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.
On January 25 2024 04:59 Yurie wrote: Cutting the military is a very popular line to hold when there is minimal risk of war. Europe has had minimal risk of war up until Russia started expanding again. The current re-expansion in Europe is slow and should perhaps have started at Crimea but raising military spending without a serious opponent is not popular.
I will read/reply to other longer responses later tonight, but while I have a moment, I wanted to quickly reply here.
This is the meat of what I am saying is an issue. With our current understanding of political theory, we do not have an acceptable solution to the problem you are describing. This is an example of a time where the technically "correct" decision is actually quite important and failure to do the "correct" thing is unacceptably damaging. If Ukraine is absorbed into Russia, the negative consequences of that are too profound to accept. The reason behind that happening being popularity is absurd beyond description. The idea that the average education and civil participation level of a country would determine something like that is laughable. It is so amazingly stupid.
That is why I am saying we can't let symbolic patriotism for "democracy" force us into bizarrely nonsensical bullshit. If a country's sovereignty is threatened due to sucking ourselves off for being democratic, fuck all that. It isn't acceptable for us to shrug our shoulders and say "I guess that's just the pros and cons!". We as a planet, Europe as a collection of nations, need to be working towards fixing THAT issue. Working within a dogshit system is not acceptable.
Perhaps the kind of reworking I am describing is also the kind of thing that would never be made public. But all I am saying is that I see no indication nations around the world are looking at what a failure this situation has been and looking for a macroscopic solution to the root-cause: a broken political system. Popularity can't be what determines this kind of thing. We need to do better.
There are very few countries who are sucking themselves off for being democratic. From the US to Europe, many things that are extremely popular don't happen because under the capitalist system, some people have way more power than others, and therefore their voice carries more than the voice of others do. There are extremely few situations in which someone with power wants something to happen, but then they're like, "Damn, unfortunately I'm in a democracy and the people are against me, therefore I guess I can't do it".
On January 25 2024 04:59 Yurie wrote: Cutting the military is a very popular line to hold when there is minimal risk of war. Europe has had minimal risk of war up until Russia started expanding again. The current re-expansion in Europe is slow and should perhaps have started at Crimea but raising military spending without a serious opponent is not popular.
I will read/reply to other longer responses later tonight, but while I have a moment, I wanted to quickly reply here.
This is the meat of what I am saying is an issue. With our current understanding of political theory, we do not have an acceptable solution to the problem you are describing. This is an example of a time where the technically "correct" decision is actually quite important and failure to do the "correct" thing is unacceptably damaging. If Ukraine is absorbed into Russia, the negative consequences of that are too profound to accept. The reason behind that happening being popularity is absurd beyond description. The idea that the average education and civil participation level of a country would determine something like that is laughable. It is so amazingly stupid.
That is why I am saying we can't let symbolic patriotism for "democracy" force us into bizarrely nonsensical bullshit. If a country's sovereignty is threatened due to sucking ourselves off for being democratic, fuck all that. It isn't acceptable for us to shrug our shoulders and say "I guess that's just the pros and cons!". We as a planet, Europe as a collection of nations, need to be working towards fixing THAT issue. Working within a dogshit system is not acceptable.
Perhaps the kind of reworking I am describing is also the kind of thing that would never be made public. But all I am saying is that I see no indication nations around the world are looking at what a failure this situation has been and looking for a macroscopic solution to the root-cause: a broken political system. Popularity can't be what determines this kind of thing. We need to do better.
Your dismissal of “popularity” as a necessary criterion of national policy indicates a lack of appreciation of its importance. I think too often that word gets conflated with the visual of a high school popularity contest, the kind of thing we look back on as adults with scorn or derision. Popularity in the context of democratic politicians really just means “how effectively does this person embody the will of their constituents?” Considering that’s the basis of democracy as a political system, its importance in determining policy is working as intended.
Democracy in modern Western society today is based on the Enlightenment belief that every individual, regardless of qualifications, should have their autonomy maximized. It didn’t used to be regardless of qualifications, it used to be only Senators/white landowners/what have you had a say, but somewhere over the last 200 years we decided that arbitrary decisions of who is allowed to maximize their autonomy are pretty fucked up and hypocritical.
Your concerns about the efficacy and speed of governmental decision making are valid, which is why emergency powers exist as an imperfect band-aid solution, but the issue of an “uneducated” voter base does not have an easy solution. You can’t go backwards and impose a set of requirements on citizens to qualify them as voters, because it’s impossible to create them in a way that is both unbiased towards those creating them, and equally fair for every citizen to pass regardless of race/culture/etc. Any set of requirements that doesn’t meet those criteria are no different than an autocracy. You could argue that’s what’s necessary, as long as you realize you’re not supporting Western ideals anymore and people will react accordingly.
Your solution is to pull a Destiny and use social platforms to propagate your beliefs as effectively as possible, getting the most possible people to vote the way you want them to.
On January 25 2024 04:59 Yurie wrote: Cutting the military is a very popular line to hold when there is minimal risk of war. Europe has had minimal risk of war up until Russia started expanding again. The current re-expansion in Europe is slow and should perhaps have started at Crimea but raising military spending without a serious opponent is not popular.
I will read/reply to other longer responses later tonight, but while I have a moment, I wanted to quickly reply here.
This is the meat of what I am saying is an issue. With our current understanding of political theory, we do not have an acceptable solution to the problem you are describing. This is an example of a time where the technically "correct" decision is actually quite important and failure to do the "correct" thing is unacceptably damaging. If Ukraine is absorbed into Russia, the negative consequences of that are too profound to accept. The reason behind that happening being popularity is absurd beyond description. The idea that the average education and civil participation level of a country would determine something like that is laughable. It is so amazingly stupid.
That is why I am saying we can't let symbolic patriotism for "democracy" force us into bizarrely nonsensical bullshit. If a country's sovereignty is threatened due to sucking ourselves off for being democratic, fuck all that. It isn't acceptable for us to shrug our shoulders and say "I guess that's just the pros and cons!". We as a planet, Europe as a collection of nations, need to be working towards fixing THAT issue. Working within a dogshit system is not acceptable.
Perhaps the kind of reworking I am describing is also the kind of thing that would never be made public. But all I am saying is that I see no indication nations around the world are looking at what a failure this situation has been and looking for a macroscopic solution to the root-cause: a broken political system. Popularity can't be what determines this kind of thing. We need to do better.
There are very few countries who are sucking themselves off for being democratic. From the US to Europe, many things that are extremely popular don't happen because under the capitalist system, some people have way more power than others, and therefore their voice carries more than the voice of others do. There are extremely few situations in which someone with power wants something to happen, but then they're like, "Damn, unfortunately I'm in a democracy and the people are against me, therefore I guess I can't do it".
To be fair, if this happens we’d likely not hear about it because they wouldn’t want the public to know they want said thing to happen. Maybe Biden wants to be a dictator lol
On January 25 2024 04:59 Yurie wrote: Cutting the military is a very popular line to hold when there is minimal risk of war. Europe has had minimal risk of war up until Russia started expanding again. The current re-expansion in Europe is slow and should perhaps have started at Crimea but raising military spending without a serious opponent is not popular.
I will read/reply to other longer responses later tonight, but while I have a moment, I wanted to quickly reply here.
This is the meat of what I am saying is an issue. With our current understanding of political theory, we do not have an acceptable solution to the problem you are describing. This is an example of a time where the technically "correct" decision is actually quite important and failure to do the "correct" thing is unacceptably damaging. If Ukraine is absorbed into Russia, the negative consequences of that are too profound to accept. The reason behind that happening being popularity is absurd beyond description. The idea that the average education and civil participation level of a country would determine something like that is laughable. It is so amazingly stupid.
That is why I am saying we can't let symbolic patriotism for "democracy" force us into bizarrely nonsensical bullshit. If a country's sovereignty is threatened due to sucking ourselves off for being democratic, fuck all that. It isn't acceptable for us to shrug our shoulders and say "I guess that's just the pros and cons!". We as a planet, Europe as a collection of nations, need to be working towards fixing THAT issue. Working within a dogshit system is not acceptable.
Perhaps the kind of reworking I am describing is also the kind of thing that would never be made public. But all I am saying is that I see no indication nations around the world are looking at what a failure this situation has been and looking for a macroscopic solution to the root-cause: a broken political system. Popularity can't be what determines this kind of thing. We need to do better.
There are very few countries who are sucking themselves off for being democratic. From the US to Europe, many things that are extremely popular don't happen because under the capitalist system, some people have way more power than others, and therefore their voice carries more than the voice of others do. There are extremely few situations in which someone with power wants something to happen, but then they're like, "Damn, unfortunately I'm in a democracy and the people are against me, therefore I guess I can't do it".
Geert Wilders is, right now, in a position of power in the Netherlands. We cannot really doubt that he would really like to deport anybody with a Moroccan passport. Yet it isn't happening. Clearly the checks and balances are still working. Even Orban and Erdogan don't have full unchecked power the way Putin does.
On January 25 2024 04:59 Yurie wrote: Cutting the military is a very popular line to hold when there is minimal risk of war. Europe has had minimal risk of war up until Russia started expanding again. The current re-expansion in Europe is slow and should perhaps have started at Crimea but raising military spending without a serious opponent is not popular.
I will read/reply to other longer responses later tonight, but while I have a moment, I wanted to quickly reply here.
This is the meat of what I am saying is an issue. With our current understanding of political theory, we do not have an acceptable solution to the problem you are describing. This is an example of a time where the technically "correct" decision is actually quite important and failure to do the "correct" thing is unacceptably damaging. If Ukraine is absorbed into Russia, the negative consequences of that are too profound to accept. The reason behind that happening being popularity is absurd beyond description. The idea that the average education and civil participation level of a country would determine something like that is laughable. It is so amazingly stupid.
That is why I am saying we can't let symbolic patriotism for "democracy" force us into bizarrely nonsensical bullshit. If a country's sovereignty is threatened due to sucking ourselves off for being democratic, fuck all that. It isn't acceptable for us to shrug our shoulders and say "I guess that's just the pros and cons!". We as a planet, Europe as a collection of nations, need to be working towards fixing THAT issue. Working within a dogshit system is not acceptable.
Perhaps the kind of reworking I am describing is also the kind of thing that would never be made public. But all I am saying is that I see no indication nations around the world are looking at what a failure this situation has been and looking for a macroscopic solution to the root-cause: a broken political system. Popularity can't be what determines this kind of thing. We need to do better.
There are very few countries who are sucking themselves off for being democratic. From the US to Europe, many things that are extremely popular don't happen because under the capitalist system, some people have way more power than others, and therefore their voice carries more than the voice of others do. There are extremely few situations in which someone with power wants something to happen, but then they're like, "Damn, unfortunately I'm in a democracy and the people are against me, therefore I guess I can't do it".
Geert Wilders is, right now, in a position of power in the Netherlands. We cannot really doubt that he would really like to deport anybody with a Moroccan passport. Yet it isn't happening. Clearly the checks and balances are still working. Even Orban and Erdogan don't have full unchecked power the way Putin does.
There are a bunch of other people who also have power who oppose him doing it, because immigrants play a crucial role in the capitalist system. But more importantly that's not really comparable to the situation that Mohdoo was talking about.
On January 25 2024 04:59 Yurie wrote: Cutting the military is a very popular line to hold when there is minimal risk of war. Europe has had minimal risk of war up until Russia started expanding again. The current re-expansion in Europe is slow and should perhaps have started at Crimea but raising military spending without a serious opponent is not popular.
I will read/reply to other longer responses later tonight, but while I have a moment, I wanted to quickly reply here.
This is the meat of what I am saying is an issue. With our current understanding of political theory, we do not have an acceptable solution to the problem you are describing. This is an example of a time where the technically "correct" decision is actually quite important and failure to do the "correct" thing is unacceptably damaging. If Ukraine is absorbed into Russia, the negative consequences of that are too profound to accept. The reason behind that happening being popularity is absurd beyond description. The idea that the average education and civil participation level of a country would determine something like that is laughable. It is so amazingly stupid.
That is why I am saying we can't let symbolic patriotism for "democracy" force us into bizarrely nonsensical bullshit. If a country's sovereignty is threatened due to sucking ourselves off for being democratic, fuck all that. It isn't acceptable for us to shrug our shoulders and say "I guess that's just the pros and cons!". We as a planet, Europe as a collection of nations, need to be working towards fixing THAT issue. Working within a dogshit system is not acceptable.
Perhaps the kind of reworking I am describing is also the kind of thing that would never be made public. But all I am saying is that I see no indication nations around the world are looking at what a failure this situation has been and looking for a macroscopic solution to the root-cause: a broken political system. Popularity can't be what determines this kind of thing. We need to do better.
There are very few countries who are sucking themselves off for being democratic. From the US to Europe, many things that are extremely popular don't happen because under the capitalist system, some people have way more power than others, and therefore their voice carries more than the voice of others do. There are extremely few situations in which someone with power wants something to happen, but then they're like, "Damn, unfortunately I'm in a democracy and the people are against me, therefore I guess I can't do it".
Geert Wilders is, right now, in a position of power in the Netherlands. We cannot really doubt that he would really like to deport anybody with a Moroccan passport. Yet it isn't happening. Clearly the checks and balances are still working. Even Orban and Erdogan don't have full unchecked power the way Putin does.
Point of order, Wilders is not in a position of power yet. He came out as the biggest in the recent election but coalition negotiations are on going. He has not yet formed a government and there is actually a non-0% chance he wont become Prime Minister when he does form a government if his coalition partners are not ok with that.
On January 26 2024 06:56 JimmiC wrote: A in depth look at the information so far on the plane crash. From the article, only 5 people brought to morgue and VIPs in Russia told not board.
On January 26 2024 06:56 JimmiC wrote: A in depth look at the information so far on the plane crash. From the article, only 5 people brought to morgue and VIPs in Russia told not board.
What does that even mean? You think Russia deliberately shot down their own plane?
Doesn't really mean anything other than "huh, that's weird". Such a conspiracy theory isn't at all out of line for Russia tho. They tried to control the narrative immediately, including a list of Ukrainian POWs on the boarding list (who were easily verified not actually on it), and failed laughably. In line with their hilarious "sims" plant picture, I wouldn't put it past them to have such a laughably stupid idea planned, but there's certainly no concrete evidence for it either.
Russia is *still* lying about this? Damn, i dont think even zeo would deny in 2024 that MH17 was shot down by Russia.
Digressional fun fact: The MH17 was shot down in the same corridor, in the same time, on the same flight path, one day after I flew over it.
I flew a day earlier than planned because I wanted an extra day to adjust to jet lag before starting school on the other side of the planet.
But yeah, it's laughable they are still trying to peddle that lie, but Russia doesn't at all care that their lies are easily provable. Why would they? Several people in this thread alone proves us people will swallow anything as long as it fits their agenda.
Russia is *still* lying about this? Damn, i dont think even zeo would deny in 2024 that MH17 was shot down by Russia.
Digressional fun fact: The MH17 was shot down in the same corridor, in the same time, on the same flight path, one day after I flew over it.
I flew a day earlier than planned because I wanted an extra day to adjust to jet lag before starting school on the other side of the planet.
But yeah, it's laughable they are still trying to peddle that lie, but Russia doesn't at all care that their lies are easily provable. Why would they? Several people in this thread alone proves us people will swallow anything as long as it fits their agenda.
On January 26 2024 06:56 JimmiC wrote: A in depth look at the information so far on the plane crash. From the article, only 5 people brought to morgue and VIPs in Russia told not board.
What does that even mean? You think Russia deliberately shot down their own plane?
I think you should look at it through the prism of just how far OINST has fallen regarding Ukraine since the troubles in the middle east began. The mainstreamers trying to be somewhat credible lost interest (monetary interest) in following and we are left with the borderline sociopaths catering to the irrational and loud minority.
The downing of this plane can be taken as a case study.
The Ukrainian media changed their news headlines all day and could decide which position to take. First, they released an infographic with a crossed-out silhouette of the Il-76, and the headlines were in the style of how 'our air defense is delivering a beating to the enemy', then at one point they started adding S-300 rockets to all the headlines. Finally they started to remove their victorious air defense from the headlines, roughly becoming: "The enemy Il-76 crashed, we have no idea how or why, we only know that it was full of missiles for the S-300, and maybe Iranian missiles, the only thing is that it was not full of our captured soldiers". All while the Ukrainian military confirmed that there was supposed to be an exchange that day.
All of this compounded with OINST 'research' that defied any semblance of reason and room temperature IQ level mental gymnastics trying to spin and downplay whatever hairbrained narrative they were all jumping onto at that moment. At one point they were trying to 'debunk' a picture of a printed out word document with photoshopped screenshots of a telegram post. Apparently 17 people from the printed word document were traded before and this somehow proved some other thing that proved another thing and this made sense to them.
The same trash content creators posted on here a page or two ago being forced to tell a truth a few days later:
Its not about logic and reason with people that take this kind of content seriously
Russia is *still* lying about this? Damn, i dont think even zeo would deny in 2024 that MH17 was shot down by Russia.
Digressional fun fact: The MH17 was shot down in the same corridor, in the same time, on the same flight path, one day after I flew over it.
I flew a day earlier than planned because I wanted an extra day to adjust to jet lag before starting school on the other side of the planet.
But yeah, it's laughable they are still trying to peddle that lie, but Russia doesn't at all care that their lies are easily provable. Why would they? Several people in this thread alone proves us people will swallow anything as long as it fits their agenda.
There are some worrying reports coming in from the front in Ukraine. There's a Polish foundation operating there as a team of combat medics (they've been there for a decade now) and recently they've made some posts about Russians deliberately targeting centers where wounded are being gathered, triage stations and field hospitals. Most recent post is that at many places across the front Russia is now using chemical weapons (gas).
On January 30 2024 04:29 Manit0u wrote: There are some worrying reports coming in from the front in Ukraine. There's a Polish foundation operating there as a team of combat medics (they've been there for a decade now) and recently they've made some posts about Russians deliberately targeting centers where wounded are being gathered, triage stations and field hospitals. Most recent post is that at many places across the front Russia is now using chemical weapons (gas).
EPT
