Candelestine @ Candelestine @lemmy.world

Hello.

---

Read more

Posts

6

Comments

1,928

Joined

2 yr. ago

I agree, it's a very big deal. I never said it was nothing and we shouldn't respond. I said we should respond in kind, as we can.

I merely draw a distinction between these kinds of attacks, and the actual invasions of places like Gaza or Ukraine. Information warfare has a culpable deniability to it, similar to espionage, that makes it inherently harder to tackle.

It's just not so simple as bomb the people that fuck with us or something like that. That would not fix the problem. It's trickier.

Interesting argument. I prefer to draw a distinction between a fertilized embryo and a human. The idea that a fetus has the same rights as an awake, thinking, feeling person is absurd. If fetuses have rights, then liver cells should too.

The bodily autonomy arguments are a little less effective imo. The right does not genuinely believe in freedom or rights period, much less bodily autonomy. Thus, body autonomy arguments will not work. They simply don't really believe in it. They believe people are a resource, to be used up, just like coal or oil. As soldiers or workers or breeders or whatever. They won't admit it, but that's kinda how they feel. Kinda that whole old-school "work to live" line of thinking.

Btw, I hope I'm not confusing you, but I'm not actually a conservative. I'm simply willing to sound like one whenever it helps me to communicate a point to someone. I'm no genuine christian though, Jesus, while real, was a human man, nothing divine about him.

First and foremost. Though that argument in practice drifts annoyingly towards anti-abortion arguments, which are a different situation.

Fair arguments. I would say, though, that none of these rise to the level of military hostility, they're still forms of economic and social contest, with a healthy dose of espionage. Thus, we can respond in kind. This will not prevent their rise, nor the return of some kind of Cold War mentality. But it will still allow us to protect ourselves as an alternative to authoritarianism, which is what is most important.

Nothing wrong with self defense, or defense of ones allies, or responding to subtle hostilities with other subtle hostilities. The key is to understand how different these are from outright, full-blown warfare, and to maintain that distinction for the sake of planetary stability and not all dying in a hot war, potentially going a little extra-hot.

The trickiest part is the information warfare, since we can't always respond in a similar way due to intense authoritarian controls of their local information spaces. We're largely on the defense in that arena, though we should counter as best we can while we build up our own defenses. Economic counters like Trump's trade war are an option, but need to be more carefully calculated at strategic "chokepoints" than just broadly slapping down a bunch of tariffs and calling it a day. The microchip restrictions were a good move in this direction.

An important thing to remember is we can't control everything. There is zero possibility of success for a ground invasion of the Chinese mainland, for instance, so we do need to work within what is realistic and able to be accomplished.

In India's case, I think careful diplomacy can still accomplish our goals to the satisfaction of both parties. I would expect any rising power to "test the waters", so to speak, they're not supposed to just cower before our might or something. But we can handle this in a more civil manner, so far.

edit: Didn't expect the complex middle-ground position to be popular, but nobody wants to actually respond?

No, I was just noticing something and pointing it out. It's not about you, it's not about me. It's about the post. What was written. The content. The objective piece of evidence that is in front of everyone. It's not personal, it's not about any person. Nor should it be, don't you think?

You would be wrong I guess. If I wanted to I would definitely have done so.

Right. Just like God.

I think the important thing is to remember how important it always is to fight for them, at any rate.

You forgot "fuck democrats", which is also very common. Kinda telling that you specifically omitted it though.

It's less ridiculous when you realize the human brain is also a prediction engine. It can just operate in a wide variety of ways instead of just being limited to only talking, or only folding proteins, or only playing chess or whatever.

Right. Because rights are created by God, right?

Yeah, target shooting areas should be designated and maintained. Makes it easier for everyone. Brass hunters can find brass easier, lead pollution is more contained, safety, etc.

To be fair, a multipolar world is fine. It's not in our, or anyone else's really, interests to try to dictate to other overseas peoples how they should structure their lives and governments. We did give it a shot, make no mistake, but it doesn't tend to work out all that well.

We have no ability to stop the rise of places like China and India though, so fine, rise. We'll only run into problems if this whole "spheres of influence" thing makes them think they can attack someone we have a security treaty with. That would be a problem.

You want to use economic or social power instead of military power though? Try to convince people instead of force them at gunpoint? Fine. No big deal. These methods honor their freedom. That's a multipolar world we can work with.

Think like a gambler. What are the odds of winning a higher sum if you play the game, vs taking the guaranteed tax savings? It'll vary case-to-case, and is ultimately a subjective decision. That said, they have a very large dataset of historical examples to draw from to inform their decisions on the likely outcomes. They don't need to make wild guesses like a bunch of amateurs on the internet would.

Also, sometimes you want your money today, and not five years down the road. Corporate structure itself does not necessarily place a strong incentive on long-term success, since ownership of shares of corporations can be so fluid and rapidly changing. If you have no strong attachment to owning part of a company in five years, you have no real reason to care about it's long term health, and you'll naturally start to prefer $5 today over $10 tomorrow.

This is the main reason corporations end up as such a pain in the ass, and require oversight from multiple directions, from consumers in the market on up to regulatory agencies that are supposed to be independent of them. Their structures do not naturally incentivize much long-term thinking beyond what might be necessary.

So, thinking they are automatically lying is even worse than thinking they must be telling the truth. The position you need to hold is between the two.

The reason to hold it consistently is to take advantage of habit building and using how your brain works to your own advantage. You can try to calculate an independent "likelihood" for every claim if you want, but you'll frequently be wrong, just because you can't take everything into account. And it's a massive waste of energy.

As to why, it varies. Humans are very different from each other, so the reasons will be many and varied. But the important thing to remember is just how easy the lie is, and how there's really no consequences if someone does.

You should not believe firsthand accounts you find on the internet anyway. People are here for recreation, for starters, which does not set a high bar for accuracy.

For instance, if I said I tried a dragonfruit the other day and it tasted amazing, you would be somewhat foolish to assume that I actually did try a dragonfruit the other day.

If you follow the general rule of holding reasonable doubt about all firsthand accounts you read online, you will not fall into this trap. Note that the doubt does not need to be complete, just partial. This is sometimes described as taking things with "a grain of salt", and honestly, is a good idea irl as well.

You absolutely do not want to be one of those people that just believes everyone. That is extremely unhealthy, and will result in you being misled and/or scammed.

A good example would be user reviews, which are highly corruptible. If you go onto amazon, you will find a number of low quality, garbage products that are full of glowing reviews that have likely been solicited by the seller, in one way or another.

The words In this way are doing some incredibly heavy lifting down there at the end. I am thoroughly impressed.

I wonder who the first person was to make this complaint about this particular community idea...?

Really goes to show that we're actually not all reddit migrants though. Plenty of people who weren't from there.

That's funny, because the archives absolutely asked Trump for the documents back. That's why we have a problem, that's the willful part of willful withholding.

Otherwise he could've just given them back and avoided his whole mess.

I'm not surprised if this isn't known to everyone, as it's very much a news bubble thing. His whole line of it being a political hit job falls apart as soon as someone learns he had an opportunity to just fairly give them back and get off scott free.

All is solid. What I don't understand is putting in a ton of work to curate the all into something good. That's what the other feed is for. lol

See, that's good. He could write like that.