Jump to content

bangkok

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bangkok

  1. while many of you are predicting huge numbers for bijan and are probably correct, i'll predict a dominant debut from ewers instead. 4TD's including one on the ground, 275+ yards, no interceptions maybe sark lets ewers air it out, shows bama plenty of looks to prepare for and leaves plenty of others in the playbook, and just treats this one as a warm-up for bijan with bama next week. then next week we'd see a more confident ewers and bijan ready to bully what may be the best defense in cfb.
  2. yea so honestly, i don't think the body count matters, to the nra crowd, the 2nd amendment junkies. any evidence of them ever giving a fuck about any of this? it's always deflection. and i do think a larger-scale terrorist type of attack is inevitable, and it also seems inevitable that very little would be done in the aftermath. there's no evidence to indicate a more positive scenario. the R's are armed to the gills. make no mistake, they don't fucking care if another radical R kills hundreds. it's whatever to them, thoughts & prayers, but don't take my guns. i wish there were a proper proposal, anything, but nah i think we're quite fucked here.
  3. enough americans don't give a shit about gun restrictions, or any other attempt to control this, to get anything done. this thread will soon be 1000+ pages, with dozens of other active shooters and mass murders to come. it's horrific, but the 2nd amendment - as outdated and irrelevant to the status quo as it is - will reign. and this is particularly true in the climate of the highest court rejecting roe v wade. i wish there were a beacon of hope in some way, but i don't see it realistically. mass murders every month, that's what we're signed up for.
  4. i mentioned this in another thread, but felt compelled to document the absurdity of this here too. "it could have been worse" a damning statement that was meant to somehow comfort, presumably. abbot's a fairly well-spoken piece of shit. "it could have been worse" recognizes the access to assault weapons is easy enough, and that mass-murder is accessible enough, that anyone could do it, even on a loss of life scale far beyond 19 kids. so fuck, yea, it could be so much worse, we all know that. but hey, let's take a moment to appreciate only 19 kids were murdered, guys. we got lucky, it could have been worse. i've set up things to make it easy as fuck to murder as many as one might want. 19? it could have been worse. and you know, we're "free" enough, that it could have quite easily been 100+, and our law enforcement, well, they showed up, at least. and you guys can use those ar-15's for dove season or whatever. no need to concern ourselves with a situation where just 19 kids were murdered, no need for any changes. prayers, whatever, yea we can do that and act like we give a shit. so where's the fundraiser tonight? so, until it gets worse, we won't give a shit. oh and when it does, we won't give a shit either, as long as the money flows and the idiots with a tainted 2nd amendment view and nra keeps me in power. goddammit, the absurdity - texas, one of the dumbest fucking states.
  5. why doesn't a devastating event like this spur mass protests demanding change? is it because not enough of these have happened yet to piss off enough people? how much would be "enough" for those thinking "ehh, sucks but..." ? compared to the george floyd aftermath, and multiple instances prior to that of racially motivated police brutality, enough pissed off people and blm said fucckk this! and that's obviously an ongoing cause that will take years of work to make incremental changes. and i'll answer my own question to suggest it's because there isn't a well-funded organization with wide support that opposes nra - though there's several other interests at play. so why the fuck can't americans get behind a gun control movement, protest, vote out the complicit politicians? what the fuck are we waiting for? it was damning and horrific to hear abbot say "it could have been worse" because he's absolutely and unfortunately correct here. it can be worse, so it will be worse, and yet he's using that as a justification of the status quo rather than an impetus for change. he's saying let's let it get worse, let's do nothing and encourage more mass murders, because i don't actually think enough people, give enough of a shit, to change things. and as ridiculous and devastating as that is, he's right. fuck.
  6. yet again, my perspective is shifting here. and i'm delighted to be wrong. the us is committed to fighting a proxy war with russia via ukraine, and despite some fears that our involvement would trigger escalation, that hasn't been the case. i was concerned we'd back putin into a corner with no out other than nukes, chemical weapons, and utter destruction. i think we've backed him into the corner, but the utter destruction from using those weapons would be equally destructive to putin's regime - and he doesn't want that, because he knows that's game over for him, too. this could still turn much more deadly but it would be a suicide mission for himself and his supporters. the biden administration has handled this admirably - biden's biggest foreign policy success so far - could change, sure. our intelligence anticipated the invasion, we trained ukraine in the years-long lead-up, equipped them, rallied nato, rallied sanctions, while providing accurate info which has obliterated russia. it's been a brilliant success. all that said, i still question the end-game. putin is fucked. russia was weaker than they projected, and the support for ukraine stronger than anticipated. we'll supply and re-supply ukraine indefinitely. so, uh, dude, go home?
  7. well, fuck i've been about as anti-escalation as any of you, but i'm starting to lean towards the other side, especially considering putin's now very clear incompetence and obvious war crimes. he's weaker now than a few weeks ago. maybe a brief but decisive, nato-backed escalation limits loss of life and ends the war more quickly. and if we can limit loss of life as much as possible, i'm pro-that. i think we're nearing a point of that being most reasonable, rather than allowing this to drag on indefinitely. looking at the other side, what would putin do? absolute worst case, launch nukes. as horrific as that would be, thats a losing scenario for putin, too. and it's a very long shot. the chance seems small enough to just round up nato, declare we're protecting nato interests and we've seen enough of this bullshit. and i'd give them fair warning - get the fuck out or we'll fuck you up. gave him a choice first, go home and you can propagandize some sort of bullshit to save face or we'll crush you. see more benefits to this now than drawbacks.
  8. right, you’re spot-on with this and we’re in almost full agreement. status quo sucks. i think the notion that we can’t rely on government to determine what constitutes misinformation and what doesn’t is correct. along with that, we can’t rely on companies (especially those publicly traded), either. the regulations should be where neither the government nor the social media platform need to police content - outside of violence, i’d wager bots too. there will always be misinformation and susceptible people looking for it and spreading it. in the status quo - that’s encouraged, because it brings more clicks and controversy.. and profit. i’m suggesting that the companies are audited in a sense. we should be looking over their shoulders, no bans on outrageous bullshit as long as its non-violent. but don’t elevate the crazy, outside of mainstream thoughts because you get more clicks due to the controversy those views attract. that’s the problem. and i’m arguing it’s more of an algorithmic problem that government can regulate without needing to police individual posts. and the goal should be having a space where views are adequately represented and dumbass shit is adequately disputed. make it fair. idealistic? yea, maybe.
  9. i think the unprecedented amount of misinformation, specifically in the last couple of election cycles was justifiably unexpected to twitter and most all of us. so they we're kind of reactionary. oh shit! this is all fucked! stop the crazy bullshit! and they've had some pushback from that, reasonably. they were correct to do what had to be done, but it's not the ideal scenario for anyone moving forward as society adapts to a social media dominant world and the implications of that.
  10. can we regulate the algorithms that favor radical views and clicks for controversy? i'm good with giving whoever the fuck wants to spew their bullshit have the ability to do that, as long as that bullshit isn't promoted for profit. in an idealistic world, social media should reflect the viewpoints, opinions, and debates of the world at large. that would be fine. the problem is, that idealistic world doesn't exist in the status quo. i do think the censoring of content is dangerous and contrary to our shared values.. and that censoring breeds hate and disenfranchisement. and yes, it was entirely necessary to kick trump off and attempt to stop the misinformation, but i'm arguing that's not actually the best case scenario here - we shouldn't be aiming for twitter to police and fact check. i think it's their own internal system that needs the policing, then the crazies would have less of an echo chamber but still able to spew their verbal vomit. free speech and all.
  11. cheers to all of you with a peace-oriented viewpoint.
  12. long time supporter but never enrolled. my formative years were spent in austin - i'm a chef and worked at a couple of the top restaurants in austin. i went to culinary school at the former le cordon bleu outpost by the domain. i love the city and the school. i've followed texas - mostly athletics, since.
  13. this is a great post, thank you for that. i'm in full agreement ukraine deserves democracy and peace - as any country who seeks that, does too. i also agree it's clear which side most of the misinformation is coming from. my point is that it's also important to look at the other side to gain some sense of understanding. we largely agree. i'm also in agreement that we shouldn't be allowing putin to dictate the outcome of this. he's backed in a corner, he's desperate, that's probably good but fuck is it dangerous too. give the man an out. if we don't do that, i think the loss of life and repercussions are at risk of becoming significantly worse if we continue to provide an endless supply of weapons to ukraine. i'd love to see a diplomatic end to this as soon as possible. on a slightly different note, i'd also like to ask why now is where the line in the sand must be drawn? clearly we've watched the buildup of troops for months and did very little. and for years his ambitions were met with very little resistance. now clearly putin is unhinged and overestimated his capabilities and western response. i'd love to see him fuck off and minimize loss of life and end the war. right now it appears we're content with buckling down and continuing this for months, with great risk of escalation. i find that troubling. what's the best case scenario in your view?
  14. yea, you may be right. i'm not sure. i don't really think any one of us could be sure who's "right" as this is a charged situation, continually evolving, and what information we're given is incomplete and biased. i'll give you that. i'm saying we're on equal footing and our opinions are relatively equally valid as the possible outcomes of this war aren't able to be analyzed with a costs and benefits, and surly isn't quite a peer-reviewed journal either. we're all guessing here. your opinion isn't more valid than mine prima facia, but i'm open to listening and changing my views if you'd express that clearly. if i said nuke russia, or abandon ukraine completely, i'd imagine either of those views would be justifiably and heavily criticized. what i'm saying is probably as reasonable as it gets. no escalation from either side, and do whatever we can to broker peace. and you're saying i'm a moron without countering my concerns. you're attacking my intelligence rather than addressing the issues. that's moronic. so please give me an explanation of why hoping for the most peaceful resolution here makes me a moron. all that said, i do feel like a moron for responding to this because i don't think you'll be able to put together a coherent response - so prove me wrong, i'm all ears.
  15. right, because i don't think exactly as you do, i'm inferior?
  16. peace for ukraine isn't necessarily or exclusively up to them, right now. why? well, the support they've received from the west, from us, with weapons and sanctions, and with accepting their refugees isn't a one-way street. we're not just supporting them blindly because we're united against russia, so they can choose their own path "up to them." we have our say and our own agenda. i also would suggest we have our say in steering putin towards his "best" option too. we can sort of say, "you're fucked dude, so back off or escalate and get fucked harder." but say it nicely. don't bully and threaten. let our position of strength speak for itself. that's a tougher line to walk, a more hardline approach, but we have options diplomatically. we're supporting ukraine because a democratic ukraine supports our own ideals in a larger front and with longer term goals. so our say ideally should be "make amends" and make those amends quite a tough pill to swallow to putin, but one where he can take home some semblance of pride and not tough enough to encourage him to escalate. then support ukraine under the table with more weapons, financially, politically, to deter something like this happening again. and also hope russia overthrows putin and finds a different path for their own future - idealistic, maybe, but give that best case scenario a chance to play out before looking towards an alternative.
  17. yea, so i've demonstrated that i do exactly that. i'm skeptical of everything.. or intend to be, at least. no bias, all questions is my mantra. so if you can demonstrate why you think i'm full of shit, i'll also address that. but your argument is "i think" without any basis or reasoning. and that's a worthy argument?
  18. i'll speak for myself here. yes peace should be the priority. but not by "any means," just make it clear to putin that would be his best bet, to walk away. flex while giving him an out. the short term and long term implications of this war are also a major consideration. what russia is doing is far beyond unethical.. it's atrocious, disgusting, and at risk of further escalation. stop that bullshit, if we can, before it escalates. this is a deeper issue than ethics, and putin has demonstrated his lack of exactly that while targeting civilians. it's sick, and he wants us to feel sick, to feel threatened. and he's losing, and we know that, but still this shit fucking sucks, war sucks. i'd like to know: for all of you claiming peace isn't possible, so let's fuck all the ruskies up and demonstrate our superiority like we should! how much support should we give? and what happens if cornered putin deploys chemical weapons or tactical nukes? what do we do? i'm asking legitimately because i think many of you haven't thought ahead to adequately address this. what consequences and loss of life is acceptable?
  19. i'm about as anti-war as one may be, and i also try to look at all sides of an issue. i'm a skeptic. i've never voted. i think we see a ton of misinformation, propaganda from all angles. i hate the political climate of the states, which is part of why i live in bangkok. i want to know what conservatives are spouting on an issue, and same with progressives.. i try to look at multiple news sources and opinions. that said, trump was a horrible president, and his presidency influences putins actions today. i don't typically take sides.. i try to look at all angles, everything's a grey area for me. what one person benefits from, another suffers.. no one's right, and everyone has their own agenda. i'm hoping we pursue a peaceful agenda and can take a longer-term view of that while flexing our military, economic, and political muscles to encourage peace.
  20. true. but he does have conceptions and intentions of restoring soviet-era territories and re-establishing russia as country you don't fuck with directly, like the cold war. and he's not getting any younger, so his political ambitions are sort of now or never. a weakened russia strengthens the west and encourages democracy and of course thats a good thing for us. i also think this isn't necessarily an end all, be all moment - we can and should encourage a delay here, a stalemate. support our interests after the violence. and yes i think ukraine would be willing to embrace that, while also understanding they have their own ambitions and deserve their own opportunities to shape the future of the country as they see fit, democratically. all good. so can we make putin walk, give him what he wants right now - as what he's stated is pure propaganda, so call him on it, call the bluff. what he's stated is clearly not reality and demonstrative of his intentions. maybe he's killed or politically deemed not in russia's best interest (economically).. let it ride. don't risk escalation over this, as tempting as that is - that's what he wants. don't give him that option. our policy should be ok dude, clearly you fucked up. go home and we'll give you an out. and yea if it's an escalation where tactical nukes are deployed, it should be an immediate no-fly zone enforced by nato. let the motherfucker have an opportunity to call his shot but lay out the options first. and be prepared to respond either way. peace deserves every opportunity first though.
  21. false premise, non sequitur. so, no addressing that directly would be illogical. clearly we're the worlds strongest military and economic power. our interests rightfully lie in maintaining that. i'm advocating we best maintain that power by sending a weakened putin home where he can spout a moral victory (a la aggy beating bama), which his own people will eat up. rather than forcing him into submission directly, which would likely escalate things. we'd kick his ass, at a high cost though.. lets avoid that. every other county, probably outside of his closest allies can see he was defeated, a victory for us. (again, like aggy) ukraine pursues democracy hopefully, though it's in its infancy and conflict will continue. the danger to the contrary (indefinitely sending weapons), lies in escalating this to a point where hundreds of thousands of innocents may be at risk, and it may further risk a full-scale nato response. yes we'd fuck them up, at a very high cost. avoid war. so, in your bullied kid scenario which is not an appropriate analogy, russia actually would be the bullied kid - not us. we sanctioned them, we sent arms to their enemy, we got all of our friends/allies join with us, we seized their assets, we did everything we could to inflict damage without swinging fists directly. they felt threatened, and like they were looked down upon among the world at large, and aligned with other "bullied kids" - look at their allies. now, is that legit? no fucking way. russia instigated this and brought this on themselves, maybe not too different than a bullied kid might by acting like they were strong or one of the "cool kids", whatever the fuck, misconceptions. and so we want them to go home and think about what they've done, perhaps find a new path, rather than bringing out the semi-autos and raging out the latest school shooting.
  22. are you able to provide a cohesive reply? my contention is peace should be the priority. and yours is.. peace is retarded?
  23. well, i think putin was in over his head here, and he'll very likely try to escalate, especially as he's faced with losses - of face, of troops, economically too. give the man an out, where he can tuck his tail in and trot back home, and still claim victory. let the west view it prima facia. stopping the war should be our foreign policy goal here in the short term. anything less is destructive. any counter arguments are escalatory in nature, but i do understand them. that said, our policy should be promoting peace. the alternative is dangerous. give vlad a chance to tuck and run. if he doesn't accept it, the game changes, but make the effort first.
  24. we are damn close to at war with russia, as the leading economic and military power strongly opposed to russia and supporting ukraine. without our support, it would be over, and overwhelmingly so in russia's favor. and fuck, yes, we get a vote, and fuck, yes we should support them. just stop the violence right now. in our position of power, can we broker a solution to let both sides move on?
  25. lol, what a condescending comment. "maybe you're not familiar with history" wtf? and a strategy of escalation works, then? historically, speaking of course. how about if we offer putin and ukraine both some concessions and minimize the loss of life, the damage, the escalation, the threats of nukes and ww3 and all of that shit? can we aim for an admittedly idealistic goal first and find a peace deal? you seem to be advocating for escalation. it's not off the cards from either side, but you give vlad an out first. why the fuck not, please tell me, mr. history.
×
×
  • Create New...