4 ms·

Why is that shocking? It would be the case no matter how they do as a country As a long it was a white government there was lot of monetary support and knowled

Why is that shocking? It would be the case no matter how they do as a country As a long it was a white government there was lot of monetary support and knowledge transfer to South Africa, all the way to building nuclear weapons those collaborations stopped once the racial profile changed. overtime that means complex technologies like military aircraft which are difficult to keep flying anytime will stop working as South Africa was and is not equipped or can afford to maintain them on their own. no nation which flies f-35s can keep them flying if they are not in trump’s good graces now. This is why countries like china or India or few others who can afford to, invest heavily to build their domestic defense infrastructure.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
You're making the point for why people who are not South African can have interesting and meaningful conversations about South Africa. All while possibly expressing views that are incorrect but still interesting to consider and respond to.
- manquer 2y ago
  The irony is not lost to me, my comments without lived experience are one reason why we shouldn’t do it My objection is bigger than that though, it is independent of the merit or quality of the discourse , unwelcome discourse is impolite even if it is sound.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > my comments without lived experience are one reason why we shouldn’t do it This is a fair rule for you to live your life by. I think it crosses a line when someone insists it be one everyone follow. I personally got value from the comment about South Africa, and that’s despite knowing South Africans. (Their “lived experience” as non-military non-historian non-aviation South Africans is sort of irrelevant to questions of military aviation history.)
    - manquer 2y ago
      Nobody is expecting anyone to follow someone else principles. You and OP should follow the principles that you feel best. It wasn’t a mere discussion on military aviation history, context matters, the implication here is post apartheid the government is corrupt and incompetent, it was corrupt before too just propped up better by foreign powers.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > the implication here is post apartheid the government is corrupt and incompetent, it was corrupt before too just propped up better by foreign powers A discussion about which one can knowledgeably have without any South African “lived experience,” apart from that of people then in that government. Like, a group of diplomats in Jburg could probably have a more-informed discussion of American politics and history than a random assortment of Americans.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    forming opinions should not be limited to lived experience because people (and states) interact in a shared world. Our personal opinions govern how we interact with others. The alternative is greater ignorance.
    - manquer 2y ago
      Forming opinions should not need anything yes, however promoting or publishing that others will consume should be based on stronger foundations don’t you think ?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Not really. That is how humans learn and evolve. I think it is ok for people to be wrong. I think effort should go into honesty, humility, and open mindedness. I'm sure someone can have different insights from their lives experience which should be recognized, but that doesn't mean they should trump all else.
        manquer 2y ago
        I don't disagree with the spirit of your argument and lived experience should not trump all, it should have only some weight and other points should qualify their statements clearly. We live in the age of disinformation, influencers, and anti-intellectualism that actively dismissive qualified sources, we have to put value in source quality, while not completely dismissing the ones without them.
TMWNN 2y ago
> Why is that shocking? It would be the case no matter how they do as a country From the review that I cited and you didn't bother to read: >A little over a decade later and that same South African Air Force was no longer able to fly. It wasn’t for lack of planes: new ones were procured from European arms manufacturers in an astonishingly expensive and legendarily corrupt deal. But once purchased the planes rotted from lack of maintenance and languished in hangers for lack of anybody able to fly them. Most of the qualified pilots and technicians had been purged, and most of the remainder had resigned. The air force did technically still have pilots, after all it would be a bit embarrassing not to, but those pilots were chosen for patronage reasons and didn’t technically have any idea how to fly a fighter jet. There's more, if you care to actually read it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

You're making the point for why people who are not South African can have interesting and meaningful conversations about South Africa. All while possibly expressing views that are incorrect but still interesting to consider and respond to.

manquer 2y ago
The irony is not lost to me, my comments without lived experience are one reason why we shouldn’t do it My objection is bigger than that though, it is independent of the merit or quality of the discourse , unwelcome discourse is impolite even if it is sound.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > my comments without lived experience are one reason why we shouldn’t do it This is a fair rule for you to live your life by. I think it crosses a line when someone insists it be one everyone follow. I personally got value from the comment about South Africa, and that’s despite knowing South Africans. (Their “lived experience” as non-military non-historian non-aviation South Africans is sort of irrelevant to questions of military aviation history.)
  - manquer 2y ago
    Nobody is expecting anyone to follow someone else principles. You and OP should follow the principles that you feel best. It wasn’t a mere discussion on military aviation history, context matters, the implication here is post apartheid the government is corrupt and incompetent, it was corrupt before too just propped up better by foreign powers.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > the implication here is post apartheid the government is corrupt and incompetent, it was corrupt before too just propped up better by foreign powers A discussion about which one can knowledgeably have without any South African “lived experience,” apart from that of people then in that government. Like, a group of diplomats in Jburg could probably have a more-informed discussion of American politics and history than a random assortment of Americans.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  forming opinions should not be limited to lived experience because people (and states) interact in a shared world. Our personal opinions govern how we interact with others. The alternative is greater ignorance.
  - manquer 2y ago
    Forming opinions should not need anything yes, however promoting or publishing that others will consume should be based on stronger foundations don’t you think ?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Not really. That is how humans learn and evolve. I think it is ok for people to be wrong. I think effort should go into honesty, humility, and open mindedness. I'm sure someone can have different insights from their lives experience which should be recognized, but that doesn't mean they should trump all else.
      - manquer 2y ago
        I don't disagree with the spirit of your argument and lived experience should not trump all, it should have only some weight and other points should qualify their statements clearly. We live in the age of disinformation, influencers, and anti-intellectualism that actively dismissive qualified sources, we have to put value in source quality, while not completely dismissing the ones without them.

TMWNN 2y ago

> Why is that shocking? It would be the case no matter how they do as a country From the review that I cited and you didn't bother to read: >A little over a decade later and that same South African Air Force was no longer able to fly. It wasn’t for lack of planes: new ones were procured from European arms manufacturers in an astonishingly expensive and legendarily corrupt deal. But once purchased the planes rotted from lack of maintenance and languished in hangers for lack of anybody able to fly them. Most of the qualified pilots and technicians had been purged, and most of the remainder had resigned. The air force did technically still have pilots, after all it would be a bit embarrassing not to, but those pilots were chosen for patronage reasons and didn’t technically have any idea how to fly a fighter jet. There's more, if you care to actually read it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]