USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Kalli posted:

Found an archive link earlier

Did a cursory search about CLT and criticisms and didn't see anything beyond that CLT was used mostly by homeschoolers and small christian colleges. This was the only easily accessible thing I found with an example passage: https://blog.prepscholar.com/clt-exam-classic-learning-test

and unless I'm being snowballed about how everything else is just bible quotes, it seems fine compared to my faded memories of taking the SAT's almost 30 years ago. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to have a strong opinion about a competitor to the SAT's.

CLT is a proxy intended to undermine public education in favor of conservative Christian materials, which is why it's principally taken up by conservative Christian higher education institutions and marketed to homeschoolers. It can also be understood as a reaction against reforms to the SAT, similar to other educational reactionary mechanisms. Here's some coverage of CLT in its founder's words:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/woke-curriculum-increases-classical-education-booms-hillsdale-college-sees-53-increase-applications
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/05/nobody-wants-to-cancel-the-classics-except-academic-elites/
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/01/return-to-the-classics

The "this is like the SAT used to be when you took it" framing is deliberate.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jun 6, 2023

# ? Jun 6, 2023 22:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 17:14

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Judgy Fucker posted:

There's a whole school of academic thought that suggests otherwise

Not saying that school is necessarily correct, just pointing out there are more than a few IR academics who don't think that scenario is particularly bizarre fwiw

I've read that entire article and I'm not sure where you're making the connection between that statement and defensive realism. It in fact seems to argue the opposite, that movement toward large defensive organizations promotes stability.

One of the primary criticisms of the theory that is listed is that nations are incapable of communicating their defensive intentions believably to other nations, so defensive structures will necessarily draw aggressive actions from those who aren't willing to take the risk they'd use their power only for defense. Which sounds very prisoner dilemma-adjacent to me, and also much closer to what the OP is arguing.

Jarmak fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jun 6, 2023

# ? Jun 6, 2023 22:44

Fell Fire: Jan 30, 2012

Ershalim posted:

I don't feel particularly adept at explaining this, so forgive me if some of my phrasing is clumsy. NATO can't compel its members to do imperialism in the manner of taking other counties' land or people, but what it does do is force a situation where there's a compelled "us or them" for countries that exist opposed to the cultural and economic sphere of the alliance itself. I don't mean to say that NATO enforces its constituent nations to behave in coerced ways, but that the existence of the alliance itself forces the rest of the world to view it as something that must be reacted to or defended from in case it acts upon them.

The loss of sovereignty isn't an argument that I'm making, but I suppose you could see it as such because of the compelling nature of a bi-polar world structure. It was probably significantly worse in the Cold War era due to it being a more literal "Us vs Them" scenario, but that still exists to a large extent for countries that we (the US) particularly don't like. Like Iran, or Russia. The NATO countries aren't a monolith, but they do often act in concert with economic aggression, for example.

The thing I'm reaching at is more related to this part. Being an enemy to NATO means that you can be shut out of the greater world as a whole on a number of different levels. The world doesn't really fit into neat organized categories, but the existence of an empire (and a thing that fights against an empire) essentially forces countries to act as if it does. Being an "enemy" of NATO doesn't imply that you're going to be targeted by it for invasion, but it does leave you open to a lot of things that member nations aren't subjected to. Having an arrayed military force that exists outside of your control that has been used in any imperialist way often forces countries to act aggressively in order to avoid future aggression against them.

This is a problem they face with other empires as well, but NATO's existence makes the problem worse because it dictates "sides" in a way that defense of a singular nation wouldn't generally have applied to it. My point isn't that NATO is exceptional in this, it's specifically that it's not -- the influence of multipolar bodies of concentrated power are a destabilizing element to global peace and prosperity because they have to be. A world without empire would naturally be more stable than one with them, regardless of the shape or form those empires take.

I realize I've probably explained this in a way that's unsatisfying. But a Judgy Fucker mentioned, the argument I'm making is a structural one. The creation of a defensive force is also the creation of something to be defended against.

The trouble with this argument is that it is being used to excuse the actions of definitively imperialist states such as Russia. It also runs into the issue that an agreement between any two states will always have an effect on the states near them. So, it's a structural argument, but a weak one, as if telling us that atoms when together are stronger than when alone. It's true, but inherent to the international system like breathing is to humans. It's not very useful given the complexities of the whole system. Stating that in this case doesn't really tell us that NATO is a first-strike threat, for example.

It's also possible, at least in theory, to have a purely defensive agreement. Britain pledging to defend Belgium affected Germany, but it didn't meaningfully cause World War 1 in the sense of the UK being the true aggressor.

# ? Jun 6, 2023 22:56

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Also talking about NATO being a global thing is... not technically inaccurate but pretty Eurocentric. It's not even that big a deal for Iran (keeps them from starting a mutual suicide war with Turkey, I guess) but how many shits does India really give about NATO? How many shits does Kenya? Brazil?

# ? Jun 6, 2023 23:01

Youth Decay: Aug 18, 2015

Just had a mass shooting in Richmond VA at a high school graduation, at least 5 people shot.

Source: it's like half a mile from me and all the roads are blocked off

First article I could find. https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/altria-theater-graduation-shooting-june-6-2023

Greatest country on earth.

# ? Jun 6, 2023 23:03

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Ershalim posted:

I don't feel particularly adept at explaining this, so forgive me if some of my phrasing is clumsy. NATO can't compel its members to do imperialism in the manner of taking other counties' land or people, but what it does do is force a situation where there's a compelled "us or them" for countries that exist opposed to the cultural and economic sphere of the alliance itself. I don't mean to say that NATO enforces its constituent nations to behave in coerced ways, but that the existence of the alliance itself forces the rest of the world to view it as something that must be reacted to or defended from in case it acts upon them.

The loss of sovereignty isn't an argument that I'm making, but I suppose you could see it as such because of the compelling nature of a bi-polar world structure. It was probably significantly worse in the Cold War era due to it being a more literal "Us vs Them" scenario, but that still exists to a large extent for countries that we (the US) particularly don't like. Like Iran, or Russia. The NATO countries aren't a monolith, but they do often act in concert with economic aggression, for example.

The thing I'm reaching at is more related to this part. Being an enemy to NATO means that you can be shut out of the greater world as a whole on a number of different levels. The world doesn't really fit into neat organized categories, but the existence of an empire (and a thing that fights against an empire) essentially forces countries to act as if it does. Being an "enemy" of NATO doesn't imply that you're going to be targeted by it for invasion, but it does leave you open to a lot of things that member nations aren't subjected to. Having an arrayed military force that exists outside of your control that has been used in any imperialist way often forces countries to act aggressively in order to avoid future aggression against them.

This is a problem they face with other empires as well, but NATO's existence makes the problem worse because it dictates "sides" in a way that defense of a singular nation wouldn't generally have applied to it. My point isn't that NATO is exceptional in this, it's specifically that it's not -- the influence of multipolar bodies of concentrated power are a destabilizing element to global peace and prosperity because they have to be. A world without empire would naturally be more stable than one with them, regardless of the shape or form those empires take.

I realize I've probably explained this in a way that's unsatisfying. But a Judgy Fucker mentioned, the argument I'm making is a structural one. The creation of a defensive force is also the creation of something to be defended against.

The creation of a defensive force is not the creation of something to be defended against. That is the key distinction that makes it a defensive force. All your arguments for why NATO is structurally imperialist are predicated on NATO acting as an empire. There is no threat from NATO to countries that don't join NATO or to countries that join Russia's sphere of influence. The existence of Russia as an aggressive imperialist power is what provides the pressure to "choose a side", because you need to either seek protection from the empire or join up with others to defend yourself from it.

To put it another way: If NATO stopped existing there would remain a threat creating pressure to find an empire to join or be conquered. If Russia stopped existing as an imperialist entity that pressure would stop existing.

Russia isn't in danger of being invaded by NATO, what NATO threatens is it's ability to invade others. Neutral countries aren't in danger of being invaded by NATO, and their motivation to join isn't fear of NATO.

# ? Jun 6, 2023 23:08

James Garfield: May 5, 2012; Am I a manipulative abuser in real life, or do I just roleplay one on the Internet for fun? You decide!

I don't know how much attention people pay to this stuff, but "classical education" is a dog whistle for evangelical homeschool/private school curriculum that doesn't teach LGBT propaganda, math, or science. Besides how public schools and SATs are woke, CLT's promotional material talks about how it's more suited to what homeschoolers learn.

Cornel West might not be aware of that, but I think being on the CLT board writing op-eds praising Desantis for adopting it suggests strongly that he is.

# ? Jun 6, 2023 23:09

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

At least one sheriff in Texas is saying DeSantis should be brought up on charges for lying to immigrants.

quote:

A Texas sheriff who had been investigating Florida Governor Ron DeSantis� scheme to relocate 49 migrants to Martha�s Vineyard last summer is recommending criminal charges.

In a statement provided to the Globe, a spokesperson for Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar said the sheriff finished the investigation and has referred the case to prosecutors.

The sheriff recommended several misdemeanor and felony charges of �unlawful restraint,� or kidnapping, according to the statement. No defendant was named, but a spokesperson said more details will made public �once an update is available.� The exact timing of such an update is unclear.

The case now goes to prosecutors in Bexar County, which includes San Antonio, to decide whether to act. The district attorney there did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Neither did a spokesperson for DeSantis, seen as a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.

The announcement came as news broke that several migrants were flown from El Paso to Sacramento, prompting accusations from California state officials and others that DeSantis was behind the stunt. No one has claimed responsibility for the California flight, however. By contrast, DeSantis immediately took credit last year for the Martha�s Vineyard flights.

The California attorney general nonetheless accused the DeSantis administration of recruiting migrants in El Paso and flying them to Sacramento on Friday, saying the migrants �were in possession of documentation purporting to be from the government of the State of Florida.�

�While we continue to collect evidence, I want to say this very clearly: State-sanctioned kidnapping is not a public policy choice, it is immoral and disgusting,� California Attorney General Rob Bonta said.

Russ Eonas, a spokesman for the Cape & Islands district attorney�s office, declined to say if District Attorney Robert Galibois was weighing his own investigation or potential charges here in Massachusetts.

But Galibiois intends to �support the sheriff,� if asked, Eonas said.

Galibiois began his term in January as the first Democrat to lead the office since it was created nearly 50 years ago.

�He�s obviously aware of the potential charges in Texas, and he will cooperate with them in any way necessary, anything that is asked of him,� Eonas said.

Boston-based Lawyers for Civil Rights, which filed a class action lawsuit against DeSantis on behalf of the migrants transported to the Vineyard, drew similarities between the Vineyard and Sacramento flights. The organization said it dispatched lawyers to Sacramento to help the migrants there.

The Texas sheriff started his investigation into the Martha�s Vineyard flights shortly after the planes landed on the island. In announcing the probe, the sheriff said the migrants were apparently recruited into making the trip from a migrant center in San Antonio by a fellow immigrant who was paid for the work. Most of the migrants are from Venezuela and had crossed the US border in Texas.

Salazar said in a news briefing announcing the investigation last September that his office would look into whether the migrants were �lured . . . under false pretenses� from a Migrant Resource Center in San Antonio and brought � after a brief stop in Florida � to Martha�s Vineyard, �where they were unceremoniously stranded.�

At the time, Governor Charlie Baker said he was pleased a criminal investigation had been launched.

Governor Maura Healey said in a statement Tuesday that the criminal charges �are an important step toward accountability for this stunt that used vulnerable human beings as political pawns.�

DeSantis defended the flights to Martha�s Vineyard as his way of making a statement on what he has called the Biden administration�s failed immigration and border policies. He told reporters at the time that �[e]very community in America should be sharing in the burdens. It shouldn�t all fall on a handful of red states.�

State Representative Dylan Fernandes, who represents Martha�s Vineyard, said he was pleased that the sheriff recommended criminal charges.

�Using taxpayer money to round up refugees and lie to them and ship them to an island they�ve never heard of before is cowardly and evil and it turns out may have some severe legal implications as well,� the Falmouth Democrat said. �If you don�t stand up to a bully, they are going to keep picking on people.�

Soon after the sheriff announced the criminal probe, Lawyers for Civil Rights sued DeSantis and others involved in relocating the migrants, alleging the officials ran an illegal scheme that exploited vulnerable immigrants with false promises of cash payments and job opportunities.

Lawyers for Civil Rights filed the federal class action civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the migrants and Alianza Americas, an organization a network of immigrant-led support organizations across the country.

The lawsuit said the relocation was a �premeditated, fraudulent, and illegal scheme centered on exploiting� the vulnerability of immigrants who fled to the United States �in a desperate attempt to protect themselves and their families from gang, police, and state-sponsored violence.�

# ? Jun 6, 2023 23:10

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Ershalim posted:

The creation of a defensive force is also the creation of something to be defended against.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say in any of that, it all seems very vague and handwavey and "trust me" without saying anything substance, but it all, and this line especially, comes across the purest strain bullshit imaginable.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jun 6, 2023

# ? Jun 6, 2023 23:23

selec: Sep 6, 2003

GlyphGryph posted:

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say in any of that, it all seems very vague and handwavey and "trust me" without saying anything substance, but it all, and this line especially, comes across the purest strain bullshit imaginable.

If you have a defensive force what�s it there for? You have a defensive alliance to defend against something, and create or encourage an atmosphere of military competition by its very existence.

It�s like Ring cameras and Nextdoor. That guy they post about used to just be a guy walking in your neighborhood. But now that they have footage to post, it�s a suspicious individual, casing their neighborhood. What changed? Nothing, except the creation of a system that makes them paranoid by its very existence.

The terror level color code scheme the Bush administration was always wailing about was the same concept. You have a tool, you will feel compelled to use it.

# ? Jun 6, 2023 23:32

Killer robot: Sep 6, 2010; I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it!; Pillbug

Jarmak posted:

The creation of a defensive force is not the creation of something to be defended against. That is the key distinction that makes it a defensive force. All your arguments for why NATO is structurally imperialist are predicated on NATO acting as an empire. There is no threat from NATO to countries that don't join NATO or to countries that join Russia's sphere of influence. The existence of Russia as an aggressive imperialist power is what provides the pressure to "choose a side", because you need to either seek protection from the empire or join up with others to defend yourself from it.

To put it another way: If NATO stopped existing there would remain a threat creating pressure to find an empire to join or be conquered. If Russia stopped existing as an imperialist entity that pressure would stop existing.

Russia isn't in danger of being invaded by NATO, what NATO threatens is it's ability to invade others. Neutral countries aren't in danger of being invaded by NATO, and their motivation to join isn't fear of NATO.

Though this does remind me of some more convincing arguments I've seen before that while "NATO encirclement" theory is bunk, the logic actually does apply to economic alliances which can't easily be primarily offensive or defensive in nature. While NATO doesn't really threaten Russia's military security by existing (particularly because of Russia's enormous nuclear arsenal), you can argue that by existing and benefiting its members the EU actually does strongly encourage smaller nations to either join in or find their own rival economic bloc to get in on. Russia's colonies moving toward the EU definitely reduces its influence on the global economic scale, and its rampant kleptocracy has kept its economy from modernizing well. Becoming an impoverished resource extraction colony for China is a far more realistic "loss of independence" for Russia than Abrams rolling into Red Square. But it's a lot less popular to talk about domestically since it's harder to reconcile with nationalist sentiments, and it's less popular in sympathetic Western circles since it's harder to rephrase as "Look what America made Russia do!"

# ? Jun 6, 2023 23:33

socialsecurity: Aug 30, 2003

selec posted:

If you have a defensive force what�s it there for? You have a defensive alliance to defend against something, and create or encourage an atmosphere of military competition by its very existence.

It�s like Ring cameras and Nextdoor. That guy they post about used to just be a guy walking in your neighborhood. But now that they have footage to post, it�s a suspicious individual, casing their neighborhood. What changed? Nothing, except the creation of a system that makes them paranoid by its very existence.

The terror level color code scheme the Bush administration was always wailing about was the same concept. You have a tool, you will feel compelled to use it.

This is insane victim blaming and frankly disgusting.

# ? Jun 6, 2023 23:38

Judgy Fucker: Mar 24, 2006

Jarmak posted:

I've read that entire article and I'm not sure where you're making the connection between that statement and defensive realism. It in fact seems to argue the opposite, that movement toward large defensive organizations promotes stability.

The movement toward large defensive organizations prompts counterbalancing by other states, particularly when a defensive organization is oriented against said state/s. It's discussed in the article that states do, on occasion, miscalculate the theoretical value in aggression for a number of reasons. War is the exception, not the norm.

Jarmak posted:

One of the primary criticisms of the theory that is listed is that nations are incapable of communicating their defensive intentions believably to other nations, so defensive structures will necessarily draw aggressive actions from those who aren't willing to take the risk they'd use their power only for defense. Which sounds very prisoner dilemma-adjacent to me, and also much closer to what the OP is arguing.

Right, exactly. Which is why the forming and expansion of defensive alliances prompts counterbalancing, which states do gently caress up, as likely Russia has.

# ? Jun 6, 2023 23:39

Yawgmoft: Nov 15, 2004

Youth Decay posted:

Just had a mass shooting in Richmond VA at a high school graduation, at least 5 people shot.

Source: it's like half a mile from me and all the roads are blocked off

First article I could find. https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/altria-theater-graduation-shooting-june-6-2023

Greatest country on earth.

Half of VCU's freshman population lives next door to that church.

# ? Jun 6, 2023 23:41

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

socialsecurity posted:

This is insane victim blaming and frankly disgusting.

What victims?

# ? Jun 7, 2023 00:00

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

socialsecurity posted:

This is insane victim blaming and frankly disgusting.

"Victim blaming" is a pathetic and often hateful thing to do in the context of criticizing a person who's just living their life within their rights.

It has nothing to do with military maneuvering and military maneuvering by other names (like national defense coalitions).

There we have to hold every state responsible for the predictable consequences of its actions, because states don't have rights, only responsibilities, and they can't be victims, they can only make or protect victims.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 00:08

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

selec posted:

If you have a defensive force what’s it there for? You have a defensive alliance to defend against something, and create or encourage an atmosphere of military competition by its very existence.

It’s like Ring cameras and Nextdoor. That guy they post about used to just be a guy walking in your neighborhood. But now that they have footage to post, it’s a suspicious individual, casing their neighborhood. What changed? Nothing, except the creation of a system that makes them paranoid by its very existence.

The terror level color code scheme the Bush administration was always wailing about was the same concept. You have a tool, you will feel compelled to use it.

This analogy would wind up on the side of Ring/Nextdoor, because instead of "a guy walking" it would be a guy walking with a backpack full of guns and explosives breaking into nearby houses and trying to get squatters rights.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 00:12

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

I'm kind of curious to see how this shakes out in media reporting

https://www.reuters.com/sports/golf/pga-tour-european-tour-liv-golf-announce-merger-2023-06-06/

PGA Tour and LIV announce shock merger to end bitter split

The most elitist white bread sport on the planet merging with the Saudis to make more money for everybody. It was honestly weird listening to talk radio today (and sports radio for that matter) where a lot conservative callers were a bit up in arms about bringing Saudi Arabia in as a partner to the PGA.

For the first time in a long time, or maybe forever, I listened to a lot of callers invoke 9/11 and Saudi Arabia's role in it. Might have been helpful if they'd spoken up in 2002 or 2003 instead of blindly supporting the idiotic invasion of Iraq but, still, the relatively small and anecdotal response I heard about this honestly surprised me.

If I'm not mistaken, I think Trump has some connection to LIV so I suspect that in 24 hours, conservatives will change their tune once they're told what to think but the initial reactions I heard were pretty negative.

Fake edit: Yep

Donald Trump calls shock PGA Tour-LIV Golf partnership �big, beautiful, and glamorous deal� for golf

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/golf/donald-trump-pga-tour-liv-golf-partnership-reaction-spt-intl/index.html

So by tomorrow, this will all be seen as awesome and totally fine. Downright patriotic even.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 00:23

karthun: Nov 16, 2006; I forgot to post my food for USPOL Thanksgiving but that's okay too!

Civilized Fishbot posted:

"Victim blaming" is a pathetic and often hateful thing to do in the context of criticizing a person who's just living their life within their rights.

It has nothing to do with military maneuvering and military maneuvering by other names (like national defense coalitions).

There we have to hold every state responsible for the predictable consequences of its actions, because states don't have rights, only responsibilities, and they can't be victims, they can only make or protect victims.

In this analogy of Russia and Ukraine, which guy is trying to live within their rights?

# ? Jun 7, 2023 00:31

Bellmaker: Oct 18, 2008; Chapter DOOF

BiggerBoat posted:

I'm kind of curious to see how this shakes out in media reporting

https://www.reuters.com/sports/golf/pga-tour-european-tour-liv-golf-announce-merger-2023-06-06/

PGA Tour and LIV announce shock merger to end bitter split

The most elitist white bread sport on the planet merging with the Saudis to make more money for everybody. It was honestly weird listening to talk radio today (and sports radio for that matter) where a lot conservative callers were a bit up in arms about bringing Saudi Arabia in as a partner to the PGA.

For the first time in a long time, or maybe forever, I listened to a lot of callers invoke 9/11 and Saudi Arabia's role in it. Might have been helpful if they'd spoken up in 2002 or 2003 instead of blindly supporting the idiotic invasion of Iraq but, still, the relatively small and anecdotal response I heard about this honestly surprised me.

If I'm not mistaken, I think Trump has some connection to LIV so I suspect that in 24 hours, conservatives will change their tune once they're told what to think but the initial reactions I heard were pretty negative.

Fake edit: Yep

Donald Trump calls shock PGA Tour-LIV Golf partnership �big, beautiful, and glamorous deal� for golf

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/golf/donald-trump-pga-tour-liv-golf-partnership-reaction-spt-intl/index.html

So by tomorrow, this will all be seen as awesome and totally fine. Downright patriotic even.

Crossposting from SAS:

fancyclown posted:

Money always wins

This was probably planned all along and the �loyal� PGA folks who didn�t jump ship to LIV got screwed bad.

Also this rear end in a top hat is in charge :barf:

https://twitter.com/JoePompliano/status/1666118686594220032

Can the merger be blocked?

# ? Jun 7, 2023 00:32

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

I used to hate golf and found it stupid.

Then I played it for maybe 7 years or so and got into it before giving it up.

And now I think it's loving stupid again.

I enjoyed playing it with my friends from time to time and I liked playing golf to a point. But I hated golfers, almost to a man.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 00:44

Acebuckeye13: Nov 2, 2010; Ultra Carp

Civilized Fishbot posted:

"Victim blaming" is a pathetic and often hateful thing to do in the context of criticizing a person who's just living their life within their rights.

It has nothing to do with military maneuvering and military maneuvering by other names (like national defense coalitions).

There we have to hold every state responsible for the predictable consequences of its actions, because states don't have rights, only responsibilities, and they can't be victims, they can only make or protect victims.

Finally, someone who also thinks Belgium had it coming.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 00:51

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

BiggerBoat posted:

I used to hate golf and found it stupid.

Then I played it for maybe 7 years or so and got into it before giving it up.

And now I think it's loving stupid again.

I enjoyed playing it with my friends from time to time and I liked playing golf to a point. But I hated golfers, almost to a man.

It can kinda be fun on occasion but everything about it is awful and it's certainly not fun enough to justify the amount of land wasted on it so rich fucks can have private clubs

# ? Jun 7, 2023 00:53

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Jaxyon posted:

It can kinda be fun on occasion but everything about it is awful and it's certainly not fun enough to justify the amount of land wasted on it so rich fucks can have private clubs

Absolutely. There's a 9-hole course set on the side of a hill back home that my father and I used to play once a year or so. No caddies or carts, admission was like five dollars in the box on the honor system, so only people looking to have a some fun and not take it too seriously ever were there. Contrast that with the few Actual Golf Courses I've been on which tended to be infested with the worst self-important "I own a car dealership so I know what this country really needs*" bourgeoisie.

*More racism, in case you're curious.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 00:58

Acebuckeye13: Nov 2, 2010; Ultra Carp

Made a thread for the GOP Primary:

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=4033737

# ? Jun 7, 2023 01:57

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Judgy Fucker posted:

There's a whole school of academic thought that suggests otherwise

Not saying that school is necessarily correct, just pointing out there are more than a few IR academics who don't think that scenario is particularly bizarre fwiw

Did you mean to post a different link? This Wikipedia page seems to be saying that rational countries avoid imperialism because aggressive behavior leads to getting dogpiled, and therefore imperialism is an inherently irrational policy caused mostly by foolish "elite perceptions and beliefs" which drive countries into self-destructive cycles of imperialistic expansion and empire collapse. That seems very different from what you're trying to say.

Judgy Fucker posted:

The movement toward large defensive organizations prompts counterbalancing by other states, particularly when a defensive organization is oriented against said state/s. It's discussed in the article that states do, on occasion, miscalculate the theoretical value in aggression for a number of reasons. War is the exception, not the norm.

Right, exactly. Which is why the forming and expansion of defensive alliances prompts counterbalancing, which states do gently caress up, as likely Russia has.

Why?

Why does a purely defensive alliance - i.e., one that only functions when the states are being attacked, and not when they are attacking - prompt counterbalancing? If the outside state doesn't have any intention to attack countries in a purely defensive alliance, then the defensive alliance isn't an inherent threat to them.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 02:07

rscott: Dec 10, 2009

Professor Beetus posted:

This analogy would wind up on the side of Ring/Nextdoor, because instead of "a guy walking" it would be a guy walking with a backpack full of guns and explosives breaking into nearby houses and trying to get squatters rights.

This seems to conflate present day circumstances with when NATO was established, when multiple colonial empires allied together to stop the expansion of communism. It seems kind of like post hoc justification to say that NATO was always necessary because of what happened 30 years after the fall of the USSR. A lot of posts in this thread about the subject seem to do the same thing so I thought it was worth addressing. I would argue it's present day existence is actually more justified than it's historical genesis, as demonstrated by the application of historically non aligned states like Sweden and Finland.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 02:15

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy

Main Paineframe posted:

Why?

Why does a purely defensive alliance - i.e., one that only functions when the states are being attacked, and not when they are attacking - prompt counterbalancing? If the outside state doesn't have any intention to attack countries in a purely defensive alliance, then the defensive alliance isn't an inherent threat to them.

well, aggression has many forms, right? the threat of physical attack is not the only thing that might cause a state to feel threatened.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 02:34

UKJeff: May 17, 2023; by vyelkin

Jaxyon posted:

Say what you will about Cornel West, having a conversation about him instead of relitigating 2016 or 2024 is a welcome departure.

West was a serious critic of Obama as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/barack-obama-legacy-presidency

Yes, he was also a featured guest on The Tucker Carlson show. Not sure someone who would appear on Carlson�s show is someone worth voting for.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 02:36

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Worth posting here too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/opinion/biden-trump-ira-chips-manufacturing.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Earlier I mentioned I�ve been seeing semiconductor and battery manufacturing coming in at an unprecedented rate�

# ? Jun 7, 2023 02:45

Fell Fire: Jan 30, 2012

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

well, aggression has many forms, right? the threat of physical attack is not the only thing that might cause a state to feel threatened.

The issue is that calling this action aggression is really just an excuse to commit your own attacks. It doesn't justify your own physical attack. It's at best a surface level look at the issue.

Also, to expand on this line of thinking, two nations forging a trade agreement could be considered aggressive/threatening, since it would create a comparative advantage over a third. Germany and France agreeing to a trade deal threatens Britain; Vietnam and Jaoan does the same to China. If we accept this definition of aggression, then literally every possible action becomes a source of danger and renders the entire idea of international relations pointless.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 02:45

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

rscott posted:

This seems to conflate present day circumstances with when NATO was established, when multiple colonial empires allied together to stop the expansion of communism. It seems kind of like post hoc justification to say that NATO was always necessary because of what happened 30 years after the fall of the USSR. A lot of posts in this thread about the subject seem to do the same thing so I thought it was worth addressing. I would argue it's present day existence is actually more justified than it's historical genesis, as demonstrated by the application of historically non aligned states like Sweden and Finland.

The Soviets weren't exactly ultra-friendly neighbors in the 1940s either. "Expansion of communism" is quite the euphemism here; in the 1940s, that largely took the form of rather blatant imperialism in Eastern Europe. And after WWII came to an end, no single individual military could take them in a ground war at the time, so they weren't exactly shy about throwing their weight around. That was the context in which Western Europe eagerly pursued policies of collective defense. The focus of the Cold War only moved to other continents a bit later, after the boundaries of Soviet influence in Europe had been largely settled.

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

well, aggression has many forms, right? the threat of physical attack is not the only thing that might cause a state to feel threatened.

Could you elaborate a little bit? The kind of aggression that requires military response isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a vague thing that's impossible to state clearly, and dancing around the details like this reminds me a lot of rhetorical justifications of various unprovoked strikes that were later reframed as defensive (for example, the Six-Day War).

# ? Jun 7, 2023 02:58

Killer robot: Sep 6, 2010; I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it!; Pillbug

rscott posted:

This seems to conflate present day circumstances with when NATO was established, when multiple colonial empires allied together to stop the expansion of communism. It seems kind of like post hoc justification to say that NATO was always necessary because of what happened 30 years after the fall of the USSR. A lot of posts in this thread about the subject seem to do the same thing so I thought it was worth addressing. I would argue it's present day existence is actually more justified than it's historical genesis, as demonstrated by the application of historically non aligned states like Sweden and Finland.

What this argument always elides is that by this point "communism" had given way to more of a revanchist Russian Empire (with socialist characteristics) that had already allied with the Nazis (because the Allies weren't cool with them annexing/colonizing all their neighbors while the Nazis pinkie-swore they'd go splitzies), beat the forseeable Nazi betrayal (with the help of said allies and lots of the blood of their own subject states), used that victory to take all they wanted in the first place and more, and yet were openly continuing to expand, having just couped one country and made a play to grab the rest of Germany. Sure, a lot of western leftists were admiring the pretty new hat the empire was wearing but people in Eastern European countries (whether SSRs or Warsaw Pact) couldn't see it for having the same boot on their necks for a second time.

You can make some arguments that Russia might have been sated when it had all of Germany and wouldn't have gone for the rest of the continent, and certainly that several NATO members were empires in their own right that had done a lot of colonization in the very recent past themselves, but a western Europe that got overrun by one of Europe's expansionist dictatorships pursuing collective defense in reaction to the growth of the other one was neither mysterious nor nefarious.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 03:19

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy

Main Paineframe posted:

Could you elaborate a little bit? The kind of aggression that requires military response isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a vague thing that's impossible to state clearly, and dancing around the details like this reminds me a lot of rhetorical justifications of various unprovoked strikes that were later reframed as defensive (for example, the Six-Day War).

I didn't mean it in the sense that it justifies physical retaliation, but more in the sense that saying "well, it's a defensive alliance, so the other party really has no reason to feel threatened!" is a bit naive.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 03:38

Tiny Timbs: Sep 6, 2008

The extreme resistance to sanctions and level of investment NATO countries had in Russian businesses was a major issue last year so I�m not exactly sure why I�m supposed to see NATO as exerting economic pressure against Russia.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 03:48

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

well, aggression has many forms, right? the threat of physical attack is not the only thing that might cause a state to feel threatened.

Okay, and?

# ? Jun 7, 2023 04:28

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Google Jeb Bush posted:

anecdotally and in, uh, not Atlanta, it's pretty tough to explain why Cop City is bad / worth thinking more than two seconds about if the other person doesn't already hate and fear the police. The environmental argument (it's a nice little nature area in Atlanta that should be there for the wildlife and the locals) has been way way more successful than "the police shouldn't have a fancy paramilitarized training facility because cops are bad and it will make them worse".

They're ripping off the city? Just mentioning that they lied about how it much cost and are intimidating city hall to get it thru

# ? Jun 7, 2023 04:38

Nissin Cup Nudist: Sep 3, 2011; Sleep with one eye open

We're off to Gritty Gritty land

Was Cornel West the Obama Beer Summit guy?

Would be really funny if the racism wing of the GOP raised a big stink about the KSA buying golf

# ? Jun 7, 2023 04:48

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

Was Cornel West the Obama Beer Summit guy?

Would be really funny if the racism wing of the GOP raised a big stink about the KSA buying golf

That was Skip Gates.

# ? Jun 7, 2023 04:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 17:14

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

karthun posted:

In this analogy of Russia and Ukraine, which guy is trying to live within their rights?

The point is that there is no analogy.

Acebuckeye13 posted:

Finally, someone who also thinks Belgium had it coming.

Not sure if serious but the people living in invaded countries never deserve it. And states don't deserve anything because they're not people.

"Victim blaming" is a silly way to think about geopolitics because the state can't be a victim, it's supposed to be a machine that stops people from being victims so when people end up victims anyway we need to check of the machine failed or was simply overwhelmed

In this case I think the Ukrainian state was just squeezed between a rock and a hard place and couldn't get out of it no matter what it did, but if someone else thinks otherwise, that's not blaming the people whose lives were ended or ruined by this war.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Jun 7, 2023

# ? Jun 7, 2023 04:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »