|
Squalid posted:I mean I don't know about your specific feelings towards him, but I have to look at your weird nitpicking response within the wider context of how people are addressing him in this thread. Brown Moses has shown an amazing amount of patience responding to people in this thread over the years, repeatedly going back over his work, making clear arguments. There's a ton of people who don't care about that at all however, and will attack him regardless for any perceived slight. Look at how Moridin920 is in here getting insanely mad while he agrees with Brown Moses. It's not Brown Moses argument that he's mad about, its that he used the wrong tone, or emphasis, he wasn't strident enough in his criticism. There is no substantial argument. Or look at Helsing, who has dragged up some little nothing error from years ago and is trying to use it in some barely coherent argument about him having bad methods, or something. It's literally impossible to address these critics, because their goal is not to engage with him but to shout him down. So when I see you getting defense because maybe you could interpreted to be part of of the group he dismissed with a throwaway line, I see it as part of that larger climate of hostility. I literally describe my feelings towards him in almost every single post I make that references him and his dismissive responses were immediately after being further pressed by people in this thread about my questions and others. He used to be patient and an active participant here, but he hasn't been for years at this point. All he's done here for the last year or two is show up randomly and pimp his blog. I'm still waiting on your description of what things would have 'primed' me to want to discredit him and I'm generally really curious why you're putting so drat much effort into defending him when most people in this thread that aren't on everyones' ignore list are asking predominately reasonable, informed questions of him, to which he has responded by showing up briefly with some curt non-answers, claims to be above all bias (seriously what the gently caress was that?), and then making some snide dismissive remarks before disappearing again. It's been weird and frankly I expected more from him. From you Squalid, I'm confused by your motivations as you apparently have 50x more energy to defend his decisions than he does.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
What I'm saying is, and speaking as someone who has been here since before he could find syria on a map, I liked the dude and I liked his body of work but I respect him quite a lot less for how he's engaged with people here, especially after he came here to post his own loving article here for us to read and comment on. E: I hope he keeps doing what he does, but good lord is 'everyone who disagrees is an ideological nitpicker making disingenuous critiques' is a really bad response to earnest, considered criticism Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Jul 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
have you guys noticed how many news sites are saying Iran is going to exceed its enrichment limit? Do you guys realize what they are loving saying? They are trying to say IRANS BUILDING A BOMB. The last round wasn't justiable. This time there needs to be no argument had. Remember how bloodthirsty people were after 9/11? dems and republicans alike went into racist bloodthirst mode, they will sink a carrier in a preemptive strike and the US public will be 100% calling for war. not 51%. 100%.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:What I'm saying is, and speaking as someone who has been here since before he could find syria on a map, I liked the dude and I liked his body of work but I respect him quite a lot less for how he's engaged with people here, especially after he came here to post his own loving article here for us to read and comment on. The problem is that nearly everyone who does disagree with him is actually an ideological nitpicker making disingenuous critiques. The criticisms aren't earnest or considered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The problem is that nearly everyone who does disagree with him is actually an ideological nitpicker making disingenuous critiques. The criticisms aren't earnest or considered. On twitter, definitely; about a lot of his other content, sure. The NYT piece had people who are pretty loving ideologically moderate asking questions
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
eh a lot of BM's op-ed was pretty clearly grounded in a version of capital-L liberalism of a sort which is extremely poorly received on SA these days. that this is then claimed to be not a 'strong ideogy' is a pretty legitimate flaw in someone's world-view basically the critique offered is of a philosophical project which not everyone accepts, which is idk ok? i guess? but when a journalist starts imagining that they're objective and that their work exists outside of any external context, that's a bad sign imo however, if one wants to evaluate the external context, one really needs to consider ideology, and if part of the project is a disavowal of ideological analysis that poses a pretty serious theoretical challenge
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:eh a lot of BM's op-ed was pretty clearly grounded in a version of capital-L liberalism of a sort which is extremely poorly received on SA these days. that this is then claimed to be not a 'strong ideogy' is a pretty legitimate flaw in someone's world-view Probably THE central tenet of capital-L liberalism is the insane delusion that it's post-ideological. Have some happy rear end turks singing about winning an election or something. Meant to upload it last week but technical difficulties. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ua6do4fH58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prtM-8Sxfp0 And a free cat tax. The little ones mom died and he's pretty sick himself.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfJFMsaUh9w Zedhe Khoja fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Jul 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
Who is the United States to tell Iran how much nuclear material they can or cannot have ? We have 9000 nukes and Iran can’t have any nuclear weapons because ...uhhhhhhh
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
^ Because gently caress you, got mine. And the Saudis would really start handwringing then too, gotta keep those guys happy.V. Illych L. posted:but when a journalist starts imagining that they're objective and that their work exists outside of any external context, that's a bad sign imo Exactly this. If you write something, where you try to keep a passive voice, with 'just the facts' presentation with a little bit of this thrown in on one side's argument and a little bit of that on the other, while refusing to reach a conclusion (the joke among reporters, about what most of their reporting winds up being, is super relevant here: "How many ways can you say 'I don't really know?") then EITHER side can use that article for their own extremist purposes and apply its own twisted context and voice to it, since BM didn't feel the need to provide one and make the thing his own. CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jul 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
Punk da Bundo posted:Who is the United States to tell Iran how much nuclear material they can or cannot have ? We have 9000 nukes and Iran can’t have any nuclear weapons because ...uhhhhhhh yes theres zero reason right? Nuclear proliferation is bad and just because the US and Russia and etc have nukes doesn't mean everyone should. Do you think Syria iraq, saudi arabia, loving Sudan should run nukes because you have a lovely opinion?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I literally describe my feelings towards him in almost every single post I make that references him and his dismissive responses were immediately after being further pressed by people in this thread about my questions and others. He used to be patient and an active participant here, but he hasn't been for years at this point. All he's done here for the last year or two is show up randomly and pimp his blog. My motivations are two fold. Firstly I am offended at the kind of motivated reasoning used by people like Moridin920. It must be a false flag, because if it isn't it could be used as an excuse for a war. In fact it doesn't even matter what actually happened, the important thing is taking a strong stand against imperialism, why are you asking questions anyway? This has nothing to do with being non-ideological, something I don't believe is possible. Whatever your ideology you have to be able to actually look at the world and figure out what really is, you can't just always assume that the truth is what's convenient at the moment. My second motivation is that I can tell there's a certain segment that's determined to hound BM out of the forums completely, and I don't want that. Practically every time he shows his face he get's dog piled by the peanut gallery, attacking him personally, hauling up trite poo poo from years back blown way out of proportion. It's an effort to shout him down and make him get out without engaging with his work. If Brown Moses is like me he probably enjoys reading the forum and posting, but its a lot less fun when people are calling you an rear end in a top hat or probing you on sight. Maybe it was unfair of me to single you out. Unlike a lot of people you did try to engage with what he wrote, and I don't think you just want him to just go away. It's just that I saw the way you took offense at what was really a very innocuous statement as stemming from the wider climate of hostility against BM. When I mentioned priming I see basically three kinds of priming which have turned posters against BM, none of which may apply to you specifically. The first is instrumental reasoning, people who were mad at BM because his conclusions didn't mesh with what they felt SHOULD be true, in order to prevent a war. The second kind of priming is social priming. When there's a bunch of other people attacking someone, its easy to pile on. When even the mods are getting in hell why not? Who cares if you read the article or even know what's going on, that never stopped anyone before. The last kind is priming by state propaganda. Russia for a number of reasons I'm sure you're familiar with, doesn't much like dear Eliot, and has put a fair bit of effort into discrediting him. Their messages filter down through the media and primes and justifies feelings of hostility towards BM. Of course, I'm sure everyone here is smart enough to be immune to propaganda, so I wouldn't suggest that applies to anybody who posts here. It's just something to keep in mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:yes theres zero reason right? Nuclear proliferation is bad and just because the US and Russia and etc have nukes doesn't mean everyone should. Do you think Syria iraq, saudi arabia, loving Sudan should run nukes because you have a lovely opinion? I don’t think Saudi Arabia should even have an army as they are the worst country in the entire world, but why can’t Iraq have nuclear weapons? Or Iran ? Since when is the United States the final say? If Libya had nukes, it might have stopped NATO
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
Punk da Bundo posted:I don’t think Saudi Arabia should even have an army as they are the worst country in the entire world, but why can’t Iraq have nuclear weapons? Or Iran ? Since when is the United States the final say? If Libya had nukes, it might have stopped NATO In terms of legal framework, Iran is party to the NPT, which theoretically means they voluntarily agree to give up nuclear weapons in exchange for assistance in developing peaceful nuclear energy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
Squalid posted:If Brown Moses is like me he probably enjoys reading the forum and posting, but its a lot less fun when people are calling you an rear end in a top hat or probing you on sight. Except that said probes never came from this thread. He posted this article in C-SPAM and those guys have had it out for him since, like, forever and this last probe of his was essentially a double from his initial one back when he posted that story and made for a comment he made ITT, and in direct response to the 'tankie' comment he made. In fact, in light of this I'm now p sure he was referring to the guys in C-SPAM as 'tankies' and just equivocated them with the people here which...yeah, doesn't really make his refusal to consider any criticism as even remotely valid any more excusable TBH. Also btw, SA has always had a reputation for being an intensely critical forum, moreso than most and if anywhere I'd expect it to be such in D&D. I still don't like a lot of sacred cows that are never questioned around here, but seeing BM finally start to become such after these years is, honestly, D&D actually working as intended for once. CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Jul 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
Nuclear weapons are bad and in a perfect world nobody would have them, but also the US has nobody to blame but themselves for creating a situation where they're the only foolproof way to avoid getting yourself regime changed/bombed. Just as an example, Gadaffi gave up on the Libyan nuclear program when the US pinky promised they wouldn't come for him, and then whoops they came for him anyways. Saddam wasn't running a nuclear program at all and we still came for him. Meanwhile, North Korea has effectively secured themselves against any military intervention, at least until magic sci-fi 100% effective missile shields exist. So I guess while ideally Iran wouldn't have any use for nukes, I don't blame them one bit for thinking they'd need the deterrent, especially given recent saber-rattling. I dunno if I want to see the spread of nuclear weapons, but it's the lesser of two evils if that's what it takes to make the Americans stop threatening to start a war every few years. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Jul 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The problem is that nearly everyone who does disagree with him is actually an ideological nitpicker making disingenuous critiques. The criticisms aren't earnest or considered. He's a journalist though. Verifying the sources he is using or promoting is key to doing his job. If he is using or promoting an unreliable source it's a gently caress up he needs to correct. Whining about not being psychic when you get something wrong is a really bad look. Honestly he should be thinking about fixing his poo poo instead of posting here. Figure out if there was anything that could had been done to prevent making the mistake. Even if it turns out everything was done that could be done do the work and actual look at your process. Credibility is probably the most important thing for a journalist, dude could lose everything if he fucks up too much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
Punk da Bundo posted:I don’t think Saudi Arabia should even have an army as they are the worst country in the entire world, but why can’t Iraq have nuclear weapons? Or Iran ? Since when is the United States the final say? If Libya had nukes, it might have stopped NATO Well seeing as the entire world is at stake if weapons are used, even in close quarters (500 KM) I would think the fact that the US has'nt used those weapons in 75 years they might be the best ones to ensure the world isn't destroyed. More countries having nukes is a bad thing. Not a good thing. Libya got hosed,but the other 196 countries of the world probably appreciate an instance where there are less weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 06:24
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Well seeing as the entire world is at stake if weapons are used, even in close quarters (500 KM) I would think the fact that the US has'nt used those weapons in 75 years they might be the best ones to ensure the world isn't destroyed. Literally the only country to have used them too. Possibly the worst people to be in charge?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:yes theres zero reason right? Nuclear proliferation is bad and just because the US and Russia and etc have nukes doesn't mean everyone should. Do you think Syria iraq, saudi arabia, loving Sudan should run nukes because you have a lovely opinion? The only thing that can stop a bad country with a nuke is a good country with a nuke. So far, the only proven bad country with a nuke (as in, the only country that actually used it in anger) is the USA. Dreissi posted:In terms of legal framework, Iran is party to the NPT, which theoretically means they voluntarily agree to give up nuclear weapons in exchange for assistance in developing peaceful nuclear energy. Yeah. And the USA are saying that Iran cannot even have a civilian nuclear program. Iran is supposed to keep respecting the terms of the NPT and of the JCPOA when every other country in the world ignores said terms when it concerns Iran. And why? Only because Iran is the last regional power in the Middle East that isn't either aligned with the USA or thoroughly destroyed by the USA. That's, in fine, the real motive. Iran isn't a pet dictatorship like Saudi Arabia or Israel; or a burning graveyard like Iraq, Libya and Syria. The USA absolutely, desperately want it to fit one of the these categories, with a strong preference for the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 09:41
|
|
|
As soon as the USA suffers a foreign military humiliation on a large enough scale as to indicate the beginning of the end of its power - as all empires eventually must do - it will absolutely lash out with nuclear weapons, even if only in a limited fashion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 12:32
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:More countries having nukes is a bad thing. Not a good thing. Libya got hosed,but the other 196 countries of the world probably appreciate an instance where there are less weapons. Cool. Now, I'm the Supreme Leader of Iran, not the Supreme Leader of 196 Other Countries, and obviously I would very much like to avoid getting my country flattened by a US (or Russian) military intervention if at all possible. If I can't have nukes how do you suggest I avoid that instead? Seems an awful lot like they're the only deterrent the Great Satan understands. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Jul 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Cool. Now, I'm the Supreme Leader of Iran, not the Supreme Leader of 196 Other Countries, and obviously I would very much like to avoid getting my country flattened by a US (or Russian) military intervention if at all possible. If I can't have nukes how do you suggest I avoid that instead? Seems an awful lot like they're the only deterrent the Great Satan understands. How about you sell state owned enterprises to US billionaires at less than 50% of market rate, and buy a fuckton of monkey model US fighter planes and tanks?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 14:25
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Crazycryodude posted:Cool. Now, I'm the Supreme Leader of Iran, not the Supreme Leader of 196 Other Countries, and obviously I would very much like to avoid getting my country flattened by a US (or Russian) military intervention if at all possible. If I can't have nukes how do you suggest I avoid that instead? Seems an awful lot like they're the only deterrent the Great Satan understands. i've never understood this line of argument; as far as i've seen there's no credible evidence that iran has ever pursued nuclear armament. if they are, that's pretty bad; we really ought to get rid of the bloody things, not spread them around iran has also communicated pretty strongly both internally and externally that they're not interested in nuclear weapons and that such weapons are fundamentally haram, which is really a very big lie if they're lying - they might still be lying, but it's at significant cost to their regime's legitimacy if they ever get properly called on it
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i've never understood this line of argument; as far as i've seen there's no credible evidence that iran has ever pursued nuclear armament. if they are, that's pretty bad; we really ought to get rid of the bloody things, not spread them around If Iran truly wants peaceful nuclear power, why dont they invest in thorium reactors which cant possibly make nuclear weapons?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:If Iran truly wants peaceful nuclear power, why dont they invest in thorium reactors which cant possibly make nuclear weapons? Maybe i'm missing an obvious "why not graphite" type of joke here, but afaik there's not a single active thorium reactor in the world outside of research laboratories, and while thorium is possibly (and hopefully?) maybe the future of nuclear power, I imagine a country in the nascent stages of nuclear power development would probably want to develop something that works today and not something that'll possibly work in a few decades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:Except that said probes never came from this thread. He posted this article in C-SPAM and those guys have had it out for him since, like, forever and this last probe of his was essentially a double from his initial one back when he posted that story and made for a comment he made ITT, and in direct response to the 'tankie' comment he made. In fact, in light of this I'm now p sure he was referring to the guys in C-SPAM as 'tankies' and just equivocated them with the people here which...yeah, doesn't really make his refusal to consider any criticism as even remotely valid any more excusable TBH. The criticisms against BM are mostly stupid as poo poo, though. But then again, people in D&D roleplaying as morons is par for the course, as far as I'm concerned. And a mod probing for political reasons makes me think fascism, especially if it is targeting someone on the left side of the political spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
Lol CSPAM would be probing BM from the left, not the right
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
excuse me sir, if you look at mcclaine's posting history you'll see the true face of fascism. allow me to explain why... tankie, tinkie, tik tok blankie, tankie tankie tankie. tang, tong, tank tank tankie, ting, ta dah tankie. this is an unassailable defense of neoliberal intervention, you stand no chance against these powers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Bohemian Nights posted:Maybe i'm missing an obvious "why not graphite" type of joke here, but afaik there's not a single active thorium reactor in the world outside of research laboratories, and while thorium is possibly (and hopefully?) maybe the future of nuclear power, I imagine a country in the nascent stages of nuclear power development would probably want to develop something that works today and not something that'll possibly work in a few decades. They've already been decades away from conventional nuclear power and suffering under the weight of sanctions. Had they chosen that path, they may well be closer to the purported goal of widespread civilian nuclear power than they currently are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
Thorium is not an available path to choose unless you're a great power with billions upon billions to spend on R&D (which Iran is obviously not), because as mentioned it's not an existing technology outside white papers and maybe the odd research proto-prototype.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Thorium is not an available path to choose unless you're a great power with billions upon billions to spend on R&D (which Iran is obviously not), because as mentioned it's not an existing technology outside white papers and maybe the odd research proto-prototype. I was under the understanding that India has several functional research thorium reactors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Yeah, key word being research. There are prototypes floating around out there, and I'm sure engineers and physicists love them. But that's not the same as a design that you can scale up for civilian power or medical isotope production, especially not at a cost a minor power with minimal native expertise like Iran can afford.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Thorium is not an available path to choose unless you're a great power with billions upon billions to spend on R&D (which Iran is obviously not), because as mentioned it's not an existing technology outside white papers and maybe the odd research proto-prototype. Bullying Iran by making bad faith arguments against anything they do such as "why are they using thorium reactors when they could pursue much cleaner fusion power" is exactly the US government's wheelhouse, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Cool. Now, I'm the Supreme Leader of Iran, not the Supreme Leader of 196 Other Countries, and obviously I would very much like to avoid getting my country flattened by a US (or Russian) military intervention if at all possible. If I can't have nukes how do you suggest I avoid that instead? Seems an awful lot like they're the only deterrent the Great Satan understands. Seeing as Iran has a proxy with 100,000 missiles and proxies that can hit foreign capitals with cruise missiles. The only point of a nuclear weapon program would be to use them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Seeing as Iran has a proxy with 100,000 missiles and proxies that can hit foreign capitals with cruise missiles. The only point of a nuclear weapon program would be to use them. What?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Seeing as Iran has a proxy with 100,000 missiles and proxies that can hit foreign capitals with cruise missiles. The only point of a nuclear weapon program would be to use them. lol wat I see the nuclear deterrent understander has logged on
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Yeah, key word being research. There are prototypes floating around out there, and I'm sure engineers and physicists love them. But that's not the same as a design that you can scale up for civilian power or medical isotope production, especially not at a cost a minor power with minimal native expertise like Iran can afford. Especially if their native expertise keeps getting kidnapped and/or assassinated by outside forces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 21:51
|
|
cowboy
|
Hezbollah has a missile contingent large enough to overwhelm the iron dome and kill a lot of israelis. The houthis have cruise missile capable of hitting saudi airports. Iran would benefit from a asymetrical preemptive strike on the US and its middle eastern allies. If Iran gets a nuke they will use it to thwart the destruction of their status quote. They do not currently need a nuke to deter aggression. The sheer size of a potential conflict is the deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
In what possible universe does Iran benefit from making a pre-emptive first strike? As if that somehow isn't just a very expensive way of committing suicide when the Israelis (or hell even the Americans) inevitably glass the entire country in retaliation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:In what possible universe does Iran benefit from making a pre-emptive first strike? As if that somehow isn't just a very expensive way of committing suicide when the Israelis (or hell even the Americans) inevitably glass the entire country in retaliation? Gee you dont preemtive strikw and instead your siles get bombed. They will still fire off missiles at saudis and israelis even if they dont fire first. Once you hit use it or lose it decorum stops affecting missile targeting doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 22:36
|
|