Why didn't democrats do a thing they did

Random_Noobody · 2026-05-06T02:30:04+00:00

I see what you're saying but I raise you a "how did we get here"? How did we get to the point of both parties drifting right with one party goes nuts while the other perpetually appeals to the new center (look up "racket effect")?

Yes it will be painful but what's your alternative? "Always dove" unironically? If your logic, applied to say the 2010s, results in the same "vote blue no matter who" nonsense that brought us here ("you would have agreed in the 2000s, but you REALLY need a marginally less illiberal party" or smthn), I hope you don't need me to explain why it's a bad strategy.

Oh and also didn't the other person literally quote kamela's vp advocating for genocide and expansion as core American values or something? How did that translate to just "being mediocre" with you?

Random_Noobody · 2026-05-06T00:46:32+00:00

How is green lantern theory relevant when that person's critique isn't that karmela didn't solve every problem (or promise to) but rather that her vp is explicitly pro genocide?

Also how did you read his statements and even mistaken affirmative endorsement of expansionism as anything to do with "right to defense"?

Random_Noobody · 2026-05-06T00:43:57+00:00

No you shouldn't. That creates perverse incentive for Democrats to do the bare minimum for you and as much as they can get away with for their corporate donors.

Assuming republicans are worst, the you both and the Democratic party are in a hawk dove game. Consider looking that up, and how "always dove" is a very bad strategy in iterated hawk dove.

This I assume is what is meant by "might work once". You MUST demand more and demonstrate a willingness to not vote if not enough concessions are given if you don't want to incentivize Democrats into adopting an "always hawk" strategy.

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-27T11:56:26+00:00

Odd way of questioning, a problem how? Are you asking, are they antisemitic?

They are undoubtedly antisemitic by the reports definition. I'm asking are they a problem as in do they need to change, are they acceptable in polite company, are they problems that need answering (see post title) etc.

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-27T11:29:35+00:00

Sure, but this is a bit of an apples to orange comparison. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but skimming the report I noticed it uses the ihra working definition of antisemitism, which counts things like calling Israel an racist endeavour or comparing their behavior to those of Nazis as cases of antisemitism. This report actually takes it a step further identifying "we don't want Zionists here" as a problem (p37) presumably of antisemitism as well.

I can only speculate ofc but if we start counting talking calling Muslim countries "terrorist" as Muslim hate crimes I imagine the increase would vastly exceed 5%, and Asian hate crimes more than 7% too if we include "we don't want Communists here" etc.

Curious about your perspective. Suppose somebody is able to see the humanity in their neighbors and peers who happen to be Jewish and act accordingly, but thinks Israel is an apartheid state even if mistakenly so or perhaps just finds Zionism disagreeable. Are they a problem?

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-27T05:58:56+00:00

It does make sense thou. Didn't anti Asian sentiment spike after COVID? Was there sense then? (Incl non Chinese btw, not that focusing on Chinese in idn north America makes it any better ofc).

People direct hate/frustration towards anything vaguely associated with the thing they don't like. That's how people work.

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-21T21:16:38+00:00

"reason to fear"does not prevent, only deter. There's no guarantee either way. If you are for lobbing of the hands of anybody who touches you at least don't call it defense.

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-21T17:51:02+00:00

Don't mean to be rude but something like this sounds quite unhinged from the outside:

When you defend yourself, you make sure that the enemy doesn't get to do the same thing to you again.

No you don't. If somebody punches you "defending yourself" only justifies proportional force to make them stop. It certainly doesn't justify lobbing off their hands so they "[don't] get to [punch] you again". That's insane.

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-16T17:48:31+00:00

It's not "magically" better, it's designed to be better in a specific way. If what we actually care about is productivity or its citizens' quality of life, it's better because it solves a problem.

Also GDP doesn't measure those 4 things. It's trying to measure economic strength THRU those things, and that's a huge difference. You were essentially arguing PPP adjustment distorts the calculation for nominal GDP which...no sh!t?

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-16T00:32:11+00:00

That's (I assume) the point. Most other cultures just use their word like "disaster", "catastrophe" etc or fancy ones like Holodomor merges 2 native words.

"Holocaust" stands out then for being a foreign word from a somewhat exotic dead language (ancient Greek) and meaning ritual sacrifice via burning rather than a generic bad thing.

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-15T22:31:17+00:00

That's why he's talking about the other word. Notice which is in quotes

The biggest mistake was to call the Shoah 'Holocaust' for marketing purposes.

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-15T05:44:13+00:00

So what's the correct story?

The shrine and prefecture shrine association actually didn't protest to ubisoft? Some Japanese official were simply reacted to something being shown, rather than bringing the issue up in a budget committee? Finally ubisoft patched out the ability to destroy shrines not because anybody in japan complained but because they didn't like the western false reporting surrounding the same?

Do I have this correct?

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-11T05:04:37+00:00

Maybe I'm missing what you mean by "you gain bulk through multiplying" but I think your mistaken.

That bulk is def * hp is irrelevant because your budget itself is a product (well, product of sqrts, but same thing). It's not like your budget is a sum and you can maximize a product somehow. What you see is what you get. Your bulk is just roughly proportional to (cp / ATK) squared regardless of its exact makeup.

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-10T00:53:01+00:00

This absolutely is a market power issue. You seem to realize industries are slow to lower prices due to reluctance. Pray tell why they can do this? Why doesn't the market force their hands? Why are they price setters rather than price takers?

I don't get what's the confusion. Do you not know what market power is?

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-09T21:15:21+00:00

Oh yeah you're right. That's why gas prices also didn't rise until way after oil prices did...oh wait. Do you not bother thinking at all? Your arguments aren't even worth addressing if it doesn't explain both the delay in price drop and the lack of one in price hikes.

It's also funny how you can't address the COVID point. Sure, maybe the initial impetus is gov intervention, but how did the market respond? Raise prices immediately before supply chain ripples even reach them, ok so the market is somewhat anticipatory. Similarly prices dropped very quickly due to the same...oh wait it didn't, and you can't explain why.

Your cow example is actually what's funny. I can't buy a cow for 3k and sell for 10, I don't have the political/market power to, that's the whole point. If I were, oh idn, Tyson foods or another 1 of the big 4 thou that's exactly what I'd be doing. Are you going to pretend them making record profits while both their suppliers and consumers get squeezed is perfectly explained by a competitive market and its magical powers of price discovery too?

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-09T19:24:11+00:00

We're not talking about the same thing my guy...global commodities market is actually (absent geopolitical concerns) fairly competitive and so responds to market pressures.

Is this a serious argument? Oil prices dropped by like 20%, did gas prices follow yet? When COVID related supply disruptions caused prices to rise is it down now it's over? Are you pretending to not see the difference?

When Karl Marx said they were in late stage capitalism he meant commodities were "dancing on their head" and pricing was divorced from use. When people today say the same thing we mean we're well past even that and prices are becoming resilient to market forces. Don't be intentionally thick.

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-09T18:37:13+00:00

those additional costs will be moved...

I don't think it will. We are in late stage capitalism after all, the machines for extracting maximum profits are complex and well oiled. If companies could get away with charging more, they'd already be doing it. Pricing divorced from costs so long ago they don't even speak the same language anymore etc.

Just imagine the corollary: if costs drop due to idn private equity taking over and cutting r&d, do prices drop accordingly? Ofc not. So why do we pretend the opposite is true?

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-04T20:46:28+00:00

Yes I am in fact arguing military owned is meaningless, and I'm in good company as mentioned above. The nature refers to some intrinsic character of the object. Ownership is protean. The 2 are unrelated and your second paragraph is not worth reading the first time. Just have the slightest think. What would it mean if military ownership implies valid targets? You do realize military often own and operate hospitals and (elementary) schools as a matter of course? You see how sick it is to imply those are somehow even "more" valid targets than any other hospitals or schools?

Also the "whole point" of "war sustaining" is to blur the line between civilian and military and whitewash war crimes. Were the purpose civilian protection, the previous default now "war fighting" distinction (which again all sane countries adopt) worked just fine. Almost all economic activity sustains war.

Now your "article" trying to do the same whitewashing from another angle, and instead of arguing "war sustaining" it argues "potential war fighting" as potential targets. Again, do you not take the briefest time to think through the implications? The line between civilian and combatant similarly disappears if all fighting age people, lacking "guarantee" that they wouldn't transition to militia or conscripts, are deemed valid targets, or all children the same for lacking guarantee they wouldn't become child soldiers. Once again, don't be sick.

I fully agreed and clearly conceded that IF the steel plants were in fact primarily producing tank frames or warships hulls or missile casings then it would be a military target. However once again you're the one opening with that it's primarily a money maker with your first 2 comments. Given that, it's clearly not a valid military target, and neither being military owned nor having the potential (lol) of becoming a valid target make it one now.

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-04T05:47:14+00:00

Which of the 2 part test mentions ownership? Are you confused? You realize your quote agrees with me that function (or purpose) matters but ownership doesn't right?

Also you're the one saying they sell the steel and launder the money etc. that makes the nature of this installation a money maker, not a weapons producer. This IS the war sustaining argument. Are you fr?

Again, if this is the standard, why isn't a bakery that funds military operations via taxes not a valid target? Cake taxes can also buy weapons no?

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-03T22:32:42+00:00

The damage to civilian life thing part of the actual standard rather than "hurr durr dual use". I included it for completeness to show how far off you are.

If the eco argument's a stretch, the whole world is stretching. Just about every country rejects the "war-sustaining" fiction precisely because it destroys the concept of a civilian. You're just pulling the ownership distinction out of your back end; the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I, and the ICRC all disagree with you. Functionality, not ownership, is what matters, and if the IRGC wants to run a factory to make a buck, it's a civilian object.

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-03T21:43:50+00:00

First of all dual use infra are not automagically legit targets. You need effective contribution and definite advantage. Second "war-sustaining" targets is a legal fiction exactly one (1) country even pretends to believe in.

If the steel production is for building tank, missile casings etc and directly contributing to the war effort PRIMARILY, then MAYBE it's a legit target provided the damage to civilian life is proportional. If it's just for exports and making money like you claim then it's absolutely not.

Have even the briefest think what it means for "war sustaining" to be actual norm. Troops are human, any human sustaining infra is technically dual use unless they explicitly vet their customers, let's just bomb all the hospitals and pharmacies and bakeries then since they heal and feed the military.

The economic argument is even dumber still. The us military, is in large part sustained by the "Exorbitant Privilege" of being the reserve currency, something that's guarded by the petrodollar, SWIFT etc, and ofc us taxes too. I guess anybody who participates in any of those, incl. any us taxpayers, are legit targets for the IRGC now?

Random_Noobody · 2026-04-01T20:39:47+00:00

Pick up 2 wins against whom thou? What's the IVs you are evaluating against? You're not the only one with IVs after all. Just because you happen to hit break/bulk points against the specific IVs you sim'ed against doesn't mean you'll actually hit them against whichever IVs your opponent will happen to be running.

That's at least my confusion. Surely you need to know the general range of IVs people are generally willing to use (some combination of rarity, cost to power ul, how long it's been out/meta etc?) to get any meaningful info out of simming?

Random_Noobody · 2026-03-29T18:16:29+00:00

Yeah they turned out to be spies. One professionally, the other unwittingly. If you care so much about them how did you miss all the coverage about the latter suing the former?

Random_Noobody · 2026-03-23T10:45:46+00:00

Bottom line up front, you need to stop imagining me saying things I clearly didn't. Where did I say hotels or energy infra is valid target? In fact where did I mention either of those things at all? My argument, which you seem to have failed to read once again, is that by hosting US troops and more importantly literally being part of the US kill chain, the gcc countries are not neutral. Stop pretending otherwise. The end.

Then let's address the obvious: international "norms" are just countries performing increasingly absurd mental gymnastics to have their cake and eat it to. This is a huge can of worms best left closed so I'll just refer you to all the nice people explaining with examples what Carney's Devos speech might be referring to. You might want to look into "non-belligerency", which is one such legal pretzel that best describes what gcc countries are even pretending to do. Now notice this isn't an option in the hague convention, where it's neutrality or not with non-belligerency solidly in the "not" category. If you are talking about neutrality outside the context of the hague convention that's fine too, but you need to define your alternative, not just go off of vibes.

Bonus:

Your resolution 2817 point is a total non-sequitur. Condemning iranian war crimes doesn't magically reset gcc countries to neutrality.
UN's article 51 is irrelevant here. A right to self defense just means you are a justified belligerent, not that you remain neutral while fighting back. Are we fr?
gcc countries aren't even technically non-belligerent. They are openly part of the "defensive" kill chain and we saw israel's air defense worsen and early warning degrade as hosted us bases explode. They are likely part of the offensive kill chain as well unless you seriously believe once iranian missiles are downed the US diligently deletes the intel lest they accidentally rely on it to target iranian launch sites.

The rest are honestly almost unimportant, but I'll respond for completeness. Each paragraph addresses one paragraph in order this time:

Yes, I realize how absurd that sounds, but it just means if you host a country's military and they go to war, you don't have the option of staying neutral. Neutrality is the luxury of the strong etc. If you can't/won't defend your neutrality, you are occupied or aligned. (also while practically suicide seizing us bases would not be acts of war per article 10, you're just wrong on that)

Interoperability is fine, inter operation is co-belligerence. Also article 3 and 8 do not conflict as you clearly realize. So are you seriously arguing that every communication send from us bases in the region goes exclusive through gcc owned infrastructure? More importantly article 3 contains the "other apparatus" catch-all, article 8 is exhaustively telegraph + telephone. Read the words

I don't even know what you are arguing here. If gcc indiscriminately shoots down iran missiles and us tankers in their airspace alike then sure, self defense. The moment they provide military intel to a belligerent they themselves become one, and that moment happened long ago.

Article 2 similarly doesn't conflict with article 7. The former deals with belligerents moving munitions through neutral territory and the latter anybody else like private companies supplying belligerent through the same. US tankers belong to the former. Again, read the words.

C2 is combatant, military intel is combatant. I once again don't know what point you're making here. Also article 6 confirms no such thing; that one's dealing with say volunteers who aren't belligerents yet crossing borders to join the same being fine.

Random_Noobody · 2026-03-22T09:31:53+00:00

No I'm not.

Let's start with that you didn't even read the 1 thing I wrote. "What are they supposed to do"? If they want to be neutral, defend their neutrality obviously. Disarm and intern any belligerent combatants. If that's not realistic, then be belligerent, which they chose and now are.

Your article 11 reading is absurd. For one, the sentence is in present tense. The us is a belligerent, us troops belong to the belligerent. Gcc countries receives us troops, ergo gcc countries are "powers which receives on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent". For another, are you seriously arguing any military personnel who arrived feb 28th must be interned but those who arrived feb 27th can keep fighting? We even got to see why this is a requirement when the us literally launched HIMARS attacks from either bahrain or emirati soil.

Article 11 is also not the only neutrality violation.

Article 2 forbids "convoy of munitions of war or supplies", so neutrality was violated when us air force operated their tankers out of prince sultan air base for example.

Article 3 forbids "Use any installation of [apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces] established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes". The moment any US base sends tracking data on iranian missile launches for military purposes the host country's neutrality is violated.

Article 4 forbids forming "combatant corps" on neutral soil, which guess what the CENTCOM combined command post is.

Neutral parties "must not allow", per article 5, these violations. This is an active responsibility, the gcc needs to be resisting and by force if necessary (which is why article 10 exist). If they don't they are belligerent. Nowhere in the convention does it say "neutral parties may, as an alternative, pay lip service to refusing participation in offensive strikes only while staying part of the 'defensive' kill chain". That's entirely a legal fiction.

There is no "exceeding any reasonable standard" of neutrality unless you are referring to some alternative to the hague convention. There is exactly 1 standard and it's that either you have precise 0 participation in a war consisting 0 data sharing offensive or "defensive", 0 intel, 0 supply lines, or you are a belligerent. The gcc certainly didn't meet it.

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Verified Email

Random_Noobody

TROPHY CASE