I think that’s great. I agree with the majority consensus. However, I don’t know enough about how the UN GA operates to know if that institution has any meaningful way of enforcing their demands, or if any means of enforcement apply to all nations equally. The US, for instance, doesn’t recognize the authority of the international criminal court, even though president Biden praised the ICC for talking about prosecuting Putin for war crimes. Biden condemned the ICC when it talked about Benjamin Netanyahu being prosecuted for war crimes. The rule of law can’t only apply to some, it must apply to all, equally.

Guess that would be a good reason for the rest of the world to get involved, right?

Yes, I think the international community should get involved when a nation invades another without justification, like the US invasion of Iraq, for instance. However, NATO is not “the rest of the world.” NATO consists of 32 nations (out of 195), all of which are located in Europe and North America, and more than 2/3 of its funding comes from just one country: the United States.

I’m sure someone has already tried. I’m equally certain Putin told that person to go fuck themselves. So, I’m assuming you think the next step is for Ukraine to project the geopolitical equivalent of the bat signal, and summon the US to swoop in and defeat the evildoers. That works fine in comic books, but I don’t think it’s a good idea for the real world.

I don’t think there’s such a thing as a moral or ethical hegemony. They’re all immoral, even if some are less immoral than others. But that doesn’t mean that I want to end all hegemony in favor of international lawlessness. I believe in democracy and the rule of law, but that is not the same as a single nation achieving military supremacy to such a degree as to allow them to declare themselves the globe’s judge, jury, and executioner. If we believe in democracy based on consent of the governed and the rule of law, we must support it not only within nations but between nations, as well.

You’re disagreeing with the person while asking leading questions, then arguing against the answers to the questions you asked.

I really don’t know what you mean. I asked what US national security interests were being served by the US involvement in the Russia/Ukraine conflict, they answered, and I said I didn’t find their answers compelling. It’s really that simple.

Exactly what the pro-nazi Americans said during WW2…

Many more than just pro-nazi Americans were against declaring war on Germany, before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In May of 1940, Gallup conducted the following poll:

Do you think the United States should declare war on Germany and send our army and navy abroad to fight?

93% said ‘No’ source

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, however, Gallup conducted another poll:

Should President Roosevelt have declared war on Germany, as well as on Japan?

91% said ‘Yes’ (same source as above)

I don’t see how disagreeing with someone is being disingenuous.

The same for defending Poland against Hitler…

But the US didn’t prevent Hitler from invading Poland.

I support the international community coming together to help defend weaker nations from stronger nations with imperialist ambitions, but I don’t support the US involving ourselves in conflicts on other continents and saying that we are doing so for national security.

I’m not advocating for Russian hegemony, I’m arguing against hegemony all together. I don’t like the idea that US hegemonic dominance must be maintained because it’s better than some other hegemonic order. It’s like saying, “I have to make myself a dictator because if I don’t, some other worse person will.”

I don’t find those arguments very compelling. I think you’re conflating “national security” with “maintaining a global hegemonic order.”

The US has keen, critical national security interests in supporting Ukraine…

What are those?

That’s exponential growth, for yuh. Fossil fuels could decline significantly as a percentage of total, global energy consumption but we could still be emitting several tens of billions of tons of carbon dioxide every year, if global energy consumption continues to grow.

Here’s what I mean: between 2013 and 2023, global energy consumption increased 14%. As of 2023, fossil fuels accounted for 77% of global energy consumption. Now, let’s say that between 2024 and 2034 total global energy consumption increases another 14%, but over the same period the percentage of our total energy that comes from fossil fuels DECREASES from 77% to 65% (a fairly significant decrease, I think), the amount of energy that comes from fossil fuels would have only declined 3.2% between 2024 and 2034.

I think the consensus is that it’s mostly as a result of women having greater reproductive choices, greater access to family planning services, and more women choosing to delay having children or choosing to not have children at all, often so they can instead focus on a career.

Edit: I want to point out that what I’m describing is the consensus, as I understand it, of mainstream experts in the US. However, I believe there is evidence that this consensus opinion is not entirely accurate. If I’m not mistaken, surveys indicate that there are a fair number of people who would like to have children but are not because the right circumstances are not present for them to feel secure enough to have children. Many of the people who are not having children would have them if they felt more financially, romantically, and/or emotionally secure. Therefore, it’s possible that it’s not so much that people are choosing not to have children as it is that the necessary conditions for making people feel secure enough to have children are not present for a large number of people.

Right? They must not think AI and automation can replace very many human laborers, otherwise they wouldn’t consider declining birth rates to be such a crisis.

"A reduction in the share of workers can lead to labor shortages, which may raise the bargaining power of employees and lift wages — all of which is ultimately inflationary,” Simona Paravani-Mellinghoff, managing director at BlackRock, wrote in an analysis last year.

And while net immigration has helped offset demographic problems facing rich countries in the past, the shrinking population is now a global phenomenon. “This is critical because it implies advanced economies may start to struggle to ‘import’ labour from such places either via migration or sourcing goods,” wrote Paravani-Mellinghoff.

This is just mask-off capitalism. They want people to have a lot of babies, and/or large numbers of poor and desperate people migrating into the country, so that they have a constant, reliable source of cheap labor.

If it’s a secret that Israel wants all of the territory that was Mandatory Palestine, including the West Bank, then it’s the worst kept secret ever.

I’d rather pour hot sauce in my eyes than watch another debate between Biden and Trump.

I’m sorry but I’m going to have to stick with Windows for gaming.

That’s ok, I forgive you.

Seriously, Windows works better for a lot of people, and that’s fine. I went back to Windows several times before I made the switch permanently to Linux. You just gotta do what works for you.

If you decide to try Linux again, I would recommend a distro like chimera OS, nobara, or just vanilla fedora. I’ve personally had a lot of luck with those distros.

As I’ve said many times: I don’t hate Windows, I hate Microsoft. If Windows were owned by a not-for-profit, or a consortium or some other democratically run organization of interested groups, I don’t think I would have any need for Linux. But, as it is, Linux is absolutely necessary. I hope some day that Windows is replaced by a Linux distribution that is owned and maintained by an organization that gives all stakeholders, including and especially end users, a tangible voice in its management.

I think we need a LOT more of this kind of housing, to make housing as affordable as possible for everyone.