Everybody's seen these arguments ... and knows exactly how true they are. I mean you put one absurdity after another and treat it as fact. I'm not even going to bother.
4,236 karma · joined September 25, 2016
Sorry "islamist". Which is to say, he uses violence, massacres and even torture to achieve his political aspirations.
The first thing he did when elected was cancel elections, give himself unlimited power.
Ironically that was part of his downfall. Islamists believe there is only 1 islam. So did Morsi. And tried to ally Egypt to Iran. Tried to ally Egypt to the Syrian uprising (to ISIS, in other words). Islamic extremists in all these places, as it turns out, suddenly and violently disagreed with islam's "only one islam" fantasy, did not want to compromise and preferred to (physically) attack his government, with a few dozen dead as result. He lost control of that situation.
And then it turns out the Egyptian army, government did not like their president cooperating with islamists elsewhere, including Hamas, who were attacking and killing people left and right, with Morsi's support. Also he got terrorists inside Egypt, the "muslim brotherhood" to torture and kill his political opponents.
No offense, but Egypt, Egypt's people and the world dodged a SERIOUS bullet when this guy got deposed. A civil war would have been the minimum consequence of him remaining in power.
This makes them even more of a trap. The rents will go up. And yet, even more jobs will leave those places. And then you haven't saved up, because the amounts were tiny
Also, the comprehensive test ban treaty is based on mathematical research. Yes, seriously. Who did that research? The US, and they shared it, which changed the calculus of nuclear weapons and allowed the treaty to happen. In fact, a US mathematician is famous for ignoring the US president in an actual meeting with him while doing this research.
Nuclear nonproliferation is a pure US project, that, if we're being honest, does not even really have the support of the US's closest allies. All countries WANT nuclear weapons, and while they cooperate with nonproliferation, they maintain nuclear weapons. That EVEN goes for France and the UK. Hell, even fucking Belgium tried (and, one might add, only stopped once they were absolutely sure they could do it). And, let's face facts: Belgium, along with 100 other countries will try to acquire nuclear weapons again if the US guarantees are violated. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, for example. Likely, at least Japan and China are maintaining programs that at the drop of a hat, in months, can produce working nuclear weapons. And I'd be AMAZED if both of those countries aren't, at minimum, further along than Iran is. Hell, my money is that at least those two have working nuclear weapons ready. Untested, but ready. Frankly, I'd be amazed if Belgium and even Canada don't have the core of a nuclear weapon ready stashed away ready somewhere (because both countries have the infrastructure needed to produce Nuclear weapons, and they have that infrastructure IN OPERATION (for other reasons, and yes, both countries have valid reasons). Yes they say they're not using it for weapons, but the idea that they're not at minimum "at the ready" is completely absurd to me)
What did the UN do?
The UN tried to solve the Nepal situation. Nepal doesn't exist anymore.
The UN tried to solve the DRC situation. It didn't work, and hundreds of thousands to millions were massacred as a result.
The UN tried to solve the Iran/ISIS/Lebanon/Syria/... conflicts. Eventually the only thing that was solved was the US using it's remaining military force in Iraq to destroy ISIS. The other conflicts are still simmering. Nothing was solved by the UN.
The UN tried to solve the Yemen situation. Nothing was solved.
The UN tried to solve Somalia. The people they tried to protect are no longer there (and most are dead).
The UN tried to solve the Israel situation. You are constantly complaining about what happened, which can be summarized as Israel successfully protected itself with US aid.
The UN, the same people, but under the name "League of Nations" tried to prevent WW2. Germany and the US still claim their actions CAUSED WW2. I'm not sure it's 100% true, but they make a pretty good case.
Besides, it wouldn't even matter, since the UN itself is a US and Israeli project. It would fall apart, even now, without the US.
Oh and you neglect to mention "the other MAD", that also is provided by the US: the guarantee that if one country attacks another, the attacked country will receive at minimum humanitarian aid, likely military aid from the US, and sometimes direct military intervention by the US. This MAD is also a critical component of post-war peace, because many countries would win military conflicts against at least some their neighbors, and where it doesn't work (e.g. Russia) ... we see constant wars.
Your case that countries worldwide are depending and trusting the UN to protect them from military conflict is absurd.
So consensus shouldn't matter because if Joe the hairdresser or Jane the mechanic decide they, personally, want to do renewables, they can. Just by themselves. Hell, in most Australian cities ... I bet it would work in anything but the CBD.
This seems to be the hope of Marxists today. But if you talk to people who actually lived in the USSR, no, it wasn't lack of information. It was like in the show "Chernobyl". It was protecting decision makers, right up to the point of sending firefighters LITERALLY INTO a fissioning nuclear reactor in hopes of putting it out and blaming it on an electrical malfunction to protect the careers of the plant director and chief scientist.
Fine. This is actually true. Money captures government. Of course, the fact that we discuss it so freely does mean something is done about it.
And yet, everyone I've ever spoken who came from an autocracy, from the USSR, from Palestine, from Saudi, from China, from DRC, from South Africa, from India (tbh India is worse than Europe, but far less bad than Russia was) ... They all confirm that every one of these non-liberal states are deeply, deeply corrupt and WILL prop up corrupt companies at the expense of everyone in the country, in some cases (or "if necessary") with violence. Some have islands of fair play (essentially a few sectors of the economy the rulers really don't care about but are still needed, and thus are an actual economic opportunity), but 95-100% of the economy is corrupt. And most of these people agree that this corruption in turn causes mass poverty, which in some cases is endemic.
One big theme is that all autocracies really have one purpose for all this corruption: to sabotage social mobility. Yes there is competition, usually between entire families, and one gains a bit one loses a bit, but NOBODY is allowed to switch places. That's what illiberal states are fundamentally about. Rulers remain rulers (especially in Saudi Arabia, that can go pretty damn FAR. Families whose children MUST take a job as a house servant for another family because their parents did that job. But also in China, it's about having the right families running the government. You can become the richest person among your cousins, with roughly the same amount of wealth as your richest uncle ... that's the limit. No going above it)
And yes, I obviously know of deeply unfair instances of corruption, in the US, and in Europe (oil companies are pretty much guaranteed to be corrupt, including in "the west", with telecom companies usually close behind). But it just doesn't compare to these illiberal states. And social mobility, definitely in the US, and even in Europe, is far higher.
So I'm baffled. Liberal capitalism is, as far as I can tell, by far the best solution to minimize corruption and maximize social mobility, both of which seem extremely desirable. It's also what these protests seem to be calling for. And yet ... every time there's demonstrations (which I understand, are part of liberal democracy and obviously part of the reason corruption remains under control) lots and lots of people call for entire countries to become illiberal. When asked they are under some sort of weird impression that socialism will make sure medicine is free, without training doctors. That housing for all will be the norm, while, of course, not building anything. That islam will mean wars end, without, of course, explaining why the conflict in, say, Sudan, isn't yet resolved.
I get that this is bad practice for a big production site, but I'd love to have this option.
https://rsf.org/en/country/palestine
From the article:
(about PA and Hamas journalism)
> Content is subject to political control ...
> In the West Bank, where journalists were already the victims of abuses by both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli occupying forces ...
(about PA and Hamas actions against the press)
> With arrests, violence, destruction of equipment, legal proceedings and denial of accreditation, practicing journalism was already difficult before 7 October 2023 ...
Of course, then the article does what everyone keeps doing and blames Israel for all of it. Despite Israel STILL allowing even Al Jazeera to operate (and before you post the bullshit "they closed it", no they didn't: they closed the Al Jazeera CABLE CHANNEL in Israel. Al Jazeera journalists are still operating freely in Israel, as is plain to see on the frontpage of Al Jazeera, not that I expect you not to make yet another false accusation, but the reality is that you just can't receive Al Jazeera on cable in Israel anymore)
In other words, I stand by my claim "there are no independent journalists in Gaza, Hamas won't allow it". And I won't respond further.
Plus, frankly, I hope people still remember the incessant claims from leftists how Soviet press was totally free to report whatever they wanted. You're not the first making this totally absurd claim and nobody with minimal intelligence is fooled.
Only if you follow western sensibilities. If you have gunmen roaming the streets with machine guns, allowed to shoot anyone of the "normal" people, and they constantly ask for inspecting people's phones ... then it's not very difficult. They regularly fire into crowds, for all sorts of reasons.
Especially if about 20% of the population is part of that force roaming the streets with machine guns. There's 3 possible jobs you can have in Gaza: construction worker in Israel, Hamas or independent (baker, plumber, ...)
Hamas keeps far tighter control of their population than the USSR ever did.
You do this after pointing out that if one country lacks press freedom, that doesn't make it OK for another to lack it too. Great.
You are not fairly discussing this issue. Not that that wasn't already clear. Everybody knows what hamas is and what they do. NOTHING excuses their behavior, and it is not comparable to what Israel does by any moral measure. Not in press freedom. Not in anything.
Second, this is false moral equivalence. Hamas beats up and even kills journalists to get them under control. Israel "pressures". Some Israeli (NOT the Israeli state) have "smear campaigns" (ie. a few posts on twitter) about those journalists. Some Isreali politicians call for the justice system to go after those journalists, but the justice system doesn't actually do that. And even if it did, it STILL would be VERY far from what Hamas does. There is no moral comparison possible.
Hamas suppress the press "problem" by what any honest human being calls "murder". Just like they solve any other problem.
What Hamas does, obviously IS INFINITELY WORSE than what Israel does, to the point that comparisons are absurd. This is equating what the Taliban does to girls' education (ie. bomb school, poison students, massacre their own people, send in the police to beat students) with the denial of the "right" for teachers to wear headscarves. Whatever your opinion about both issues, they are totally incomparable.
Yes I am. Google it for 5 seconds and ...
Obviously you can buy pictures from propagandists. The tough part really is NOT getting pictures from them when you're NOT paying for them.
There are only propagandists with a "press" jacket. And since there's nothing better, places like BBC and CNN take what they can get.
(PLUS a bunch of Gazan journalists went with the terrorists into Israel, and observed, filmed and documented the killing of civilians, triumphantly posting the videos they made of the event. They did not help anyone)
Normal LONDON salaries are 30% of a London apartment.
Normal British salaries are 10% of a central London apartment, at best.
There's a big difference. You can save up as a USian and start a job in SF. You cannot reasonably do the same in Britain.
https://betawiki.net/wiki/Paint#/media/File:Windows_1.0_alph...
So that's the problem I have with the statement: it's true, absolutely, but if we think like this then human rights aren't human rights, but merely subject to governance. Your statement is true, but is a denial of international law. If your statement is true, you may as well abolish the international criminal court. After all, if a government exists, there's no need for them and if a government doesn't exist (or doesn't apply) then, as you say, the rules don't apply. So what's the point?
Your statement is true, but the world would be a much better place if your statement was false, and therefore we'll at least pretend it is false.
(and, of course, if you think like this, then absolutely anything goes in war)
AND they "demand" it is held up against Israel.
Plus the basic point stands. With people who think like this, treaties aren't worth the paper they're written on.
And they didn't waste any time in stating they would never actually execute the signed treaty. At least we already know that:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmllykpwgdyo
(Yes, I know what the BBC title says, Hamas statement that they won't follow the treaties they agreed to uphold is there, for their own people. In THE SAME STATEMENT they complain that it isn't applied faster to their opponents)
(Also: obvious conclusion, if Hamas has no intention of holding up treaties they signed, then that makes any peace with them worthless, even if it's a signed treaty. Without a trusted counterparty there is no choice)
Because holding a single mission at a customer as a (probably expensive) consultant for a year ... I'd say my average is 8 months. My record is 2 years 7 months.
It's the billing afterwards that's the issue.
You started well, missed the point that the EU commission is extremely capitalistic, protecting "their" own market, pro-immigration TO DEPRESS WAGES (not for any other reason), using money for policy targets, pro-free-trade otherwise (ie. when it comes to anyone but themselves), and generally extremely capitalistic in the usual deceitful way ...
As for "The EEC is related to, but not the same as, the European Union" ... suuure. In the same the the CPC is not China, it's related. The EU commission IS the EEC, and controls the EU. It has overriding power on any and all decision made and controls all 3 branches of EU government (Parliament, itself, and the EU courts)
Look, I get that people generally like the EU commission. On Hacker News, because of their Google and Apple actions. In the EU, because of them forcing democracies to accept the EU border situation and the Euro (both were rejected in democratic votes, both were forced through in less-than-democratic ways). Doesn't change their nature.
Look it up. Decide. Form your own fine opinion.