Basman

Killing combatants during a just war isn't seen as objectively bad nor is killing during self-defence. The lines can be blurred but generally I think its easy to justify those kinds of murder. A more interesting question is if its justified to torture someone you highly suspect to be a terrorist who has allegedly planted a ticking time bomb? Is it objectively bad to torture?

"Objectively" here seems pretty loaded, since what is considered objective can itself be relative, human survival bias being the strongest bias we have (avoid pain, gain pleasure). From a human perspective, rectal bleeding without further context is "objectively" bad because its painful but it could be "good" in the aforementioned context of it being a side-effect of life saving medicine. Therefor, rectal bleeding isn't objectively bad but it can seem so depending on your perspective. In the same sense, its not objectively bad if a rogue sniper meteorite hits your head and kills you. Practically, in the business of being human, rectal bleeding is "objectively bad" in most cases but it can change meaning depending on the context because it is not inherently bad outside of a human perspective and therefor the meaning can be changed to what suits the human bias. Like giving a car a new coat of paint. The car is still "objectively" metal underneath the paint but the paint makes it appear differently. Rectal bleeding can be funny instead of bad for instance.

Hitler was literally inspired by how America ethnically cleansed the Native population.

"America first" politically isn't even about making the US a better country. Its clear that a lot of the policies that Trump promotes actually undermine the country in the long-term and hurt every day citizen. Its really a bid for power and selling off the economy veiled in a veneer of American exceptionalism. Wanting to control Greenland for instance is primarily about controlling access to the resources there in my opinion without having to deal with for instance annoying pollution rules. The US already has access to using Greenland for military and business purposes without having to pay for the upkeep which Denmark currently does.

Its a huge transformation if real, though there's a heavy use of makeup. All of that work to transition just to end up insecure and self-conscious like dime a dozen women.

You should've told her that you already cast a spell on her.

I used to host group meditations at a school I went to once. A regular one day came with her friend who said she just wanted to observe. After the meditation her friend was grilling me on what meditation is exactly with a tone of suspicion. They where both Christian and she was worried that her friend was doing something satanistic or pagan or whatnot.

Thanks, ChatGPT. Just kidding. I certainly haven't considered connection being a possible important factor in therapy. Makes sense considering people tell you to shop around to find a therapist you gel with. A part of why AI is attractive as well is because its less confronting compared to laying out your insecurities and what not to an actual person and experiencing their reaction.

That's funny because I always feel like I'm arguing with soyboy liberals. I guess hard conservatism tends to be too obvious. I find a lot of lefty views here overly idealistic and removed from reality. In my mind as a plebian, if I had lots of money I would just relax and enjoy life. But I guess I'm not accounting for the kind of mind that it would take to accumulate that kind of wealth or if you where brought up into it.

Maybe you just need to chill out a bit. Not trying come off as judgy or anything.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/10/439190586/marine-corps-study-finds-all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units Here's a study that finds that all male combat units have overall better performance. I don't know if this study is possibly out of date or not. The military solves a fundamental and arguably existential problem for society (large scale unregulated violence and tribalism). My stance is that everyone should have the opportunity to enlist but at the end of the day operational function trumps all other concerns. It doesn't matter who's feelings get hurt. Its raw pragmatism.

Its fair to question the militaries methodology when selecting recruits but enlistment is not a privilege at the end of the day. You can be motivated and pass all requirements but still be rejected if the military has no need for you. Recruitment should be on the basis of maintaining operational function. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't see women ever joining special forces for instance besides one in a million freaks of nature when the majority of men already wash out. I don't see there being any factual evidence that trans are necessarilly less fit to serve however and this particular issue dribbles like a ball everytime theres a new president, undoing the policy change of the previous president, which makes me think that its largely ideological. That said, you could perhaps make the argument that it could harm cohesion. A battalion of nazis is going to be less effective if you start inducting Californian hippies into the fold.

I guess I underestimated Musk if that is all true. I thought he was a just cringey edgelord. He must have a pretty wacky worldview to not be content with just being inanely rich. Though we already knew that he's an egomaniac.

Africa is like a hardcore PVP server with permanent survival debuffs. Europe is more like creative mode in comparison (they patched out PVP after the WW2 expansion).

We already deny people entry into the military if they have a criminal record or fail certain health and fitness standards. If being trans undermines the capability of the military to serve its function then its fair to deny them the ability to serve. That is if. I don't know if that is actually case. If its note the case then its problematic and America is denying itself capable soldiers. The military is not a humanist organization. Its much more pragmatic than that.

I got cancelled over a rape joke once (at a party). Got written up with the accusation that I'm sexist and had to come to a hearing and everything. It took a month and a half to get the paper work done before they cleared me. They couldn't find the sexist in me. Completely ridiculous. Snappy. No curiosity in things that you aren't directly interested in. One-sided conversations about your passion. Generally abrasive. Sounds like autism.

I agree that its stupid and immature. Personally, I think he's just being edgy. You have to consider that this is the same guy who literally pays people to level his account in a game so he can say he good at games. The fact that he is in politics is a travesty. Calling him a Nazi sympathizer might be unfair if there is no hard evidence however. I'm just being fair. Your "fa*****" example is an example where someone is clearly being hostile. That is the issue there. If you call your mate a "breedable and demure fa*****" on the down-low then that is clearly not problematic. Don't get so wrapped up in the content. I'm not knowledgeable of SA apartheid ideology. Does Musk subscribe to that? If so, then maybe he is a Nazi sympathizer. I wouldn't hold such a strong opinion of someone without stronger evidence, personally.

Subscribing to Nazi ideology.

The guy in this video proves my point. There is no evidence that Musk is an actual Nazi.

I'm not denying how it comes off, but intention matters. Its the difference between homicide and manslaughter. If someone goes around calling people fa** then that is a clear intent of hurting people but its not fair to judge people just on appearances. What if he's just British and wants a smoke? Get of your moral high horse. The point is I don't see there being any hard evidence that he is an actual Nazi. If more information comes out and proves that he is Nazi then I'll change my mind but that is currently not the case. That said, its fine to criticize an action, and what Musk did was stupid and bad, but don't start judging his character prematurely like a high schooler.

He claims it was a Roman salute. you claim otherwise. Who's right?

I only get my political commentary from Teal Swan.

The Hot Wheels of politics.

Dr. K is merely explaining why people, young men in particular, voted Trump. Whether or not people will use that information to entrench themselves politically or ideologically is besides the point. I think the forum is turning into a bit of a Stage Green liberal circle jerk lately. So much demonization and badmouthing. Very little considering of other perspectives, lesser as they may seem. A lot of thinking of one's perspective as the default correct position. It should be obvious at this point that people don't vote with any degree of rigor. Its almost incidental whether or not a political nominee is a fascist or a hippie.

How do you know that he is siding with Nazis? So far it seems just like jumping to conclusions because you don't like his politics.