote:

Speaking of anti lgbt hystaria, florida’s reactionary regime has maniged to do one positive
they have taken away disney’s sovereignity
granted it’s only because disney isn’t openly anti lgbt, but still it’s a good thing

By making the citizens of Orange county pay more taxes?

Well, I can't complain about efforts to remove a corporation's proto-nation holdings, even if I think the reason is contentious. Fair's fair, it's correcting an imbalance.

>Also, it's funny how, apparently, Disney handled debt in its personal fiefdom the same way the US government does: it didn't. Florida should carry on that torch by simply ignoring the debts entirely and hoping nobody notices.

"If you owe 10,000 to the bank you have a problem. If you owe 1 million to the bank, the bank has a problem". Disney and the govs probably bank on the correct assumption that them falling would cause an economic crater and thus can't fail. Well, until they do and something like 2008 happens again.

In other news Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have completed or are completing their EU questionnaire (and are probably doing something with NATO too). No idea if and when they'll join, but all of those countries are at risk/are being invaded by Russia. I doubt the territorial dispute will matter, the EU already admitted Cyprus and has proven to be pragmatic, when necessary. A big RIP to the ever-closer union proponents, the EU will be managing internal values and harmonizing nations for a few more decades, and one can only hope those countries won't turn out like Hungary. However, it's necessary with current geopolitics, the opportunity and necessity probably won't come again. In the long run I think the EU, the overall region and Europe will benefit.

There's some pretty consequences:

1) Politics: The most obious change is that EU would start to become pretty … huge. It's a lot of members over potentially over 450 million people over a large area of land. It may start to become pretty unwieldy, and there might have to be reforms.

The whole of Germany had the population of Eastern and Central Europe (with the exception of Poland) combined, but Ukraine will decisely shift the balance to the East. More members also means less influence for the Franco-German group, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing, it could equally weaken or strengthen unity. It'll certainly mean that relations with Russia as it is will not be able to go back to business as usual.

More militarized nations and Macron winning the election will probably also mean continued buildup of national armies/ progress on the EU army/Frontex/ other such projects. With the UK out and more of Eastern Europe in, the thinking might become more focused on the continent, with more focus on the Black Sea.

2) Economy: Lots of regions that will need to be developped. A lot of the West might complain about having to pony up some cash, but they'll probably profit from it in the long run as well. The companies certainly will with a new market, there will have to be new railroads, ferries and other infrastructure like that. The countries of the 2003 eastern enlargement may even contribute, they certainly have helped alot with the war.

The growth of some member states has been one of the few reasons for hope, one good thing that has been achieved in the past few years. It may take a generation, but rebuilding nations is an investment for the future.

This is why I am more convinced that ultimately Russia has already lost the war. Even if it manages to accomplish whatever goals it wants in Ukraine, the sanctions wont be lifted, it will inevitably become a lesser partner of China – which by the way, is also experiencing severe economic issues that will not be solved easily. Almost all of the former Soviet Bloc nations have become far more distant from Kremlin, and now it's facing an expanded NATO, and a stronger EU. There is now a massive growing movement to divest the European economy away from Russian energy dependence.
They've destroyed any goodwill Ukrainians had towards Russia, and the biggest victims of Russia are the Russians in Eastern Ukraine, so whatever support they thought they'd get there is dwindling. Even if they take over, they are looking forward to a drawn-out insurgency supported largely by the US and the EU.

And the biggest issue here to me is mythology. I've become a stronger believer that nations exist due to the mythology that built that nation. Russia is giving Ukraine the mythology of a legitimate state: by attacking it, by seperating Russians from Ukrainians, from being as brutal as they are, the nation-myth of Ukraine is being formed. Meanwhile the national myth of Russia – it's powerful military, the idea that it is the beacon of the Slavic world, that it is no longer an imperialist nation has been squashed.

The FSB is purged. The military is demoralized, with it's leadership broken. East Europe has become more unified than ever before. It risks losing it's economic stranglehold on Europe, becoming increasingly dependent on China for it's own survival. The Russians were correct when they said that if they lose this war Russia is no more. Historically this has been the case. Russia, historically, does not live through bad wars.

This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.

A reminder that this whole retaliation against Disney by the Republican Party is over their "Don't Say Gay" legislation. Which Disney helped fund, but quickly regretted.

Also, Ben Shapiro is fully for violation of 1st Amendment Rights to stop the 'woke progressive agenda'.

The masks have finally come off, and fascism is fully activated in America.

BrentD15 wrote:

A reminder that this whole retaliation against Disney by the Republican Party is over their "Don't Say Gay" legislation. Which Disney helped fund, but quickly regretted.

Also, Ben Shapiro is fully for violation of 1st Amendment Rights to stop the 'woke progressive agenda'.

The masks have finally come off, and fascism is fully activated in America.

So you're telling us that you're in favor of corporations running their own personal fiefdoms because "other side bad"? I guess that's blind partisanship for ya.

And also, another day, another frivolous claim of fascism having "finally arrived for realsies this time guys!!!", nothing really new or exciting there. Here's some advice: the term you're looking for is "authoritarianism". Further, looking at what Shapiro is saying – that the government should punish massive corporations that try to meddle too hard in government – this reads exactly like something you'd be agreeing with wholeheartedly, if it were being spewed by some left-wing dumbass instead of a right-wing dumbass.

I want to be a contrarian about this, become this is quite obviously about Florida's politics, and any effect on economics or corporate power is incidental. Everyone knows that, both proponents and opponents.

It's admittedly partisan politics, many don't seem to have had any problems about the monopoly of a corporation except when it threatens to "change sides" (unsubtle reference to Twitter). Issues of corporate monopolies and the economy have been superceded.

Personally, I already said I find the US's current wave of bannings and censorship to be concerning. Coupled with the amount of politicians who feel free to shout violent action, I think you have to be blind to not see that something is rotten with their politics.

Gilan wrote:

I want to be a contrarian about this, become this is quite obviously about Florida's politics, and any effect on economics or corporate power is incidental. Everyone knows that, both proponents and opponents.

It's admittedly partisan politics, many don't seem to have had any problems about the monopoly of a corporation except when it threatens to "change sides" (unsubtle reference to Twitter). Issues of corporate monopolies and the economy have been superceded.

Personally, I already said I find the US's current wave of bannings and censorship to be concerning. Coupled with the amount of politicians who feel free to shout violent action, I think you have to be blind to not see that something is rotten with their politics.

Something's definitely foul in the water here, that's for sure, on all levels (see: the "Disinformation Governance Board").

I think much of the issue is that, in some form, we've been stuck with the same two parties dominating our politics for over 150 years, and we've been stuck with them in their current forms for over 60; neither of these numbers are signs of good political health.

A confession, I've posted varieties of the above phrase at different times over the years, over different sites and political affiliations. Something about how things are getting worse and extreme.

Make it vague enough about who it's adressing, and most users will agree with you that something is screwy with the US system (and affiliates), especially from US citizens.

What a world…

No!! wrote:

Maybe people are biologically slightly predisposed to be racist, that would be depressing but it would explain a lot.

Like a lot.

I believe humans in fact are (given the appropriate conditions). Read about "In-group bias" if you are curious; it's a common phenomenon.

I believe the prevailing theory is it is an evolutionary adaption for survival when human precursor- and modern humans- lived and operated near exclusively in tight-knit groups. In this case it likely developed because someone outside of your tight-knit group could not be trusted to not be a danger.

Last edited May 02, 2022 at 05:18PM EDT

Eh, I've known sexist and macho assholes who defended their behavior with "biology", and vice versa for the genders. At the end of the day a civilized member of society to be able to work with or at least not get violent with different people.

You're expected to also have the self-control to not act out due to sentiments, since that's the type of antisocial behavior that is also discouraged evolutionarily, otherwise there wouldn't even be a 'tribe'.

To be something beyond an animal, even if it's hard.

Last edited May 02, 2022 at 06:35PM EDT

Sup! You must login or signup first!