ifyoubuildit

If we're talking context, isn't there more to include? Like why those protests were happening in the first place? Did the hostile government cripple your economy first and potentially fund and arm agitators within the legitimate protest movements?

> This isn't an excuse, but it's to clarify the situation.

How confident are you that will clarify anything for the families of those children?

There are no good guys in this situation. Just the people supporting this calamity and the growing number of people affected by it.

The Trump admin has pretty low approval ratings. If some very hostile country bombed the US, is your default assumption that the folks who despise Trump would somehow support the bombing?

You could probably find a few crazies that would, but wouldn't you assume people would prioritize their hate towards the people blowing up their friends, family, and property?

> Something reasonable to say would be there are vaccines that have a net benefit, and you should take those if that applies to your situation.

Here's a good test case: have you had the rabies vaccine? If not, does that make you an antivaxxer? How about vaccines that have been pulled off the market? Are those no longer vaccines?

Something reasonable to say would be there are vaccines that have a net benefit, and you should take those if that applies to your situation.

This whole "say the slogan or you're an antivaxxer" is like giving kids the nontoxic glue because you know some of them are going to eat it. The adults in the room don't need this shit.

That's what anti vaccine means, despite all the efforts to redefine it. It doesn't mean "won't recite the marketing materials for a specific pharmaceutical product when prompted".

But using the word "jab" or criticising the medical industry making you anti vaccine is the kind of thing I was talking about when I mentioned literacy.

The vibe you're getting is that I'm blaspheming. I'm saying things that probably hundreds of millions, possibly even billions of marketing dollars were spent to discourage being said.

* Not if we're actually in literate company, but that seemed to be the common consensus after I skipped the jab, having recovered from covid right before the shots became available. Nevermind that my doctor was on board and I've had all the other ones (minus the flu shot). I was still a selfish grandma killing Republican who probably voted for trump to the commentariat.

How does this work out when we are the ones that decided to start the war? Does saying the word "war" suddenly absolve us of the crimes we commit in that war?

Why do you believe this? Their recent actions don't seem to back it up.

How spicy of a debate is that really? How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea?

The blue team carries plenty of blame for not fielding better candidates. If nobody is buying your bullshit, it's a little weak to blame the customer.

And all of the us electorate carries plenty of blame for letting our government get so massive and out of control over time. We've let this beast metastasize and grow, and now were stuck with it.

You could at least say something like "we have to bomb the people so they can be free" or "don't you know the Iranians were seconds away from nuking new York, because they have no regard for their own survival".

We should "deprecate" offensive wars of choice based on lies because the opportunity cost is enormous (what could we have bought with the 200+ billion they're already looking to spend here?).

Every time we do this we create more terrorists (see the blowback incidents weve already had from this war), which results in more egregious government overreach on the domestic population (see patriot act and the experience of commercial flight in today's world).

And those are just some of the basic reasons. I don't have time to write them all.

I think I have my next startup idea: a physical ad blocker for this thing. We could even have multiple styles: yellow sticky note, duct tape, painters tape.

And if you want cheaper ones, we can print our own ads on your ad blocker!

> Especially when the calculus is between stick (Israeli assassination) and carrot (money), and that substantial personal wealth means power in any post-war Iranian order. Or living as a wealthy expat as plan B.

No, of course we wouldn't (and I'd say shouldn't) be above that. The question is how that comes to pass.

Imagine you're some sort of Iranian official that actually has some sway in the country.

1) why on earth would you even entertain negotiations, when your enemy repeatedly uses them as cover for sneak attacks?

2) assuming you get past 1), and the us offers you money. If you take it and leave, you don't have any influence in your country anymore anyway, so what have we gained? If you take it and stay, do the people still follow you if you capitulate? And what's to stop Israel from assassinating you anyway, or launching another war 6 months from now?

The only rational move seems to be to establish deterrence by making this thing as painful as possible for everyone involved, and us invading plays right into that.

The only option they have on offer is death, either fighting the us and Israel, or fighting in whatever civil war crops up after. Why would they believe in any negotiations after the last two times?

If your opponent is trying to turn you into Libya, then whatever you do just has to not fail as badly as that for it to be the right move. You basically become a cornered animal.

Right, so if that's their only possible reaction, isn't that a bad thing for everyone? It looks like they've made it clear they're not going down without bringing everyone else with them, and why would they? What options do they have?

I was reading it as "look at these dumb tiktok'ers" or something like that, which seems like it would be selling at least those 2 quite a bit short.

One of your "YouTube analysts" is a professor that developed one of the schools of realism, so maybe that's why he's using that "buzzword".

Edit: and varoufakis was the finance minister of Greece. I have no idea if he was any good at it or not, but your characterization is a little silly either way.

Would they be more credible to you if they gave 2 minute soundbites in between advertisements for drugs and gold on cable news?

Except some vast global conspiracy isn't the only way you could arrive at 5g having some deleterious effects on some subset of people. Were xrays for shoe fitting some vast global conspiracy? Or leaded gasoline? Or any number of things that turned out to be more dangerous in hindsight?

Whether you feel this way or not, institutional trust is gone.

And as for what's real or what's not, you're probably decent within your areas of expertise. Once you get outside of that range, you probably don't know the difference between real and not for plenty of things. What the hell does your average person really know about things like 5g? It might as well be magic.

You've read things that compellingly claim that foo causes xyz symptoms. You also know that some people that have obviously palpable disdain for you claim that foo could never cause these symptoms.

You have xyz symptoms. Are you mentally ill if you think that foo could be the cause?