Jump to content

straits

Members
  • Posts

    2,330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by straits

  1. That's a question that only Russians can answer
  2. What was the problem with their Palestine report?
  3. I don't think commenting on the struggle translates to active support, from any of us. And it looks like Russia is a pariah in (mostly western) parts of the world that share an ideological slant... but it was a pariah there before, too. Africa, China, India and parts of LatAm seem vaguely uninterested.
  4. In their defense, we really failed to adequatly arm the Iraqis against the invader. The mess still ended up lasting like 6 years.
  5. Good point. Invading sovereign countries is bad. I wonder who the clear victor in that category is.
  6. No, the core of it is tribalism with some weird calvinist-derived prosperity gospel. If it wasn't Christianity, it would have been some paradoxical, libertarian-inspired Cult of the Free Man, with privileges for the in-group.
  7. I don't think it can be boiled down to any eight letter word. Plenty of factors allowed the conservative movement in the US to turn into a pulsating sphere of narrativist extremism.
  8. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-expands-state-power-over-tribes-win-oklahoma-2022-06-29/ I didn't see this get linked earlier in the thread. But this is bad, right? Like settler-colonialism-level bad? Is SCOTUS just an inverted totalitarianism machine?
  9. Good point. Might be that by "bipartisanship", some voters actually mean to say "you should come closer to my position; I'm not moving".
  10. The underlying implication is that you'd like to fix things through violence. That's not okay.* *In a western country. It's okay if it involves invading a MENA country.
  11. Is there an internationally recognized genocide going on?
  12. Is self defense immoral for nations or individuals? It is better to split the question into whether it is moral for nations, and whether it is moral for individuals, and to answer each with separate reasoning. Individuals are not analogous to nations. There is no individual born guilty or aggressive. But many nations certainly started out that way, with atrocities and genocides as original sins. Often this question is moot because the atrocities were committed centuries ago and the people in the nation do not inherit the guilt even though they "should" have some responsibility for improving the situation. But what if the atrocities, ethnic cleansings, and repressions happened within living memory? What if they happened only a few years ago, or even now? Does such a nation have the moral right to defend itself from the people it is oppressing? I'm not sure it does. The better question to ask in such cases could be, is it immoral to not attack this nation? And would attacking it improve or worsen the situation for the victims? So in the case of nations at least, it is better to decompose the nation into its context and its activities and institutions, to see why it is being attacked, and whether its act of defense is moral. In either case it is not nearly as simple to answer as with individuals.
  13. half of your population thinks that's communism
  14. This is generally true. I like the quote "the blade itself incites to deeds of violence". I am not sure if this resonates with many Americans, given the gun culture. Guns are treated as a morally neutral presence in tense situations, which is utterly insane.
  15. Welcome to the forums, Cassana :) . There's an introduction thread pinned on top of the list here in General Chatter, you can post there as well if you want.
  16. You don't think she has a heroic death coming along at some point?
  17. Welcome all :) Ahaha....you are going to love aSoS.
  18. No one else even knows what water polo is this far west! Anyways hydrodynamics was serious business in the school team :P
  19. Thanks for the welcome :P
  20. Two years after reading the books I discovered this site and I've been lurking here ever since. Ask me for anything else =D.
×
×
  • Create New...