Science Badly Needs Defending Right Now. It Doesn’t Need Your Belief.
OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml Posts 18Comments 1,646Joined 1 yr. ago
OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml
Posts
18
Comments
1,646
Joined
1 yr. ago
Virtually every current US politician is to the right of Reagan on Israel.
Reagan did.
Thank you for providing a serious response.
In what ways have we overextended, or what signs of that are you seeing that I’m not of a potentially catastrophic strategic overinvestment are present in the Ukraine war?
Aside from what I mentioned about countries turning to China because of our militaristic focus, I think the biggest sign is in domestic politics, with Trump.
Before Trump, there was this bipartisan consensus on what I call, "Idealist Interventionism," the idea that US foreign policy is, and should be, driven by benevolence and the defense and expansion of democracy. The abject failure of the War on Terror has bred a strong tendency of skepticism of this approach, manifesting in a variety of beliefs about why it isn't true or doesn't work.
It's a bit of a tangent but worth explaining, as I see it, there are three broad categories of critics of that approach (Liberalism): Nationalists, Libertarians, and Socialists. Nationalists think the problem is that foreign policy should be driven by overtly, aggressively, and unapologetically prioritizing "American interests." Libertarians generally don't like foreign entanglements because it's a form of "the government doing stuff," and they believe it will necessarily be conducted in an inefficient way. Socialists, such as myself, believe that the emphasis on the military over peaceful economic development is the problem.
I believe that the era of "Idealist Interventionism" being singularly dominant in American politics is gone. Trump has been successful because he has been able to court both the Nationalists and the Libertarians, while Kamala told the Socialists to get bent, and instead sought to build a bipartisan coalition represented by the Cheney's who are part of that old, bipartisan consensus. In my opinion, this is a sort of chauvinistic perspective that's failing to adapt to the times, and it will likely continue to fail until the Democrats get it through their heads to at least make gestures towards any of the critic groups - instead of dismissing them all as "Russian bots," which only makes it easier for Trump to paper over disagreements.
Currently, we are in crisis, because the ever-strengthening far-right is the only prominent political faction offering an alternative to a declining status quo that people are increasingly dissatisfied with, and this represents by far the greatest existential threat to the US of anything. Everything else comes second to that, if we hang on to Ukraine, but we turn into the Fourth Reich in the process, then what good is that?
If you want to argue that the conflict in Ukraine is largely unrelated to those economic conditions, you may be right. If you want to argue that military spending in general is, then you are wrong, but regardless, even if you are right, people still see billions going to war in Ukraine and Israel while they struggle to afford groceries, and "Why are we spending my tax dollars to fight a conflict halfway around the world? It's not our problem," is a fairly natural thought for people to have, for better or worse.
Either we need to keep people from having thoughts like that by avoiding such situations, or we need to provide a compelling (and simple/apparent) answer to those thoughts that doesn't involve turning to Trump and the far-right.
Anyways, Cooperation between the two states would be beneficial for the whole world
Absolutely, I 100% agree. I think that's fairly idealistic, but that's what I grew up envisioning in the 90's, "The End of History," when we could put aside conflicts and work together towards a common future. Unfortunately, I can't say I have confidence in that vision these days, because anti-China sentiment is so high, and there seems to be a bipartisan consensus around it.
My idealistic vision for US-China relations would be more like friendly competition, one where both countries compete to offer the better deal to developing and middle-income countries - while the US reduces military spending and avoids entanglements. Realistically, what I expect to happen is that the US will refuse to play that game and will continue trying to act like Superman as it becomes weaker and weaker, until such time that it starts WWIII in a desperate attempt to hold on to power. Or it could just gracefully accept decline, but like, Americans don't seem particularly prone to doing that.
Biden and the Dems spent a year pretending they had no power over Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
...pretending, because they did, in fact, have power over it. Are you claiming they actually had no such power?
Do you notice when you’re doing that? Constantly shifting the conversation to a new topic when you’ve been batted down over the last one
I haven't done that even once this conversation. That would require me first to have been batted down on anything this conversation. Point me where I've done what you're accusing me of, even once.
However...
Here, a fun hypothetical example: I do not support China because of their ongoing public genocide of the uyghur people.
...You just did exactly that. Projection much?
Also, whataboutism.
rejecting things out of hand that might go counter to your position instead of trying to at least understand the intent with which they were shared?
Haven't done that either. In fact, I just spent time investigating the data you sent me, and conceded the possibility that you may be right on the relevant point, even if your overall perspective is still wrong.
Remember when this was about Ukraine, Instead of what you’re trying to shift it to, the moral relativity betwixt China and the US?
That's very relevant to the point being discussed. What I said was that the war in Ukraine was contributing US overextension and decline, and the focus on military conflicts over peaceful development is causing it to lose ground to China. Did you lose the train of the conversation? My whole thesis is that the money spent in Ukraine would be better spent on peaceful economic investments, either at home or abroad. I don't recall making any arguments about "the moral relativity betwix the US and China," only comparing the facts of their spending and their general approaches to geopolitics.
See how you're trying to impose artificial limits on the conversation, excluding points that you don't like even when they come up naturally?
All those links are highly relevant here
One of those links is a fucking search bar. That's like if I sent you a link to www.google.com and then asserted that it was "highly relevant," with no further explanation connecting it to anything. Clown shit.
Edit:
Which data on that time period wouldn’t be pretty old?
That's... the point. The time period is pretty old.
That was never the topic of discussion, I was never arguing US vs China, but I’m a nice person so you’re free to claim your uncontested victory on this point.
Ok, cool! So you agree that the US should copy China's approach of avoiding military entanglements like Ukraine and instead focus on peaceful economic development! Glad we got that cleared up.
No, I didn't.
The first link is the only one that's at all relevant. That data shows that the US spent more than China, but only in ODA (official development assistance) spending. As one of the sources for the China number notes, "the bulk of Chinese spending focused on other official flows (OOF), which is primarily intended for commercial projects, AidData said." It seems that the numbers provided exclude the bulk of China's massive BRI investments. Please note that you said, "Additionally, you know the US has been the world’s largest source of charity and investment in developing nations for decades, right?"
That source still shows the US ahead in the period from 2000 to 2014, but that data is pretty old at this point and the rate of China's investments has been growing, if I'm not mistaken. Either way, even if the US is narrowly ahead, it's a richer country and it's a much smaller fraction of the military budget compared to the same numbers for China, so my characterization of their approaches is still broadly accurate.
I have no idea what the second link is supposed to be showing.
The third link, as I addressed, is completely irrelevant.
I have no idea what the fourth link is supposed to be showing.
Lmao you mean you were talking about donations from individuals? Now that's a "whataboutism." I thought we were talking about policy.
Affecting a condescending tone is not a substitute for having an argument or positions with any basis in reality.
Oh buddy, no. Just no.
Oh buddy, yes. Just yes.
It's literally made up, it has no logical basis and is just a tool to shut down people pointing out relevant and important context for the purpose of propaganda and controlling the conversation. Or in this case, it's not even shutting down context, it's shutting down points that are directly related to the topic of discussion, which is why I said, even if it were a thing, this isn't it.
I'll take it you don't have the source I requested, btw, meaning that you just made that claim up and it's complete bullshit.
… Literally everyone.
Really? I certainly didn't. The PRC has a much larger economy and military and much greater diplomatic influence. To paint them as a "follower" of Russia at any point in history is ridiculous. I guess lib circles have been obsessing about "Russiagate" and whatnot but that's not really serious analysis.
A blatant whatabboutism
"Whataboutism" isn't a real thing and if it was, this isn't one. We're literally talking about whether the war is accelerating US decline, and now literally anything I say as supporting evidence is categorically ruled out by this absurdity.
after this all gets sorted out internally.
Hilarious that you think that will happen. But of course, Trump and what he represents is just a bump in the road, a strange anomaly that came out of nowhere and may disappear just as randomly. That is, if you have no understanding of where Trumpism came from. It's here to stay, I'm afraid.
Additionally, you know the US has been the world’s largest source of charity and investment in developing nations for decades, right?
Lmao, do you have a source for that?
The reason we don’t have healthcare is fascism, not “military spending taking all the money”
Corporate wants you to find the difference between these pictures.
Israel is a puppet of the US, not the other way around.
You might have a point if the US were fighting in Ukraine, but… we’re not?
Yes, we're just sacrificing their lives for the realpolitic of weakening Russia, which is also bad.
we found by rummaging around in the pentagon’s couch cushions... it costs us almost nothing
Lmao, y'all actually believe this shit.
The US spends nearly a trillion dollars a year on the military, more than the next nine countries in the world combined. Every government program designed to actually help people gets cut to feed more money into the war machine. It's no wonder we have "military equipment between our couch cushions," because military equipment is what virtually all our tax money goes towards, when it's the reason we can't have things like free healthcare or higher education. Notice how we never seem to find money between our couch cushions for those things?
what used to be considered our biggest opponent
Did it? Who considered the Russian Federation a bigger opponent than the PRC?
is teetering on the brink of cultural and economic collapse
Looked in a mirror lately? The US just elected Trump, in part because people think he represents an alternative to the disastrous establishment policies that pour endless money into pointless foreign wars, and to an economy that is working for fewer and fewer people. Seems like "on the brink of cultural collapse" describes the US to a T.
But moreover, the whole American Empire is falling apart around us. Every year, more and more countries that are just as significant as Ukraine are choosing to make deals with China, to start trading and cooperating with them instead of us. Because the US is trying to rule the world through force and intimidation, while China is manufacturing consumer goods and building hospitals and infrastructure for developing and middle-income countries - the things we won't even build domestically. Who would want to side with us when you can look at our domestic situation and see that it's declining and awful? If that's the best we can provide our own citizens, then what could we offer to other countries?
If I were an "accelerationist," like people sometimes baselessly accuse me of, I would 100% support spending more on the military and getting involved in these stupid unwinnable conflicts all over the world, dumping endless amounts of money towards any situation we can use bombs and not sparing a penny for actually making anyone's life better, because those self-destructive policies will ensure the downfall of the US more than anything else could. The problem with that being, the US is likely to start WWIII in that scenario, the more clear it becomes that the military is literally the only tool that we could possibly use to maintain hegemony, since it's the only thing we spend money on.
I will concede that if your assumption that the military defeat of Israel would necessarily mean the deaths of millions of Jewish civilians, then you might have a point. Although, it isn't true, and you don't.
I'll also concede not blocking you, at least for now. But I have no interest in continuing this conversation, regardless.
Your homework assignment is to find someone, literally any one person, from anywhere, of any political persuasion, who agrees with the statement "Iran is just as Zionist as Israel." Literally anyone. I don't care if it's your mom.
When you fail to do so, come back and say, "I'm sorry, @Objection@lemmy.ml, you were right and I was wrong, I clearly don't understand this situation, but I would like to learn more about it from you."
If you reply to this comment with anything other than, "I did find someone who agrees with that statement" or the thing I just said, I will block you.
I have no idea what that thought is even doing in an imperialist’s brain.
Making occasional anti-war gestures and comments muddies the water enough for Libertarian-minded types to support him. It's the same reason Biden occasionally criticized Netanyahu, it's all theater.
It's also a great opportunity for Russia to starve the US economy by getting them involved in conflicts it cannot economically support. And the US is far more overextended due to other conflicts.
Good topics for you to look into, I'm done doing your homework.
Yeah, the military's job is to point guns at people when they're going to the grocery store in other countries, primarily.
It's very important for soldiers to focus on doing "important work to defend our nation" (murdering brown kids) and that they're "productive at their jobs" (bombing hospitals)
And vernacular is how people understand each other. When you say, "Science has nothing to do with belief," then most people are going to interpret that according to the common-use meaning. If I say, "I believe I turned off the oven," I'm not expressing a faith-based conviction to the idea that I turned it off, I'm saying that based on my best recollection of the evidence, I did turn it off.
If you want to communicate in a way that people will understand, then I don't think you should going around using the word "belief" to mean this nonstandard, technical definition without qualifications or explanation. And I definitely don't think that you should assume that anyone who disagrees with statements made with that nonstandard definition is simply committed to rejecting reason and evidence, as opposed to the much more obvious and reasonable interpretation that they're simply interpreting the word in the standard, common use way.