I enjoy that you had the courage to bring "factually incorrect" into this conversation.
If someone, anyone, goes looking for the facts, there is only one destination in which they will end up. The facts aren't hard to find. They are all in boring science textbooks. But nobody reads those anymore.
The current culture war is waged by those who profit off ignorance against those who crusade for truth. You may think this is a black and white view of it, but it isn't. One side wishes to obliterate facts, the other wishes to incinerate pretty lies at the expense of hurt feelings.
So yes, there are a great many positions that are factually incorrect. All of them, to be exact, except the factually correct ones.
The problem of course is that facts can be inconvenient to those who seek power.
Do you think sanctions are not a casus belli? This is economic warfare, Russia is effectively a land locked county without a warm water port, the US encircles it with troops, has strategic nuclear weapons on its door step and the only bordering region that the US does not directly control is another not especially friendly nuclear super power.
People don't see the chess board and make Russia look like the villain; look at NATO in 1991 and look at it today if Canada would have joined the Warsaw Pact and if Russia was keeping enough nukes in Mexico to kill every living human in the continental United States where do you think we would be now?
All what Russia sees is a military alliance pushed onto their border, a continuous presence of US nukes in Europe, the US never stopping it's strategic air command nuclear bomber flights and then criticizing Russia for resuming them, the EU and the US pushing to bypass Russia's pipelines in the Caspian Sea and the US deploying a missile shield in Europe that would nullify Russia's current strategic arsenal after unilaterally withdrawing from the anti-ABM treaty.
And you say Russia is reckless and is a threat to world peace?
1) Where do we have nukes in Europe?
2) Russia invaded Georgia and stole Crimea, that's more hostile activity than anything we've done in response.
3) Russia has started making advanced missiles to bypass missile defense systems and will have them soon, so who really cares of the missile defense shield?
4) Russia is an autocratic nightmare state where Putin, a man rumored to have engineered the terrorist attacks that led to his quick rise to power, kills or exiles any opponents or critics.
5) Russia hacked the fucking DNC to make Trump win, which is an act of war.
6) NATO has never threatened Russia. If Russia is terrified of NATO, it is due to paranoia.
7) Russia isn't encircled by US troops.
8) It makes sense for the EU and US to avoid using Russia's pipelines when Russia is a morally reprehensible country the way it is being run right now.
"Obama was referring to the roughly 200 B61 nuclear bombs that the US has deployed in five Nato nations stretching from the Netherlands to Turkey - and a Russian arsenal estimated at 2,000 tactical weapons."
" ... The same goes for tactical nuclear weapons: compared
to the momentous issues that the East and West have
tackled since the end of the Cold War, the scattering of
hundreds (or in the Russian case, thousands) of battle-field weapons throughout Europe seems to be almost
an afterthought, a detail left behind that should be
easy to tidy up."
Google NATO Nuclear Sharing;
WHY THE FUCK are there nukes in freaking Belgium, when Russia had 12 missiles in Cuba the US almost started WW3, today the US is keeping nearly 100 of them in Turkey.
2) Russia invaded Georgia and stole Crimea.
HAHAHAHA
Seriously, Russia did not start the Georgian conflict, sure they "overreacted" but Georgia did invade first, they were prompted by the west and then Bush folded and withdrew his advisers.
The Georgian conflict was about oil, the EU was building a new pipeline to circumvent Russia, they made a power play and Russia returned in kind.
"Stole" Crimea is probably the most laughable statement I can think of considering how the entire Ukrainian conflict started, the US and the EU pushed for elections they didn't like the results so a political proxy war was started which ended with the ousting of the pro Russian president which all the US and EU observers stated was democratically elected.
Russia was at risk of losing their only warm water port, and the most ironic thing is that whilst Crimea holds Russia's most important naval base in the region it's pretty analogous to another little piece of "stolen" land that you might know as GITMO, the big difference is that GITMO is not that strategically important to the US in fact it's not important at all, all US naval bases are in effect warm water ports, GITMO isn't even geographically important since mainland florida is just a day of sailing away.
3) Russia has started making advanced missiles to bypass missile defense systems and will have them soon, so who really cares of the missile defense shield?
Russia started improving their missiles as a counter to the work the US had conducted on missile defense, the US pulled out of the Anti-ABM treaty which was criticized by nearly everyone around the world and now it has a more or less effective missile shield.
In 2020 the US missile shield will likely to make all current Russian strategic weapons ineffective which would drastically change the balance of power in effect negating any nuclear deterrence this brings us closer to a nuclear war not further away.
Russia can't afford to spend trillions on ABM like the US has since the early days of the SDI, but making more and better missile is affordable to them, however this puts them again as an aggressor even tho the only thing they do is to attempt to restore the deterrence.
4) Russia is an autocratic nightmare state where Putin, a man rumored to have engineered the terrorist attacks that led to his quick rise to power, kills or exiles any opponents or critics.
It's not Finland but it's not an autocratic nightmare, Putin was an intelligence officer, he refused to participate in the general's coup in 1991, you should really read more about how he rose to power.
Russia doesn't have the same democracy as the US, the "unique" flavor of what they call "managed democracy" works it's not perfect, it might not be even "good" but it's far from being an autocratic nightmare.
5) Russia hacked the fucking DNC to make Trump win, which is an act of war.
The US prompted up more dictators than the Soviets ever did, they interfere in elections openly all the time including in those of allies, and when they don't like the results they impose sanctions or start civil wars so give me a break.
Meddling in the elections of other states was always something nation did and will continue to do, you want to make sure the person in power is some one would would end up working best for you.
The US effectively elected Yeltsin, the also have actually helped out Putin in the early years; Putin was somewhat of a surprise to both Russia and the West he was prompted for being effective but not threatening.
So far I haven't seen any evidence that show that Russia hacked the DNC, and if it did that it had any effect on the elections.
Russia did not make the FBI reopen the investigation in the 11th hour.
Russia did not make the media and the white house downplay the email scandal.
Russia did not make Hillary run her own mail server violating the federal records act which is a criminal offense in the US.
Russia did not make Wikileaks publish the emails that were not delivered during the investigation, it did not make Hillary instruct her IT guy to scrub mails from the server, Russia did not make Redditors find the guy and figure what he did and Russia did not organize a congressional hearing about this.
6) NATO has never threatened Russia. If Russia is terrified of NATO, it is due to paranoia.
Russia has never threatened NATO either, doesn't stop the level of paranoia in the west does it? it's not about threats it's about agency Russia would not leave it's fate in the hands of the guys who are running DC or Brussels.
Look at NATO in 1991 and look at it today, I would be worried too.
7) Russia isn't encircled by US troops.
Google US troop deployments.
8) It makes sense for the EU and US to avoid using Russia's pipelines when Russia is a morally reprehensible country the way it is being run right now.
No it makes sense for them to do it if they want to be able to strong arm Russia, calling Russia a morally reprehensible country while the amount of (justified or not) human rights violations conducted by the west on a daily basis is probably the most hypocritical thing you can do.
Russia did not make the MQ9 Reaper the national bird of so many nations, Russia did not compromise virtually every communication network on the planet in order to spy on corporations and members of state so the US would have an upper hand on negotiations and Russia for sure did not decide to deploy a dragnet of internet surveillance against the general populous.
Now you can say they would if they could, and I would be inclined to agree, but you can't do that and then take the higher moral ground because considering just how morally bankrupt the west is we have no real ground to stand on.
@ quick rise to power, I was referring to this:
"The Russian apartment bombings were a series of explosions that hit four apartment blocks in the Russian cities of Buynaksk, Moscow and Volgodonsk in September 1999, killing 293 and injuring more than 1000 people and spreading a wave of fear across the country. The bombings, together with the Dagestan War, led the country into the Second Chechen War.
The blasts hit Buynaksk on 4 September, Moscow on 9 September and 13 September and Volgodonsk on 16 September. A similar explosive device was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on 22 September.[1] The next day Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the inhabitants of Ryazan and ordered the air bombing of Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War.[2] According to sentences of judicial authorities of Russia, acts of terrorism were organized and financed by heads of the illegal armed group Islamic institute "Caucasus".[3] Thirty-six hours later, three FSB agents who had planted this device were arrested by the local police. The incident was declared to be a training exercise. There are allegations that the bombings were a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB in order to legitimise the resumption of military activities in Chechnya and bring Vladimir Putin to the presidency.[4][5]"
I for one, think Putin orchestrated said bombings.
@ troop deployments, having a smattering of troops in countries around Russia doesn't really make them "surrounded by troops" imo
@ autocratic nightmare, lol, yes, it is an autocratic nightmare state. Putin kills or exiles opposition and press that is in any way negative towards him. There is no freedom of the press in Russia. There is no right to protest in Russia. Gay people are regularly killed or imprisoned in Russia. Corruption reigns supreme in a way that we could never even touch.
As for the rest, I never said the US was morally pure. I disagree with many things that we do, but that doesn't change the fact that I consider the manipulation of our elections to be tantamount to an attack on our country.
Russia may be backed into a corner in many ways, but that doesn't excuse them fucking with European and US politics.
Tell me, friend, how does a group of people enforce their rights within a country against those who wish to deny those rights?
ISIS wants a global Islamic caliphate, along with a Caliph at its head and Sharia law. They want this in the US, Europe, and every other country on the planet. They do not negotiate, because they believe they carry out the will of an omnipotent deity. And most importantly, they will brutally slaughter anyone who stands in their way.
So, how do we defend our rights to a different way of life, against those who would kill us for it?
Oh, and a cursory glance at history would be educational. Pacifism is a great idea, until it isn't.
Observed as an apparition conjured in a vacuum, ISIS really looks like such a beast, that no one could have created it or prevented it, right?
It seems like such an alien organization, that it must have always existed, but we know that's not true.
But let's suspend disbelief, cast aside rational thought, grab a gun and do something, because something like this requires direct action before it's too late!
Not really. It's just smoke an mirrors.
The country was deliberately destroyed for no reason. Iraq has been transformed into the mutilated free fire zone it is, because there was a good excuse for it, at the time, and there might never have been a better chance like that, to get away with destroying Iraq like there was at that moment.
So now panic about ISIS, right?
Panic about the bad guys.
Let people initiate opportunistic wars in 2003, so we can panic about the results in 2016?
Second: Your idealism is compelling, yet you overstate the facilities available to the common citizen.
Third: Pointing the finger at 'Americans' and saying 'Why don't you quit fighting so much?' only serves to feed the narrative that Americans are war-hungry.
Case in point: there is not a single military battle being fought on American soil. We, the 'war hungry' Americans, only commit to actionable defense of foreign states whose sovereignty is threatened by whatever forces are objectively creating a threat. We do so because we stand on the principle that it is better to stand up for the weak than it is to kowtow to dictators or totalitarian states. Now, we do this in a manner that is selective because geopolitics isn't a black and white decision matrix, and we have to pick battles that that we not only think we can win, but that won't serve to exacerbate the problems of totalitarianism and despotic rule.
Except that tech workers in the Bay Area do pay a lot in taxes - a $100K/year earner pays almost 40% of his income. Calling it a Randian Utopia makes no sense.
What gets forgotten here, and something that I keep bringing up, is the lack of a Martian magnetosphere. This means long term human settlements have to be artificially shielded.
This means living underground, which defeats the point of going to Mars in my opinion. Elon mentioned using a local magnetosphere generator, which is one of those ideas that is theoretically possible but whose practicality seems questionable. How powerful a magnetosphere generator is required to deflect ionizing radiation? How much power generation capacity will a Martian colony have to spare? Will this require a Fusion reactor?
The only hope I have for Martian settlement is that Musk and his engineers are some of the most audacious and brilliant people on the planet. I will never bet against their success, and I wish them the best of luck.
I have been a space exploration fan since as long as I can remember, I just worry that humans have a tendency to focus on the wrong goals when ideals and emotion cloud our judgement (e.g. the Space Shuttle).
Mars has an iron core; it's just not molten which prevents it from being ferromagnetic.
I have three questions:
1. Is it merely a question of mass? That is, if Mars were larger would the increased gravity increase pressure at the core and keep it molten?
2. If it IS merely a question of mass, is there any way to add mass to Mars which doesn't disturb its orbit? Because if you could, then you simultaneously solve both the problem of low gravity AND lack of magnetosphere, which together solve the problem of maintaining atmosphere. Basically the whole planet becomes extremely Earth-like
3. If increased mass wouldn't necessarily wreck its orbit, could something be done to "steer" asteroids from the Main Belt into collision courses with Mars?
I really don't know anything about orbital mechanics so maybe there's an obvious flaw in this (aside from the energy required to reroute that many asteroids).
The amount of energy required to lower the orbits of enough asteroids (e.g. 20% of Mars total mass) is probably enough to melt a significant portion of Mars. Unfortunately, collisions would mostly heat up the surface, not the core. Even if you could precisely deorbit enough asteroids to hit Mars, the results of the bombardment would probably take a long time to settle.
Planetary-scale engineering is not only hard, it's inevitably slow.
I think cleaning up the atmosphere of Venus by spreading CO2-eating anaerobic air-suspended algae is more realistic, and the results would likely be nicer.
It's not pressure but heat from mostly radioactive decay and also tidal stresses from the Moon that allow the Earth's core to be liquid. More mass allows for more insulation and more decaying Uranium, Thorium, etc so tends to lead to higher internal temperatures.
One of the aspects of Mars that makes living there hard is that Mars is very cold. But that same aspect makes it somewhat easier to establish big magnetic fields on the surface since it means that superconductors will require less cooling. If you're using a superconductor to generate a magnetic field you don't need any continuous input of power.
What you energetic Godwinians forget, is that Hitler was a socialist and abused the executive powers of a massively oversized state to obtain his dictatorial powers.
Powers that the outgoing President of the USA pushed to new horizons in a government bureaucracy larger than has ever existed.
Perhaps if the Godwin-kin stopped creating turn-key totalitarian states, we wouldn't have to suffer from an endless list of genocidal dictators.
Ah, someone who just learned about "Godwin's law". How cute. But no, I didn't make an argument either way or compare anyone to anyone else so you need to recalibrate your meter.
I'm just saying that without standards, whatever they are, you'll accept anything.
And "it avoids civil war" isn't a justification because in some cases we'd be better off if the entire country in question burned itself to the ground in an internal struggle rather than inflicting it on the rest of the world.
> did you think Hitler was a conservative?
Wow you've got a Hitler fixation. I wasn't really talking about him, just our tendency to elect bad people and how in retrospect the fact that they're legally elected is no justification for what they end up doing.
No, I think he was a sociopath who threw the jews under the bus for convenience. And his policies didn't fit any right-left divide because neither liberal or conservative is a codeword for genocidal.
If you want to continue this line of thought, an interesting question to ask yourself is "If I put Hitler's words into the mouth of those the candidate preferred by the self-identified conservatives, and the candidate preferred by self-identified liberals, which group most-supports those misattributed statements?"
> Had the Germans fought a civil war in the 1930s instead of accepting their populist leader they and the rest of the world would have been better off.
Oh, was there another populist leader the Germans should have rejected in the 1930s? Do enlighten me.
>Wow you've got a Hitler fixation. I wasn't really talking about him [...]
Projection at its finest. See above.
"LITERALLY HITLER!!!!!!!" is the totality of your argument. Perhaps you should broaden your critical thinking landscape.
As I said, it's kind of cute how you go on about things you've just heard about.
> was there another populist leader the Germans should have rejected in the 1930s?
Pray tell, which politician do you think I'm comparing to Hitler?
I'm certainly referring to Hitler. I am German. He's the last one of those in my country? Are you appropriating my culture?
But I'm not saying either of the US presidential candidates are Hitler, literally or otherwise, or even very much like him.
Pay attention here... I'm only saying that "legally elected" is almost the least important thing about them. What's important is how they'll govern, not if they managed to win a badly run popularity contest.
I do agree with the OP that his friend was hoping for something silly - violence in the street to stop Trump. But, unless the OP had a line where he'd wish for such a thing, he's actually the naive one. There certainly are some examples, like the one I shared from my homeland, where it's worth almost any internal pain (even civil war) to stop the legally elected candidate from assuming power.
No matter what sort of disaster of a thread one finds oneself in, commenting like this is right out of the question. We're hasty to ban accounts that post like this here.
Understood. My post was a retaliation to a blatant ad hominem.
I do not enjoy getting into the mud, but sometimes it is necessary. As you can see from my parent post, I was engaging in discussion whereas EdHominem lived up his name almost immediately.
Haha, sure. All my fault. My username made you do it. And I'm projecting?
I name myself after a fallacy because less cogent posters see them everywhere. Had I used Pol Pot as an example you wouldn't have batted an eye, but mention Hitler and you don't even wait to see what I'm saying before you're screaming Godwin!
Similarly, you don't even know what an Ad Hominem is.
> A cleansing fire is long overdue to purge the weak.
Oh come on. It's appallingly bad manners to rub it in like that, and what you've done is just as bad as what we chided the other fellow for. If you can't behave better than this on HN, you shouldn't be here.
He wished me (and countless millions) dead. "Just as bad" seems like a slight stretch...
As for appalling manners, I rubbed nothing in. I didn't gloat, or even reference your warning. I answered his continued justification for his threats, which is that I'm a troll and the implicit message that had I been, his words to me would have been just fine.
The voter ID law in Wisconsin disqualified 9% of its registered voters. The right to vote is protected by 5 constitutional amendments and isn't conditional upon obtaining a state-issued photo ID. Requiring a photo ID is akin to a poll tax (24th amendment). There's no evidence that photo IDs make elections more secure, since voter-impersonation fraud is practically non-existent [0].
And that's before you get to the states which require photo ID making it somewhat more difficult by requiring it to come only from government office X which is in county Y (obviously with poor public transport) only open on every third Tuesday between 1000 and 1400.
If someone, anyone, goes looking for the facts, there is only one destination in which they will end up. The facts aren't hard to find. They are all in boring science textbooks. But nobody reads those anymore.
The current culture war is waged by those who profit off ignorance against those who crusade for truth. You may think this is a black and white view of it, but it isn't. One side wishes to obliterate facts, the other wishes to incinerate pretty lies at the expense of hurt feelings.
So yes, there are a great many positions that are factually incorrect. All of them, to be exact, except the factually correct ones.
The problem of course is that facts can be inconvenient to those who seek power.