It would be ISIS’s wet fucking dream for Russia to honestly believe the west was directly or indirectly responsible for this.

For your conspiracy theory to be plausible you need to suspend the expectation that ISIS would operate in their own best interests. Usually a bad bet.

I still see the comment, so not sure what’s up:

But basically it was pro Russian FUD explaining how the west has to be careful if they don’t want to get nuked. It painted Putin as the patron saint of restraint, of whom we should thank and bless for his benevolence. And if the West doesn’t reign in Ukraine, then we will face his wrath.

My response highlights that whatever Putin’s motive for not nuking anyone is irrelevant. You open that Pandora’s box and all bets are off. It is untenable to allow a state to exist that will deploy nukes for a regional spat.

This is the silver lining of nukes. They are so terrible that they can not be used.

The nuclear elephant in the room is that if Russia uses nuclear weapons, Russia will cease to exist.

If Russia doesn’t want strikes on Russian soil, they’re free to withdraw their fucking armies from Ukraine.

One simple trick.

USA top 1% holds 30.6%

Ok. I am wrong. Positive male role models are numerous and recieve equal airtime to their toxic counterparts.

That isn’t a stromatolites

I agree with everything you’ve said. Generally.

I think it’s maybe telling that the character who popped into your head was from a film 30 years ago, though. Do you think it’s possible the availability has been on the decline in the last 30 years? Most of the young men who are being woo’d by this nonsense weren’t even alive when Jurassic Park was released.

And I’m not saying good role models don’t exist, just that they’re discriminated against for airtime because they don’t score as highly in the recently popularized metric of “drives engagement” by the consolidated private media entities.

I think critism is fine.

I think that the issue at a societal level is the lack of culturally elevated alternative role models.

I think this is particularly a byproduct of engagement driven media algorithms. Viewpoints and the people who espouse them which drive engagement are algorithmically rewarded. These algorithms can’t tell the difference between toxic or not, and toxic viewpoints generally drive more engagement.

There have always been forces which drive availability of viewpoints and personalities. When television was the primary form of media, it was TV execs. MTV decided what was cool.

But there was also public programming which could drive these things for social benefit. PBS in the USA and CBC in Canada. Both of these are now “out” in terms of medium (television/radio), and they also don’t get the funding to be competitive anyhow.

We ceded the space to “influencers” on the internet, governed by private companies , and we are reaping the benefits now.

Even Hollywood is terrible. Ted Lasso is maybe the only culturally powerful representation of positive masculinity I can think of. And I think people were starving for it.

So while I think critism is appropriate, I think exclusively laying it at the feet of the stupid indoctrinated masses is only half of it. Criticising a the capitalistic media system which abandoned these men is appropriate too.

“And Jesus spake unto the crowd : ‘Verily I say to thee, bring forth every bear from within the forest and removeth their arms. Once you have completeth this task, attach AR-15s in their place. Do this, in remembrance of me’”

Why wait for classroom debate?

“Which is the most important?”

There is a solid theological answer to that question within the context of Christianity, which is that there are REALLY only two of them.

If they say they all equally important: light them up for how fucking poorly they understand their own holy book.

If they are consistent and answer 2, then why you proposing a bill for 10?

Crimea WAS the compromise. In 2014. The orange revolution was the compromise in 2004.

The disagreement is with the idea that compromise would even result in a real peace. The Russia would stop actively working to dismantle the Ukrainian state. It’s not even just Ukraine. Georgia was invaded in 2008.

At this point, it’s just appeasement. And appeasement doesn’t work.

Yes. So was Spock.

It’s obviously a loaded question.

But I am still curious as to a historical interpretation of events.

Edit: even a historical awareness of events. W/ the Holodomor specifically, I expect in the immediate post WWII landscape, there would be no western interest on even recognizing it as occurred? I expect there would be at least an eastern European awareness, but was their media already under the thumb on the government?

Again, would love just an objective answer to the question instead of people just whattabouting the obvious ragebait

The crime here is that there are residential homes that contain, from the article, one million USD worth of designer purses and handbags.

Western Militaries tend to be swiss army knives: preparing to respond to any general world crisis.

Counties that border Russia design their militaries for EXACTLY one scenario.

The most pronounced spending effect that results from hiked interest is on housing. It would drive home ownership even farther out of reach for people who already can’t afford it. Further entrenching the divide between those who own property and those who do not. Further empowering landlords.

I think trying to implement UBI is hard, not because it’s an intrinsically difficult concept, but because what nobody wants to admit is without new legal levers, it will eventually devolve into what pretty much every social net turns into: a subsidy for the rich capitalist class.

Most people who recieve social assistance work, and work AT LEAST full time. Every dollar of social assistance is unpaid fair wages from their employers.

I’m not against UBI AT ALL, but exploitive labour practices and a failure to enforce antitrust laws are why there is even a problem at all.

Oligopolies handle this by just buying “turds in the punchbowl” companies and dismantling them.

I don’t know how this answers the question, though.

I’m a landlord in city 1, UBI there is 100/mo. I jack my rental prices by 50.

I’m a landlord in city 2, UBI there is 200/mo. I jack my rental prices by 100.

City 1 responds by raising UBI to 200. Landlords follow suit. City 2 to 300. Landlords to 250.

OP is suggesting that capitalist class just says “uwu, for me?~~~ 👉😍👈”, regardless of the amount or location. OP is suggesting that in practice this is just another slice of pie to be extracted by the capital holders.

I don’t have a fucking clue if it’s true, but I don’t think this response addresses the question asked.

I agree they aren’t practically interesting egde cases, because in order to hit them, they’re no longer meaningful for realistically describing pirate ships. At very high turning speeds, it also ceases to matter that one is 3/4 than that the other either. But at that point, we’re talking about pirate ships spinning like ballerinas across the seven seas.