but she picked such an awful case that now she has to go. Because she's tainted that argument with a hugely unpopular thing and she's the face of both
It's also worth considering that she might have had to go because she was insufficiently zealous in her support of that case. We can't assume that those responsible for her ousting share the same understanding of what is sensible and reasonable as we do.
so what makes Ukraine so special?
It's a big country in Europe and not in the Middle East/Africa, to put it crudely.
Putting aside the "emotional" component of things as well, there's real benefits for the US to be had in this conflict, the US has been throwing pocket change and whatever rubbish it can be bothered to pull out of mothballs in exchange for watching Russia repeatedly shoot itself in the feet and legs.
Yarvin just seems agitated that his ideological opponents seem to be winning.
This, combined with those who reflexively oppose the west, seems to explain a lot of the pro-Russian sentiment in the west for this war.
You have figured wrong apparently, twitch is pretty notorious for bringing the hammer down.
Funniest one had to be when they banned the word simp, in what appears to have been a case of "to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise".
Cultural stereotypes about gnomes/goblins and bankers are the Swiss not the Jews for the period she and I were growing up.
Well then it's quite impressive that these stereotypes about the swiss managed to completely disappear and be replaced by identical stereotypes about jews in the years between your youth and mine.
Yeah, please explain to me how it's apparent to you that Jewish people are to be represented by goblins.
Damned if I know, cultural influences are funny like that. But I can say that the connection is made, whereas with the swiss I have to say it's a much more puzzling one. The stereotypes I have about the swiss involve cow bells, yodelling and germanic autism dialled up to 11, not greedy, hook-nosed goblins.
It's exactly the same thing. Black people are stereotyped as large and violent, orcs are large and violent, so orcs are black people
Tolkeins orcs aren't particularly large and their capacity for violence is either at the behest of masters who herd them into battle with the crack of the whip, or a kind of petty and mean vindictiveness that doesn't really seem to align with stereotypes. Similarly, Warhammer orcs/orks are football hooligans and don't come across as particularly "black". Warcraft orcs are just a "noble savage" mish-mash, although they are the closest, what with the history of slavery, but it's weakened by the half a dozen other inspirations.
Maybe it's a US thing, but the assosciation between black stereotypes and orcs still seems pretty weak.
For the same reason, not every depiction of a greedy banker is intended to represent Jews, though some are.
Of course, I don't think Rowling intended any coded message about jews in her work, as I say in another post, I think she was just drawing from the cultural well in general for her book and it just so happens that a lot of stereotypes in Britain about bankers/money men have crossovers with those about jews.
I've heard this from quite a few people now on this topic and I have to say I find it a little disingenuous to be surprised that people would draw the parallels between fictional characters and established real world stereotypes/historical tropes.
It would be fair to be surprised if they were trying to draw parallels between something in fiction and between real world groups when the two just don't align at all (I've seen this a lot with people of varying shades of political alignment trying to draw parallels between orcs/orks and black people, which I've always found quite unconvincing).
For me it seems pretty apparent that Rowling was drawing off of a cultural stereotype about bankers/money-lenders that itself either draws from/is linked to stereotypes about Jews.
I'm also confident enough to say that there are enough degrees of cultural seperation that it isn't anti-semitic to include said stereotypes in a work, because they've essentially been laundered of their initial meaning through centuries of use.
Just because you were brought up fundamentalist doesn't mean it's objectively acceptable to do violence to people for victimless crimes.
Then it's probably a good thing for me and the Wahabis that we are indifferent to the question of if something is "objectively acceptable" and instead are concerned with what we personally find to be acceptable and the means by which we may align reality to our respective visions.
But it is false, because that isn't what makes someone a mercenary.
The term you're looking for is "backed by NATO" or "NATO backed".
I don’t think is hugely extreme to call them NATO mercenaries. False in the sense that your not hiring random country people to do the fighting.
Well then you think wrong, it's false in the sense that it's false.
Absolutely everyone has a naked body, after all, and almost everyone has sex and a sexual side. There is no shame in having either of those, just maybe using them in specific ways.
I disagree and I think I'm not the only one here (source: widely accepted social norms around clothing, nudity and sex).
Whenever this topic comes I'm usually surprised by the number of people who try to make the case that it's not actually a big deal or how confused they are that people would get offended by deepfakes of themselves being created. Personally, if I found out that someone had made fake porn of me or anyone I care about (or distributed actual pictures of them naked/etc), I would immediately go kick their teeth in. I would do this because I would be incandescently furious that someone would do something so flagrantly insulting and disrespectful and then be dumb enough to let me find out about it.
And I know that everyone imagines these kind of things already, but there is a world of difference between imagining and actually producing/sharing a video/picture. In the same way that pretty much everyone is digesting food but I don't want to see it and I definitely don't want it on or near me.
"Should", what he "should" have done depends rather heavily on desired outcomes.
Personally I think he did good by showing some spine, toadying is bad for the soul.
So politically I think you could see the LDS reversing their stance on homosexuality at some point (assuming you think the racial reverse was done for pragmatic reasons and not because God told them to) so it makes sense to put pressure on them to become more "correct".
Hey now, lets not exclude the idea of God buckling under the social pressure to become more "correct".
Victory in war is largely a subjective concept, particularly in limited wars, how you perceive an outcome of a war depends on how you assess the goals/outcomes of the various groups impacted by the war.
My assessment on the war in Ukraine is that any gains the Russian government could make here is far past the point of the juice being worth the squeeze. It's possible for Putin to declare that the Russians have achieved an arbitrary goal in Ukraine, so that he can "win" and declare a victory, but it would be phyrric at best,more likely a victory in name only. Russia has wasted an absurd quantity of lives, money, materiel, prestige, etc, on this war and there's nothing they're going to get out that's going to make up for the cost.
No, because of all the reasons I listed above.
The date doesn't particularly matter here, because victory is determined based on the goals of the various combatants and those haven't meaningfully changed.
Not particularly, failure to meet objectives, massive cost in casualties, prestige, manpower, etc. Failure to seperate/expose the west as weak, now heavily reliant on a not particularly trustworthy ally.
I also think that freezing the conflict indefinitely ala a Korean war style situation wouldn't be advantageous to Russia. It seems that the primary goal (of the Russian leadership at least) has been to prevent Ukraine from leaving "Russias orbit" and showing that it's possible to succeed under alternative systems of government/life is better on the outside. The west actually has quite a strong record of succeeding in this regard, at least once a conflict has become properly frozen.
they did basically win in the end
I've never given much credence to the notion of the winter war being a Soviet victory. They had to settle for the demands they levied at the start of the war, which were a paper thin pretense for starting a war that would let them seize the whole of Finland.
If I went to steal someones wallet and came away with a black eye, 3 missing teeth and a torn note clutched in my bloodied hand, I don't think I'd consider that a victory.
The problem is that with a few words changed, everything you've said also applies to Russia.
Russia can't replenish its materiel at the ridiculous rate it has been expending it and even the deep soviet stockpiles will begin to run dry. It's worth noting that the single greatest donor of weapons to Ukraine has been Russia courtesy of many gifts left behind in good will gestures.
As for rhetoric, if what we're hearing in the west is hysterical then I lack words for what prevails in Russia. I recall discussions of sinking the UK under a giant tidal wave caused by nuclear explosions airing on Russian national television and the ongoing drumbeat of how this conflict is an existential crisis for Putin Russia.
Nobody on this earth knows how this war will end, or when. Some people may think they do and some might even turn out to be correct, but that will be a coincidence. This kind of business is far too large, complicated and full of moving parts to understand from any angle while it remains in motion, only once all the pieces have stopped will we be able to pick it apart and declare how obvious it was how things would turn out.
That said I still favour Ukraine over Russia on this one, they've got much stronger backing, have proven to be surprisingly competent and far more motivated than their Russian adversaries. The Russians by contrast have a military so dysfunctional that it verges on that of an Arab state, which seems to be institutionally more focused on battling with reality than with the enemy. Incidentally this aspect has been somewhat dissapointing for me, a long time fan of Russian doctrine, who has frequently argued that the Ivans are not as incompetent at warfare as is popularly believed. Apparently this sage wisdom must be updated to include military as well.
The biggest handicap to Ukrainian victory at this moment is the strange reticence of some western politicians to cheaply win a decisive victory over a long term adversary.
The second thing is that my heart breaks for Protestants. The people attending these awful mega churches and weird youth group pastor things are being deprived of something I think is truly beautiful, and they’re essentially being taken advantage of by people who have a 500 year old hatred of the church. I think Protestants are more than happy to simply lie about Catholicism to maintain this grudge.
I have to say that my least favourite thing about the religious is the capacity of some to be so incredibly condescending and to not even have the common decency to be aware of how insulting they're being.
I am not religious, but I do come from what was historically a very protestant culture (with its own national bent on how a religion "should" be, as is typical) and to me I must say that I see very little difference between the american corporate protestants and the catholics. Both are overly obsessed with elaborate ceremony, pomp and spectacle, with the greatest difference between the two being that one is simply crass and the other is vulgarly ostentatious. I could also say that both are essentially scams designed to extract money and influence from large bodies of people eager to find meaning and a greater understanding of what it's all about.
I generally do not voice these opinions unprompted in the same way that I am not given to walking up to people in the street and slapping them in the face without provocation. I assume that most people have reasons for making the decisions they do and are operating off of different information than I am.
The people attending these awful mega churches and weird youth group pastor things
Are probably attending for the same reasons you would attend whatever weird things catholics do, because they're presumably getting something out of it.
I think Protestants are more than happy to simply lie about Catholicism to maintain this grudge.
This sentence alone is so incredibly arrogant that it makes my head hurt just processing it. The idea that protestants must collectively deceive each other about how totally awesome and right catholicism is just because they're bitter about.... something? I have to say that in my experience, there is no collective grudge among protestants against catholics, if anything it is entirely the other way around. I've lived in countries with large protestant communities my whole life, never spent any serious amount of time in catholic countries or communities and the only place I've ever heard anyone talk about the split between catholics and protestants was from catholics. Hell, I've heard significantly more about protestants from catholics than I have from protestants.
This is the most public example, where Macron made an ass of himself by refusing to see that Putin was not serious about negotiating or talking on this issue.
There will be near constant back channel talks between Russia and other nations as the war progresses and there was undoubtedly a great deal of trying to convince Russia before the war (god knows the Germans and French have been trying to court Russia for long enough).
Russians will not be cruel to the local population no matter what, because they consider the local population to be Russian.
Unfortunately for the Russians, the Ukrainians get a say as well and it is very clear that they do not consider themselves Russians, in fact they are willing to kill and die over this very point.
The Russians will be cruel because reality conflicts with what they have imagined it to be.
But in all honesty this explanation is not needed either way, the Russians will be callously brutal institutionally and commit random acts of cruelty individually, because that is an intrinsic component of the Russian way of war. My source for this claim is the past hundred years of Russian military history and the enduring hatred towards Russia from the various peoples who have come into conflict with them.
This reply feels like a non-sequitur, I think you've replied to the wrong comment.
Also for the record, anyone bleating about how nobody has just tried to talk with Russia is either ignorant of the situation or pretending to be so, plenty of people and groups have attempted to provide an avenue for a negotiated end to hostilities, Russia has simply rejected them by insisting that the only "negotiation" they'll accept is one where they get everything they want.
If you want to bring Russia to the negotiating table you'll apparently need to pave the road to it with tens of thousands of Russian dead.
And the reasoning of many people who call Z-Russians "orcs" is the same as yours
The reasoning behind calling Russian soldiers orcs is actually pretty apt as far as analogies go, since the orcs of the Lord of the Rings were based (in individual character and personality) on some of the enlisted he interacted with during his service in WW1 and (on a larger, more general scale) the armies of eastern despots. Admittedly the eastern despots he was being inspired by were far more likely to be called Darius than Vladimir, but it's still a surprisingly apt comparison.
Those deals didn't specify that they had to implement mass immigration, a George Soros social policy and end up getting sanctioned by the EU for not doing things that were never in the deal
I fail to see what this has to do with the US, you're describing largely internal European matters here.
US gives countries the option of either submitting and becoming vassal states or being more or less blockaded
Oh don't be so dramatic, if you believe that all the nations aligned with the US/West are vassal states then you have an unusually broad definition of vassal state to be sure.
The point you seem to be flailing towards here, is that choosing to trade/align with someone opens you up to being influenced and I don't think that this was something missed by the leaders of the various nations that have chosen to flee "Russias orbit" in the post cold war era. They chose to align themselves with the west in general (and the US in particular) because they believe that it is a better deal than what they experienced with the Russians and I cannot blame them.
If the Russians (or anyone else for that matter) wishes to seriously challenge US hegemony, they could start by offering a better, credible alternative. The fact that so much of eastern europe is willing to fight, bleed and die in order to remain part of "Globohomo" should probably be a wake up call that Russia is pushing a seriously bad product.
Well cut quote, everything you've listed is covered by "pocket change".
More options
Context Copy link