@Nwallins's banner p

Nwallins

Finally updated my bookmark

0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 04 23:17:52 UTC

				

User ID: 265

Nwallins

Finally updated my bookmark

0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 04 23:17:52 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 265

I've been chided by you yet wholeheartedly defend your regime as mod, FTR. Well done. Amadan too, begrudgingly. And more than I can name.

This is not exactly the same as: I am clued in, turned on, and working hard. I imagine there was a week to respond "Yes", but it's different when asked for details on a short deadline. It sends a different signal.

I'm referring to Putin's statements after the disaster at Hostomel and the decimation of the armor columns rolling towards Kiev in the first few days of the war.

Here is a video analysis of the SMO in that regard:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=r0Ji7KqqEqg?si=r1-39lGmPvkNgM3l

Very interesting, but Russia seems much weaker now than in 2022. Heavily sanctioned, big stagflation, and fielding laughable armor deployments and infantry tactics. Quads, donkeys, motorcycles, and "camels". We've been assured that the 3 day Special Military Operation is still going according to plan. They've evacuated Syria, Wagner is a shadow of its former self, and are they still conscripting and fielding prisoners or is that well too running dry?

If Russia was going to roll into Poland, what do you think that force composition looks like?

I was hoping the American Grand Strategy in Ukraine was to bleed Russia dry, at the expense of Ukraine. I think it has basically worked, as beyond WMD, I think Russia has very little in their arsenal to threaten the West with. I am surprised, however, by the turn of events where Trump accuses Ukraine of having started the Russian invasion. My hope remains that Trump is playing 4D chess with Putin, softening him up for a triumphant blow, but my hope wavers. It seems clear that Ukraine would be a much more likely and loyal ally than Russia could ever be.

In my view, here are the American interests in the region:

  • A greatly weakened Russia
  • Ukrainian mineral rights
  • Opposing invasions and annexations
  • Additional and stronger allies and spheres of influence

American fears:

  • WMD in the wrong hands (Russian collapse, or scared Putin)
  • Emboldened Russia
  • China / Taiwan

The Biden strategy seemed pretty reasonable if tepid in light of these points. I'm not sure what Trump would think of the above.

Oh shit, you're veqq from /r/CredibleDefense Doing the Lord's work over there. That Tooze article was interesting for good and bad reasons. I discounted most of what he had to say after the bizarre opening paragraph. The repeated, unsupported claims of "MAGA is bullshit" seemed literally sophomoric, along with the multiple retreats to "racism!".

His analysis of the scary dilemmas presented by Vance was insightful, but I think he was wrong to downplay the now-unavoidable concerns about immigration across all Western nations which have opened the floodgates.

Very helpful, thanks!

I have zero knowledge, evidence, or stake in the sex pest claim. Just wanted to point out the logical inconsistency that I saw in your claim.

That is, having the knowledge of "male feminist" would (indeed) give very little indication of "sex pest", even if it is true that the vast majority of sex pests turn out to be male feminists.

Thus, the fact of very little indication, which we both agree on, weighs very little on the OP's claim.

Men do, women are, so men naturally assume that when you ask them this, you're asking them to apply the woman's label. Unless you're a man predisposed to Gayness (which forms part of the problem with Gays, from the average man's perspective), that is inaccurate, insulting, and outright dangerous.

I think there is something interesting here but I can't figure out any of this. Can you clarify?

Ratlike, as in rationalist?

Based on what?

don't think there is any reason to believe that being a "male feminist" says much at all about how likely any particular man is to be a sex pest.

Sure, but the vast, vast majority of muslims are not terrorists, yet most terrorists who fly airplanes into buildings are muslim. Most male feminists are not sex pests, but many sex pests turn out, ironically, to be male feminists. There may be some kind of cluster that is worth examining.

My apologies, late night intoxication

May Trump supporters and Trump voters and Trump himself never know peace.

Is this not a straightforward call for violence? I find this manner of speaking despicable in public, and I'd want an apology if I was her target.

Taboo the word hate, sheesh. I'm with the Count, here. The word is inappropriate for the feelings being expressed; hyperbolic and histrionic, as expected from one side of the divide.

We know that "just be nice" with the treasury doesn't work in the long run. Our economists are less susceptible to flim flam than our social scientists and culture warriors.

It won't be Putin

Indeed. Ask the Hunt brothers (also note CIA / Watergate ties) about cornering the silver market. One went broke trying to defend it, having overleveraged in the process. Some lawfare was waged against him, for sure, but no one agent can outweigh the market, in a fair and free market^TM. Even when collusion and cartels are attempted between multiple agents, the incentive to defect generally busts the last empty bagholder.

Whereupon I unsubscribe from Matt Stoller

I had long considered Stoller to have solid analysis and a respect for markets, even when I didn't agree with his political slant, editorial direction, or choice of topics. But he has lost me here, and probably forever, in his simpering defense of the Harris economic plan, which includes price controls on groceries and vague yet sinister crackdowns on so-called price gouging.

It’s all predictable, both the economist revolt, and reporters who interview economists as if they know anything. I suspect what’s going on is that economists, as moral reformers who ordain truth, believe price-setting is beyond the realm of elected leaders or normal people. Harris has interfered with that belief, leading to an angry reaction of religiously scorned zealots. Another possibility is that those who think the most about how to set prices are monopolists and economists. And like anyone who sees someone new coming into one’s realm of expertise, they are angry at Harris. Regardless, I can’t see much of a downside to being attacked by economists and experts, after all these are the elites who got us into this mess.

Someone hasn't read The Road To Serfdom. I'm actually kind of flabbergasted to see this, though I shouldn't be surprised.

Yeah, good point. Something like a tattoo artist comes to mind.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=LQhX8PbNUWI

We Care A Lot by Faith No More, before Chuck Mosley was replaced by Mike Patton as lead singer. I didn't realize until now there was a pre-Patton era.

I was vaguely familiar with the song, mostly encountering it in the 1990s, and I only watched the video just now. At first, I thought it was a parody of crusty PCU-type bands, but then I realized Jon Favreau likely based some of his parodic character on this type of genuine, authentic expression.

But is it genuine? The song is satire, again venturing into PCU (the movie with Jeremy Piven and Jon Favreau, Politically Correct University) territory. We care a lot about killer bees and saving the whales. You can hear the sneering disrespect in Mosley's voice.

We're closing the 2014 decade this year, 2014 being the crux of woke takeover. This video seems relevant, and I'm still trying to figure out if the visual elements are genuine or parodic. White dudes in dreads playing Flying V guitars...

Necro alert!

Indeed it's a well documented fact that fascists, liberals and communists all think the other two are basically identical.

This is hilarious and too true. Saving for future reference.

Anyone play Rocket League? I'm low Plat / temporarily embarrassed Gold. Msg me to team up.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=LQhX8PbNUWI

We Care A Lot by Faith No More, before Chuck Mosley was replaced by Mike Patton as lead singer. I didn't realize until now there was a pre-Patton era.

I was vaguely familiar with the song, mostly encountering it in the 1990s, and I only watched the video just now. At first, I thought it was a parody of crusty PCU-type bands, but then I realized Jon Favreau likely based some of his parodic character on this type of genuine, authentic expression.

But is it genuine? The song is satire, again venturing into PCU (the movie with Jeremy Piven and Jon Favreau, Politically Correct University) territory. We care a lot about killer bees and saving the whales. You can hear the sneering disrespect in Mosley's voice.

We're closing the 2014 decade this year, 2014 being the crux of woke takeover. This video seems relevant, and I'm still trying to figure out if the visual elements are genuine or parodic. White dudes in dreads playing Flying V guitars...

Is an artist allowed to paint a picture of Mickey Mouse murdering Hillary Clinton in negligee with the soles of her feet showing? Should the paint manufacturers limit the scope of output?