@Lionsmane8

"Everyone I don't like is a leftist"

I don't dislike you. Also, as far as I want to define myself politically, I'm pretty much a social democrat ("leftist").

I'm "woke" though. I don't subscribe to victimhood narratives as a healthy way for any culture to define itself. Take that piece of text that you posted there; That's essentially a victim puke.

And as far as I've got a problem with muslims, or arabs, or black people, or whichever "protected minority", it's that victimhood mentality. I don't subscribe to it. I think it's unhealthy on either a collective, or an individual level.

I think sometimes you guys should consider if perhaps there are reasons why Western culture has consistently outcompeted you throughout modernity. And sometimes I think you should be willing to learn from that, rather than always performing that "someone did something to us, and we are victims" schtick. It's old, and it's counter productive.

(And yes, I'm aware western powers, and all other powers, including yours, have done, and still do, some evil shit.)

@SouthPoleProductions

Would Iran use it? We know that pakistan an north Korea didn't.

What would happen if X would try to nuke someone... factors:

what are the defences of destination (not everything reached the destination so retaliation possible) defensive capabilities that are not yet known but would be used how much facilities are infiltrated, - compliance level of staff to start nuclear war, maybe even self sabotage Trying to nuke someone and failing would be disastrous to the aggressor as of now, unless securing success.

I don't remember where, when, or from whom I picked this up, so take it for what it is. But apparently, the dominating nuclear weapons' wargame doctrine now (for all major players), is that the one with the best anti-nuclear defence is the one most likely to strike first. Hence, the "nuclear arms race" is now more about anti-ballistic weapons and such.

(The context was Russia being annoyed at NATO placing "missile shields" in Eastern Europe, with NATO arguing that they're "just shields".)

It used to be that everyone raced for the biggest, baddest, most numerous nukes, until it became pointless, because both sides could destroy eachother times over anyways. So it shifted into who can neutralise the other side's nuclear response to a first-strike; That party being the most likely to actually initiate a first-strike.

@Durek_The_Bald

I'll try to outline his game.

What goes on is that he's into a really greedy strategy. He does the defect move of the prisoner dillema, all across the board. Right now, there is no one in the world that trusts him.

On the front page, he talks. Peace in Ukraine, yadda yadda. On the actual field, he attacks, by proxy (hit on the Russian tactical bombers). He repeated this exact move with the "talks" about the Iranian neuclear program, while carrying out the hit, again by proxy.

His supporters fantasize that it's some grand strategy or something. It's not. It's quite simple single-sided deceit and aggression. The fact that it hasn't progressed yet to its logical conclusion, i.e. the nuclear war, is irrelevant.

It's bully tactics, and consequences be damned - fuck the poor who will pay, and fuck the middle class, who thought he would consider them at all.

@adam-l I don't really follow politics, or take it very seriously. But I'm pretty sure Trump is the first American president during my lifetime who hasn't started or escalated a full-on war.

Bush Sr.: Iraq.

Clinton: Yugoslavia.

Bush Jr.: Iraq

Obama: Libya and Syria, resulting in the massive refugee wave that largely destroyed Europe as well.

Trump: Nothing. So peaceful, in fact, that the media had to focus on "trade wars" in order to label him an aggressive president.

Biden: Ukraine-Russis proxy war (which is pretty massive for a proxy war).

Trump again: Same as the last time.

As a former "leftist" (I still am in some ways), the reaction to Trump's presidency over here in Europe has been nothing short of weird. It's always been a thing here, that American presidents start wars. So we scoff, and say: "There they go again; America, self proclaimed world police". This has particularly been the case on the political left.

Suddenly we get a rather peaceful American president for once, and it's all upside-down. The left absolutely hates him, pointing to potential wars (North Korea, China) that haven't happened yet, and simultaneously calling for a more war-like president to deal with Russia. Meanwhile, I'm left wondering what happened to what we always wanted from an American president. 'Cause Trump seems to be pretty much it.

Disclaimer:

I'm aware that the role of the president is just to be the face of whatever cartel behind him. So when I say "Trump" or "president", it's not because I believe it's actually about that person (but rather about the group he represents). It's just quicker to write as if the president is in charge of stuff.

@Kloi

"Awareness" is such a meaningless buzzword. But I think, for those who are very awareness aware, the idea is that there's some kind of magic property to awareness, which automatically makes something better.

At least, that's what I got out of a discussion I had a while back with a leftist mate...

You see, I was making the point that real "anti racism" means you're only seen as an individual, rather than part of some group. I also pointed out that my carbon footprint was significantly lower than his, despite me not being the one harping on about man-made climate change.

Turns out, the problematic bit was that I'm not "racially aware" and "climate aware" enough, despite being neither racists nor a big polluter. So I tried to press him on what "awareness" would do (rather than just living and behaving a certain way).

And that's when I realised he actually believed there are magic properties to the passive act of being aware of something, and that it's this (and not how you actually live) which makes him a better person than me at the end of the day.