@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

I should have been more specific; I am referring to the Iranian government.

That's how I understood it, and I still don't know what's supposed to be so uncivilized about the Iranian government.

You laugh, but a) plenty of American (okay, Irish-American) money went into the actual IRA, and b) the US loves sponsoring terrorism, to the point it often ends up fighting the very terrorists it sponsored.

it seems obvious to me why the US would want to be allied with Israel

Far from obvious to me. What would you say they're getting out of it?

As far as I'm concerned, Iran should be treated as a pariah as long as it refuses to behave like a civilized country.

What's so uncivilized about them? I keep hearing complaints of "sponsoring terrorism" but plenty of civilized countries like to play that game.

Yes, and I believe he was, in fact, a Mossad asset, and as handy as he must have been at critical junctures, I'm dubious that Epstein Island had the necessary throughput to shape the long-term trajectory of the US foreign policy.

Also, you kind of have to be careful about blackmailing people en-masse, because if they realize this is what's being done to them, they might coordinate to fight back against you.

Do you think that means they believe Israel is literally twisting the US's arm to do it's bidding, or that they believe the US leadership holds an ideology resulting in their support of Israel even against the interests of Americans?

Is there anyone disagreeing with this? I'm only familiar with the claim that the US supports for ideological reasons, not that Israel has any leverage over the US.

There needs to be a documentary series on a major streaming service that, as fairly and calmly as possible, shows what progressive populists believe and what the problems with it are.

First time? Best case scenario is that this documentary series would be dismissed on sight as right-wing propaganda, worst case scenario is that people making it will have their lives ruined.

Politics is war by peaceful means, you don't win by "calmly explaining", and much more straightforward issues, that would cost a lot less to concede than this, have been a decade long slog of an uphill battle, you have no chance moving people on their fundamental beliefs.

The second half of the 20th century. Expansion of the welfare state and government programs are attacked as socialist.

Both sides are to blame here. Socialists were, and still are, marketing their economic system as "let's do what Denmark did".

"Adopt local cultural norms"? What else is it supposed to mean?

I only had a skim, but couldn't find the part about arm-twisting.

Not a really high standard, although if you wanted to up the ante I'd think that something like "good whiskey that you might find in a store" would be much, much harder to make at home than marijuana of reasonable potency.

Why whiskey and not wine? Homemade tends to be superior to the stuff you get in a store. Why aim for potency? If you just want to get shitfaced you go for moonshine.

You're not banning it unless you're planning to commit a genocide.

7 zillion people do far trashier things every week. Is it because he's rich? We abandoned the whole "leading by example" idea for aristocrats ages ago, and Bezos is no aristocrat.

I haven't watched any of it myself

Thank god. I understand watching the British royal wedding (well... okay, actually I don't), but come the f- on, these aren't the royals. Why is anyone paying attention to them?

Male sexuality is a lot simpler than female sexuality.

Ah, a good thesis for the Quarterly Journal Of No Shit, Sherlock. Yes, Bezos Bad, and like I said before it's not all the women's fault.

At the risk of doing a "real X has never been tried", I think you were missing the "or GTFO" part.

Much like I urged to give the El Salvador solution at least the good ol' college try before cursing entire peoples down seven generations, I'd urge to at least try "assimilate or GTFO" (don't know if there are any success stories as stark as El Salvador, though). People respond to incentives.

Is it a reasonable requirement to declare that all of society's problems are caused by a group of genetic untermenschen? I feel like asking for another Bukele is at least on-par with it under current conditions, and the latter is quite a bit more humane.

As for the "political dynasty" stuff, what makes Trumpism so unique is the cultism

At this point this can only be called projection. Half of his base had their fingers on the trigger in case he listened to the neoccons, and went to war with Iran.

Compare and contrast to refusing to answer basic questions like "what is a woman?" for fear of how the rest of the cult will react.

I know what I saw on my timeline. And Trump didn't keep his intervention limited because everybody was so supportive of it.

I don't know what your second paragraph is in reference to

Really? You never ever heard any public official or intellectual from a particular political side being evasive on the question?

I liked his books too, but let's face it, it's slop. The most valuable skills you learn in school is grinding and discipline, and reading slop is inherently not suited for that.

Maybe! Go craft a message that will be listened to, perhaps even get your Elite Human Capital buddies to help you spread it, and show us how it's done.

The Israelis are delusional and wrong about regime change. It’s strange that critics of Israel seem to be so heavily invested in Mossad’s infallibility

Well, between those pager bombings, and the precision of the recent strikes that they're bragging about, few people are putting Mossad's competence in doubt. It's their good faith that people are doubting, and this is the case here as well. I don't think they're delusional, I think they know full well regime change without ground troops is impossible, but they're trying to lure the US to put said boots on said ground via the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

Didn't code anything in it (wait, I lied), but I'm following their Twitter. Seems pretty active.

Told you you should have went with Redot ;)

Off-topic to the whole Iran issue, but: everybody's giving Ted Cruz shit over that interview, but I actually ended up liking him after it. He didn't have a good answers to several objections I found important, but it was refreshing to see a politician have a normal conversation trying to step someone through their reasoning on an important issue, answering relevant (to me) objections in real-time, etc., as opposed to sticking to talking points and pre-prepared statements as is typical on short-form TV interviews.

With all the talk of the impact of podcast-bros on the results of the election, I wonder if this won't be something that future politicians will have to git gud at.

Framing this as a win for principled anti-intervention rightists is ridiculous.

Who said anything about a "win for principled anti-intervention"? They wanted to do much more than this, but didn't.

Ground invasion of Iran is impossible and externally-forced regime change is impossible without ground invasion.

I'm sure all these calls for regime change were just kayfabe, as were Israeli attempts to break the cease fire.