justmotteingaround
No bio...
User ID: 2002
justmotteingaround
1d ago
From a CW perspective its also fascinating that a speech Mearsheimer had given years prior went super viral after the Russian invasion. The content is pretty dry, and nobody seemed to consider whether Mearsheimer was just flat wrong. I don't think he was, but it was a surprising chain of events.
The video did induce me to read a popular 2018 book by one of Mearsheimer's contemporaries "The Hell of Good Intentions". There was a lot I agreed with in both Mearsheimer's talk and the book, and some that I didn't. AFAIKT the "not one inch east" talking point is bullshit (is was a non binding quip from a powerless US functionary made to the USSR only in reference to German reunification, with the understanding that the Warsaw Pact there to stay). And while I think modern US influence in the region can fairly be questioned, it never came close to justifying a full invasion. However, realists would argue that states cannot know the intentions of other states, and so often over-react.
justmotteingaround
3d ago
So I spent a solid chuck of time in Thailand and was struck by all the severely disabled people. This is approx 2008. I thought about giving them money because you can't fake missing all 10 fingers and open wounds. A bit of googling led me to news posts and forums alleging that these people are essentially slaves to the local mafia. They are bussed in to beg, and kept in a pitiful state to earn more.
justmotteingaround
3d ago
Thanks, deleted and reposted!
justmotteingaround
3d ago
The European CFR recently conducted polling on US/EU relations. Warm relationships have lowered, shifting towards a necessary relationship. The combined support for necessary and aligned relationships is still ~75%. So thats pragmatic and strong. Other polling shows about a 60% favorable rating of the US by Europeans.
I couldn't find American views of Europe. My guess it leans favorable, but there is an attitude (especially in the administration) that the US is getting screwed. (I believe Trump once quipped that "the EU was created to screw the US"). I think roughly half of Americans want to put American unambiguously "first", but will also accept pragmatism.
justmotteingaround
3d ago
Whatever role you thought licensing boards were doing, they're not doing that.
Hey now, I'm sure plenty of people here hated occupational licensing before it was cool. The Institute for Justice has been suing some of the more absurd boards around the country for 15 years, but its still common for a cosmetology license to require 1500 hours of training vs 300 for an EMT. Louisiana famously had an onerous flower arrangement license, scaled back since 2010ish. Not until 2020 did Florida scale back its ~1000hour license for interior residential decorating. There was a country-wide movement to pare back licenses for braiding hair. The ring cam anecdote is new to me.
The Gist recently had an interview with a journalist looking into occupational licensing. Might be the same author you referenced. They got into the weeds about how doctors who become drug addicted, drug peddlers, or do some patient related sex crimes maintain there licenses, often going to work in prison jails when nobody else will hire them.
justmotteingaround
12d ago
Cool. It's crazymaking to me, I don't think anyone intends it. I disagree about motivations. I find the evidence so overwhelming that in any other scenario nobody would ever disagree (of course I could be wrong, so I make my argument).
People readily see the connection between Christianity and homophobia without any prompting. Or between the Amish and the comparatively extreme lives they lead. People believe that antivaxxers don't vaccinate their kids because they believe vaccines would cause autism. We believe what those group say about the motivations for their actions. We even believe that psychotic people really believed their delusions when their actions and retelling make sense of their behavior.
What I'm am talking about is not isolated to Bin-Laden by a long shot (nor does it apply to all Muslims). I'm saying such people get specific beliefs from specific lines of text, they actually believe them, and that modern scholars have said that these are plausible beliefs given the text. That does all the heavy lifting of my argument. It explains the over-representation of homophobia in Christians, and Charlie Hebdo. It doesn't preclude ambient homophobia or psychopathy. Those reasons will always be there.
I do think Bin Laden was a psychologically normal person who merely had some unhelpful beliefs about the creator of the universe. And there are many thousands like him. This does not preclude sociopathy etc. as an exacerbating factor. Sincere beliefs like martyrdom, jihad, haram (all as understood by many) are the best explanation. We know this because of a disproportionate amount of specific, observed behaviors. That's what is analogous to the Amish - who just happen to beliefs and actions are far more benign, but are equally explained by their beliefs. It likewise explains why there are Islamic countries with sharia judicial and banking systems. Why else would they do these things? (The economic consequences of usuary prohibition in Islam is actually its own fascinating modern history. They get around it in complicated ways to this day, much like orthodox jews have a special light switch for use on Saturdays). The kosher light switch only makes sense because of Judaism. State sanctioned public beheadings for apostacy only make sense because of Islam. Christian gay-conversion therapy only makes sense because of Christianity. Secular factors play a roll (well, not so much for the light switch).
Complex form violence unique to Islam has popped up in Indonesia. The claimed reason of the perpetrator? Islam. This violence doesn't look anything like the Inquisition for a reason.
justmotteingaround
12d ago
My first thought is that a studio is allowed to pursue any business plan they wish. I don't think this will work out well, but I'm not a gamer. AFAIKT, this game is known for is historical accuracy, and OP is underselling the extent of the about-face towards inaccurate propaganda in the newer version. (according to a new reddit thread, with screenshots and explanations here.
justmotteingaround
13d ago
This is a common critique, but it is absolutely crazymaking. I don't intend to jump down your throat, so bare with me.
When a Christian says "I think gay sex is sin" and points the Bible, we don't sit around and questions if that's really why they don't condone homosexuality. We know why the Westboro Baptists say "God hates fags". Its not mysterious. We know why the Mennonites build barns, drive buggies, and live in their communities. They will tell us. We know why Mao opposed the bourgeoisie, and did his thing. We know why Hitler did his thing. We know why Spanish Inquisitors did their thing. Nobody questions it.
But religiously motivated Islamic terrorism seems to beget an isolated demand for rigor no matter how much it makes sense of otherwise bizarre behavior.
Incredulity doesn't necessarily follow from the actions of even a mass murderer. That has never been the case. Moreover, Bin Laden was not a lone, isolated actor. He was part of a wider movement, an ideology, with a long history of beliefs, documented in ancient texts, interpreted in the writings of modern Imams and ulama. His stated beliefs totally explains his actions, not only in war, but also in life. His actions and explanations were held consistent for decades. They make sense of the actions of millions upon millions of people (ie the Taliban, ISIS, the Muslim brotherhood).
Bin laden was first and foremost a deeply religious person. It totally explains every facet of his entire adult life. The Taliban is likewise deeply motivated by religion. So is ISIS. They tell us. They can trace their reasoning through modern scholarship of ancient texts in the exact same way as modern priests can legitimately claim that homosexuality is a sin under Christianity.
My argument is that if you take the perspective that the beliefs are sincere and literal, everything starts to make sense. I mean to seriously convince you of this. Charlie Hebdo, ISIS, the Taliban, and 9/11 - to name a few examples - become no less mysterious than an Amish person using a horse-drawn plough in 2025. Thousands of people will spell out in excruciating detail why they do what they do. As Dabiq printed, these actions are completely Islamic (to some minority of 1.8B Muslims), and people saying otherwise are peddling a false narrative.
justmotteingaround
13d ago
rehiring this guys is probably the strongest at to say, no we don’t do cancel culture anymore.
Yeah, I actually love this aspect of it. I might even be glad it happened overall. I do fear the monkeys paw with this one. I'm unsure, and I don't want to get swept up in the moment.
My principle and practice / ideals and realpolitik are in conflict. I could hew to my ideals (ie "yes, its totally reasonable to fire a brand new hire to visible public service who you just found out tweeted 'I'm racist' over the summer"), or embrace the realpolitik ("cancel culture is so toxic that it needs to be destroyed, and a morally ambiguous case is the most effective weapon").
justmotteingaround
13d ago
I'm very happy about the direction and I hope it represents a sea change. However, I have strong reservations in this case specifically. He was recently hand-picked to rejigger the government, ostensibly on behalf on the American people. This past summer he tweeted "Normalize Indian hate", and "I was racist before it was cool." At best, this belies his immaturity. He already had a job at SpaceX, and he now has the sympathies of the richest man on the planet. He wasn't cut out for public service, and he'll be fine.
Vance said "I don’t think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid’s life". I totally agree, but Vance is being your typical disingenuous politician. Either Musk is hiring kids to oversee the government, or this guy isn't a kid.
In principle, I'm against this specific re-hiring because I think he earned his firing more earnestly than he earned his hiring. It would have been better to issue an apology and do nothing. In practice, I'm just hopeful that more sympathetic cases become the norm. The left will continue to eat their own for some time, so this is a competitive advantage on the right. And the right is probably closer to a humanistic, empathetic understanding of people on this issue. My point is that it has limits.
justmotteingaround
14d ago
Its not dead and there legal challenges were always going to happen. For the curious, the tweets in question were from this summer.
“You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity,”
“Normalize Indian hate” in reference to a post noting the prevalence of people from India in Silicon Valley
“Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool"
“I would not mind at all if Gaza and Israel were both wiped off the face of the Earth.”
Not sure how that last one is conceivably racist. The now-deleted account was @nullllptr but previously was called @marko_elez - the staffers name.
justmotteingaround
14d ago
A straightforward reading of the quran/hadiths says nothing about muslim lands and israel
My position is basically what Bin Laden et al have said about this claim. Namely, that it is untrue. They see the claim as true, and cite evidence in the quran/hadith, as well as classic and modern scholars. Of course, these are not universal interpretations, but they have been around hundreds of years, and are taught as valid to tens if not hundreds of millions of believers today.
My claim is that there is an unbroken Holy War in the ME, based on sincere beliefs in religious texts /scholars. It is the primary impetus for continued fighting. Geopolitical concerns are grafted on after the fact, and only insofar as they implicate religious concerns. While political concerns can be purely secular on the surface, religious concern precedes them. They have been saying this for decades.
Crucially, I claim that sincere, literalist religious beliefs best explains the actions of the most potent actors in the region (mostly because they keep saying it does). For reference they usually cite Quran 9:28, 5:21, 17:1, and Muhammed saying "Two religions shall not co exist in the Arabian Peninsula". In this light, Bin Ladens letter to America makes sense.
The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this. When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.
Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures... It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge.
No, they think non muslims should be fought, no matter where they are, until they are conquered and pay the tax, or convert.
Yes. They are first and foremost devout Muslims (in their interpretation of Islam). However, they repeatedly express specific concern about non believers in "Muslim lands" and/or within the "Dar-Al-Salam" (abode of Islam), and/or being near Mecca and Medina, which "pollutes" the land in a purely spiritual sense.
They are no more or less religious than Israeli settlers, who claim Gods Law above all worldly concerns. Various documentaries allow them to speak in their own words. They believe all of Israel/Palestine belongs to them only because of the Bible/Torah.
The west can support or not support israel or saudi Arabia, it won't impact islamic religious hatred.
Certain Islamists and Islamic scholars say the opposite. While they will always hate non muslims, they constantly reiterate the specific religious problems related to US support of Israel (in religious terms), as well as US bases on "Muslim lands" (also in religious terms). They also explicitly state that even if the West were to depart these lands, they would still be fighting for global Islam because that is the entire purpose for human existence: to convert everyone to the one true religion, by force if necessary. But the presence in the ME and support of Israel are pointed out as aggravating, religious factors.
I think if anyone imagines taking Islamist and settler (post 1947) worldviews as literally, Biblically true, so much of the conflict makes sense. When asked, these two groups will tell you what their worldview is, and that they take it as literally, Biblically true.
justmotteingaround
14d ago
In his own words, Bin laden repeatedly states his theological concerns as his sole justification for both wanting to kill Iraqis and Americans (esp in his 96 and 98 fatwas). He quotes scripture. His modern followers do likewise. They think Non Muslims should not be in "Muslim lands" unless they pay the tax. That's what they're upset about. Not geopolitics - but pissing-off the creator of the universe. They have stated this stated explicitly, many times, pointing to scripture, quoting specific passages, getting ascent from Imams and ulama. Bin Laden viewed the Baathists as apostates. That was is issue with them.
If you take the view that all these movements are sincere religious movements and really believe what they say, everything starts makes sense. The same goes for Hamas.
I posted bin ladens fatwas and writings recently, as well as this, which seems apt:
Dabiq Magazine 'Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You - 2016:
"One would think that the average Westerner, by now, would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions of the mujahideen—who have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations—don’t make sense... There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the shari’a—as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd—are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative... We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers... we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizya... We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited... What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary... we will never stop hating you until you embrace Islam."
justmotteingaround
15d ago
Worst. Deal. Ever.
The US gets: blowback, military escalation, and debt. The US receives: sand. Id rather they send a blank check and let Israel take all the flack.
Islamic terrorists have told the US for decades that the primary reasons for 9/11 and other attacks was US support of Israel, AND military boots on the ground in "Muslim lands". This comes from a straightforward reading of the Quran/Hadiths as understood by hundreds of millions. They sincerely believe that the creator of the universe wants them to dedicate their lives to killing US troops in Muslim unless they pay the jizya and "live in humiliation".
Saudi Wahhabists found Bin Laden so extreme on this issue (as they has made deals with the US gov't) and basically sent him to Afghanistan, where he was armed by the US and famously praised a freedom fighter.
Israel is doing pretty well. They're far from dire straits. The US should be hands off as possible. Financial support is quite tolerable as it goes to a small, stable democratic ally in a hostile region.
justmotteingaround
17d ago
justmotteingaround
17d ago
A lot of people on the right saw Kanye as
How people see him as anything other than mentally ill is beyond me. He constantly expresses delusions of grandeur, and he's freaking Kanye West! His beliefs and values are tied to reality by gossamer threads. I don't mean to dismiss or demean him. I think he is very talented. He thrives in the spotlight, and seems to enjoy it. But he behaves like a lot of people with bipolar disorder. Who knows why he does what he does sometimes.
justmotteingaround
18d ago
I refuse to use credit.
Perhaps you have moral objections to usuary, and that's fine. Live your values. But from a purely financial perspective, its incredibly irresponsible to not use credit and/or build a credit score. I just hope your not confusing/conflating issues with debt, spending, commitment, etc, with responsible management of ones credit. Its very important, often confusing or intimidating, but actually quite simple.
justmotteingaround
18d ago
focused on preserving the viability of Hamas tactics.
That's a very confusing way to phrase things. Are you're claiming that the US military was intent on helping Hamas? Or that, in practice, that was the effect of misplaced concern? If its the latter, then you would be agreeing with:
Lloyd Austin, December 2023. Whatever you think of him, that's pretty much what happened.
... which you claim you don't agree with. Maybe I'm missing something.
justmotteingaround
19d ago
I'm a bit confused. Who am I understating and misunderstanding? Just let who have what?
In case I read you right: I could go a on lengthy anti-Israel screed, especially regarding the settlers, their growing government support, and how the settlements function in or around Area C, or whatever. Some crazies - probably numbing in the hundreds of thousands, if not more - faithfully believe a maximalist, forceful, Biblical entitlement to Israel.
My post intended to highlight why basically the entire globe is subject to eternal warfare until every person on the planet submits to a version of Islam that makes sense to hundreds of millions of Muslims (and perhaps less; hard to say)
The former isn't compatible with an easy path to peace in Israel, the latter isn't compatible with civilization. Its relevant to OP because I think the main challenge in Israel is killing - or at best reforming - the latter idea. Far too many people fail to recognize its a challenge to begin with. Currently, the numbers are in favor of simply ignoring the settlers, but the power structure in Israel is not. The ideologies of the settlers pose a problem too.
justmotteingaround
19d ago
I'm highly skeptical of those absolutes, but that's irrelevant. The problems of a murderous, totalitarian, intransigent ideology are vastly understated, and wildly misunderstood. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!
Concerningly, it took a lot of digging to unearth some of the following highly influential, well-known, and explanatory quotations. They remove so much of the "mystery" as to what Islam means to hundreds of million of people.
Islamic World Front - 1998:
"On that basis [of jihad], and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it... We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them..." -
Bin Laden, 'Letter To The American People' - 2002:
"...jihad against the tyrants and the aggressors is a form of great worship in our religion. It is more precious to us than our fathers and sons. Thus, our jihad against you is worship and your killing us is a testimony."
Bin Laden 'Letter to America' - 2005:
"The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam... complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions... It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme... You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."
Dabiq Magazine 'Why We Hate You and Why We Fight Your" - 2016:
"One would think that the average Westerner, by now, would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions of the mujahideen—who have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations—don’t make sense... There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the shari’a—as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd—are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative... We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers... we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizya... We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited... What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary... we will never stop hating you until you embrace Islam."
Che Guevaras purported last words:
"I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man"
justmotteingaround
19d ago
“If you drive [Gaza’s civilians] into the arms of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat.”
Lloyd Austin, December 2023. Whatever you think of him, that's pretty much what happened.
"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”
Golda Meir, 1973. Whatever you think of her, that's pretty much why Israel felt it necessary to 'drive civilians into the arms of the enemy'.
justmotteingaround
20d ago
Atheism itself is not a system of beliefs. It cannot, in itself, be a moral parasite for the same reason not collecting stamps cannot be a hobby. Atheism in itself is devoid of moral content in the same way not collecting stamps is devoid of being a hobby. People often confuse atheism itself as having attributes it doesn't (usually nihilism or hatred of religion). Atheism is the mere belief that there is no god or gods. An atheist could take up the moral code of any religion, save a belief in a gods.
justmotteingaround
21d ago
My point is that atheism doesn't preclude (or necessitate) "a mostly rigid moral framework". It need not even interact with morality at all. It's the wrong word for what is being argued. Atheism itself does not compellingly argue for a moral stance. It can't parasitize something doesn't interact with, and it isn't liable for something it never claimed to do.
To the extent I see what people are trying to say, I actually agree. I especially think that a shared somewhat rigid moral framework is necessary for a society to hold together. An all atheist society could have a shared moral framework, and could even be based on religion. The A vs A-plus schism didn't say anything about atheism itself.
justmotteingaround
21d ago
That's kind of how I interpret it, but as written its nonsensical as is it misunderstands or misuses the term 'atheism' at a very basic level. Atheism doesn't necessitate any specific moral stance. Moreover, some religious are atheistic.
Perhaps it's unpopular because its the "WMD's" of the Russian invasion. Do Ukrainian and US actions/ provocations best explain the Russian invasion compared to belligerent revanchism and (ethno? lingo?) nationalism in the minds of Russian leaders? Or the significant ethnic/language/regional divide within Ukraine itself? Putin has stated his revanchist worldview in stark terms, but his casus belli was denazification? The Russia-supported conflict in Donbas killed around 15k people, the invasion has killed ballpark 1M. Stated another way: has the Russian state really pursued its own survival, or an ideological project? Just like the WMD in Iraq its probably a bit of both, but I can't fault people for thinking its mostly the latter.
More options
Context Copy link