russia and soviet union are not too far apart actually. Let's not make victim of poor russians, while so many of them fight now and fought in the past to kill independent nations.
> while so many of them fight now and fought in the past to kill independent nations
Let's not pretend it's surrounding is really any better, especially if we start looking at the past.
Someone might think that Russia is opposing a genocidal culture, that had bourne fascism and nazism, enforced apartheid over the world and now breeds it elsewhere to achieve its geopolitical goals.
Countries with similar civilized values should not be naïve and be ready to stand up to barbarians including being aggressive when needed, and yes, EXPAND!
And certainly the West should not be ashamed for standing for its values and what is right, otherwise there is a wide range of ambitious nations who think that their way is unique and the only way to deal with others is power, while despising fundamental human values.
While power may beat everything in some cases, but for some reason citizens of those barbarian countries want to move to the West rather than enjoy their countries' glory in a concentration camp.
I have a friend from Donetsk too who grew up there, don't worry. He was making molotov's cocktail when there was a threat that russia would capture Kyiv.
> He was making molotov's cocktail when there was a threat that russia would capture Kyiv.
Oh please don't pose.
People don't make fancy distinguished name awful reeking dangerous incendiary so far from the frontline. Their whole memorability comes from their immediate production efficiency, when you don't care about anything else and need a weapon like RIGHT now. People who don't joke around are occupied with a completely different set of things.
This is an ambitious take. There are so many cogent counterarguments here that it's tough to choose one, but consider this:
The fundamental core of the American societal experiment was a separation from an overbearing authority in the pursuit of individual liberties. It seems clear to me that freedom to marry who you want, where you want, and how you want would be pursuant to that eidolon. Now, you don't have to agree with that core tenet, but on an empirical level _that rejection_ would be degeneration: a fall from first principals (which might not be a bad thing depending on your normative frameworks - I'm inferring that you're not a fan though).
What I find interesting is that it seems, in the US, that the same people who reject the control of the government in things like guns, taxes, state-level decisions, etc., are the same that want to impose control of the government on things like marriage, sex, etc.
IMO It's because - going back as far as the constitutional convention - political ideology in America has largely comprised of aesthetic movements that wear the shells of theory and policy for memetic power.
I had a religious studies professor make a - reasonably evidenced - claim that the whole 'seperation of church and state' stuff during the revolution was widely understood to basically be lip service. The vast majority of Americans were under the impression that they were starting a Christian country with a Christian government. That same professor made the - less evidenced - conclusion that the implicit divide between that expectation and the legal reality has underscored a considerable portion of American political turmoil to date.
It makes sense since separation of church and state isn't in the constitution. The establishment clause was to avoid the establishment of a federal religion. Many states had their own state religions until the 1800s. The founders did base the idea of Natural rights based on a creator. Most were either deists or christians. It's hard to come to the idea of inalienable rights without believing in a creator.
State or religious marriage is a relationship with an authority. You can swear eternal loyalty to anyone and however many people you want to without any of that.
Primarily state marriage is about sharing privileges and duties before the law.
While this is true on a purely de jure interpretation of the dynamics at play, a more clear-cut example - like same-sex marriage - makes it clear that the "right to marriage" includes not only the right to life-scale commitment to a person(s) but also the right to have that commitment recognized by the state. Insofar that marriage as a legal construct carries additional privileges alongside the simple recognition, which it does, the "right" to marriage must also include the "right" to access the consequent privileges or you have a structure of authority stripping those privileges by omission.
Why does it bother you that people can live their life in a way that makes them happy and fulfills them, but it in no way infringes on how you should live your life? They'd probably be happy for you that found your one soul mate; you could be happy for them too!
Edit: didn't mean to accuse you of anything, but to offer a different perspective to how the situation could be viewed
I don't think this will cause a degeneration of society. If anything, the American export of "everything is us versus them" tribal mentality to politics and society is much worse. Granted, some of that always existed but I feel like it was waning until social media and exposure to American politics started reviving it. Please don't let it influence your daily life like that
They are there, but, as posted by others here, mostly care about gun ownership and covid restrictions and their own speech, but not about people getting literally tread on by police or humane treatment of asylum seekers, etc.
You should have thought of that when you banned them all for saying that the sky is blue and water is wet.
The "Don't tread on me" side of the population - I don't think "the right" is the correct term here - tends to be want left alone by overreaching governmental busybodies. They also tend to be more on the traditional side of societal norms - again not something which is limited to "the right", there are plenty of traditional left-wing thinkers who did not like the "free love" movement of the 60's and don't like it still - so are not wont to go for polyamory unless they happen to be Mormons and talk about polygyny.
As if 'competition, individualism, and hierarchy' is bad. Well, somebody has to work hard, compete and provide to those who want to enjoy well-being and solidarity.
In the meantime, the left wants to use this as a selling point to abuse the power and be the one in control without paying the hard price of working hard and taking risk.
While I don't doubt Instagram can derail young girl's emotional reward system and skrew hew life long term, I believe IG derails young boys feeling of their position in the world and make them feel miserable.
Corporate world and media freak out when hearing even a hint that men can have their problems too.
Well, if there are software companies that have 1.5x growth and there are that produce 10x and some produce 100x growth, then by definition developers in the 100x company are 10x more efficient than those in 10x company, assuming the factor a developer plays in company growth is significant.
It feels like these myths busters are a bit left leaning.
Sames as a topic about whether Tim Cook deserves his huge pay/bonus, to which the answer to the left leaning academic is, can you find a replacement for him?
I'm surprised to see how many people can not think for themselves but follow what media is telling them. I hope I don't do that myself but try to understand the matter and follow principles rather than sides.
What I'm surprised the most is that with these complex and not obvious questions (at least to me) people without any shadow of a doubt are certain that it is right for big tech to censor Trump, shut down parler and take political sides like it happened.
Maybe Trump is bad but at least i want to see his stupidity or his wrongdoing rather than other people to chew the news and feed me like im an infant.
To me these questions require philosophical debates and dialogue (even with myself) to understand f it is right for a company to impose their political worldview on their clients - I don't feel it is right.
But if others take these positions very easily, to me that is an indication that they got these ideas from somebody else rather than thought them through.
I think "citation needed" is appropriate here. If we are bringing US education system into this conversation, the sheer number of humanities ( and the people they apparently teach ) suggests the opposite of what your post suggests.
Dare I say, if more technical education was required, some of the issues in US could be, at least, ameliorated.
I have a feeling most of the professors in the Humanities departments would be not at all sympathetic to Parler or all the deplatforming happening around Donald Trump and his supporters. If anything they'd be broadcasting the Karl Popper "Paradox of Tolerance" as justification for everything that's been happening this week.
journalists that received their degree in social science and other similar fields probably never heard of causation/correlation principle and with no principle like this in their mind they can passionately promote whatever social justice agenda they have. (and im not against helping others or being kind. Im against nonsense in social columns on mainstream media like bbc)
Social sciences do seem to have a reasonable background in statistics and experiment design based on those I’ve known. What makes you conclude they wouldn’t know the causation/correlation principle?
This is a very good point. But it makes me wonder how much is innate to the topic. If physics has as many confounding variables, I’m wondering if there would be equal difficulty in reproducibility
Maybe that's because you are giving your kindness to the wrong people?
And for the kindness to be appreciated and not considered as weakness you need to select who to give it to properly. And for that you need to be judgemental.
And bbc and current mainstream median culture will not tell you to be judgemental.
Why? Because they they want to be the teller what is right and what is wrong - not you.
