feb012025

Seems like a second-order effect to me, and this report is a good example

This doesn't really make sense. We're using stand off munitions to bomb targets like missile silo entrances--why would you not just use guided bombs if we had air superiority? Civilian casualties wouldn't be a factor

They've been saying it on stage for a couple years now:

https://x.com/HotSpotHotSpot/status/1996018001368563842

I think your impression of China is outdated by about a decade

I find myself particularly suspicious of efforts block content on the internet these days

I don't think that's it. I've never been one to shy away from any difficult emotional experiences I have (maybe I'm wrong though who knows)

I just end up feeling emotionally "flat" after doing it. Which sometimes feels like that's the goal, but I don't like the feeling

I've never liked the way meditation makes me feel, but I really like doing "guided relaxation". To an extent that I think they have to be different somehow, even though a lot of people would probably say they're the same thing.

I feel like staring at walls is similar.

Bizarre for them to suggest this right after the US unilaterally launched the most unpopular war in modern history. A war with almost no tangible upside for US citizens, and a war many people think was started on the whims of another country.

What are they thinking lol

For the sake of peace... yes ;)

"The United States sent guns to the Iranian protesters through the Kurds, President Trump told Fox News."

"Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them..." - Mike Pompeo

Look at where Germany is now?

They're a total non-player on the world stage. They completely kowtow to the US. Hardly a good example

I can assure you that no "center left" president will be fixing any problems in the middle east anytime soon

It's the special interest groups. Specifically Israel's lobbying efforts. No need to try to obfuscate it at this point.

I think you're mistaken about who congress is beholden to at this particular point in time...

The war has record low approval ratings, even among Trump's base.

The attack is for Israel... enough already

Based on how the takeover of CBS has been going, it really does seem like waning support for Israel is the major motivation behind this huge consolidation. Pretty unbelievable to watch

In a matter of months: Paramount, CBS, TikTok, CNN, FreePress...

Pretty easy actually. The only leverage we have over Iran is military action, which I think historical precedent shows will lead to worse outcomes for everyone involved.

The way I see it, any support for Iranians will be co-opted to start a war with Iran, which will be a disaster.

This isn't the case for Israel / Gaza, which is what I assume you're alluding to when you talk about activism.

To be fair, I'll admit there's somewhat of a double standard when it comes to silence in regard to US support for Saudi Arabia vs Israel. But realistically, for me, I don't think the answer is to offer full-throated support to Israel and to be quiet about issues Americans have with it. Especially if it risks spiraling into a broader conflict.

I do think there are particular aspects about US support for Israel, outside of humanitarian concerns, that lead to people being more critical about US involvement in the conflict.

I think the impression most people have is that the United States is no longer dependent on Saudi oil. The main reason we're their most pivotal ally is to encourage normalization with Israel, and to make sure they help counter Iran. So kind of the same root cause.

Beyond that, the Houthi / Saudi conflict is a lot less asymmetric, which I think plays a factor in people's response to it. The Houthis have more territorial control, weapons, agency. It's closer to a state-state war. Gaza is quite literally boxed in--air, sea and land.

In none of those conflicts you mentioned does the US act as the main benefactor to the side causing excessive suffering. And in none of those conflicts do they lobby aggressively for the support of US politicians.

Considering that reality, does it not make sense that Americans would be more vocal when it comes to this conflict, because we actually have agency to affect it?

I genuinely want to know what your response is to that argument, because it's not a new one, and seems very obvious to me.

The problem is, I really do believe any kind of mass support for the Iranian protesters will in fact be co-opted to start a war with Iran--at least at this particular moment in time.

And the executed protesters are a bad thing. But I don't think military intervention will lead to a better outcome.

Supporters of Palestine had pretty specific requests, none of which apply to Iran (conditioning weapons sales, divestment, etc...)

I would say it's really about opposition to death and suffering.

The activists want the excessive death and suffering to end in Palestine, and they want to avoid death and suffering in Iran.

Many politicians want to use the protests as a pretext for military intervention in Iran, and my blunt opinion is that they don't actually have the interests of Iranians in mind. There are many reasons to believe it will end up worse for both America and the Iranians than our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A valid response would be to say that you think abuses in Iran are bad enough that a military intervention is justified and that it will lead to a better outcome for Iranians. My intuition would be to disagree with that, based on the results of past interventions, etc...

Nobody would be alive if it the "water ran out" in that case...

It's genuinely hard to parse reality from propaganda when it comes to Iran. There are plenty of travel vloggers on youtube who visited over the past few years (before the June war obviously).

The state of the country seemed quite beautiful to be honest. I have a hard time thinking it's a total disaster right now

I'm very surprised you've never heard anything like this.

Here's Hillary Clinton onstage a week ago: https://x.com/prem_thakker/status/1995961131215847749

The nature of democracy and open dialogue I suppose.

But really, when banning a large portion of the population from social media, political motives should absolutely be entertained. Politics is inextricably related to social media in 2025

I would reject the notion that shifting public sentiment is a result of foreign influence campaigns, which is not to say it doesn't exist to an extent.

I've seen plenty of real information, from non-anonymous American journalists that I'm certain are the largest factor in any sea-change amongst Americans.

And despite the claim, I've yet to see solid evidence of large, pakistan-based accounts wielding massive influence on twitter. Most anonymous accounts that focus on current events tend to be located in America, Europe, or Canada from what I've seen.

Each party is splitting into factions. I imagine the establishment of both parties think social media is a problem

I feel like everyone in this thread is assuming this is a good faith move by Australia to help kids in school and with socialization.

I think phones and social media are harmful, but I get the sense there's a political motive behind this. We've been hearing politicians complain for years that they're losing the youth when it comes to long-standing foreign policy positions, etc... And suddenly they ban social media. Rahm Emanuel is campaigning for the same thing in America.

I don't believe they're overly concerned with "helping the kids" unfortunately

Coming from Rahm Emanuel of all people, I don't get the sense that this is just a good faith effort to help kids at school