Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Any ideology that bans books is self-evidently intellectually and philosophically bankrupt.

Yes - that is a huge part of it, and dating all the way back at least to the CIA-backed overthrow of Mosaddegh.

Middle Eastern oil wealth administered by stable and rational governments would be a direct threat to western hegemony so the US has long had a vested interest in destabiliziing the Middle East, and has long pursued that exact goal.

And yes - Israel is key to that.

None of which makes any of it any less insane.

Nearly every day, I’m astonished yet again by how blatantly insane this timeline is.

Think about it - US taxpayers have paid over $20 billion so that a rogue state can massacre tens of thousands of people and displace millions, so that a corrupt psychopath can stay in office and out of prison, so that some other psychopaths can sate their bloodlust, and so that a relative handful of defense contractors and politicians can finance their lives of wholly unearned and undeserved privilege.

There isn’t even the faintest vestige of sense to any of that. It’s wholly and completely insane. And yet it’s reality.

How is that even possible?

That word “overt” isn’t there by accident.

There’s a significant difference between an oligarchic kleptocracy that has to pretend to be a representative democracy and an oligarchic kleptocracy that doesn’t have to bother pretending to be anything else.

I assume it’s going to go until World War III, and until the US is an overt kleptocratic police state.

Really.

rogue state

noun

1. state or nation acting outside of the accepted international norms and policies.

Israel is a rogue state.

I choose to hold myself to high standards. Writing is one of the great joys of my life, and there are few things I enjoy more than the satisfaction I feel when I do it well.

Additionally:

If someone disagrees or has a problem with what you say then they can just say so and you can clarify.

Would that that were so, but the reality of the internet in this benighted age is that many (most?) who misrepresent another’s position do so not because they sincerely try but fail to understand it, but because it serves their purposes to do so, and no amount of clarification is going to overcome that. It’s a waste of effort at best, and is actually often detrimental, since saying more just provides them with more fodder for even more fallacies and diversions.

Which is another reason that I write for my own satisfaction.

Thanks for the response though.

Gee whiz - who’d’ve thought that the woman who married a rich guy who looks (and notoriously smells) like a gigantic ambulatory drain clog would be so mercenary.

About three minutes ago.

I had actually written a few paragraphs in response to another thread, but it wasn’t coming together right and would’ve had to have been rewritten almost entirely to get it to my standards, and I just didnt care that much, so I closed it instead, then went to the main page and saw this.

Overall, I would guess that I post less than half of what I write, either because I’m struggling to get it to my standards and don’t care enough to keep going, or because I stop and realize that if I go ahead and post it, it’s likely that if it gets a response at all it’s just going to be some tunnel-visioned ideologue hurling disinformation, fallacies and/or tired emotive rhetoric.

So we’re supposed to believe that Israel is only at this late date “ready to risk (an) all-out war” that it in fact has brazenly and obviously been trying to provoke for months now?

Seriously?

Both, I’d say.

Money doesn’t create corruption out of thin air - anyone who’s corrupted by it already had to have the potential. But money does undoubtedly lead people who otherwise would have resisted their baser nature to indulge it instead.

And it very definitely provides the means for people who are already psychologically and/or morally inclined to corruption, and so is very attractive to them.

Great essay.

About a third of the way through it, I was already composing a response that would point out that the Tytler Calumny is sort of narrowly true, but that it’s not that the people as a whole vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, but that the wealthy and powerful few manipulate the system so that the people (or more precisely, the politicians who pretend to represent them) vote largesse to them. The end result - the destruction of democracy and ultimately of the nation itself - is essentially the same, but the process by which that happens is not.

Then Brin spent the rest of the article making essentially the same point.

On a related note, I quite like Brin’s novels, but didn’t know that he also writes political commentary.

So I don’t really follow California politics at all, but the impression I’ve gotten from the bits of Newsom that pop up from time to time is that his governance style is basically to bang on things, then complain when that doesn’t work.

Is that about right?

There actually is a statistical correlation between conservative, anti-trans political affiliation and a preference for transgender porn, and Texas leads the nation in searches for transgender porn.

Source

Pure unmitigated evil.

Explaining the sudden access for some users on Wednesday, X said a change of network providers had “resulted in an inadvertent and temporary service restoration to Brazilian users”.

The company’s explanation had caught some observers by surprise.

“Everything that happened during the day led us to believe that it was on purpose,” said Basílio Rodriguez Pérez, advisor to ABRINT, the country’s leading trade group for Internet Service Providers (ISP).

Um… yeah. See… there’s this thing that people do called “lying.” It’s when they deliberately claim something other than what’s actually true.

There was likely a time when “incel” just meant “involuntarily celibate,” without all of the baggage, but then two things happened together.

First, a significant number of “incels,” most notably on 4chan, fell into a specific set of essentially misogynistic coping behaviors - primarily blaming the supposed hypocrisy and shallowness of women for their own problems.

And second, a significant number of smugly self-righteous bigots saw an opportunity to hurl self-affirming hatred at an undifferentiated mass of people without suffering the backlash they’d get if it was directed at a group that essentially enjoys protected status, and leaped at the opportunity.

So now the popular conception is that all involuntarily celibate men are “incels,” with all that that implies - that they’re not just involuntarily celibate, but shallow, hateful, misogynistic losers and assholes.

It could potentially help if involuntarily celibate men who don’t share the misogyny of the “incels” had their own label, but honestly I don’t think it would make much of a difference in the long run, because there are now enough asshole bigots reveling in their hatred of “incels” that they’d refuse to let anyone get away. Just like all other more traditional bigots, they’d cling to their self-affirming conception that the mere fact that an individual is of a specific race gender sexual orientation relationship status means that they’re necessarily foul and loathsome, so their hatred of them is justified.