Stomatopod

Member
  • Content count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Stomatopod

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    Denmark
  • Gender
    Male
  1. You are probably right that he suits America, but to the rest of the world, especially the global south - supporting Biden makes you the extremist. That's a tough perspective to swallow for American liberals.
  2. So the people who know and worked with him confirmed the obvious
  3. Words have meaning. Imperialism is a specific form of expansion, driven by a specific kind of ideology. Not all countries and cultures are the same.
  4. Simplistic. I think you would find a strong correlation between the degree to which a state has an expansionist foreign policy and the level of demonization its media employs to justify that expansion to its own population. For obvious reasons, imperialist states (and the allies they depend on) demonize the countries they seek to subjugate - in fact they go to absurd lengths to exaggerate and fabricate reasons to hate target countries to provide subtext for their foreign interference and interventions. A secondary kind of demonization happens is in the countries that targeted by imperialism, simply because they need to rally their populations to defense against these attacks. Non-imperialist countries have no need to demonize countries unless they present a threat to them. (eg. Cuba is no threat to the US, but the US is a massive threat to Cuba.) Countries that are neither imperialist, nor under threat of attack, have much less need to demonize other countries.
  5. Couldn't write a better parody than this. It's got all the best anti-vax talking points rolled into one beautiful mess, and then takes it up to 11 by saying the whole Covid virus is a fabrication. I've met people like this in real life Actually I just watched that Flat Earth documentary on Netflix last night and definitely get the same vibes from this guy. They feel so superior to "the soulless, hive-minded crowds" because they got it all figured out, and they just revel in the imagined victimhood of being "silenced" for spreading this dangerous nonsense. The more evidence you show them, the bigger the conspiracy becomes to them. How do you deal with these people?
  6. His mom was literally a counter revolutionary, who called for the return of Chiang Kai-shek. Can we assume she knew what would happen to communists like her son and husband, if the fascists had come back in power? Had I been in his shoes, I would have reported her too. That is just how tense the environment was back then.
  7. This seems like a paradox. If we were to imagine such a thing as (retroactive) consent to be born or not be born, it would presuppose that there are somehow non-existent non-persons that can regret never have been brought into existence. If you go down that path - postulate a reservoir of unborn souls waiting to be born - then giving birth becomes a moral duty. Every time a woman menstruates, she would be cheating a soul out of being born. The disastrous consequences of this for women would be obvious. My personal opinion is that we may want to address the industrial forced breeding of animals for human consumption. About 70 billion animals per year are "produced" for food, not counting the billions killed by the farming of crops to sustain these captive populations. I suppose that would have been considered a bit of an ethical crisis for humanity. But it's only considered a practical problem because the industry has become a threat to human survival in the way of environmental destruction.
  8. Thank you, on behalf of your hypothetical children for sparing them from existence. It is not an easy choice to make given the enormous social pressure (especially for women). But citing overpopulation is not a particularly good argument. I think there are some bulletproof arguments against procreation in antinatalist philosophy, like for example Benatar's axiological asymmetry. My own personal reasoning for not having kids was simply based on risk: Even if you were confident that you could provide your children a reasonable quality of life, there would be absolutely no way to guarantee that. If you are on the fence about procreating, make a list of the worst possible things that could potentially happen your child (cancer, disability, birth defects, rape, torture, severe mental illness, suicide, gruesome accidents, excruciating slow death, etc.) and try to graphically visualize those things happening to your child. Sure optimism bias might convince you that the odds of those happening are low, but there is no way to guarantee your child wont experience some or even all of them. If you are still willing to roll the dice on that, ask yourself why? Also take into account that those risks for future offspring of your children increases exponentially with each generation. Over time, catastrophic outcomes become inevitable. Yet you can avoid all risk simply by not procreating. Arguments against this are usually in the line of "But your kids will be deprived of all the beauty in life!" - No, they won't. Because there is no one to deprived of any goodness unless you create them in the first place. By doing that, you also sign them up for any and all potential horrors. If I personally had been given a choice to be born or not, I would not have taken the deal. The least I can do is to not impose it on anyone else.
  9. Reading 'To Kill a Nation' by Parenti as well as 'The New Military Humanism' by Chomsky completely changed my perception of what happened with Yugoslavia. Living in a NATO country in the 90's we were absolutely deluged with propaganda about Serbia, and it was pretty shocking for me to learn just how far from reality the media portrayal of the conflict actually was. In my opinion It was the NATO countries themselves that created a conflict where there was none, to justify a so called "humanitarian intervention" that ended up destroying the whole region. Whatever political nightmare you are living with today is a direct result of that. If the West had kept their noses out of your business, and let Yugoslavia decide it's own future, we could have had a highly developed independent socialist nation on the borders of the EU. But of course that could never be allowed to happen.
  10. The problem is we are actively prevented from knowing what is actually true. Example of what I mean, in Denmark we have a small nonprofit organization called the Danish North Korean Friendship Association, with about 100 members. Their goal is basically just to work towards solidarity and peace by adding nuance to the coverage of DPRK. These are people who have traveled extensively in North Korea dozens of times, and according to them, are given more freedom to explore than the average tourist. If you are hostile to DPRK you won't be given access to anything, if you are 'friendly' to DPRK and report seeing anything positive, nobody will believe you. Could someone like this 'friendship organization' have something to add to the discourse about DPRK? We will never know that, because they are relentlessly and universally vilified and mocked by danish media and politicians. They can't hold any kind of public event without being harassed and attacked. They are excluded from joining even other peace protests and left wing events. Just by being a member of the friendship organization will put you on a watch list by the PET (danish intelligence service), who have an ugly history of infiltrating and disrupting left wing groups. It really makes me wonder, what is it exactly that is so bad about deviating from the 100% nonstop demonization of this country?
  11. I think Sam Harris has some extremely bad takes on Islam. Even when he is right in a technical sense, and makes an argument why "Islam is not a religion of peace" it ends up antagonizing those same moderate muslims that he claims don't even exist. It's not a good way to reach out.
  12. I believe the world is grossly misinformed about the DPRK. I have never been there or talked to anyone who has. But if you use basic reasoning skills, you can deduce that things are not as bad in DPRK as they are portrayed. Why? The defector testimony industry in South Korea pretty much guarantees that nobody can ever know for sure what is really going on there. It is a fact that North Korean defectors are massively incentivised to give negative testimony about the North. They reach celebrity status if their stories are horrible enough. The more gruesome details they can make up, the more money they are paid. And conversely, any defector who has anything positive to say about DPRK are put on a watchlist as a potential spy. As you can tell by the news coverage of DPRK there is no story crazy enough for people not to believe. You can say literally anything bad you want about North Korea and people believe you. But if you raise doubts about those stories, you are immediately suspect. So if anyone who has actually been to North Korea tells us things aren't what we think, nobody believes them. It does not fit the narrative. That in itself indicates that conditions there can not possibly be as bad as we are being told. Here's a documentary about DPRK defectors who don't tell the same old stories. And it's really telling that youtube decided to censor the video.. for what reason exactly?
  13. Oh sweet jesus... I just saw this story is based on a tweet from "human rights activist and author" Jennifer Zeng, who is actually from The Epoch Times FYI: The Epoch Times is recognized as the leading professional conspiracy and fake news operation in the world. It's run by the far-right apocalyptic cult, Falun Gong. Famous for it's spreading of pro-Trump QAnon conspiracies, Covid-19 and anti-vaccination propaganda, as well as various UFOs alien mind control, and other complete nonsense. The cult was banned in China, is now operating in the US with the stated intention of fomenting anti-Chinese sentiments in order to affect US policy towards China. They believe Donald Trump was "sent by heaven to destroy communism", and they specialize in fearmongering fake news about the Chinese government. So without checking I can't say for sure that this particular story is made up, but it's a safe assumption that it's fake news. @Alfonsoo I worry that you are vulnerable to being mislead if you are fed stories like this.
  14. I think one of better books on this subject is this one: Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27833494-dark-money And just a small example of how this works, a look behind the scenes of Ben Shapiro: https://legacy.tyt.com/2018/07/31/ben-shapiro-owns-the-libs-but-who-owns-him/ Btw. Just for clarity, people like the Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers who are funding all this "culture war" propaganda don't actually care about any of these issues themselves. They are fanatic libertarian ideologues (Orange) interested only in money and power, who are engaged in a divide and conquer strategy by distracting people from caring about systemic issues like inequality and climate change. That's why they've pulled all the stops in an effort to demonize stage Green, who are the only threat to their power. I don't think they particularly like racist or religious bigotry, but if it benefits their bottom line that is what they will promote.
  15. Fearmongering about China is what is out of control. Naturally systems of power (countries) will use various forms of coercion and force within their sphere of influence to maintain and expand their standing in the world. There is nothing China could do that would even put them in the same category as the US. Any time China (or Russia) attempts to do just a smidgen of the things the US has been routinely doing all over the world, we hear this hypocritical furor about "China/Russia taking over the world". Notice their "foreign meddling" is usually limited to their direct neighbors or countries right within the local system (ex. Taiwan, Tibet or Crimea, Chechnya), because their ability to project power remains minuscule compared to the US. The fearmongering about China would be appropriate if they had actually overthrown dozens of foreign governments on every continent, had been militarily involved in 190 different countries, and routinely carried out bombing, terror, torture, and assassination campaigns in every corner of the world. There is only one country that has done this on a global scale. And there is no chance of China or anyone else being able to rise to this level of international villainy. Even if they one day become the dominant power, they won't be able to get away with the things the US has done because there is much more accountability in today's world than just 50 years ago. None of that implies that China is good/bad or the US is good/bad. It is just accidents of history that certain powers rise to prominence in certain eras. If the timeline had been different, the roles could have been reversed. So this is not what-about-ism.