Surely someone, somewhere feels like this, but it’s more often a strawman argument used to make opposing arguments more easily dismissible. The discussions I have with people offline aren’t interested in these types of dismissals. I know many people who genuinely want better healthcare, cheaper education, and stronger social safety nets but who disagree with the specifics of proposals. Like most things in politics, if an argument reduces the other side to an easily-dismissible evil, it’s probably not an accurate representation of the counterarguments.
From real world anecdotes, the concern about things like student loan forgiveness (as the most recent example of an expensive social program being debated) are more about the extreme cost of the program contributing to an ever increasing list of expenditures. People are nervous about the amount of government spending and how it’s being distributed semi-randomly. This goes back to the rampant COVID loans to businesses, the stimulus programs that far overshot their target, and now proposals to give certain households with up to $250K income a free $10K.
People understand that these things do matter in a society where we’re all bidding for a limited supply of homes and such. It’s nice to imagine someone having a reduced debt load, but people still think about where that money comes from and how the uneven distribution of that money gives some people (excluding those who paid their loans off early) a financial leg up in places like the competitive housing market.
It’s all connected. The money must come from somewhere, and we’re all operating within the same markets. It’s disingenuous to pretend that there are no consequences for these programs, which IMO is where politicians fall far short of structuring them and pitching them to a wider audience.
And I definitely knew many people that oppose to tax break or something for someone that's not in their group all while they enjoy some other tax break without problem and excuse that their one is fine.
> They seem to be way less opposed for government to bail out corporations from same tax money tho.
Medicare is what I usually focus on on because a person will take out $3 for every dollar they put in.
The real welfare queens are grandpa and grandma, yet in the 80s under Reagan many of those same people were blaming the poor.
If you want to see who has power, look at what programs people are willing to touch. Medicaid is constantly under attack by Republicans. While Medicare is a sacred cow to both Dems and Republicans.
Before anyone else "well actually"s me, as a retiree myself I'm well aware that there is some relationship between what you put in and what you get out. That doesn't change the system's essential nature. It's more of an anti-abuse and anti-depletion measure, similar to raising the retirement age or adding means tests. There's still a big common pool in the middle, and people can still keep drawing from that pool even if they live well beyond the point where their net contribution is negative.
It would be nice to see some hard numbers re: net negative contributions.
Saving money in the bank makes sense for an individual, but not a government or a whole country. Because, they can print as much as they need. So why have a big warehouse full of cash when you can just make it later? The limitation to that is that it will cause inflation if you print too much- but if you warehoused the money and then released it later the same thing would happen.
Anyways, the reasons they print money or remove it from the economy are not because they don't have enough, it's because they're trying to moderate the boom/bust business cycle. (Not doing a very good job of it, though.)
SLF is a one-off cost (of between $400Bi and 1Ti depending on which plan you subscribe to) though. It's not like, say, the DOD which is currently burning $800Bi a year and rising - I would venture that the people happy to shoot down SLF are equally happy to keep that budget going up.
> People are nervous about the amount of government spending
...going to people they deem undeserving. They're perfectly happy with the amount spend on the DOD, DHS, etc.
Defense is what the government is supposed to be spending money on. It's a textbook example of a public good.
https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar would disagree, for example.
That would be my family when I was growing up. A lot of their beliefs are centered people should work for a living. If someone can't work, they are lazy and working people shouldn't have to pay to support them.
My parents have since moderated their stance on this but my dad still believes this is the way things should be. :(
I've moved away from home and very much do not share their view and don't associate with people like this. I still see this belief often enough to believe it's pretty dang common in the midwest among the lower middle class.
I should note, everyone I've talked to do make exceptions for a few people they know.
Most of them are otherwise good, kind people. They abhor the idea of anyone else getting something they haven’t earned.
I have a disability and some of the accommodations are a regular schedule (no weekends/overtime/on call) and being able to take time off unpaid when I’m sick. This is the bare minimum I need to be able to do knowledge work.
I don’t mention this because some people don’t think I deserve special treatment just because I “claim” to have a disability. If I can take time off for “vacations” whenever I want, they should be able to as well.
If I didn’t have these accommodations, I wouldn’t be able to work. Any explanation of how being bipolar severely impacts every aspect of my life is met with “life is hard for everyone”. (Exact quote from my parents, btw.)
To put it quite simply, no one should be given anything I wasn’t given.
When it comes to taxes, they see it as the government taking what they earned and giving it to people who haven’t earned it.
Are you sure you don't mean "can work but won't"?
For people who can't truly work, it's up to charities to support them. The government shouldn't be taking money from working people for it.
I have also mostly heard "fairness"-based arguments against student debt relief.
We're seeing these effects in corporate life, too: A charging station for EVs has been put up for the company and client EVs. I'm the first employee to have received "free access" to the charger as a benefit instead of more money. (to be fair: I'm the only one with a pure EV until now, too).
Now people are voting against putting up more chargers and enabling employees to charge for a smaller fee than normal, because "there's no normal gas pump being installed".
Nobody will lose anything with two more charging stations. But before somebody with another car gets "something nice", people prefer getting nothing at all now.
The described action would be more like "remove all parking lots instead of letting martin_a charge his car in a space" - which would harm the guzzlers to own the EVs.
This is exactly what’s going on. People know that these expenditures ultimately come out of the company’s operating budget, which diminishes the funds available for other things. Installing EV chargers is a great environmental move in my personal opinion, but we can’t pretend it’s unrelated to discussions come raise/bonus time when people are told that their raises are smaller than expected because budgets are stretched this year.
The EV chargers may be a tiny contributor, but they’re still an unbalanced distribution of the company’s funds based on something completely unrelated to performance. People are keenly aware of these things.
Meh, it's not the best word, I'm no native speaker. There are some very vocal people pushing against this initiative which are "inciting" (DeepL) others to stand up against this.
> But this isn't so much a foot shoot.
Not sure about it.
We've got some money left from a good business year, so the CEOs wanted to make some "small projects" for the production site, with some kind of "longer impact" than one-time payments. With payments, taxes will eat most it and the holding corporation would probably step in and mess it up, as other companies from the group are struggling a little bit.
So they've built a barbecue area for example. A handful of people wanted that (it hasn't been used more than two times up till now) and some people have said that they'd like their next car to be an EV/hybrid and that it would be great if there were more charging stations. So they thought it would be a good idea to invest some of the money in chargers.
As there's this "inciting" now, it seems like that plan will be cancelled and the money will find its way into the holding group and be lost to the employees right here.
Not sure if that isn't a foot shoot in the end after all.
Oh, that happened, but only a quarter of people took part in it because of "meh"... Now they are complaining...
We also got bicycle leasing now and some other stuff, not all is bad...
Contrary to EV driving nature saving unicorns? Ever heard that many simply can not afford EV. Or healthy food. Or many other things.
> Nobody will lose anything with two more charging stations
Money doesn't grow on trees.
Study participants based out of USA : Most discussion focussed on the study
Study participants based outside of USA : The study is not conclusive because the study is done somewhere else and not generalisable.
They don't say "it doesn't apply to US"; but rather they are "not generalisable".
I feel like American Exceptionalism has just turned into collective denial.
People will be on the side of free or subsidised healthcare and other social support regardless of their unpayable public debt rising even further and that it eventually may crush individuals from society that are perhaps not even born yet.
The "opponent" in this case is the wrong person who has a different political view.
Who do you think pays for it? TAXPAYERS! It's not free!
And usually in those kind of "free healthcare" systems the private clinics get looked down upon or are even restricted/blocked via laws in order to "preserve the 'free' healthcare system".
Thus the people have even less choice. There are many countries with this kind of a "free healthcare" system.
I'm living in one of them.
Want to go to a specialist? Sorry bro, that's gonna be 6 months of waiting time...
So anyone who is not piss poor will go into a private clinic.
What world are people living in? On anything other than a 30% coinsurance PPO, you aren't getting anything done without insurance pre-approval. And that's an extra month or two wait on top of the three month wait to get in the door for a consult.
And hell, while we’re throwing around completely vague and unsubstantiated claims. I have first hand evidence that the top level parent is lying about having to wait as well.
Are you calling them directly to set up appointments?
It's basic stability condition. People will flow to the socialistic welfare or against it, and it's not going to stop until forces equalize, a.k.a it's just as good staying in the worst country as it is moving to the better welfare one. Since people moving tends to harm the other country the immigration is from, it should bring both down.
Only one side has a stable condition. It's a matter of common sense at this point. If one side advocated for closed borders with subsidized healthcare, that's fair enough and maybe even better choice.
P.S. socialized healthcare works well in Israel for example.
‘Open borders’ is a strawman, anyway. You can have policies which promote immigration, provide legal pathways for immigrants to provide labor to the economy (including unpaid labor like raising kids and domestic elder care), and can structure social benefits in such a way that you provide a social safety net, without having to just throw the border open to all or pay out unemployment benefits to anyone who shows up out of work.
Illegal immigration is a market response to a failure of the government to provide a legal framework for sufficient legal migration. People are willing to come to (for example) the US and work illegally without legal access to any social safety net. But allowing people to live under those conditions is both a moral failing (we should not be comfortable relying on the labor of people who face destitution if they lose their job) and a societal risk (people with no safety net are more likely to end up engaged in criminal activity that harms society).
So why not create a more structured arrangement? Create paths to legal immigration, with access to defined, limited, temporary benefits, and with a pathway that over time - as an immigrant’s stake in the country increases - converges towards the full security afforded to citizens.
No, it really is not. There's really no upper limit on how many people might WANT to immigrate to your country (other than the obvious 8B world population size), but there's an upper limit on how many immigrants your country can accommodate in the given time frame. Increasing limits for legal immigration won't stop illegal one, it might even encourage it (e.g. when one person gets an immigrant visa and some of their relatives don't but they still decide do go, illegally)
THAT reduces the incentive to enter the country outside the legal framework, since all the jobs are going to people who have the paperwork.
People do not want to go to live in places where they have no economic prospects.
Even if an immigrant enters a country and is still productive and doesn't even use any social benefits, he diluted the job pool. Those getting out of the job pool get the socialistic benefits. So the average productivity could still go down. Those immigrants compete with locals equally in the job market, so dividing them into one group having benefits and another without doesn't change the stability condition. So instead of an immigrant coming and taking benefits directly, he comes, replaces a working local which just takes benefits.
Open or closed borders are a real dichotomy from higher up viewpoint which analyzes dynamics and stability condition, not a 'false dichotomy'. They represent a constraint in the equilibrium condition, which either exists or doesn't. The most you can do is filter the demographics which can enter or leave. But you'll still reach an equilibrium for each demographic with an open border. Like diffusion through filtering membrane. Or you can restrict the flow, but it only delays reaching the equilibrium, doesn't change where that equilibrium will be.
These stability conditions and dynamics are forces beyond the power of governments. You can play around them and find a reasonable trade-off, or you can try fighting them and get disappointed.
It doesn't matter whether the immigrants don't get the benefits themselves, they compete for wages with people that do. It's funny you're even suggesting to solve this problem with inequality.
By the way, in Israel for example, the construction industry is completely dominated by Palestinians. They don't get any benefits. Israelis just don't work in construction anymore. Even when people are jobless they don't even consider working in construction because the state of employment just isn't worth it.
You can't solve this by creating inequality between immigrants and locals. It's even worse.
And: Did you just commit the lump of labor fallacy?
Why, in this model, are people ‘getting out of the job pool’ for these ‘socialistic’ benefits?
Benefits like.. healthcare that restores them to a state where they can return to work after an injury? Education that lets them develop skills to increase their productivity? Income support to allow them to care for a child, raising another generation of productive citizens?
I don’t understand why a society offering those benefits is automatically unable to also offer a structured immigration program.
(I admit I only read through the abstract though)
I think a lot of people will be tempted to say "that's obvious, you dummy!" but that's what good social science research does: it gives us a systematic explanation and principles of understanding for how people behave in groups.
So the response should be "duh".
The real problem is how the public is directed into defining "opposition" nowadays.
EDIT: In the last sentence I wrote above “nation” should have been written as “white people of the nation”.
It's important to note that Black people never had access to those things to start with. They were destroyed out of spite and moved to private clubs that could get away with not admitting Black members.
This is a loose interpretation of the article which loses important context. The initial shot was fired when a white man attempted to wrestle a gun away from a black man. The gun accidentally discharged and both sides started firing. Your interpretation would lead a reader to believe that a group of armed black men began the entire event by murdering white men.
> The gun accidentally discharged and both sides started firing.
There is blame to go around, as each side escalated it until there was bloodshed.
It's important to tell this part since it unsurprisingly always seems to get left out. That doesn't absolve any of the white people who then went on to participate in the riot or who originally wanted the guy lynched, but during that riot a significant number of men on both sides of the riot were killed (I believe it was 26 black people, 10 white people or roughly in line with those estimates).
Now, one could look at it and say well if someone didn't try to disarm one of the black men who had stormed the police station armed, then the riot never would have happened. And that's true. One could also say that if the group of white men outside of the police station weren't yelling about lynching the guy, then nobody would have stormed the police station and thus no riot. That is also true. So in reality there really is blame to go around. My point is, on every telling of this story it gets further and further from the truth.
Another interesting point that gets lost is there were more than TWICE as many white people lynched in Oklahoma than black people. The point is with stories like this we need to let the data and first hand accounts tell the story, not emotion. If you go off emotion you'll be believing 800 people were killed and the whole town was firebombed by the US army.
In picking an example, you're forced to be reductive. Rather than considering the content of the character, all the comments are focused on the color of its skin.
We could be having a productive conversation about how working class run societies and government (The basic core of the US experiment in self rule) were divided and conquered by the Owner class.
But instead, we'd rather pick apart the example. This is far, far too common here on HN. It leads to a reduction of the value of HN as a whole.
PS: What's the HN shorthand to name syzarian's comment that I'm replying to?
What were these interests, and was their intent at the time of "voting against their interests" to injure their own group, and if not what was it?
Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions, and a clear objective understanding of their actual interests, or is this just your interpretation of their actions?
Unfortunately don't have free links but if you're able to read these, they'll answer your questions.
The groups interests were not correctly understood. The progressive course when this happens would be to attempt to improve understanding of the groups interests. Alternatively, you can keep the invalid assumptions, disproved by the groups behavior, and assert the group is illogical and harming itself - at this point you're no longer reflecting on reality.
This is beside the point. From the paper:
However, real-world decision-making often entails making choices where harm is unavoidable (7, 8). Groups may have to choose between in-group losses and out-group gains, a circumstance that has not been previously studied and reveals that individuals’ decisions cannot be explained by existing theories.
> Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions?
Often we do, because people generally are not all that shy in telling one another - and the media - what they think.
It is also highly improbable that a group which fought hard for union representation, or made considerable use of a public pool, suddenly decided these things were against their own interests right at the time these benefits were being extended to other people.
I was asking someone who made a specific claim, they were not quoting from the paper. I'm asking him about the claim they made.
Specifically the person said "A great example of this phenomenon is the white response to desegregation in the United States. White union workers voted against their labor interests".
In the context of an article titled "Individuals prefer to harm their own group rather than help an opposing group.
If the person did present an example of something claimed by the article, the article cannot be used to substantiate it, the article cannot be an example of itself, it could contain examples, but this was presented as an independent example, which needs independent justification.
> > Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions?
> Often we do
Do we have any for the specific instance in question?
In showing that a specific question you asked is beside the point of the paper, there is nothing wrong in quoting the paper to demonstrate what that point is.
Furthermore, I quoted the specific question you posed (for reference: 'Was their intent at the time of "voting against their interests" to injure their own group?') Syzarian's comment (and, more relevantly, the claim you specifically picked out in your latest reply) neither implies nor is predicated on either a yes or no answer to the question I quoted - and there is no reason it should, especially if, as I suspect (but cannot prove), Syzarian is well aware that this is beside the point of the paper.
> In the context of an article titled "Individuals prefer to harm their own group rather than help an opposing group.
This is an entire paragraph, yet it does not even appear to be a complete sentence, but you do seem to be agreeing that the context created by the paper is relevant.
> If the person did present an example of something claimed by the article, the article cannot be used to substantiate it...
The question of yours that I responded to is not about, and does not raise an issue concerning, the veracity of the claim you have specifically identified.
>>> Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions?
>> Often we do [because people generally are not all that shy in telling one another - and the media - what they think.]
> Do we have any for the specific instance in question?
This is the most blatant example so far of something that pervades all your posts here: attempting to shift the burden of proof by raising questions where there is no real doubt, knowing that any attempt to respond could be stretched out indefinitely through the use of similar questions [Update: as you have demonstrated in your further replies to Syzarian and others.] If you have a point to make here, the burden's on you to make it, bud.
>> It is also highly improbable that a group which fought hard for union representation, or made considerable use of a public pool, suddenly decided these things were against their own interests right at the time these benefits were being extended to other people.
Don't you have anything to say here?
They also wrote books, letters, and op-eds, all part of the historical record, and available if you were willing to spend a little energy on this subject.
Mind citing any? I'm not going to try to do the work to substantiate someone else's claim, and besides, if I don't find anything that agrees with it your response would just be that I did not look hard enough. If you can't cite something, that is fine, just say this is your opinion, that is entirely okay, but claiming something as fact puts the burden of proof on you to substantiate it.
I'm not an American either, and my grandfather is demented now but I think I know him well enough to know that he is would not have done something like that, and I know of at least one case that could be said to show the opposite, where he voted against his own group interest to benefit another group.
That's fine, but I'm not sure why you'd expect someone else to do it for you.
>and besides, if I don't find anything that agrees with it your response would just be that I did not look hard enough.
And now you're the one making unsupported claims.
> What were these interests, and was their intent at the time of "voting against their interests" to injure their own group, and if not what was it?
> Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions, and a clear objective understanding of their actual interests, or is this just your interpretation of their actions?
This, at a glance, answers none of those. I'm not going to go do research to clarify someone else's claim. If they did not want to make it, they should not have made it, but they did, and thus it is up to them to clarify it.
So sure, it was only white racists that did this, and without a doubt you wouldn’t have been one of those had
you been born back then despite it being the view of the overwhelming majority at the time.
It's also the era that created the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid and the War on Poverty. You're correct that political leadership in the United States was almost entirely white at the time. But the fact that they passed many substantial pieces of legislation helping other groups shows that people are more decent than the "race war" narrative that gets pushed a lot these days.
From my perspective, what occurred is that people wanted desegregation in principle but not in their particular social circles. They didn’t want large numbers of black students in their child’s school for instance.
These laws were passed in an environment of both great social upheaval domestically, and the cold war internationally. Both contributed.
The Soviet Union kept pointing out US race relations whenever the US claimed to be for freedom. The hypocrisy of the US could not be ignored by the predominantly white christian leaders who enacted these laws while expecting to have any credibility abroad. And, now that the cold war is over, the predominantly white christian political right is attempting to dismantle every single one of these acts and more.
I am separate from them. I didn’t do any of that stuff.
Also, I have many opinions that disagree with the overwhelming majority of my peers. Do you think you would have been racist back then?
You're doing it right now.
Or you you're a "member of a group" that you never even joined or cared to get close to ?
That's incredibly racist dude. It is exactly same thing actual racists do when they assume someone is <minority> therefore they will do <bad thing>.
One is the behavior of an individual ant, one is describing the colony.
This is exactly wrong though - do a majority of white men like Weezer? The right thing to say is "People who like Weezer are overwhelmingly white" (assuming it's true of course).
Projection much? I'm not white and I feel the same way as gp
Yep, textbook projection.
I think there's a big difference between "white people were in control of everything" and "the people who were in control were white".
I don’t exactly blame people for leaving. You can support civil rights and not want to live in a neighborhood where quality of life is getting worse.
The quality of life declined BECAUSE the majority of tax-payers left causing city services to fail.
That trend persists today - look at crime rates by race especially the white on black vs black on white crime rate. Controlling per capita shows an enormous disparity. And that’s just the extreme end of low trust behaviors and certainly indicating a litany of other reasons one would want to move away. It only takes 1 instance of being a victim to realize it’s not worth the risk.
Good luck understanding the world while refusing to apply historical perceptions to historical issues.
Original comment cited a historical example relevant to the posted article. You responded that the comment implied (in the present) that whites and blacks are two different groups, which they never did except in a historical context. Therefore you either disagree that historically whites and blacks were two separate groups in post-war America (good luck arguing that) or you're trying to contort the conversation to a discussion of "the problem" whatever that is in your mind.
Let's look at Ukraine right now. In the short-term a deal with Russia might ease the pain of Ukrainians which are troubled by the harsh winter, but by "harming" themselves right now, they might survive better in the long run?
Edit: I didn't want to start a political discussion about the war, just ask whether this behaviour might be evolutionary beneficially from a group survival point of view. Since war has been part of human history.
This "repeated games" scenario is very common in social science and economics.
There was even such a deal on the table in the early stages that the west pretty much killed…
At this point though idk what diplomatic solution exists. Deescalation should be everyone’s #1 goal atm.
Their assumption was that world would just let them do what they want as they did with Crimea, and that previous mistake is direct reason for current situation.
I’m no fan of the Russian federation, but they have legitimate security concerns regarding nato expansion.
We’ve been actively destabilizing the region for decades so they probably say the same thing about us.
Do we really want to go back to perpetual proxy wars with our adversaries?
This mentality is born from reality, Russia has agreed before to never even threaten Ukraines sovereignty, let alone actually invade.
Russia does not care about agreements, or treaties, or anything, all Russia cares about is what Russia wants.
> I’m no fan of the Russian federation, but they have legitimate security concerns regarding nato expansion.
Russia has legitimate security concerns regarding a defensive alliance expanding closer and closer to them?.
If thats the case maybe they should stop invading countries, Ukraines not the first, and unfortunately may not be the last.
NATO expansion is largely born closer to Russia from Russian imperialism(in the least for the last two members).
> Do we really want to go back to perpetual proxy wars with our adversaries?
Or Russia could not invade Ukraine and not openly call to end it as a country altogether?.
Yes. The “defensive” narrative is silly if you can think strategically. The United States would NEVER tolerate a similar situation. Remember the Cuban missile crisis?
Imagine if Texas seceded from the union and tried to form a military alliance with China, Iran, and Russia. Ukraine was the second most powerful Soviet and the USSR collapsed only 30 years ago.
NATO is an anti-soviet alliance from the Cold War era. We’ve been fighting proxy battles with the Russians for 80 years. Think about that! Why on earth would Russia trust us Americans and our “defensive” missile systems?
The truth is we danced on the graves of our enemies instead of working to built a better world. This is a tale as old as time and I fear we are doomed to perpetually repeat this mistake for the rest of civilization.
We need to stop excessively spreading our sphere of influence. We got problems at home. Obviously the US can’t back out now…but perhaps we should reassess our future military strategy before we do something REALLY stupid like go to war with China over Taiwan.
Because NATO, and America has never invaded Russia, even though they had the capability and will at the end of WW2.
> Imagine if Texas seceded from the union and tried to form a military alliance with China, Iran, and Russia. Ukraine was the second most powerful Soviet and the USSR collapsed only 30 years ago.
This would only be a fair comparison if the USA entirely collapsed and then, the free state of Texas, which, has international recognition from both the world and the country that succeeded the USA as being independent decided to join a military alliance.
> We need to stop excessively spreading our sphere of influence. We got problems at home. Obviously the US can’t back out now…but perhaps we should reassess our future military strategy before we do something REALLY stupid like go to war with China over Taiwan.
Or maybe it's that China shouldn't try and conquer Taiwan?. Like Russia shouldn't have tried to conquer Ukraine?. America(for once) and the EU really look like the goods guys this time around.
The US is hated in many regions for playing world police. I suppose you support the war in Iraq because Iraq shouldn’t have invaded Kuwait?
We only care about Taiwan because of TSMC. We don’t even officially recognize Taiwan as a country.
It amazes me that people can’t look in the mirror and realize military strategy is a cold dark forest. America is the undisputed king of warfare. We’ve been involved in more conflicts than any other government that exists today. We’ve trashed South America and the Middle East in pursuit of our strategic goals. Europe has been destroyed twice in the past century. Don’t pretend it’s all black and white and western developed countries are bastions of righteousness.
Big fan of it when it arms a country against its imperialistic neighbour that is doing its best to try and obliterate a country off the map.
The million land mines in Southeast Asia and record setting drones strikes and 20 yr occupation of Afghanistan sure is awesome. Slurp up that propaganda baby!
Russia doesn't have the capability to do this or they would have, Ukraines air defense is too much for Russia to even obtain air superiority after 9 months.
> Their nuclear arsenal is enough to obliterate much more than Ukraine off the map…
If Russia actually nuked Ukraine they would likely collapse in the coming 10 years from the international communities response, nuclear weapons were never on the table.
> The million land mines in Southeast Asia and record setting drones strikes and 20 yr occupation of Afghanistan sure is awesome. Slurp up that propaganda baby!
I can recognise when multiple countries do bad things, something that people who are pro Russia appear incapable of doing.
Russias war in Ukraine is bad, Americas war in Afghanistan and Vietnam were bad.
If you can recognize that every country commits war, you should be able to understand that diplomacy is a viable option. I mean seriously take a moment to think critically here. My position is that deescalation is possible. Yours is that war should continue and diplomacy will never work.
Is that honestly the stance you wanna take?
Sure, and before that? NATO has been expanding since the USSR fell.
The year the USSR fell, the Russians invaded Georgia.
So conveniently, Russian imperialism has existed since practically as soon as Russia existed.
Maybe if Russia stopped invading countries that used to be in the USSR NATO would stop expanding.
But it's clear that they cannot help themselves and they clearly believe they have a right to try and conquer these counties.
There certainly seems to be plenty of claims that Russia was overtly involved in conflict in south Ossetia and it was much more then just "assistance".
The hyperbole here. Functioning infrastructure + corruption is a lot better than destroyed infrastructure + corruption
I don't want to distract from the generic point with a specific example, but it's easy for me to think of causes I would spend 10x of my own or my group's resources to prevent that other cause from receiving a benefit.
WTF is wrong with people.
For others not in the US, the state of Georgia has a legislature runoff face where a Texan is running against a Georgian. The Texan appears to have failed to establish residency (does not actively live in the state they are campaigning to represent) and, being a popular sports figure, has been a source of a lot of discussion around mental health and traumatic brain injury in politicians due to the candidate's many gaffes and apparent hypocrisy (paying for an abortion while claiming to want to support a general ban). The other, the incumbent and a local church pastor, comes from the nominally left-wing party and thus is the target of right-wing propaganda despite representing a lot of the values the median right-wing voter likes. Sports-in-politics are weird and no one is happy from it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Most students chose to hurt the competition and inflict damage to themselves.
For example one citation used in support of the conclusion is conservative's opposition to getting the COVID vaccine. That group perceived harm in getting the vaccine (whether right or wrong). The article claims the group opposed the vaccine merely as a reaction to the vaccine push from outside the group.
So maybe the conclusion would be stronger if stated as "groups have a hard time making rational calculations of harm when facing a perceived threat from an outside group".
Doesn't really change it too much, but it seems quite unsupported in its assumption that these groups actually perceived themselves to be harming themselves.
Better summary: Individuals that are dissatisfied with their own group, prefer to harm it directly than join some other opposing group.
Do both and you have what is happening, "surprise" after "surprise" when what you thought you had in equipment turns out to be actually bricks in someone's villa.