The UK was not ready for war in 1938 either. Those who bring up the example are simply bloodthirsty warmongers.
Is it actually productive to try and understand Russian motivations? Regardless of their motivations, they're trying to use force to conquer an independent nation, one that was attempting to align itself with the West. The fact that they might see this as part of a broader conflict with the West isn't news, and it doesn't change matters on the ground.
In addition, it seems like most people in Western countries, including many people here, come at the issue of trying to understand Russia from the perspective of trying to justify war - the Russians are inherently authoritarian/imperialistic/belligerent/orcish, and therefore must be destroyed. I don't think this attitude is helpful or should be encouraged.
I feel like this is a little bit unfair on zoomers here. It's true that online applications are kind of a waste of time, the response rate is so poor. At the same time the boomer nostrum of "just go in and give them a firm handshake" might have worked for (white) men back in 1955, an age when people were happy to hand out junior executive positions to (white) dudes they just met, but it's just silly in this day and age. The old world is dead, but the new struggles to be born - in the meantime we have crappy online job boards.
Personally, looking for temporary work in New Zealand, I've gotten work through all of online applications, pavement pounding, agencies and word of mouth. There's value, too, in being aggressive - just asking people you meet if they know of any work going has some response rate. I think maybe some people worry they're being pushy but most managers do not like looking for new staff and are happy to see people who just want to work.
(More that all of this is for low wage/status work. The game is totally different if you want like, a real career)
You are posting in bad faith.
This is meant to be taken as a thesis, and as a start of a discussion of what conservatives actually want to achieve rather than soap-boxing.
As I've pointed out here in the past, conservatives do not actually want to achieve anything - they don't have a grand utopian vision that they want to realize. They are perfectly happy to do nothing, so long as nobody else gets to do anything either.
"we need to fight this stupid war or we a pussy" this is the stupidest fucking argument in the world, it's responsible for so many deaths, and it's exactly why I don't trust the pro Ukraine people.
Moral considerations aside, a large number of commentators thought that it would be foolish to sue for peace under pretty much any circumstances because Putin wouldn’t keep to it.
People believe what they want to believe - warmongers like to believe war is inevitable because it relieves them from having to seek peace. So now any number of Ukrainians and Russians can be fed into meatgrinders because there's no alternative.
Well, I'm not really interested in judging others (beyond ways that are immediately useful). Fundamentally, people base their judgment not on their own, spontaneously generated values, but on the values they were taught by society. I don't think it's possible or even worth trying to truly escape from those values, though of course you can react against them superficially or engage in dialogue with them.
It may be that some Blues think that the US would be better off if Trump was dead. But it's a nasty thought, and the kind that shouldn't be expressed.
At the same time, it's very silly for Reds to get so up in arms about political civility and politeness. Of course it is inappropriate to openly fantasize about the death of your enemies, but this is something that Sam Hyde (affectionately quoted in this thread) has been doing for years now. This notion that "now the gloves are coming off, it's different this time" is just not true. People will whip themselves into a frenzy, take some scalps, and then waste their breath explaining to others how it wasn't really their fault, the guy had it coming, whatever whatever. It's tedious and pathetic, particularly when their idea of "wielding power" is snitching on people to their boss. That's the plan, is it - call the manager? That's not wielding power, that's begging actual power to intervene on your side.
This "golden opportunity" will fade. Some libs will get fired. Most will not. Of the eighty million Americans that voted for Biden, maybe you'll get four hundred of the most replaceable and impulsive, and most of them will just walk effortlessly into new jobs. Maybe libs will be a little bit more careful with their speech in the future and not saying obviously outrageous things. Is that what you want? For libs to be nicer to you?
The issue with conservatives is not that they're cruel. You need to be capable of cruelty. Enforcing laws is cruel. War is cruel. Borders are cruel. It's that they're petty. This cruelty is not in service of anything but resentment that the libs got away with it for so long.
Then why the constant talk about appeasement and Hitler, if not to get people psychologically ready for a war?
The United States does many things that are not rational. The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Both were unsuccessful in the long term and huge wastes of resources. But, nevertheless, the Americans reasoned themselves into doing these things. The rhetoric and rationale is very similar to what the pro Ukraine brigade says nowadays. The Taliban and Saddam are monsters, basically Hitler. America needs to project an image of strength. You can't negotiate with Hitlers. A message needs to be sent to potential state sponsors of terrorism/Hitler. What are you, a pussy?
Maybe it will happen, maybe not. Maybe it won't go as far as hot war, maybe it will. But, when I see so many people calling here and elsewhere for dramatic escalation, saying Putin is the next Hitler, calling any move for de-escalation "appeasement", drawing maps of a partitioned Russia, yes, I think the west wants war with Russia. Even knowing it would be stupid.
If that care is almost certain to be ineffective, then it's not, regardless of the good intentions of the would be saviour. Suppose my baby was dying and a charlatan offered to exorcise it of the demon that was surely killing it. It would not be murder for me to ignore this claim, or the claims of anyone else who proffered some dubious miracle cure.
Russell Brand is an idiot and we're better off not hearing from him. One of the most annoying and vapid commentators around.
You can refute it as many times as you like. The promises of NATO to Russia are, by this point, worth nothing, even if the West wasn't openly discussing partitioning Russia.
Oh, so the war must continue until either every Ukrainian or every Russian is dead. That's what I'm getting here, unless you want to take the opportunity to elaborate.
I don't see that they're clearly required. When determining eligibility, the government doesn't have to consider due process - it doesn't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. And due process is to do with rights. There's no right to run for president.
The Georgist LVT is equivalent to the government owning all the land and leasing it out to the highest bidder.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but shouldn't we want land to be controlled by the people who can create the most value on it? How is that different to landlords owning all the land and leasing it out to the highest bidder?
The thesis of CICO is that it's not just a useful guide, but literally an iron law of the universe. Ever heard of something called thermodynamics? So it's not obvious to me how a "metabolism" (whatever that is) can conjure up, or delete, energy or mass.
Personally I found CICO useful for losing weight and not useful for gaining weight. But, based on my own direct observation, you'll probably just call me a liar or say that I was tracking wrong. That is of course, what every CICO advocate does immediately. After all, CICO is (apparently) totally perfect and based on thermodynamics.
You might benefit from reading what I said. I said I'm not interested in judging others, not that I didn't - I of course, pass judgment on others, naturally and uncontrollably, and according to values I did not generate. But that judgment is rarely useful - if someone irritates me, or displeases me, what can I do about it other than seethe? Isn't that the real poison in whale watching on reality TV? Why not watch Sam Sulek instead?
Oh, come on now. You literally have reality TV shows devoted to displaying fatties like circus freaks for the people in this thread to hate on. If you needed to be told by your television set that it's okay to hate fat people, then you're not being brave. If you're watching it, it's for you - people watch shows like this to be told they're right, not to be challenged.
I didn't scold the OP at all. It's quite normal to judge others, particularly men, for being small or weak, and I've been on the receiving end of that judgment many times. Of course, there is a difference between observation and judgment. I can observe someone's behaviour without forming an opinion on it. I also don't agree that judgment is always necessary. This is not meant in a cuddly liberal way. Rather in a kind of sense that one should treat events and people sort of like passing clouds. And I would add that I also think that I am very judgmental - I just don't think that's a valuable or desirable trait in myself.
I don't know the first thing about boxing, but yes, I thought it was very very BM and bad faith for this lady to give up like that, whether the fight is fair or unfair. Leaving aside the question of whether Khelif should compete as a woman, boxing is not supposed to be fair, there is lots of physical variance between competitors. The safety issue is a joke, male boxers take punches way way harder all the time, and if you give a shit about safety , boxing shouldn't even exist as a sport.
As for CAIS women, I think the case for not letting them compete as women is pretty good but not airtight. But Khelif isn't trans and shouldn't be described as trans.
What word, exactly, did the US give that Ukraine was under their protection? When was this agreed? This is the problem. You people are constantly trying to push the scope of US responsibility, creep it out. And you're so eager for that expansion that you think you're not beholden to actually write those decisions down or make them legible to lesser nations. America can just swoop in on any war it feels like, or not, depending on what God told the President that day.
Most of the pro-Ukraine side believe that Putin is basically a second Hitler, and can only be stopped by military force. And these people set policy for the west. So yes, the west does want to invade Russia. The only reason they don't is because of nukes.
The question of who is under the US umbrella would be a lot less vexing if it weren't for the NATO expansionists and hawks such as yourself who are constantly trying to stretch it. The US and NATO has no security arrangement with Ukraine. They've never had one. And yet here you are, arguing that the umbrella should cover them, raising questions nobody was asking.
Let me guess, every day is 1938 and every enemy is Hitler and everyone who disagrees with you is Chamberlain.
The state can go fuck itself, frankly, if I ever get married or have kids it won't be to shore up the state. One wonders what's even the point of a state that places its own nebulously defined interest above that of its subjects.
- Prev
- Next
Honestly, these histrionics about Altman being some gay supervillain make me like him more, not less. Being crazy and ambitious is a prerequisite to doing great things. And the notion that because he's gay, he doesn't care about anything is ridiculous. If only he could be as pro human as Joseph Stalin (two children), Robert Mugabe (four children) or Genghis Khan (innumerable children)?
More options
Context Copy link