Bobby_2021

Lmfaooo😂

Do you replace it with some intellectually original alternative models or do nothing? The models do help in making sense a lot. Dismissing them mean you could miss out on that.

Every society has some aspects of red, blue, orange and green in it. Casting a society as a specific stage is not accurate. An ostensibly green society might have a strong red underbelly that will be invoked at times. It would be more appropriate to call it red when it is acting as such.

Yeah man it's so funny. There is no real authentic British culture so to speak.

The reason IQ breaks down after a point is not because IQ itself is a bad test. It's because IQ is a relativistic measure and there simply isn't enough people to measure it against when you go towards either ends. Dismissing IQ as vague is as good as dismissing the entire field of psychology.

@Karmadhi Caste system was effective and progressive for it's time. At least there were no chains on slaves like in the "developed" west. Our society has found a way to do all jobs without being too oppressive like slavery in the west.

Are you for real? The only good thing British left here is their language. I am not saying that the corruption some dude is running on some construction project is because of the British rule. It's more subtler than that. Nevertheless it still exists. Saying that India should be thankful for British invading her sovereignty is beyond delusional. You should check the stats before and after the British rule before saying such stuff.

This is so true. I had my first insight into solipsism in first grade afternoon when I was 6 years old. It was so much in my face that I knew that it could not be wrong, but I was still conflicted on it. Now it is all clear.

Well, we have both made our points clear prior to all this. I do not think you are making a serious point here. To be fair, I am already there. I see a lot of things that other are not seeing. I am still on the lookout for errors though.

I did not even know it was possible. Please make detailed info accessible so that I will not do it.

Immigration policy for any western country should be this: Take immigrants that add value to the economy and do not take immigrants that do not add value to the economy. I would listen to the concerns of the local population, but you also have to take into account that your economy is structured like a ponzi scheme. It needs a constant inflow of people to run it. That is how it is structured. It is a complex problem to be honest. You will have to restructure your entire economy if you want to deal with it properly.

India and China was the wealthiest at the time. They didn't need to dominate anyone to get developed. The western notion of development is too intertwined with criminal domination that they forget you can develop without having to slit each others throats. Of course I am not saying that India and China were angels, but hey look at the the degree of domination. India literally never invaded anyone ever in her 10,000 years of history and still managed to be the wealthiest nation in the world before the British colonial rule.

The domination of the west is collectively keeping the development of humanity as a whole in jeopardy. Even though they themselves get to brand themselves as higher developed, relatively speaking, it hinges upon dominating others. That's all. The USSR could have choose to drop bombs and overthrow every single small ally of US. But they held themselves to honorable restraint, the more developed position, got dominated in the end. Now we are stuck with this capitalist war machine. USSR should have never dissolved.

Nah the west wasted resources and sacrificed actual development bullying each others to death instead of cooperating with each other. They just got very good at bullying. I can give you that. That's still not development though. The only reason it payed off in the end is because west found **new lands** to bully and siphon their wealth. They constantly have to find some others to bully, else the system will crumble. Like a textbook ponzi scheme. Actual developed states are not interested in criminal domination like the west. They are interested in well being of their own people. We are on the same page here in terms of the facts. It's a matter of how you choose to frame it.

Then go the extra step and acknowledge that west is superior because they were bullies. Not because of their "development". It's a game of domination. Be honest.

Who is doing the blaming? The bully is blaming the D student for getting beaten up due to his last decade performance. Bully is the one doing victim blaming here.

They were easy targets because they couldn't fend off the aggressive military of the US. Development is not the main criteria here. Domination is. Developed countries would rather spend money on healthcare and education rather than military industrial complex. The US military domination strategy caught them off guard and humanity as a species is back with bullshit wars because of it.

I am not blaming anyone. I am merely noticing the underlying societal hivemind reacting to the external dynamism. Wherever you are living, imagine accomodating an extra 100k people or 500k people. It will destabilize the social order of that society. Uk is literally rioting in the streets because a bunch of immigrants came to live there and the local population is resisting it. Middleast is forever destabilized because of the contrived influx of jews post world war. No society can accomodate extra millions people like this without damaging the societal fabric. Because every society is going to carry it's own baggage, trauma and developmental issues along with it. And the local population will resist it because it's an infringement on their sovereignty. Perhaps I wouldn't have to "blame" the west if the west didn't poke it's nose in the middleast.

There are serious developmental issues with the muslims in middleast. 70% of the issues were caused by western involvement and 30% due to the inherent underdevelopment of the people due to other factors. The more intense the western intervention, the stronger the resistance. They keep feeding this loop over and over again, expecting different results.

Consequences may be slow, but they definitely catch up. Settler colonialism is also self defeating. Let's see if the state of Israel would exist.

Indians did plenty of what you can easily call as terrorism against the colonial British government that did far more damage to them way more than Gandhi ever could. You can do terrorism and still have the moral high ground under appropriate contexts. If you want independence without a military, what else are you supposed to do? Israel has lost the moral high ground. Oct 7 was a genius move by hamas that exposed Israel and even the US and genocidal states. And even IDF openly admitted to not being able to defeat Hamas because it's an idea. And it's true. It's the idea of resistance. People relate to it. Especially the majority of the world who were victims of colonialism. Morality always sides with weak people.

Yes of course. Palestinian military would "want" to take revenge. Israel would want to take more land. There will be significant tensions brewing between them. The status quo can be maintained. Even the radicals know the consequences of actually taking action on their revenge. There is a serious risk of radicals hijackin the new military, in the worst case scenario. But you already have an ever more terrible scenario now. Radicals terrorists are the military wing of Palestine. When you undermine or overthrow or block a legitimate government, you are going to get jihadists in power. Jihadists will easily overthrow moderates like they did with PLO. I am not saying you will get Thomas Jefferson in power by having a legitimate govt for Palestine. But there is a chance that the government will be less radical than the current hamas run Palestine.

@Leo Gura The point of having a military for Palestine is to make Israel face the consequences of its oppressive actions. If you don't give them a legitimate military, then hamas terrorists would act as their defacto military. A legitimate military for the sovereign state of Palestine could help keep even hamas in check. But instead they played 3d chess and directly funded hamas. A state not having autonomy over itself will always regress back to lower stages. Hamas will not be the military wing for the sovereign state of Palestine.

Israel is overcompensating for the collective trauma of the Jewish psyche from the persecution they had to endure over the years. Now that has given rise to Islamic resistance militias which causes even more suffering and trauma for a whole new generation of people. Even Hitler was deeply hurt in his childhood which led to overcompensate with his genocidal crusades. We are still suffering from the actions of Hitler, to be frank. Someone in the whole cycle has to take responsibility to end this with themselves instead of passing on the trauma to some other people.

@BlueOak The question is not whether those bombings and invasions were justified. The question is if NATO is a defensive alliance or not. The point is that the reasons you gave were not defensive in nature. I can give more cases, but that's not necessary. Invasion of Iraq showed that US can prop up any bullshit reason to bomb and invade any country, so it's all pretty meaningless. Just because the name of NATO was not formally used doesn't mean people don't get what's going on. If you want to keep it strictly technical, then the NATO operation in Yugoslavia is enough.