BANNED USER: antagonistic and personal
>Unban in 4d 21h 34m
remzem
No bio...
User ID: 642
Banned by: @Amadan
remzem
8mo ago
China doesn't need a navy to fire missiles at Taiwan. It's only 120 miles off their coastline. It could continue firing them as long as it could produce them well after it's navy was gone.
remzem
9mo ago
basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur
which that might be based off.
It gives me 2000s edgy atheist vibes. Come on my podcast and offer hard evidence that god exists! That sort of thing.
Of course there isn't hard evidence. That's how the secret ballot works, if you manage to make the switch successfully no one can prove otherwise because you can't trace the votes back. The evidence simply doesn't exist unless one of the conspirators leaks it or fucks up. If they fucked it up the evidence would already be out there. It's not really a debatable issue, you could flip it on OP and ask him to provide hard evidence that the votes that were counted were in fact the votes cast by the voters and they wouldn't be able to prove that either.
You can point to other things like motive, ability, etc. Talk about how institutions and 3 letter agencies were openly coordinating against Trump and even foreign government spy agencies like mi6 appear to have coordinated with them. It's not hard evidence though, so OP can sit around and twirl their fedora all day.
remzem
9mo ago
Higher courts typically defer to the trial court's fact-finding
Surely this doesn't apply when the judge is openly partisan and basically making stuff up out of thin air? In other words that has to have actually been an attempt at fact finding for them to defer to.
remzem
9mo ago
You never watched Black Hawk Down?
Also conducted strikes a little over a decade after that on Al-Shabaab, supported Ethiopia in the War in Somalia, and Kenya during Operation Linda Nchi. Trump pulled troops out of Somalia, though they continued airstrikes from Kenya and Djibouti. Biden has sent troops back in (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/16/us/politics/biden-military-somalia.html) and that's just the military stuff and not the economic warfare.
remzem
9mo ago
If border patrol and the national guard are already siding with Texas what makes you think the 101st would side with the globalists?
remzem
10mo ago
The leadership in the military was already captured. You aren't going to change it from the inside, DEI makes sure that people like you aren't promoted.
It seems like the political persuasion of young people, i.e. broccoli headed zoomers that fight oppressive power structures and therefore won't join, is just the other side of the same coin that prevents traditional conservative recruits from joining. So the elite's poor leadership is still at fault.
They cynically exploited oppressor / oppressed dynamics and inclusion to Trojan horse themselves into all the major institutions. Now you have a generation that grew up steeped in that ideology. On one hand many are true believers that don't realize it was just a ploy, they hate the military, think the holocaust didn't happen and want to #freepalestine. On the other hand the white conservative youths are the kids of the people you knifed in the back to get yourself into power, so of course they aren't interested in signing up. Our elites don't really do long term thinking.
remzem
10mo ago
I'm not sure it will give Haley a boost. Older polls showed it could go either way. https://abcnews.go.com/538/stands-gain-desantis-drops-haley-christie/story?id=106101489
Frustratingly, it's not clear who DeSantis supporters in New Hampshire would flock to if DeSantis were to drop out after Iowa. According to the most recent Emerson College/WHDH-TV poll, it would be Haley — but according to a University of New Hampshire/CNN poll taken around the same time, it would be Trump. And both polls are almost two months out at this point, so really we're flying blind.
Those were from November though and most of the recent shift in Haley support seems to have come at the expense of DeSantis. Which makes me think he was bleeding votes to her for a while which would mean those that are left favoring him would be more Trump leaning. He also endorsed Trump.
remzem
10mo ago
How so? Russia winning just resets things to the way they were pre 2014, except now they have a puppet state that is completely devastated economically with serious demographic issues to grapple with. I'm not sure they'd even want territory beyond kharkiv / odessa.
remzem
10mo ago
Trump cares a lot about what his constituents think, he's obsessed with polls. War in Ukraine is unpopular and especially unpopular among his populist right. He could make it clear Ukraine is getting no more money. Then release whatever info the spy agencies have on the 2014 coup to try and paint Ukraine as an illegitimate state owned by the globalists, which would give Europe a way out. Ukraine would be forced to concede quickly, or maybe they fight another month or two.
It's probably the only way to end the war, NATO involvement just ups the escalation, risks nuclear war or other powers entering the fray like China as they wouldn't want their backyard unstable and to be further isolated by western expansion. Though I've been surprised at how non aggressive China is so who knows really, they are a very introverted nation. It's logical though.
I doubt he will do it though, it'd take more calculation. Trump is more of a seat of his pants person. Deep state would immediately start to paint him as weak or a Russian puppet again and it's very easy to get under Trump's skin and manipulate him this way.
Basically the war will continue to the last willing Ukrainian.
remzem
10mo ago
Being stupid, putting oneself at risk, being naive all seem like things that are more likely to make someone a martyr. I think he won't become a martyr because regime media in the west will simply ignore it. Or at best right wing media will cover it while regime media ignores it so it becomes a polarizing culture war issue, he'll be an Ashli Babbitt basically.
remzem
10mo ago
I'll usually get up and move around if the movie is over 2 hours. It's just nice to stretch a bit, gives a chance to get more snacks or use the restroom.
Mostly I just don't watch movies though, they are somehow both too long and too short at the same time. When it comes to entertaining devoting nearly 3 hours to watching a movie feels like it takes up all the time I have to visit with people. TV shows work better since you can still grab a bite to eat, cook something, watch an episode, then socialize more after or just watch another.
At the same time with a book series or a tv series you can get far more into the characters and world because they last a lot longer than a movie. So when it comes to my own solo entertainment I prefer books > video games > tv shows > movies.
It requires assessing something. It's up to you whether or not you support people you find worthy or not, but to empathize there has to be something there to empathize with, otherwise you are just creating something fictional.
Saving the neighbor is traditional altruism. You know them you've interacted with them so you can empathize with them.
Saving x from y shouldn't be altruism, you don't know anything about them, you can't empathize with them without projecting, and not just some minimally necessary projection, you're basically inventing them whole cloth.
As to whether it's more or less altruistic, it seems it would be more altruistic to save the neighbor who shared none of your values than it would be to save a neighbor that shared your values and therefore helped to further you / your groups interests. This seems nonsensical to me though and basically just pointless virtue signalling.
edit: Another poster argued basically exactly this that the definition i'm using reduces to virtue maximizing and that actual EA would donate to people that shared their cause (the neighbor they liked) because they are about maximizing positive outcomes. I do feel like it stretches the definition of altruism though. Say some extreme narcissist that took an iq test as a kid and got into mensa or something felt that they were likely to be more capable than anyone else and therefore had the potential to benefit the world more than anyone else. Would they create an organization that aimed to funnel all resources to themselves and call it effective altruism? Maybe EA people believe this? Seems like the economy and wealth agrees with this. Are there EA groups funneling all their resources into ai to create god? Idk, maybe!
remzem
11mo ago
Hemorrhoids maybe? Usually go away quick, but if you don't change your lifestyle (BM habits) they will recur and get worse. Common treatment is hydrocortisone which can thin skin and could cause bleeding. Also embarrassing to talk about and generally not life threatening (minor) unless late stage and strangulated.
remzem
11mo ago
I think this is a valid criticism. EA has set itself up as a bit of an inherent no true scotsman though, you could really call it 'True Altruism' if you wanted and it'd have a similar connotation, even if it isn't exactly the same (unless you're a consequentialist). There is always this, "well that's not real EA because it's not actually effective and the title says it's effective" baked in. I don't see how it's possible to demonstrate that what you are doing is effective without very abstract numbers that are too confounded and even then still very short term focused though. Add to that that my real world experience is generally more like some of the other replies down thread. Instant claims of moral superiority and righteousness with holier than thou anger at how anyone could question whether it's right to save a life or not and it's not really that much of a stretch to think that virtue signalling is often involved. I tend to prefer openly self interested ideologies for this reason, they're just more trustworthy.
ah yes, "KYS" nice to see the motte's standard of petty insults in as many words as possible is still around.
remzem
11mo ago
I will go with the "good things are good, and bad things are bad, actually" over this galaxy-brained advocacy for letting people starve to death or die of malaria.
Which is a lazy dismissive assumption. You have faith that lives are good or that they are in aggregate good and therefore maximizing them is positive, you don't know that. As far as I can tell you can't know that.
I'm not arguing against helping people, just that helping people you actually know is better, especially en masse (what if everyone logged off social media and did that?), than industrial philanthropy or w/e.
remzem
11mo ago
Still fits with my theory. EA like the progressive model but are a bit robotic and misunderstand it. Progressive recognize that EA is pulling a lot from their PR scheme but doing it poorly and spoiling the effect.
I am aware of that. I think most EAs are aware of that. The question is, is the marginal discomfort of a few people feeling more inhuman than they otherwise would worse than a few kids in Mali dying of malaria when they could have lived.
There's more of a trade off than that though. That money and effort could be spent elsewhere, making family or people you know about happier. I mean if they don't have anyone like that they could at least look towards their local communities? From what I've seen of the bay area it could use it.
remzem
11mo ago
People are social, people interact, helping a person live might increase the happiness of those around them or end up causing the suffering of those around them, they will probably do both simultaneously in varying amounts. The problem is you are trying to apply a value to an unknown quantity. Sometimes it feels progressives and by extension EA are so universalist in their beliefs that they can't even imagine a person having values that are negative, all people are inherently good but they are influenced by evil outside forces. Trump voters are mislead by Trump, religious people are misled by religion etc. People are capable of everything within the human experience from great altruism to great malice. Just saving a life without taking into account what you are saving is ignoring the human, it's ignoring what makes people human i.e. the content of their character, beliefs and culture. In a way I think it's even rejecting your own humanity as participating in the war of culture, having groups you favor over others, is part of being human. EAs come off as trying to stand apart from all that, like zoo keepers looking after the health of foolish animals.
remzem
11mo ago
Yep. Some of those "mouths to feed" might end up becoming doctors and lawyers, but that's not why we saved them, and they would still be worth saving even if they all ended up living ordinary lives as farmers and fishermen and similar.
If you don't think that the lives of ordinary people are worth anything, that needless suffering and death are fine as long as they don't affect you and yours, and that you would not expect any help if the positions were flipped since they would have no moral obligation to help you... well, that's your prerogative. You can have your local community with close internal ties, and that's fine.
and some of them will become rapists and murders. Maybe they already are. Have you stopped to check? Are they worth saving as well despite the harm they have done / will do?
Of course I wouldn't expect a stranger to help me. I'm arguing that it's not possible after all. In retrospect even people that do know and care about me have had some pretty spectacular failures on that front, though I don't blame them as long as they forgive me my own.
Death is necessary. We live in a world with physical limits, without death the resources eventually run out. Most of life from the realm of the microscopic to the complex workings of human society is just the process of determining what is worthy of those limited resources. When the determination is subjective we call it morality or justice and when it's objective we call it nature.
It seems trivial to me that human lives aren't worth saving per se. It's the content of those lives that matters, and if you don't know the content than you can't prove that you've done anything of value let alone something "effective." I mean if you had the choice between saving 1000 lives of people in a persistent vegetative state, or a dozen lives of people you know to be good and functioning people you choose the functioning people right? It's not the lives that matter it's the person, the content. If you could have more people living by putting everyone in a low energy state in some kind of feeding pod, where they undergo minimal activity to reduce calorie expenditure and just enough calories are provided to keep them alive is that good because more people are living? It seems cartoonishly evil.
and those are just overly simple demonstrations, in reality the world is more complex than that. Value is a human thing and though nature occasionally forces our hand the more advanced we get the more leeway we have to be subjective. There really isn't even a way to maximize value because people have different values and therefore competing interests.
That's the problem I have with EA. The whole, "we're saving more people than anyone" thing. Stopping needless suffering. Why is their suffering needless? Suffering can be important, it teaches us things. It leads to improvement. When you are saving them what are you saving? Do you know any of them? It's so surface level and such a philosophically empty paperclip maximizing type ethos.
I do agree that it hasn't been very effective PR for the tech bros so far. I think it worked better for progressives (though people are growing resistant to it) and EA seems to be a silicon valley version that has made the whole process too efficient and made it's contradictions too apparent. It feels too inhuman for most.
remzem
11mo ago
One thing that's always bugged my about progressivism and especially EA is that despite all their claims of being empathetic and humanistic they completely ignore the human. They are ironically the paperclip maximizers of philanthropy.
The argument is that despite some of the questionable things EA has been caught up in lately, they've saved 200 thousands lives! but did they save good lives? What have they saved really? More mouths to feed? Doctors and lawyers? Someone that cares about humanity would want to ask these questions. A paperclip maximizer that discounts a persons humanity entirely and just sees each life as some widget to maximize the number of would not.
The purpose of empathy is to be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes, to understand their feelings. Except, to do that you have to have some level of understanding of how they function, some mental model of their mind. Else you are simply projecting. It's easy to just imagine what you'd feel like if you were in Palestine or Israel etc. Except that isn't empathy. Even just listening to what a person says isn't truly empathy. If I were an alcoholic and I said I wanted a drink, to someone that has no knowledge of me it might seem a nice thing to do, but clearly it would not be. I'm not sure what it even means to have empathy for someone you don't know. I'm not sure it's possible. What is it really that you are feeling? Do you believe people are all the same, with the same wants? same needs? some values? It's such a dim view of people and of the world.
I suppose some people do, "We're all human," is something you'll hear espoused by this ideology, but that is literally the least you can have in common with another person. Trying to apply it to any other human interaction is instantly ridiculous. You wouldn't apply that logic anywhere in life, you don't hire someone just because they're human, you don't befriend someone, care about someone, hate someone. It's basically an open admission that you have nothing convincing to say. Even if someone was forced to compliment their worst enemy they'd manage to ad lib something more convincing than, "he's human."
Anyone that has had relationships with other humans, so basically everyone, knows how complicated it is to actually know someone. You can have spent years living with a partner and still be completely caught off guard when your mental model goes awry and your attempt at empathy then completely falls flat. The idea that some ideological group is more moral or more caring because of the sheer number of lives they've saved completely discredits and belittles one of the pillars of being human, getting to know each other, socializing, learning friend and foe. It discounts their humanity itself, that it's even necessary to get to know or to understand someone before you can help them. Your wants and needs don't matter, you are a widget, you need x calories, y oxygen, to continue existing and I will supply these needs, such altruism, wow.
Looking around at social media and world events I can't help but wonder if this is some major glitch with human psychology in the digital age. Too many strangers, too much opportunity for, "selflessness." So many people caught up in an empty and self serving empathy that has no imagination for others. Meanwhile people that have normal empathy are dismissed because they aren't as "selfless" as the newer movements. Spending time with and focusing on people that share your values isn't altruistic because if they share your values than you are less selfless than the progressive who cares about the stranger. (Not to mention the bay area tech bro that managed to save 0.0345 persons per dollar spent, blowing away the nearest tech bro competitor who only saved 0.0321)
This logic seems mad though, taken to it's extreme the most altruistic move would be to help someone that shares none of your values, and since altruism is a core value you should be exclusively helping the least altruistic of people as that is the most selfless thing you could do. Of course this is obviously ridiculous and self defeating (like the lgbt groups supporting hamas)
More cynically I think this sort of caring is just a way to whitewash your past wrongs, it's pr maximizing, spend x dollars and get the biggest number you can put next to your shady bay area tech movement that is increasingly under societies microscope given the immense power things like social networks and ai give your group. If you really want to help others you need to understand them, that means spending time with others, not with concepts. If you're lucky you might eventually find a few people that you understand well enough that more often than not your actions are positive and beneficial to them. Congratulations you have now invented the family and traditional community.
remzem
1yr ago
This propaganda has been circulating from both sides since early in the war. It seems unlikely considering neither side has seen mass desertions. One bit of info that seems to be missing from this more mainstream take is that there are different groups fighting in Ukraine. Usually the propaganda goes on about how professional soldiers like VDV are shooting the conscripted prisoners, or the ultra-nationalist like Azov and Kraken are shooting the recent conscripts ripped from the street. I guess if this were true then how it effects morale would be variable, as neither side is just some homogeneous group. I agree with everyone else that it's probably happened but sporadically and is exaggerated by both sides for propaganda purposes.
They don't really need to though? I mean I think the main reason China hasn't tried to take Taiwan is that it recognizes it would end up destroying Taiwan and that it can just wait for US influence to continue declining due to internal issues.
When it comes to actual capability it wouldn't be a problem for them. The Houthi's are still disrupting shipping lanes in the red sea despite American Navy presence and it's a big problem for the US. Iran can produce missiles for far cheaper than the missiles the navy uses to intercept them. Operating a navy that far from home has massive increases in cost due to logistics in resupplying etc. Would be the same with Taiwan. China can churn out missiles for far cheaper and can lob them from it's home turf while the US has to supply an island or a navy on the other side of the world. It's like a long range war of attrition / siege. If the US tried to actually put boots on the ground in China to counter production it would be laughably stupid even ignoring the threat of nuclear escalation. The US military is a lot less of a deterrent to China than the economic consequences of trade disruption. Which is probably why China is pushing overland trade routes so hard and otherwise just waiting.
More options
Context Copy link