Getting the right ear pieced, also called the gay ear, is a way to signal to others that you are gay. I have no idea if it’s still a thing but growing up if you were getting a piercing the rule was left or both
Progressive-leaning lesbian and vehemently anti-Trump, actually. She was very much a part of LGBTQ+ culture in the 90s, and the ear piercing thing was a part of it at the time. Though it really has fallen to the wayside nowadays.
I have two in my right, one in my left, and have been told many times that its the same thing. More in the right ear apparently makes me gay. Im definitely straight, but I kept my piercings like this for the last 15 years, and wouldnt you know it, the only people telling me thats gay are other straight people. This is certainly just personal experiences, but my personal experience is that its not a ‘gay rule’ as much as its a ‘homophobe rule.’ Like you said, pretty sure it was a style or signal in the gay community in the 80s or something, but any more it just feels like an urban legend perpetuated by bigots.
Honestly, I don’t blame straight people that caught up with the “right ear” thing in the 80’s for that they haven’t caught up with the fact that it’s expired.
This was never a very reliable thing ever and certainly isn’t anymore. The joke the OP makes is in reference to what it was used for, which was an attempt to attack / stigmatize anyone who did choose their right ear for a piercing perpetrated by small minds. Many of those small minds have now grown into the hateful old bigots that are the base of the GOP.
I feel like this guy alone undercuts the whole meritocracy narrative quite a bit. I know the defenders of that worldview would go “okay, but except for all the exceptions…”, but in a lot of ways it’s just a more extreme version of the stuff that puts people in normal poverty.
I have a wall right here if I need to bang my head against something. I don’t know, maybe somebody else reading has the gift of convincing irrational people of things, but I do not.
I brought it up partly just to vent, and partly for any fence sitters that might be lurking and hadn’t made the connection.
Most people are wired to care about people that are familiar to them, instinctively, so I actually think it is a big step. Antivaxxers, as far as I can tell, genuinely believe the conspiracy theories and snake oil salesmen.
A classic case of success against all the odds, to manage to become a lawyer at all is a challenge let alone when you live in an iron lung. It’s an argument for people saying that no matter who you are in society you can succeed and that (therefore) society isn’t racist/classiest etc.
Yup. Through no fault of his own, the dude spent his entire life lying motionless. Where’s the merit in that story?
It’s not really helpful on it’s own in a debate, because you’ll 100% get “okay, but normal people” back, and it takes way too long to unravel how there’s not actually a hard distinction between various degrees of disadvantage. You’re better off with a mini Gish gallop, since there’s no shortage of examples, and your opponent will be too embarrassed to say the African children were lazy directly.
You could also use actual hard numbers if your talking to an audience savvy enough and with enough attention span to get that. That’s a rare audience, though.
The guy openly posted that the FBI wouldn’t dare raid him because they’d get a 45 ACP in the face. I’m no law enforcement apologist but that kind of boast can put people on edge. Specific threats of violence should never be acceptable.
It’s worth pointing out that the victim probably isn’t in social circles where the government killing people for no reason all the time gets much attention. Hyperreality is a serious thing, the guy’s worldview probably makes it seem like free speech exists, unless it’s a bad slur on facebook dot commie.
Netanyahu paid a leader of Hamas who convinced some ignorant hate filled Palestinians to do it to justify shooting bombs at defenseless women and children in a refugee camp
That’s great and all. I’m sure that works at the individual level. When your country enters an active war none of that matters, does it? So why bring it up?
@TheFonz I'm finding this conversation a bit puzzling.
You sort of sound like you want this discussion to cover all those tired Hasbara "talking points" and their common rebuttals on Americam discuasions or something, hence IsRaEl HaS A Right to DeFenD ItSelf.
This isn't a game or a logic 101 essay though. It's ordinary people from multiple countries discussing a humanitarian catastrophe that has killed over 37000 people.
Yep, that’s exactly what I wrote. You got me bro. Thanks for the charitability. Appreciate it. If only there was another possible explanation…perhaps written in a post two comments above. Oh wait, that would involve actually reading what people write and engaging with their points. That’s too hard for Lemmy I suppose.
Linkerbaan is lying. I’ve told him expressly several times on these boards that I am against the IDF. But of course none of that matters because this person can’t engage with the topic either in good faith.
Hmm. Have I defended the IDF, or have I been critical of flimsy arguments which enable the IDF to commit more atrocities? Hmm. I wonder which one it is…
I’ve clarified my position to you multiple times, Linkerbaan. I’m pro Palestine- it’s your rhetorical devices that cause more harm. Happy to explain if you don’t understand.
You have clarified your position as a staunch defender of the IDF’s actions very well the last 8 months and in this comment section.
At least be honest about your position.
Is the IDF counter-attack proportional or is it excessive compared to what Hamas is doing? I would say it’s absolutely excessive. How is that excess justified? I would urge you guys to put more thought into any of this discourse beyond “genocide; colonialism; apartheid; imperialism”. Please, for the love of god. Try. When you use cheap logic, all you do is give more fodder to IDF --and I’m not a fan of IDF.
Why are you lying? I’ve told you expressly many times I’m against the IDF. So now you have to lie? Says all I need to know about you guys. I find this very fascinating.
Hey @FlyingSquid : Linkerbaan called me a Zionist, which I find extremely offensive, especially after I’ve repeatedly told him I’m pro-palestine. I just wanted to make the record clear here in case there’s any confusion. I wonder what kind of warning Linkerbaan will get.
Of course it matters! If your enemy kills 3 innocent people on your side and you retaliate by killing a million people on their side, it matters a whole fucking lot.
Hamas is bad. Very few people will dispute that. Israel has proven that, at this point in time, it is far worse because it kills far more innocent people.
Discourse on Lemmy is so stupid. It’s so stupid. Like Facebook boomer stupid.
Is the IDF counter-attack proportional or is it excessive compared to what Hamas is doing? I would say it’s absolutely excessive. How is that excess justified? I would urge you guys to put more thought into any of this discourse beyond “genocide; colonialism; apartheid; imperialism”. Please, for the love of god. Try. When you use cheap logic, all you do is give more fodder to IDF --and I’m not a fan of IDF.
If I take your claim and analyze it logically it’s not sound at all. The typical numbers game to counter whether the occupation is justified: More civilians dead = IDF bad. Pause. Think about this statement for a second. Do we measure justification for war based on the number of casualties incurred? When the allies bombed Dresden, did we find reason to defeat the Nazis even though many civilian casualties occurred? Yes, a calculated risk was made.
The question is: What ought the IDF do in this scenario with Hamas perpetually shelling them with rockets by planting themselves in civilian areas?
Sorry… you’re comparing what Israel is doing right now to what allies did to a city in the country that was itself perpetrating the genocide? A country that was also itself invading Allied nations?
I don’t even know what you think my logic is beyond “the more innocent people you kill, the less morally justified your position becomes.”
Can you give an example of when that is not the case? Because I don’t know too many people who think that the bombing of Dresden was morally justified.
If their objective is to destroy Hamas and they determine that the only way to do that is wipe out the Palestinian people from the face of the Earth, you’re saying that’s justified because it’s their necessary military objective?
Necessary according to their military capabilities, which can be judged by observers.
Most observers don’t think destroying Hamas requires wiping out all Palestinians, but at the same time it’s impossible to destroy Hamas without civilian casualties.
Legal isn’t the same as moral, but there is no consensus on the morality of war. Some people are pacifists and believe all war is immoral. Most people believe war is justified if it has a legitimate casus belli.
Whether or not Israel is committing genocide is a separate question from whether a military action is morally permissible, because genocide involves actions with no military purpose. In other words it’s possible that strikes like these are morally permissible even if a government is also doing things that are illegal, like blocking aid delivery.
Once again- if Israel determines that wiping out every last Palestinian has a military purpose, that, according to you, is not genocide and is also justified.
You have a very strange idea about what is or is not justified in this world. You seem to think Dresden was justified and that killing thousands of children in Gaza is justified because things happen in war.
Please do contact the parents of dead Gazan children and let them know those deaths were justified. Let me know how it goes.
Jeesus. You are unable to hold more than one parallel thought in your head at once. A thing can be genocidal or casualty of war or both. Thats all this dude was saying but you can’t even engage with a simple thought like this because you have to rush quickly to grandstand.
That’s the problem. You are more eager to ascribe positions to interlocutors rather than engage with the points. It’s really odd and unnecessarily combative. This dude was just providing context and a different perspective. At no point -nowhere- did they defend the IDF and claim the occupation is inherently justified. Read people’s posts more carefully? I don’t know. Lemmy has no interest other than hearing themselves
Dude, sync for Lemmy has dark mode. I’m sure the other apps have that too. Maybe it will improve your dyslexia. Which of these screen grabs connect to the thread above? And these are screens of multiple users. The thread above is from Flow.
Edit: also, even if it was true in the past they defended the IDF. Who cares? Engage with the points being made. Is that too hard?
At no point -nowhere- did they defend the IDF and claim the occupation is inherently justified.
Insulting my reading abilities, apart from violating community rules (I do not moderate my own discussions, but this will make me take a look at others you are having) is a bit silly when you don’t seem to remember what you wrote one post before.
Yes, in a separate thread, which you had to dig up. My point stands: you’re not engaging with the argument. You’re here for cheap shots. IDF bad, amirite?
I don’t care…as long as you guys don’t have to engage with any of the points go ahead and ban. What’s the point anyway? You guys can keep the circle jerk going. Whatever makes you feel better I suppose.
I am not going to ban you unless you continue to violate the rules as clearly stated in the sidebar. All users have to abide by these rules, not just you. Insulting people is very much against them, so stop doing it if you wish to keep talking here.
For the same reason, apparently, that it is so hard for you to engage without making personal attacks. The difference is that if I see you do it again, you’ll be banned.
Listen, I will admit. I have been making personal attacks, that’s true. But only because it seems no one here is able to engage critically with any of the points without having to grandstand or divert. Here is a sample of a Lemmy conversation:
Also, love the pivot. When you can’t engage with the argument any more you resort to ban threaths. Just do it. Who gives a fuck about your little echo chamber.
Again, by definition genocide has no military purpose.
Israel’s military objective is to destroy Hamas. According to Western military doctrine (which Israel is capable of using), this objective does not require wiping out every last Palestinian. So it doesn’t matter what Israel “determines”, wiping out every last Palestinian is not permissible.
I think if war is justified, then killing children is justified because children are always killed in war. Personally I’m ambivalent about whether war can ever be justified, but I certainly recognize that most people think it can.
But I don’t agree with those who believe that (say) the US invasion of Normandy can be justified, but this invasion cannot be justified. Both involved immense civilian suffering.
Hamas did not invade Israel. What are you talking about? They didn’t try to take over territory. They committed an act of terrorism, not an act of war.
A missile strike is a legitimate casus belli. If you’re not a pacifist, that means it justifies force to achieve a military objective, which necessarily justifies killing civilians.
Whether that’s “countless” or a few depends on the objective.
In general, civilian-combatant casualty ratios range from 1:1 to 5:1. They tend to be higher in urban settings like Gaza. The Chechen wars were closer to 7-10:1
The US estimates 15,000 combatants have been killed in Gaza. If so, we would consider 15,000 to 75,000 civilian deaths to be normal at this point.
I consider all civilians to be equal, so I’m not going to separate children for the same reason I’m not going to separate Palestinian Christians, mothers, teachers, or retirees.
Okay, let me put it this way- are you so firm in your conviction that all the child deaths in Gaza so far have been justified that you would be willing to say that to the parents of a dead child? Because I’m willing to find some so that you can tell them that yourself. I bet they’d even be willing to get on video chat with you so you can tell them, to their faces, that their child’s death was justifiable.
So, are you willing to do that? Tell grieving parents that their child’s death was justifiable because Israel is accomplishing its military objectives?
Believing something is true does not mean that you should tell someone, especially someone in grief.
If someone’s husband just died, would you be willing to say, “You should know that he was cheating on you for years”?
If someone’s mother just died, would you be willing to say, “I really think you should have spent more time with her in her final days”?
If someone’s child commits suicide, would you be willing to say, “You could have prevented this if you had bothered to pay attention to the warning signs”?
Even if all these things are 100% true, I think it would be monstrous to blurt them out.
Sometimes compassion means respecting that people are not always ready to hear the truth.
Okay, so you would be willing to tell them that in a year, correct? You gave them time to grieve, so they would be ready to hear the truth.
Shall we make an appointment in one years’ time for you to tell the parents of a dead Palestinian child that their child’s death was justified so that Israel could meet their military objectives?
One year later, ten years later, a million years later: I would never say “You could have prevented your child’s death”.
Most people do not want to debate the circumstances of their child’s death, ever. They often only want reassurance that it’s part of god’s plan. And if that’s all they want, then that’s all I will ever say about it (even though I’m not exactly religious).
Do you think any Palestinians will be willing to hear that the death of a Palestinian child was justified so that Israel could achieve its military goals?
Edit: Wait a second-
I would never say “You could have prevented your child’s death”.
What are you even talking about? I thought this was about whether or not the death was justified, not whether or not it was preventable.
“You could have prevented your child’s death” is simply an example of something that may be true, but I will never say to anyone. Not next year, not in a hundred years. Not in Palestine, not in New York.
Do you think any Palestinians will be willing to hear that the death of a Palestinian child was justified so that Israel could achieve its military goals?
I don’t think anyone, Palestinian or not, will be willing to debate whether the death of their child was justified.
I think plenty of people, including Palestinians, are willing to debate whether the death of other people’s children is justified. For example, some Palestinians argued that the death of Israeli children on 10/7 was justified.
You didn’t answer my question. I will ask it again:
Do you think any Palestinians will be willing to hear that the death of a Palestinian child was justified so that Israel could achieve its military goals?
Some Palestinians are in the IDF, they might agree it’s justified. Some Palestinians don’t agree, but are willing to hear an opposing view. And many Palestinians, like many people in general, don’t want to hear an opposing view.
But no parent would be willing to hear that within a year? Just other Palestinians who did not lose children?
And let’s talk about agreement- How about a lot of the rest of the world? Would you say that most of the world would agree with you that Israel is justified in killing thousands of children for their military goals? If a majority, how big a majority? Can you back that up? If a minority, then it sounds less like it’s justified and more like you personally consider it to be so, which is a different issue.
As I said, I think the vast majority of people who have lost a child do not ever want to debate whether the death was justified. Furthermore plenty of other people - Palestinian or otherwise - do not want to engage in a debate over Israel.
I have no idea how many people in the rest of the world agree with Israel, and it doesn’t matter to me at all. I don’t think it affects whether they are justified. There are plenty of things that are not justified even though they are very popular, and vice versa.
Morality usually comes from some sort of first principles. Some are religiously inspired, but I think it’s much better to start with one or more moral philosophers.
If we simply put it to a vote, then we would likely conclude that slavery was moral in the 18th century.
Justifying the death of civilians implies justifying the death of children, because children are a subgroup of civilians.
Likewise, the ICC bans “intentionally directing attacks against civilians”. They do not specify children. Do you suppose that means directing attacks against children is legal according to the ICC? Of course not, because children are a subgroup of civilians.
Finally, I am not your research arm either. You asked me the names of relevant philosophers, I provided them. If you have follow-up questions about their ideas then I applaud your curiousity but you should probably just read what they wrote.
I know you want to pretend that children are not a special class, but there’s a reason we treat children differently from adults and the reason that I am specifically talking about then since you are saying their deaths are justifiable.
The death of children is not treated as a special case by the ICC or Geneva conventions. If they are nevertheless protected, then it’s not necessary to treat them as a special case.
I understand that you prefer to treat them as a special case, but I don’t understand why you expect everyone else to share your preference.
If you look at that link, you’ll find that many of the philosophical concepts (“proportionality”, immorality of directly targeting civilians) are codified into law and enforced by the ICC.
Which makes sense, the Geneva conventions were written precisely because laws at the time did not cover wartime actions that were viewed as highly immoral.
Sure. Medicine and electronics also heavily overlap. They’re in no way the same thing.
Now are you going to actually show a philosopher saying that it is justified to kill thousands of children in order to achieve a military objective or are you going to be honest and admit that no such philosopher, at least not one that is in any way widely-respected, would ever suggest such a disgusting idea?
Philosophers have justified killing civilians in order to achieve a military objective.
You have yet to show a single philosopher who has justified in killing an unlimited number of civilians to achieve a military objective. All you have said is that it wouldn’t be allowed for that to happen. Which doesn’t mean it isn’t justified.
Can you even show a philosopher who agrees with your upper limit cap on civilian deaths you put up earlier? Don’t tell me to do the research myself, don’t give me the law, quote the philosopher specifically advocating your upper limit cap.
Or just admit you were being dishonest. Either one.
You have yet to show a single philosopher who has justified in killing an unlimited number of civilians
And I don’t think I ever will. As I said earlier, “There is no military goal that justifies killing “any amount” of civilians. All of them have limits, which are based on military capabilities.”
Can you even show a philosopher who agrees with your upper limit cap on civilian deaths
I never provided an upper limit cap.
I said “we would consider 15,000 to 75,000 civilian deaths to be normal at this point.”
Normal, as in “typical”. Which is not the same as acceptable, it depends on whether you believe a “normal” war is acceptable.
As I suggested earlier, it’s quite reasonable to take the pacifist position that even “normal” wars are not acceptable.
And I don’t think I ever will. As I said earlier, “There is no military goal that justifies killing “any amount” of civilians. All of them have limits, which are based on military capabilities.”
Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas. Every time they kill innocent children, they create more members of Hamas. Therefore, their goal is any amount of children including 100% of them.
Sorry, I’m not going to stop making this about children just because you don’t want it to be.
So when do you think they should stop killing children before it is no longer justified?
Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas. Every time they kill innocent children, they create more members of Hamas. Therefore, their goal is any amount of children including 100% of them.
Destroying Hamas means destroying the current leadership, so it can no longer function.
It’s true that Israel is running the risk of inciting hatred and creating more fighters, but those future fighters won’t be in Hamas. They will be in some other organization that replaces Hamas, just like Hamas replaced Fatah.
destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities; and returning the hostages home
And these are Netanyahu’s current goals:
Seizing the Rafah Crossing is a very significant step towards destroying the remaining military capabilities of Hamas, including the elimination of the four terrorist battalions in Rafah, and an important step to damage the governmental capabilities of Hamas
You mean his goals keep changing? Hmm… seems like a constantly changing military objective would allow you to kill an unlimited number of children justifiably based on your reasoning.
Today, he says the Rafah operation is a significant step towards
destroying the remaining military capabilities of Hamas, including the elimination of the four terrorist battalions in Rafah,
and an important step to damage the governmental capabilities of Hamas
The first two goals look unchanged.
There is no mention of hostages in my quote. Maybe he isn’t interested in that any more, but it’s entirely possible he mentioned it elsewhere and I didn’t see it.
No, Hamas forces are steadily getting smaller. If there are new recruits, they are not enough to make up for the losses.
Your link:
Hamas may have lost half its battalion commanders by December, while half its battalions had been broken down as well.
The article suggests that they can recruit in the future, and maybe they can. Or maybe Palestinian militants will join a different organization, as I suggested.
But for now, Hamas is definitely smaller than they were in October.
You showed me an article that speculates about how it might grow in the future, but that doesn’t mean it’s growing now. It doesn’t even mean it will grow in the future. It’s just speculation.
As for how this war will end: I don’t know and neither do you. You seem to think that Israel will kill 100% of Palestinian children but I don’t believe that will happen.
You showed me an article that speculates about how it might grow in the future
Which is what we are obviously talking about when talking about reaching a military objective.
I am tired of your blatant dishonesty. This has all been about justifying Israeli genocide and I wish you had just been honest about that from the start.
The US estimates that there are 50K Hamas combatants, 30K soldiers and 20K armed police. Currently 30-35% have been killed (note your estimate was from January).
About 2/3 dead are women and children according to most sources I see. 15K Hamas of 37K dead exceeds 1/3, so that can only be possible if you count numerous women and children as Hamas and valid military targets.
Yet everyone except Israelites can see that it is a cover up excuse to exterminate the people who they have been trying to get rid off for more than half a century
You can target military objectives like certain infrastructure to disable it, but you’re not allowed to target civilians. The rules of war just says when civilian casualties aren’t punishable. You have to take measures to ensure attacks are as precise as you can make them and with as little collateral damage as possible.
“eliminate every human because they might be an enemy” is not a valid military objective.
That’s true, you cannot target civilians. But you can destroy a military objective even if you know it will kill civilians. Per ICC:
Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.
“Eliminate every human” is not a valid objective, but “eliminate Hamas” is.
Even if they somehow were accurate, these numbers only cover the direct deaths from attacks, the totals you cite include all deaths from starvation and disease and more. The attacks on the hospital system and infrastructure and access to food will cause the ratio to get much much worse. Famine is indiscriminate.
I can’t find any source showing the context of the 30-35% claim from US Intel. I can’t even find a reliable source of the US estimate of how many fighters they have. The last public numbers from US intel in January had much more detail and said 20% incapacitated, not 20% dead. A jump to +30% of Hamas fighters dead now seems beyond implausible. Especially because USA has also said they don’t independently track deaths in the region, they rely on local numbers.
Different Hamas officials have made different claims about their losses, and all the sources seems vague. It’s been reported as 6000 - 8000 either lost (could be casualties including injured survivors not able to fight) or dead. And some of them deny the numbers entirely.
25-30K fighters, 20-30% killed, so at best ~10K down to ~5K, assuming their intel is correct. It’s very strange that the estimate of killed fighters is in percent and injuries is in absolute numbers. Doesn’t make me feel confident they got the context right of the numbers shared
I believe those are still from January, when the total number of deaths was 25,000. So if they are correct then that would result in a casualty ratio between 1.5:1 and 4:1
I’m not sure that matters, since the majority of military casualties are caused by the same side.
So for example, when evaluating the Iraq War you would compare Iraqi civilian to Iraqi military casualties. There is little point in looking at American civilian casualties.
Seems like you need to learn reading comprehension if you can’t understand the relevance of an article about proportions in a discussions about proportionality
Hamas launched a barrage of rockets at central Israel on Sunday afternoon, setting off air-raid sirens in the Tel Aviv area for the first time since at least late January Source
I can see how it's harder for you to argue against war crimes from other nations if you're an apologist for war crimes committed by your own ancestors.
But many of us don't need to jump through those particular rhetorical hoops. The barrage of war crimes in WW2 was part of the impetus for strengthening international law against that shit.
I never said it wasn’t horrendous. Clearly the rules of engagement back then were different. That’s not what is being discussed though is it? What do you think I’m saying? Can you TRY to steel man my position or do you only like to hear yourself?
@TheFonz I'm sorry but you haven't expressed your position clearly enough for me to summarize and I'm not interested in trying to forensically reconstruct it from your comments as it's too ameliorised.
Like I said above, this conversation isn't some kind of game for points. It's just us talking about our views.
That’s right. Because you can’t engage with others in good faith. You can’t even call out logical fallacy correctly. Why are you posting here anyway? What’s your goal?
If you can’t even summarize my position, then who are you engaging with at this point?
Yeah Germany also claimed it was attacked by Poland in 1939. Guess everything after was justified then… The US claimed to have been attacked by North Vietnam. Guess Vietnam was aokay then. Putin claimed to have been attacked by Ukraine before invading. Guess we should consider everything since then as self defense…
You’re saying because some countries lied about needing defense no country should be allowed to defend themselves? What exactly is your point here? Is it possible some countries actually need to defend themselves?
Proportionality is simply not dependent on the question of who “started first” and you will always find something that is credibly or uncredibly put forth as “the beginning”. This is why Israel tries to claim it all started on Oct. 7. This is why Germany argued Poland started arming and preparing for war first. This one is even technically true, but ignores the context of Germany already announcing its Lebensraum ideology back then.
That is the problem. There is a both a larger context and a direct context to the question of proportionality, where there is no plus points for being “just retaliating”. Retaliation can be a legitimate goal, but only in the context of deterring from further attacks, like Iran did after the embassy attack.
Going to fight against Nazi Germany for comparison of porportional counter attacks is really dumb when the Nazis killed more civilians than all their enemies during WWII combined. And it is not like the russians did not kill those in retaliation aswell, it was just impossible to catch up (we are going to ignore what Stalin did outside of fighting germany for this comment). Comparing a power capable of subjugating nearly a whole continent in the span of some months (all while planning and executing the murder of millions of civilians) with hamas got to be a bad joke.
You’re incorrect. War has escalation of force for modern militaries. My rules of engagement in Iraq were the similar to the poster above you. If someone threw a rock at me I couldn’t just shoot them.
No, we’re talking about people lobbing a handful of rockets at a multi-billion dollar defense system that is more than capable of stopping such a small attack. Kind of like throwing rocks at a tank.
Then we’re talking about a response of bombing tents that have no defense system. Kind of like using a tank to fire shells at a person in response to a rock being thrown.
It’s called an example. I was demonstrating escalation of force. You should maybe rethink how you talk to people. Being so rude and confrontational isn’t going to bring people to your side of the argument.
Yeah, ok but perhaps be careful with the example you choose. There are people here who genuinely believe Hamas is literally fighting only with rocks. Escalation of force is a discussion to be had, but no one here is interested in that.
I’m not interested in people coming to my side, because oddly enough, more often than not I’m actually aligned with the people criticizing me on the actual positions.
My issue is more with people not coming to sound conclusions using sound arguments and just repeating sound bytes from social media. They aren’t capable of engaging with any of these topics beyond really superficial levels.
Your issue is that you have already come to a conclusion, and your issues aren’t issues to anyone but you. Give me an example of someone saying Hamas is literally fighting with rocks as an actual answer.
So tell me, should the US have stopped attacking Japan once they’d matched the ~2.4k soldiers killed at Pearl Harbor?
Or should the allies have stopped “genociding” Nazi Germany once they’d matched Hitler’s body count?
OF COURSE NOT. This isn’t about tit for tat. Especially when going after an enemy that is openly committee to your annihilation. Israel certainly appears to be doing a shit job of it, but there is no need to muddy the waters with specious arguments.
You’re mixing up things. Proportionality is a specific thing about scale. It doesn’t say you’re not allowed to respond to failed attacks.
You can for example evaluate the likely future harm your enemy would cause if you don’t stop them and then apply the proportionality principle to that when you try to stop them. Or evaluate likely harm if somebody else attempted and succeeded with an attack you just stopped, and decide what kind of deterrence is needed based on that.
And Israel isn’t just doing a shit job of it. they’re not doing it at all
They are trying to discredit the casualities numbers by saying it’s coming from hamas run health ministry while the world health organization said that there is no reason to doubt the numbers
What I have heard is that Palestinians are incredibly good at taking notes / data and statistics. They have record keepers in the hospitals whose entire jobs are counting the casualties and dead. That’s where the numbers that are exact to a single casualty come from.
It’s because they are desperately trying to frame this as Israel responding to a terrorist attack rather than Israel openly defying the International court of justice order to stop bombing civilians.
Israel is openly committing genocide while actively trying to frame this as defense of their borders, which could have worked as a strategy had not everything they have stated and said been proven absolute lies, to the point where they got their feelings hurt and had to openly assasinate journalists so that what they say can no longer be shown to be lies.
That’s my assumption–it’s basically legal extortion.
I will say that I believe that there is antisemitism in most places because there are humans in most places. Whatever happens at Harvard is probably not exceptional or notable in any way.
Universities encourage critical thinking. For a lot of young adults, it’s the first time being exposed to a lot of new ideas in their infancy. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was higher simply because they are processing new concepts and sometimes come to unfortunate conclusions.
And it doesn't help that, as of late, the term "antisemite" is aggressively being expanded to include those who show any criticism whatsoever of the current Bibi administration.
It's crazy to me. On October 6th, 2023, the Bibi administration was largely viewed as a far right, antidemocratic, religiously extreme collection of intensely corrupt lunatics. On October 7th, so many otherwise totally-reasonable people just forgot how they felt the day before.
That’s how people respond to terrorist attacks. Look at what America did after 9/11, rallying behind Giuliani and Bush to attack Iraq because… Then you had bigots attacking Sikhs on the streets, Freedom Fries because France opposed indiscriminate bombing, and just about the most ridiculous performative security measures for people wanting to travel in a plane.
History will remember. We will look back on this time as a dark period of bigotry, violence, oppression, and genocide.
It’s true. And we didn’t fix anything, we just made travel so much more miserable and put in laws to let the government spy on people. As we saw with both 9/11 and Oct 6, high surveillance isn’t the answer. We need to move beyond security theater and retribution.
I have also found that some people become very angry when you point out that Palestinians and Arabs in general are actually Semites. There were actually a whole lot of Semitic groups in history.
Antisemitism has nothing to do with whether or not someone is of an ethnicity related to the Semitic language group. My guess would be that you are upsetting people not by pointing out that Palestinians are Semites, but by incorrectly claiming that antisemitism is in any way connected to the - very real - discrimination against and hatred of Palestinians and Arabs.
I don't have the patience or tact to offer thoughtful and gentle explanations (as you did) when it's "pointed out" that many people from the region could be considered Semitic.
It's very much the sort of argument my clever nephew might make. He's a smart kid, but he hasn't gotten to the point where he can understand that a clever fact is not necessarily in any way relevant to a complex problem. And certainly not a devastating argument that can simply stop everyone in their mad mutual desire for destruction.
"Well, shit. We were all Semites the whole time????"
Critical thinking doesn’t make people racist, though. I work at a university and have seen many people be edgy. Some do it for effect because they are, frankly, very immature and like that attention. Most who are actually racist were brought up that way or went down the rabbit hole sometime in high school.
Not to mention that Harvard will likely settle just to avoid going through discovery simply because they know there is an entire political movement looking for ANY excuse to go for blood with them.
The entire complaint is linked in the third paragraph. It goes into some detail about specific incidents of harassment of Jewish students and some of the ways that the university is systemically hostile to Jewish students, particularly those who express support for Israel, which, “is a crucial component of Kestenbaum’s and SAA members’ Jewish identities, and many of them are descendants of survivors of the Nazis, with family and friends in Israel.”
It’s really quite sad that the Israel simps have abused the idea of antisemitism to the point that when I see accusations of antisemitism, I genuinely have no idea if they’re taking about serious bigotry or if they’re talking about people saying it’s bad to murder civilians.
No need to speculate; the allegations are linked in the article:
Harvard students and faculty harass, discriminate, and assault Jewish students—including on October 18, when a mob of protesters attacked a Jewish student, and the next day, when a mob trapped a group of Jewish students in a study room
Subjected to intense anti-Jewish vitriol, including from their own professors and Harvard administrators, Kestenbaum and other Jewish students, including SAA members, have been deprived of the ability and opportunity to fully participate in Harvard’s educational and other programs and have been placed at severe emotional and physical risk.
Moreover, over the past ten years, Harvard has instituted admissions policies that have severely reduced—by as much as sixty percent—the number of Jewish students, an enormous decline that evinces an intentional effort, much like Harvard’s quotas one hundred years ago, to exclude Jews.
when a mob of protesters attacked a Jewish student, and the next day, when a mob trapped a group of Jewish students in a study room
The important part here seems to be left out: did Harvard punish the students responsible for this? I find it hard to believe that they got away with this if they actually did it and we know who they are.
He showed up at a pro Palestinian protest to try and dox the students there. They asked him to leave. He ignored them and was then escorted out. People did not say nice things to him.
I start d (slowly) reading this and… Is this how legal briefs are written? It seems like a reddit blog post. For instance in the examples section they write “SJp … is one of the most vitriolic antisemitic networks on college campuses. SJP was founded by the chairman of American Muslims for Palestine (“AMP”), the leadership of which overlaps with the leadership of organizations that have been shut down by federal authorities, whose assets were frozen by the U.S. Treasury Department, or that were found liable in civil actions for providing material support to Hamas. SJP receives funding and training from AMP as well as from universities. SJP and its affiliates sponsor antisemitic events, host antisemitic speakers…” All of which I’m reading expecting a citation somewhere… Anywhere. It seems like easily verifiable stuff. But there is none. Is this how legal briefs are written?
Being anti Israel is just not the same as being antisemitic. I’m not sure why that is such a hard thing for people to understand. Israel and Judaism are different things.
With the information about the organzied harassment campaign that is openly available, I feel confident in judging that group as agitators and lawyers that terrorize human rights advocates.
I really hope this is just PR shit and Jack Black isnt ending a friendship with a longterm friend over an edgy joke, cause like man, I know he’s a celebrity, but I had a lot of respect for him up until this point
Just the other day, I looked at him with his shaggy ass beard, half done up bright shirt and too large shorts singing whatever the fuck and thought to myself:
“I have mad respect for jack black, That is a man that truly does not give a fuck. I should try and be more like him”
And then this reaction comes out and all that is gone and I’m reminded that I’m a terrible judge of character.
I think its more because instead of just saying “hey that’s not cool” he publicly shat on his friend and threw him under the bus, disbanded the band, cancelled the concert.
He obviously knows Kyle pretty well, so this sentiment can’t be a surprise to him. So therefore he has no integrity by supporting his friend behind closed doors and being two faced when his sentiments are aired in public.
Part of not giving a fuck is having the integrity to be who you truly are, and from his reaction I can see is just an act.
It goes both ways though. Kyle should also know his friend wouldn’t be happy about potentially losing his career over calls to murder a person for political reasons.
Disclaimer: I fucking hate Trump and wish he was killed years ago so I’m not saying I disagree with what Kyle said, I’m just disagreeing with when he chose to express it because he was there representing tenacious D which extends to jack as well. I’ll also add that at this point I worry that killing Trump now would only replace him with someone actually competent to drive the fascism train over the tracks that are already firmly in place, but that’s a different discussion.
Jack did a fundraiser for Biden. I suspect he’s just toeing the Dem line on this one. Doesn’t really want to see “Democrat fundraiser calls for death of Trump” splashed across the news.
If I was about to go on tour with my best friend and he said something stupid that put us in danger from real life lunatics with guns, I’d fucking cancel the tour too because I cared about us both and our relationship. Besides, if you can’t tell your friends they’re wrong when they’re wrong, they’re not really your friend. This isn’t necessarily the act of betrayal you’re making it out to be.
I’m betting that making this statement publicly makes it easier to break the tour contracts, rather than backing out of the tour without saying why.
That part I understand, its the “put future projects on haitus” I’m commenting about. Although I guess I gave more detail in my other comment than I did this one so fair play
And doesn’t this go both ways? One of my favorite sayings is: a friend is someone who when you’ve made a fool of yourself, doesn’t think you’ve done a permanent job of it. Perhaps Jack Black could forgive his best friend and move along. Perhaps make a joint statement at the next event.
Wouldn’t it be a hell of a thing if Biden could channel the vengeful spirit of Charles Sumner for just ten minutes on live TV during a debate? Class, open your history textbooks to chapter 11, The Caning of Trump.
Breathing heavily, dabbing sweat off his brow, Joe Biden finally stopped swinging the sledgehammer at the bloody pulp that was once a person, who was once Donald Trump, who was once a US president. Joe cleared his throat to signal to the crowd to end their “let’s go Brandon” chanting.
“My fellow Americans, by decree of executive order, and I urge Congress to pass legislation to issue permanence to it, a US president is not immune from prosecution, starting now.”
Well, we finally had a courtroom laugh moment. Prosecutor asked Trump about his involvement in financials from end of 2021. Trump said his focus at that time was on China and Russia and “keeping our country safe.” Courtroom laughed. Note: Trump wasn’t president in 2021.
I’m sure that’s the case. “We all know about your credentials and breadth of experience.” And the crowd laughs already, before he even gets to the punchline of firing Gary Busey. Dude’s been a complete joke for decades.
Haha yeah I loved how he caused the deaths of so many innocent people through the largest growth in drone strikes.
Truely he seems so genuine, I’d love to sit down for a beer with him and Bush and than proceeded to kill myself for being a fucking idiot and having any favourable view on these scum.
He would never admit feeling humiliated, but I’d wager his entire personality is shaped around covering for his profound internalized shame and insecurity
Nah, I don’t think that’s true. The dude is insecure as fuck, he kinda laughs stuff off, but inside he’s fucking frothing at the mouth and then unleashes it on twitter. In response, he’ll just double down with his bullshit and play it off, but in private, he writes people down on his “list”.
NAL but I think if Trump had argued he was still the President during that time period instead of admitting he wasn’t, then it would have been perjury.
Perjury is more than just saying something factually wrong on the stand. Republicans spent years talking about how getting trump in a courtroom was a perjury trap because he would make a small mistake like recall the January 12 of 2011 was a Saturday and then they prosecution would be like, “no it wasn’t and now you go to jail because we hate America”. In reality, perjury basically takes someone knowingly and intentionally entering testimony that is false. Simply forgetting that he wasn’t president at the time would not qualify.
Officials said he refused to step off the vessel and threatened to kill himself. He also claimed that he had a bomb on board, according to court papers.
Oh so he’s not a cool weirdo, he’s a terrible weirdo. Damn.
To think he avoided drinking polonium tea and falling out of a window and self inflicted gunshot wound to the head for all this time just to die in a freak tragic accident.
Dmitry Utkin (who was also on the plane) is definitely a nazi, and Wagner has a lot of links to far-right elements in Russia. Wagner itself is supposed to reference Richard Wagner, Hitler’s favorite composer
so Prigozhin is definitely in bed with nazis but idk anything about his actual beliefs
Also the guy Nietzsche ghosted because he couldn’t stand his antisemitism.
…sorry random association the first existentialist gets maligned all too often. “Talks about nihilism and how it needs to be overcome == nihilist”, yeah sure.
I spam redsails but it’s such a convenient site. I read The Gay Science as one of my first philosophy books, but I completely turned around because of Losurdo
The antimodernism thing is like the least charitable take one can have on Nietzsche but at least it’s not one that’s based on his sister’s stuff.
Some quick thoughts:
His stance on democracy has to be understood in the context of its days, much less developed than now, and in the Kaiserreich also very much class-based, ruled more by mass psychology than consideration of what actually good politics would be – on both sides, though I won’t deny that the nobles and bourgeois of course needed their wings clipped. At the same time he’s very much an elitist in the sense of, erm, personal improvement, sees the need for the individual to transcend the forces acting around them and develop their own path as sublation of everything, contrast that with the political forces in parliament being not even close to that but simple thesis-antithesis with no sign of actually starting to go beyond that and you have an easy case for “Nietzsche simply didn’t believe in the process democracy”.
To all this he prefers “hierarchy” [Rangordnung]
Is that really the term Anglos use as a translation. “ranking” or even “precedence” might’ve been a better choice. Honestly just translate it literally: “Rank order”. In any case and I won’t dwell on it: Nietzsche always describes these rank relations as in flux, not set in stone, and makes fun of tying it to inheritance. I don’t see him at odds with Bakunin, here, who will readily bow to the authority of the bootmaker.
At the same time he warned of the dangers of not having such a thing, of insisting on some moral-metaphysical notion of inviolable human equality, and we just recently had the opportunity to see that kind of thing in action: I’m speaking of the masses of people unwilling to bow to the authority of virologists and epidemiologists, going “nu-uh I did my own research”, meaning they read some bullshit blog somewhere. Nietzsche himself might’ve rather thought about the Jacobine terror and stuff.
Overall, when reading Nietzsche I recommend starting with Thus spake Zahatrustra, as a work of philosophical mysticism, get to grips with what it means for the individual mind, and interpret the rest in that light, and specifically consider whether he might not have framed a lot of things very differently had he witnessed Nazi Germany.
A parallel which comes to mind here is Plato, who likely would be similarly at odds with the modern scientific method as Nietzsche is with the democratic process, stressing the importance of intuition as to not de-humanise the process: Are we, as peoples, really engaging in democracy, or do we let a system of mass psychology rule us?
Lastly, my psychological armchair: Was he someone who often felt alone in a crowd? Yeah, probably. Clowns to the left, jokers to the right.
I’m not sure what your intention is with this comment if I’m being honest but it just seems like a broad defense of Nietzsche based in misunderstanding the claims of Losurdo, honestly. Nietzsches obsession with the individual in that way and unwillingness to accept change outside of growing toward his übermensch are a basis for the most anti-communist philosophy.
If I’m honest, I just doubt you’ve really read Nietzsche as deeply as Losurdo
Oh I certainly haven’t read him as deeply as a Nietzsche scholar. OTOH your favourite Nietzsche scholar also isn’t the sole authority on Nietzsche. All I’m saying is that I don’t share Losurdo’s interpretation there.
As to anti-communist – why would I care, I’m an Anarchist. And yes Kerry Thornley definitely had a point when he said:
[…] Universal Enlightenment [is] a prerequisite to abolition of the State, after which the State will inevitably vanish. Or — that failing — nobody will give a damn.
This is because a stateless society cannot be built on anything but grassroots. And for those grassroots to support proper societal homeostasis, to not degenerate into or be co-opted by reactionary forces, we need a decent percentage of Übermenschen, people who can analyse the material conditions beyond good and evil, beyond master and slave morals, and share that understanding. Let’s say at least one in twenty so that everyone knows one, personally, face to face. Ideally, everyone, but I doubt that’ll ever be the case because division of labour.
As to anti-communist – why would I care, I’m an Anarchist.
Lol. Lmao, even.
I’d think you’d care for practical reasons, at least. Has there ever been an instance of severe persecution of communists without lumping in anarchists as well? I’m seriously asking; I just know that the Red Scare targeted anarchists just as much as communists, but idk if that changed at all over the course of the century.
I’d think that in the practical sphere it’s irrelevant what a philosopher says as there’s always going to be, say, a sister, which will bend the philosophy to whatever opinion the anti-intellectuals in charge like to hear.
The solution is to have a populace informed enough to not put such people in charge.
As to our own Red Scare over here: Yes the Radikalenerlass also targeted Anarchists but it was abolished before I started shool, or the GDR collapsed. What gets you in trouble nowadays is (as the constitution intended from the start) trying to undermine the free and democratic basic order and I don’t do that. I want to radically expand it, in a Kantean sense my politics are those which make it a natural law, see homeostasis.
One more point here, made clearly by Marx, is that understanding how systems shape humans both as individuals and as a society is not de-humanising, it’s possibly the most humanising something can be. To be human is to be shaped entirely by your environment and your reactions to it simultaneously, and mass psychology is how we come to have anything remotely psychological to be. It’s finding how to live as both a human individual and a human who partakes in, creates, or grows away from mass psychologies. This misunderstanding is exactly Nietzsche hate for the masses. He attempted to understand HIMSELF as not human in this way and create a philosophy around it, while he himself was calling back to individual, anti-change philosophies from the Greeks who did the same (Plato as opposed to Aristotle)
is that understanding how systems shape humans both as individuals and as a society is not de-humanising, it’s possibly the most humanising something can be.
Yes but no. It’s dangerous territory, promising both great rewards yet also containing fatal traps: The problem is reducing our own understanding and with that perception of the world to our intellectual understanding. To paint a caricature: When you start to measure mouth angles to figure out whether someone’s happy instead of relying on your mirror neurons (“subjective interpretation”, cry the Skinnerites). Psychology itself is a very good example here, they legitimately did have to make studies to prove that mood and posture are connected because there were just too many sceptics around with their heads up in their theories, disconnected from their own humanity, their perception of reality having become limited to those theories, not unwilling but unable to see things that don’t come with a p value. And that’s within psychology itself have a good guess how it’s in other disciplines. Not really that relevant in say mathematics, but in economics? As said: Fatal.
Evolution already gave us tools to understand the world. Sure, it also enabled us with rationality, the capacity for science, but to deny that natural understanding is just as bad as shutting off our rationality, it alienates ourselves from our own nature with contains both, in both cases we’re incomplete. And for the record: It also provided us with the capacity to mistake social conditioning for actual intuition.
And yes this all is very much the crisis of the millennium but OTOH you shouldn’t worry too much evolution already seems to have accounted for it: Skinnerites tend to be unfuckable. That’s because they’re alienated from their own nature, and that makes you ugly.
To be human is to be shaped entirely by your environment and your reactions to it simultaneously, and mass psychology is how we come to have anything remotely psychological to be.
There’s variance in human psychology that makes individual either more or less prone to move with the flock, or look at it critically, it’s a necessary condition for societies to be even half-way functional: With only pure flock swimmers we’d be blindly following each other down cliffs, with only pure critics we’d not be a social species in the first place. And a society made of solely flock swimmers would not develop a critical understanding of psychology in the first place. And when I say “variance” here I very much mean nature, not nurture, nurture in this instance only comes into play if the nature happens to be ambivalent.
Only replying to the first paragraph: you’re doing the exact thing I’m describing by defining “intellectual” in an individualized way (you say our, but you’re defining it as each individual, not understanding its basis in the collective).
I’m not gonna talk any more because you’re not really saying much interesting. You’re just defining everything as opposites and not seeing the dialectic between it, but then we’re getting to an ages old argument that just results in me saying ‘read Hegel’ and that’s it
you’re doing the exact thing I’m describing by defining “intellectual” in an individualized way
Collective understanding is a composite of individual understandings. How the fuck can you make this a contradiction. If (a sufficient number of) individuals make that mistake, then so does the collective. If the collective makes that mistake, then necessarily so do individuals – or, if they don’t, get burned at the stake or banished or ignored or whatever, metaphorically or literally.
read Hegel
I’m not a Hegelian. My theoretical scaffold is generally cybernetics. If you hear me use the term Aufhebung then only because people don’t know WTF a metasystem transition is.
There is an inherent contradiction to defining intellectual either as individual or collective, but you’re not a Hegelian or a marxist so that’s why Im just done with the Convo, it’s not interesting because we’re not gonna get past that
to defining intellectual either as individual or collective,
Which is not what I’m doing? Both individual and collective capacities for thought are part of the overall system, collective both in the societal and species (evolutionary) sense (see bio-psycho-social model).
but you’re not a Hegelian or a marxist
Cybernetics is one of major tools of the creation of a communist society. That’s not me saying that that’s the 22nd Congress of the CP of the USSR. The party has decided, comrade, remember your responsibility in the face of democratic centralism! Agree with this random Anarchist!
You act as if cybernetics supersedes basic philosophical presuppositions. Of course I support cybernetic sciences like any other scientific study of systems, but if you think you’re doing this independent of an undergirding philosophy you’re entirely wrong.
The only difference in the first paragraph is understanding not just that these are parts of a system, but that in practice they define one another directly through their internal contradictions (which are related to each other). Again, you’re just an anti-hegelian who thinks you’re above defining your own metaphysics.
I also am entirely unconvinced you read either of those articles in their entirety
But I’m not going to convince you here, and my replying is only to you at this point, nobody else will read. So hopefully you read those and try to grasp the underlying philosophy, but I’m out
Ok you pull me back in, read some philosophy of science which is at the basis of your beliefs here. There are such huge assumptions under the ideas of mutual feedback you’re representing here. I’m a Systems Engineer, I get the appeal and genuinely base my scientific analysis of socio economics in the ideas that I’ve developed through that lens. But I also understand the limitations of this because I’ve read philosophy of science at the most basic level.
You sound like the people who think that math is a formally complete system and base worldviews on it (“everything is math and we can understand all that happens by the math at the quantum levels and even below eventually”) without realizing that the experts of the field are completely against this interpretation, and even claim it’s disproven. You’re doing intuitionism but I don’t think you realize it. I do it too, because it’s easiest for understanding and useful, but I know it’s limited
No system can be both consistent and complete. Worse, all logical statements are based on either paradox, circular reasoning, or axioms not provable from those statements. And I’m not exactly sure whether you meant that kind of intuitionism (the constructive maths kind) or the “don’t discount your intuition” kind but, yes, I very much do both. Both tell us that our models are limited, shadows on the cave wall and all (and it is no coincidence that cybernetics itself models that limitation very nicely). Maths tells us by formal proof, intuition and instincts by incessantly insisting that there’s a world outside of our heads, something that refuses to vanish even when we cease to believe in it. It’s actually quite a feat to shut that whole thing off, and I constantly wonder how people manage to not run into lamp posts all the time.
Lastly, let me share a nasty shower thought (literally, thought of it this morning in the shower): It would be very anti-Hegelian of you to be fundamentally opposed to the sublation of Hegelian dialectics. I even got quite formal with it (though please don’t ask me to write it in Greek), identifying sublation with MSTs. Mull about it.
Hegelian dialectics was possibly sublated by marx, but Marx’s dialectic is not a dialectic idea but a material world which does exist as a basic assumption that is perfect for any theory which intends to be useful. You cannot sublate the material world itself. But again, I think that you are under the impression that, because you thought of a quick gotcha, that this hasn’t already been thought about and written by many scholars before you. Hegel himself saw this gotcha coming
Nah I’m just confused by the way you reacted to me saying “I’m not a Hegelian”, apparently completely dismissing cybernetics as a framework even though it can very much express Hegelian thought. It’s not like I said “I’m a seventh day adventist and all your arguments shall be in the form of bible quotes or they’re invalid” or something like that.
As far as I am concerned, regarding choice of base formalism other people use: Do whatever. If need be I’ll find the corresponding isomorphism in what I’m comfortable with, make the argument, project it back into your formalism, then say it out aloud. Coming to think of it when I put it like this my basic model might actually be category theory. Choice of formalism is very much a matter of convenience, and cybernetics happens to be darn convenient for pretty much everything, and has very important insights of its own to contribute.
I’m not read in Hegel and Hegelians so I’m asking you, do they talk about things like branching growth at the penultimate level following MSTs/sublation? It certainly neatly explains e.g. the increase in number in different erm sects both on the left and right following the initial clashes, in the sense that a sublation already exists and is exerting control, is in the process of getting refined as it is refining the old thesis-antithesis pair by deconstructing both.
(And yes I just called “left unity” anti-Hegelian, deal with it :)
I dismissed cybernetics as a way to supplant the need for an underlying philosophy, which is what you were doing at the beginning. You can study cybernetics and believe it’s supported by dialectics, but the other way is nonsense. I am in no way dismissing that MST s are another way to talk about dialectical movements, but it is not dealing with the essence of a thing or that thing in itself at the level of philosophy. Hegelians talk about similar things very often, with a lot of the examples on the pages shown being almost identical in form to things Engels pointed out. But saying you’re not a Hegelian (we mean dialectician here, you’re likely not a marxist either) indicates to me that our disagreement is not at the level of cybernetics, but at the level of what causes such interactions at all
I’d contend that both are actually the same thing. However that’s metaphysics which I have a severe dislike for (as in: it’s pointless) so maybe that’s why I lump it all up in one thing, and in any case, however that may be: You will find neither of them in any model, anywhere. It’s the very nature of a model to not be the thing itself.
I’m quite sure you’ll say “yes” when I ask whether you understand the difference between map and territory. Is that understanding you have of that, however, on the level of the map, or on the level of the territory?
Those are the actually tough nuts to crack when rooting models, when fishing for axioms to ground things with. To understand the shape of the wall Plato’s shadows get cast on, so that you know how the structure of the wall influences their shape, to be a giant iota closer to understanding.
It would, indeed, be a shame if being a Hegelian meant regressing the “know thyself” aspect to far behind what the Stoics had already figured out in spades.
indicates to me that our disagreement is not at the level of cybernetics, but at the level of what causes such interactions at all
Is that important? Is it not more important to identify and characterise interactions? Physicists with different beliefs about the ultimate mechanics of quantum uncertainty get along just fine. Personally, as already alluded to with metaphysics, I’m happy to say “yeah whatever causes that, causes that”, I have no need or desire for distinctions beyond the measurable.
The neopagan religion stuff (which is a pretty good signifier of neo-nazi ideology) and Wagner stuff does not come from the photo. There is evidence that he is a Nazi that has nothing to do with the photo. Idk, I feel pretty confident saying he’s a Nazi.
alright so I traced the neopagan thing back to its source, and it looks like it ultimately came from Radio Free Europe, an interview with a Wagner commander. Obviously not everything that RFE publishes is false, but it’s not really my favorite source to rest my claims on. It seems like all other reporting on Utkin being a neopagan comes from there. If you want to take a look, here (it’s archived).
I think the neo-Nazi stuff rests on more solid ground though
In that same report, Bellingcat includes a statement which confirms that the famous Dmitry Utkin who’s been tied to Russian mercenary activity is not the same Utkin whose (supposed) Nazi tattoo photo has been widely shared by pro-NATO propagandists on social media. Bellingcat states about Prigozhin’s catering company Concord, whose CEO’s name was also Dmitry Utkin: “the Dmitry Valeryevich Utkin in fact appointed as CEO was not the Wagner Group commander. In fact, this Dmitry Utkin was created just a month earlier – through a legal name change (permissible in Russia) of a little-known St. Petersburg resident, eighteen years younger than the original Utkin and having only three months of prior management experience running his own startup company: Alexey Karnaukhov.” Karnaukhov is the alleged neo-Nazi who these propagandists claim is a mercenary commander. In reality, he’s nothing more than a business partner of Prigozhin, a business partner whose role is wholly detached from mercenary activities. And because he looks vaguely similar to the shirtless, scowling man with Nazi tattoos on his shoulders who’s appeared in a viral photo, the Ukrainian disinformation agents have falsely claimed he’s the same person as this man.
Putin’s propaganda is that the invasion of Ukraine is to denazify Ukraine. Basically any of his violent action is justified by calling his enemies Nazis and referring to the Soviet war against Nazi Germany (same as when the USA call others terrorists). So if he shot the plane, it’s because it had Nazis. Top comment may support this way of thinking.
He is/was despicable as the leader of mercenaries ready to sell their services to any authoritarian regime, but I don’t see clear relationship with Nazism, do you have sources? It seems weird to me that a Nazi would accept to work for African juntas for example.
If you think I follow the ideology a specific movement, I’m afraid to tell you I don’t. So I’m not sure what the former liberal consensus was. The Wikipedia article (generally consensual, I guess) does mention that a sub-group in particular is: the Rusich unit. It seems ironic that Putin pretends to fight Nazism by using Nazis, unless the goal is that they self-destruction, but I guess that’s a fantasy.
Putin never said he sought to annihilate Nazism in general, at least not that I know of. He said that among his goals is to denazify Ukraine, which I believe is true simply because the Ukrainian Nazis are his most hardliners opponents there. He does also crack down on Russian fascists when they become inconvenient to him (like darling of the west Navalny), but I don’t think he ever claimed to be an antifascist.
Dmitry Utkin (who was also on the plane) is definitely a nazi, and Wagner has a lot of links to far-right elements in Russia. Wagner itself is supposed to reference Richard Wagner, Hitler’s favorite composer
so Prigozhin is definitely in bed with nazis but idk anything about his actual beliefs
Both can be true at the same time, with the caveat that actual Nazis aren’t called Nazis in Russia but nationalists, patriots, suchlike.
But in the end Prigozhin might not have been a Nazi – in the ideological sense – but simply a crook. You don’t really need a racist or such ideology to build a colonial empire in Africa, plain ole criminal mindset suffices.
Putin’s propaganda is that the invasion of Ukraine is to denazify Ukraine.
No that’s Biden’s propaganda. Putin only mentioned it along with a laundry list of reasons. But besides, Ukraine’s ultranationalism is heavily based on Nazism.
Dmitry Valerievich Utkin … was a Russian army officer. He served as a special forces officer in the GRU, where he held the rank of lieutenant colonel. He is alleged to have founded the Wagner Group
According to several news outlets, Utkin is an admirer of Nazi Germany and has multiple Nazi tattoos, including Schutzstaffel (SS) insignia.
The tattoos are visible in multiple public photos.
Sounds like (purely speculation, since the details aren’t available) he pulled a gun on or otherwise threatened the agents coming to arrest him, based on his other behavior. Told them to come back with a warrant, they did so, and he took issue?
Either way, posting on the internet about assassinating government officials, regardless of whether it’s serious or not, was probably not the smartest opening move.
He was posting over and over on how he’d kill the prez, the veep, and Alvin Bragg for months. The one that finally did him in was talking about sniping Diamond Joe. They paid him a visit, and he got squirrelly on 'em.
Thats just the official story. What actually happened was that dark biden’s Cyber-Brain picked up the threat, so he used his lazer vision while at a rally in New Mexico to vaporize him.
The media is totally censoring the thousand mile long lazer beam the president shot out of his eyes. They have the footage, but they are too afraid to tell the truth, because then the Clinton Mutant Teenage Turtles will kill them.
Yes the same guys who rant about government tyranny yet defend police (government employees/enforcers) at every opportunity love to also rant about the rule of law unless those rules are applied to them or their current flavor of the week messiah.
bbc.co.uk
Top