• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 17th, 2023

help-circle
  • With regard to the situation with Guaido in Venezuela, isn’t it true that the 2013 Venezuelan presidential election had a voter turnout of 79% and was extremely close? Whereas the 2018 election only had a voter turnout of 45% and Maduro was re-elected amidst widespread allegations of corruption and fraud. And for the upcoming 2024 election, multiple opposition candidates have been barred from running against Maduro.

    Since 2010, Venezuela has been suffering a socioeconomic crisis under Nicolás Maduro and briefly under his predecessor Hugo Chávez as rampant crime, hyperinflation and shortages diminish the quality of life.[6][7] As a result of discontent with the government, the opposition was elected to hold the majority in the National Assembly for the first time since 1999 following the 2015 parliamentary election.[8] After the election, the lame duck National Assembly—with a pro-government majority—filled the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, the highest court in Venezuela, with Maduro allies. The tribunal stripped three opposition lawmakers of their National Assembly seats in early 2016, citing alleged “irregularities” in their elections, thereby preventing an opposition supermajority which would have been able to challenge President Maduro.

    The tribunal approved several actions by Maduro and granted him more powers in 2017.[8] As protests mounted against Maduro, he called for a constituent assembly that would draft a new constitution to replace the 1999 Venezuela Constitution created under Chávez. Many countries considered these actions a bid by Maduro to stay in power indefinitely,[11] and over 40 countries stated that they would not recognize the 2017 Constituent National Assembly (ANC). The Democratic Unity Roundtable—the opposition to the incumbent ruling party—boycotted the election, saying that the ANC was “a trick to keep [the incumbent ruling party] in power”.[14] Since the opposition did not participate in the election, the incumbent Great Patriotic Pole, dominated by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, won almost all seats in the assembly by default.[15] On 8 August 2017, the ANC declared itself to be the government branch with supreme power in Venezuela, banning the opposition-led National Assembly from performing actions that would interfere with the assembly while continuing to pass measures in “support and solidarity” with President Maduro, effectively stripping the National Assembly of all its powers.

    And I understand that you’re not supporting Maduro. But if the US is trying to support free and fair elections which Maduro is suppressing, than they are essentially doing the opposite of supporting a fascist coup. I unfortunately don’t have time to unpack each of your scenarios.

    You’re not wrong in saying that the US has frequently intervened in Latin America for the past 200 years, right up until the present. But intervening to protect democracy is very different from intervening to support fascism, and failing to distinguish between the two is bordering on misinformation.

    Think of it this way, if it weren’t the US intervening, it’d be another foreign power. And the US primarily intervenes just to keep capitalism flowing, which is sometimes good and sometimes bad. Panama has done quite well as a result of the US intervening and building the Canal. And Latin America has largely avoided genocides and wars of the scale that we have seen in other developing countries in Asia and Africa.




  • Fascinating perspective, well expressed.

    One thing I would clarify is that there are still many different cultures in existence. Although most cultures are converging due to the global economic hegemony enforced by the US, they still maintain highly significant differences.

    For instance, in many Muslim countries, your argument wouldn’t apply as much for a wide variety of reasons, including the prevalence of arranged marriages.

    Furthermore, each generation actively produces its own culture and it can sometimes change rapidly due to changing environments. I agree with you that culture is built around human biology and in some ways remains similar across all human communities regardless of time or location. However, within that general framework, the possibilities are almost infinite, as we can see just by observing history.

    So, in this specific context, I would argue that while it’s essentially inevitable that men will take on the more dangerous and difficult roles in any given culture, the actual manifestation of that tendency can come in many different forms. Western society manifests the male disposability phenomenon in a particularly harsh manner, in my personal opinion.

    I think that many other cultural lineages may have traditionally held less demanding/dangerous expectations of masculinity. A relevant factor is that all Western nations have military traditions going back millennia, whereas many other regions of the planet do not share such an extensive history of warfare. All Western cultures essentially trace their roots back to the Roman Empire, in which basic mechanics of the male gauntlet which you speak of had already been firmly established.



  • Sounds like you just played a more limited array of sports. Football is honestly not easy without uniforms, but possible especially if 7v7 or something.

    But playing ultimate Frisbee, capture the flag, etc without uniforms is essentially impossible. Remembering who is on your team isn’t even the hard part. It’s more because you need to make quick decisions and recognize who is open immediately.

    So yeah… that’s how uniforms work. I would be baffled if they weren’t the norm.

    Did y’all use uniforms in World War II? No wonder the Germans were able to slice through your defensive lines so easily, you couldn’t tell who was on which team.






  • I don’t think him saying dumb stuff on his podcast is good evidence of a lack of intelligence. The podcast is an entertainment product, not an IQ test. Also, the likelihood of anyone saying something blatantly wrong/stupid is nearly 100% if you record them long enough and make them talk about a wide enough variety of topics.

    I don’t even wanna be defending Joe Rogan but it’s just obvious that he’s not below average intelligence, and pushing that propaganda contributes to the pervasive failure of the left to understand the grievances of the right. It’s not as simple as all conservatives being idiots.



  • Very strange argument. It seems like you’re bad at those games and created some elaborate theory to rationalize it. Class based games require just as much, if not more, skill than non-class based games. As the number of classes increases, the total amount of knowledge required and variety of techniques available also tends to increase.

    Professional players do optimize the fun out of a game, but that’s totally unrelated to the point you were trying to make.





  • Debating on whether or not minorities deserve the right to exist is not the same thing as arguing about which brand of magic sky-daddy you subscribe to.

    Why do you people keep talking about “the right to exist”? That’s nonsensical. You either exist, or you don’t. No one can take your existence away from you, it’s not a right that can be granted by others.

    What you are really talking about is the right to make assertions about the nature of human sexuality without being challenged to provide evidence for those assertions.

    It’s quite clear that you have a persecution complex. I can understand why, I’m sure you’ve had some unpleasant experiences with certain people that have caused you to adopt this defensive posture.

    However, your comment is absolutely reeking of in-group and out-group bias. Everyone who is part of your group is being unfairly persecuted, and everyone who is not part of your group is a genocidal Nazi.

    Personally, I am fully in favor of any and all expressions of sexuality, as long as the resultant behaviors and belief systems can be debated and analyzed like any other human behavior or position.

    To the neutral observer, it’s apparent that certain online communities cough are echo chambers that refuse to engage in honest discussion regarding LGBTQ topics and vigorously attempt to expel and shame those who do not adhere to the party line. This may be beneficial to your self esteem in the short run, but it ultimately does a disservice to your goals, assuming that you intend to enhance the acceptance of LGBTQ culture in our society moving forward.


  • I would argue the same is true of LGBTQ individuals. I don’t see how one could rationally argue that an infant emerges from the womb with a fully formed sense of sexuality. Sexual identity is a nebulous trait that develops throughout our lives, not an objective, immutable physical fact such as the color of one’s skin or the chromosomes composing one’s genetic code.

    Many LGBTQ people transition through a number of different sexual identities throughout their lives. An innate property is something that cannot be changed.

    I suppose that it’s possible that we all get assigned a hidden number at birth that defines our sexuality absolutely, and people just struggle to figure out what their “number” is due to societal pressure, but that doesn’t really jive with our understanding of human biology, like at all. Nearly every trait we have studied exhibits both genetic factors and environmental factors.



  • declaring a group of people don’t deserve to live

    I’m sure if anyone said that, they would rightly get banned. My question is why any disagreement or criticism is interpreted as a declaration of war?

    LGBTQ people disagree vehemently amongst themselves about nearly every aspect of the LGBTQ experience. It’s not a topic that is well understood by anyone, not even people who are a part of it.

    Religion and Work are every bit as important as sexual identity, if not more so for many people. Christianity isn’t Star Trek (at least not in the minds of Christians), yet we would consider a Christian who responded to honest criticism of their religion with hostility to be a narrow-minded fool at best, a dangerous zealot at worst.