It’s more peaceful because as I see it the “every tribe needs and deserves a state” is a cause of strife, rather than a prevention for that strife.
What strife, exactly? And between whom?
Shouldn't there logically be less conflict among ethnically homogeneous nations than in a multi-ethnic state (especially a colonial one)? It's the forcing of different ethnicities to exist within one arbitrary state that causes conflict. Each ethnicity being its own nation and political entity effectively solves this internal tension.
But you maintain that even with these ethnic tensions fully resolved, this plurality of newly independent nations would soon be launched into brutal conflict with each other. Because of what? Resources? Power struggles?
Resources can, and have always been, traded. Indigenous tribes trade just fine with each other. Why would these nations suddenly go to war any more than European nations have since 19th-century ethnic nationalism?
And conflict due to expansion beyond reasonable means doesn't make sense either, as the expanding nation would soon turn into the very multi-ethnic hodgepodge of a state with arbitrarily drawn borders we're trying to avoid.
Palestinians are still fighting, and committing war crimes while doing so, because they came to the same position in the post war world where everyone is entitled to an ethnostate.
Palestinians are fighting against Israeli colonialism. Israel is actively genociding Palestinians. They could've ☪☮e✡is✝-ed, even after the Zionists took Palestinian lands and established and ethnostate (good). But that wasn't enough for Israel. They couldn't stop. And expanded beyond. And it's too late to stop now. If Palestinians ever establish a functioning state, the Jews will be wiped from existence. But that's what you get for your colonialism.
Israel and Palestine deserve each other.
It’s more stable because it doesn’t have various tribes fighting over strips of land nearby for farming right, water rights, minerals, or strategic advantage. The border is drawn and that’s it.
Colonial, or otherwise arbitrary, borders lock ethnically diverse, hostile groups into zero-sum struggles within states. Ethnically homogeneous nations reduce these internal tensions. And external disputes can be handled through trade or treaties, as has been historically done. But colonial borders don't change as easily.
Britain knows how to run a mine. It’s rather doubtful that the Zulu can do the same. If some rich natural resources sit under Zulustan they’ll stay there because people who live in mud huts can’t run a mine like the British can
The Africans seemingly still live in mud huts despite all the benevolence of colonialism.
CSsmrfk
8d ago
Culturally and ethnically, someone whose ancestors have been living in what is now Germany just across the Austrian border is certainly closer to Austrians than someone whose ancestors lived on a now German island in the North Sea.
Yes. If the Austrians see themselves as Austrians, they're Austrians and not Germans. But if in a hundred years these same Austrians give up their Austrianness, and start calling themselves German and the Germans go along with it, they'll be German. The cultural and ethnic minutiae will be best understood by their respective peoples. And the borders should be reflective of these attitudes.
Except that Brittany and Corsica are kinda their own thing ethnically, and that is before we go to the oversea departments.
Yes, these are minorities in France, much the same way there are Arab and African minorities in France. And there will be either separatism or assimilation. There will be tensions. If those ethnically distinct regions want independence, they should get independence.
Straight borders in Africa are bad because they tend to split ethnic groups. However, I think ethnic conflicts would happen even if the colonizers had taken great care to respect ethnic boundaries. At the end of the day, every small ethnicity having a state the size of Lichtenstein is not stable.
You are a colonialist. I fundamentally disagree with you. Even if you think small ethnicity-based states aren't "stable," forcing artificial borders upon a diverse people is much worse. But as a compromise, can we at least maybe not have very clearly multi-ethnic paper nations? The Québécois and the "Canadians" are nothing alike. Let them have their independence.
The legalistic status quo is an excellent reason, because the alternative is historically a lot of bloodshed.
The bloodshed occurs precisely because the borders aren't drawn along ethnic lines. The legalistic status quo suppresses ethnic realities.
Ethnicity is the persistent factor in how people organize politically. Multi-ethnic post-racial societies can only exist when there's prosperity, religion, imperial might, or ideology to suppress the natural tendency toward ethnic self-determination. These external forces sustain the opportunistic state and its arbitrary borders.
CSsmrfk
8d ago
Europe is divided along ethnic lines. Germany is where Germans live, France is where French people live, Poland is for the Poles.
And then there is civic nationalism and unnatural borders. Civic nationalism is the hellish melting pot of the US&A. Its borders do not matter because they're arbitrary. They happen to be what they are. But there are no Americans, really, to draw the borders around. And there are no Canadians either.
Unnatural borders are what we see in Africa and much of the third world. They are marks of colonialism. Straight lines on maps, drawn with a disregard for the people. Then, ethnic conflict is present, always.
There are only a few exceptions where unnaturally drawn borders hold despite differences in ethnicity. Singapore, Switzerland, UAE, etc. But these exceptions are of mutual economic and political benefit. They exist only in prosperity. Money holds them together.
But even here, why does Denmark have a say over Greenland? Ukraine over Donbass? Or Canada over Quebec? Outside the current legalistic status quo, I don't think they have a claim over those ethnically distinct regions.
Borders should be drawn around an ethnos. But there is no Canadian ethnicity. It's only a matter of time before that particular politico-economical assemblage dissolves or is subsumed by some other larger entity.
CSsmrfk
14d ago
You should absolutely read Infinite Jest. It's not that long, once you get immersed in it. But this takes time. And because of the "fractal" way in which the book is written, you'll be somewhat confused and out of it for the first 300 or so pages. You just have to push on, and the book will open up to you.
The comment was poorly written and nonsensical. It added even less to the discussion than I usually add. I decided to delete it.
Kamala Harris' campaign, when it started, had a certain freshness to it. I was hopeful. But soon the vibes were off and the coconuts soured.
"kamala IS brat" tried to keep the momentum, but it wasn't enough.
From How Harris won at TikTok but lost the election:
"It's possible this election was decided on TikTok," said Eric Wilson, a Republican strategist who led digital campaigns including Marco Rubio's presidential bid in 2016. "It's just surprising that it wasn't decided for Kamala Harris."
"Pro-Harris videos may have pushed the right cultural buttons and reached the right voters, Wilson said, but if her campaign promises weren't clear and compelling, it's a miss."
"It's clear from election results that the electorate was very concerned about the economy, inflation and immigration," Wilson said. "They wanted substance on those issues. And that just wasn't on offer during brat summer."
Edit: The memes were all semi-ironic. No one was coconut-pilled with a straight face. Is this what's tripping boomer Arjin up?
CSsmrfk
1mo ago
The Male Feminist as a man seeking absolution: If all or most men behave poorly, then the male feminist's past behaviour is not particularly noteworthy. By subscribing to the most deranged feminist assumptions, the male feminist can morph from a "bad man" to just "a man", or even a "good man", because at least they're willing to fight their deplorable male instincts.
As someone who would call himself a feminist, what's described here is precisely the thinking process of a sex pest. He's receptive to the feminist argument insofar as it absolves him of his sins. He rejects toxic masculinity, and he would call himself reformed, an ally. He is one of the good guys now.
But to say this is to miss the feminists' point entirely. There is no reformation. You are a man, and you, as a man, are inherently a danger to women.
Radical feminism is women's self-defense against biology. It's ultimately a futile effort. But in its radicalness, it horseshoes back into being the only current day social discipline that correctly engages with the biological reality of the sexes.
CSsmrfk
1mo ago
This is a PSA?
Three months ago I responded to @TowardsPanna's post about data removal services.
In that post I linked to a video by Dan Saltman, the owner of Redact.dev, discussing shady practices in the industry.
It has recently come to light that Dan Saltman is, allegedly, using the Redact.dev database to doxx individuals' private information. Apparently, this is an intimidation tactic to help cover up the accusations made against the political streamer Destiny, who allegedly filmed and distributed non-consensual intimate recordings of multiple women.
No data removal service can be trusted.
Do not use Redact.dev.
Every time I see that blog post, I get irrationally angry.
The author has bad taste and a myopic, illiterate understanding of art and aesthetics, especially in relation to female beauty. There is a fundamental lack of knowledge about mythology, anthropology, psychology, symbolism, female archetypes.
The section on love/fertility goddesses should be a massive red flag. There is no engagement with the mythology surrounding the goddess figures he writes about. And any extrapolation of beauty standards from these mythological figures, without first a correct understanding of the mythos of said figures, is wholly meaningless, surface-level. And you cannot write about sexual archetypes and not mention Camille Paglia. The section on male gaze is laughable. No feminist theory was consulted in writing the piece. No Freud either, nothing. I am asking for the very basics here.
I hate the picture spam. It is dishonest
CSsmrfk
4mo ago
Putin will sell oil in U.S. dollars
Putin has not explicitly stated whether he will or will not sell oil in U.S. dollars. Due to the sanctions, Russia is actually unable to sell oil in U.S. dollars.
Russia has not sought after and does not seek after rejecting the dollar use, President Vladimir Putin said at the plenary session of the Valdai Discussion Club.
"We - Russia in any case - do not reject the dollar and do not intend to do this. We were merely denied of using the dollar as the payment instrument," Putin said. "In my opinion, this is very foolish from the side of US financial authorities because the entire power of the US to date rests on that, on the dollar," he noted.
Russia is not struggling with the US currency but is thinking of creating new instruments in response to new trends of global economic development, he added.
CSsmrfk
4mo ago
Most results I see are from the last 24 hours. Could be Google running A/B tests, or maybe the constant election updates are affecting search rankings. Doubt it's anything malicious though.
CSsmrfk
4mo ago
Yes, that’s it. Thank you.
The article refused to show up in my Google search results, even though I literally searched for 'shadow,' 'Trump,' 'election.' Those same keywords worked last week. Yandex finds it, though.
CSsmrfk
4mo ago
Does anyone have the article about how the deep state saved America by resisting during the Trump presidency in 2016? It was written from a pro-establishment, liberal point of view and was published by The Atlantic or a similar publication. I can’t seem to find it on Google anymore
"Bayesian" has been the hot new word in my (non-rat) part of the internet for the last few years! And now I'm starting to hear rationalist argot in real life, which feels surreal.
Artisan mousepads are very popular in the aim community. They're pricey, but the quality is good. And in terms of mice, the current trend is for ever lighter, smaller models. The zerømouse is an extreme example, but it's indicative of the general trend. Mouse preference depends entirely on your needs. Unless you’re playing aim-intensive movement shooters, there’s absolutely no reason to get a 26-gram gaming mouse. That said, the Logitech G Pro X Superlight is regarded as a good all-around mouse. At 63 grams, it's still lighter than most mice out there, and I think it will work great for most people and most use cases.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=AXfZ8remiDE
This video is exactly about this. The guy is promoting his (future) business, but what he’s saying still holds true.
I wouldn’t trust data broker removal services.
For these services to remove your information from the internet, you first have to give them all your details.
Then, they either spam companies with emails requesting that the pages be removed or outsource the form filling to Indians or Pakistanis.
They also usually take down your info from completely irrelevant websites that Google doesn’t even index. To actually get the results you want, you’d have to pay for their more expensive tiers or whatever.
People are throwing every kind of insult at Kamala to see what sticks. Many are very sexist and very racist, which I imagine would push any non-misogynistic, non-racist moderate away from voting Republican. It's all pretty vile, but workshopping takes time. I'm sure Trump will eventually come up with something.
With Kamala as the Democratic nominee, Trump will have to pivot in his rhetoric. He was already pretty mellow in his debate with Biden, at least compared to his usual self. The assassination attempt reportedly mellowed him out even further. His RNC speech had to be scrapped and re-written with unity as the central theme.
But Trump's platform of unity lasted only a week. I believe that unity is no longer a working, winning strategy now that Biden is gone.
CSsmrfk
8mo ago
So going by the Home Depot lady’s logic (or rather, your logic): she is part of the problem responsible for the current state of political affairs. She fucked around and found out. Her losing her job is only fair.
No, OP said that expressing political opinions should not get you fired. This is the assumption we're operating from.
The only discussion we can have here is whether or not wishing the death of a political figure is tantamount to violence. (It's not)
This one includes an implied threat of violence. I don’t think it’s that hard to follow.
If it’s not that hard to follow, please explain it to me, because I don’t see any implied threat of violence here.
CSsmrfk
8mo ago
businesses are perfectly free to have policies that forbid violence or threats of violence
There was no actual violence or even incitement of violence in what the Home Depot lady said. You implicitly acknowledged this by making your hypothetical non-political since wishing a politician's death is just another political opinion.
If the person she posted about wasn’t famous in any way, would you still see it as “just an opinion?”
Trump is not just any person. This comparison doesn't make sense because Trump is literally the presidential nominee. The opinion expressed about Trump's shooting is a political one.
You specifically stated that political expression should be tolerated. If you were to adhere to monarchist, communist, or Nazi beliefs, you would be advocating for even more violence. And this would be actual violence, not just wishing someone be dead.
To make the equivocation you want to make, this "drunk uncle" would have to be himself at fault for getting robbed. The uncle, after getting drunk at the local pub, looking for a fight, approached some guy on the street. But he messed with the wrong guy and got himself robbed at gunpoint.
What your hypothetical person would say is, "fuck around and find out." Because this is what many liberals believe.
The Home Depot lady, like many liberals, likely believes that Trump is a threat to democracy and that he is responsible for the current state of political affairs. Trump is at fault for destabilizing politics and, consequently, almost getting himself assassinated.
From this point of view then, it makes sense to wish that the sniper had not missed. Trump fucked around and found out (almost). It would have only been fair.
You're pivoting to Israel-Palestine. Your post is irrelevant to the discussion and does not address the issues I raised previously. No response on ethnic borders. Still no idea why these would result in "strife". Why can't ethnic states trade like tribes did for centuries? Nothing on Africa and colonialism. Are you conceding these points?
"Rules-based international order" doesn't work. I would've assumed this is clear from my posts. Borders should be drawn around ethnic lines.
There's a war between Israel and Palestine because U.N. Zionists carved up the land, ignoring the people. You wrote this yourself: "internationally coerced 'ceasefires' and land swaps."
Israel could've stopped at an ethnostate. But they wanted more. Colonial greed. They have no claim to that land, and that's why they're at war. They have to genocide the Palestinians to get the land they want. But had they peacefully established their little ethnostate somewhere else or even just not expanded much further, it would have been just fine. Israel is engaging in genocidal settler colonialism.
I literally said: "If Palestinians ever establish a functioning state, the Jews will be wiped from existence. But that's what you get for your colonialism."
And: "Israel and Palestine deserve each other."
But there wouldn't be a Palestinian or Jewish ethnic minority. Every k*ke or Arab would have to be killed. Genocide is the only option. It's too late for anything else now.
This must be deliberately disingenuous. Georgians aren't an ethnicity.
More options
Context Copy link