phosphorus2
No bio...
User ID: 3264
phosphorus2
4mo ago
Marshall's failure to get behind the KMT and defeat the CCP really could be the greatest blunder in American history
Its fun to speculate on but I'm not sure that a having a counterfactual KMT led China would have turned out any better for the US. Probably, but a rivalry seems somewhat overdetermined. China is big, the US is big, there is bound to be at least tension.
KMT was pretty extreme in its own right. They considered themselves a revolutionary party, they had the same "century of humiliation" resentments against the West, they were ran by a warlord. Chiang Kaishek does not exactly strike me as a liberal democracy enjoyer:
In 1948, the Kuomintang again attacked the merchants of Shanghai, Chiang Kaishek sent his son Chiang Ching-kuo to restore economic order. Ching-kuo copied Soviet methods, which he learned during his stay there, to start a social revolution by attacking middle class merchants. He also enforced low prices on all goods to raise support from the Proletariat.
China really shot itself in the foot with the Mao led CCP. If that huge China takeoff happens in 1980 or 70 or 60 instead of 1990, where do you think China would be today? If they had the same GDP per capita as Taiwan does now their GDP would be 2x the US. Think of the consternation caused by Japan Inc. in the 80s, and that was with about as close of an ally as you can get. Yes Tawian / US are close now, but that is a vassal / big bro relationship, not peer/peer.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
My argument was reasonable.
Plenty of arguments are reasonable regardless of them being deep or thorough or correct.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
What makes you think I didn’t read the article?
You draw conclusions that are not supported by the article.
E.g.:
In interviews, staffers have also raised doubts about Reade’s claim that she was asked to serve drinks at a fundraiser, an incident she said she included in an official complaint of sexual harassment submitted while she worked in the office. But more than 50 former staffers said they didn’t remember ever attending a fundraiser for Biden in Washington, D.C., when they were on his Senate staff. And some recalled an office policy banning most of Biden’s Senate staff from doing campaign work.
This does not support the position there was no complaint, but I almost don't blame you because they wrote it very bad. But I still blame you because even if these were more solid they would point to Tara's claim being not credible, not that it didn't exist at all.
Like they interview 74 staffers, and close to a third of them remember Biden attending fundraisers in DC, which would corroborate Tara's allegation. This is also an example of a problem with interviewing so many people who never met Tara. What use is it asking a Biden staffer from 2016 if Biden had ever fundraised in D.C.? They lump in a bunch of useless data points in with people who were there. Like if the third of staffers who had attended a D.C. fundraiser worked in the 90s with Tara that is obviously a much stronger piece indication than if that third worked with Biden under Obama.
They also apparently had a policy that allowed at least some Senate staff to do campaign work (most is not all), also somewhat corroborating Tara's allegation.
The text in your hyperlink which I am quoting above does not support the conclusion that there was no complaint, it supports the conclusion that her complaint is not credible. Likewise with your second link now quoted below:
I remember talking about him wanting me to serve drinks because he liked my legs and thought I was pretty
This is just an accusation. You should have highlighted this part:
Reade says she doesn’t have a copy of the report, and Biden said Friday that he is not aware that any complaint against him exists. He asked the Senate and the National Archives to search their records to try to locate a complaint from Reade.
This supports the conclusion that there was no complaint because no one actually has the complaint.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
What constitutes a “serious investigation” in your book?
Do talk to the people who were actually there and worked with her, like Ben Savage in the article.
Do try and corroborate or disprove. Like what happened to Tara's contemporaneous sexual harassment complaint? That to me seems like a great way to evaluate her credibility, but they mention it but dont really come back to it.
Do not talk to dozens of people who were not there and stand to benefit very very much ideologicaly and professionally if their boss is not a rapist.
Do not involve a psychologist of violence
They interviewed a bunch of people who were there,
No, they interviewed a bunch of biden staffers, the overwhelming majority of which did not remember her and were not there. I know this becauase I read the article, you do not know this because you did not.
I dont find tara's rape credible. But asking a group of people (with a huge vested interest in joe biden not being rapey) "is joe biden a rapist" is not convincing.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
Asking a bunch of people who worked or work for Biden if they thought he was a rapist while he is running for president is not a deep or serious investigation.
Also that is not what the article even concluded, the article just ends. They just interviewed a bunch of staffers and a few psychologists, each gave their piece. Where was the conclusion? It ends with a paragraph that suggests biden was too touchy.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
If Congress wants to pass no laws then that is their right, and that is by design. Consensus is needed to pass laws, and if the consensus isn't there then the laws should not be passed. Those are the rules. If it creates a total mess then yeah that sucks, but the courts have no rights to step in and write their own. Especially since they draw their own legitimacy as being the referees of the law and not players.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
It is not literally the fourth reich but you would be embarking on the path that led to the third reich, which happened not because of some freak moral failing of the german people, but because making laws that explicitly treat differently people based on their ethnicity, with the goal of getting rid of the unwanted ones, is inherently a morally treacherous path.
In 2013 the Dominican Republic stripped birthright citizenship from every Haitian born in the country. Their stated goals were to get rid of an unwanted people, and those people were not wanted explicitly due to their ethnicity. They applied it retroactively, all the way back to 1929. They stripped citizenship from people who had only ever known the DR solely because of their ethnicity. Since then they have deported hundreds of thousands of Haitians.
None of the things you say will happen in Sweden happened in the DR. They did not genocide. They did not turn into the fourth reich. Doing this was not some impossible pedestrian dodging task.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
It is clear that in the aftermath of Obergefell both the left and right wings of American politics have decided to use the courts as their primary means of advancing their "big issues" rather than Congress, or god forbid, actually persuading the public.
If the courts didn't want to be used as a backdoor to legislation by tenuous legal mechanism then the courts should not have seized the power of the legislature by backdooring legislation by tenuous legal mechanisms.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
So tell me, is Sweden deporting Swedish citizens (naturalized or children of naturalized) of non-swede ethnicity, or are they revoking residency status of non-citizens?
No I am not going to tell you because I don't really care what they decide on.
But. If they do decide to deport a bunch of them, they can do that without killing them all and/or bringing about the fourth reich.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
This is what I said:
plenty of countries have done mass deportations without turning into genocidal states.
Examples that support my claim are Operation Wetback in the 50s, as well as whatever DJT is doing today.
This is what you asked:
What's an example, meeting your criteria of (a) the target countries don't take the people in voluntary and (b) no military force is involved?
You have added your own qualifiers of (a) and (b) to my position. These are not my words, these are your words. You should know this, you wrote them. I did not write them. I just quote them. I am not going to give you examples of a position you have foisted upon me.
If I had said this then you would have a point:
plenty of countries have done mass deportations to target countries that don't take the people in voluntary and without using military force and / or turning into genocidal states.
But I did not say this above. I only said this here.
(a) is difficult to give an example of because it is rare to have a country that doesn't accept its own. Which is why I did not say this in my original claim.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
The deportation force must not genocide people and successfully deport a large ratio of foreigners, (since the policy is remigration) many with deep ties to their community. Inevitably they will resist. Inevitably many natives will join their resistance. Inevitably, news will spotlight some especially cruel deportations, and local economies will suffer, increasing resistance. Deportation is very invasive: it's effectively kidnapping from heavily-guarded areas, here large communities of mostly citizens. All this means mass remigration can only be accomplished by a powerful, nonlocal force that is brutal towards citizens.
Ok so Sweden already deports people without doing all of this right now. So personally I don't think Sweden will turn into Nazi Germany, I think the more likely thing to happen is that Sweden just does more of whatever they are doing now.
making LLMs more diverse,
This is genuinely the most retarded thing I have ever read on this website
I don't understand why people here trivialize this.
Its because you have this post talking about Sweden and Somalia and migration and Nazis, and then at the end I read your solution was to get diverse LLMs. What the fuck are you talking about?
phosphorus2
4mo ago
What's an example, meeting your criteria of (a) the target countries don't take the people in voluntary and (b) no military force is involved?
My position is that you can do mass deportations (remigrations) without genociding people.
This is in opposition to OP who I quoted there and now here: "infrastructure (military tactics) to effectively implement remigration is dangerous for your own sake."
There is no reason that, domestically, you cannot build and use deportation infrastructure that deports people without murdering them. Suggesting otherwise, like you, is insane and totally baseless.
More specifically, how do you imagine this happening for Somalis in Sweden? Somalia doesn't even have a functioning government that deserves the name, let alone one that would willingly accept and provide the infrastructure to take in millions of highly reluctant coethnics that they often won't even have a language in common with. There's no obvious route that doesn't look like the Swedish military filling up a concentration camp, sending a fleet of prison ships to the Horn of Africa, conquering a beachhead and forced-marching boatloads of people onto it at gunpoint (probably also with a temporary holding camp/fortification at the target site, so the first 500k can't interfere with unloading the second 500k).
So a few things
- Google says there are 80k somalis in sweden. Not a million
- Somalia does not have a functioning government. Just send them on boats or planes. They can't actually do anything to stop it.
- Literally just put them on a plane
- You are hysterical. Like what are you even saying here?
"There's no obvious route that doesn't look like the Swedish military filling up a concentration camp"
ummmm if you really really had to put them in a camp, just put them in a camp and then DON'T MURDER THEM. If you really had to do all the insane things in your fantasy, just do them and DON'T KILL THEM. How are you so mind raped that you immediately go to quadroon Ann Frank hiding in a sauna to dodge deportation flotillas instead of just like not murdering people? Huh?
Then you get all the problems with rounding up the people you want to send off at home, deciding what to do with the third-generation Somalis, half-Somalis and quarter-Somalis, Somalis being hidden by and protected by sympathetic Swedes, possible Somalis who swear they are Ethiopian, et cetera et cetera. You can't just slow-walk it either, because your flotilla that is parked off of Somalia is draining the budget more than the welfare payments did. Soon you find that between the ballooning military operation and the home front, you have to take a lot of inspiration from everyone's favourite continentals in the late 1930s.
Look I don't really care what criteria the swedes end up on. Reasonable minds can disagree on the appropriate percentages to achieve desomalianification. But you can do that without killing them. You can just give them a plane ticket and be done with it. You have concocted this this scenario with beachheads and expeditionary forces and a million somalis being carted off at gunpoint... why? Why would that happen? Its Somalia. They don't have a functional government. They don't have a navy. They don't have an air force. They don't control their borders. They don't control their own territory.
Maybe just bribe them? Send them to Rwanda instead? Do some negotiations with them to change their mind? Tell them Sweden will recognize Somalialand? Literally anything else than what you said? You can deport people without murdering them! The US deports orders of magnitudes more than Sweden, (mostly) murder free!
But remigration isn't a solution. First, because I can't imagine how to do it remotely ethically. Comparing anything right-wing to Nazism is an overused cliche, but it fits here: AFAIK Nazis initially planned to just deport the Jews somewhere (Madagascar), but ended up brutally overworking and exterminating them, because their end goal was to get rid of them and that was easiest. How would you get rid of immigrants if Somalia etc. won't accept them? What if it's too expensive? What if it's dangerous for them? What about women and children?
You not being able imagine deporting people without immediately genociding them like the Nazis is a very silly argument. First because it is credible to no one that you can't imagine it (did you try at all? try harder!), and second because all they would have to do is just not genocide people. Very easy, they're already doing that. And there is zero indication that they are going to stop doing that, they already deport people without murdering them. What evidence is there that they will start? None. Its ridiculous.
These are difficult questions not only morally, but the infrastructure (military tactics) to effectively implement remigration is dangerous for your own sake. It risks broadening persecution, creating a fascist state, an ugly monoculture...the exact failure it seeks to prevent.
You clearly just believe that remigration = fascism, by definition, that is the logic chain you have laid out. So just say that. Its honest.
Why would you assume this would involve military tactics? What evidence is there that remigrations are inherently dangerous, plenty of countries have done mass deportations without turning into genocidal states. Huge claims with zero evidence.
So another point of discussion is why Örebro decided to focus on this as their stand-out policy. Is it just marketing and they plan to implement something much more moderate (I realize I'm bad at marketing, but I'm skeptical this would work for a generally leftist party). Is it a radical idea to appeal to the working class? Is it only the media that's focusing on this policy, and Örebro themselves consider it a less important part of the agenda compared to the socialist policies? (Probably all of the above, especially the third.)
Is it really that hard to take them at their own word? Why do you not? Why should we not?
A real solution must be broader than immigration. Fixing the other issues: making LLMs more diverse,
This is genuinely the most retarded thing I have ever read on this website
phosphorus2
4mo ago
I think that my statement is at least technically true, because "it is harder to sex id clothed persons than nude persons" should hardly be controversial.
a "technically true" statement that has no bearing on reality has no value
phosphorus2
4mo ago
I mentioned people unhappy with their surgeries and if you'd bothered to click on the link you'd've seen the thread titled "Unhappy with my results" right there on the front page (it was there yesterday, it's a bit more hidden now; instead there's one titled "Really disheartened." now).
Cherry-picking negative examples from your reddit cherry-pick
phosphorus2
4mo ago
I've seen the images they've seen, the collages, the screenshots, the threads, that gave them that opinion on SRS. It's not neutral, unbiased coverage.
Lol
So are you saying that if that had been the demand
No I said that was never the demand, and I asked you not to lie to us that it was the demand, and now I am telling you that when you argue with someone and try to make a point to them by telling them something that both of you know is not true they are only going to change their mind about your credibility.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
If transition means having your dick cut off and turned into an open wound that needs to be constantly dilated, however... I'm not sure I can believe that that really helps anybody.
You've been fed cherry-picked information about sex reassignment surgery. Many people are, in fact, happy about their surgeries. See /r/Transgender_Surgeries.
That's not cherry-picked information. That is one of the medical interventions in question. That is an actual trans medical intervention, and that is what happens in that surgery. The penis is removed. You are left with an hole that needs to be constantly dilated. You don't get to just waive your hands and say the magic words "cherry-picking" to dismiss arguments you don't like.
You pointing us to to reddit . com for a bunch of people happy with that same surgery is an actual example of cherry-picking.
"Some people prefer to be referred to as a gender different from the one they were born with."
It was never just this, don't lie to us.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
In most human societies, it is not as easy to identify the sex of another person.
impossible to have a conversation with someone who asserts such transparently false things
phosphorus2
4mo ago
The police in the UK have a very bad track record of caring of what happens to the UK's poor and vulnerable. This is more about class than anything else.
If it was a class issue where are the white british rape gangs? Why are they all pakistanis? Why are the victims all white?
Here is a quote directly telling you that the police covered this up because they were worried about race relations:
Does this seem like a class issue to you? Do you think that a white taxi driver would have raped this girl?
Its a class issue that when a pakistani calls up his pakistani friends and with the promise of gang raping a british child his pakistani friends don't immediately report him to the police?
Its a class issue certain not white demographics commit rape at rates orders of magnitudes higher than the native brit population?
As a comparison there's the case of Fred West and his wife Rose West.
Did Fred West call up all his friends to join in? Did a bunch of Fred West's friends join in when offered? Do you think that the typical lower class brit would join in on gang raping a child if offered the chance? Did the police cover up Fred West's crimes because they were scared of race riots?
phosphorus2
4mo ago
Anthropic doesn't want their tech to be used to spy on Americans. Your solution is that Anthropic should move to the UK, which not 2 weeks ago announced that they will be requiring tech companies, under threat of prison, to scan anything and everything on every single persons phone.
Open arms, but check your back for a stiletto.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
we can intercept most of their missiles and rockets at any time
Is that why you kept your ships at a decent distance?
What are you implying, that the American ships were chicken?
First thing is that it is not entirely clear that America actually can intercept most of Iran's missiles and rockets. I'm sure the intercept rate for something like a Shahed drone is close to 100%, but it is certainly much less for their more advanced ballistic missiles.
Second thing is that it doesn't matter if America can intercept most of Iran's missiles and rockets. You need to intercept all of them, a single miss can be billions in damage. 99% isn't going to open the straight. 99% is not going to protect your $10 billion aircraft carrier. 99% gets your THAAD destroyed. See below link.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2l2yl7r8r2o
Are you saying that America lacked the technical capacity to bomb Iran, or that America lacked the political will to deal with the fallout.
He is saying that it is not clear how doing this accomplishes America's objectives. If our objectives were something like:
- stop Iran nuclear program for good
- stop Iran missile production for good
- open Hormuz for good
Blowing all the bridges and power plants in probably stops 1, but it's not clear how it does long term. It probably mostly stops 2, but I don't think it stops it totally, and Iran having 1% the production they do now is still very dangerous and doesn't get you where you need to be. And it doesn't stop 3 at all. So unless you think we can bomb them into agreement with America it doesn't really matter if we can blow the bridges.
phosphorus2
6mo ago
This is not a Quality Contribution.
This is a Quality Contribution. You really ought to just read the whole thing and maybe not even bother reading my comment.
Rov actually posted to this website and argues on this website. Patrick does not.
phosphorus2
6mo ago
phosphorus2
6mo ago
I don't think this is a good explanation. On really any level.
Have norms really eroded in the last 50 years? 50 years ago it was the 70s, this was a huge period of political and social unrest. Political violence was at least an order of magnitude more then. Very widespread protests on the Vietnam war. There were daily bombings by an entire mish mash of groups - the Weathermen, Puerto Ricans, black power type groups. What do you mean the norms have eroded in the last 50 years, they're way better than in the 70s! Especially on political violence!
And your 3 points are lazy. They don't really explain much.
Like on 1 - of course the leadership/elite of the parties have more in common with each other than with us. They work the same job! They talk to each other a lot! They live part time in the same city! Of course you have more in common with the people you work with than with 330 million people you have never met! How could it be any other way?
Your point 2 is also very vague, it is not clear at all. What en bloc interests are unaligned? How has that unalignment increased in the last 50 years? What are some examples? Like they have an interest to stay elected? And raise money? That's always been the case. What changed? What eroded?
Your point 3 - there have always been unscrupulous rich people. They have always been willing to obtain money and power at the expense of others. They've always been there, so how could a supposed erosion of norms be due to them? What has actually changed? There are much better and much more interesting explanations out there. Like if anything changed I would say it is the technology, particularly the internet, that is driving changes. The internet is what allowed the rise of social media, and online echo chambers, and doom scrolling algos, and mean nasty people having a voice. DJT is the twitter president. Technological changes allowed his rise, he could bypass the traditional media gatekeepers. Zuck can't build facebook in 1970 when there are no smartphones and no internet.
Sorry but its just a lazy explanation when there are much more interesting ones to chew on. "Rich people bad. Politicians bad." Ok but there are a lot of people, there are a lot of rich people, a lot of them will do bad things. This has always been the case. A lot of them did bad things in 1976. So what changed? You offer platitudes that aren't even true and don't make any sense.
Here are some relevant definitions via Google:
You hear this argument:
so much because, by those definitions, that is what gender / gender identity is. If you accept those definitions then its not even an argument, its an extension of the definition. You cannot by those definitions have any input on that person's gender / gender identity as it is solely that own person's feeling.
If this was any other form of identity then maybe, but again it comes down to the premises accepted. If you accept the definitions the conclusion is foregone, it is smuggled in.
As with everything trans related you will get a much clearer picture by questioning the premises and definitions set forth by the troons than by arguing within them. Don't argue within a frame that is incoherent and solely made up to bamboozle you, reject the premises.
More options
Context Copy link