Jump to content

MSC

Senior Members
  • Posts

    431
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by MSC

  1. @SenseiNo doxxing please. I don't know what the laws are where you are, but besides that it just comes off as intimidation and good points raised need not be given with threats. Let the truth speak for itself. Koti is free to speak his views here where the only fear ought to be fear of criticism. Something we all have to deal with in life and on this forum. Silencing people is what dictators do when someone speaks the truth. It's the sort of thing Vladimir Putin does. The best way to counter Putin, is by encouraging democratic free speech. That's what he fears the most. You know this Sensei. I get that you're probably also just joking, but the threat of doxxing alone is not cool. Not a good joke to make.
  2. Yeah this is confusing me too. I read through the previous posts before commenting and I have no idea who we are talking about right now. Jordan Peterson the Canadian Psychologist turned political activist, or someone else who's name happens to be Jordan Peterson? It doesn't really matter to me either way; which is why I didn't really address it. I just ignored the who said it to focus on what was said. The irony here, is I'm following one of the few pieces of good advice Jordan Peterson ever gave. "When I'm confronted with an argumemt; I ask myself what is wrong with it, first?" I mean; the advice is only half complete for quality philosophers. It ought to be to consider an argument from both the standpoint of what is wrong with it and what is right with it. At the end of the day, Jordan Peterson is a decent psychology professor and most of who he is, flows from that. As a philosopher though, he misunderstands Nietsche whom he quotes often and is not nearly cognizant of epistemic responsibility as he should be to preach about moral philosophy responsibly. He plays a dangerous game out of ignorance and good intentions. A dangerous combination.
  3. I don't think it is racism, what I think is making others perceive it that way, is an observation of a triggered inferiority complex. You pick a black female for SC, and all insecure white males take it as an implication that they aren't good enough. That they are in some way inferior to the black female. Even when no one is saying this. It's like when children are picking teams for a game. Everyone whom is picked last, believes that the people picked before them, were picked either because of nepotism or the perception they are the stronger players. Therefore to be picked last or not picked at all, feels like being told you are inferior. There are some facts that are being ignored here about the SC nomination process and who was left out. When Kavanaugh was nominated, he not only beat out all other demographics for the nomination, but people from his own demographic. Basically, other white males were passed over, to pick Kavanaugh. The same is true of KBJ. Her nomination, led to other black and/or female judges being passed over. What a lot of people here are overlooking, is the other first KBJ brings to the court by way of career demographic. Prior to being a judge, she was a criminal defense attorney. As far as I am aware, no criminal defense attorneys have ever made it onto SCOTUS. For that alone, she can bring a unique perspective to the SC that has long been absent. Most of the other candidates did not have that kind of legal background. I used to be Into the whole (I don't see colour) narrative. But it's bullshit. It's not reality. Unless you are blind/colour blind, you will never not see race. You can see for yourself when someone has skin that is different from yours. Whether they are very different in shade or just a little different in shade. The hard fact of the matter is that the voters put Biden into office, after he made a promise to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court. It could be argued that if the voters did not want this, they would have not voted Biden into office. He in fact has a political mandate to keep that campaign promise. If we decide to actually view the court holistically, we might not find ourselves so unjustifiable annoyed that a white male didn't make it onto this position, when there are still plenty of white males on the court. That demographic is already represented. Acknowledging differences, taking turns and sharing power within our institutions is in no way racist. Perceiving it as such, is just an incorrect perception based on the fundamental underlying motivations in a truly racist act. All that happened, was that it was declared that a black woman would be the next Supreme Court justice. It was not said that a black woman was to be the next justice, because white people suck. Yknow some people would take a white male, picking a black woman, as a sign that progress is being made in the fight against racism. I wonder what people here would think if this had been Obamas nominee? Anybody else here notice that when the black man tries to nominate Supreme Court justices, of any demographic (white males included) they are completely blocked for 8 years. Every president is going to be criticized by somebody for EVERY decision they make. The accusation of racism, is politically motivated by some and just plain misguided by most. Each decision is going to have justified and unjustified criticism attached. The existence of said unjustified criticism, does not make the original decision unjustified. I'll end on a question; is anyone here implying that they cannot believe KBJ is the most qualified judge, in comparison to white male judges? Because if so, the very assumption that it must be white males who are the front runners at all times, is extremely biased. If you were expecting the most appropriate choice based solely on competency, to be a non-black person, you're part of the problem. I want it said, that I understand how incredibly complicated this bias stuff is, and that most of us here are speaking with the best of intentions. Rather than get into an offensive game of "oh but my black person said this" let's all just assume we all have racial biases that motivate our thoughts on the matter. It is a very fine line to toe, between bigotry and paternalism, but to me, Ketanjis appointment is still on that line. Motivations to her nomination aside; she seems like she will be a fine new addition to the higher offices of the judicial branch. All this talk of why she was picked, does in no way diminish her ability to execute the difficult job well. The Supreme Court needs justices to sit on it. An individuals motivations toward being on it, ought to be out of duty, not self-elevation. There will be dozens of potential candidates who will never sit on that court that will feel like they were robbed, when the very notion potentially makes them highly unsuitable and mainly in it for themselves. You can't force yourself into being a part of history, and if you do, it will more likely be in infamy rather than fame. All the questions in the OP aside; as an individual I am happy for KBJ and proud of her accomplishment. As a human, not as a white male or anyone or anything else. For an individual to achieve what she has, is a huge personal accomplishment and is a testament to her fortitude and perseverance. There are so many obstacles to black woman, that as a white male, I just do not have. Sure, there are obstacles I have that she does not, but it is not difficult for me to say that I do not envy her difference in obstacles at all. On an honest day, she may not envy some of mine either.
  4. Very true. And who says it will even end with the Ukraine?
  5. Okay enough with the bigotry! Is it at all possible for you to say anything without having to make ad hom attacks toward somebody? Why are you so angry? Take it from someone who knows, it isn't healthy. FYI this is a science site, so it's assumed that everyone does in fact have a brain. If you're trying to say that only stupid people will disagree with you, then you'll just be living in a fantasy world where everyone is stupid, except you and the concept of common denominator means nothing.
  6. MSC

    Political Humor

    Is that Stalin or Hitler? Works either way lmao "If your name end with In, Time to get out!"
  7. It would have been better if there was video footage. Does this photo have a time stamp? There are a few things wrong with your reasoning here. I'm not an expert on Rockets, but I know reasonable doubt when I see it. The shadows direction is based on the time of day. There does not seem to be enough floor trauma for me to believe a big heavy piece of ballistics material landed there. The damage on the right side of the ground looks more like what would happen when it is rolled and the wing digs into the ground. So I very much doubt that this is the spot that it first landed in. It could have come from a number of different angles with different degrees of spin. It could have been placed there by somebody just taking a photo with zero intention of it being used to make false flag claims because it needed to be moved out of the way from a different area. So my conclusion; it is impossible to be reasonably certain as to where this missile came from based on its positioning in this photo. Actually, a fair number of the people currently leaving the Ukraine, intend on coming back with supplies. My wife works in immigration law and has filed short stay request for a number of Ukrainians. One woman; is about to return home and is bringing a shipment of body Armour. It's quite badass imo. 😎 The only claims I've heard of people using human shields, are Russians using them. Don't know how accurate those claims are. But trying to use your own civilians as human shields against your invader would be a stupid idea. They aren't Russian citizens. It is far more likely that Ukrainian citizens used as human shields, would be far more likely to be used effectively against Ukrainian soldiers. They are the ones with more emotional impetuous to stay their hand to save their own civilians, whom they are sworn to defend.
  8. Yet if Russia made no indication of wanting to attack, Finland wouldn't feel a need to join NATO. Now there is an irony 😆 idiot of the year award is going to Putin. And so the Berlin wall keeps moving.. man I predicted this to a friend, now realizing I should have put money on it.
  9. Okay clearly I didn't understand what you meant before. I think there is a language barrier stopping me from being able to understand you clearly.
  10. I think what Sensei is trying to say, that we just think Putins Oligarchy is awful but we don't pay enough attention to the knowledge and experiences of Russians to know just how awful. It's more of an epistemological rage 😆 I do sense a highjack of a highjack coming on... highjackception! @mod if that happens can we call it that? @SenseiI do prefer written sources as well. Especially written statements from witnesses. That said, I don't doubt that I do not know the half of it when it comes to what depths any government or dictator has sunk to and that sometimes there is difficulty in documentation. If a person is willing to do abhorrent shit publicly, we can only imagine what they do privately. I'll try and watch the video later. I'll make the time at some point. However I'll give an honest review of the video and you may or may not like what I have to say about it.
  11. I'm not saying don't send boats, helicopters and life vests. I'm also not saying nuclear power plants. Those take ages, to build and are very high maintenance. I was thinking more along the lines of Wind, Solar and Hydro. Don't worry, I'm not the sort of person who believes problems have just one solution. When it comes to climate change and other big issues, I lean toward a maximalist, multi-tiered approach of doing everything possible, that is effective, at once by building the right teams for the jobs. I'm not American FYI. I don't care if Putin says he can do this because the US did the same. The main point there is the US did that. Not Ukraine. If the Russians want to have more Americans pay for war crimes, it can supply evidence to the ICC just like everyone else. "But your honor, people have committed murder before, so I ought to be allowed to escape punishment when I murder because you haven't caught all the other murderers yet!" - this about sums up how Putins and your argument sounds to me. In any criminal court, someone else's past crimes are not viewed as justification for you to commit crimes. Especially years after the fact. In fact, to clearly describe what your motivation was, actually just helps prosecute you. If you say; I murdered X because X did y, that's an admission of guilt. I mean, if you are factual and have evidence that corroborates your motive, all that would lead to, is you and the person who committed the motivating crime; both go to jail. They'll just have a separate trial to you, if you convince the prosecution to go after them next. And yes; you may not have been addressing me, but this is an open discussion and you or I can interject on anyone's points at any time. No it isn't...
  12. How do you know if I've never complained about other war crimes and unjustified wars or guantanamo bay? That stuff all happened before I was ever on this forum too. That's why I've never mentioned them here. Maybe someone should just start a war crime specific thread. That way people will stop trying to scold others for things they haven't said... I want it stated explicitly, that I want all perpetrators of past, present and future war crimes, from attacking civilians, torturing POWs, genocide, wmds/bio/chemical warfare to face consequences for their actions. I am NOT in a position to make any group or individual face those consequences. I choose to try and live in the present. Russian War crimes are now in the present. Somebody else's past war crimes do not justify or excuse more. They may make them a tad more understandable, but not excusable. As a parent, I just don't buy the whole "Oh but I hit Jeremy because like a bazillion days ago he hit Rebecca and Rebecca cried and he didn't say sorry but today he called me poopy and I remembered about Rebecca so I hit him 5 times in the face... also I like turtles." Bullshit. Seriously, watching geopolitics and diplomacy play out is like being a fly on a wall of a preschool. It should also be said, it is a very very dangerous position for the fly to be in.
  13. True, but this situation has been years in the making, and could last for longer. Current expectations from military strategists are claiming they see this war lasting years. The task isn't as large as you would think either. Europe already produces 25% of its energy use per year from renewable. 40% of its energy requirements were met by Russian fossil fuels. If I were to use the energy figures from last year as an example, had this plan been initiated when Crimea was annexed, it is entirely possible that by last year, the 1000+Tw of Europe's energy requirements met by Russia, could have already been exceeded by renewables without military logistical expertise and manpower contributing toward an expedited installation. Now, don't be too critical of this idea. Pitching a military energy solution to the Russian problem is killing two birds with one stone. 😆 Would be typical of humans to do wouldn't it? Create renewable energy infrastructure to save us from climate change? Nope. Create renewable energy infrastructure to mess with the Russians as part of a war effort? Where do I sign up? Says every true American patriot 😆 I think it's kind of a near perfect idea. The kind I don't have very often. It's one of those things you can do as a military option that cannot be used as any kind of pretext for direct military retaliation. There is nothing in the NATO-Russia treaties which forbids either from making upgrades to their own infrastructure as a military move. I wouldn't be too hard on the Hungarian people. With state controlled media, corrupt policing and social media manipulation, it was a losing battle. My best friends wife is Hungarian, but she has left the country now.
  14. In an effort to try and move this discussion on, I want to pose a question. Should NATO make use of its military resources to co-ordinate the accelerated building of a renewable energy infrastructure in NATO members territories, in order to effectively and completely end any leveraging power Russian Oil has in Europe?
  15. Nobody here has stated that they supported the war in Iraq. Nobody here has stated they support the idea of war crimes when committed by the USA. Somebody else's potential war crimes, do NOT justify Russias current war crimes. The ACTUAL topic of discussion. You are tilting at windmills. It's just getting incredibly boring at this point. You've added little of value to this discussion and are just accusing us of believing or saying things that nobody has said. Did your mother never tell you that two wrongs do not make a right? Ukraine wasn't the one at war with Iraq. Ukrainian civilians certainly were never at war with Iraq. How is Iraq, the Cuban missile crisis or an imaginary war with Mexico in any way shape or form, relevant or related to this discussion?
  16. Except that isn't what is happening, therefore the wild speculation is irrelevant. You literally just copied a few of the words used... do you actually believe this makes you sound intelligent? Agreed. +1 at this point I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out they work for Russian state media. Russia commits war crimes, then all of a sudden some random apologist appears in places where people are having informed discussions about it. State sponsored trolling doesn't seem too far-fetched to be a really possibility here imo.
  17. Fair enough. I get why the staff did that. I just wish mistermack would use the opportunity to have their own thread to at least be coherent. I mean, the "poor get everything handed to them"? Then why are they still poor? Then there is the connection between being poor and from another country? Finding it hard to keep up and annoyed that Mistermack is ignoring large swathes of our responses. I mean, if I take a few news stories of British or American citizens committing heinous crimes, by mistermacks logic do I get to claim that they are all criminals and that the one or two news stories I grabbed are incontrovertible evidence of this? Hell no! Sometimes I have to say, I almost prefer it when a bigot is more direct. That is a much more straightforward situation to handle. I can just tell them to fuck off and/or go out and spend a year in a community where their target demographic is in the majority before speaking again. I used to live in a highly segregated area (segregated by redlining/greenling history, not policy) called North Lawndale in Chicago. It's a majority black area. It is crime ridden and run by gangs. The majority of the people there, are NOT in gangs. The majority of the people there HATE gangs. The majority of the people there are LAW ABIDING. Two of my closest friends from back home in the UK, are African. When I was homeless they took me in where my family had abandoned me. So not only do I have an experience of immigrants in my home country that treated me amazingly; I have an experience of being an immigrant in another country among people who had justifiable reasons for being terrified of me, yet welcomed me with open arms. I'm saying all this because I admittedly feel kind of worked up and emotional. Had a horrible fucking dream last night and waking up to this has upset me, no doubt about that. @mistermackAll I want you to do, is ask yourself why you are allowing fear and hatred to colour your views of people and why you think it is appropriate to blame Ukrainians for Russia invading them and why you think that countries that choose to make use of the NATO open door policy are somehow in the wrong and deserve to be attacked by Russia for it? I think you should apologize for misunderstandings caused by you.
  18. Dude wtf is your agenda? I've asked you wtf this hijack is even for and so far it just seems to be a soapbox for you to rail against poor people and immigrants. Your interpretation of statistics is very telling of an extremely bigoted mindset. You can't give any of us a clear answer as to what this thread is about, so I don't see why we should engage with you anymore.
  19. I get it, now that you've explained a little. Unfortunately high brow comedy is very hard to pull off in this venue. Yes the people here are more likely to get the joke, but only if you had a microphone and were on a stage in the right atmosphere. Take it from me, I come from the comedy capital of the world. Philosophy and phenomenology of comedy and humour are favorites of mine. So I admire your attempt. 100%. Jokes around discussions involving war crimes, are not advisable. Tensions are high. Read the room. Agreed. NATO expansion doesn't account for the agency of other countries to want that themselves based on what they have seen of the member countries. WION has a decent bias rating. Usually factual. However in terms of freedom of the press, out of 180 countries, it ranks at 140 on a scale of higher being less free and lower being more free. Their policy on international news is to produce it factual and give information on both sides views. However this is also the product of Indian foreign policy in regards to Russia and NATO is to give the impression of neutrality so as not to piss off Russia or NATO or piss them both off equally as a worst case scenario. Its editorials do tend to lean to the right, and it sometimes has problems sourcing or citing clearly. To be clear, the opening messages and sentiment, clearly framed that what Russia is doing with the Ukraine, is unjustifiable, intolerable and there is a solid case against them.
  20. Then it's a poor execution of irony. Her view is hardly balanced when even at the very start, she states there are solid claims against Russia and that their invasion of the Ukriane should not be tolerated. The rest she states as a reminder to consider and review the history before assigning 100% blame. I haven't seen anyone here disagree with the notion that NATO played its part in escalating tensions. So stop accusing all of having listened to propaganda. You don't know what news sources I use so don't assume to know.
  21. What is this thread about exactly? What is it you want us to discuss here? Is it class or something else involving Russia and Nato which could still be shared within the main thread? Why the hijack basically?
  22. Tbh I think I need to change the more recent socioeconomic class thread to be a little less specific. What makes you believe this? This is quite hyperbolic. Always the poor? The poor are quantifiably more often on the short end of the stick by virtue of population density alone. The richest people in the world could probably all fit into a decent sized theater or sports venue while the poor of the world living in one country would be overcrowded. High level tax, financial and business crimes are more likely to be committed by the people that have the assets to engage in them. It is one law for everybody, but there are crimes which certain demographics are more likely to commit. There are some crimes you can literally only commit if you have a lot of money or are in a position of authority like law enforcement, trust fund managers, government, military, law, ceo etc etc.
  23. Economic warfare in retaliation to documentable war crimes is a strategy with far fewer casualties of war than military action. This isn't Caesar killing a rich Roman and taking their money, this is more like catching Walter white by targeting his money.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.