Scholar

I remember there were world records like this done 10 years ago, where a woman would have like sex with hundreds of men in a day or whatever. It was not that big of a deal. I just don't understand who cares about this. Let her do what she wants, the more offended you'll get, the more impact this will have anyways.

Like what?

What happened to the conversation that you wanted to have with him? I'm assuming it was cancelled.

To the people who are in support of this, I want to stress how absurdly infantile these power fantasies you guys engage in are. You have no conception of what violence even means and what it entails. You have no clue how privileged you are, that you can have such a profoundly naive opinion and not suffer the consequences.

This is a delusionally childish view. If you can bring down the government with bombs and guns, what that means is that any bad actor will be able to take you down with bombs and guns. If you are going to rule by violence, violence will be the instrument of power. And it is never those who are most developed who will rule in such a system. In such a system, you will get dictators like Stalin. You will be destroying the system, and because of human nature, and people precisely like you, you will allow the most violent and deceptful, powerhungry individuals to become the leaders. And once they have power, they will get rid of you and your fancy ideals, in favor of remaining in power. And not only will they do that out of selfish aspirations, they in fact will be forced to do so. If you come to your power through violence, the result will be that you will always understand that your own power could be taken away from you through the same means. Even the feudal system was more developed and rational than what you advocate for. At that point you will have no other choice but rule through tyranny and fear, and an iron hand. Your own survival will depend on it. You wouldn't even have legitimacy, which you need if you want to rule without the threat of being overthrown. We live in democratic systems that precisely do not require you to do any of this. But people like you, who I cannot tell you how much I despise, will literally give the fascists the key to ruling the world. Let's say you overthrow the US government or attempt to coerce it through violence. Once that is acceptable, what do you think will happen? You think your fellow socialist, pencil-neck twinks will win the civil war? No, what's going to happen is that those willing of the greatest brutality and violence will eradicate people like you, to establish a Christan conservative hellhole. You'll be happy if you'll get to live as a socialist twink slave in such a society, serving your Christian masterrace overlords. The only reason why you even exist and spout the absolute cancerous anti-capitalism and america-bad nonsense you do is because your twink ass is protected through the state from the people who would absolutely dominate you if violence was acceptable.

The worst is that these people are all hypocritical neanderthals who should immediately self-terminate given the type of atrocities they commit daily and fully support, like paying for individuals to be literally tortured, raped and killed perpetually on the basis of having a sufficiently different genetic code. If I only adopted a fraction of their justifications for violence, I'd have to become a terrorist and kill every one of these socialist subhumans.

The problem is, who is going to be accountable for the mistakes a Telsa car makes? Who goes to prison for it? If a Telsa car causes 2 families to die in a car crash because the AI made some miscalculation, who is culpable? The programmers? What if a new update causes a hundred people to die, because there was some sort of mistake?

Don't overestimate yourself. If you had been born in those times, you would have supported him or just considered anti-semitism as normal, just like you consider today's atrocities as normal. I don't see you ripping anyones throat out, despite there being far greater atrocities committed today.

Even if this was true, the solution to this it the destruction of Russia, of course. Given that it is the aggressive invading force. If there truly is an existential, necessitated conflict here, there is only one moral way of resolving it. And in practice, this is how you sadly have to deal with the Russians. They do not understanding anything but power and violence. And so, that's exactly what you need to give them. But of course this is not the reality. Russia doesn't actually have to fear anything from Nato, because if Russia simply did it's thing, nobody would care about that backwater country, because they are geopolitically utterly irrelevant. The only reason why Russia ever had any historical and geopolitical relevance was because of it's imperialistic ambitions. That is the only way for it to sustain it's position of power. Thankfully modernity has transcended such motivations as justifications for blantant violations of state-integrity. Not even the US, in it's imperial functions, deems it justified to annex territory. But all of this is nonsensical. The russians themselves don't think the west is a threat, Putin thinks the west is literally falling, that democracy is inherently doomed to fail. They were wrong, because there are not enough people like you around, not yet, to allow these regimes to conduct themselves in the way they please. What is happening here has nothing to do with the actual security of Russia. There are plenty of nations that have been plenty of antagonistic in the past that are able to live in perfectly vulnerable, peaceful ways with the rest of the world. Putin has inherently imperialistic aspirations that are ideologically motivated, the second reason is regime security. Either way, a senseless, unwinnable war is not the solution for Russia. Any rational state actor would realize this. They lost Syria, they might lose Africa, and much more if this conflict continues. If you want to look at this from a position of realism, as you pretend to do, then you have to recognize that for Russia to maintain it's position of power as it did in the past, it has to do so in the most vile, imperialistic ways possible. That's the only way it could compete with the US. But the US is not an artificial, imperialistic hegemon. The US is geopolitically positioned to be the, or part of, the hegemony of the world. They don't need to annex Mexico and Canada to be the prominent world power. They have the natural position in this world power hierarchy, and as such they should be the hegemon of the world. Because they don't need to enslave half a continent under their regime to even participate in the competition for hegemony. So, from a realist perspective, the only sensible solution is to destroy Russias ambition as an unnatural (meaning, their default position does not lend itself to hegemony at all) imperial force, the same as we did to France, UK, Germany and any other nation that attempted to do so. You don't want to lose power, but that's what it has to be, because your little shit country in the corner of the world should be utterly meaningless in the transpiring of world history. But you don't want that to be the case, so of course you are willing to dominate half the world, having to maintain your power through barbarism, because you have never had the proper, geopolitical fate to be what you seek to be. This is the rule from realism that you should abide by: The weaker you are, the more violent and oppressive you have to be if you want to be the hegemony, because you do not hold the natural position of hegemony. The natural position of hegemony, naturally goes to the one who is strong, so to maintain your power, you must constantly and violently oppress those who would be more powerful than you, if you simply allowed them to be. This is why the US can afford to act from a non-coercive position geopolitical speaking, which benefits not only the US, but all nations in the world. They have the natural hegemon, so they don't need to suppress anyone in violent and oppressive ways to maintain their own position of power. So, from a realist position, the US should maintain it's power, and suppress weak nations like Russia who have false aspirations of competing for hegemony.

Because you are, it's unacceptable that we have to tolerate such drivel on this forum. You're conspiracy brained propagandists who are not even aware of it. There is no arguing or conversing with you guys, you just poison the conversations.

God this is the most cringe, embarassing post I have read on this forum for a while.

Lol, the US didn't take shit.

Ah "intuition", so your nonsensical, america-bad ideological commitment you mean. Of course Russia has more casualities, they have more people, and they have a doctrine of absolutely no care for having causalities. They are an empire, the difference is when they send their cannon fodder to die, they don't need to give a shit because the moscovite imperialists won't care one bit if all the half-genocided, occupied indigenous people are upset about their sons, brothers and fathers dying in a completely irrational war. They are also the invading force, which in a symmetrical war will yield more casualities on the side of the attacker.

The video you provided is an argument against alternative media. Even the video I provided is one, given how few people see it and how absurd of a skewing towards idiocy and lies the alternative media landscapes allows.

You didn't provide anything of substance, I can just reassert that you are wrong, and say the opposite is true. That's the only level of engagement you are capable of which to me is a waste of time. I think people like you should be removed from this forum.

Jesus Christ, lmao.

You literally are too unsophisticated to notice the nuance of "Not every war is the same.". An irrational distrust of government is just as stupid as a unquestioned faith in it. People like you are a bane on existence.

lmao, I hope it's finally apparent to people that Mearsheimer is an absolute clown. But to be honest, it probably won't be given how utterly brainded some of you guys are in here.

The average murder should not get as much attention, because it does not stem from an ideological virus. Political violence has to always be viewed with more urgency than a personal murder incident. The news networks are doing their jobs here. It's like when people complain about news media covering terrorism, when thousands more die in car accidents every year. It's a very naive and simplistic form of analysis that is more so motivated by moral outrage than anything else. As soon as you feel moral outrage, you should seriously question whatever your mind is going to tell you next. This is the easiest way for the algorithms, other people and most importantly your own ego, to manipulate you.

They learned from the mistakes of the americans.

We have these all over the world, in every single western country.

That's speculation. The path to prosperity and progress could have been more rapid under a transition from Assad to whoever would be his heir. In general, regime changes like this don't simply improve the situation, because they decentralize power. Without strong institutions, decentralization of power will just lead to a conflict around who wants to be the ruler. A state needs an absolute monopoly on power within it's own borders, that is the only way to ensure stability and the evolution of institutions. In europe this occured in a very long and bloody process.

I want to stress this simple fact that is basically determinative of how all of society functions. Your brain literally has evolved functions to be able to suppress your rational thinking such that you are unable to see contradictions, that if you knew of them, would be detrimental to your survival. This is a feature, not a bug, and it is one of the most essential features to understand about humans in relation to how they function politically, morally and socially. The context in which we evolved was a complete and utter dependence on the social groups we were born in. Survival, and procreation, was not possible if you were alone, you needed your tribe. This simple fact lead to the evolving of this mechanism, which we describe as cognitive dissonance, so that instead of being killed or ostracized by your group, you would maximize your potential for survival and procreation. The ideologies and belief systems, and general social functionalities of tribal groups contain a significant amount of logical contradictions. If humans were simply rational agents, they would of course immediately spot these inconsistencies. Everyone one of us is actually capable of it. When you are not part of a social group, and your belief system does not align with theirs, it is profoundly easy to point to contradictions in their thinking and doing. Yet, when it comes to your own group, the opposite is the case. The simple reason for this is that if you were to be able to clearly recognize contradictions, you would lose social coherence within the group. Even if you kept it secret, you would probably behave in ways that would be disfavorable to your survival in the group, and the potential for finding a partner. This is a huge problem to solve for evolution, but somehow it did. And you have to realize how sophisticated this solution must be. Your brain, unbeknownst to you, keeps track of the belief and values of your group that are so important that questioning them would cause problems for you. And moreover, your brain is actually capable of blinding you to the contradictions within those beliefs and values, and steer cognition in such a way that instead your brain will provide you with reasons that reinforce those beliefs and values. Fundamentally, your brain is not designed to seek truth, but social adherence. Social adherence will benefit you far more than truth does, and truth will be incredibly detrimental to you. If you actually were to be truthful and consistent about the very values you and this society holds, you would basically consider most people the equivalent of nazis, and worse. For the simple fact that we put billions of animals into factory farms in which we rape, torture and gas them to death. This one, blantant incoherence in our value system will cause so much cognitive dissonance in you, even if you are a vegan, that you could not possibly be consistent about your application. If you were, you wouldn't be able to survive in this system, you would probably become a terrorist, an actual terrorist, not someone who simply breaks into a slaughterhouse to record some footage. Because that's what you would do if this happened to human beings. That's what you think, at least. The reality is that you would have been no different from a nazi who turns a blind eye to the holocaust. The fact that you don't constantly complain about the torture of billions of individuals which you don't care about as much simply because they belong to a difference species, is proof that you are victim of this very dynamic. Your mind will not allow you to see how depraved, evil and selfish everyone around you is, because if it did, you would go mad, and then you would be killed, imprisoned or shunned to such a degree you would be a social outcast for the rest of your life.

How is it too myopic? What is the case in Syria such that the risk of this occuring is not present?