distic
27d ago
In what dream world do you live to think that Canada could be annexed while the US remains somewhat democratic?
distic
27d ago
Nations are not individuals with agency, and cannot have "allies" and "enemies"
Since alliances are signed in the name of the nations, and are biding independently of the government ; and since wars are declared in the name of nations, only nations can have actual allies and enemies.
distic
28d ago
I don't think capitalism will fail and Trump will die with it. I think capitalism will survive but Trump will be destroyed in the process. Americans may be unsatisfied with the way the world works, but they just have unrealistic expectations.
distic
1mo ago
Such are the glories of trade, both sides of it are better off for having the opportunity to engage in it
Yes, but no. The relationship is not even, the US got more value out of it, and on top of that they get intelligence because the tech is used to spy on everyone. It would not be tolerated from any other country.
because they're not contributing to the protection of the network, and the Americans are.
They are spending less, but they are still spending, and they are not responsible for the fact that the US started dubious war they could not win, which costed a lot. When the US called NATO article 5 against Afghanistan, no one betrayed the alliance even though the threat for the global security was very minor.
Anyway it can't be reverted, the trust is lost now.
distic
1mo ago
You just told me the network was mutually beneficial, but now it pays for the money? The US gets the money and the network, the allies only get the network, but somehow the allies get more?
Do you think the dollar as the reserve currency for the world, or english as the international language, would have been unchallenged without the late international order?
This means the network is mutually beneficial, so the US is paying with it's own membership, so the allies are still not offering anything.
The money? The companies are american, didn't you notice?
distic
1mo ago
am tired of being a "reliable ally" to "allies" who offer nothing in return but ever-increasing demands, recrimination, and interference in our internal politics
Those allies have offered you a mostly free global market. The network effect means that the value of a network is proportional to the square of its number of users, and allied countries users have contributed in no small part to US big tech consummer basis, even though the US use its tech as a mean of spying on them.
That is why I think that the fall of Trumpism will not come from #Resist, or from democracy, or from the juges, but from capitalism itself.
to my tribe
When Scott Alexander explained this concept, it was meant as something to fight against, not as a political compass.
distic
1mo ago
Europe has a capital market problem but it has no innovation problem. So American companies use the research done in both US and EU and put it to the market (like they do in Facebook AI Research and DeepMind). Or do you think both labs are useless? Huggingface was also created in France untiel they had a need for more funding.
The inexistence of European Big Tech is at the US advantage (they get skills without a competition).
distic
1mo ago
The US and Europe banned Huawei because it was used to spy on them by China. Europe uses a lot of american technology like facebook, and it is also used to spy on us, but you can notice it was never banned. Do you think this will last for long without NATO?
Maybe you think that the US technology is just better and we can't just avoid using it, but then you have to learn that FAIR is in Paris, that's where LLaMa models are trained. Europe might not be as useless to you as you think.
distic
1mo ago
Those wars don't count. The US at war with small and poor countries. Nobody in the world will ever think the US are a reliable ally unless the enemy is Iraq and Afghanistan, and even in the later case the US did not win...
distic
1mo ago
Yeah I don’t think so. We’re telling the rest of the world that they don’t get everything for free anymore.
The rest of the world never got anything for free. The domination of the US over Europe was beneficial for the US. In exchange for protection, the US could push for its military technologies through STANAGS and use ITAR regulations to control Europe's defense production. Trump and the US right think that the US only owe their success to their superior economy. It seems obvious to me that it is in a very large part a result of the network of allies they built in the world. We will who is right in the future.
distic
1mo ago
The US doesn't want to commit to a security guarantee because they know that there's a real chance they would have to intervene because of the same worry.
What purpose does serve an army if you prove everyone you will never use it?
distic
1mo ago
The contentious element of "Ukrainian sovereignty" is not the right of ethnic Ukrainians to rule themselves domestically, it's about Ukraine's right to join the Western block via institutions like the EU and NATO.
No, it isn't. Since the beginning of the war, Putin has been saying that he wants to "denazify" Ukraine, which in his language means changing the government to a pro-Russian one. There are four aims:
- International recognition (including in Ukraine) of Crimea as part of Russia.
- To take the four oblasts that Putin declared as Russian
- Ensuring that Ukraine never becomes a NATO or EU state
- Install a puppet president in Ukraine, as in Belarus ("denazification").
All these goals have something to do with the loss of sovereignty. This is obvious for (4), but also for (1) and (2). And anyway, the very concept of a sphere of influence is very anti-sovereignty: it means that a great power should have a say in what a lesser power does, so that lesser power is typically not sovereign.
distic
2mo ago
If you want me to rephrase it in the context of the original right wing poster, your interpretation of his claim was charitable, but it does not make his claim charitable nor a good basis for debate.
distic
2mo ago
One of the rules of this place is to be charitable, and I believe that an obvious charitable reading of “leftists don’t care about child rape” is something akin to “policies that leftists champion lead to child rape and so on.”
In this sentence you don't even try to prove you have been charitable, you are just asking others to be charitable with you. Basically "I don't really follow the rules, but I think no one can tell it because it would also break the rules".
distic
2mo ago
An idea would be to start an opposition day every week, a thread to specifically highlight topics or opinions that are not in the website consensus. There would still be an overwhelming crowd to harass you, but perhaps you would feel less alone.
distic
2mo ago
A first step is to just do a posteriori control, you eliminate the post that don't follow the rules strictly. However my feeling is that not much quality contributions would remain.
And the user driven evaluation could be more rules-based, instead of voting on a scale bad/good you could ask whether it's charitable, whether you agree or oppose the content, whether it is nice.
I have other ideas if you are interested, like categories for quality contribution: best left/right wing contribution...
distic
2mo ago
Oh I don't think they do it seriously either, but the discussion started on the premise that it did.
distic
2mo ago
I'm not saying you're not trying, but honestly it's not just a minor problem. If the goal was really to engage with people you don't agree with, this website is a failure. I only come here when I want to know what a specific part of the right thinks.
A good starting point would be to drastically improve the quality of the so-called quality contributions. They should be held to the highest standard, so people can go there and see what's expected of them. What I got from doing that is that your message should be long, written in good english and be right wing. That will garantee you a place there with a 50% probability. Following the rules in their letter and spirit is obviously optionnal.
distic
2mo ago
We have had these arguments (and internal mod discussions) since the reddit days, and whenever someone proposes a "solution" that will achieve perfect balance, it turns out that solution maps precisely to "moderate exactly to the degree that would make this place conform to my preferred state."
"User driven moderation" or whatever you call it was a bad idea and a very good way to overmoderate any users in the minority. The only thing that makes sense is rules-based moderation...
distic
2mo ago
Every human group in existence today owes its continued existence to the fact that its predecessors took land and resources from other groups
Just like you have rapists, thiefs and/or murderers among your ancestors (because everybody does), however murder and rape are still evil.
Now, I’m perfectly happy to discuss whether or not other, more recently-emergent models of geopolitical coexistence have effectively obviated the underlying logic of wars of expansion.
It's not about models of geopolitical co existence, they are just a result of modern democracy and the abolition of slavery. It makes no sense for the US to invade Canada, because what do you do with Canadian citizens? You can give them voting rights, but then it would be a merge more than an invasion; you can give them no rights, but then it creates a class of sub-citizens (it looks pretty unconstitutionnal); you can kill them all, but if you don't think it's bad then I don't know what will be (don't bother me with "we do none of the bad things the fascists did" if you don't believe there are bad things).
It’s very easy to say “fighting wars to obtain terriorItory is wrong” when you’re the United States, surrounded on both coasts by massive oceans, who defeated the last worthy competitor to any of its contiguous territory 150 years ago.
That is a good thing that we were speaking about the US invading territories, then...
The question is very concrete and clear: is it bad for Donald Trump and Elon Musk to threaten to invade several countries which until now considered themselves as US allies?
distic
2mo ago
"Make America Great Again" sounds pretty palingenetic and nationalist to be fair. And threatening to invade foreign countries is quite militaristic and nationalistic, I'd say.
I agree, however, that there is no totalitarianism in the US right now.
No? The republicans would have no problem sharing the country with the canadians as long as they don't have to share power
More options
Context Copy link