• Taxes
    I'd much rather a government, which I help elect, take 20% of my paycheck than have rampant monopolies price-gouge the consumer with poverty wages, or literally sell my life to make ends meet. And at least that 20% funds the livelihoods of millions of government employees and the unemployed, and provides me with essential services that would otherwise be monopolized, rather than feeding the incessant greed of a few thousand robber barons. — finarfin

    This juxtaposition makes little sense to me, because I don't think governments prevent monopolies from forming, rather monopolies seem to form way more easily as a result of government regulations.
  • Taxes
    Somalia isn't merely "worse than us", it's total chaos. Why? Specifically because of a lack of government. — LuckyR

    It's total chaos because after the first set of 'great' powers finally left it alone, the next set of 'great' powers got involved and tore the country apart again.

    So comments like this...

    Hey if you don't like government, check out Somalia. — LuckyR

    ... make you seem rather ignorant.
  • Taxes
    Hey if you don't like government, check out Somalia. Let us know what you think about it. — LuckyR

    You know who made it that way, bubba?
  • Taxes
    Yet perhaps for an individualist liberal, it's hard to fathom people functioning as a community, but it does happen. — ssu

    You've got this backwards.

    The reason classic liberals argue for a smaller state is because they assume people can take care of themselves, without the need for state coercion. It's the statist who believes people must be coerced into 'functioning properly'.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    What Afghans? The Taliban you mean? Check this Aug 27, 2023 comment. (Hmm Might be better to move any further comments on this to the/some other thread.) — jorndoe

    You know who put the Taliban in charge? I'm sure you do.

    Afghanistan wasn't such a terrible place before that. Reminds me a bit of Iran, actually. Iran too used to be a relatively modern nation. Didn't the US get involved there as well? And look at it now.

    In all honesty, I tend to be more concerned about an "authoritarian empire" than a "democratic empire"... — jorndoe

    Of the two, the US is certainly the more worrying one to me. I think the Russians can't hold a candle to the amount of misery and destruction the US has wreaked upon the world - all of which it neatly tucked away in the creases of history, of course.

    Ironically enough, some air has been breathed into NATO with the moves against Ukraine. — jorndoe

    Whether that's a good thing remains to be seen. Any long-term solutions between Europe and Russia will have to involve some modus vivendi with regards to Ukraine and elsewhere. If military deterrence becomes the only tool for peace it's not a matter of 'if' but a matter of 'when' a new war will break out. And I'm somewhat confident neither the Europeans (of which I am one) nor the Russians want that.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    It's Macron's rubbery spine that opened the door to this disaster in the first place. Merkel dared to push back against the Americans, knowing what would happen if they allowed the US to play Risk in the European backyard.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    Ironically, the post-Cold War plans for NATO and Ukraine were made not long after Vidal made that statement.

    Well, it's been a while since the US grabbed land. — jorndoe

    The US is essentially an island nation. Grabbing land is not the way it expands its empire. If you want a better understanding of what US imperialism looks like and the deep impact it has on nations, take a look at the example of Japan.

    (I'm wondering if they should have stayed in Afghanistan, what do you think?) — jorndoe

    Obviously not, both for the Afgani's sake and the Americans themselves. Though if one wished to expediate the US empire's collapse, one should certainly have advocated for the Americans staying there.

    The mess that's unfolding there right now is a direct result of the US having destabilized the country, and more western destabilizing won't fix it, it'll just make it worse.

    Oddly enough, the Ukrainians have strongly gone with the US "empire" and the EU, rejecting the Kremlinian "non-empire". — jorndoe

    Even if Russia can't be considered an empire in the same way the US is, obviously there's plenty wrong with Russian rule for people wanting to resist it.

    It's a bit odd though, how Ukraine was wooed with promises of security. Now that same NATO is refusing to get its hands dirty as Ukraine is being wrecked as a direct result of NATO's advances. What sort of diplomacy is that? "We'll guarantee your security if there's anything left of you after you get done fighting that bear over there."

    But whatever empire Ukraine wishes to join is up to them.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    We've heard it all before, Russia is going to collapse any day now.

    Meanwhile, the 21st century's real and only empire, the American empire, is showing actual signs of falling apart.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Jabberwock
    Doubtful.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    How many Russian and Ukrainian troops do you think there are in Ukraine at the moment? — jorndoe

    I have no idea, truth be told. If any trustworthy sources exist for these numbers I have yet to see them.

    However, Russia's GDP and population size imply it has the capability to field a vastly bigger army, and I find information on those figures trustworthy enough to produce a rough estimate of the balance of power. Even the most charitable interpretation paints a bleak picture for Ukraine.

    The fact that Russia outnumbers the Ukrainians by a comfortable margin is a matter of common sense to me.

    There's that vastly again, though about firepower this time: — jorndoe

    That the Russians enjoy a large artillery advantage is accepted fact at this point, and a matter of common sense as well based on the indicators I named earlier. Mearsheimer often cites the 5-10:1 artillery advantage.


    The Ukrainian media themselves talks about these matters here:

    The Russian military indeed enjoys very strong numerical superiority.

    Russia's numerical superiority, and its endless munitions stock, the result of decades of Soviet production, have had a devastating effect on the course of the war.

    The disproportion between the number of Russian and Ukrainian pieces deployed to a particular front line area can go as far as 10 to 1.


    I don't take sources very seriously in this war - the amount of information warfare going on makes it all untrustworthy, but again, these are just matters of common sense. It should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Anyway, I haven't seen indications that there are significantly more Russian than Ukrainian fighters in Ukraine at the moment. — jorndoe

    Then again my point:

    If the Russians managed to capture 20% of Ukraine while outnumbered, how could the Ukrainians ever hope to go on the offensive successfully?

    Going on the offensive is extremely difficult and costly, and if anything the troop counts have shifted into Russia's favor.

    But the Kremlin has spent a significant amount of shells and rockets (and troops) in 17 or 18 months of warring. Reports suggest much more unity among Ukrainians (and hate towards the invaders). — jorndoe

    Russia is reportedly enjoying a between 5 and 10 to 1 artillery advantage. That's massive, especially considering artillery is perhaps the single most important factor in a war of attrition.

    I understand the desire to turn this into something positive, but the bottomline is the Russians have vastly more firepower than the Ukrainians, and that's a terrible situation to be in as first-hand accounts of the Ukrainian frontlines attest to. Constant artillery shelling takes a real toll on people.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    FMI, do you mean GlobalFirepower? ISW? FOCUS online? Another one? — jorndoe

    ISW has been the prime peddler of nonsense and some of the other articles refer to their claims. At this point the ISW is little more than a mouthpiece of the US DoD / MIC (which they're funded by, by the way).


    But to pick some slogans that I saw passing by:

    1. "The next defensive line will be weaker than the last"

    2. "The offensive is picking up steam"

    3. "The offensive was targeted at the strongest part in the Russian lines"


    These are all claims that don't pass the basic military common sense test:

    1. Defense in depth gets stronger with depth.

    2. Offensives produce quick results or they fail.

    3. Offensives are targeted at weak points in the enemy line.


    Some rough estimates of troop sizes ... — jorndoe

    Russia has almost ten times the GDP of Ukraine and a vastly larger manpower pool to draw from.

    Do these numbers pass the common sense test in your mind?

    EDIT: I was actually thinking about CSIS and not ISW, so some of my criticism was wrongly addressed. My gripe with their claims still stands though, and I am similarly suspicious of ISW's affiliation.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪jorndoe
    The Russians haven't been sitting still. They've recruited literally hundreds of thousands of troops. If we go back to the start of the war, they managed to occupy 20% of Ukraine while being significantly outnumbered. The Russian forces now outnumber the Ukrainians significantly. That should tell you enough about the current balance of power.

    Second, this Ukrainian offensive has been an unmitigated disaster and going way too slow. If the Russians feared any kind of breakthrough to begin with they've had ample time to react.

    The media you keep linking deal in the deadly drug called hopium, not reality.
  • Avi Loeb Claims to have found evidence of alien technology
    Governments can barely organise the quotidian things they’re supposed to organise, let alone conspiracies to deceive. — Wayfarer

    The CIA's track record is out there for all to see, and most of it isn't even being disputed - it's accepted history.

    As is the United States' self-evident history of lying and deceiving its population.
  • Avi Loeb Claims to have found evidence of alien technology
    ↪Wayfarer
    If you're willing to entertain the thought that aliens exist and have visited Earth, you should be willing to entertain the thought that your government is trying to deceive you - something which it has the power to do, the institutions to do, a vested interest in, and has been caught red-handed doing several times in the past.

    I know which one I find more far-fetched. :smile:
  • Avi Loeb Claims to have found evidence of alien technology
    Fantastical news stories are usually pushed to disguise failing US policy.

    So really it's an exercise in finding the fuck-up they're trying to cover up.

    My guess would be the fact that US foreign policy is failing across the board has something to do with it.
  • Climate change denial
    Climate change is already killing people faster than covid ever did. We should be in carbon lockdown. — unenlightened

    Oh, the irony.
  • Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
    ↪Benkei
    To be fair, while the US obviously isn't fascist, it shares an uncomfortable number of features commonly attributed to fascism.

    Nationalism, militarism, belief in American supremacy, interwovenness of state and economy, growing authoritarian tendencies, etc.

    I see where people get the idea from.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    US politicians are starting to speak sense on the matter of Ukraine:

  • The Evolution of Racism and Sexism as Terms & The Discussing the Consequences
    ↪T Clark
    Your behavior suggests otherwise, which is why you're participating in the smear.
  • The Evolution of Racism and Sexism as Terms & The Discussing the Consequences
    RFK Jr. is a clown. — T Clark

    Oh, perhaps. I don't really care.

    Smearing people with lies is degenerate. Believing such practices are acceptable just because one dislikes the target of the smears is likewise degenerate.

    Thanks for making my point for me. :up:
  • The Evolution of Racism and Sexism as Terms & The Discussing the Consequences
    ↪T Clark
    So clearly you have no idea what he said, because here's what he actually said:




    Degenerate journalism from the New York Post to smear a political opponent, and you're enabling it because you view RFK as a political opponent too.

    So it appears I was right - you are showcasing the exact degeneracy I was talking about. It's disgusting.
  • The Evolution of Racism and Sexism as Terms & The Discussing the Consequences
    RFK was "smeared" for saying that covid had been engineered so that Jewish people would not get sick. — T Clark

    That's not what he said, though. But if you're a political opponent of RFK that's how you might like to frame it.

    I appears that you might be showcasing the degeneracy I mentioned - using racism as a stick to beat political opposition with.
  • The Evolution of Racism and Sexism as Terms & The Discussing the Consequences
    They're terms that in the modern day are primarily used to whip people up into a self-righteous frenzy; a mechanic through which people are easily controlled.

    It sets up (ironically) a heirarchy of moral superiority. The racist, morally inferior - the anti-racist, morally superior. The opinions and well-being of people deemed morally inferior may be disregarded at will - very useful to silence people or get rid of people espousing unwelcome opinions. Note how RFK was recently smeared as being anti-semitic in a not-so-subtle attempt at silencing political opposition. This is degeneracy parading as moral virtue.

    While racism and sexism undoubtedly exist, the use of these terms I regard with the utmost suspicion, because people who genuinely care are rare, and it's almost always about power, manipulation, or plain old social masturbation.
  • Coronavirus


    A recent Swiss study done on the risk of side-effects of mRNa vaccines, this time producing a 1 in 35 risk of developing myocardial injury.

    Quite stunning numbers, considering the vaccines were marketed as being completely safe.

    As this and other recent studies are pointing out, the risks may have been considerable.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
    Countries may say one thing, and do another.

    That should be obvious by now. If it isn't obvious to you yet, ask yourself why the international sanctions against Russia failed.

    It's also worth noting the countries who abstained from voting: China and India for example - the countries with the largest populations on the planet, each one seperately being larger than all NATO countries combined.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Yes, but there are other costs to giving Putin what he wants, e.g. an increased risk of Russian aggression in the future. Forcing Russia to burn through its entire Cold War stock of hardware and ammunition greatly reduces their ability to wage future wars. Even at current wartime production levels it will take Russia well over a decade to put together anything like the force they initially invaded with, likely far longer. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    As you probably know, my view is that the Russians were provoked into invading Ukraine.

    If they are provoked similarly in the future, and conventional means are no longer available, they will likely react more extremely; possibly with nuclear weapons. Remember the Cuba Crisis.

    Further, if the purpose of western intervention was to send a message, who is listening? Independently-minded countries like the BRICS don't buy the narrative of an unprovoked invasion, and they have all refused to side with the US over this issue.

    Meanwhile, the US has its hands tied in Ukraine trying to protect a two-decade investment which it will probably end up losing in the end. The US is losing influence all over the world, the Persian Gulf being a prime example. China is the laughing third.

    This strategy has been a disaster.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The issue with "not giving Putin what he wants" is that the cost of that strategy is the destruction of Ukraine, and with a risk of Putin getting what he wants regardless.
  • Masculinity
    ↪Isaac
    Thanks for sharing your thoughts. :pray:

    I'm going to give what you wrote a think, and come back to it later.
  • Masculinity
    ↪Isaac
    I have a slightly different view about this, and I'm curious what you think about it.

    If these people were indeed coming from a place of superiority and a belief in 'the Truth', perhaps we wouldn't expect to see this type of anger, nor would we expect such folks to be reluctant to engage in real discussion. Both neither suggest confidence nor a well-rooted belief of 'the Truth'.

    To me it suggests the opposite, though in some ways it is related.

    The anger stems not from a sense of superiority, but from taught ideology. Through what is basically indoctrination the ego is bound to the ideology, and the individual develops a sense of self-esteem that is directly connected to this ideology.

    The result is a lack of confidence, because the ideology is what has value, and not they the individual. Only through the ideology does the individual gain value, or so they are implicitly taught.

    When the ideology starts showing cracks (as any ideology is bound to do at some point), it is their fragile sense of self that starts cracking along with it, hence the aggression - they perceive debate as a direct attack on themselves.

    Rather than going through the painful process of decoupling one's sense of self from the ideology, they develop coping mechanisms to deal with a stubborn reality that doesn't conform to the ideology, by shunning honest debate and instead relying on every dirty trick in the book to protect their sacred egg.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Oh, I'm sure the US was mighty interested to hear what Johnson had to say about peace in Ukraine. :lol:

    Chirst, these people.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    No, I am claiming that if people are biased (and Sachs clearly is), then we should not treat their reports as 'independent', as Tzeentch claimed. — Jabberwock

    What an ignorant thing to say.

    He said that Bennet said that the US stopped it, which is not what Bennett said. — Jabberwock

    It's exactly what he said:

    Naftali Bennett: Everything I did was coordinated down to the last detail, with the US, Germany and France.

    Interviewer: So they blocked it?

    Naftali Bennett: Basically, yes. They blocked it, and I thought they were wrong.

    The level of intellectual dishonesty here is truly astonishing.

    Or perhaps you're all experiencing the first stage of grief?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Common sense, being one.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Interviewer: "So they blocked it?"

    Naftali Bennett: "Basically, yes. They blocked it and I thought they're wrong. In retrospect it's too soon to know.

    [Naftali Bennett lists a number of disadvantages of continuing the war, and then continues...]

    On the other hand, and I'm not being cynical, there's a statement here, after very many years. President Biden created an alliance vis-à-vis an aggressor in the general perception and this reflects on other arenas, such as China and Taiwan and there are consequences."
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪ssu
    Hilarious as you may find it, there are independent people giving acounts of the negotiations, and that's the picture they sketch.

    Here's what Jeffrey Sachs had to say, based on his direct contact with the diplomats involved:

    The war broke out, and within a month Zelensky said: "[Ukraine] could be neutral." And negotiations started in Ankara with Turkish mediation. And I spoke to the Turkish mediators. I spoke to people who were deeply involved in this. There was rapid progress made on the basis of Ukrainian neutrality.

    Then, one day, the Ukrainians [stopped the negotiations]. The best estimate given to us by former prime minister Naftali Bennett in a very interesting, long interview he gave online a couple months ago, said: "The US stopped it. I didn't agree with them, but they thought they needed to be tough towards China. That it would be a sign of weakness to go along with [the peace negotiations]."

    Honest to god. It's worse than five-year-olds.

    The Russians and the Ukrainians were ready for peace. The US wasn't, because they feared how it would reflect back on them in the eyes of the Chinese.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    You are campaigning against your own intellectual decency. — neomac

    Coming from you, that's rich. :rofl:
  • Coronavirus
    Imagine spinning apologetics for smear campaigns falsely accusing someone of anti-semitism.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    It appears those who would post lengthy and strongly-worded posts on how the Ukrainians must continue to fight and die, themselves lack the courage to risk something so trivial as being wrong.

    There's something rather icky about that, and it doesn't suggest any kind of confidence in one's views either.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Jabberwock
    Not in the slightest.

    ↪Isaac
    makes a good point here:

    Convincing people that Ukraine has a chance of 'winning' is the main method by which continued drip-feed sales of weapons are justified (making the arms manufacturers an unrivalled fortune). Since Ukraine is actually being destroyed (economically, but also literally), it takes quite the major advertising effort to keep this illusion up. Hence the massive social media campaign, of which your posts (wittingly or not) form part. — Isaac

    Since so many of you are happily contributing to said ad campaign, isn't there anyone among you who believes enough in this theoretical chance of winning to make a prediction of the how/when of Ukrainian success?

    It appears not, and that is no surprise, but it does beg the question what it is exactly that those people are doing here.

    Entertaining a notion for sport?
  • Coronavirus
    If "you people" means US voters, [...] — jorndoe

    Of course that's what I mean.

    [...] a few US politicians are clowns, including RFK Jr. — jorndoe

    And I suppose that is your excuse for participating in said smear campaign without even bothering to see what was actually said?
Home » Tzeentch