Yeah, it's correct. You can check it browsing in private mode.
I blacklisted bunch of users by my own criteria, don't take it personally. Maybe I'll adjust it in the future.
Well, there may be a lot of different reasons for blacklisting other users, including personal attacks. I usually block people, who support wars of aggression, repressions and censorship, spread hate speech, discrimination or insult others without a reason. And also some people that never say "thanks" even if they win something really cool and expensive.
But in this case, yeah, it's a bit strange — I don't remember having any arguments with this person, nor did I won anything from them, nor they won anything from me. Still, I'm blacklisted too (looks like it happened two months before, after I joined two open giveaways made by them).
There are different types of wars, like civil wars, liberation wars, wars against terrorists/narco cartels etc. and some of them can be easily justified. But leaving them aside, we have classic conflicts between countries. And there are always at least two sides in those wars. For the one side, it's a war of aggression, for the other one it will be the defensive war. To be a 100% pacifist means to not participate in any wars i.e. not to defend yourself, your family, your friends and other people in case of aggression which is a pretty stupid idea. If you want peace — you should be prepared for war, so, any country should do what they must to defend themselves and help other countries if they are being attacked. But no one should attack other countries just to occupy territories, plunder their resources, commit genocide or gain political points before the elections.
Let's hope Kamala keeps up to this. And I don't think anything about war is "easy", but there are policies that make war more likely, and policies that make them less likely. Unfortunately, those that make them less likely are often ridiculed for being "weak". Also, countries often have failed to protect vulnerable groups harassed and terrorized by majorities, so maybe the primate of countries in politics should be questioned.
In the end, your sentence "so, any country should do what they must to defend themselves and help other countries if they are being attacked" should maybe changed to "so, any group should do what they must to defend themselves and help other groups if they are being attacked" (= solidarity). Also: what exactly counts as "attack"? Soldiers, tanks, warplanes? Or also unjust economic institutions like IMF, World Bank, treaties? But there we are again at the beginning: the possibility of civil war.
Well, the policies that make wars "less likely" often make them more likely. If you reduce your army despite having aggressive neighbours or if, for example, you've disposed of all your nuclear arsenals — your chances of becoming a target increases significantly. If you refuse to support the other victim of aggression because you are afraid of escalation — the aggressor will read it as an invitation to continue atrocities (like it happened in WW2 and continues to happen in different parts of the globe today). I've meant military aggression, like invasion, occupation, bombing cities, targeted attacks on civilians etc. Economy wars don't bring so many deaths and suffering, as military conflicts do, and there are a lot of instruments to resist them. While institutes may be unjust depending on the specific case they can also benefit involved parties. About discrimination based on innate characteristics (like race, sex, health condition etc.) — as I've stated in the first comment, I'm not a fan of it either. I don't consider "discrimination" the criticism of religions, though, because it's something you could choose. Especially in case those religions promote outright harmful and dangerous ideas, call for restrictions or incite hatred.
Full acknowledgement of your views about discrimination as stated. And also about religions, as they tend to express themselves as ideologies in the political space.
But I think that at least some kinds of "economy wars" (or, more accurate, economic daily routines) like the strategic use of subventions in the EU combined with Free Trade treaties with (or against?) the Global South are vastly underrated as to how much suffering and instability they cause by market destabilization, e. g. for food products, also costing thousands of lives (and triggering economically motivated mass migration to the North).
Another such sector might be the pharmaceutical one, hindering distribution and development of desperately needed (affordable) drugs by, e. g. IP protections for the (mostly Western) firms. There were estimates of tens of thousands dead infants in developing countries because of scientifically false claims and advertising power of Western baby formulas, discouraging mothers to breastfeed. When e. g. Thailand tried to regulate this as late as like about 15 years ago, the US Chamber of Commerce managed to pressure the US Foreign Office to threaten Thailand with US sanctions should they keep on trying to regulate their (own, domestic) baby formula market - so Thailand left it unregulated.
The suicide rate had tripled in Greece after forcing her under the austerity conditions of EU, IMF and World Bank.
I don't think there are many (proven) instruments to resist this, at least ones that "work in the wild".
I think that one key difference between victims of open war and "economic war" is that the ones from the open war are more telegenic by far; the others can much more easily be blatantly ignored or subsumed under other causes ("failed states", "corruption", "backwards mentality / culture)".
Sorry for the rant and thank you for your patience and arguments!
Well, I'm not an economist, so I can't really judge how much subventions in the EU or free trade treaties affect the population of the so-called Global South in reality. But a significant portion of those countries clearly have enough problems like corruption, dictatorships and military conflicts that affect their population's well-being higher than any Western policies could. Surely, the EU could do more to help developing countries by encouraging positive reforms, removing trade barriers and implementing collaborative projects that would benefit both sides. But I am not an EU citizen and it is not up to me to decide how they will spend their resources and how they should manage the trade process. The US pharmaceutical industry had a fair share of scandals, but I wouldn't call it a "war" — it's more like a lobbyism problem (lobbyism in government, in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed at all). About Greece — this crisis was a result of the insane policies of the Greek leadership, outright fraud in accounting and the global financial crisis. The statements of the new leadership, which decided to confront its creditors, also played a significant role. But, yes, the EU and the IMF also bear a lot of responsibility. Firstly, they provided all new loans without proper checkups and then set very strict conditions for Greece, which hit the population of the country very hard. Obviously, the consequences for the population could have been far milder if the EU and IMF had acted differently. But it cannot be called an unprovoked attack on Greece — the creditors had the right to demand their money back. The economic policies can't directly kill anyone. They can reduce the life length expectancy and deteriorate the quality of life, but to kill — you need a complex of factors. While even one launched rocket can directly kill or mutilate a bunch of people.
Skip if blacklisted
Comment has been collapsed.
:(
Comment has been collapsed.
Is this linking to the correct train?
Also, wonder why I was blacklisted - maybe didn't play a game I was gifted?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, it's correct. You can check it browsing in private mode.
I blacklisted bunch of users by my own criteria, don't take it personally. Maybe I'll adjust it in the future.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, I see - you're the blacklister. Fair enough.
Comment has been collapsed.
Blacklisters shouldn't derail trains...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, there may be a lot of different reasons for blacklisting other users, including personal attacks. I usually block people, who support wars of aggression, repressions and censorship, spread hate speech, discrimination or insult others without a reason. And also some people that never say "thanks" even if they win something really cool and expensive.
But in this case, yeah, it's a bit strange — I don't remember having any arguments with this person, nor did I won anything from them, nor they won anything from me. Still, I'm blacklisted too (looks like it happened two months before, after I joined two open giveaways made by them).
Comment has been collapsed.
Are there wars without aggression? Or, the other way around - if there aren't - wouldn't one then consequently have to be against all wars?
Comment has been collapsed.
There are different types of wars, like civil wars, liberation wars, wars against terrorists/narco cartels etc. and some of them can be easily justified. But leaving them aside, we have classic conflicts between countries. And there are always at least two sides in those wars. For the one side, it's a war of aggression, for the other one it will be the defensive war. To be a 100% pacifist means to not participate in any wars i.e. not to defend yourself, your family, your friends and other people in case of aggression which is a pretty stupid idea. If you want peace — you should be prepared for war, so, any country should do what they must to defend themselves and help other countries if they are being attacked. But no one should attack other countries just to occupy territories, plunder their resources, commit genocide or gain political points before the elections.
Comment has been collapsed.
Let's hope Kamala keeps up to this. And I don't think anything about war is "easy", but there are policies that make war more likely, and policies that make them less likely. Unfortunately, those that make them less likely are often ridiculed for being "weak". Also, countries often have failed to protect vulnerable groups harassed and terrorized by majorities, so maybe the primate of countries in politics should be questioned.
In the end, your sentence "so, any country should do what they must to defend themselves and help other countries if they are being attacked" should maybe changed to "so, any group should do what they must to defend themselves and help other groups if they are being attacked" (= solidarity). Also: what exactly counts as "attack"? Soldiers, tanks, warplanes? Or also unjust economic institutions like IMF, World Bank, treaties? But there we are again at the beginning: the possibility of civil war.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, the policies that make wars "less likely" often make them more likely. If you reduce your army despite having aggressive neighbours or if, for example, you've disposed of all your nuclear arsenals — your chances of becoming a target increases significantly. If you refuse to support the other victim of aggression because you are afraid of escalation — the aggressor will read it as an invitation to continue atrocities (like it happened in WW2 and continues to happen in different parts of the globe today). I've meant military aggression, like invasion, occupation, bombing cities, targeted attacks on civilians etc. Economy wars don't bring so many deaths and suffering, as military conflicts do, and there are a lot of instruments to resist them. While institutes may be unjust depending on the specific case they can also benefit involved parties. About discrimination based on innate characteristics (like race, sex, health condition etc.) — as I've stated in the first comment, I'm not a fan of it either. I don't consider "discrimination" the criticism of religions, though, because it's something you could choose. Especially in case those religions promote outright harmful and dangerous ideas, call for restrictions or incite hatred.
Comment has been collapsed.
Full acknowledgement of your views about discrimination as stated. And also about religions, as they tend to express themselves as ideologies in the political space.
But I think that at least some kinds of "economy wars" (or, more accurate, economic daily routines) like the strategic use of subventions in the EU combined with Free Trade treaties with (or against?) the Global South are vastly underrated as to how much suffering and instability they cause by market destabilization, e. g. for food products, also costing thousands of lives (and triggering economically motivated mass migration to the North).
Another such sector might be the pharmaceutical one, hindering distribution and development of desperately needed (affordable) drugs by, e. g. IP protections for the (mostly Western) firms. There were estimates of tens of thousands dead infants in developing countries because of scientifically false claims and advertising power of Western baby formulas, discouraging mothers to breastfeed. When e. g. Thailand tried to regulate this as late as like about 15 years ago, the US Chamber of Commerce managed to pressure the US Foreign Office to threaten Thailand with US sanctions should they keep on trying to regulate their (own, domestic) baby formula market - so Thailand left it unregulated.
The suicide rate had tripled in Greece after forcing her under the austerity conditions of EU, IMF and World Bank.
I don't think there are many (proven) instruments to resist this, at least ones that "work in the wild".
I think that one key difference between victims of open war and "economic war" is that the ones from the open war are more telegenic by far; the others can much more easily be blatantly ignored or subsumed under other causes ("failed states", "corruption", "backwards mentality / culture)".
Sorry for the rant and thank you for your patience and arguments!
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I'm not an economist, so I can't really judge how much subventions in the EU or free trade treaties affect the population of the so-called Global South in reality. But a significant portion of those countries clearly have enough problems like corruption, dictatorships and military conflicts that affect their population's well-being higher than any Western policies could. Surely, the EU could do more to help developing countries by encouraging positive reforms, removing trade barriers and implementing collaborative projects that would benefit both sides. But I am not an EU citizen and it is not up to me to decide how they will spend their resources and how they should manage the trade process. The US pharmaceutical industry had a fair share of scandals, but I wouldn't call it a "war" — it's more like a lobbyism problem (lobbyism in government, in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed at all). About Greece — this crisis was a result of the insane policies of the Greek leadership, outright fraud in accounting and the global financial crisis. The statements of the new leadership, which decided to confront its creditors, also played a significant role. But, yes, the EU and the IMF also bear a lot of responsibility. Firstly, they provided all new loans without proper checkups and then set very strict conditions for Greece, which hit the population of the country very hard. Obviously, the consequences for the population could have been far milder if the EU and IMF had acted differently. But it cannot be called an unprovoked attack on Greece — the creditors had the right to demand their money back. The economic policies can't directly kill anyone. They can reduce the life length expectancy and deteriorate the quality of life, but to kill — you need a complex of factors. While even one launched rocket can directly kill or mutilate a bunch of people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks...
Comment has been collapsed.