POTF 3 - Nominations

[Aexodus]

POTF is about recognising the very best posts, the best arguments and discourse in the D&D, and appropriately rewarding it.
You shall progressively earn these medals once you achieve enough wins, but first you must be nominated in threads such as this one. And it works like this.

Post of the Fortnight - Rules

-Each user can nominate up to 2 posts per round, and the only valid form of nomination is by quoting with a link as shown below the chosen post in the PotF thread designated for it.

Looking forward to getting this kicked off for real!

-Each 15 days there will be a new Nomination thread put up, and all the posts written during this period are considered eligible, if properly nominated. Exception are posts who are somewhat breaking the ToS; upon being acted by Moderation, they are always considered uneligible.

- Remember: It is possible to nominate up to 2 posts each round of the competition; it is also possible to change a nomination anytime before the actual round of nominations ends.

- There will be two competitions held every month, with a period for nominations followed by a period of voting. The submitted posts can be discussed in a dedicated space.

- Only posts that have not participated in a previous poll and that have been published in the current period of given time in any section of the D&D area may be nominated.

- The authors of the nominated post will be informed so they can withdraw the candidacy if that is their wish.

- The maximum number of participating posts in the final vote will be ten. If more than ten nominations are submitted, seconded nominations will take priority. After seconded nominations are considered, earliest nominations will take priority. If the number of posts submitted to the contest is less than ten, the organizing committee may nominate posts if it considers it appropriate.

-The members of the committee will never nominate a post belonging to one of them, but the rest of the users can nominate their posts (organizers posts), and vice versa.

-In the event of a tie, both posts will be awarded and both posters will receive rep and 1 competition point.

- Public or private messages asking for a vote for a candidate post are forbidden. Violators (and their posts) may not participate in the running contest.

- People are expected to consider the quality and structure of the post itself, more than the content of the same. While it's certainly impossible to completely split the two aspects when making our own opinion on a post, it remains intended, as also explained in the Competition Commentary Thread, that commenting and discussing on the content rather than on the form/structure of the post is considered off-topic for the purpose of this competition. You are free to nominate and vote for whatever reason you want, but what happens in public has to strictly follow up with the competition rules.

A nominated post should:

1. Be focused and relevant to the topic(s) being discussed.
2. Demonstrate a well-developed, insightful and nuanced understanding of the topic(s) it is discussing.
3. Be logically coherent, well organized and communicate its points effectively.
4. Support its contentions with verifiable evidence, either in the form of links or references.
5. Not be deliberately vexatious to other users.

Good luck everyone!

[Flinn]

...
Thank you for the long and detailed answer!

No worries I'm mostly typing for the pleasure of seeing my own brain mashed on the screen, and very happy for you and others to correct me when I am wrong.

...As I said before, I'm not talking about the musket/guns era, but rather the sword and shield battles. I understand the morale shock in later engagements, but when you can clearly see your enemy coming you have time to prepare.

The musket and gun era are relevant though as a lot of the work done is the same.

Getting men onto a field to kill one another is no mean feat. You do it by bonding them socially, emotionally and militarily. Less centralized ("civilised") societies bring warriors to the field when each individual decides to come. Complex societies have conscription and other forms of coercion, material rewards, intangible rewards , religion and so on that allows masses to be mobilised and moved. Part of these systems is practicing in formation, and the line of battle is a very old and successful institution.

The systems that bring men (and occasionally women) to fight makes them want to fight. if one army melts, doesn't turn up etc then obviously there's no battle. This can result in a lost war (not always) but the net result is warriors want to fight. So the leader's line em up and go.

Getting units of men to obey once in battle is another hurdle. They better have practiced drill because battle is too stressful to make stuff up on the spot effectively. The drill tends to be "all face this way, when they get close stab them", because thats what works. Once a unti knows how to fight and wants top fight, the next trick is making them not fight the moment they see an enemy.

Its a very well trained force that can march around not fighting and keep morale high enough to keep the army together. Hannibal did it, Fabius Cunctator did it. By the 18th century a lot of armies could do it, there was the third Silesian war where close to 10% of casualties were outside battle because the whole thing was a walkfest ("war of manouevre").

On the actual battlefield units can rush at a hated foe, or refuse to move away from their neighboring units cause its dangerous out there man. Once in a melee (or later a firefiught) units tend to get bogged down and ignore orders to stop and withdraw: they face the nearest enemy and go at them and ignore the rest. Other units can get imaginative 'is that our cavalry in the rear, or is it the enemy? Holy ..."

War is hard. Leaders try to keep their forces well positioned, not bogged down, one step ahead of the other guy. A flank attack (ie a part of your army attacking an army's wing, perhaps from an oblique, perpendicular or best of all rear angle) is a normal battle option. getting a force around a flank though exposes it, all other things being equal. By definition you detach a part of your force and send it off into the blue. It is at risk of being caught, perhaps by the enemies whole force if it is in turn out-manouevred.

Fredrick the great overcame this problem by flanking with his entire force: he'd rapid march his boys to an oblique angle and approach his center against the opposition wing: still risky but he had a manouevre advantage and he exploited it. i think he was copying (in part) Alexander's superb (risky) battle plan from Gaugemela: here again the whole army rapid marched and approached on an oblique angle, disrupting the larger enemy line and throwing prior plans into some dissarray although the main attack was against the centre and the Makedonian line was doubled to protect the rear of the first line. Gaugemela was finished with a sharp cavalry charge at the centre, another Frederickan trick.

That battle gives me cold sweats when I think about it. March the whole force diagonally, trust the weak second line to defend the rear of the incredibly short front line, "don't worry guys, I'll catch the enemy cavalry with the tribesmen we have hanging off our bridles of our massively ounumbered cavalry, then we'll dart back toward the centre (no way the elephants will have moved across to cover it by then) and i will personally kill the opposition king before the rest of you are trampled by the largest army anyone has yet assembled". He was a genius to make it work, did not attempt a flank attack or outflank (he did feint toward the flank though) and Darius' attempted double envelopment failed because he was too slow, didn't deal with the second line and couldn't blunt the Companion Cavalry charge before it reached his own position.

At Austerlitz the Russians attempted a massive outflank, marching over half their force south to sweep up the French from the right to left. It was bold and well planned: Napoleon's right was weak, the Russian centre was protected by the Pratzen heights (which were thought to obscure sight of the move and to hinder any French spoiling attack) and they could smell victory. Sadly things went wrong.

Davout had force marched all night and arrived to block the Russian left. French scouts spotted the Russians in marching columns heading south. Soult counterattacked across Pratzen heights (Napleon's infantry had developed uncanny speed and now high morale as well allowing rapid movement and return to formation beyond other army's capabilities at the time: the Russians had not seen this yet) and took the Russian regiments heading south in flank, scattering them piecemeal. French left held the Austrians at bay. The Russian move to outflank led to the near destruction of their force (the remnants were saved by repeated reckless charges by the guard cavalry led by the Emperor's brother) and the Austrians wisely bugged out to fight another day.

Against a skilled nimble opponent a gamble like an outflank was possibly suicidal. In the right circumstances it could bag a smaller opponent with less loss of life. Art Agincourt the English line held (because of superb terrain choices by Henry V, and because the French knights only wanted to fight the English knights, and caused a pedestrian crush trying to all get at them while ignoring all other English, who beat them to death with hammers-true story) and the only serious threat was a tiny outflank attempt made against orders by a stray local noble.

At Agincourt the French wanted a face to face battle because their superiority in chevaliers vs knights (which they considered the only important fighting element ) was colossal, at least ten to one. They wanted a knight vs knight battle because that satisfied honour. The English, more intent on surviving fought a battle we would recognise as more "military" in character: they aimed to defeat the attack with all arms playing a part. French tactics were to advance on foot, so their horses would not be shot from under them (cunning plan!), wear heavier armour to neutralise English archery (well it worked) but once on the field the French began falling over one another to get to the handful on English knights in the line.

Soldiers do not always behave intelligently in battle. They are not trained too, they are trained to carry out a set of tactics, and how they do that is influenced by a dizzying array of other factors: education (the French infantry in the Napoleonic wars was more literate than other armies, and it showed), social position, specialcirumstances relating to pay, supply, the character of the commander etc etc.

The variety of systems that get men to battle do not always prepare them to respond effectively to what really happens. The French in the Battles of the Frontiers in 1914, the British force at the Somme in 1916, the Romans at Cannae, all these seem stupid wastes but they were actually well thought out plans that seemed to their commanders would work.

Sometimes an outflank works. Sometimes a stab at the flank works. Sometimes it does not.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Because his parents are immigrants . So then, are his parents Britons?





I don't think it's innocuous to tie ethnicity and culture together. Especially as a prescription. Many immigrants arrive to a different country precisely because they wish to escape the backwards culture of their home countries. I think it's wrong to go against the idea of "migrant nation" or whatever because migrants typically do not have political power. I think Western society is based upon our values and the people who uphold them, not by their skin color or their country of origin. I remember there was a particularly powerful saying I read somewhere, it goes something like this,

"There are many Americans all over the world, they just haven't come home yet."

I think a person's ethnicity and their cultural background is completely irrelevant. I think what defines a person as German, British, American, or whatever, is whether they've assimilated into the general culture of that country. I think a unifying characteristic of all Western societies is opportunity. That a man, regardless of his cultural background, can come into a Western country, adopt their values and become successful. I think denying people such an opportunity because Germany is for Germans, or because people want to be selective about who gets such opportunities, is doing the world and their country a disservice.

So sure, you may have said a relatively innocuous statement, but I disagree with the sentiment your words carry in this Forum and in the wider world. To apply my philosophy to the wider world, I am particularly critical of Japanese xenophobia towards immigrants and foreigners. I think it is extremely backwards for an otherwise advanced and respectable society.

I nominate Sukiyama.

[Swaeft]

Hanny, I bow to your impeccable reasoning. Either that or you have proven yourself to be not only incapable of reading what others write, but also what you yourself cite.
divorce, separation and annulment are 3 different things. It's not just a UK thing, it's a global one, but it ALSO applied to the UK.

You could read what you yourself quoted and you'd find the same distinction there.

I'd think it not be hard for a man to either deliver a reasoned counterargument or owning up to making a mistake.
But nah, you'll rather show us again what a big boy you are. ^^

---

Ludicus, you perfectly know well that I don't call for stoning, and I specifically wrote that I don't have a problem with divorce (aside from it usually being messy). So you've purposefully created a strawman to fight. Is that the best you got?

Marriage is a contractual thing. Much like whenever I sign an employment contract it often forbids me from working on other projects of the same kind without my employer.
Should those contracts be irrelevant as well? Should all contracts and legal agreements be thrown out of the window? Or is it only marriage you have a problem with?
And if so: Why should it be your problem when two grown adults willingly sign that deal?!

Human lives being finite isn't a religious thing. It's a fact of life. People have ~5 decades of adult life to share, but it takes time to find someone to share it with. Let's say someone suddenly finds out that his or her spouse has been living a double life and cheating for decades and that they themselves have thus been living a lie. You think that mental distress caused wasn't voluntary? Or do you think that's ok and the cheater is a swell being for this?! If the spouse that has been betrayed and humiliated and had his or her life torn apart basically overnight then gets into a deep depression or even kills him- or herself because of this, you seriously think the adulterer isn't responsible for this?! Wow.

Abusive behaviour inflicting serious harm on others should be a criminal offense. Adultery is a form of abuse inflicting serious harm.

---

None of your links argue against anything I state. They reiterate it. Separation, Divorce and Annulment are three different things.
I never argued that divorce was easy or obtainable for everyone. But IF one had enough funds to obtain said divorce, BOTH partners were allowed to remarry.
Our rhetorical and legal genius Hanny here can claim otherwise as much as he wants - there's a huge gap between what you are arguing and what your sources actually say.

The example I provided twice proves that a second marriage would have been possible if a divorce had been achieved (which it did not, as the husband preferred separation), and also once again points out the difference between separation and divorce.

I nominate CG.

[Katsumoto]

I view border security and border wall as two separate issues. Border security can and must be done without a border wall largely and ironically due to one of the most bipartisan issues out there. Eminent Domain.

Maps. Maps are good. Here are maps of federally owned land both in the country and on the border:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One must ask the question on this map: why does the government own this much land in the western united states? Answer: because the land is largely useless and highly difficult to maintain. No private citizen wants the red highlighted land, and no state wants it. Back when this land became territory, the government really couldn't shove it off on people to save its life. So it still belongs to the Federal government. You dig deep down there are parts of it that just look awesome, so much of it has become National Parks and National Reserves as new technologies have been researched(say, oil drilling would've made certain nice looking lands useful). See next picture.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This separates most if not all the relevant federal lands on the border into the agencies that maintain them. You see a lot of National Parks and National Wildlife Reserves. More importantly in New Mexico, Arizona, and California, you just see a lot of federal land on the border. They could just build that damn wall on the border in those states. Most of Texas's border is not owned by the Federal Government. And when you dig down into Texas's people, either via local commentary or via the GOP House Rep that represents the longest stretch of the border than any other representative in the house, THEY JUST OPPOSE THE WALL.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/s...152402734.html

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/10...border-mexico/

https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-...ps-wall-2019-1

They will vote for Border Security. But seguing the concept of good border security into a wall is pure nonsense.

What's really wrong with the wall? Nearly everything Trump rants about, from smuggling drugs to illegal aliens, mostly cross the border in ports of entry. Smuggled drugs come in through ports and have to be found through detection methods that Democrats are perfectly willing to spend 10 god damn billion dollars on. Illegal aliens, by the numbers, mostly come in legally and overstay their visas.

This is not an argument you will win. This is only an argument you will only bluster on about how Trump wants a wall.

That said, if Trump wants a wall, he'd better be ready to give a very nice quo in return for the quid. He has not yet. So screw him and the horse he rode in on. The most he gets is basic government reopening.

[Prodromos]

I view border security and border wall as two separate issues. Border security can and must be done without a border wall largely and ironically due to one of the most bipartisan issues out there. Eminent Domain.

Maps. Maps are good. Here are maps of federally owned land both in the country and on the border:



One must ask the question on this map: why does the government own this much land in the western united states? Answer: because the land is largely useless and highly difficult to maintain. No private citizen wants the red highlighted land, and no state wants it. Back when this land became territory, the government really couldn't shove it off on people to save its life. So it still belongs to the Federal government. You dig deep down there are parts of it that just look awesome, so much of it has become National Parks and National Reserves as new technologies have been researched(say, oil drilling would've made certain nice looking lands useful). See next picture.



This separates most if not all the relevant federal lands on the border into the agencies that maintain them. You see a lot of National Parks and National Wildlife Reserves. More importantly in New Mexico, Arizona, and California, you just see a lot of federal land on the border. They could just build that damn wall on the border in those states. Most of Texas's border is not owned by the Federal Government. And when you dig down into Texas's people, either via local commentary or via the GOP House Rep that represents the longest stretch of the border than any other representative in the house, THEY JUST OPPOSE THE WALL.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/s...152402734.html

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/10...border-mexico/

https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-...ps-wall-2019-1

They will vote for Border Security. But seguing the concept of good border security into a wall is pure nonsense.

What's really wrong with the wall? Nearly everything Trump rants about, from smuggling drugs to illegal aliens, mostly cross the border in ports of entry. Smuggled drugs come in through ports and have to be found through detection methods that Democrats are perfectly willing to spend 10 god damn billion dollars on. Illegal aliens, by the numbers, mostly come in legally and overstay their visas.

This is not an argument you will win. This is only an argument you will only bluster on about how Trump wants a wall.

That said, if Trump wants a wall, he'd better be ready to give a very nice quo in return for the quid. He has not yet. So screw him and the horse he rode in on. The most he gets is basic government reopening.

[makanyane]

Desalination is very possible. Saudi Arabia is currently building the world's largest desalination plant and the Israelis have been use desalination for years.

I think cost is the biggest problem but that could be offset with more efficient practices and better technology.

Maybe it is. Reading this article gives me some figures to work with. So the Sotek plant, which is state of the art, costs 500$ million, supplies 20 percent of Israeli households, let's say 1.5 million people (basing this off of Israel's rough population of 8-9 million people). It sells this water at 58 cents per 1000 liters. The population of MENA, probably the region with the greatest water issues, is expected to increase from 411 million today, to 580+ million in 2050.

Now props to Israel for aggressively tackling their water security, with desalination supplying 40% of their water supply. That's pretty amazing. Israel is a very rich country though, and while many MENA countries are rich, not all of them are. To supply 150+ million people, you'd need, to use some very rudimentary/inaccurate math here, 500$ million * (150million/1.5million), or 50$ billion. Now obviously these are bad numbers, innovation, cost over-runs, economies of scale, etc all drastically change these numbers. I think it is safe to say that to adequately secure the water source for MENA's urban populations you'd need billions upon billions of dollars. This is especially true for downstream countries who want to maintain their water security. The Renaissance Dam in Ethiopia which is threatening to devastate Egypt's farmlands is one example of how upstream nations can threaten downstream nations, and this is before we calculate the effects of climate change and population growth.

Now if Kuwait and Saudi Arabia want to export desalinated water... They have to build pipeline infrastructure, they have to actually meet their own water needs first, etc. I mean, I'm just skeptical that it could be done. It'll require a lot of investment. I don't see Kuwait and Saudi Arabia doing that. I certainly agree that desalination is feasible in general, and can increase water security for many MENA countries, but I think many will be unable to do so or have no funds for doing that. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait can probably secure their own water needs, but a country like Egypt and Iraq for example, are probably out of luck, especially considering their recent history with political instability and the fact that they do not have as many extra resources as rich Arab oil nations like S.A. and U.A.E.

I am also no expert, but it seems the mad dash to end nuclear power generation programs as has happened in Germany is way more making the problem worse instead of better. Solar and wind generation may help, but nuclear not in the solution set makes it not workable unless time and money is successful on new engineering solutions. If we are truly concerned with making this work in the short run, then existing nuclear technology needs to be a part of the solution set.

I am also very disappointed as well. Nuclear energy should be the spearhead of climate change.

I´m also not expert, but working with nuclear science. There are future generation and possible new way how to build nuclear power plant. Exotic fuels, different technology...Lithium, Thorium, plants with almost no radioactive waste...All these have very same problem. There are not tested and they would require tons of money to catch all bugs and make efficient enough. That´s the main problem even with solar panels, electric cars,.....Classic cars and coal power plans were constantly improved for century to the point of maximum efficiency. You cannot made the same progress with anything in 5 years, it takes time and lot of money and for nuclear power plants it means A LOT of money. And here comes politics and economics into play. You can harldy get money for nuclear power plant..for working one with tested technology but getting 10x more money for untested tech with prospect of 10-20 years of possible tinkering and bug catching? And often even if you solve ecology problem in one area, you just move problem into next one. Like mining enough Lithium for power cells and processing it and what about recyclation of solar panels?

The problem is that people aren't even willing to entertain the idea. We have had a number of nuclear programs over the years. The biggest obstacle is lack of national funding. Gas reactors are cheap, they can be built en masse or slowly, and the economics are well understood. The same is true of green energy like wind power and solar. It's very scalable up and down. You can build 1 wind turbine, or 50 giant ones. On the other hand nuclear programs require vast amounts of capital. This is why miniaturization has been one of the "trendy" topics in nuclear power today.

From this post if anyone wants to sort/check the included quotes

[Abdülmecid I]

That's a mischaracterization of natural theology. The arguments don't state that something is inexplicable, therefore our God is behind it. You're congratulating yourself for refuting a silly, cartoonish version of theistic argument that no intellectually serious theist actually makes. You misunderstand both natural theology and what theists mean by God. This is a good resource:

https://archive.org/details/FiveProo...ExistenceOfGod

I recommend starting with the book above, Ed Feser's Five Proofs of the Existence of God.
Although it should be noted that belief in God doesn't necessarily lead to Christianity.

I speak my mind and don't pull any punches. Let me demonstrate it on the old prima causa, central argument of Aquinas' theology and therefore included in that book of yours. I admit I read only the summary you put here, but since it mentions Thomistic proof as one of its core topics, it has to be there.

Thomistic proof rests on causality. It argues, in essence, that infinite regression is impossible (since Aquinas couldn't imagine it I guess), therefore there has to be element not subject to causality, therefore god. It neatly shows the objections I have to the natural theology, and theology in general.

Infinite regression, while mind-boggling, is actually possible according to our knowledge of universe. There are alternatives that Aquinas never knew or considered, like cyclical universe. The entire universe could be following the closed spacetime curve. To this, people might object, we know of Big Bang. But they do not understand what it was. At one point, the entire universe was single point containing all the energy of the universe. We don't know if there was anything before it, and we can't know it, because the information was destroyed when it became the single point, whether it was by act of creation, spontaneous appearance or, for example, the entire universe imploding. There is not just one possibility. There's infinite number of them.

Entertaining the notion of causality violation only reveals more problems. So you think something violated causality. So, what can you tell about it? Exactly one thing. At one point it violated causality. Without causality, you don't have logic that could be used for induction. You don't have any other data about it either. Could it be god? Could. But it could also be the log I dropped into toilet this morning. The possibilities are literally infinite. There is no way to tell if it had any properties that could be corellated with a god, much less your god. You can't even tell if it existed beyond that one initial point in time or if it can violate causality again. The jump to a god is a huge leap of faith.

Those are things symptomatic to theology. It considers something element that is a priori considered not a subject of logic and causality, and cannot be conclusively linked to any empiric data. So theologicans end up substituting that for their imagination, hopes, and end up ignoring the infinite possiblities that are just as likely as what their minds produced.

TL;DR version. Theology in general is , and here's why.

Were theories of the MIC and deep state not already there before Trump, originated from CIA coups and political corruption?

CIA coups and things like MKULTRA are true, but there is quite a distance between acknowledging past wrongdoing on behalf of the US government and assuming anyone who criticizes Trump is being ordered to do by Obama/Clinton/Soros.

To put it another way, it's good to be a little suspicious of government. That's your job as a citizen, to keep your government honest. But some people are paranoid about government. There is a massive difference between the two. One is realizing the government is not always 100% honest and wanting to look deeper, the other is assuming the government is 100% dishonest all the time and then looking only for information that confirms your original hypothesis.

It's evolved over time, I imagine.

The problem is that these morons (and good god there are even books!) are trying to say that any criticism of the Trump government must either be deepstate or treasonous in origin. Clintons are in on it, the Obamas are in on it, some people think the ENTIRE democratic party is in on it. And if you go further you find the Qultists believe that the deep state needs to be dismantled and everyone against the president thrown into camps, all for the simple fact that they oppose a constitutionally and morally questionable President. We are talking about nearly 70 million people, here. Trump himself has even retweeted 'shopped images of his opposition in prison, which stokes the fire even more.

The ironic thing is that they are so deep into this that they don't see the actual investigation into a conspiracy that is turning up results. They don't see the several Trump associates being indicted and thrown into prison as maybe something is going on. They don't see the fact that Russians and Russian companies are being indicted as maybe something is going on. They don't see his behavior, the collapse of the executive branch, the alienation of our allies and the cozying up to our enemies as...MAYBE SOMETHING IS GOING ON.
I mean jesus christ I have heard Republicans legitimately say they would rather have Putin playing puppetmaster to Trump than Clinton as president.

Think about that...They would rather have our government compromised by a foreign power than have Clinton in charge.

The Q/Deep State has warped their reality so much and Trump and Fox and everyone have stoked the fears so deep that they just cannot see anything beyond that.

An author named Michael Barkun wrote what I think is a good description of the psychology of conspiracy theories. It certainly fits the whole Qanon/deep state thing:

"The appeal of conspiracism is threefold. First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what others can’t. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing. Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents. Finally, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters’ deceptions."

For point one Qanon is a way that some Trump supporters can rationalize the fact that none of their boogeymen are in jail. Go back and look at any right-wing page from election night 2016 and read the comments. Trump supporters were ecstatically assuring each other that Clinton, Obama, Soros, and anyone else they don't like would be jailed/executed within a week of the inauguration. But as time went on and no arrests were made they started to get confused. Surely with the mountains of evidence the right claimed exists for crimes including bribery, cannibalism, child rape, murder, and treason at least one or two indictments would have been issued? With all three branches of government under his control, why was Trump allowing the world's most despicable criminal masterminds to walk free?

Around the time of the billionaire tax cut some of the smarter Trump voters started to realize the GOP and Trump had lied through their teeth to get into power and had no intention of doing anything beyond funneling money to the mega-rich. Others started to look around desperately for something, anything, to tell them that Trump hadn't really lied to them. The comforting lies of Qanon attracted these people like flies to honey.

For point two, conservative media has spent nearly ten years now demonizing Obama and nearly thirty years demonizing Clinton, and the same amount of time demonizing whoever the latest 'other' happens to be. They regularly accuse anyone they don't like of the most ridiculous things and the conservative viewers, having long since lost the ability to think critically, accept what they are told without question. They truly believe they are in a war against evil, where evil is defined as "anytime something happens I don't like or when I don't get my way".

For point three, people who believe in conspiracy theories tend to be at least a little narcissistic. They believe themselves so much smarter than everyone else that the possibility they are mistaken or being lied to is unthinkable. Surely with their genius they would easily see through it if anyone lied to them? It's much more emotionally satisfying to think they are part of a select group that sees through all the lies told by "the man", it appeals to their ego and allows them to look down upon the 'sheeple'.

[Aexodus]

This is probably the best view.



Every country has some skeletons, however it is problably biggest headcount in russian one and we are not discussing others in this thread. Of course Russia is not pure evil, however it takes some talent (thanks to Cheka and NKVD) to make people (Baltis states, Finnland, Ukraine) to see in Nazi Germany possible saviours. Of course such wish were fruitless. We have also some dubious heroes in Czech history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_...a%C5%A1%C3%ADn for some they are anti communist heroes, for some, cold blooded murderers) but judging from our luxury point of view in peace time. It is probably different to live in time when on one side is Nazi Germany and on other side Stalin, being nice won´t do is such company...

Problem is, everything has some context and looking from different angle of point of view will result in different conclusions... every moment has reasons and consequences. Cold War is result of WW2 which was set in motion by WW1 which is another round of 1870 .....because for example Charlemagne spit his empire between his sons this laying ground for modern Germany/France rivalry...damn hereditary succession in his empire, if only there were Primogeniture

There are many reasons in the last century why Russia has problems with everybody around.

Anyway back to Ukraine

https://www.britannica.com/event/Nazism


I´m sorry to follow, but changing Hitler to Putin and enemies of Aryan to ...enemies all around like USA, NATO, EU...damn it is almost like Russia. Ukraine has some problems but the leaders being Nazis? Have you seen new president of Brazil? That will be even bigger fun...

See point is, labels are meaningless in current state. You slam it onto something but without real meaning it is for nothing. Because just this week I read about US/Trump nazis, EU nazis, Russia Nazis, Ukraine Nazis.... So either Hitler in secret won and Nazis are rulling over whole world or it is just somebody trying to paint everything as Nazis. (which make great sence for Russia, as they are still celebrating their great moment of defeating Germany in Great Patriotic War...not WW2..because you don´t like to be reminded about being Ally of Hitler/Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and actually splitting Poland in half...yeah sad story.)

Making Bandera nation hero is just reaction to piss off somebody, the same like creating independent Ukraine Church... you cannot see these steps independently. It is action and reaction in struggle with Russia.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-church/ukraines-president-names-leader-of-new-church-in-split-from-russia-idUSKBN1OE0KG