pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @didiplaywell 7 Oct \ parent \ on: The Doomers Are Wrong: Millennials are Better Off Than Boomers (Reason, Stossel) econ
Exactly.
Agents like this always and only are " playing along." That's what they do.
Exactly right. ChatGPT does the exact same all the time. It even states it will do just that right from the start in many situations. It's standard routine. Anthropic is just playing the marketing game. Can't blame them, that's the game.
"just buy american" "4D Chess lmao" "#WINNING"
As Trump leads America straight down the Peronist decadence spiral right when the Chinese are rising more than ever (timing being superb), I invite you to sing your new anthem:
it sounds like
I side with all @kepford's statements, which resonate with mine from our prior discussion. Nothing changes.
I saw that video, and I saw the part corresponding to your excerpt. I'm not the one omitting anything here. You are. The only part of your argument that could be meaningful is "sources have said he was afraid of assassination by Mossad". Yet, conveniently, right there, "sources" are omitted. While all actual, existing sources simply talk about his (understandable) discontent, yet, again, underpin his unwavered support for Israel in the war, making it senseless for israel to having him eliminated while leaving alive and well a guy like Tucker Carlson, who has a much more blunt stance on Israel. Again, it all makes no sense at all.
Not only I directly saw the sources you point at but I also saw exactly the video you just posted, in which what I said is repeatedly confirmed, with insistence from both Kirk and Kelly, and with great emphasis every time. Israel killing Kirk for his pro stance not only on their right to defend themselves but, in his own words, for the importance for them to win, simply, do not adds up.
This is what isn't adding up. You first state that:
He was one of the few who was extremely reliably very favorable to pro-Israel policy.
But then you state the opposite right below:
There's loads of right wingers that are completely and absolutely pro Israel.
It's either one or the other.
Then, about
But if you look at the links above, he was definitely becoming far more skeptical
I did saw the links and it's not what I saw. In his latest interviews right before his death he was adamant that he stood with Israel in their battle and that he wanted them to win against the terrorists.
I get he had a large youth following but he was nowhere near public figures like Tucker Carlson who has much more blunt views on Israel. It's not like they would have "killed all possibilities of the USA being against Israel once and for all", like if Kirk was key for such a purpose or something. Kirk, the one guy with the most dialogist stand among the right, killed to ensure more dialogue and a closer relationship with Israel. It do not makes any sense. Kirk's assassination what has stupid and pointless as the deranged person who committed it: it was a pure act of folly and fanaticism.
Israel is well known for assassinations.
Your links point toward missions against military targets. In war you, indeed, kill. Should I present you with the list of "assassinations" the US army committed during WWI? WWII? Korea? Vietnam? Irak? soon Venezuela, etc. What you point at makes no sense.
I get that there was a conflict of interests. But trying to frame it as "Kirk was assassinated by the jews for making some critics against them" do not makes any sense. Why would you kill the one guy in the right that still stands for you, and make sure only the full blown anti-semites remain? There's plenty of public figures in the US who, contrary to Kirk, devote their time to speak ill of the jews. There's also plenty of high profile public figures that have expressed the exact same points of Kirk. All of them are fine, but Kirk was the problematic one to be eliminated by the jews themselves? It just doesn't add up.
To start, they include an economic scheme in the religion, which already says a lot about the (correct) importance they give to economy not merely culturally but right from the very religious texts. The texts contemplate the basic principle of private property and exchange, and they make a crucial distinction on how they approach wealth respect to christianity: while christians thank god for the wealth they have, jews thank god for giving them strength to be able to have wealth. So while in christianity the only way to have wealth is by god's mercy, in judaism it's entirely up to yourself, and having wealth is not a discretional, seldom act of god's mercy, but an actively human act god expects you to do. That is: wealth is a good thing and something you should look after, not a bad thing and something you should refrain from as in christianity. All of those basic principles align fundamentally with libertarianism and, further, with capitalism.
Also...what's up with Milei being so extremely pro-Israel?
There are many reasons to that:
- Milei openly professes judaism, even quotes the Torah in his presidential speeches. He considers Judaism to be the highest form of religion because it's the one that aligns the most with his libertarian tenets, which is true. You can tell that he's very vehement on what he believes in so, as much as he has been vehement on his economical and political tenets, he will be on his religious ones. I'm atheist personally, so I really, really don't care, as much as people in general don't care for as long as he accomplishes his objectives.
- Milei holds as the very basis of the fight for freedom the need for what he calls "the cultural battle", in the sense that no sane governmental or economical scheme is possible in a society that do not aligns in its core principles with those schemes, so society must be first naturally predisposed. To ensure that, society must be educated on the principles of liberty, but at the most fundamental core, it's religion the one that leads the way. If the religion of a society conflicts with the idea of freedom, said society will, even if well versed on the tenets of freedom, naturally drift towards totalitarianism. So, while he personally made that decision, he tries to have an influence on people to induce at least a level of religiosity around the idea of freedom, which has already developed among the youth in the shape of a pseudo religion, what the youth calls "the forces of heaven". I'm an engineer, and the religion of an engineer is engineering, so I really don't care, but I fully understand and, honestly, support, his view.
- Argentina has an extremely dirty past: 3.1 By the end of WWII the nazis planned to revive the Reich in and from Argentina, so it's well documented that numerous submarines brought a lot of gold and high ranking officers to the country and initiated nazi cells that survived decades long after the end of WWII. Even Himmler was found here being part of one. So, while the USA may have retrieved scientists from germany, we here retrieved high ranking officials directly responsible for the mass murders in the concentration camps. Himmler being the most famous case. In the province of Cordoba there are the ruins of an hotel where those high ranking officials famously used to hang out, and there is still today serious suspicion that even Hitler himself might have been one of them. 3.2 During the 90's, muslim terrorist cells commanded directly from Iran infiltrated Argentina under very difficult to justify conditions (specially since the president at the moment, Menem, was muslim himself), and blew up the Israel Embassy, killing 85 people. The Kirchnerist regime later signed a Memorandum with Iran in which it agreed not to keep pursuing legal actions against the terrorists, which where already identified by the time. Cristina Kirchner, the one responsible for it, was about to be sent to court for high treason due to that, but she commanded the assassination of the attorney responsible for the case, Nisman, the night right before. As she did it under his regime, the investigation of Nisman assassination never took off. 3.3 So, Milei has very, very, very good reasons to be willing to have the closest relationship possible with Israel in order to sort all of this mess out. Israel in turn is the only force that can provide him with the intelligence services needed. Results were immediate, as right in the first year of his mandate a local muslim terrorist cell was terminated. And there have to be many, many more things that will remain secret.
I'm sure inflation numbers in Argentina are just as meaningless and false as they are in the US.
The previous regime was infamous for blatant manipulation of the inflation index and all metrics in general so you are justified on being reserved about it. The final judge is real life experience. I can confirm, from personal and third hand experience, that inflation has faded and some prices tend to remain fixed for months now. You may hear supporters of the previous regime complain that "how can you say inflation is down?? prices remain high!!" in a majestic display of the legendary inability of the left to do math: low or no inflation means prices stop increasing, not that they will "go down". At this point so much time as gone by and the tendency is so undeniable in real life that I'm pleased to say you can look into even opposing media and they openly recognize inflation has effectively faded, so they have now switched to complain on "the way he did it".
Hello Sr!
The section from my previous post on the "monetary expansion" part is this one (links to sources in original post):
The reference is a twit of himself pointing out the monetary expansion. The question should be, how's that possible, if no more money is being emitted, and inflation is currently below 2% and decreasing? how such a brutal increment didn't cause an instant increment in inflation?... oh yes! Debt payoffs! There's indeed no new money nor new debt, the "monetary expansion" simply being the result of operations that cause existing money to be accounted for, as in this case, existing debt monetization. In order to ensure the reintegration of the country into the international credit system (and the finance ecosystem overall), Milei has stated it's paramount to honor the debts and not to incur in new ones, and so far this has been respected strictly.
Thank you buddy, on one hand I do it because I like to practice being able to deal with this extreme levels of idiocy. You will see in the last response of the CCP bot that I got him to vomit utter retardment as a last resource. I consider myself accomplished. It's like a programming-learning videogame. On the other hand, I know sometimes someone will look at this and that will be worth it, so thank you.
Plunder is quite simply wealth creation and accumulation. It is capital raising in the most direct form!
Enough said. You're clinically retarded.
The Opium Trade was not profitable for British and other nations traders who engaged in the trade???
Chose one. Now you talk about wealth being generated by trade. Excellent example of actual growth being caused by the absence of government intervention. But then, when you have to reinstate the figure of government intervention, you recur to the image of an "exploited China". If wealth was generated that way, then it was, as you yourself expressed, plunder. If it was not generated that way, then it was, as you yourself expressed, absence of government allowing for the free market to do its job.
Chose One!! Really? OMG! Please! Get real! FFS!
it was only with the support of the Dutch government and the consistent ability to make and enforce contracts
Chose one. Now you talk about thread being generated by enforcement. Excellent example of an empire plundering its vassals. But then, when you have to reinstate the figure of commerce, you recur to the image of trade. If wealth was generated that way, then it was, as you yourself expressed, absence of government allowing for the free market to do its job. If it was not generated that way, then it was, as you yourself expressed, plunder.
Chose One!! Really? OMG! Please! Get real! FFS!
If you knew history, you would stick to history. Instead, you wander about whatever fits the narrative the party imposed upon you in the moment.
I did gave a fact based assertion: your assumptions and assertions are false. Hence all I could say about them: no.
The British Empire via the East India Company could only force trade upon China because of its superior navy and cannons.
Plunder of one empire over the other. Not "wealth production". Not "societal outcome". Absolute Zero Game, aka Plunder.
They demanded Hong Kong and established the banking that enabled the Opium Trade and exploitation of China
Plunder of one empire over the other. Not "wealth production". Not "societal outcome". Absolute Zero Game, aka Plunder.
The capital markets of the Netherlands enabled global trade and wealth for the Dutch.
An excellent example of free markets doing their job without government intervention. Not at all your point.
The Spanish and Portuguese royalty sponsored conquest and exploitation of Latin America.
Plunder of one empire over the other. Not "wealth production". Not "societal outcome". Absolute Zero Game, aka Plunder.
Not a single one of your examples sustain your point. What you want me to say? All than can be said about your argument is just: no. In fact through your examples you have proved yourself wrong. And you don't realize. That makes the debate impossible to be constructive, you will not acknowledge reality even when you yourself repeat it. No debate is possible. Hence the only answer I can give you: just, no.
There will be no government in the future. Justice will be served by private insurance companies, which will also conform together, per jurisdiction, defense forces. The map will be redefined as per its local and national constitutions reversioned in the shape of a "standard" which will allow said forces to operate coherently at the jurisdictional scale where said standard applies and then enforce law. Thus the figure of jurisdiction will remain, as conglomerates of property protected by groups of private contractors wich together will conform the unified defense of said conglomerates, as a mamushka of citadels. What will be left from today's scheme is a democratic system for a conglomerate to arrive to a consensus of what the standard will be at the scale consensus is achieved, thus defining the jurisdictions.
Every wealthy empire in history evidences otherwise.
No. Not in the slightest. Every single empire in history is an evidence of the exact opposite you're saying.
You are stuck in the cartoonish introductory version of history you might have learned in elementary school and have never read any actual source beyond that.
Learn from history or be condemned to repeat it.