Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
As for SCOTUS, the general expectation seems to be that they'll deal with it in due time, but it still surprised people that they didn't just issue an injunction.
(Also, legal terminology, I called it a "stay" earlier but I think "stay" applies to things like other court decisions and actions while "injunction" and the verb "enjoin" apply to laws. Whoops.)
Also I should have mentioned the denial of the emergency injunction request was a 5-4 decision that was written up and all, as opposed to just a "SCOTUS just didn't respond" thing.
In other words, you fell for bait.
Regardless of its truth or falsehood, I wouldn't be surprised at people seeing a profit motive given the financial reward.
Yeah, the way you describe it sounds like this is the explicit intention.
Also, anons on the internet have a history of accidentally radicalizing themselves and/or drawing in the folks who don't know the edgy jokes are meant to be jokes, so I certainly see the potential, whether or not anything comes out of it.
I feel like I'm prescient.
But I do have some other stuff. Specifically from Florida. Specifically from Miami-Dade County.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article254651372.html
TL;DR the police chief of the city of Miami, who is apparently kind of wild (and not necessarily in a good way), is getting fired.
And no, this has absolutely nothing to do with BLM or the other BLM or police brutality vel sim.. This is entirely unrelated. It even involves Cuban-Americans objecting to a comment mentioning the Castro regime said by the aforementioned police chief who was born in Havana himself. Among other things.
Also,
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article254752772.html#storylink=moresection
TL;DR the mayor of the town of Surfside, who got his 15 minutes of fame due to the condo collapse in June, turns out to be...not the easiest person to work with, for reasons.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/10/12/hood-county-elections-administrator-trump/
Meanwhile, a lighter note, out of New Jersey:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/576326-f-bombs-repeatedly-dropped-in-new-jersey-political-ad?rl=1
Seems like a silly thing to make an ad about, but I can't say I didn't laugh.
To be honest that's what I'd expect from a police chief in Florida. I can say the same about the rest of that post, it just, kind of, felt so Floridian.
You know, I've been thinking that this whole "against human nature" argument against communism is kinda lame. Like, sure, you may say these folks want to change basic human nature, but so does everyone else. Free market fundamentalists want everyone to be rational consumers and contract law experts who are also completely devoid of jealousy or resentment. Christians want everyone to save themselves for marriage and stop questioning the doctrine. Republicans (small r) and/or liberal democrats want everyone to verse themselves in minutiae of democratic process and stay informed about the political stances of candidates. (A single Glenn is not enough.) At this point, about the only kind of ideology I won't accuse would be some strands of conservatism. (The ones that work on the assumption that stuff's fine as it is right now; those that want everyone to be completely loyal to their feudal overlord obviously don't count.) So, like, as far as I can see myself doing it, I'd rather stick to the argument from results, because I don't think I could use this one in full honesty.
Then again, there are those socialists who are explicit about creating some new human beings so whatever.
Unless, yeah, I am to read it this way. I guess I have, like, only ever heard this one used on it's own, but you do convince me that it works just fine as a response.
I want to talk about Christianity specifically here; the thing about Christianity is that it actually acknowledges the flaws in human nature (man is fallen, etc) and then tells you "hey, here are these rules, try to abide by these rules and stuff will go well for you". Of course, you can't explicitly untie that from the supernatural claims made (an issue people tend to really get into when it comes to the few Atheists who switch over to social conservatism).
This is actually a big discourse happening right now; if you defeat the leftist intentions to remake society, will you then embrace traditional NRx catholicism? Men like Adrian Vermule (I bring this up because he was in the NYT recently so I assume he's not too far right for GMH or something) are very much laying out this framework in various places, including substack. People who left modern leftism have seen this and are now, frankly, terrified.
I personally think that social Christianity was very good and was great at moulding (not creating) good human outcomes, and I think any vision of the future that I endorse would include major elements of social Christianity and some elements of Catholicism.
However, trying to bring back Christian Orthodoxy the way it was done is really stupid, and reminds me of the "Real socialism has never been tried!" meme. Literal 11 year olds are now armed with the weapons required to defeat Christianity of old. Organized religion is a mess (see: Pope Francis 90% of the time) and in many places (Africa, speaking for myself) has devolved into cult leader worship (this is actually an issue with how African culture portrays spiritual leaders that apparently nobody in theocracy noticed before letting them have the wheel?).
TradCathism isn't coming back (and somebody recently made the argument that the numbers required would make it a century-long effort anyways). I don't even think actual Christianity is coming back, because it'd be easily defeated (for goodness sakes, it was taken out in the late 2000s by reddit atheism, which fell to social justice in like a week). Maybe I have a personal stake in this, as I'm not a Christian and do not desire to be (especially since every time Christians argue against Atheism or something, it still comes out really stupidly).
However, I believe certain aspects of Christianity are important, especially some Bible stories, and those should be preserved. I believe that Christian conceptions of the mind-body connection are valid and salient (though not exactly supernatural). Bible stories trasmit values in a way that is extremely simple and timeless; which reminds everybody that no, you actually did not invent celibacy.
I guess you didn't specifically mention capitalism, and Storm brought it up, so I'll just say;
I really support when people sell each other stuff, and when people own their own property, and that's not an ideology (though I guess it's a closely held belief), it's just what people do. "Capitalism" is a term invented to stand aside "socialism" in order for the tenets of socialism to seem viable as an opposing force.
As for "capitalism" as the ideology (which does exist) is currently operating? I have no idea how many times I've traced a modern malaise to "capitalism", corporatism, or something similar. Let alone the modern shift from "we're just selling things guys it's not like we know our suppliers are using child labour" to "posting black squares to stand with the forces that seek to destroy the social fabric."
To be more charitable; if the ideology of "capitalism" is indeed the only alternative to the ideology of "socialism", then capitalism should win every time. It lifts people out of poverty like nothing else, and creates abundances to morbid levels of excess. The markets in general work well too when you stop believing in the fairytales of rationality that economics textbooks tend to feed you.
However, capitalism is also a system of great unfeeling. In this form, it becomes a weapon that can be wielded, rather than something that can work alongside one's beliefs and/or culture.
For an example of the latter; when McDonald's moved to India, they adapted their whole menu for pseudo-vegetarians, which was a great example of corporatism's adaptations for a new market.
But to use this same case; this was still intended to feed the Indian people the same freeze-dried reconstituted slop they feed to everybody else (but possibly worse, because if there's one natural ingredient that's been chemically engineered in every direction to create poor health outcomes, it's starchy vegetables). In the same vein, this slop is addictive, but available everywhere (I'm no hypocrite, so I'll admit I still eat McDonalds or KFC or Wimpy like 2-4 times a week).
So, capitalism (and even corporatism) can be a vessel for good, but also for bad (possibly even simultaneously). That's where "small government" Conservatism fails, because it's very easy to make a good argument for not getting involved in what burgers to make. This flows into bigger decisions; the overall regulation of markets (ie. hedging is still legal to this day, even though it's much more prudent to get insurance, and bot trading keeps getting worse and worse), or the flow of goods between borders.
How can a company like Apple be Apple yet have all it's products "assembled in China". How can Apple tout it's Corporate Social Responsibility or ESG (both extremely evil concepts, by the way), when it's headquarters is located in the state with the most American homelessness?
(To be fair, it's very probable that even if the Apple factories were in America, California would still be the capital of homelessness, but despair and listlessness caused by unemployment tend to contribute to drug usage).
This is why I support economic protectionism. In fact, the only people who seriously do not appear to be the ones benefiting from it. After all, it's never their jobs that are shipped away or given to immigrants on H1B[x] visas. In addition, a country with no solid manufacturing or real skills base is managing on borrowed time in the long term (possibly a centuries' worth, but it's still borrowed).
tl;dr, It turns out capitalism is a great good, but it is a tool that can merely be used to anybody's ends. In contrast, socialism is a tool that is in the hands of the ruling class, and usually that ruling class sucks for unknown reasons (I'm guessing it starts with believing socialism works). Nuance in the use of government powers* and tough, protectionist policy is better.
*Oh actually this reminds me; modern regulation is one of the worst ways to use government power, and it amazes me that people don't realize this. It's literally just big companies playing to close the door behind them and create oligopolies.
Okay, so this whole "noticing the situation across Ukranian borders thing" started about a day after Russia executed a first of it's kind deployment into Kazakhstan to assist in the unrest there. They did this using the faux-NATO grouping known as the CSTO, of which most post-Soviet nations are apparently members.
In my opinion; the operation they carried out was pretty valid (it was not protest, it was danged revolt) and swift. In addition, they left right after.
However, I assume that Western nations finally realized something along the lines of; "Oh holy pumpernickel they can actually do that." and kind of lost their minds, which led to them finally (or cynically) noticing (publicizing) the fact that Russia was constantly building up troops near the Ukraine border. Suddenly, this was bad bad the baddest form of bad.
Kind of a sidenote; Russia finally arrested the hackers responsible for ransomware that paused operations on various oil pipelines as well as meat-packing factories, and the US State Department took this as an opportunity to start planting false flag stories. Personally, if I were Russia I'd be really really mad at that sort of being stabbed in the back. At least give it a few days man.
More on topic; There's been a series of claims from US Intelligence about Russia purposefully fomenting some sort of false flag operation within Ukraine as pretext to invade, but this has collapsed under very basic questioning.
This questioning was in direct contrast to the way the rest of the media is moving on this story, which is very Iraq War. The NeoCons are out in full force pushing aggression (as they did before), and are using the Specter of Russia that has been built up in the liberal/leftist mind (stole the election for Trump!!!) to do it. If it were up to NeoCons, they would literally occupy Ukraine at this point "for it's own safety".
As for the media... basically; if they didn't get burned on their major Iraq War mistakes (especially taking State Department claims at face value), even after admitting it, then there's no incentive for them to not lie some more and also get away with it in the future, as they tend to do.
Anyways; as for the actual players involved. I'm not one to take Vladimir Putin at his word on most things, but personally it seems Russia was befuddled by what had started to happen, but obviously saw an opportunity. Modern Ukraine seeks NATO membership, albeit by a tight margin (but what nation isn't somewhat 50-50 polarized in modern times). Russia wants to stop that not only to maintain current geo-politics in the area, but also to genuinely prevent being encircled by what it deems are "Western countries" (which Ukraine will become if it does join NATO).
"Diplomacy" has been a waste of time, and the people you'd assume should be most worried about this in Ukraine basically don't seem to believe what they're being told by the West, don't care, or point out that obviously the situation has been like this for much longer than the US State Department noticed.
My overall personal view is; Crimea was an area that was extremely ethnically and culturally Russian. There's no way Russia wants to take on the burden of a country where the pro and anti forces are split about 50-50 towards it. It'd be like nursing a dog that's half-rabid, and it would drain resources from the country.
However, I do also think there's two caveats:
In addition, a big thread everybody is ignoring on why Ukraine could devolve to Kazakh levels is not some Russian false-flag operation, but the upcoming trial of the former Ukranian president, deposed by what seemed to me at the time like an EU color revolution. His charges relate to pro-Russia businessmen, and obviously the more pro-him and pro-Russian elements of the Ukranian population will probably revolt sometime down the line.
It's possible that the US State Department pushing these "false flag" stories is actually priming the media and the general public in preparation for this.
I probably have more thoughts, but that's the somewhat full picture for now.
Oh a bit more;
Another opportunity presented itself to Putin during diplomatic efforts; whilst US. Sec.State Antony Blinken was on his way to Germany (which actually snubbed him on a prior trip since they have major energy concerns tied to Russia) to discuss issues with Russian Foreign Secretary Sergey Lavrov, Joe Biden gave literally the stupidest press conference ever in terms of Foreign Policy approach.
He revealed two major things; he would not push the issue if Russia only made a minor incursion, and NATO actually had no solid agreed-upon plan in terms of said incursions.
The media actually foamed at the mouth over this seemingly "well, maybe it's actually not a cause for deployment" stance, and though he was trotted out to walk back those claims literally a day later, it was out there in the world for all to hear, especially for the Russian side (imagine being Blinken on that day, with no cards left to hold). Though I don't think the Russian side was ever going to stand down over "Don't let Ukraine join NATO", I think they've been even more emboldened since that moment.
Speaking of a rabid media ready for the war machine; Bloomberg reported Russia had made an incursion into Ukraine literally today. Seems it was a template being published ahead of time, but war and suffering is probably not something you're so excited for that you have a template ready.
> General U.S. politics thread
> Most recent by fourteenwings
ohno.jpg
That was when there was just one post, FWIW. So the beginning of this post here is me just responding with various comments on the first post (probably more detailed than if I knew there were more posts coming). (note: I'm not trying to argue)
With the caveat that exactly what those rules are is a point of sharp disagreement between the different denominations.
I'll be honest, the part I'm rolling my eyes at is not Adrian Vermule (a name I've literally never heard of, and I frankly don't even use NYT as a barometer of ideology anyway), but rather the phrase "leftist intentions to remake society", which is only really true for some fringey people who think that it's possible to wholesale remake society.
Also, what's "NRx catholicism"? Like, the Roman Catholic tradition, or what?
A bunch of assorted comments:
* I don't think "actual Christianity" is "easily defeated", or "taken out in the late 2000s by reddit atheism", unless for some reason you're perhaps referring to some sort of overwhelming dominance wherein Christianity is gets to be basically assumed of everyone unless otherwise stated.
* I agree that there are various aspects of Christianity that even I, as a non-Christian, find valuable. This includes everything from (as you mention) various Biblical parables, to even a recognition of the soul (which I do see as something that has yet to be explained otherwise). As well as other things, like how a (properly-conducted) Catholic mass really does feel sacred to me, in ways that some other churches and services don't. And speaking of Catholicism, one thing I definitely like about it is that it has an emphasis on humility, coming from a spiritual level.
* (Unlike you, I have a positive opinion of Pope Francis, but I think we've been over this before.)
I guess I agree that "people sell each other stuff" and "people own property" isn't really an ideology itself.
Though the term "capitalism" (regardless of how it was invented, which I feel too lazy to look up), when used as an ideological term, does mean a lot more than just that. It's specifically used to mean a variety of different things, such as one or more of the following:
* Everyone has a right to start their own business.
* Government should avoid (or should never) regulate (or even influence) commerce.
* free markets, free markets everywhere
* an anti-government stance in general
* anti-socialism/anti-communism/anti-Marxism
* deregulation and/or decentralization in general (including such things as support for cryptocurrencies)
* The concentration of wealth is a good thing.
* The concentration of wealth might not be inherently good, but because it a natural consequence of the market doing whatever it wants, it's acceptable.
etc.
* big corporations dominating things
* big box stores pushing out mom-and-pop retail
* big corporations mistreating their workers
etc. etc.
And frankly, one could make a similar kitchen-sink list of ideas (positive and negative) that are connected with other ideological labels.
I disagree that those are "extremely evil concepts", unless that was a facetious remark on your part.
But I also don't see how being headquartered in a state with a high rate of homelessness means that it can't do good socially.
I have yet to decide whether this is a good thing or not. Seems like a double-edged sword in various ways.
Russia has been picking on and fucking with Ukraine for years, and even amidst that they're yet still escalating things yet again.
And the bottom line is that they're the aggressor.
I don't have comments on all the nitty gritty, because...basically a lot of the nitty gritty doesn't actually change my take on this anyway.
(I also don't have more comments because I have work. later)
also what's the derivation of that term? specifically the kyn part