darkcalling @ darkcalling @lemmygrad.ml

Posts

6

Comments

114

Joined

5 yr. ago

I’ve looked into this before and there is no word or equivalent phrase for what you’re talking about.

Effeminization is more about men seen as too feminine so it’s not it.

Inadequacy as a woman/girl is I guess the closest. There are idealized forms you’re pushed to be like when you’re growing up and into adulthood. Breasts are probably the closest stand-in for testicles in this context but it’s not a perfect one.

They're really coming for him over this. Also please see things like this as a great example of divisions within the bourgeois. Musk is more international finance leaning whereas the thought in the US is controlled by the industrial aka military/defense/intelligence types.

They wouldn’t be concerned with Russia nuking them because Russia has shown such restraint. Their propagandists and narrative are one thing, their intelligence analysts are not so blind as to genuinely believe Putin would be coming for them next. The only real factor is how much they feel they need to put on a show so they don't look weak to their vassals but a show is not the same as inviting full nuclear war and they've already been humiliated in various ways and just ignored it or taken it.

The west would know if Russia conducted a single nuclear strike that it was not part of an opening salvo. Why? Because basic nuclear doctrine dictates if you intend to do that you strike full force with the hopes of catching your enemy with their guard down and minimizing retaliation. Once you've done that they're on high alert, they're on hair-trigger alert and Russia would most likely be smart enough to take steps to show their nuclear forces are ready, but not about to imminently launch any further attacks and the west would believe them. A pre-emptive strike against Russia would not work right now. They know this. Russia has a dead-hand system that will ensure their arsenal is launched even in the event of a successful decapitation strike. Washington would know Russia doesn't want to be eliminated and see how much it took to push them to use just one, they would know Russia won't launch full on them unless they escalate much further on their own.

Even a hypothetical escalation of tit-for-tat would have several off-ramp points for both the US and Russia and I don't think that would happen.

Excuse? Absurd. The US is the only country to have used nukes in anger. Are we talking about the same country? The one that shamelessly invents false flags for all its wars and changes the rules on the fly to suit it? That US? It's not about excuses, if they had the capability to intercept 95% of Russia's strike response they'd have launched already and obliterated them, they'd come up with an excuse after the fact and justify it. It's not about Russia giving them an excuse, they don't need one, the west operates in their own delusional sphere of justification and supremacy. It's about cold, hard, facts. Western planners know they'd be eliminated at this juncture by engaging in a nuclear war with Russia. The west doesn't need an excuse, they need an ability to do it and not be destroyed and they don't have that.

People, even here struggle to be sober and thoughtful, they knee-jerk react to nuclear war with sweeping declarations any use will automatically trigger the end of the world. This is materially false. The capitalists would have been willing to end the world rather than let the Soviet Union win, but they aren't willing to commit suicide to avenge a cannon fodder eastern vassal state in a power fight with another capitalist nation that just wants their aggressive alliance further from their borders. They may yet end the world in a fight over China rather than let it (and proletarians) win but I don't think this conflict, this issue of Ukraine or even some fodder buffer NATO state (which was engaged in de-facto hostilities against Russia and fair game) being injured is going to get their fingers on the trigger to tighten.

That's my thinking. I think it's rational, sober, but I also freely admit no one can fully understand all that goes into the thought processes of western military leadership or predict their actions, that's as true for me as it is for a Rand Corpo analyst with high security clearances or for Russian intelligence. I don't trust the west and its leadership to behave morally and their rationale can be a bit twisted at times but it's for that reason I think in many ways a small event doesn't matter. What the west intends to do, they will do, they don't really need excuses, they're happy to manufacture them when their plans demand it, that's always been the case. They're going to do what they're going to do. They navigate the road they're given, invent things, use what they can as excuses for what they wanted to do anyways.

Where did I insinuate NATO care about international law? They care about self-preservation and all the preaching in the world and self-righteousness they know will not protect them from nuclear blasts.

Oh, well my point with international law was it was for the eyes of the global south, partners, friends, etc. They are in the clear based on the post WW2 consensus. Legally, existing UN conventions can't touch them. The west is of course hypocritical and they don't believe in international law, hence the constant refrain of "rules based order", whose rules? Theirs. And subject to change.

Russia cares about and should care about the perception of their actions not from NATO but of the global south, of those outside it. And those countries do want a certain fairness. If Russia just one day nuked a major Polish city for no reason they wouldn't be supported for that. On the other hand if they were backed into a corner, attacked, engaged by a NATO member country and retaliated through whatever means after many warnings most of the global south would understand and correctly say the blame lay on that NATO nation and Russia had tried to be reasonable. So yes following international law is important, it shows that Russia/China are unlike the west upholders of an actual unchanging order of rules, law, order, fairness. What I was outlining is Russia has stuck to the process, the laws. They have upheld the letter and spirit better than the west and exercised more restraint than the west ever would.

Meh. You're silly if you think western strategic planners see eastern European NATO members as any less fodder than they see Ukrainians as. They don't want to invite a strike on NYC for the sake of avenging a military base in Estonia. They don't want to invite a strike on Guam, Pearl Harbor, or Rammstein in return for avenging Estonians.

Now could the deranged, incompetent, thoroughly senile, prone to aggression and unable to think clearly Biden do so anyways? Possibly but that's not to be taken as doctrine or strategic thought of the US so much as one angry, mentally unstable old man who bought into too many conspiracy theories (Russiagate) and vaguely hates Russians because he lived through the cold war.

In many ways the nuclear umbrella is a bluff. I mean thinking logically assuming your vassal gets wiped out by nukes, why would it make sense for you then to commit suicide by cop by attacking the same country and getting wiped out yourself just to punish them? There might be some white solidarity with western Europe and I wouldn't test it by trying to wipe out Britain or France or Germany but Poles, Estonians, Baltic fascists, most Americans don't know much about them or care. A minor retaliatory gesture maybe. Handing out nukes so countries can "defend themselves" maybe. But striking back and inviting your own demise for someone you were using as a pawn anyways? Eh. I'm just not entirely convinced.

It might have made some sense during the cold war when the Soviets had massive tank and troop divisions and could convincingly sweep into Europe and take over France, Germany, etc, where the idea was if you didn't nuke them then, it was but the opening gesture of a wider war and invasion, but with modern Russia which they know couldn't stand against NATO's combined forces without paying a terrible and too high price which they simply aren't willing to do, and which they know deep down has no intentions of trying to occupy or liberate western Europe, it makes little sense.

Tactical nuclear weapons are typically just lower yield devices for use on the battlefield. The utility of such a weapon against an airfield/base versus a full sized non-tactical warhead is obvious as it limits damage outside the strike area. It's brain-worms to shit on the term as it does have a meaning. It's more moral to use tactical lower-yield weapons in strikes on military installations because it minimizes civilian casualties in areas nearby.

Russia has not ruled out use of nuclear weapons. They have very clearly stated they will be forced to use nuclear weapons if their existence is threatened. A NATO member attacking them could rise to meet that criteria though I grant this is a very weak fitting of that.

It does however if true put NATO directly participating in carrying out attacks. Under US own doctrine they're long past culpable and even by the rules of war under international law a strike from within a country at another country (with the assent and agreement, participation of its military and government) does constitute an act of belligerence, aggression, and war and invites and allows for retaliation against that country in whole which is de-facto engaging in war on the victim country (Russia). Legally, their ass is covered I think at this point. That's what I'm saying.

One last thing. The Obama admin held a war-game that simulated a Russian tactical nuclear strike on a European NATO installation. Their response was to nuke Belarus, not Russia because they feared it invited retaliation. This was before the Belarus/Russia union state and stationing of nukes in Belarus occurred by the way so it was more swatting at a random ally state and partner.

The real problem around using a nuclear weapon against eastern NATO vassals is not necessarily any kind of doctrine-led spiraling escalation but the PR situation and Biden being a senile, belligerent, humiliated fool who reacts irrationally. You can kill ten thousand civilians with firebombs and cluster munitions and people shrug and call it war, but kill 5000 soldiers with a nuclear weapon and suddenly it's a monstrous act or barbarity. Pfft.

Right now there's less to gain than lose in using nuclear weapons for Russia.

However, if the deranged Biden regime keeps pushing and escalating as they seem intent on doing, there's going to come a moment of decision. The deranged Eastern European NATO members may host strikes from their countries (we could be here now), Russia may conventionally retaliate, they'll deny they were doing that and attempt to invoke Article 5. At that point even if the US/UK/France/Germany don't commit, if they get Poland on-board Russia will need to use nuclear weapons and the west and their media will still say they did it for no reason and call them monsters. And at that point if the US allows Poland to go marching in or fully unleashing their air force, they won't launch a single nuke in retaliation if Russia nukes their military because they're using them as canon fodder at that point which was the whole point of bringing them into NATO in the first place (so the western Europeans wouldn't have to die, a free crumple-zone for conflict with Russia full of people the west doesn't consider fully human). That's my assessment.

I do have another thought. RT claimed in a story a week ago or so that Ukraine had no working airfields in pristine enough condition to allow them to take-off and recover F-16 fighter jets they were going to be given. The implication being they would have to take off and land from surrounding countries and that would be uh an escalation. If that is true and the facts on the ground don't change (Ukraine getting airfields pristine enough in the far west to service them and dealing with strikes to damage them) then a provocation like this could be a minor test of that type of thing.

If they really are doing this, and Russia really needs to prove it if so. There is a good argument for Russia making good on their threat and letting fly tactical nuclear weapons against these military installations that are participating. The rub of course being that could draw NATO into things directly and may be something they're hoping for to rally people. The flip side being, if they don't and let them walk all over them, cross that line, they'll keep crossing lines forever. The most positive outcome of using such weapons is it could shock the west into backing off. The worst of course is it brings NATO including the western nations and not just the nuclear crumple zone ones in the east, into the fray directly and/or leads to a retaliatory nuclear strike on a Russian installation and spiraling escalation from there.

Hesitation will be taken by the west as weakness and a sign to escalate further.

Then again I’m not certain much as the US is sacrificing Ukraine and it’s people and already sacrificed Germany’s economy that they wouldn’t like to grab and throw the more deranged fascist eastern members of NATO into a hot war with Russia. Which could get very bad. The Biden regime I think may not be accepting of a defeat at all and think they can get into a direct war with Russia slowly, destroy them and push them out of all of Ukraine.

Quite honestly with these maniacs I can’t be certain they want an excuse for a full nuclear strike on Russia but thinking they can catch them with their pants down and come out on top for round two with China.

So using a nuclear strike could be playing into their hands but I’m not sure what options Russia has.

Russia today is potentially a model for the US in 10-20 more years. Both states have lost a lot of the first/bestest/mostest superlatives that made them admired world leaders. Among the major ones remaining for both nations is their military strength.

I disagree. Fundamentally they're arriving at these places from different historical trends and in different material situations. Russia as much as it might have tried to move beyond it has and will have forever its history as the Soviet Union for 70 years. It has the connections to and loyalty of the global south it helped. It does not have friendship among the Atlantacist western european nations who form the former major colonizing nations of the 18th through 20th centuries and who have as their defender, champion, chosen successor and rescuer (in WW2 from the Soviet forces who would have liberated all of Europe, instead these colonial powers were saved from communism but occupied by another capitalist power and bent the knee, becoming its vassals, retaining wealth but diminished influence and power). There are other things but that's a very big one. The US just shot one of Germany's knees off with the Nordstream sabotage and they took it and asked for more. Russia could not do that to China or any other country really and not have a major incident where they have to either make it right with reparations and an apology or relations would deteriorate and they'd be at the edge of war with them or certainly sour the region against them. The US not only did it, it's now planting misinfo to point the fingers at Ukraine so when all the dust settles and they're destroyed they'll be saddled with the blame and the US can walk away with clean hands.

Fundamentally the US is the last in a line of consolidated inheritors of the white supremacist anglo-colonial-capitalist project of imperialism, domination, racism, colonialism (including neo-colonialism via the world bank and other funds) that goes back at least 300 years to the beginnings of capitalism and global empire. It has subjugated western Europe, Ukraine situation has proven they will bend the knee and take any whippings or punishments the US pleases to inflict on them. Russia on the other hand is stuck. It has no friendships among these colonial powers, it is not their inheritor or guarantor, it benefits from their overthrow in trade with Africa which would be denied it as long as Africa is subjugated to the French.

Comparing the US to Russia is like comparing Apples to Olives.

So the problem with the soft-landing idea and I hope for it myself but I must recognize this. The US is the last of a line. Britain peacefully handed over the reigns and allowed their empire to slip from them to the US because it would continue the white supremacist capitalist project. China will not do that. Russia will not do that. For the first time in over 300 years that project is in danger of completely imploding and being lost forever. This is unprecedented for them. They are panicking in a way none of them ever did when the European empires slipped to become controlled by neo-colonialist means with US capital taking most of the lion's share because they were still part of the family of whiteness, of the trans-Atlantic bourgeoisie elite, though many didn't realize they'd become junior partners they can accept even that without bitterness because their interests will be looked after before those of colored folk, before those of the proles.

Indeed the Vietnam war was perhaps in a way the US signaling to all the European empires it was taking up the slack, it would carry their burden in controlling these post-colonies for them one way or another and though the US eventually lost they punished Vietnam and hurt them, made a huge show of what they do to those who stand up to them and a huge show to their European vassals what they would do for them despite the fact they were now junior partners.

Thing is Russia never had world hegemony. The USSR was a super-power yes but they had challenges. They had shortages, they were besieged and embargoed and attacked their entire existence. They never got a decade or two on top as sole hegemon as the US did and they certainly never had a situation where they inherited colonial holdings and shifted them to the new neo-colonial model only for that to begin to slip through their fingers. Russian bourgeoisie certainly wish they could find themselves in that position but alas they do not. The Americans and Europeans shut the doors of their Atlantacist bourgeoisie club to them in their face every time they approached. They will not share the plunder, the methods, the intelligence, anything. They will rebuff them at every turn. They missed out on the 19th-20th century colonial grabs and the neo-colonialism that followed, there is no room for plunder in the modern world with the Atlantacist set sucking up all the oxygen in the room.

So when the US declines it will not look like Russia in the 90s or the 2000s or now. It will look different because of the connections, material interests, forces, and existing concentrations of capital, influence, multi-national spy operations (eyes alliances), blackmail and power it exercises over many other first world global north countries. If Russia falls China will be in trouble. If the US falls its vassals worry they will be destroyed, that western Europe, Israel, Japan, occupied Korea, etc will all now be weak so they will prop it up to some degree, maybe even to their dying breath at knife-point who knows. That is why the US is stronger too. It is not simply a bunch of cowboy yankees, it is the will, collected loot, influence, heritage of centuries of colonialism and plunder from a dozen nations that it guards and ensures continue on a certain scale. It is a collective stay rich and on-top club for whites generally (labor aristocracy) and for the Atlantacist bourgeoisie set.

A free Africa is one that trades with China, that buys goods from China, that doesn't participate in blockades against China, that sells minerals to China, that has markets open to Chinese goods, etc.

If the west can lock down Africa through a combination of terrorism and sewing instability as they've done in the middle east and installing brutal fascist dictatorships as they did in South America back in the 20th century, well, China is going to have a much tougher time of things because then the west can cut them out of a lot of raw materials as well as most markets and it could be the go-signal for the west to really launch the full embargo and lock-down they're itching to throw on China to create the full new cold war situation where they try and choke them out. Because they have Europe under their thumb, their navy can cut them off from markets in the Americas, Russia while a market isn't big enough to form a healthy, thriving isolated economic bloc with China.

Purely from a tactical standpoint if tomorrow an advanced alien communist civilization showed up, handed China a ton of super advanced weapons and tech knowledge for everything they could possibly need then peaced out, it would be the tactically smart thing to immediately send troops and support Africa. However, as that has not and is not likely to happen, China still wants to benefit from the west and their markets and bringing in capital as long as they can. Also they still have reliance on the west for many things.

For example, Xi has recently been stressing food security and growing more food in China, this is because though the US economy would crash and burn if trade were shut down, people in China would be hungry, not necessarily starving but the age of plenty, of great food whatever you want would be over as they import a ton of food from the US and cutting that off would be disastrous to the quality of life of the Chinese people and would require stringent state-led measures, rationing, etc. So pissing the US off too much in addition to being a trap the USSR fell into and sucked too many of its resources into is simply not one that China can bear without more hardship than the party or most people would find ideal.

I do think though the time is coming where China will have to make choices, not if but when to pull the trigger on confronting the west militarily and standing with oppressed peoples against their exploitation. But there are many things left to be done to fortify China for such a confrontation. China is expected to be potentially able to leap-frog the west in tech within the next 6 years in many areas at which point their blockades and "de-risking" become moot and if the food situation is resolved by then with Chinese growers and deals with Russia and neighboring countries, well then they're in a position of strength.

I really hope they don't succeed. It will without a doubt allow capitalism to limp on longer, western hegemony and dominance to last another 20-50 years. It could lead to unforeseen things like revolutions in Europe as a result of hollowing them out buuut I'm pessimistic about that, I think the US will point to Africa and tell Europe if they don't want to starve, they better get those Africans under their boot again, get to exploiting, and get them away from China and Russia's orbit, start stealing, installing fascist dictatorships, start up the mass murders again, we know the playbook as do they, Indonesia, occupied Korea, Chile, etc.

Because Africa too is a threat to this plan. It's a developing continent, full of young people, full of potential, minerals, China is forming partnerships, that has to be stopped, African markets cannot be allowed to be grown and opened up to Chinese goods or kicking them out of Europe will merely slow China and drive them and Africa closer together. So a lot of moving pieces but it does center on Africa in a way. If China wins Africa, can with Russia keep them from controlling the continent (big IF), it won't matter if Europe is under the US boot and obediently not buying a thing, it maybe set's China's final triumph and the west's complete demise back a decade but it locks them out of a lot of resources and makes decoupling from the new China/Russia sphere rather hard for them but relatively easier for Russia/China/free-Africa to do.

It may not be as many think. Sure there are those delusional types who think they can beat China.

But there is a more important thing at hand. Just as the Ukraine conflict allowed the US to force Europe to decouple from and embargo Russia at the expense of themselves (economic suicide), I am now certain that certain prominent thinkers in the US are certain a conflict over Taiwan regardless of outcome, especially in fact with decisive Chinese victory and reclamation will allow them to force Europe to decouple from China at least to a larger degree than they have and to speed up tech embargoes against them.

Do not miss the grand strategy on the chessboard for the movements of individual pieces (US victory or defeat over another military power). The US may not even get directly involved. If anything I'd suspect they'd plan to stick mainly to pulling something to humiliate China like say arranging for the looted treasures from the mainland the KMT took with them to be loaded onto US military ships just before the fighting starts to deny China it's national treasures. Crate them over to the US in full British style and claim they're safer with the US than the ebil history hating gommies. That plus bombing TSMC by missile strikes as any PLA assault begins would be a less risky playbook. They could claim the PLA attacked the foundry or that Taiwan's forces themselves destroyed it heroically to deny the ebil gommunists it or just not report on it. The main reporting would be in the vein of "the r*pe of democracy, evil Chinese communist invasion of peaceful, western-style Taiwan democracy" to stir up public sentiment. Demands for China to be isolated and punished, claims of atrocities being committed, of imposition of the horrible Chinese dictatorship on the poor westernized honorary whites of Taiwan, etc.

The US cannot make Europe decouple from China otherwise. It would just be too bad for them, they have their own interests but Ukraine has shown them to be fools easily taken in the name of upholding liberal values and if anything may have been a test run for Taiwan to test the obedience and reaction. Because make no mistakes, the US knows it is doomed, its hegemony at an end if it cannot encircle and destroy China.

The population at large would be upset and restless by a sudden unexplained decoupling because of the damage it would do. But as shown by Europeans enduring harsh winters without gas, they will most likely grumble and shift the blame for their woes to China if the US can first justify such a harsh decoupling with preserving democracy and liberal values. Maybe the US won't decouple as much, maybe they're just soaking Europe and will try and force industry that had relocated from Europe to China to the US instead. Maybe they intend to go all the way. Plunge the proles into a lower quality of life while having a prepared excuse for blaming the evil communist foreign power.

That plus some "worker disciplining tools" (treasury dept official quote) like inflation could mean the ability to slowly re-shore some small amount of stuff to the US, oh most of it would be moved to "friendly" capitalist nations like India and other places in south-east-Asia. That the proles no longer have as nice of a quality of life, that there are shortages would be a short-term problem for a decade that they are sure their propaganda would ensure the proles would endure while blaming anyone and everyone but them.

There are two things standing in the way of this. 1) the financial bourgeoisie in the US have invested heavily in China, a full embargo and decoupling would be disastrous. Unfortunately for them, the industrial bourgeoisie representing the domestic defense and intelligence industries seem to have the ear of politicians on matters of foreign policy, ooops. 2) China refusing to be drawn and just giving up Taiwan for the time being (likely decades). This would be an incredible sacrifice and not one I am even sure they should make because if they allow the US this bottom line to cross the US will attempt to cross all others and show them not a bit of respect in a desperate attempt to goad them into something else should this fail. It would also mean China would eventually have to retake Taiwan by force decades into the future when more of its population is westernized, has been taught to hate China, hate their Chinese heritage, identify as something else and is otherwise heavily propagandized and divorced from the mainland.

Analysts criticized an earlier draft of the regulations released in April as deeply unfriendly to the industry. Some requirements, they said, like that companies should verify the accuracy of the data their AI models learned on — which in many cases includes huge chunks of text from the internet like Reddit and Wikipedia, both banned in China — would be nearly impossible to comply with.

I find it insane how ensuring the input’s accuracy is something they balk at.

Exactly.

It's like uh they could just use verified sources to begin with instead of user edited stuff mainly staffed by the CIA and corporate influence peddlers? Like maybe China has a state encyclopedia, volumes of academic works that have been peer reviewed.

It's maddening that this is seen as a burden. Go back to conceptions of intelligent machines in like the 60s through 80s and many of the futurists there had them being carefully taught by ingesting written works separated into fiction and non-fiction, being taught by teachers, etc. These lazy western companies like chatgpt just want to skip all the hard work of actually making machines that have and can give correct answers, they want to skip to the finish line to collect the money and paper over and correct after the fact to the extent they can models built on falsity only as problems appear. China's approach to make sure the models are built correctly off of only good data to start with will likely be better to manage down the road.

I mean he is detained. Anyone who enters another country without authorization tends to be detained, more so when they are or were recently part of a hostile armed force. He's not free to just wander around. He entered the country illegally, was last part of an occupying force that wants to destroy the DPRK, is legally at war with them for 70 years, and they're likely trying to decide what to do with him, investigate his story, ascertain if he's a spy or there's anything off about him like if he's a threat, etc.

The thing is, what skills does he have to offer them? He probably can't speak the native language (if he can that would make a huge difference in being accepted because he could actually integrate), he's going to have culture shock. He's frankly a risk that if they do accept him, he'll leave anyways after a while because of the quality of life (no iPhone, no Facebook, no holidays or cultural norms like he's used to, language barrier, etc), go back to the US, be coached to spin a story of his torture and the horrors of the place in exchange for a book deal or speaking tour and money and then it will have blown up in the DPRK's face. They consider these things and many others when deciding.

If he's sincere I wish him only the best and hope he can find a great life in the DPRK but there are many barriers to success.

Same shit they pulled in Ukraine. Pushing Nazism, Bandarism, pushing the idea they're superior different kind of people not same slavic peoples as Russians, pushing them to love and feel affinity with the people who butchered their ancestors and intended to genocide them.

US started at back in the 50s for Ukraine, they also started the same thing in Asia back then, installing Japanese colonists into ruling positions over occupied Korea and any other place they had previously been that they could manage.

This is the US plan. KMT Chinese nationalism preserves a Chinese aspect to culture and identity that the CPC can build off of to reintegrate Taiwan into China. This is the poison pill. A slow process to attempt to get the people there to identify with Japan, with the fascist monsters who brutalized China over being Chinese. If they could have enough time to succeed China’s task in reintegrating becomes a very bloody, very drawn out process.

Inaccurate. The US head should clearly be in charge, larger, more important, more powerful and imposing than its vassal states France, Germany, Britain, Japan (and the other two, Israel and?). As it is, it's a vampire on them, they are not equal.

As an Apollo user I can tell you towards the end (last 12 months) YouTube didn’t work more often than not and you had to click through to view in the in-app browser.

The instance you’re on censors slurs. Mainly the b-word (misogynist term for women), but also the n-word (racial slur), various other lesser used racial slurs.

It does not censor general profanity like fuck, ass, shit.

Your only option is to open an account on another instance that doesn’t have as strict of a filter. Lemmy world for instance.

All content even from other instances is subject to this filter because it goes through your instance to get to you via federation.

Decomb filter is set and will increase the effort needed. Unless the video is noticeably interlaced (line artifacts, not likely for most blurays) and you’re trying to fix that there’s no reason to run it. (Note however this is the least time intensive thing you’re doing, I just mention it for completeness, to be honest handbrake may have detection so it only runs while needed but I’ve always set it manually and only as needed)

Besides that though you’re using software encoding which while better will take much longer. Try setting the encoding tune under video settings to something faster.

Alternatively set your encoder to use NVENC version of the scheme you want (264) With NVENC encoding 30 minutes without anything else should take 7 minutes or so.

One last thing. You seem to have it set to burn subtitles in. This generates a lot of extra work and is not advisable unless your hardware or software does not support soft-subs as a separate stream in for instance an mkv file. Most modern streaming devices will handle plain text and PGS image subtitles in my experience. Try instead to set the default and forced flags if you want subtitles to be on by default.