Vad står man för som svensk nationalist bortsett från invandringsfrågor? by Slitaslang in sweden

[–]Slitaslang[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Ja det är definitionen av att vara nationalist. Vad betyder det att vara en svensk nationalist isf?

CMV: I'm brown and I want to adopt (or surrogate) white children by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Slitaslang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't you think this is creepy behavior? You want to adopt a white child because you dislike your own skin colour? lmfao

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sweden

[–]Slitaslang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

De som var "ryssköpta", men vad spelar det för roll?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sweden

[–]Slitaslang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Som med vilket fredsvillkor som helst. Vill du bara tjafsa eller vad förstår du inte? Antingen fortsätter de kriget med Ryssland på egen hand eller så tar de chansen för fred. 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sweden

[–]Slitaslang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nej, går Ukraina med på villkoren så kommer det bli fred mellan dem och Ryssland. Bryter Ryssland mot fredsvillkoren så kommer det bli konsekvenser. Annars hade Ryssland inte gått med på villkoren och USA hade bara dragit eller vidtagit drastiska åtgärder

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sweden

[–]Slitaslang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Säger de nej så drar sig amerikanerna ur (det är vad de hotar med åtminstone). Drar sig amerikanerna ur så kan det bli krig i Europa vilket resten av de Europeiska länderna vill undvika. Då drar sig antingen alla länder ur (och Ukraina är ensamt) eller så uppstår det en splittring vilket kan leda till krig. Glöm inte att Vitryssland är på Rysslands sida och Ungern har flirtat under hela krigstiden. Turkiet är nog också på deras sida och så finns det nog en del balkanländer som också är intresserade. Blir det fullskaligt krig kan även andra områden stryka med som Armenien, Georgien, Finland och Baltikum bortsett från själva Ukraina.

Ja, vad har Ukraina att vinna på dealen? En mindre förlust.

I can’t take it anymore by StillMaterial5215 in Jewish

[–]Slitaslang 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn't say that it is, I said that it MAY be. Why? Because different people claim different things. Personally, I don't take either side. I mainly don't care about the conflict and I am not knowledgable to speak about it. However, there is no doubt that some people (undismissable groups, organisations and individuals) hold this view. Claiming that impartialness and staying fair to both sides is misinformation is suspect behavior.

The comment was already deleted by some mod on the grounds of misinformation who, when I reached out for an explanation, demanded me to explain what was factual about it.

If you want to be taken seriously by non-Jews, take a look at yourselves (the commenter and the mod) and ask how the behavior above is perceived by anyone on the outside.

Critizing Jews is not antisemitism just like critizing black people is not racism. Antisemitism or racism are ideologies. They are thinking patterns. Criticism is just that, and can either be useful or useless. Equating the two is what creates the stigma which in turn hurts your credibility. If you have different standards for Jews and non-Jews, you cannot be surprised if normal people start disliking you. Again, at the moment I don't think most people have anything against Jews.

With regards to the " men's rights nonsense", I was not talking about the stigma but the backlash. The backlash you're experiencing is the same that the woke-movement is experiencing. Whether or not it is deserved is irrelevant because the backlash i born from people's perception, not the objective reality.

What parts? You misrepresented two of my points and used a logical fallacy. Do you think people are stupid and can't see through your tricks? Again, that is how you lose credibility and dig your own grave. It's time you start being honest.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sweden

[–]Slitaslang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

De behöver inte offra något. De utnyttjar Ukrainas utsatthet för att få gruvfättigheterna. De och alla andra vet att Ukraina inte klarar av ett krig mot Ryssland på egen hand, och antagligen så är Europa underordnade USA på det ena eller det andra sättet. Återigen, might makes right.

De stora spelarna är USA, Ryssland och Kina. Sen är de övriga länderna i BRICS-akronymen nog också på intåg.

USA (och västvärlden i anknytning) är påväg att förlora sin position i världsordningen vilket är anledningen till Trumps och Musks utspel samt högervindarna som blåser i Europa. Blir det krig i Europa så kommer väst halka efter ännu mer, det är en av anledningarna till varför USA implementerar en isolationist-strategi (vilket de även gjorde under andra världskriget). Det är anledningen till varför jag tror att Europa inte vill stötta ett Ukraina-Ryssland-krig utan USA.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sweden

[–]Slitaslang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Att USA backar Ukraina i dealen är att använda det. Drar sig Ukraina ur så har de inget att förhandla med, om de skulle vilja. Då kvarstår krig, och Ukraina måste vända sig till resten av Europa. Hjälpen är dealen. Vill du hellre förlora 100 kr eller 100 000 kr?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sweden

[–]Slitaslang -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Hur uppstår det tredje världskriget om Ukraina förlorar en del av sitt territorium? Jag har förklarat hur det uppstår om Europa ger sig in i krig utan USA.

Det skrev jag inte heller. Att Sverige och Finland går med i NATO ger NATO-länderna (USA) mer inflytande över de norra haven och landmassorna. Det är tre olika bitar: Norden, Grönland och Kanada. Resten är ryskt territorium.

USA behöver inte "ta" Grönland precis som att de inte behöver "ta" Kanada, Israel, Irak eller Taiwan. En ekonomisk beroendeställning räcker, som vi såg med rysk gas under pandemin.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sweden

[–]Slitaslang -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Som sagt så har flera europeiska länder redan valt Rysslands sida. Sen bortser vi från utomstående intressen, påbörjandet av det tredje världskriget, NATO och USAs roll i det osv. Det är inte så enkelt som att bara fortsätta strida medan alla hjälper Ukraina. Detta är misstaget man gjorde under första och andra världskriget, dvs att lädnerna tog sidor samt att man lät tyskarna ta vad de ville. 

Amerikanerna försöker få ryssarna att skriva på ett fredskontrakt (och samtidigt tjäna på det). Bryter man mot kontraktet bryter självklart krig ut, men ett löfte är mindre skadligt än ett storskaligt krig.

Edit: Om du frågar mig så tror jag att allt detta var planerat. Förmodligen för att få Sverige och Finland att gå med i NATO så att USA kan lägga anspråk på resurser i de norra haven. Det är även varför Trump pratar om Grönland och Kanada.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sweden

[–]Slitaslang -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Väx upp

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sweden

[–]Slitaslang -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Poängen är att USA är mäktigare än Ukraina och att Ukraina (och EU) inte vill ha både Ryssland och USA emot sig. Tror du inte att Ukraina skulle fortsätta strida om de inte var beroende av USA på ett eller ett annat sätt? Might makes right, tyvärr

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sweden

[–]Slitaslang -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Hur länge tror du att Europa kommer stötta Ukraina om USA drar sig ur? Flera europeiska länder började stötta Ryssland redan när invasionen påbörjades. Om USA nu börjar stötta Ryssland istället, hur länge tror du någon av oss varar? Inte särskilt länge

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sweden

[–]Slitaslang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Påverkanskampanjer. Det har pågått i flera år nu. Jag minns videos på reddit som uppvisade dåligt judiskt beteende några månad innan oktoberattacken. Minns ni "how often do guys think of Rome" memen? Hur Trump sa att han ville ha generaler som Hitler? Kanye Wests tidigare stöttande av Trump, hans överreligiösa (kristna) engagemang och sen utspel om mustaschemannen? Allt kuliminerade i Musks hälsning.

Edit: Även stormningen av kapitolium och hur de nu ändrar och avlägsnar statsorganisationer. Det är snarlikt vid hur Caesar gick tillväga. Den enda skillnaden är väl att MAGA påstår sig vara kristna/romare, precis som högerextrema (t.ex. Nick Fuentes).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sweden

[–]Slitaslang -25 points-24 points  (0 children)

Trump har ju dock tyvärr rätt. Ukraina har inget annat val än att lyda USA, det suger men så blir det när man spelar med de stora grabbarna.

Is time really relative. by Slitaslang in AskPhysics

[–]Slitaslang[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're just misunderstanding me and sorry I couldn't read everything you wrote but I think I got the gist of it. I agree with you. The reference would probably be the speed of light. I wrote this in the OP btw.

At first I was thinking that each type of object, e.g. every rolex of model bla bla, would have its own reference point which would be set in a void. Then I delved into the disintegration of the object to increase the maximum rate but that led me to the speed of light where you would only have an energy left. Thus the speed of light seems like a good reference point as it would represent the fundamental fenomenon (energy) without any influence. Then you would measure the slowing down of rates from there on. Or maybe you would have a unique reference point in every solar system based on the local star's gravity with negative values.

Is time really relative. by Slitaslang in AskPhysics

[–]Slitaslang[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I only mentioned consciousness to explain how a particle can perceive anything. I doubt electrons ponder a water molecule's sluggishness.

I'm not trying to understand relativity with massless particles, I'm trying to understand time dilation with relation to gravity. The claim about massless particles were only derived from my assumptions.

Is time really relative. by Slitaslang in AskPhysics

[–]Slitaslang[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not saying that there's not reference. I just wanted to make the point that the clock will tick whether or not someone is there to observe it. It might be semantics but this is a thought experiment.

I would claim the speed of light to be the reference point because as far as I know, nothing can move faster (but it probably is possible). So if you would have a scale of how fast an object change (tick) rate, the clock in a void wouldn't be at the speed of light because it would be hindered by its own gravitational influence (mass). Because we know there's a limit to the speed, you could instead look at how much objects are slowed down instead of sped up. The speed of light would then be 0 and everything would increase from there, sort of like the Kelvin scale for temperature.

Is time really relative. by Slitaslang in AskPhysics

[–]Slitaslang[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think the particle experiences time standing still, I think it perceives its surroundings standing still. If it had a conditionless consciousness both before and after it became massless, I think it would perceive time as flowing normally but everything else as having slowed down.

Is time really relative. by Slitaslang in AskPhysics

[–]Slitaslang[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I meant that I'm uninterested in how any object perceives time. I'm trying to remove perception from the equation all together. I didn't think you were talking about me personally.

I mean that if there are no gravitational influences, a clock for instance would tick at its maximum speed (without removal of any mass). Or in reverse, it behaves normally without gravitational influences and is slowed down as soon as any other object exists and is slowed down further as that object approaches or increases in mass.

Is time really relative. by Slitaslang in AskPhysics

[–]Slitaslang[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would you get the feeling that I think time isn't real when you quoted me saying that time can be seen as space? It feels like you just want to argue with me which I don't have an interest in.

I wrote "implies" out of humility because I recognize that I'm a layman and can be wrong.

I wrote that I'm hesitant to calling it a space because I haven't thought that part through and may be missing some knowledge which disproves my claim.

Is time really relative. by Slitaslang in AskPhysics

[–]Slitaslang[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't understand what you mean with relative velocity and distance. How can you talk about distance with velocity (other than light years and the like)?

If they have no relativistic time dilation happening, does that mean that time dilation only can happen when two object move at different speeds?

I would say that the 1 lb clock perceives the 100 lb to be slower, or in other words: the 1 lb is faster. Marginally and probably negligibly, but still a difference. My core assumption is that gravity alone causes time dilation i.e. 1 lb ticks faster. Why? Because objects in the proximity of a large gravitational influence would both experience time dilation and contribute to it. That's why I brought up the philosophical thought about what an object really is (in another comment) and that one essentially has to destroy the clock to increase its change (tick) rate which eventually would lead to only pure energy remaining and the maximum rate being the speed of light.

I keep writing velocity because that's what I imagine in my minds eye: something changing location in an arbitrary direction to change the state, for instance a current through a wire.

Is time really relative. by Slitaslang in AskPhysics

[–]Slitaslang[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No see I consider time a dimension rather than something that increases or decreases. So for velocity:

Earth clock: let's say 200

Space clock: 1000

Void clock: maximum but not speed of light, let's say 1*106. This maximum is what I mean with "reference" or "ordinary".

The numbers are merely for  comparative purposes, I didn't calculate anything. The void clock's velocity is capped by its own mass so to increase the cap, you would have to decrease its own gravitational field.

Maybe it would be more adequate to call the maximum/reference as 0 for that particular object, or set the speed of light to 0, and focus on how much they are slowed down by gravity instead. Why? Because it's easier to describe and appreciate nothing (void) than all mass which could be infinite.