• 0 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle



  • Turkey under the Kemalists is an example of a primarily Muslim nation at least attempting to build a liberal democracy.

    Yes, building a liberal democracy by using military dictatorships. When you are trying to force something on people that dont want it(at least the majority), thats when you get Erdogan. It might suck for turks living in Western Turkey and in cities like Istanbul, Izmir and Ankara but the other half of turks have a majority.

    And one of the fundamental principles of a democracy is that majority rules. You cant use the military to overthrow democratically elected governments just because you dont like their policy.

    However, i agree with your point, there are plenty of turks who selfidentity as muslim and are ok with lgbtq, etc, just like there are christians. Though i never understood how that works. Like how can the Church of Sweden participate in Pride parades. At what point something stops being christianity and becomes a social club? In the Bible is clearly says that homosexuality is bad.


  • 500GB. I wanted to get more storage but then i realized that with 1gbit internet connection, i dont need it, i can download whatever i want in a few minutes. Fast internet is a game changer, it allows me to try and test games without thinking about it.

    I also have a 2tB hdd for media but i dont use that to store games.


  • It’s not semantics. True, you can overthrow a government without a military invasion but doing a military invasion is much more serious and more “bad”. My point is that the US hasnt recently done the “more bad” thing(except for Libya but not even Russia gave a fuck about that), while Russia is actively doing the “more bad” thing.

    The expanding of NATO depends on democratically elected governments of sovereign countries choosing to join an alliance. NATO didnt roll tanks over those countries forcing them to join NATO. If NATO did that, i would agree that it would be a very bad thing.

    There are a lot of degrees of interactions between countries. Soft power, hard power, hybrid warfare, etc. Not all of them are equal or destructive. Just because Russia is currently doing the worst kind of interaction(invasion), you cant equate all negative interactions between countries to rationalize “but all countries are doing bad stuff”.

    Russia had very little soft power and with this invasion, they wasted large chunks of it. They proved to everyone that ultimately, they are willing to use military force to achieve their objectives. The fact that the US did/does it, doesnt justify it. Both sides can be bad and in this specific situation, one side is clearly in the wrong while the other side is supporting the “good” side(for their own reasons).

    Do you not think that we should respect country borders and their governments, especially when they are democratically elected? The whole “it was a coup, thats how Zelensky got elected” is bullshit that was started by Russia AFTER the invasion.

    I went back and checked the russian statements after the latest ukranian elections, where the actual antirussian candidate(Poroshenko) had lost. The Kremlin was tendative but hopeful since their main “bad guy” had lost. Kremlin didnt say anything about staged elections, didnt say anything about CIA conspiracy to elect Zelensky or anything like that. Kremlin was “well, at least that asshole(Poroshenko) lost, maybe we can find some common ground with Zelensky”.

    But Russia lacked the soft power to do that. So they overplayed their hand and used hard power to achieve it.

    the USA deployed troops for a “joint training” with Brazilian troops during (far-right USA backed) Bolsonaro’s government.

    I mean the US is training people from other countries and when it comes to Latin America, those people are usually far right. Is this a good thing? No. But this isnt as bad as invading a country. Again, it is a spectrum. There is a difference between Russia training for example people from Donbas(bad), or giving them Buk missiles(more bad) or straight up invading(most bad) or straight up going after Ukraine’s capital instead of just liberating/securing the separatist regions(you have gone full disney bad guy).

    This is what i am talking about Russia overplaying their hand. You cant really talk about “protecting the people of Donbas”, when you are literally speed marching(literally airlifting and dropping) to Kiev. You dont give a fuck about Donbas, you just want a regime change(through violence, against the democratic results) in Ukraine.




  • When did the last military coup in Latin America, orchestrated by CIA ,happen? I am not saying that the US is great but at some point, we need to talk about the present. And at the present(and recent past), the US is not trying to overthrow a government, at least not by using military force in Latin America.

    As far as the war in Ukraine in concerned, the US is doing the right thing, even if they are doing it because it benefits them. This is the only time since WW2 that the US is doing the right thing. Have you ever wondered why historically neutral countries like Sweden want to join NATO now? What caused that change?

    Mexico has every right to join the Warsaw Pact and i would be on Mexico’s and Russia’s side if the US invaded Mexico for wanting to join an alliance.

    Now let’s talk about how NATO is threatening Russia. How would that happen? If Ukraine joined NATO, do you think NATO would invade Russia? You do realize that Russia has nukes, right? NATO is not about invading Russia, it’s about preventing Russia, a big country with nukes, from invading smaller countries with no nukes.



  • Take robot or AI childporn as another example if cannibalism isn’t bringing home the intuition. It’s not harming children (at least directly) but it could reasonably be argued that it’s perpetuating and normalizing a violent and problematic practice.

    It could be argued but i am not so sure about that. You could start arguing about how “i fucked my stepmother” porn normalizes abuse but would you? I think these are philosophical or psychological subjects that ultimately have no real studies behind them.

    I’d like to believe that people are aware of the fundamental differences. These products are trying to appeal to non vegans who dont want to eat meat for health reasons. These people arent vegan in the first place. Is the existence of vegan meat equivalents make it harder or easier to convert these people into veganism? I think it makes it easier.

    It doesnt “normalize” abuse, abuse is already normalized. It is trying to change people and change takes time. In your AI childporn example, childporn isnt normalized and i could see AI childporn normalizing it and increasing real life child abuse.

    In the end, the animals dont care why they arent being killed. Me being vegan and not eating meat is as impactful as someone who isnt vegan and is eating a vegan meat equivalent. And this is the goal of veganism. Veganism isnt a religion, it isnt about purity, it isnt about you or your concepts of righteousness. It’s about reducing death and suffering.


  • Most vegans are against causing death and suffering to animals, not against how things taste. The abhorrent part is the killing, not the taste(for most vegans).

    Also i think your definitions are self limiting without a reason. Seitan tastes like “meat”, yet it is not. You cant just assign exclusivity on specific tastes. Those tastes can exist outside the realm of meat. But it is easier to talk about those things by referencing something that most people are familiar with(meat or sausage or burger).

    Would you be ok if we assigned 16 digit numbers to specific tastes and then used that number to describe products that have that taste? Is the use of the word “meat” that is problematic to you?




  • There was one time, when Turkey had a legitimate chance of joining the EU, back in 2005ish. Back then, one of their biggest supporters of their EU candidacy was Greece. Greece wanted to normalize the relation with Turkey and Turkey wanted to become a normal european country. Greece was even willing to throw Cyprus under the bus, by supporting the Annan Plan, which was objectively terrible for Cyprus. Though the thinking was “if Turkey becomes “normal”, then any negative part of the deal wouldnt be relevant, it could be like Belgium”. Though Cyprus(and pretty much all its political parties) voted against the deal.

    Erdogan was seen as the extrovert, moderate muslim, someone who could merge moderate Islam with european values.

    Nowadays, Erdogan and Turkey are on a completely different place. Erdogan has said “we might come on night” and “our missiles can reach Athens”.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/recep-erdogan-turkey-threat-against-greece-g20/

    https://www.politico.eu/article/erdogan-warns-greece-that-turkish-missiles-can-reach-athens%EF%BF%BC/

    Turkey is constantly pushing their “blue homeland” concept, which basically includes a lot of greek islands in the Aegean. And thats on top of ridiculous Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) claims that basically say “(greek) islands have no EEZ rights”. Turkey feels that it has been historically wrong and that they need more “breathing space” in the Aegean sea(where Greece owns all the islands except 3).

    And even the turkish society is different. There is a greater chasm between western/urban Turkey and the rest of Turkey. There was a hope that the rest of Turkey could slowly transition closer to european values, but nowadays it seems the country is getting split in half and each half is moving further away from the other.

    And last but not least, the russian invasion of Ukraine has shown to the world that integration and shared economic interests do not always translate to peace. So do we really want to do the same mistake with Turkey?

    PS I am greek, so i am biased.


  • I know it’s been 80 years since WW2 but it seems a lot of people have forgotten the main reason for the creation of EU. The EU was created in order is to avoid wars in Europe. It might sound ridiculous to many, but Europe used to have A LOT of wars in the past.

    Economic criteria, corruption, etc are all great metrics but in the end, it is about avoiding wars. And a Ukraine inside the EU means a safer EU, a safer Ukraine and even a safer Russia. Russia wont be able to go full retard and Ukraine would have to compromise and reach some peace agreement in order to join the EU.

    Inclusivity is very important for the EU. Reminder that even Russia could join the EU but a country like Russia, which sees itself as a super power, wouldnt want to be the 5th-6th most important member of the EU(in economic terms).