4 ms·

> On other hand, who are we defending from and why are spending all this money on world police when we have a ton of internal problems? Because someone has to

> On other hand, who are we defending from and why are spending all this money on world police when we have a ton of internal problems? Because someone has to be this if you want the continuation of the post-WWII rules-based international order that underpins the entire global economy. The Department of Defense and US hegemony are essentially overhead that is the Least Bad Option to stop WWIII from kicking off or the world from fragmenting into spheres of influence (which is starting to happen already). Who else would do this and not screw over everyone else even worse? Russia? China?

mistermann 2y ago
Force is only one of many methods to achieve certain outcomes, not all methods that could achieve the same general outcome are known, very little cognitive effort is put into searching for alternatives, leaving few options other than speculation if one is obligated to form a conclusion on the matter.
- scottyah 2y ago
  All deliberate actions to achieve certain outcomes are "force", it is a scale not a binary option.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    I am skeptical, let's run an experiment and see what the response is: Is feeding the homeless so they are not hungry "force"? Is lending a compassionate ear to someone suffering so they may feel a bit better "force"? Is making myself a nice sandwich and watching a movie because I find it pleasant "force"?
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >Is making myself a nice sandwich and watching a movie because I find it pleasant "force"? To the chicken, turkey, pig, or cow that died to make the meat in your sandwich, definitely yes.
      - wonnage 2y ago
        the mental gymnastics it took to write this hot take must be "force" too
        mistermann 2y ago
        At least there is a logical path in that claim (if we ignore that I didn't specify that there was meat in the sandwich...I do eat a lot of plain tomato sandwiches, but not exclusively, so I do to some degree drive demand for animal slaughter)! I think it's kind of neat that we got from Palantir to sandwiches... I wonder if Palantir's software supports mapping metaphysical causality like this, because bizarre metaphysical causality is the root cause of war in the first place!
        scottyah 2y ago
        You're the one who directly took us from Palantir to sandwiches, in a clear attempt to distract from the core subject of manipulating humans on a mass scale without using "force"
        mistermann 2y ago
        Guilty as charged. Do you think this is necessarily a bad thing?
    - butlike 2y ago
      What's the opportunity cost on watching a movie with a sandwich over 'continuing research to help cure cancer?' You're forcing people to endure cancer while enjoying a sandwich and a movie.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        Are you suggesting that I am a cancer researcher (I'm quite sure I'm not), or that a cure for cancer hasn't been found because researchers are lazy?
ngcazz 2y ago
We should stop defending an imperialist establishment which relies on the rampant exploitation of the global south and is committing genocide and calling it rules-based order. More like America rules. The containment rhetoric/logic is long past its use-by date - the US's pretense as guardians of a common moral high ground was shattered at the very latest with the Vietnam War, and in 2024 it is an absolute tragedy of a joke in poor taste. You gotta think this rules-based order is designed to drive anyone decent crazy. What else can happen when you hear pieces of shit like Blinken wax lyrical about the human rights of Palestinians while supercharging weapons deliveries to Israel, or the very existence of the UNSC veto which will guarantee outcomes that reinforce unforgivable and unforgettable mass crimes, beckoning awful consequences for the whole world.
- itsoktocry 2y ago
  >You gotta think this rules-based order is designed to drive anyone decent crazy. All complaints, no solutions. Typical. So who does have the moral high-ground around the globe? It's unbelievable to me how many people think it'd be all peace and harmony if the US disappeared. I can imagine much worse, just by reading a history book.
  - saturn8601 2y ago
    I'd like to think that Pakistan would be on a better road if their democratically elected leader wasn't ousted by the US. Thats one example, there are many others. In terms of solutions, well looking at history of the US, the only time the people at the top ever gave any semblance of crumbs to everyone else was when they knew they were in deep trouble and were forced to part with whatever little they could give to calm the masses. Think of Medicare, Social Security etc. We saw it again with Obamacare. The country was in a rage so out came the bare minimum. Elimination of barbaric things like pre-existing conditions in exchange for guaranteed income for the insurance companies. Absolute breadcrumbs but it was something. We just need something like that on a worldwide level. Maybe China rising will finally put pressure on the US given that the EU never amounted to much more than being a US vassal state.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
saturn8601 2y ago
Great. So Americans get to be the suckers propping up the decent lifestyles of the rest of the western world and much of Asia and the ME. This country has a collapsing middle class, horrendously bad health outcomes, ever increasing amount of corruption and little chance to turn things around because of entrenched interests. I can just picture the thought process going in your head(and many others) right now. If you hate it so much why dont you leave.
- yks 2y ago
  > Americans get to be the suckers propping up the decent lifestyles of the rest of the western world and much of Asia and the ME America benefited greatly from this position though, it's just the gains have not been equally distributed, and one can make an argument that Americans simply vote for that outcome. It is very unclear to me how the situation of the middle class in the US becomes any better if the US gives up its leverage for Chinese to dictate the terms. FWIW pre-WW1 the US had even worse inequality while not propping up anyone's lifestyle abroad.
  - nxobject 2y ago
    I think there's some clarification that needs to happen, though: what would it mean for "China to dictate the terms", and does that necessarily happen if the US "steps back" (and what does that mean?) In a charitable interpretation, the US remains an important trading, industrial, technological, and educational world power. Perhaps it might even keep the spending on worldwide surveillance (e.g. spy satellites). Geopolitical influence allows for many strategies.
    - yks 2y ago
      Stepping back from enforcing post-WW2 world order means letting China, Russia, Iran to freely install their satellite and unfriendly-to-the-US regimes around the world, by force if needed. Which means access to the foreign markets will be curtailed for the US or otherwise "dictated" by other powers. It's hard to see how that leads to more prosperity for Americans, especially since the political forces trying to bring that about are also not very pro-"trading, industry, technology and education". The GP says that they don't want to prop up foreign lifestyles because the middle class in the US is struggling but isolationism in the 21st century will not make things better for the US middle class. Nor for middle class of any other country really, although the GP doesn't care about those.
walleeee 2y ago
You may be correct on at least one point: the DOD may have stepped us all down from WW3 recently, to the chagrin of other elements of the establishment who have gotten used to whispering foreign policy into the relevant ears with no pushback
butlike 2y ago
I think based on your last sentence: > Who else would do this and not screw over everyone else even worse? Russia? China? It's important to say which country you're residing in now.

mistermann 2y ago

Force is only one of many methods to achieve certain outcomes, not all methods that could achieve the same general outcome are known, very little cognitive effort is put into searching for alternatives, leaving few options other than speculation if one is obligated to form a conclusion on the matter.

scottyah 2y ago
All deliberate actions to achieve certain outcomes are "force", it is a scale not a binary option.
- mistermann 2y ago
  I am skeptical, let's run an experiment and see what the response is: Is feeding the homeless so they are not hungry "force"? Is lending a compassionate ear to someone suffering so they may feel a bit better "force"? Is making myself a nice sandwich and watching a movie because I find it pleasant "force"?
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >Is making myself a nice sandwich and watching a movie because I find it pleasant "force"? To the chicken, turkey, pig, or cow that died to make the meat in your sandwich, definitely yes.
    - wonnage 2y ago
      the mental gymnastics it took to write this hot take must be "force" too
      - mistermann 2y ago
        At least there is a logical path in that claim (if we ignore that I didn't specify that there was meat in the sandwich...I do eat a lot of plain tomato sandwiches, but not exclusively, so I do to some degree drive demand for animal slaughter)! I think it's kind of neat that we got from Palantir to sandwiches... I wonder if Palantir's software supports mapping metaphysical causality like this, because bizarre metaphysical causality is the root cause of war in the first place!
        scottyah 2y ago
        You're the one who directly took us from Palantir to sandwiches, in a clear attempt to distract from the core subject of manipulating humans on a mass scale without using "force"
        mistermann 2y ago
        Guilty as charged. Do you think this is necessarily a bad thing?
  - butlike 2y ago
    What's the opportunity cost on watching a movie with a sandwich over 'continuing research to help cure cancer?' You're forcing people to endure cancer while enjoying a sandwich and a movie.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      Are you suggesting that I am a cancer researcher (I'm quite sure I'm not), or that a cure for cancer hasn't been found because researchers are lazy?

ngcazz 2y ago

We should stop defending an imperialist establishment which relies on the rampant exploitation of the global south and is committing genocide and calling it rules-based order. More like America rules. The containment rhetoric/logic is long past its use-by date - the US's pretense as guardians of a common moral high ground was shattered at the very latest with the Vietnam War, and in 2024 it is an absolute tragedy of a joke in poor taste. You gotta think this rules-based order is designed to drive anyone decent crazy. What else can happen when you hear pieces of shit like Blinken wax lyrical about the human rights of Palestinians while supercharging weapons deliveries to Israel, or the very existence of the UNSC veto which will guarantee outcomes that reinforce unforgivable and unforgettable mass crimes, beckoning awful consequences for the whole world.

itsoktocry 2y ago
>You gotta think this rules-based order is designed to drive anyone decent crazy. All complaints, no solutions. Typical. So who does have the moral high-ground around the globe? It's unbelievable to me how many people think it'd be all peace and harmony if the US disappeared. I can imagine much worse, just by reading a history book.
- saturn8601 2y ago
  I'd like to think that Pakistan would be on a better road if their democratically elected leader wasn't ousted by the US. Thats one example, there are many others. In terms of solutions, well looking at history of the US, the only time the people at the top ever gave any semblance of crumbs to everyone else was when they knew they were in deep trouble and were forced to part with whatever little they could give to calm the masses. Think of Medicare, Social Security etc. We saw it again with Obamacare. The country was in a rage so out came the bare minimum. Elimination of barbaric things like pre-existing conditions in exchange for guaranteed income for the insurance companies. Absolute breadcrumbs but it was something. We just need something like that on a worldwide level. Maybe China rising will finally put pressure on the US given that the EU never amounted to much more than being a US vassal state.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago

saturn8601 2y ago

Great. So Americans get to be the suckers propping up the decent lifestyles of the rest of the western world and much of Asia and the ME. This country has a collapsing middle class, horrendously bad health outcomes, ever increasing amount of corruption and little chance to turn things around because of entrenched interests. I can just picture the thought process going in your head(and many others) right now. If you hate it so much why dont you leave.

yks 2y ago
> Americans get to be the suckers propping up the decent lifestyles of the rest of the western world and much of Asia and the ME America benefited greatly from this position though, it's just the gains have not been equally distributed, and one can make an argument that Americans simply vote for that outcome. It is very unclear to me how the situation of the middle class in the US becomes any better if the US gives up its leverage for Chinese to dictate the terms. FWIW pre-WW1 the US had even worse inequality while not propping up anyone's lifestyle abroad.
- nxobject 2y ago
  I think there's some clarification that needs to happen, though: what would it mean for "China to dictate the terms", and does that necessarily happen if the US "steps back" (and what does that mean?) In a charitable interpretation, the US remains an important trading, industrial, technological, and educational world power. Perhaps it might even keep the spending on worldwide surveillance (e.g. spy satellites). Geopolitical influence allows for many strategies.
  - yks 2y ago
    Stepping back from enforcing post-WW2 world order means letting China, Russia, Iran to freely install their satellite and unfriendly-to-the-US regimes around the world, by force if needed. Which means access to the foreign markets will be curtailed for the US or otherwise "dictated" by other powers. It's hard to see how that leads to more prosperity for Americans, especially since the political forces trying to bring that about are also not very pro-"trading, industry, technology and education". The GP says that they don't want to prop up foreign lifestyles because the middle class in the US is struggling but isolationism in the 21st century will not make things better for the US middle class. Nor for middle class of any other country really, although the GP doesn't care about those.

walleeee 2y ago

You may be correct on at least one point: the DOD may have stepped us all down from WW3 recently, to the chagrin of other elements of the establishment who have gotten used to whispering foreign policy into the relevant ears with no pushback

butlike 2y ago

I think based on your last sentence: > Who else would do this and not screw over everyone else even worse? Russia? China? It's important to say which country you're residing in now.