not necessarily, I'm saying that I'm uneasy with the general argument throughout this thread of "it's been a normal thing that other peoples and cultures have done for millennia without any problems arising, and it's only recently that people have had any trouble with it." there are other things one could justify with that argument that are much less agreeable on this site, like loveless marriages done purely for political or economic advantage. feels like we're approaching, but not yet strictly reaching, an appeal to nature - not to be the logical fallacy reddit guy or anything
feels like we're posting a little too close to the appeal to nature
I've been distracted by a major project that's taking up most of my attention right now. The updates are 100% returning, but I can't promise exactly when.
The latest mural design of Palestine Square in Tehran (Iran) showing Iranian ballistic missiles being launched towards israel, background looks like the occupied Shebaa Farms.
The text says:
"We are stronger & more determined than ever. Are you ready for 2 million displaced?"
Abu Obeida gives a speech for the first time in a month:
133 days since the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Flood battle, which has changed and will change the face of the region. It marked the beginning of the end for the longest and last occupation in contemporary history, leading to its defeat, disgrace, and exposure.
The Al-Aqsa Flood continues to evolve to eliminate injustice and aggression against Al-Aqsa and the land of Isra and Mi'raj, becoming a pivotal point in the history of our nation, by the will of Allah.
For 5 consecutive months, our steadfast Palestinian people in Gaza confront a Zionist-American war. Despite the brutalities and appalling massacres, this resilient and generous community stands resolute, refusing to surrender.
The defeat of those incapable of subduing a population whose children teach lessons of courage to the helpless adults. Women who raise generations and embody the essence of resistance, turning it into a legendary force of the era and an iconic symbol of courage, sacrifice, and heroism.
How can they defeat a population whose resistance is deeply embedded in their collective conscience, sharing the burdens of suffering, pain, and hope? They sacrifice their most cherished, with leaders and soldiers marching in the path of Allah, defending the holiest sanctuaries and the most significant causes.
Our fighters in Al-Qassam Brigades and other Palestinian resistance factions continue to confront a criminal army, the likes of which have not been seen in modern history in terms of its brutality, savagery, and repugnant racist ideology. They inflict unprecedented losses on the enemy's army, a level unseen in the history of our people's revolution.
Our fighters destroy the enemy's vehicles and armored units, engage heavily armed soldiers supported by tanks, aircraft, and military ships, setting well-prepared ambushes. They skillfully snipe at their officers and attack their soldiers from point-blank range.
Whenever the enemy thinks it is secure in a scorched area, our fighters emerge unexpectedly, conducting high-impact operations, fighting with the help, support, and guidance of Allah.
Simultaneously, battles with the fighters of our nation and its resistant forces continue on all fronts, expanding and intensifying in the face of the enemy's arrogance, aggression, and Nazi-like brutality.
We won't delve into listing the operations by Al-Qassam Brigades, as we announce them promptly 24/7. Some fighters' field conditions delay the announcement of certain missions. We prioritize security and complex field conditions, choosing to postpone the disclosure of some operations and scenes for safety reasons.
Additionally, Hamas in northern Gaza fired a barrage of missiles towards Ashkelon and Zikim in the northern Gaza Envelope, about 12 hours ago.
Kupyansk might be tricky due to its position on the river, but it's not a fortress city necessarily. Has Ugledar been taken yet? Are there even still buildings there?
I thankfully mostly avoided a libertarian phase simply because my personal experiences growing up in relative poverty told me that corporations are a fuck, and not with any real scientific or economic arguments to counter them, but now with a couple dozen books under my belt, it's hilarious to look back on these arguments and realize that none of these people have any idea of what the real world looks like outside of hypothetical and extremely unstable economics models given to them by greek statue youtube channels selling $50 merch shirts. blazing by very sussy assumptions about how the world works without even briefly considering that those assumptions could possibly be untrue.
another commenter pointed out how if you read about how the buildup to WW1 happened, the paragraphs above are shown to be total nonsense
It could impact a hypothetical amphibious landing to capture Odessa or something, but that's really it. Russia vs Ukraine hasn't been a war where naval assets are really that relevant since the first week or so.
It's significant in the sense that it strongly suggests that surface navies are rapidly declining in importance, but this is more of a problem for the pro-Ukraine West than Russia or China, as the West is the one that invested heavily in aircraft carriers
That article is almost slapstick, lmfao. "We invested millions of dollars to make these batteries, then somebody accidentally transferred the technology and know-how over to China. Then we tried to bring it back to the West and give it to Europe - to a company that says they're just gonna manufacture in China."
Linder objected to this label, stating that “some say Germany is the sick man of Europe, I don’t think so,” adding “we are an unfit man.” The “sick man” label was famously given to Germany by The Economist in 1999 as the country struggled with the challenges of reunification and reduced export demand.
....
Linder further stated that Germany is “healthy, but not in the best shape,” while comparing the German and UK economies which he believes “both are in a downturn.” He previously compared Germany to a “tired man” in need of a cup of coffee of structural reforms, last month.
Germany needs some self-care, a new skincare routine, a gym membership, and a lot more caffeine
...
...
I'm not disagreeing with these statements in a purely academic sense; as far as I'm aware, Marxism and dialectical materialism doesn't really vibe well with morality and it doesn't seem like the debate between moral objectivism and moral relativism is something we deeply concern ourselves with, or perhaps we could say that there's some "proletarian morality" that is "superior" to "bourgeois morality"; idk, I'd have to read more and refresh myself about the philosophy of Marxism here.
What I'm trying to get at is how we approach this in a more colloquial sense. And I'm talking about the general style of argument here now, not so much the specific question of "Is fucking your cousin good or bad." Because when I put my Marxist hat on, I could say the points above quite comfortably - there is no moral objectivism! Conditions govern what people believe and why, and there is no bestowed moral code, from a deity or particularly wise person or otherwise, that governs humanity in all situations, even if those moral codes were very complicated. Like, not just "You shouldn't steal." but "You shouldn't steal, unless it's for survival, or unless it's from a person or company that would not even notice it missing while you would greatly benefit, or--" etc.
The trouble begins when you say that moral objectivism is false and then somebody tells you that they just read an article about misogyny, and, wow, that really sucks, doesn't it? Well... does it? Do/should you launch into a historical analysis of misogyny and its foundations and oppression, and how certain countries in the past and present have had misogynistic policies and a culture of oppressing women without really going into whether it's moral to be a misogynist, or do/should you say "Yeah, misogyny fucking sucks and is never okay, and all misogynists should be punished?"
Here's something else: a couple months ago, a user here wrote up a piece (featuring a quote from yours truly!) on Latin America and whether it should be regarded as Western. This did get me thinking about a potential situation that I could one day experience, as a British person. Imagine that I went out in public and went on a long rant to a friend on how the British Empire fucking sucks, it was awful, it killed millions of people, the culture is/was bad, it involves racist worldviews, and so on. Imagine an Asian immigrant from Hong Kong who moved to the UK who identifies strongly with British culture overheard me and said "No, the British Empire was great. It spread law and order throughout the world, it developed countries - including Hong Kong, where I grew up! - and was a massive force for good in the world. By presenting this overly negative argument, you're being a chauvinist." What should my hypothetical response be? She's presenting an argument from the standpoint of moral relativism, saying that it would be chauvinistic for a white British male to inform a female Asian immigrant what they should find moral. Does this mean that the British Empire truly cannot be objectively evaluated as one of the worst regimes the world has ever seen?
So the problem I fundamentally have with the argument here about whether fucking cousins is morally good or bad isn't so much a debate of the cold hard facts of cousin-fucking throughout history and how many countries and cultures have done it without being really that negatively impacted by it and so on, and whether, on those grounds, it would be wrong to say that "you shouldn't fuck your cousin" because that's unscientific or even chauvinist; it's how far this argument can actually extend. Let's say that we do ultimately come to the conclusion that despite fucking your cousin being generally seen as taboo in Western societies, this doesn't matter because Western societies can suck our collective dicks and having a romantic relationship with your cousin has been a part of many places for millennia - we cannot prescribe arbitrary moral laws on other people just because we think that something is icky or taboo. It has to be rooted in science!
Okay, what about a little more questionable topic, like stepsiblings? And so on through moral issues of increasing complexity that may not have clear, amoral, scientific answers? If we're dialectical materialists then do we reject moral objectivism (or, hell, even morality entirely) even in casual conversation, or can we say "Killing slaveowners is fucking awesome whether it's in 5000 BC, the 1800s, or today, and every single place on Earth, regardless of culture?" Because I sure want to keep saying that. Consent is a moral issue that I would regard as extremely important, but I could easily imagine that there have been cultures and civilizations before that have regarded the consent of one group or another as an arbitrary moral requirement that they would consider as much as they would consider whether having a romantic relationship with your cousin is a good or bad thing - that is, not at all. I think that they would be very morally and culturally wrong. They might not understand what the big deal is. I think the consent is an important moral issue because I think harming people is generally wrong, with certain exceptions (slaveowners, for one). I can't really scientifically "prove" that harming people is wrong - in fact, the largest, richest, and most powerful empires on the planet got there explicitly by harming a shitload of people. It's a morality, even a cultural norm, that I am asserting.