|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Canada11469 Posts
On March 26 2026 09:10 XenOsky wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2026 05:54 Broetchenholer wrote:
You are offended by being called communist but not by being called anti semitic? Your text about "the jews" during the Nazi Regime was certainly not anti-zionist, because those jews you were talking about were not in Israel, they were literally staying in europe or the US and did not fight for some idea. Sounds like you are talking in very broad strokes about just "the jews" to me. Did the Jewish communities act as I described in the post or did I lie in that post? I spoke specifically about the Jewish bourgeoisie who abandoned Europe and their 'comrades' and then I said that those who had to suffer the consequences of Nazi repression took an eternity to take up arms. is this a lie? Did I lie about the facts? Or did I describe the facts as history presents them?
On March 22 2026 13:25 XenOsky wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 13:18 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 09:44 KwarK wrote:
I think you’re overlooking the pogroms like Kristallnacht. baal’s argument is actually the exact inverse of true. baal is arguing that we can extrapolate what they knew from whether they fled and they didn’t flee and therefore they didn’t know. But the majority of Jews living in Germany in 1933 did flee by 1939, despite facing considerable restrictions and being forced to forfeit all their property to the state. Therefore, per baal’s argument, we can conclude that they did know they would be killed. Wrong. that many emigrated doesnt mean they knew they were going to get killed, everybody knew it was going to get bad for jews but not to what extent. However the fact that many remained does prove that they didn't know they were going to get killed. Right up until the war started we had German Jewish parents putting their young children on trains and sending them out of Germany. The parents had no plans for reunification, no knowledge of where the children would end up, whether siblings would be kept together, whether they would be abused, allowed to keep their faith etc. They just put children on the train and trusted that someone would meet them at the station and attempt to connect them with foster parents of some sort.
As a parent I can imagine at least some of what it took to do that. To abandon a six year old knowing that you'd almost certainly never see them again but that by putting them on a train and sending them away they might survive what was coming. They knew. Not long ago there was a sad pic of a kid dead on the beach trying to reach Europe, parents take these risks in pursuit of better futures, a shit load of mexicans kids are smuggled with far relatives or even strangers into the US, you don't need such a threat to emigrate. Also as I said in my post which you should read again, I'm sure many jews knew how it was gong to end and those were the ones that fled, but many others didn't and that's the whole point of Nazis never explicitly mentioning killing. The Jews who stayed probably stayed due to a lack of resources, not a lack of will. It's always the working class that pays the price and puts the dead... The problem is never religious or ethnic; it's always a class problem. racism and religion are excuses of the oligarchy to carry out their strategy... The Jewish bourgeoisie cared little for the fate of their "comrades"... they were only interested in protecting their class privileges. Some more humanitarian probably wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper or something symbolic, the rest continued living happily in the United States or South America while complaining about Nazism, having tea and eating cookies with their friends on the Sabbath + Show Spoiler + (or whatever it is that Jews do on the Sabbath) ... think about it, the Jews cared so little about what happened to the rest that they had to wait for the harshest repression to begin to defend themselves among themselves and take up arms. Armed resistance and direct action began to occur when the entire Jewish bourgeoisie had already left Europe like the cowards they are In fact, their commitment to human life was so little that one of them ended up making the genocide of Hiroshima and Nagasaki possible ROFLMAO
Oh, boy there are some gems I missed.
I don't know about lies but there are some convenient omissions that gives greater context: like the historical oppression of Jews in Europe led to either flight to other countries or an aggressive attempt to assimilate with the population in order to escape anti-Semitism. (Both the assimilation groups and the religious groups were opposed to the Zionist movement for their own reasons. And it was really only the Dreyfus Affair that caused people like Herzl to despair of assimilating any where in Europe- if not even France (liberte egalite, fraternite), then where?) But a group of people desperately trying to assimilate across Europe isn't one that would hastily pick up arms against their country. To characterize that as cowardice... is something.
You make a split between Jewish bourgeoisie (those that fled into the Americas) and the rest to make it a class distinction when assigning negative group characteristics. But read this line again that you wrote:
In fact, their commitment to human life was so little that one of them ended up making the genocide of Hiroshima and Nagasaki possible ROFLMAO And ask yourself how distinguishable it is from someone assigning the same group of people in America with the same negative group characteristics but they say race instead?
Also, characterizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as genocide is wildly inaccurate so as to lose meaning of the term. But to further blame those deaths as an aspect of a negative group characteristic of the Jews in America (bourgeoisie though they may be)... again. Indistinguishable.
Combine that with the Mossad comment, and it starts smelling suspiciously of Jewish cabal conspiracies.
edit.
Also, your simplistic characterization: Jews of the Americas = bourgeois and cowards and Jews left in Europe = abandoned and too poor. And sure we do see Jews in banking and investing but just a cursory look at waves of Jewish immigration confirmed my suspicions. The larger part of the 1800s saw German Jews arrive who largely found success as peddlers, shop keepers, and the like, so more like petite-bourgeois. And after German re-unification, the huge wave of Jews came from eastern Europe saw them in textiles, cigar manufacturing, food services, and construction... and the fact that they are a part of the labour movements would seem like a substantial number are a part of the proletariat (to use your classification).
|
On March 26 2026 09:43 XenOsky wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2026 09:38 WombaT wrote:On March 26 2026 09:10 XenOsky wrote:On March 26 2026 05:54 Broetchenholer wrote:
You are offended by being called communist but not by being called anti semitic? Your text about "the jews" during the Nazi Regime was certainly not anti-zionist, because those jews you were talking about were not in Israel, they were literally staying in europe or the US and did not fight for some idea. Sounds like you are talking in very broad strokes about just "the jews" to me. Did the Jewish communities act as I described in the post or did I lie in that post? I spoke specifically about the Jewish bourgeoisie who abandoned Europe and their 'comrades' and then I said that those who had to suffer the consequences of Nazi repression took an eternity to take up arms. is this a lie? Did I lie about the facts? Or did I describe the facts as history presents them? I am not particularly interested in Jews; in fact, I am not interested in any religion. tbh maybe I am interested in ancient Hellenic paganism, thats it... Christians, Jews, Islam, all same shit to me I only point out the historical facts of a religious group whose customs have been considered aberrant by civilized societies since 1st century Rome... perhaps long before. Manetho claimed that the ancestors of the Jews were not slaves freed by miracles, but a group of lepers and people with impure diseases who had been expelled from Egypt by the advice of the gods to 'purify' the country. that was 300 years before Jesus the Christed was running arround molesting children in Palestine... Moreover, why would it offend me to be called anti-Semitic, if the Palestinian people are Semitic and I have defended them since I learned at 14 years old about the Israeli occupation of their territory. FUCK ISRAEL btw You really seem to have a problem with Jews, might wanna seek help for that… If you don’t, you’re doing a damn good impression of someone that does i have a problem with the Catholic church too and fucking islam, does that makes me racist?
Bruh, you have a problem, period. I'd try anger management, but maybe you just need to get laid, I don't know. In any case, your anarcho-syndicalist claptrap seems to be a thin facade for being an intolerant bigot, I'd look inward instead of outward for the problems...
|
United States43781 Posts
Trump's attempts to build a coalition to end this war aren't going well. While there are plenty of countries who think it wouldn't be the worst thing if Iran had a regime change, especially in the Gulf, these countries are pretty clear on who they think should be the one to do it. None of them have real expeditionary forces on the scale that would be required.
Kuwait said:
Obviously we're under attack and obviously that's bad and we should do something about it. We had our best guys look into the logistics of fighting a war and we just don't see how it'd be possible to air condition the entire battlefield. I'm sorry but the conditions just aren't acceptable for our citizens. Saudi Arabia said:
Here's the thing. The Iranians were all like "you guys are lapdogs of the imperialist Americans and their Zionist masters". Now obviously we know that we're not but like, if we were to join in the Israeli led war against another Muslim state we're worried that people might get the wrong impression. Also we're pretty tied up with the Houthis right now. But don't worry, we have the fifth highest military spend in the world, the moment we work out which end of the gun is which we'll get that wrapped up. Qatar said:
Normally we'd be all like "we'll get the job done, we don't care how many Southeast Asians die trying" but there's a minor issue. We don't let our 'involuntary workforce' have guns. For their own safety of course. UAE said:
It seems like you're already doing a great job. We'd only get in the way, this is really more of your hobby than it is mine. But we're rooting for you. Iraq said:
Nothing, because the power was out. Britain said:
I was on the fence but then on March 8 Blair came out and said we should definitely send the troops because it's totally legal. He's a pretty reliable inverse indicator so we're gonna pass. Denmark said:
We're pretty tied up with this whole Greenland thing. Canada said:
lol. lmao France said:
It has been explained to us that our role in any coalition with the US is to be far from the front lines. We think 5,000km should do it. Germany said:
There was a five month planning and strategic deployment period before we were ready for Desert Storm. Keeping that in mind your request for coalition action would need to be submitted no later than September 30 2025. Was it? NATO said:
The procedure for requesting collective alliance action is outlined in the document. So far no request for action has been made. Japan said:
That action would be quite impossible under the constitution of Japan which, as far as we can tell, was written by the US military. Australia said:
Mate, last week you said you could do without our help. We believe in you. Israel said:
We're 100% with you. Absolutely. In front of you even. We're the vanguard, we're laying down the path, we won't stop fighting all the way to the gates of Tehran. In a figurative sense. As long as we're around our coalition won't ever stop fighting.
But, as you know, we all bring different things to this coalition. Like you're the naval superpower with the expeditionary military that can deploy globally and topple any adversary and we're a tiny country of ten million people that doesn't even share a border with Iran. But we won't rest and we won't stop fighting until our coalition has collectively occupied Iran. You can count on us. Even now our military is marching into Lebanon on your behalf and we're willing to occupy it for as long as we need to.
But on a serious note, there appears to be a growing consensus among the stakeholders that while intervention is going to be required it is going to be required of the country that actually has a global expeditionary force. The Gulf States aren't able to offer much more than air power which the coalition already has enough of and have political reasons not to engage in more than intercepting attacks. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is said to be encouraging Trump to keep going and obviously Israel wants boots on the ground but the concept seems to be that within the boots are exclusively American feet.
This wouldn't have happened under Kamala. Israel would have let the US know that they planned a unilateral attack and the US would have declined to participate and let Iran know that through backchannels. If Israel went ahead with the attack anyway then it would not have been an existential crisis for Iran, without the US there would have been no question of an external regime change and therefore nothing for the IRGC to deter. Iran showed clearly in 2025 that they'll tank air attacks on their territory without activating hydrocarbon MAD, the red line is regime change. If Israel declined to attack without US backing then we're all good.
|
Canada11469 Posts
Oh no, no, no.
Bomber Harris and Genocide Joe would have done the same thing and worse...
Definitely. No Question. For sure.
This is the pro-peace ticket in action, now where is his Nobel Peace Prize?
|
Northern Ireland26494 Posts
On March 26 2026 12:52 KwarK wrote:Trump's attempts to build a coalition to end this war aren't going well. While there are plenty of countries who think it wouldn't be the worst thing if Iran had a regime change, especially in the Gulf, these countries are pretty clear on who they think should be the one to do it. None of them have real expeditionary forces on the scale that would be required. Show nested quote +Kuwait said:
Obviously we're under attack and obviously that's bad and we should do something about it. We had our best guys look into the logistics of fighting a war and we just don't see how it'd be possible to air condition the entire battlefield. I'm sorry but the conditions just aren't acceptable for our citizens. Show nested quote +Saudi Arabia said:
Here's the thing. The Iranians were all like "you guys are lapdogs of the imperialist Americans and their Zionist masters". Now obviously we know that we're not but like, if we were to join in the Israeli led war against another Muslim state we're worried that people might get the wrong impression. Also we're pretty tied up with the Houthis right now. But don't worry, we have the fifth highest military spend in the world, the moment we work out which end of the gun is which we'll get that wrapped up. Show nested quote +Qatar said:
Normally we'd be all like "we'll get the job done, we don't care how many Southeast Asians die trying" but there's a minor issue. We don't let our 'involuntary workforce' have guns. For their own safety of course. Show nested quote +UAE said:
It seems like you're already doing a great job. We'd only get in the way, this is really more of your hobby than it is mine. But we're rooting for you. Show nested quote +Britain said:
I was on the fence but then on March 8 Blair came out and said we should definitely send the troops because it's totally legal. He's a pretty reliable inverse indicator so we're gonna pass. Show nested quote +France said:
It has been explained to us that our role in any coalition with the US is to be far from the front lines. We think 5,000km should do it. Show nested quote +Germany said:
There was a five month planning and strategic deployment period before we were ready for Desert Storm. Keeping that in mind your request for coalition action would need to be submitted no later than September 30 2025. Was it? Show nested quote +NATO said:
The procedure for requesting collective alliance action is outlined in the document. So far no request for action has been made. Show nested quote +Japan said:
That action would be quite impossible under the constitution of Japan which, as far as we can tell, was written by the US military. Show nested quote +Australia said:
Mate, last week you said you could do without our help. We believe in you. Show nested quote +Israel said:
We're 100% with you. Absolutely. In front of you even. We're the vanguard, we're laying down the path, we won't stop fighting all the way to the gates of Tehran. In a figurative sense. As long as we're around our coalition won't ever stop fighting.
But, as you know, we all bring different things to this coalition. Like you're the naval superpower with the expeditionary military that can deploy globally and topple any adversary and we're a tiny country of ten million people that doesn't even share a border with Iran. But we won't rest and we won't stop fighting until our coalition has collectively occupied Iran. You can count on us. Even now our military is marching into Lebanon on your behalf and we're willing to occupy it for as long as we need to. But on a serious note, there appears to be a growing consensus among the stakeholders that while intervention is going to be required it is going to be required of the country that actually has a global expeditionary force. The Gulf States aren't able to offer much more than air power which the coalition already has enough of and have political reasons not to engage in more than intercepting attacks. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is said to be encouraging Trump to keep going and obviously Israel wants boots on the ground but the concept seems to be that within the boots are exclusively American feet.
Looks like those boots on the ground were made for walking, America style eh?
Although I’m unsure how they’ll do this with their crippling manpower issues, given the well-publicised recruitment problems the US army has been suffering due to it being too gay or something
I must say though I am impressed that you’ve managed to obtain these presumably top-secret diplomatic communiques
|
Northern Ireland26494 Posts
On March 26 2026 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2026 01:27 WombaT wrote:On March 26 2026 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2026 09:27 WombaT wrote:On March 25 2026 08:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2026 07:38 WombaT wrote:I’m still unsure what the point of this tangent is overall. + Show Spoiler +
That the Dems are bad for going ‘hm, we hope x is our opponent in the election because we think they’re a great matchup for us’ and getting that wrong? Something basically every political party does, if not publicly then certainly in private?
I think it would be a different kettle of fish if the Dem machine was sneakily funding Trump’s rise or something like that, then yeah they’re not guilty merely of misjudging things, but actively culpable.
But as far as I’m aware that isn’t the case
Basically just Jankisa and Light spinning up a strawman in response to this: On March 25 2026 02:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2026 02:38 WombaT wrote:On March 25 2026 02:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2026 01:58 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2026 23:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Can/should the world make the US a pariah state for an illegal war of choice leading to global recession? How about the European countries facilitating it?
Or is the US integrated into the global economy (and their European accomplices dependent) in such a way that they can't be held accountable for their crimes?
What would any of that look like?
Those are general questions not specific to Kwark btw. + Show Spoiler +The question doesn't really make sense.
Let's imagine a town filled with people. And not civic minded Nordic people who pick up litter when they go for a walk in the woods, let's imagine it's filled with people who would steal Amazon packages from each others' porches. Fortunately there's a chief of police and a police force and they mostly get everyone to behave and as such everyone in the town can benefit from the predictable order of law, they can order things from Amazon, they can leave the house to go to work and still have their stuff when they come home etc. If you start breaking the rules then you're excluded from the society, people won't let you in their shops, they won't sell you gasoline, you get disconnected from utilities, it's a bad time.
Now let's imagine the chief of police fires the police force and burns down the courthouse.
What you're asking is what he should be convicted of and how long he should spend in jail.
It doesn't work.
That is absolutely not the same thing as him getting away with the crime of burning down the courthouse, it's just no longer functional to think of burning down the courthouse as a crime. Getting away with a crime would be continuing to benefit from the society built on a system of rules without being held accountable for breaking them (Israel gets away with having nukes for example). What he has done is remove the rules entirely and return the town to the natural state of anarchy. + Show Spoiler +That is not to say that there won't be consequences, it's just the concept of being prosecuted has gone. The consequences will show up with the power goes off because someone decided to steal the copper in the substation for scrap metal. They'll be more or less self imposed.
In the scenario in which the US engages in an illegal war and sends the world into a global recession while destroying its own alliance system there are no more pariah states and there is no more accountability. This is what Carney was explaining so beautifully at Davos . https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/davos-2026-special-address-by-mark-carney-prime-minister-of-canada/ I think we're largely in agreement, though I believe Israel's ongoing genocide of Palestinians and the US's aiding and abetting of it was enough already. We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality. Basically there's always been "winners and losers" in this scheme (my personal perspective is a bit different), and people like Carney are basically saying that if they're slipping into the "losers" side then it's a good time to abandon ship. This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.
Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.
You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration, when integration becomes the source of your subordination. From my particular British/European perspective, in both a general sense but also something I argued specifically in the Israel/Palestine instance, was that keeping Trump out of assuming office was so important precisely because other nations and institutions either lacked the capacity or will to rein in a US that abandons all pretence of a lawful world order. Illusory though it might be I know the point you're trying to raise and we don't disagree that keeping Trump out of office was an inflection point. We disagree on how that could/should have been done. The fact is that Democrats tried what they wanted (including elevating Trump to the leader of Republicans in the first place) and lost. Twice. Then Biden failed to use the potential power the SCOTUS gave him to prevent Trump from taking office. They fixated on misunderstanding the parenthetical at the expense of the point. If they misunderstood the parenthetical what did you actually mean by it? I'd rather not make the same mistake with you, so let's try again without it. I know the point you're trying to raise and we don't disagree that keeping Trump out of office was an inflection point. We disagree on how that could/should have been done. The fact is that Democrats tried what they wanted and lost. Twice. Then Biden failed to use the potential power the SCOTUS gave him to prevent Trump from taking office. What did you mean by saying ‘elevating Trump to the leader of Republicans in the first place’ then? + Show Spoiler +
You seem to delight in saying things and then getting indignant when people ‘straw man’ you by interrogating what you yourself say.
And so the merry dance goes another round…
*sigh* If you insist: Democrats had a deliberate strategy (of whatever depth and effectiveness people want to believe AFAIAC at this point) to elevate Trump/make him a "leader of the pack" while moving the more established candidates (and Republican party) further to the right, and that it is an unfortunate example of something they didn't fail at.
Thanks for the clarification, appreciated
|
United States43781 Posts
On March 26 2026 13:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2026 12:52 KwarK wrote:Trump's attempts to build a coalition to end this war aren't going well. While there are plenty of countries who think it wouldn't be the worst thing if Iran had a regime change, especially in the Gulf, these countries are pretty clear on who they think should be the one to do it. None of them have real expeditionary forces on the scale that would be required. Kuwait said:
Obviously we're under attack and obviously that's bad and we should do something about it. We had our best guys look into the logistics of fighting a war and we just don't see how it'd be possible to air condition the entire battlefield. I'm sorry but the conditions just aren't acceptable for our citizens. Saudi Arabia said:
Here's the thing. The Iranians were all like "you guys are lapdogs of the imperialist Americans and their Zionist masters". Now obviously we know that we're not but like, if we were to join in the Israeli led war against another Muslim state we're worried that people might get the wrong impression. Also we're pretty tied up with the Houthis right now. But don't worry, we have the fifth highest military spend in the world, the moment we work out which end of the gun is which we'll get that wrapped up. Qatar said:
Normally we'd be all like "we'll get the job done, we don't care how many Southeast Asians die trying" but there's a minor issue. We don't let our 'involuntary workforce' have guns. For their own safety of course. UAE said:
It seems like you're already doing a great job. We'd only get in the way, this is really more of your hobby than it is mine. But we're rooting for you. Iraq said:
Nothing, because the power was out. Britain said:
I was on the fence but then on March 8 Blair came out and said we should definitely send the troops because it's totally legal. He's a pretty reliable inverse indicator so we're gonna pass. Denmark said:
We're pretty tied up with this whole Greenland thing. Canada said:
lol. lmao France said:
It has been explained to us that our role in any coalition with the US is to be far from the front lines. We think 5,000km should do it. Germany said:
There was a five month planning and strategic deployment period before we were ready for Desert Storm. Keeping that in mind your request for coalition action would need to be submitted no later than September 30 2025. Was it? NATO said:
The procedure for requesting collective alliance action is outlined in the document. So far no request for action has been made. Japan said:
That action would be quite impossible under the constitution of Japan which, as far as we can tell, was written by the US military. Australia said:
Mate, last week you said you could do without our help. We believe in you. Israel said:
We're 100% with you. Absolutely. In front of you even. We're the vanguard, we're laying down the path, we won't stop fighting all the way to the gates of Tehran. In a figurative sense. As long as we're around our coalition won't ever stop fighting.
But, as you know, we all bring different things to this coalition. Like you're the naval superpower with the expeditionary military that can deploy globally and topple any adversary and we're a tiny country of ten million people that doesn't even share a border with Iran. But we won't rest and we won't stop fighting until our coalition has collectively occupied Iran. You can count on us. Even now our military is marching into Lebanon on your behalf and we're willing to occupy it for as long as we need to. But on a serious note, there appears to be a growing consensus among the stakeholders that while intervention is going to be required it is going to be required of the country that actually has a global expeditionary force. The Gulf States aren't able to offer much more than air power which the coalition already has enough of and have political reasons not to engage in more than intercepting attacks. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is said to be encouraging Trump to keep going and obviously Israel wants boots on the ground but the concept seems to be that within the boots are exclusively American feet. Looks like those boots on the ground were made for walking, America style eh? Although I’m unsure how they’ll do this with their crippling manpower issues, given the well-publicised recruitment problems the US army has been suffering due to it being too gay or something I must say though I am impressed that you’ve managed to obtain these presumably top-secret diplomatic communiques
The NATO one is actually more or less verbatim. So is the Japanese one now I think about it.
While compiling quotes I went back through some old (three weeks ago) commentary on the war and a lot of people seemed certain that once attacked by Iran the Gulf states would instantly form a coalition to respond in kind. They certainly wouldn’t blame America and expect America to fix it.
With the benefit of hindsight (or common sense) it seems obvious that not only do the Gulf states not want to be seen as involved, they really have nothing to offer in this asymmetrical drone war. They have air power, but that’s already covered. They could respond to Iranian threats to interfere with hydrocarbon exports with their own, they could hit refineries and ships etc. but that doesn’t help anyone. What they can’t do is an amphibious expeditionary mission, that’s the most complicated military operation possible and they have neither the experience nor the assets to do it.
Israel is also essentially useless. They kicked this off and they won’t let it end but they’re not able to provide an expeditionary force and even if they were, it’s a nation 1/9th the population that is already occupying parts of Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.
There is no army to use but the American one. No other sufficiently capable expeditionary force exists globally. I guess Turkey has a sizable military and a land border, albeit all mountains, but I don’t think anyone has even asked them yet.
|
Kwark, you are not up to date, Iran has already conceded defeat and agreed to rolling over and building the wall. He directly talked to the most respected guy from the not-anymore-regime... John Barron. Also Trump's needs more money for the special operation, which has been such a huge success.
|
On March 26 2026 14:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2026 13:29 WombaT wrote:On March 26 2026 12:52 KwarK wrote:Trump's attempts to build a coalition to end this war aren't going well. While there are plenty of countries who think it wouldn't be the worst thing if Iran had a regime change, especially in the Gulf, these countries are pretty clear on who they think should be the one to do it. None of them have real expeditionary forces on the scale that would be required. Kuwait said:
Obviously we're under attack and obviously that's bad and we should do something about it. We had our best guys look into the logistics of fighting a war and we just don't see how it'd be possible to air condition the entire battlefield. I'm sorry but the conditions just aren't acceptable for our citizens. Saudi Arabia said:
Here's the thing. The Iranians were all like "you guys are lapdogs of the imperialist Americans and their Zionist masters". Now obviously we know that we're not but like, if we were to join in the Israeli led war against another Muslim state we're worried that people might get the wrong impression. Also we're pretty tied up with the Houthis right now. But don't worry, we have the fifth highest military spend in the world, the moment we work out which end of the gun is which we'll get that wrapped up. Qatar said:
Normally we'd be all like "we'll get the job done, we don't care how many Southeast Asians die trying" but there's a minor issue. We don't let our 'involuntary workforce' have guns. For their own safety of course. UAE said:
It seems like you're already doing a great job. We'd only get in the way, this is really more of your hobby than it is mine. But we're rooting for you. Iraq said:
Nothing, because the power was out. Britain said:
I was on the fence but then on March 8 Blair came out and said we should definitely send the troops because it's totally legal. He's a pretty reliable inverse indicator so we're gonna pass. Denmark said:
We're pretty tied up with this whole Greenland thing. Canada said:
lol. lmao France said:
It has been explained to us that our role in any coalition with the US is to be far from the front lines. We think 5,000km should do it. Germany said:
There was a five month planning and strategic deployment period before we were ready for Desert Storm. Keeping that in mind your request for coalition action would need to be submitted no later than September 30 2025. Was it? NATO said:
The procedure for requesting collective alliance action is outlined in the document. So far no request for action has been made. Japan said:
That action would be quite impossible under the constitution of Japan which, as far as we can tell, was written by the US military. Australia said:
Mate, last week you said you could do without our help. We believe in you. Israel said:
We're 100% with you. Absolutely. In front of you even. We're the vanguard, we're laying down the path, we won't stop fighting all the way to the gates of Tehran. In a figurative sense. As long as we're around our coalition won't ever stop fighting.
But, as you know, we all bring different things to this coalition. Like you're the naval superpower with the expeditionary military that can deploy globally and topple any adversary and we're a tiny country of ten million people that doesn't even share a border with Iran. But we won't rest and we won't stop fighting until our coalition has collectively occupied Iran. You can count on us. Even now our military is marching into Lebanon on your behalf and we're willing to occupy it for as long as we need to. But on a serious note, there appears to be a growing consensus among the stakeholders that while intervention is going to be required it is going to be required of the country that actually has a global expeditionary force. The Gulf States aren't able to offer much more than air power which the coalition already has enough of and have political reasons not to engage in more than intercepting attacks. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is said to be encouraging Trump to keep going and obviously Israel wants boots on the ground but the concept seems to be that within the boots are exclusively American feet. Looks like those boots on the ground were made for walking, America style eh? Although I’m unsure how they’ll do this with their crippling manpower issues, given the well-publicised recruitment problems the US army has been suffering due to it being too gay or something I must say though I am impressed that you’ve managed to obtain these presumably top-secret diplomatic communiques The NATO one is actually more or less verbatim. So is the Japanese one now I think about it. While compiling quotes I went back through some old (three weeks ago) commentary on the war and a lot of people seemed certain that once attacked by Iran the Gulf states would instantly form a coalition to respond in kind. They certainly wouldn’t blame America and expect America to fix it. With the benefit of hindsight (or common sense) it seems obvious that not only do the Gulf states not want to be seen as involved, they really have nothing to offer in this asymmetrical drone war. They have air power, but that’s already covered. They could respond to Iranian threats to interfere with hydrocarbon exports with their own, they could hit refineries and ships etc. but that doesn’t help anyone. What they can’t do is an amphibious expeditionary mission, that’s the most complicated military operation possible and they have neither the experience nor the assets to do it. Israel is also essentially useless. They kicked this off and they won’t let it end but they’re not able to provide an expeditionary force and even if they were, it’s a nation 1/9th the population that is already occupying parts of Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. There is no army to use but the American one. No other sufficiently capable expeditionary force exists globally. I guess Turkey has a sizable military and a land border, albeit all mountains, but I don’t think anyone has even asked them yet.
Tbf, once Amuhrica executes regime change with boots on the ground, Turkey will no doubt be happy to help by ensuring a large part of Iranian Kurdistan stays "peaceful".
|
Are these gift bearing Iranians in the room with us right now, Donald?
|
I wonder if some other Gulf state sent him a present and signed it "From your secret bestie, Iran" to see if that'll lower the temperature. But yeah, in all likelihood it's just another case of "demented 80-year old compulsive liar continues lying recreationally".
|
Terrific sense of humor, KwarK. Particularly the France and Germany bits.
I chuckled/10
|
On March 25 2026 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2026 11:04 baal wrote:On March 24 2026 21:11 EnDeR_ wrote:
This is why I wanted to get your take. Your thesis, as presented, rests on convincing evidence being used successfully to debunk a bad idea. I.e. prove the idea wrong and kill it, in your own words.
You presumably agree that that doesn't really work. So does that make you rethink your approach here? How would you kill a harmful idea?
Having someone debate the bad idea with someone on the opposite side as it were has been tried. It turns out that platforming bad ideas and setting them on the same level as good ideas legitimises the bad idea and makes it spread. How do you tackle this, in your view? You are like the 3rd person who is essentially asking "if free speech works why aren't things perfect", come on dont make me answer these silly questions again. We are a deeply flawed being in a complex world, speech an open discussion is better to navigate through ideas than central censorship, that doesn't mean free speech means a perfect pink unicorn world lol. Ideas are organically discussed at the level they deserve, for example Richard Dawkins decided to stop debating young earth creationists because frankly it was beneath him, but he debated with many other people in a higher level of discussion, however there were still many atheist who discussed with young earth creationists on smaller platforms, this serves well to watchers on different levels of the discussion. Debate doesn't legitimize bad ideas, have you ever seen Dawkins debate a crazy fundamentalist and think "damn this Imam has a good point on killing apostates"? No, it shows the world that Islamists are violent and crazy. Deplatforming is a good solution to stop the spread of misinformation (or bad ideas if you will). Show nested quote +The ‘Big Lie’ of election fraud pushed by former President Trump which culminated with the January 6 insurrection against the U.S. Capitol has profoundly reshaped the social media landscape. With @RealDonaldTrump and other prominent conspiracists no longer able to reach wide swaths of the public, misinformation about election fraud has already fallen dramatically This has been particularly effective at stopping terrorist recruitment: Show nested quote +After being deplatformed in 2015, Islamic extremists migrated to Telegram and marginal social networking platforms. Then, in November 2019, Telegram and the EU’s main law enforcement body collaborated to clean up the remnants of the movement online. By forcing them into smaller and more clandestine digital locales, the groups ability to recruit, coordinate, and organize real-world violence significantly diminished. So this is a good argument to stop the spread of bad ideas. What it doesn't do is fix the people that have already been exposed to the bad idea: Show nested quote +Shutting down accounts helps prevent average unsuspecting users from being exposed to dangerous content, but it doesn’t necessarily stop those who already endorse that content. When analyzing data from r/The_Donald and r/Incels, two forums that were removed from Reddit last year and later became their own standalone websites, researchers found a significant drop in posting activity and newcomers. Still, for those that continued to post on these relocated forums, researchers also noted an increase in signals associated with toxicity and radicalization. For that we would need a different approach, but Deplatforming does help to avoid new people getting infected with the bad idea.
I think Twitter banning the sitting president of the United States is way worse for the world overall than whatever he could have said to his followers. I mean, I'm a libertarian and I still think its wild a corp can do that to the president, and you statists are ok with that?
But back on topic, yeah deplataforming obv works in diminishing the reach of people, but does it work to kill an idea?
Milo Yiannopolus, Stefan Molyneux and Gavin McInnes were deplatformed into oblivion, they were the pioneers of this anti-feminist "alpha male red piller" movement, do you think their ideas are weaker now?
Alex Jones was deplatformed and fined into bankruptcy (absurd amount tbh), and do you think his conspiracy theories have lost momentum?
I personally think that the alpha male red pillers and the conspiracy nut rhetoric is far stronger than when these people were deplatformed.
|
On March 26 2026 18:16 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2026 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 25 2026 11:04 baal wrote:On March 24 2026 21:11 EnDeR_ wrote:
This is why I wanted to get your take. Your thesis, as presented, rests on convincing evidence being used successfully to debunk a bad idea. I.e. prove the idea wrong and kill it, in your own words.
You presumably agree that that doesn't really work. So does that make you rethink your approach here? How would you kill a harmful idea?
Having someone debate the bad idea with someone on the opposite side as it were has been tried. It turns out that platforming bad ideas and setting them on the same level as good ideas legitimises the bad idea and makes it spread. How do you tackle this, in your view? You are like the 3rd person who is essentially asking "if free speech works why aren't things perfect", come on dont make me answer these silly questions again. We are a deeply flawed being in a complex world, speech an open discussion is better to navigate through ideas than central censorship, that doesn't mean free speech means a perfect pink unicorn world lol. Ideas are organically discussed at the level they deserve, for example Richard Dawkins decided to stop debating young earth creationists because frankly it was beneath him, but he debated with many other people in a higher level of discussion, however there were still many atheist who discussed with young earth creationists on smaller platforms, this serves well to watchers on different levels of the discussion. Debate doesn't legitimize bad ideas, have you ever seen Dawkins debate a crazy fundamentalist and think "damn this Imam has a good point on killing apostates"? No, it shows the world that Islamists are violent and crazy. Deplatforming is a good solution to stop the spread of misinformation (or bad ideas if you will). The ‘Big Lie’ of election fraud pushed by former President Trump which culminated with the January 6 insurrection against the U.S. Capitol has profoundly reshaped the social media landscape. With @RealDonaldTrump and other prominent conspiracists no longer able to reach wide swaths of the public, misinformation about election fraud has already fallen dramatically This has been particularly effective at stopping terrorist recruitment: After being deplatformed in 2015, Islamic extremists migrated to Telegram and marginal social networking platforms. Then, in November 2019, Telegram and the EU’s main law enforcement body collaborated to clean up the remnants of the movement online. By forcing them into smaller and more clandestine digital locales, the groups ability to recruit, coordinate, and organize real-world violence significantly diminished. So this is a good argument to stop the spread of bad ideas. What it doesn't do is fix the people that have already been exposed to the bad idea: Shutting down accounts helps prevent average unsuspecting users from being exposed to dangerous content, but it doesn’t necessarily stop those who already endorse that content. When analyzing data from r/The_Donald and r/Incels, two forums that were removed from Reddit last year and later became their own standalone websites, researchers found a significant drop in posting activity and newcomers. Still, for those that continued to post on these relocated forums, researchers also noted an increase in signals associated with toxicity and radicalization. For that we would need a different approach, but Deplatforming does help to avoid new people getting infected with the bad idea. I think Twitter banning the sitting president of the United States is way worse for the world overall than whatever he could have said to his followers. I mean, I'm a libertarian and I still think its wild a corp can do that to the president, and you statists are ok with that? But back on topic, yeah deplataforming obv works in diminishing the reach of people, but does it work to kill an idea?
Twitter is a private company. Who they choose to host has nothing to do with free speech.
Obligatory xkcd comic:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 26 2026 18:24 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2026 18:16 baal wrote:On March 25 2026 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 25 2026 11:04 baal wrote:On March 24 2026 21:11 EnDeR_ wrote:
This is why I wanted to get your take. Your thesis, as presented, rests on convincing evidence being used successfully to debunk a bad idea. I.e. prove the idea wrong and kill it, in your own words.
You presumably agree that that doesn't really work. So does that make you rethink your approach here? How would you kill a harmful idea?
Having someone debate the bad idea with someone on the opposite side as it were has been tried. It turns out that platforming bad ideas and setting them on the same level as good ideas legitimises the bad idea and makes it spread. How do you tackle this, in your view? You are like the 3rd person who is essentially asking "if free speech works why aren't things perfect", come on dont make me answer these silly questions again. We are a deeply flawed being in a complex world, speech an open discussion is better to navigate through ideas than central censorship, that doesn't mean free speech means a perfect pink unicorn world lol. Ideas are organically discussed at the level they deserve, for example Richard Dawkins decided to stop debating young earth creationists because frankly it was beneath him, but he debated with many other people in a higher level of discussion, however there were still many atheist who discussed with young earth creationists on smaller platforms, this serves well to watchers on different levels of the discussion. Debate doesn't legitimize bad ideas, have you ever seen Dawkins debate a crazy fundamentalist and think "damn this Imam has a good point on killing apostates"? No, it shows the world that Islamists are violent and crazy. Deplatforming is a good solution to stop the spread of misinformation (or bad ideas if you will). The ‘Big Lie’ of election fraud pushed by former President Trump which culminated with the January 6 insurrection against the U.S. Capitol has profoundly reshaped the social media landscape. With @RealDonaldTrump and other prominent conspiracists no longer able to reach wide swaths of the public, misinformation about election fraud has already fallen dramatically This has been particularly effective at stopping terrorist recruitment: After being deplatformed in 2015, Islamic extremists migrated to Telegram and marginal social networking platforms. Then, in November 2019, Telegram and the EU’s main law enforcement body collaborated to clean up the remnants of the movement online. By forcing them into smaller and more clandestine digital locales, the groups ability to recruit, coordinate, and organize real-world violence significantly diminished. So this is a good argument to stop the spread of bad ideas. What it doesn't do is fix the people that have already been exposed to the bad idea: Shutting down accounts helps prevent average unsuspecting users from being exposed to dangerous content, but it doesn’t necessarily stop those who already endorse that content. When analyzing data from r/The_Donald and r/Incels, two forums that were removed from Reddit last year and later became their own standalone websites, researchers found a significant drop in posting activity and newcomers. Still, for those that continued to post on these relocated forums, researchers also noted an increase in signals associated with toxicity and radicalization. For that we would need a different approach, but Deplatforming does help to avoid new people getting infected with the bad idea. I think Twitter banning the sitting president of the United States is way worse for the world overall than whatever he could have said to his followers. I mean, I'm a libertarian and I still think its wild a corp can do that to the president, and you statists are ok with that? But back on topic, yeah deplataforming obv works in diminishing the reach of people, but does it work to kill an idea? Twitter is a private company. Who they choose to host has nothing to do with free speech. Obligatory xkcd comic: + Show Spoiler +
Well yeah the constitution only protects cencorship from the state, but its the concept particularly when pretty much all speech happens in social media in modern times.
I wasn't even the one who brought it up, it was EnDeR, and thats fine because we are discussing freedom of speech as a concept not a legal thing, and I don't go like you guys with the "ackshuallys" lol
|
On March 25 2026 20:05 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2026 11:04 baal wrote:On March 24 2026 21:11 EnDeR_ wrote:
This is why I wanted to get your take. Your thesis, as presented, rests on convincing evidence being used successfully to debunk a bad idea. I.e. prove the idea wrong and kill it, in your own words.
You presumably agree that that doesn't really work. So does that make you rethink your approach here? How would you kill a harmful idea?
Having someone debate the bad idea with someone on the opposite side as it were has been tried. It turns out that platforming bad ideas and setting them on the same level as good ideas legitimises the bad idea and makes it spread. How do you tackle this, in your view? You are like the 3rd person who is essentially asking "if free speech works why aren't things perfect", come on dont make me answer these silly questions again. We are a deeply flawed being in a complex world, speech an open discussion is better to navigate through ideas than central censorship, that doesn't mean free speech means a perfect pink unicorn world lol. Ideas are organically discussed at the level they deserve, for example Richard Dawkins decided to stop debating young earth creationists because frankly it was beneath him, but he debated with many other people in a higher level of discussion, however there were still many atheist who discussed with young earth creationists on smaller platforms, this serves well to watchers on different levels of the discussion. Debate doesn't legitimize bad ideas, have you ever seen Dawkins debate a crazy fundamentalist and think "damn this Imam has a good point on killing apostates"? No, it shows the world that Islamists are violent and crazy. I don’t think people are arguing that. It’s not ‘if that works why aren’t things perfect?’ it’s ’if that works so well why are things actively worse in various domains than 10/15 years ago?’ One does not have to adopt censorship as a solution and consider the cure worse than the poison by any means. But equally it’s hard to completely sidestep some obviously negative trends entirely I think it’s telling you’re using Dawkins debating creationists as a reference, and thanks for transporting myself back to teenage me briefly there. I say that because at that time, I think broadly speaking, that ‘free marketplace of ideas’ so to speak, kinda did work. I imagine I’m similar to many in the thread where my formative years were in a time where one broadly saw that functioning, and it was only with time and a good degree of reluctance where my position somewhat changed. For me it’s a twofold and interlinked problem of the erosion of faith in various institutions, and what’s replaced that. Or to put it another way, it’s not that the free marketplace of ideas as a concept doesn’t work, it’s that we don’t have one. And we’re unlikely to have one anytime soon without some kind of state intervention. The whole ecosystem is problematic and I don’t think the solution is censorship in arbitrary cases, the ecosystem itself needs fixed. Platforming can absolutely be harmful, or the opposite, it’s very case dependent. Do you properly challenge ideas, or let em go unchallenged? Etc. Are you tacitly legitimising something? So Dawkins demolishing some creationist, that’s ’good platforming’, but you can also inadvertently confer legitimacy merely via the act of platforming alone. If idk the BBC extended its platform on the regular to some more fringe views and those weren’t sufficiently challenged
We are actually pretty much on the same page, "the market of ideas" is very polluted and there are many challenges but the goal should be to protect it not to destroy it with censorship.
Those debates where its one expert and randoms sitting around I think are great even if their are done by Jubilee or some trash company, go watch the Dr. Mike one and tell me it wasn't the biggest blow against anti-vaxxers you've seen in a long time.
|
On March 25 2026 22:59 KwarK wrote:
If confronting idiocy with actual facts worked then explain baal’s posting.
or the hair trigger censorship/banning here has left you all trapped into an echo chamber of dumb ideas.
|
Twitter is a private company. Who they choose to host has nothing to do with free speech.
There's a difference between the broader concept of freedom of speech and the specifics of the first amendment of the United States.
|
On March 26 2026 18:24 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2026 18:16 baal wrote:On March 25 2026 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 25 2026 11:04 baal wrote:On March 24 2026 21:11 EnDeR_ wrote:
This is why I wanted to get your take. Your thesis, as presented, rests on convincing evidence being used successfully to debunk a bad idea. I.e. prove the idea wrong and kill it, in your own words.
You presumably agree that that doesn't really work. So does that make you rethink your approach here? How would you kill a harmful idea?
Having someone debate the bad idea with someone on the opposite side as it were has been tried. It turns out that platforming bad ideas and setting them on the same level as good ideas legitimises the bad idea and makes it spread. How do you tackle this, in your view? You are like the 3rd person who is essentially asking "if free speech works why aren't things perfect", come on dont make me answer these silly questions again. We are a deeply flawed being in a complex world, speech an open discussion is better to navigate through ideas than central censorship, that doesn't mean free speech means a perfect pink unicorn world lol. Ideas are organically discussed at the level they deserve, for example Richard Dawkins decided to stop debating young earth creationists because frankly it was beneath him, but he debated with many other people in a higher level of discussion, however there were still many atheist who discussed with young earth creationists on smaller platforms, this serves well to watchers on different levels of the discussion. Debate doesn't legitimize bad ideas, have you ever seen Dawkins debate a crazy fundamentalist and think "damn this Imam has a good point on killing apostates"? No, it shows the world that Islamists are violent and crazy. Deplatforming is a good solution to stop the spread of misinformation (or bad ideas if you will). The ‘Big Lie’ of election fraud pushed by former President Trump which culminated with the January 6 insurrection against the U.S. Capitol has profoundly reshaped the social media landscape. With @RealDonaldTrump and other prominent conspiracists no longer able to reach wide swaths of the public, misinformation about election fraud has already fallen dramatically This has been particularly effective at stopping terrorist recruitment: After being deplatformed in 2015, Islamic extremists migrated to Telegram and marginal social networking platforms. Then, in November 2019, Telegram and the EU’s main law enforcement body collaborated to clean up the remnants of the movement online. By forcing them into smaller and more clandestine digital locales, the groups ability to recruit, coordinate, and organize real-world violence significantly diminished. So this is a good argument to stop the spread of bad ideas. What it doesn't do is fix the people that have already been exposed to the bad idea: Shutting down accounts helps prevent average unsuspecting users from being exposed to dangerous content, but it doesn’t necessarily stop those who already endorse that content. When analyzing data from r/The_Donald and r/Incels, two forums that were removed from Reddit last year and later became their own standalone websites, researchers found a significant drop in posting activity and newcomers. Still, for those that continued to post on these relocated forums, researchers also noted an increase in signals associated with toxicity and radicalization. For that we would need a different approach, but Deplatforming does help to avoid new people getting infected with the bad idea. I think Twitter banning the sitting president of the United States is way worse for the world overall than whatever he could have said to his followers. I mean, I'm a libertarian and I still think its wild a corp can do that to the president, and you statists are ok with that? But back on topic, yeah deplataforming obv works in diminishing the reach of people, but does it work to kill an idea? Twitter is a private company. Who they choose to host has nothing to do with free speech. Obligatory xkcd comic: + Show Spoiler +
Wow the stick man said "1st amendment" which refers to the US Constitution. That clearly means by definition the concept of free expression doesn't exist outside of the US government.
|
On March 25 2026 22:57 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2026 11:04 baal wrote:On March 24 2026 21:11 EnDeR_ wrote:
This is why I wanted to get your take. Your thesis, as presented, rests on convincing evidence being used successfully to debunk a bad idea. I.e. prove the idea wrong and kill it, in your own words.
You presumably agree that that doesn't really work. So does that make you rethink your approach here? How would you kill a harmful idea?
Having someone debate the bad idea with someone on the opposite side as it were has been tried. It turns out that platforming bad ideas and setting them on the same level as good ideas legitimises the bad idea and makes it spread. How do you tackle this, in your view? You are like the 3rd person who is essentially asking "if free speech works why aren't things perfect", come on dont make me answer these silly questions again. We are a deeply flawed being in a complex world, speech an open discussion is better to navigate through ideas than central censorship, that doesn't mean free speech means a perfect pink unicorn world lol. Ideas are organically discussed at the level they deserve, for example Richard Dawkins decided to stop debating young earth creationists because frankly it was beneath him, but he debated with many other people in a higher level of discussion, however there were still many atheist who discussed with young earth creationists on smaller platforms, this serves well to watchers on different levels of the discussion. Debate doesn't legitimize bad ideas, have you ever seen Dawkins debate a crazy fundamentalist and think "damn this Imam has a good point on killing apostates"? No, it shows the world that Islamists are violent and crazy. But this goes back to your original thesis that debunking a bad idea kills the bad idea. For debate of bad ideas to work as a cure for the bad idea, then it must be true that if you show someone that they are wrong, that they will change their mind about the thing that they are wrong about. In many cases, the opposite is true, showing someone that their belief is wrong just reinforces the belief. Here's an article that makes these points a bit more eloquently: Show nested quote +In an ideal world, rational people who encounter new evidence that contradicts their beliefs would evaluate the facts and change their views accordingly. But that’s generally not how things go in the real world.
Partly to blame is a cognitive bias that can kick in when people encounter evidence that runs counter to their beliefs. Instead of reevaluating what they’ve believed up until now, people tend to reject the incompatible evidence. Psychologists call this phenomenon belief perseverance. Everyone can fall prey to this ingrained way of thinking.
Being presented with facts – whether via the news, social media or one-on-one conversations – that suggest their current beliefs are wrong causes people to feel threatened. This reaction is particularly strong when the beliefs in question are aligned with your political and personal identities. It can feel like an attack on you if one of your strongly held beliefs is challenged.
Confronting facts that don’t line up with your worldview may trigger a “backfire effect,” which can end up strengthening your original position and beliefs, particularly with politically charged issues. Researchers have identified this phenomenon in a number of studies, including ones about opinions toward climate change mitigation policies and attitudes toward childhood vaccinations. So, the premise is flawed. Debating a bad idea does not achieve the intended goal of killing the bad idea once it has been established.
You are twisting my argument into "show evidence to people and they will believe it", I've said many times that we are flawed and irrational beings.
"Sun lightt" has many mechanism besides evidence, debates generate consensus thus social pressure, ridicule and other things that are sadly as or more effective than evidence itself.
An average person doesn't believe the world is round due to evidence but about social consensus, and a TV show where flat earthers get dramatically embarrassed creates this social consensus through ridicule.
Also to clarify again, I'm not saying free speech and debate are perfect tools, they are just far better than central censorship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png)
