michaelmrose @ michaelmrose @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

893

Joined

2 yr. ago

America didn't go from legally sanctioning a behavior to murdering the people today who were behaving lawfully yesterday even if they were immoral fucks. If you don't understand that then you don't understand how normal societies run.

Your portrayal of them just being made into regular peasants seems to me viewing the whole affair with more than rose colored glasses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization

All kulaks were assigned to one of three categories:[4]
Those to be shot or imprisoned as decided by the local secret political police. Those to be sent to Siberia, the North, the Urals, or Kazakhstan, after confiscation of their property. Those to be evicted from their houses and used in labour colonies within their own districts.

By most people's reckoning in most of planet earth they stole the lawfully earned property of kulaks and either murdered them or otherwise destroyed their lives. Treating them worse than most developed nations treat burglars and thieves.

If someone shot your grandpa and your uncle, send half your people to Siberia to die out there, and sent the other half to prison locally of course you would flee with whatever you could carry and of course you would at that point be an enemy of the regime that destroyed your life.

So if the original commenter’s great grandparents were kulaks who “suffered at the hands of the soviet union,” they deserved it.

I don't understand your justification for what is ultimately pretty horrific treatment foisted on people ultimately just participating lawfully in society up until that point.

Stalin and Mao both killed a hell of a lot of their own people that is what they are referring to

Ukraine has been super militarized with anti-Russian sentiments rising since they illegally stole a part of their country in 2014 and started providing money, arms, vehicles, and soldiers to separatists premised on said separatists murdering their fellow citizens and providing a thin pretext for Russia ultimately taking more of Ukraine.

Given the profoundly destructive nature of any such conflict with Russia and the impossibility of winning or even surviving without a coalition of supporters there is zero chance of Ukraine ever starting a conflict with Russia itself.

Given the risk of nuclear war and the impossibility of pushing Ukraine to start such a conflict there was never any chance of NATO either starting such a conflict OR being able to start one by proxy.

It's hard to argue that Russia had security concerns when the only person in a position to light this candle is themselves.

NATO was virtually entirely a mutual defense pact vs Russia in their previous incarnation as the USSR. Inducting Russia into NATO would only serve to give them veto power and influence on an org which virtually exists to defend against THEM! It makes no coherent sense nor would it somehow provide the Russians some share of "super profits" it would solely give them an opportunity to undermine NATO which is why Putin wanted it.

The material basis for stealing the Ukrainians country from them and murdering its children is that by doing so they gain access to tax payers, resources, people, strategic resources, land, fossil fuels etc. Based on what we know about their strategic planning we have every reason to believe they thought this would be an inexpensive and quick affair that would be concluded in a matter of days with minimal loss of life.

It is purely a function of avarice, stupidity, and immorality. It is no more complicated than asking why a burglar invaded a home and took the lives of people there when he just ended up leaving bloody himself. They did it because they thought it would profit them and because they thought they could get away with it.

They could have easily used base 2 which is actually connected to how the hardware works and just called it something else

Getting Ukrainian troops defending their homes killed in order to ensure that the rapists and murderers invading their homes don't suffer is a moral abomination.

gang raping American POWs didn't protect anyone. Actively killing the people who are currently trying to murder you with fire isn't meaningfully morally distinct than killing them with bullets.

The reason to avoid incendiary weapons near civilians is the heavy collateral damage to said civilians. It's no more illegal to burn enemy soldiers than fill their torsos full of shrapnel nor their bellies full of lead nor any of the other horrible things we do to enemy soldiers.

It's not illegal why should it be?

You literally get a pass because its not illegal to set an enemy on fire any more than its illegal to blow a hole in their guts with a bullet or fill their torso full of shrapnel. I'm not sure why you think it would be.

Why is it even morally reprehensible? If you you blow the guts out and faces off Russian soldiers by more traditional means they are just as dead and if dozens of Ukrainians die in the course of digging the Russians out of cover do you account that a superior outcome? If so how?

If a burglar strode into your home with a gun and you believed that conflict was inevitable how much risk and or suffering would you tolerate from your wife and children in order to decrease the chance of harm or suffering by the burglar? Would you accept a 3% chance of a dead kid in order to harm instead of kill the burglar? Would you take a 1% in order to decrease his suffering substantially?

My accounting is that there is no amount of risk or harm I would accept for me and mine to preserve the burglar's life because he made his choice when he chose to harm me and mine. I wouldn't risk a broken finger to preserve his entire life nor should I. That said should he surrender I would turn him over to the police. I should never take opportunity to hurt him let alone execute him. Should I do this I would be the villain no matter what had transpired before because I would be doing so out of emotional reaction I wouldn't be acting any longer to preserve me or mine.

We should expect Ukrainians to take any possible advantage for in doing so they preserve innocent life. Preserving the lifes or preventing the suffering of active enemies presently actively trying to do harm is nonsensical.

There is no reason whatsoever to use base 16 for computer storage it is both unconnected to technology and common usage it is worse than either base 2 or 10

Actually if you read the article ChatGPT is horrible at math a modified version where chatGPT was fed the correct answers with the problem didn't make the kids stupider but it didn't make them any better either because they mostly just asked it for the answers.

TLDR: ChatGPT is terrible at math and most students just ask it the answer. Giving students the ability to ask something that doesn't know math the answer makes them less capable. An enhanced chatBOT which was pre-fed with questions and correct answers didn't screw up the learning process in the same fashion but also didn't help them perform any better on the test because again they just asked it to spoon feed them the answer.

At least 44% are liable to vote for a literal hitler figure. At least 1-2% will vote a protest vote instead of voting against a fascist who would plunge America into darkness for a generation. Pretty sad for our educational system.

She can effect the outcome of the election even if she can't win it this should be obvious.

TLDR: It was an event for Russia Today an effective arm of the Russian government which was very supportive of Steins candidacy because of her potential as a spoiler and Putin only gave a speech to the group didn't strategize with her personally (at that juncture).

How is this less damning

Knowing that Harris and Trump are the only real options in this race and trying to get people to vote for spoilers IS supporting Trump

What has Jill Stein ever done for the people? Continually running and losing isn't a public service. She's absolutely worthless and there is a reasonable expectation that this will be so for the rest of her life.

But this perspective assumes the current system is the only possible framework.

It's not a perspective its a mathematical reality that literally cannot be fixed by voting third party.

Lets say that the state is 50 50 and you pull 3/4 from A whom you are alike and 1/4 from B. To win the plurality you need to pull about 41% to tip over the point where your score is above B because most of your folks are coming from A. You will have to convince millions of people who have never voted for your party to do so in just this one state. Then you have to basically do it in every state that normally falls for your alike side AND then better than half of swing states.

Run the math in the states that normally fall for the opposite side and its worse. You will need to at that point subvert your entire side AND a substantial part of the opposition.

Get 90% of the needed states and all you did is throw the entire race to the opposing side. You could run the same plays for hundreds of years and never win. There is space for another big party only when it can totally subvert one of the existing players. Even after 20 years of failing to win the popular vote and the humiliation of Trumpism its not even clear that the GOP is headed for the dust bin. Odds are that any challenger at best spends the next several cycles splitting the vote with Trumpistan cementing their position as loser.

In reality ranked choice or other such system at the state level IS your singular and only opportunity for third parties. It's the only bullet in your gun you have literally nothing else

Voting third party in the general doesn't create nor even move the needle towards a situation where "real choices" exist outside party primaries.

What happens is that any given third party is more like one major party or the other. Whichever party they are alike if they are popular at all they hurt the party they are like and help the party they are unalike. Thus third parties are always in the current system destructive of their own ends.

Let's imagine a powerful third party that wants not only to abolish slavery but institute universal reparations for slaves, education for their children, housing, punishment for crimes committed by slavers against slaves. Prison for all those who rebelled against the union and so forth. It would be by my reckoning a very justifiable platform.

If it had run at the same time as the Republicans and become popular enough to make a difference one can imagine it splitting the vote and helping the slavers win.

Every third party in America is exactly like that they by construction and design help their enemies not those who would be their allies.

Ranked choice makes this dilemma go away can vote Green Democrat Republican and be assured that the winner will actually reflect the preference of the majority. We cannot obtain this by going third party at the national level we can only obtain it at the state level where elections are actually held.