The same BASF “fleeing Germany” is actually bulding a completely new giant complex, the first of its kind, for battery recycling on industrial scale to establish a whole recylcling value chain for batteries and be mostly independent from imported raw materials, in Schwarzheide, Germany…
“Deindustrialization” is a buzzword used by Axel Springer SE from the moment their beloved coal-burning conservatives were voted out. And they will push that narrative (alongside a few others) in their constant campaign against the Germany government (the Greens in particular) to spread fear until they get their retarded friends back into office or we finally learn to ignore their bullshit.
There is a lot of public misunderstanding of the rodent studies that linked aspartame to cancer, which are very flawed and essentially come from a single Italian research group.
There is still no definitive link to cancer risk in humans so I would continue to be skeptical. The maximum recommended safe exposure for aspartame is the equivalent of 12 cans of coke, and the strong effects from the rodent study were using exposure amounts equivalent to 5 times that amount, or 60 cans daily, every day of their life after day 12 of fetal life (i.e. before birth).
Almost anything can cause long-term health risks and toxicity at such massive exposure levels.
Link to the free Pubmed link to one of the original source studies from 2008 so you can see their methodology and the absurdly massive exposure amounts needed to ovserve these effects:
Nail on the head. Aspartame is still better for you than super processed foods loaded with sugar. This reminds me of the big smear campaign against fat that the sugar industry engineered to take the heat off of themselves way back when
I disagree with the ‘massive’ exposure ‘needed’ to observe these effects exaggeration. First, the point of the study was to show it can be carcinogenic, not to parse at exactly what level in humans. Second, effects are seen at the 400ppm level which equates to 20mg/kg. This is 1600mg/day or 8 cans of Diet Coke (@200mg/can) for an 80kg male. That is NOT an impossible level of daily consumption for many.
I suspect further research was done to confirm your linked studies and refine exactly at what minimum levels of daily consumption elicit carcinogenic effects. That will likely be in the full report once released. Until then, you sound like you don’t want it to be true, rather than an impartial evaluator of the research.
the point of the study was to show it can be carcinogenic
Almost anything can be carcinogenic with a high enough exposure. You can pump a rat full of water until it dies and declare that water kills people. But, that doesn’t prove anything or serve a point.
Second, effects are seen at the 400ppm level which equates to 20mg/kg. This is 1600mg/day or 8 cans of Diet Coke (@200mg/can) for an 80kg male. That is NOT an impossible level of daily consumption for many.
In rats! You can’t just multiple a rat study by body weight and expect it to always correlate. That’s why studies are done in larger animals, and sometimes the concept just dies there.
A single study is a statistic. Until they duplicate the results multiple times, and upgrade to monkeys, pigs, or (in a safe way) humans, this is all just noise.
Almost anything can be carcinogenic with a high enough exposure. You can pump a rat full of water until it dies and declare that water kills people.
It would lead to death, but not to cancer. Not everything is carcinogenic, even with high exposure. Causing death by a method other than cancer doesn’t make it carcinogenic.
Almost anything can be carcinogenic with a high enough exposure. You can pump a rat full of water until it dies and declare that water kills people. But, that doesn’t prove anything or serve a point.
This is how science is done friend. You make no assumptions. You have reason to believe a theory predicts a testable outcome? You test it. Not everything causes cancer. Pure air doesn’t… Clean water doesn’t… The research shows us Aspartame does indeed have carcinogenic effects in rats. Now we know this, and the result can be used to support applications for more costly research using subjects much more similar to our anatomy because if it is carcinogenic in one mammal, it probably is carcinogenic in others.
You call the study flawed when it looks perfectly fine to me for the purpose it was designed for. It shows it is carcinogenic in the mammal it was tested on at dosage levels that translate to non-‘massive’, quite reasonable consumption rates for humans. As such, it warrants concern and all these claims by the European and US Food Agencies saying ‘we did 100s of studies decades ago and it is fine trust me bro’ is not enough. I’m not arguing this one study proves Aspartame causes cancer in humans. I’m saying your particular criticisms of it are unfounded as is your confidence that Aspartame is non-carcinogenic. You cite FDA claims ‘Aspartame is safe’ but show no research that supports this conclusion. Looking at the provided links I noticed things like “don’t feed to pregnant mothers because phenylalanine”, “methanol is a metabolite - nothing concerning there”, and ‘we plan on doing a systemic revaluation of aspartame as the research is over a decade old (the whole time with the biggest corporations in the world breathing down our necks)’ <a href="">https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/factsheetaspartame.pdf</a>
Looks to me like somebody did more research and found contradictory results otherwise why would WHO say they are going to do this?
You cite FDA claims ‘Aspartame is safe’ but show no research that supports this conclusion. Looking at the provided links I noticed things like “don’t feed to pregnant mothers because phenylalanine”, “methanol is a metabolite - nothing concerning there”, and ‘we plan on doing a systemic revaluation of aspartame as the research is over a decade old (the whole time with the biggest corporations in the world breathing down our necks)’ www.efsa.europa.eu/…/factsheetaspartame.pdf
I do? Which post do I claim anything? What links did I provide?
My whole point is that one flawed study with rats doesn’t prove a damn thing, and is not enough to make a decision on.
I’m going to agree with Burstar here - if you’re setting out to prove that something is possible, you’re going to give it the best chance you can. Once you know its possible (whether its something like using an arduino to simulate an old price of hardware, or if a compound can cause cancer), you go and refine it down.
the strong effects from the rodent study were using exposure amounts equivalent to 5 times that amount, or 60 cans daily, every day of their life after day 12 of fetal life (i.e. before birth).
This is why I hate rodent studies. They always up the exposure to whatever they are testing to hyper-extreme limits. Then point their flawed results to the world and declare “See! X causes Y!”
There are even similar rat studies for marijuana that try to link it to cancer as well, despite the fact that zero people have actually died from weed. It’s all overblown bullshit.
Dude have you seen how many diet Cokes people drink? Liters and liters daily. Not excessive at all honestly considering LifeTime total exposure
Im a chemist by trade. This is actually chemically very simple. I only looked deeply into Sucralose Splenda. So I’ll discuss that
These have Chlorine molecules. A very electrophilic element even in a chemical bond. Meaning it can cause reactions in other molecules very easily. Sucralose has Three Chlorines. If it touches DNA it’s bad business man.
I love diet Coke btw lol I could drink 5 gallons right now idk I smoke cigs. But don’t sugar coat it
You are saying that sucralose (or a metabolite thereof) could alkylate DNA - and theoretically proteins too - correct? Like what sulfur mustard gas does?
I did a quick search and couldn’t find any papers demonstrating a mechanism of action for that, although I skimmed a few that postulated that a dichlorinated hydrolysis product might be the true carcinogenic agent. Do you know of any studies that demonstrate that the alkylation can happen, either in vitro or (ideally) in vivo? Or maybe some better search terms to use, that could be my issue…
I am truly curious about this, I never knew the chemical structure of sucralose until I read your comment and subsequently looked it up.
Table salt has more chlorine by mass than sucralose. Moreover, in your body, table salt dissociates into a chlorine ion, whereas in sucralose it’s covalently bonded into the molecular structure. That’s not to say that it is suddenly nonreactive, but being covalently bonded tempers some of it’s electron craving, so to speak. By your logic, table salt should be orders of magnitude more dangerous than sucralose (it’s not).
Edit to add: Do you know of any mechanism by which sucralose could cross the nuclear membrane? If not, sucralose isn’t going to be touching DNA at all. It could touch some form of RNA in the cytoplasm, which isn’t necessarily innocent, but it’s not going to be touching the DNA. That means it won’t cause long-term genetic changes or damage; any damage it caused would be transitory to the working set of RNA and that damage would be gone when that RNA was processed/destroyed.
Is that a measurement relative to mass/size? Because if not, you’d need to consume a shitload of it to really do anything.
There’s a ton of studies with these problems. Researchers simply engrossing the test subject in the material until something bad happens. Unless you’re researching on a test group of humans, then suddenly all the levels are actually less than typical.
It all depends if you’re looking to prove that it’s harmful or not. Want to find it’s harmful? Get a bunch of mice and expose them to as much of whatever substance you need to in order to find a problem… Want to prove something is safe, set up a “double blind” study of the effects on humans, and give half of them regulated and limited doses of it for weeks or months until you can convince everyone that “nothing bad happened”.
I have a problem with research done in either way. Researchers should be neutral, and just test and let the data speak for itself. (With limited interpretation for the people who read it)
Instead, almost all research is funded by someone with an agenda who is trying to find out if x is good/bad, and prove or disprove a specific stance. Argh
Still proves it may cause cancer, the only thing seriously in question is the dose. Seemingly nobody knows what a safe upper bound is for any population.
Shit’s getting really bad. I mean I’m not sure what I think on the judgement, but the fact that there’s people here walking around with Nazi symbols and openly literally becoming members of the National Socialist Network. How has it all gone so wrong and so… Weird.
We’ve always had odd balls, arseholes, pointlessly angry people, racists, homophobes, all varieties of people out on the fringe of generally acceptable behaviours. Modern technology has allowed them to find community and sort of glob together much easier, be much louder and more visible, spread their particular brand of thought.
Just my musings anyway. They were always there, the regular people were just more numerous and those on the fringe couldn’t find each other so easily.
I think we surpassed the “finding community” part long ago.
These days white extremists are manufactured by other white extremists on social media – the closest thing we’ve ever built to mind control.
The underlying grooming strategies aren’t much different to the ones Islamic extremists have been using on budding young suicide bombers for decades, they just throw in a few more memes.
Oh and most importantly, profits. There’s a lot of ad impressions and user engagement on the path from human being to far-right terrorist, eventually culminating in gun-based mass murder that is like Christmas for the gun lobby and for-profit media.
Targeting young, disillusioned men isn’t a new invention – Islamic extremists have been doing it in the Middle East for decades.
But America has brought modern convenience to the process. Fresh meat is easy to find and they only need a few hundred bucks to buy a gun for maximum damage and minimum risk.
Maybe it would be a little less intellectually dishonest to not claim socialism = fascism, wouldn’t it be? Call it what it is, English fascism. The Nazi movement originally did carry INGSOC acronym, and “socialism” was used as a term by Hitler to lure working class and win their votes for their NSDAP Nazi party.
We live under states, the right to use violence to protect ourselves and our community has been taken from us. The state is allegedly supposed to protect you so you don’t need to use violence, but as we can see, the state has failed at this.
There should not be NAZIs openly walking around – they should not be able to make it out of their neighborhood.
Hitler obviously wasn't a dictator as he was democratically elected by a majority (after competing parties were banned) and then -just out of situational necessity of course- got a lot of extra powers to ignore laws and constitution.
Hitler obviously wasn’t a dictator as he was democratically elected by a majority (after competing parties were banned) and then -just out of situational necessity of course- got a lot of extra powers to ignore laws and constitution.
All this debate and nobody brings up that, thanks to climate change, cooling nuclear power plants will become a roll of the dice? Same as it already happened in France?
Droughts are really, really bad for nuclear power. Solar and wind don't give a shit.
Doesn't even matter much which technology is better on any other point. If you cannot run it, it's worthless. Especially at times with increased power demand for example due to AC usage spiking thanks to the same heat that just poofed your cooling solution into oblivion.
Thank you. The nuclear fanboyism is crazy here and on reddit. Looking back, almost all nuclear power planta in Germany had to shut down over the last summers, because the cooling water Was either not enough or too hot. That technology has run it’s course and every potential investment is better routed towards renewable, battery capacity or green hydrogen.
In addition, the european pricing for power is defined by the most expensive source - and nuclear as well as coal are power sources that are getting more expensive, raising the cost for users. Supporting both sources for energy is madness.
And yes, tearing down windfarms for coal is fucking stupid, as is hoping that russia will keep selling us gas. Europe needs it’s own power infrastructure and has enough potential for it.
I see it here too… did you read the comments on that post? Those turbines were to be dismantled in one way or another due to their age, and the permit to mine coal in that place was given 15 years ago.
So what about nuclear waste? I am opposed to nuclear energy because of all the reasons you pointed out, but also because we collectively decided to dump the waste somewhere underground where they will go on radiating for a few eternities more. Do you know if this bullshit or if that’s a true concern?
So, nuclear waste is undeniably a problem,but the reality is that most of it is low-level and not that difficult to dispose of.
Other industries have much worse by-products that are more costly and challenging to dispose of. Many mineral extraction chains produce far more toxic hazardous waste than nuclear power does. Heavy industry deals with chemicals significantly more toxic and dangerous to humans.
It’s easy to be scared and to drum up fear of nuclear waste due to its longevity. That fear shouldn’t be dismissed, we do need secure facilities for high-level nuclear waste—but that type accounts for about 3% of all nuclear waste and is currently being safely disposed of in deep-level purpose-built facilities.
A far greater risk of exposure and contamination exists from any number of ongoing industrial processes—a single processing plant failure (on almost any production chain) is liable to release more toxic material into the environment and result in a greater impact on human and animal life than any risk from nuclear waste.
but that type accounts for about 3% of all nuclear waste and is currently being safely disposed of in deep-level purpose-built facilities.
Sorry, but that is just false. The only european country, that is on the track to build and operate such a facility is Finland. Their facility will be finished in a hundred years and only contain the waste of a single Nuclear power plant of a country of 5 million people. Also it is sheduled to cost around a billion Euro. en.wikipedia.org/…/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo…
In Germany there is the plan to designate a spot to build a facility by 2040, but it is entirely uncertain, as the most likely feasible geological formations for that are in Bavaria. The state that is a strong proponent of nucelar power, but rejects to store any of its waste. It is NIMBYism by the pro nuclear faction par excellence. So we dont know, if by 2040 we will just have found a spot for a facility and can begin the planning process for it.
All storage facilities in Germany that were supposed to be long term, have been subject to deterioation, unsafe handling of nuclear waste and water entry with the potential to leak nuclear waste into the groundwater.
In central Europe, where 200 Million people are living in one of the most densely populated regions of the globe the issue of storing the radioactive waste is neither solved politically, nor technologically, nor is the funding secured with certainty.
It is still very much hypothetical, if, when and how the radioactive waste, that is waiting in “intermediate” storage facilities since 50 years will actually end up in a feasible permanent storage. Proponents of nuclear energy and in this case you specifically distort the facts tremendously, by saying the issue of storage is solved or even close to being solved
Also it is absurd, to claim to know the costs and challenges would be less than for other industrial wastes, because the fucking technology doesn’t exist in any larger scale implementation
Okay, so, I appreciate the discussion, but I have to address your comment as it is plainly disingenuous.
Finland is, indeed, the only country with an currently operational deep-level storage facility. But several other such facilities are in active development across the globe. These are long-term storage facilities and their design and installation naturally takes time. Nuclear is still young, but the solutions are being worked on—the only thing hindering it is people like you who attempt to sabotage the industry and then claim it isn’t up to scratch.
You claim “the facility will be finished in a hundred years and only contain the waste of a single Nuclear (sic) power plant”. This is a carefully-worded lie. The facility will begin storing nuclear waste this year and continue to store waste from all five of Finland’s nuclear reactors for the entire length of their life cycles, which is indeed about 100 years.
The cost is a difficult one and can only be assessed in the context of all ongoing costs to produce nuclear power. However, the International Energy Agency’s ongoing assessment of the Levellised Costs Of Electricity—which takes into account all cost inputs for power generation of any type, from mineral extraction to ongoing maintenance, to waste storage—shows that nuclear is the low-carbon technology with the lowest costs overall.
The reason that Germany doesn’t have concrete plans for long-term nuclear waste storage is due to years of undermining attacks on the technology from fossil fuel lobbies and oddly similar ‘Green Party’ voices. To say that a technology cannot work or isn’t viable because the opponents of said technology have successfully sabotaged it is incredibly disingenuous and deeply malicious.
You cannot claim that the issues of any sector of energy generation are “solved politically”, nor can you claim that their “funding is secured with certainty”. Again, to claim a technology isn’t viable because you don’t want it to be and you’re helping to undermine its development isn’t a good argument. Nuclear power technology continues to advance at a rapid rate and will continue to do so providing it receives the necessary support and funding. The same goes for any emergent technology.
Your entire comment is full of the things you claim that the proponents of nuclear energy put forward. You are skewing the facts in an attempt to favour a sensationalist argument that convinces those less educated in the technology that it is scary and dangerous—which extensive research demonstrates to be untrue.
The reality is that renewable energy is unpredictable and best suited to flexible generation. Please do not misunderstand me, I fully support the development of all renewable technologies. However, when we wean ourselves of fossil fuels, we will need new baseload power plants. Nuclear is currently the best option to provide stable baseload generation.
The reality is that renewable energy is unpredictable and best suited to flexible generation. Please do not misunderstand me, I fully support the development of all renewable technologies. However, when we wean ourselves of fossil fuels, we will need new baseload power plants. Nuclear is currently the best option to provide stable baseload generation.
Do you have a source for this?
Because grids already deal with changing demand and if the generation is geographically distributed this issue could probably be solved with less storage than electrc cars are using. See this paper
We get nuclear fuel from the ground and then bury it in the same ground. Nothing changes. Or are you one of those who believe that nuclear fuel is made out of thin air? There are literally no problems with nuclear waste. Even if you forget that coal power plants pump much more radioactive shit straight into the air you breathe.
I also wonder about the nuclear fanboyism. Is it because techbros? Is it astroturfing? Or do really so many people fall for the various websites of the nuclear industry you find online? I don’t know what it is, but it is suspicious. There seem to be many more (vocal) fans of nuclear reactors than fans for renewable energy sources.
tells them everything’s safe now, some people just can’t get behind the idea that nothing can make this technology safe, there will always be one edge-case where the stars align and we have another meltdown.
I already know how the lobby is telling the people the wrong price per Kw/h ignoring any other costs involved, so i can get the idea how they handle security concerns.
Not to mention that building new plants can take a decade and costs a fortune - if you invest that money into renewables and power storages you have working power much faster.
Also OPs graphic is a real problem but it only goes until last year where we just got rid of Merkel. Her party was actively working on making it as hard as possible to work wind turbines while investing into gas from russia so with the new government the speed should finally pick up again
Of course shutting down existing nuclear reactors is a bad idea (which also happened because of Merkel) but that decision was made so long ago that the companies running those plants prepared for them to shut down for a decade and have stopped hiring people, the ones working there are on retirement contracts and they didn’t invest into future proofing the plants anymore so they were kind of falling apart
I’ve seen another video article instead that basically says sure nuclear is good on paper if:
power plans should be 4th gen… which are non-existent at the moment (if not at the prototype stage only) and which construction in case will take decades and which costs are huge and also hard to estimates, even for France who has built a lot of nuclear power plans along the years and has probably the better know-how resources on the matter
not everyone should go nuclear at the same time, because if everyone does:
fuel material market price will increasingly raise due to its demand making nuclear energy production inherently less convenient as time passes and the fuel stock gets depleted, in turns shrinking the offer
all known stock of fuel material at the current usage are estimated to run dry in 120 yrs (so immagine if you wanted to convert today a country to full nuclear power it will probably require 50 yrs and last only 70 at best), but the remaining stock will surely last a lot less if suddenly everyone should convert to nuclear energy production
Great post and nice to see those 4th gen plants mentioned including the current project development state. Those plants were always a top comment as ‘the solution’ in discussions on Reddit. Just build 4th gen or molten salt or fusion - energy problems solved with just a few keystrokes.
Posts explaining the problems or the current state of those projects often ended up in flames.
It is not our favorite energy source anymore, the plan is to get rid of themynot build more of them. Yes, there was an increase last year, but that was related to the gas situation with russia.
Northrine Westphalia just dumped the minium required distance for wind turbines, so we will see a huge boost of them (hopefully)
Drought is not as much a problem in Germany as it is on the southern states like France and Spain, but groundwater is going down. Everywhere. And like OP said, France had to limit the output of their reactors due to water shortages.
I have no idea and coal sucks and is the result of intense lobbying and corrupt politicians being bought for pennies on the dollar for the last 25 years.
The point isn't the water usage of nuclear power, since most of it is evaporated and returned to the cycle, so I'd be surprised if it's worse than coal in terms of actual consumption. However you need water in large quantities and the correct temperatures to be able to use it for cooling on nuclear.
If there is no water or not enough water of sufficient temperatures, then you can't cool the plant. It's simple as that.
Droughts overall are horrible for Europe just as much as anywhere else. We're losing tons of valuable topsoil, forrests are dying contributing to the continual errosion. All this could lead to salination and eventual death of farmland. Crop yields are unpredictable. No country on this planet can exist for any prolonged period of time with droughts, unless it can import everything it can't produce itself from elsewhere.
Water usage is generally a huge issue in Germany. Farmers take out far, far more than they're allotted already and there's almost no oversight. Large cities like Frankfurt am Main are pulling in water from surrounding areas, leaving them dry. And this isn't even touching on the basically free use of water for our industries at large. It's a really bad situation.
The only point where renewables would "rely" on water beyond their construction processes is either water generated power itself or energy storage (which comes down to the same).
Coal power plants have about 45% energy efficency. Liginte about 30-35%, Nuclear plants also about 30-35%. All the other energy ends up using water to cool it away.
So a 1 GW nuclear plant is putting about 2 GW of heat into the water. A lignite plant the same. A 1 GW coal power plant is only putting about 1.25 GW of heat into water.
But again the problem is the false comparison being made here. The alternative to nuclear isnt coal. the alternative is renewables in conjunction with storage technologies and smarter grid management with demand sheduling.
Edit: wow nuclear shills now downvoting basic physics.
Besides, all that Russian propaganda of „German energy policies bad“ has done nothing but spreading discord and allowing France to fuel their economy with ukrainan blood because „French energy policies are so based!!1“. Their nuclear power plants are already failing left and right due to low water levels and they want to build more as if this situation won’t get worse year by year. What’s the point of emission free power plants when they just stand around for lack of cooling water? All the while their gas imports from Russia explode to new heights, fueling Putin‘s war machine.
Sure, because wind and solar are totally immune to the climate.
Getting enough wind and solar to supply the electric consumption is a roll of dice EVERY DAY.
I’m not saying that drought and heatwave don’t have a negative impact on nuclear but it would be dishonest to say that runs and solar are a more reliable solution in this regard.
So you think the weather is always the same in all of Europe? Because it doesn’t matter, if it is cloudy or snowy in one part of the continent, if other regions have sunshine and wind at the same time. On such a scale, wheatger is not that much of a deal. Especially if you have storage mediums and other sources like gas.
Almost like we should’ve invested in nuclear power when it was first discovered instead of being blinded by oil propaganda saying it was extremely dangerous despite oil causing more deaths than any nuclear event in history combined, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Isn’t that going a little far? Not defending the guy, it’s gross and super inappropriate. But a simple kiss is hardly sexual. Basically every child ever is kissed against their will by older relatives and nobody bats an eye.
Fire the guy, ban him from football for life, but does he need to be arrested? He’s not going around groping strangers. He just apparently does gross, stupid shit when he’s excited.
Well, let’s see how exactly it is that you feel when a man in a position of authority over you grabs you by the head and kisses you against your will. And I will have you know that neither of my children have ever been made to accept affection that they did not want because I learned from my upbringing, I didn’t just parrot it.
For what jurisdiction? There’s not one legal definition. Every country, and every state in the US, has their own definitions.
My state, for example, defines it as (paraphrasing) unwanted contact with intimate areas for the purpose of sexual gratification or humiliation, or to intentionally harm. It’s a bit subjective and open to interpretation, but there’s no way anyone would get convicted under this statute for a short, closed-mouth celebratory kiss.
Again, it’s assault, and it’s gross and inappropriate, but it doesn’t meet all the elements of sexual assault.
For one, the Spanish jurisdiction, that is the one that applies to this case. Arguing that other countries have backwards laws is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person’s body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person’s consent.
The only person I ever kiss with both hands on their head is my wife, when I am being intimate with her.
A kiss is not inherently sexual. Is a mother’s kiss incest? I have a picture of my nephews kissing, is that CP? Hell, dudes in some parts of the world kiss their friends, on the lips, as a greeting.
Gross and inappropriate conduct isn’t automatically sexual.
Stop the cap, mate. It wasn’t a mother kissing their child or a friend kissing another friend. It was a grown fucking man, kissing a grown fucking woman. They obviously aren’t friends or lovers. Ofc it’s sexual, doesn’t matter if 'not all kisses are inherently sexual, this one was.
Did you miss the part where he’s never kissed a man like that? His country has had lots of men being presented with great accomplishments. He has awarded those men those awards without ever kissing them like he does here
Basically every child ever is kissed against their will by older relatives and nobody bats an eye.
That is also assault, and the attitude that it’s ok because the victims are too young to understand bodily autonomy is disgusting regardless of how widespread it is.
Did I say it was ok? That’s gross and inappropriate in my opinion, too. But it still happens and nobody cares. And yeah, it could be considered assault. But it’s not sexual.
Fire the guy, ban him from football for life, but does he need to be arrested?
It is not up to you to decide. The Spanish law is pretty clear in this respect, and a non-consensual kiss is explicitly defined as sexual assault, period. And this is a very recent law that has been widely discussed and reported in media, so there is no chance that he didn’t know the legal consequences of his acts. He simply believed that his position of power would be enough to evade the legal consequences.
Calling this sexual assault doesn’t help anyone, and actively harms victims of actual sexual violence.
How so? This kind of argument doesn’t make sense to me - robbing a house is robbery, robbing a bank is still robbery. Unaliving an individual with a knife is murder, and unaliving an invididual by dangerous driving is still murder.
Each crime is looked at on a case by case basis in an ideal scenario - having the definition of one thing the same as another can not inherently harm victims affected by a higher severity of an identically named crime IMO
Sexual assault is not just rape, that kind of thinking is really narrow minded in my opinion. The definition varies depending on where you live - this can include groping, slapping another’s bottom, ogling, catcalling, rape, and more.
Being excited isn’t a valid reason to cross someone’s personal boundaries IMO. There is never a valid reason to cross someone’s boundaries unless you’re exempt, on those kind of friendly terms with them
Calling this sexual assault doesn’t help anyone, and actively harms victims of actual sexual violence.
what “actively harms victims of sexual violence” is gatekeeping the definition of it, and normalising nonconsensual intimate physical acts. maybe spend some time researching the “real rape” myth, and its impact on reporting, investigation, and conviction rates.
Nope. It’s not going too far. You go ahead and randomly kiss a coworker or subordinate at your place of work in front of everybody to include customers. Let me know how quickly HR wants you in their office.
Consent - When two parties agree that an action is OK to preform.
In the case of the French, the consent to kiss others comes from their culture / societal norms that make kissing as a greeting ok. The same cannot be said about Spain and especially the situation they were in.
Restraining someone else’s head with both hands and kissing on the lips without consent - an action that not only disrespects physical boundaries, but also psychological and neurochemical boundaries, sounds a lot like sexual assault to me.
If it was the player’s cheek or hand, then IMO your argument would make much more sense. This isn’t the case here, and sexual assault includes a lot more than forced penetration.
As far as the law is concerned, it’s sufficiently open ended AFAICT and leaves the definition up to the individual affected.
I actually don’t let anybody kiss my kids without permission, even relatives. Your body belongs to you alone and you don’t owe anyone a kiss. It shouldn’t be normal IMO.
My three year old niece is in her choice phase. Every time I’ve seen her in the last six months, I ask for a hug and she smiles and says “noooooo!” Then rushes to give my wife a hug. I just let it go because she’s said no and that means no. Then usually later in the day she’ll pop around and give me a huge hug then. I’m hoping that means she learns that no means no, so when a boy later on tries to make it a “yes” she’ll make him understand it really does mean no.
He did not only kiss her - he also made remarks that he was gonna marry her next year in Ibiza and if I remember right something about a wedding night…
It was a sexual assault.
And btw: Kids should never be kissed against their will and it is not okay when older relatives do that. AT ALL
This happened in my country and would be absolutely considered sexual assault by state laws. So whatever your feelings are on the matter, the fact of reality is that it’s sexual assault.
Dmitry Utkin (who was also on the plane) is definitely a nazi, and Wagner has a lot of links to far-right elements in Russia. Wagner itself is supposed to reference Richard Wagner, Hitler’s favorite composer
so Prigozhin is definitely in bed with nazis but idk anything about his actual beliefs
Also the guy Nietzsche ghosted because he couldn’t stand his antisemitism.
…sorry random association the first existentialist gets maligned all too often. “Talks about nihilism and how it needs to be overcome == nihilist”, yeah sure.
I spam redsails but it’s such a convenient site. I read The Gay Science as one of my first philosophy books, but I completely turned around because of Losurdo
The antimodernism thing is like the least charitable take one can have on Nietzsche but at least it’s not one that’s based on his sister’s stuff.
Some quick thoughts:
His stance on democracy has to be understood in the context of its days, much less developed than now, and in the Kaiserreich also very much class-based, ruled more by mass psychology than consideration of what actually good politics would be – on both sides, though I won’t deny that the nobles and bourgeois of course needed their wings clipped. At the same time he’s very much an elitist in the sense of, erm, personal improvement, sees the need for the individual to transcend the forces acting around them and develop their own path as sublation of everything, contrast that with the political forces in parliament being not even close to that but simple thesis-antithesis with no sign of actually starting to go beyond that and you have an easy case for “Nietzsche simply didn’t believe in the process democracy”.
To all this he prefers “hierarchy” [Rangordnung]
Is that really the term Anglos use as a translation. “ranking” or even “precedence” might’ve been a better choice. Honestly just translate it literally: “Rank order”. In any case and I won’t dwell on it: Nietzsche always describes these rank relations as in flux, not set in stone, and makes fun of tying it to inheritance. I don’t see him at odds with Bakunin, here, who will readily bow to the authority of the bootmaker.
At the same time he warned of the dangers of not having such a thing, of insisting on some moral-metaphysical notion of inviolable human equality, and we just recently had the opportunity to see that kind of thing in action: I’m speaking of the masses of people unwilling to bow to the authority of virologists and epidemiologists, going “nu-uh I did my own research”, meaning they read some bullshit blog somewhere. Nietzsche himself might’ve rather thought about the Jacobine terror and stuff.
Overall, when reading Nietzsche I recommend starting with Thus spake Zahatrustra, as a work of philosophical mysticism, get to grips with what it means for the individual mind, and interpret the rest in that light, and specifically consider whether he might not have framed a lot of things very differently had he witnessed Nazi Germany.
A parallel which comes to mind here is Plato, who likely would be similarly at odds with the modern scientific method as Nietzsche is with the democratic process, stressing the importance of intuition as to not de-humanise the process: Are we, as peoples, really engaging in democracy, or do we let a system of mass psychology rule us?
Lastly, my psychological armchair: Was he someone who often felt alone in a crowd? Yeah, probably. Clowns to the left, jokers to the right.
I’m not sure what your intention is with this comment if I’m being honest but it just seems like a broad defense of Nietzsche based in misunderstanding the claims of Losurdo, honestly. Nietzsches obsession with the individual in that way and unwillingness to accept change outside of growing toward his übermensch are a basis for the most anti-communist philosophy.
If I’m honest, I just doubt you’ve really read Nietzsche as deeply as Losurdo
Oh I certainly haven’t read him as deeply as a Nietzsche scholar. OTOH your favourite Nietzsche scholar also isn’t the sole authority on Nietzsche. All I’m saying is that I don’t share Losurdo’s interpretation there.
As to anti-communist – why would I care, I’m an Anarchist. And yes Kerry Thornley definitely had a point when he said:
[…] Universal Enlightenment [is] a prerequisite to abolition of the State, after which the State will inevitably vanish. Or — that failing — nobody will give a damn.
This is because a stateless society cannot be built on anything but grassroots. And for those grassroots to support proper societal homeostasis, to not degenerate into or be co-opted by reactionary forces, we need a decent percentage of Übermenschen, people who can analyse the material conditions beyond good and evil, beyond master and slave morals, and share that understanding. Let’s say at least one in twenty so that everyone knows one, personally, face to face. Ideally, everyone, but I doubt that’ll ever be the case because division of labour.
As to anti-communist – why would I care, I’m an Anarchist.
Lol. Lmao, even.
I’d think you’d care for practical reasons, at least. Has there ever been an instance of severe persecution of communists without lumping in anarchists as well? I’m seriously asking; I just know that the Red Scare targeted anarchists just as much as communists, but idk if that changed at all over the course of the century.
I’d think that in the practical sphere it’s irrelevant what a philosopher says as there’s always going to be, say, a sister, which will bend the philosophy to whatever opinion the anti-intellectuals in charge like to hear.
The solution is to have a populace informed enough to not put such people in charge.
As to our own Red Scare over here: Yes the Radikalenerlass also targeted Anarchists but it was abolished before I started shool, or the GDR collapsed. What gets you in trouble nowadays is (as the constitution intended from the start) trying to undermine the free and democratic basic order and I don’t do that. I want to radically expand it, in a Kantean sense my politics are those which make it a natural law, see homeostasis.
One more point here, made clearly by Marx, is that understanding how systems shape humans both as individuals and as a society is not de-humanising, it’s possibly the most humanising something can be. To be human is to be shaped entirely by your environment and your reactions to it simultaneously, and mass psychology is how we come to have anything remotely psychological to be. It’s finding how to live as both a human individual and a human who partakes in, creates, or grows away from mass psychologies. This misunderstanding is exactly Nietzsche hate for the masses. He attempted to understand HIMSELF as not human in this way and create a philosophy around it, while he himself was calling back to individual, anti-change philosophies from the Greeks who did the same (Plato as opposed to Aristotle)
is that understanding how systems shape humans both as individuals and as a society is not de-humanising, it’s possibly the most humanising something can be.
Yes but no. It’s dangerous territory, promising both great rewards yet also containing fatal traps: The problem is reducing our own understanding and with that perception of the world to our intellectual understanding. To paint a caricature: When you start to measure mouth angles to figure out whether someone’s happy instead of relying on your mirror neurons (“subjective interpretation”, cry the Skinnerites). Psychology itself is a very good example here, they legitimately did have to make studies to prove that mood and posture are connected because there were just too many sceptics around with their heads up in their theories, disconnected from their own humanity, their perception of reality having become limited to those theories, not unwilling but unable to see things that don’t come with a p value. And that’s within psychology itself have a good guess how it’s in other disciplines. Not really that relevant in say mathematics, but in economics? As said: Fatal.
Evolution already gave us tools to understand the world. Sure, it also enabled us with rationality, the capacity for science, but to deny that natural understanding is just as bad as shutting off our rationality, it alienates ourselves from our own nature with contains both, in both cases we’re incomplete. And for the record: It also provided us with the capacity to mistake social conditioning for actual intuition.
And yes this all is very much the crisis of the millennium but OTOH you shouldn’t worry too much evolution already seems to have accounted for it: Skinnerites tend to be unfuckable. That’s because they’re alienated from their own nature, and that makes you ugly.
To be human is to be shaped entirely by your environment and your reactions to it simultaneously, and mass psychology is how we come to have anything remotely psychological to be.
There’s variance in human psychology that makes individual either more or less prone to move with the flock, or look at it critically, it’s a necessary condition for societies to be even half-way functional: With only pure flock swimmers we’d be blindly following each other down cliffs, with only pure critics we’d not be a social species in the first place. And a society made of solely flock swimmers would not develop a critical understanding of psychology in the first place. And when I say “variance” here I very much mean nature, not nurture, nurture in this instance only comes into play if the nature happens to be ambivalent.
Only replying to the first paragraph: you’re doing the exact thing I’m describing by defining “intellectual” in an individualized way (you say our, but you’re defining it as each individual, not understanding its basis in the collective).
I’m not gonna talk any more because you’re not really saying much interesting. You’re just defining everything as opposites and not seeing the dialectic between it, but then we’re getting to an ages old argument that just results in me saying ‘read Hegel’ and that’s it
you’re doing the exact thing I’m describing by defining “intellectual” in an individualized way
Collective understanding is a composite of individual understandings. How the fuck can you make this a contradiction. If (a sufficient number of) individuals make that mistake, then so does the collective. If the collective makes that mistake, then necessarily so do individuals – or, if they don’t, get burned at the stake or banished or ignored or whatever, metaphorically or literally.
read Hegel
I’m not a Hegelian. My theoretical scaffold is generally cybernetics. If you hear me use the term Aufhebung then only because people don’t know WTF a metasystem transition is.
There is an inherent contradiction to defining intellectual either as individual or collective, but you’re not a Hegelian or a marxist so that’s why Im just done with the Convo, it’s not interesting because we’re not gonna get past that
to defining intellectual either as individual or collective,
Which is not what I’m doing? Both individual and collective capacities for thought are part of the overall system, collective both in the societal and species (evolutionary) sense (see bio-psycho-social model).
but you’re not a Hegelian or a marxist
Cybernetics is one of major tools of the creation of a communist society. That’s not me saying that that’s the 22nd Congress of the CP of the USSR. The party has decided, comrade, remember your responsibility in the face of democratic centralism! Agree with this random Anarchist!
You act as if cybernetics supersedes basic philosophical presuppositions. Of course I support cybernetic sciences like any other scientific study of systems, but if you think you’re doing this independent of an undergirding philosophy you’re entirely wrong.
The only difference in the first paragraph is understanding not just that these are parts of a system, but that in practice they define one another directly through their internal contradictions (which are related to each other). Again, you’re just an anti-hegelian who thinks you’re above defining your own metaphysics.
I also am entirely unconvinced you read either of those articles in their entirety
But I’m not going to convince you here, and my replying is only to you at this point, nobody else will read. So hopefully you read those and try to grasp the underlying philosophy, but I’m out
Ok you pull me back in, read some philosophy of science which is at the basis of your beliefs here. There are such huge assumptions under the ideas of mutual feedback you’re representing here. I’m a Systems Engineer, I get the appeal and genuinely base my scientific analysis of socio economics in the ideas that I’ve developed through that lens. But I also understand the limitations of this because I’ve read philosophy of science at the most basic level.
You sound like the people who think that math is a formally complete system and base worldviews on it (“everything is math and we can understand all that happens by the math at the quantum levels and even below eventually”) without realizing that the experts of the field are completely against this interpretation, and even claim it’s disproven. You’re doing intuitionism but I don’t think you realize it. I do it too, because it’s easiest for understanding and useful, but I know it’s limited
No system can be both consistent and complete. Worse, all logical statements are based on either paradox, circular reasoning, or axioms not provable from those statements. And I’m not exactly sure whether you meant that kind of intuitionism (the constructive maths kind) or the “don’t discount your intuition” kind but, yes, I very much do both. Both tell us that our models are limited, shadows on the cave wall and all (and it is no coincidence that cybernetics itself models that limitation very nicely). Maths tells us by formal proof, intuition and instincts by incessantly insisting that there’s a world outside of our heads, something that refuses to vanish even when we cease to believe in it. It’s actually quite a feat to shut that whole thing off, and I constantly wonder how people manage to not run into lamp posts all the time.
Lastly, let me share a nasty shower thought (literally, thought of it this morning in the shower): It would be very anti-Hegelian of you to be fundamentally opposed to the sublation of Hegelian dialectics. I even got quite formal with it (though please don’t ask me to write it in Greek), identifying sublation with MSTs. Mull about it.
Hegelian dialectics was possibly sublated by marx, but Marx’s dialectic is not a dialectic idea but a material world which does exist as a basic assumption that is perfect for any theory which intends to be useful. You cannot sublate the material world itself. But again, I think that you are under the impression that, because you thought of a quick gotcha, that this hasn’t already been thought about and written by many scholars before you. Hegel himself saw this gotcha coming
Nah I’m just confused by the way you reacted to me saying “I’m not a Hegelian”, apparently completely dismissing cybernetics as a framework even though it can very much express Hegelian thought. It’s not like I said “I’m a seventh day adventist and all your arguments shall be in the form of bible quotes or they’re invalid” or something like that.
As far as I am concerned, regarding choice of base formalism other people use: Do whatever. If need be I’ll find the corresponding isomorphism in what I’m comfortable with, make the argument, project it back into your formalism, then say it out aloud. Coming to think of it when I put it like this my basic model might actually be category theory. Choice of formalism is very much a matter of convenience, and cybernetics happens to be darn convenient for pretty much everything, and has very important insights of its own to contribute.
I’m not read in Hegel and Hegelians so I’m asking you, do they talk about things like branching growth at the penultimate level following MSTs/sublation? It certainly neatly explains e.g. the increase in number in different erm sects both on the left and right following the initial clashes, in the sense that a sublation already exists and is exerting control, is in the process of getting refined as it is refining the old thesis-antithesis pair by deconstructing both.
(And yes I just called “left unity” anti-Hegelian, deal with it :)
I dismissed cybernetics as a way to supplant the need for an underlying philosophy, which is what you were doing at the beginning. You can study cybernetics and believe it’s supported by dialectics, but the other way is nonsense. I am in no way dismissing that MST s are another way to talk about dialectical movements, but it is not dealing with the essence of a thing or that thing in itself at the level of philosophy. Hegelians talk about similar things very often, with a lot of the examples on the pages shown being almost identical in form to things Engels pointed out. But saying you’re not a Hegelian (we mean dialectician here, you’re likely not a marxist either) indicates to me that our disagreement is not at the level of cybernetics, but at the level of what causes such interactions at all
I’d contend that both are actually the same thing. However that’s metaphysics which I have a severe dislike for (as in: it’s pointless) so maybe that’s why I lump it all up in one thing, and in any case, however that may be: You will find neither of them in any model, anywhere. It’s the very nature of a model to not be the thing itself.
I’m quite sure you’ll say “yes” when I ask whether you understand the difference between map and territory. Is that understanding you have of that, however, on the level of the map, or on the level of the territory?
Those are the actually tough nuts to crack when rooting models, when fishing for axioms to ground things with. To understand the shape of the wall Plato’s shadows get cast on, so that you know how the structure of the wall influences their shape, to be a giant iota closer to understanding.
It would, indeed, be a shame if being a Hegelian meant regressing the “know thyself” aspect to far behind what the Stoics had already figured out in spades.
indicates to me that our disagreement is not at the level of cybernetics, but at the level of what causes such interactions at all
Is that important? Is it not more important to identify and characterise interactions? Physicists with different beliefs about the ultimate mechanics of quantum uncertainty get along just fine. Personally, as already alluded to with metaphysics, I’m happy to say “yeah whatever causes that, causes that”, I have no need or desire for distinctions beyond the measurable.
The neopagan religion stuff (which is a pretty good signifier of neo-nazi ideology) and Wagner stuff does not come from the photo. There is evidence that he is a Nazi that has nothing to do with the photo. Idk, I feel pretty confident saying he’s a Nazi.
alright so I traced the neopagan thing back to its source, and it looks like it ultimately came from Radio Free Europe, an interview with a Wagner commander. Obviously not everything that RFE publishes is false, but it’s not really my favorite source to rest my claims on. It seems like all other reporting on Utkin being a neopagan comes from there. If you want to take a look, here (it’s archived).
I think the neo-Nazi stuff rests on more solid ground though
In that same report, Bellingcat includes a statement which confirms that the famous Dmitry Utkin who’s been tied to Russian mercenary activity is not the same Utkin whose (supposed) Nazi tattoo photo has been widely shared by pro-NATO propagandists on social media. Bellingcat states about Prigozhin’s catering company Concord, whose CEO’s name was also Dmitry Utkin: “the Dmitry Valeryevich Utkin in fact appointed as CEO was not the Wagner Group commander. In fact, this Dmitry Utkin was created just a month earlier – through a legal name change (permissible in Russia) of a little-known St. Petersburg resident, eighteen years younger than the original Utkin and having only three months of prior management experience running his own startup company: Alexey Karnaukhov.” Karnaukhov is the alleged neo-Nazi who these propagandists claim is a mercenary commander. In reality, he’s nothing more than a business partner of Prigozhin, a business partner whose role is wholly detached from mercenary activities. And because he looks vaguely similar to the shirtless, scowling man with Nazi tattoos on his shoulders who’s appeared in a viral photo, the Ukrainian disinformation agents have falsely claimed he’s the same person as this man.
Putin’s propaganda is that the invasion of Ukraine is to denazify Ukraine. Basically any of his violent action is justified by calling his enemies Nazis and referring to the Soviet war against Nazi Germany (same as when the USA call others terrorists). So if he shot the plane, it’s because it had Nazis. Top comment may support this way of thinking.
He is/was despicable as the leader of mercenaries ready to sell their services to any authoritarian regime, but I don’t see clear relationship with Nazism, do you have sources? It seems weird to me that a Nazi would accept to work for African juntas for example.
If you think I follow the ideology a specific movement, I’m afraid to tell you I don’t. So I’m not sure what the former liberal consensus was. The Wikipedia article (generally consensual, I guess) does mention that a sub-group in particular is: the Rusich unit. It seems ironic that Putin pretends to fight Nazism by using Nazis, unless the goal is that they self-destruction, but I guess that’s a fantasy.
Putin never said he sought to annihilate Nazism in general, at least not that I know of. He said that among his goals is to denazify Ukraine, which I believe is true simply because the Ukrainian Nazis are his most hardliners opponents there. He does also crack down on Russian fascists when they become inconvenient to him (like darling of the west Navalny), but I don’t think he ever claimed to be an antifascist.
Dmitry Utkin (who was also on the plane) is definitely a nazi, and Wagner has a lot of links to far-right elements in Russia. Wagner itself is supposed to reference Richard Wagner, Hitler’s favorite composer
so Prigozhin is definitely in bed with nazis but idk anything about his actual beliefs
Both can be true at the same time, with the caveat that actual Nazis aren’t called Nazis in Russia but nationalists, patriots, suchlike.
But in the end Prigozhin might not have been a Nazi – in the ideological sense – but simply a crook. You don’t really need a racist or such ideology to build a colonial empire in Africa, plain ole criminal mindset suffices.
Putin’s propaganda is that the invasion of Ukraine is to denazify Ukraine.
No that’s Biden’s propaganda. Putin only mentioned it along with a laundry list of reasons. But besides, Ukraine’s ultranationalism is heavily based on Nazism.
Dmitry Valerievich Utkin … was a Russian army officer. He served as a special forces officer in the GRU, where he held the rank of lieutenant colonel. He is alleged to have founded the Wagner Group
According to several news outlets, Utkin is an admirer of Nazi Germany and has multiple Nazi tattoos, including Schutzstaffel (SS) insignia.
The tattoos are visible in multiple public photos.
The moment they go above a certain amount and still act shitty, they are food.
I wouldn’t care about rich people if they just paid their workers, paid their taxes, looked at reducing the pollution of their companies, didn’t lobby against the public interests, and just were all around swell people.
The problem is that they aren’t, none of them are.
Either they become like that from being rich, or only awful people are moralless enough to become rich. But there isn’t a single good rich person.
Yup, the problem is firmly the system, but suggesting a worldwide change to socialism/communism is less “palatable” and believable by the average person.
So “eat the rich” is a decent compromise for a comment not intended to approach any sort of complex answer, while still being a move in a better direction than suggesting things to continue as they are.
Suggesting a replacement system is infinitely more palatable to me than another Reign of Terror followed by (presumably) the same mistakes. Revolutionary defense is fine, but we don’t need bloody revenge.
Redistributing the wealth of billionaires is already part of a good structural change, it’ll remove from them power they’d use to continue the exploitation of the people. You can substitute “crush” by destitute and incarcerate them if you’d prefer, as long as the wealth isn’t on the hands of the few anymore.
It’s pretty wild that the US engaged in an economic attack that destroyed the Japanese economy, despite the Japanese government pretty much being a US puppet running on a constitution the US wrote, because they were too good at making VCRs.
I hope ppl remember is that the US didn’t want to be in either world war. After that second round the US fundamentally changed. And that change wasn’t desired by the US. But they felt it needed to happen. No one wants another hitler. Stalin has already shown himself to be a mass murder. The massive problem is that those who were aggressive then took over. Using that reality and fear to do it. But one thing that holds is that for 4 years the US had the bomb alone and didn’t use that for territorial gain. Same can’t be said for Soviets. The US was tired of war and wanted peace and prosperity to return. From that era I can’t defend. But this series of events in my experience are not well reflected upon.
The US didn’t have the logistics to project power globally like they can today. What exactly would you propose they drop a bomb on? Moscow?
People love to criticize famines in China and Russia as being mismanagement by government (and they are), but they’re missing the forest for the trees. Prior to the communist governments, famines were a common occurrence in China and Russia.
The Sichuan famine in 1936 killed 5 million. The famine in 1928 killed 6 million. The Chinese famine in 1906 killed 20 million. The Chinese famine in 1876 killed 10 million.
Yet, since the Great Leap Forward? China has not experienced a single famine. Similarly, the last famine in Russia was in 1947. People sit in their ivory towers where food can be imported from around the world and 40% of food is wasted and wonder why so many people died trying to get something so accessible. Meanwhile, places in Africa are still experiencing mass famine and nobody cares.
It’s been like this for a long time. Remember the Maine! And all that. I tried to nail it down once and I think like two US wars in it’s whole centuries long history of ruthless warmongering haven’t been wars of naked aggression conudcted under a false causus belli.
China has massive demographic problems stemming from decades of the one child policy.
So the “new federation” is just going to be made up of mostly elderly Chinese (because of the one child policy) and elderly Russians because the young people died fighting in Putin’s stupid war or left before they could be drafted.
Yes comrade, the future will be run by elderly fascist federation LOL.
Fascism is a self-destructive thing, we’re seeing it happening in Russia, and we’re starting to see the signs of China’s fascist regime (ironically called a Communist Party) self-destructing.
do you mean the one child policy that ethnic minorities were explicitly exempt from? or is there another one child policy you made up to support your position?
idk if youve read any of the papers on AI research coming out of china like i have (i translated them from mandarin to english), but they have little concern for the economics of this, the CPC’s goals are to increase automation so less people output more, and have been doing so in the construction sector at a breakneck pace. china recently built the world’s largest hoover-like arch dam in four years (which would usually take 12-16 years in other countries with modern standards), and plans to reduce it even more down to two years, all while cutting the number of people working on the project. theyre basically ‘3d printing’ dams by having robotic cement trucks act as extruders and have automated sensors that determine the density of concrete to insure safety. workplace accidents are very down as well.
also idk if you know this, but china is increasing reliability and durability of appliances and making it easier to hotswap factories from different types of production easier in order to meet public demands for goods. theyre really a powerhouse scientifically, and are focusing on far more important issues than the west are
also to further compare to the hoover dam, this produces 62 terawatt hours of electricity per year while the hoover dam produces 5 terawatt hours. should be noted that the hoover dam was built in 5 years and had around 200 deaths during construction too. so theyre able to exceed a literal breakneck murderous pace of construction from the 1930s with no reported major injuries via automation while producing 12 times as much power.
Even if China’s demographic issues are as big as dumbass clickbait YT vids and reddit comments make it out to be that would still put China in the demographic position of SK a couple of decades ago. S. Korea quintupled industrial production between 1992-2010 and their productivity rose x6 while it’s factory workforce dropped 25%. It’s all about education, tech, and productivity. More important than the aggregate Chinese population is the technically proficient,college educated, Chinese population. That has grown 20-fold, or by 2,000%, in the past 40 years and will continue to grow due to the hundreds of millions of untapped rural population despite the decline in population.
So point is, economy is still growing. The plan has always been to create self-sustaining growth in exports to the Global South with BRI infrastructure + productivity leap at home. Both of those aspects show great success. Exports and imports to the GS are expanding and the entire SEA is brought in the sphere of Chinese digital economy. The “greater China” economy includes another billion people in SE and Central Asia.China is getting 2x to 8x productivity leaps with AI/5G apps in industry/mining/logistics.
And all that is assuming China cant and will not tackle demographic issues in any other manners
You can lose half your working population if your workers can be more than twice as productive… which they can, given advancements in automation. That’s why South Korea, Singapore, Japan, and Germany punch above their weight despite also running headfirst into demographic collapse.
I’ve blocked all the nazis trying to engage with me saying nazis aren’t bad so I’ll just say this in a TLC and block more nazis when they reply -
It’s funny that all the people calling ME evil for not considering the nuances of various people’s nazi ideology… Are the same people who think women should die for wearing jeans, and that people should die for having a different religion, or die for not sharing a skin tone…
Nazis are nazis are nazis. If your world view was so different, spoilers, you wouldn’t identify with nazis. 🤷
It’s an irrelevant question leading into a off topic point that you’d like to make. If you’d like to deliver a point, go ahead and comment it. Not my job to try and land your point for you though.
Per Capita, in total, Per capita per year, or total per year? Each of these 4 types has a different answer, and the Nazis were higher in nearly every metric of slaughter.
The US is bad. The US has never been fully fascist, despite flirting with it. Nazi Germany was perhaps the most evil and oppressive country to ever exist in history, and certainly was for the 20th century.
What exactly is your point? Nazis are bad, but so is the US? I don’t think too many people on Lemmy are fans of the US, but to insinuate that the Nazis are somehow more palatable by being compared to the US is absurd.
Odd to call it “winning,” but the answer is “historical total.” The US has murdered tens of millions more over its several hundred year history than Nazi Germany killed in the less than half a century it existed.
It isn’t sanity to pretend that hundreds of years of brutal history are equally comparable to an extremely condensed period of the single most brutal country to exist in modern history. Nazism is far more evil than liberalism, even if liberalism is still inevitably evil.
Why? You keep trying to dodge that your central point is that people should stop saying Nazis are bad, because the US exists. It’s absurd and nothing more needs to be said, you aren’t willing to engage in fair or meaningful convo
My central point is that it’s complicated. Because reality is complicated. And the difference between a nazi and a regular person is much smaller than you think.
It’s all strange. What’s the point? “Hmmm, you think Nazis are bad? Have you considered that other countries are bad but significantly less bad? Checkmate!” It’s just terminally online.
I’m always interested in a decent discussion or thought experiment though, even if I completely disagree with the other person. 99% are so lazy nowadays it’s not even interesting reading their copy/paste comments that have been recycled for the last decade
If the bar for being a Nazi is merely killing people many of us would be Nazis. Personally I think nazihood has more to do with a wish to genocide (the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.).
I think people who defend nazis, their right to believe in nazi ideology, and argue that nazis are overall fine people are nazis or nazi apologists which are equally unwelcome in my circles and consciousness. Sorry, I’m not going to feel bad for hurting nazi feelings.
You can reply to this and “um actually” all you want about nazis, but if you’re pro-nazi, I’m gonna block you. Easy peasy.
Yeah I’m economically far left but socially I lean a little further right, which has gotten me called a nazi before, which is ridiculous if you actually know me haha
To be fair, understanding the damage of hierarchy economically while simultaneously rejecting intersectionality and upholding it socially is an extremely fringe view to have. Socialists with conservative social views are very rare in developed countries and online.
Tldr I’m a pantheist who believes there are simply too many people on planet earth and I’m also very intolerant towards most religions, I guess that would make you want to call me an ecofascist which I don’t really identify with either, but it’s a lot less infuriating than being called a nazi
Isn’t it funny how when you add context, “maybe Canada is taking in too many immigrants at once” turns into “yea, I’m probably better described as an ecofascist even if I don’t like the way that sounds, and I am intolerant and believe in overpopulation?”
All I’m saying is that my suspicion was a lot closer to being correct. Ecofascism is far closer to Nazism than mere “immigration too quick” ploys, and it makes sense to call you a fascist in that context.
Maybe reconsider your positions if they even put you in the vicinity of fascism? Just a hint.
Since when did disagreeing with the idea that the Earth is currently at or reaching overpopulation levels equivalent to thinking that those levels don’t exist?
You could move far, far away from Nazism and Ecofascism, and join EcoMarxists. No intolerance, no lack of intersectionality, and a true leftist movement, rather than a far-right fascist movement.
Religion is either just a cult or a business and we should be intolerant towards it just as much as Nazism imo. I am tolerant towards most things but if you believe in a man in the sky I am going to think less of you
I think we are already overpopulated, it’s easy to see from the biodiversity the planet is losing. If there were a button I could press that would kill myself and millions of other people without discrimination or pain I would press it, but that’s an impossible idea
You remind me of apologists who argue somebody can’t be a nazi even though they spout the ideology and use the language, because they aren’t on record saying “I heart Hitler” three times in a mirror.
It’s not coincidence, there’s alot more nazis running around on some nazi shit. By the way in case you didn’t know, while I don’t recall it coming up in the music (I have a Burzum CD around here somewhere) but - Burzum/Varg was increasingly on some nazi/white nationalist shit, so it’s not some “fuckin LiBrUlZ” conspiracy to call everybody a nazi, you were just wearing a shirt associated with nazi shit. 🤷
I know who varg is. It’s impossible to listen to black metal and entirely avoid this kind of thing. I was wearing a hvis lyset tar oss shirt, there are no such themes on the album, and I bought the shirt way before varg went full nazi on YouTube (it’s counterfeit anyway so he got nothing from me)
The only black metal I avoid are ones where nazi themes are explicitly in the lyrics
Do digging on the people behind any black metal band and you’ll probably find something similar, it’s extreme music made by extreme people
You’re missing the point - you weren’t called a nazi cause you were wearing a sccarryy black metal tee. You were called a nazi for wearing a nazi’s tee.
Whatevs, you’ve made it abundantly clear that you’re being intentionally obtuse in defense of nazis so I’m over it. Bye Felicia.
I would advise to call them Neo-Nazis instead of Nazis. Most Nazis are dead and Neo-Nazis are given too much distraction by giving them this easy excuse.
Check Talia Levin’s book, Culture Warlords. She spent a year undercover online as a far-right personality and wrote about the encounters she experienced. It was a rough time, clearly. She’s in the punch-a-nazi camp and reading her book landed me there at the end.
Also, just to see if they have even the tiniest bit of plausible deniability, I checked out Midgard’s shop. There’s overtly white supremacist shit ALL OVER the place.
It’s not like these people accidentally supported a band with reprehensible beliefs behind the scenes. It’s not like a totally normal music shop turned out to be a front for white supremacists. There’s note even any serious argument about “separating art from the artist.” The leak includes what people bought, and you can tell when someone bought overtly white supremacist music. And even if they didn’t, and the band or album name doesn’t give anything away, what’s it doing at the Nazi store? Why isn’t it streaming, or on Bandcamp, or self-distributed? These customers still had to know there’s an obscure Nazis music store, what it’s called and where to find it, confirm that it’s a Nazi store the moment they went there, and still give them money and their address to place a mail order. Oh, some of them aren’t native English speakers? Then that just makes it even more damning that they did all this with a language barrier in place!
Plus, just look at the apologists in this thread. They’re fucking cowards. They can’t just come out with their beliefs, so they’re just asking questions, deflecting from the topic. One is concern trolling for the fundamental humanity of literal Nazis, despite the fact that the main fucking problem with Nazis is that they considered marginalized groups subhuman. Where’s the concern there? Why the focus on the people who oppose Nazis rather than the Nazis themselves? Another one could barely resist giving the game away by saying they’ve been called a Nazi before because of their anti-immigrant positions.
The people defending this shop and its customers aren’t serious people. They’re dishonest, cowardly, and stupid.
The “see translation” feature for user bios was auto-translating phrases that included “Palestinian” and “alhamdulillah” into “Praise be to god, Palestinian terrorists are fighting for their freedom.”
worldnews
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.