Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Aexodus]

Tough talk is fun and all, but it's probably not a great way to avoid conflict.

Indeed, but one must be able to solve conflicts if they are unavoidable.

[sumskilz]

An NPR opinion piece on Biden's approach to dealing with Iran:

Iran appears intent on generating a nuclear crisis early in Joe Biden's presidency. On Monday, the Iranian government said it began enriching uranium to the 20% level, which is close to the purity used in a nuclear weapon. It is preparing further steps in the coming months, according to a timeline passed by parliament. Iran aims to compel Biden to immediately and unconditionally remove the sanctions that President Trump began to impose three years ago after he pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei repeated this demand on Friday, calling on the U.S. to lift sanctions on Iran "immediately."

Biden should not play into Iran's pattern of nuclear threats combined with artificial deadlines. Biden and his team will have time — and economic leverage — on their side. The incoming administration should take advantage of its strong position to diligently pursue its goal of strengthening and lengthening nuclear restrictions and should resist the pressure to act hastily.

Biden will inherit significant economic leverage over Iran. However misguided and erratic Trump's approach was toward Iran, the president renewed and strengthened the U.S.'s most comprehensive sanctions regime. Trump failed to convert this leverage into diplomatic progress because he did not have a clear strategy or a realistic path to achieving it. While Trump repeatedly urged Iran to negotiate and "Make the Big Deal," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's demands for Iran amounted to a call for regime change. Trump also hired John Bolton, an outspoken supporter of regime change, to serve as national security adviser. Tehran had little incentive to talk, let alone offer concessions, to an administration that ultimately sought its surrender or demise.

Biden will flip this logic. The president-elect has outlined concrete diplomatic objectives concerning Iran — including reaffirming the importance of the 2015 nuclear agreement. The nuclear deal, signed by Iran and six world powers, imposed limits on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for international sanctions relief. Biden and his team, which played key roles in securing that agreement when he was vice president, have proved they can negotiate in good faith and keep their word. By taking a more realistic approach, Biden can unlock the power of the leverage Trump accumulated.

U.S. economic might should not be underestimated. Combined with Iran's endemic corruption and the coronavirus pandemic, U.S. sanctions have cratered the Iranian economy, driven up inflation and eroded the purchasing power of average Iranians. The U.S. measures have effectively cut off Iran from the international financial system and targeted key sectors, including energy and manufacturing. Oil exports, Iran's most important source of hard currency, remain largely crippled by the threat of U.S. sanctions. The government has tried to boost the non-oil sector and focus on trade in goods that are not as easy for sanctions to interrupt. But Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's latest budget proposal continues to rely significantly on oil. Budgeting has a habit of focusing minds, and the message from Rouhani's plan could not have been clearer: The long-term stability of the economy depends in large part on relations with Washington.

Tehran will try to prevent Biden from taking advantage of this leverage by creating an atmosphere of imminence and crisis. Even as Tehran reacted to the siege at the U.S. Capitol this week, President Rouhani repeated his call on Biden to lift sanctions, saying, "If you won't fulfill your commitments, we won't bow to you." Tehran's efforts can be divided into three categories.

First, the Iranian president and his aides are urging Biden to move quickly, before Iran's June presidential elections. Rouhani, a relative moderate, is serving his final term. A more conservative leader will likely prevail in the election, potentially creating a window of opportunity to deal with Rouhani on his way out the door. But, as analyst Ariane Tabatabai and I have argued, the impending election will not fundamentally alter Tehran's strategic outlook or its openness to negotiations. Rouhani's successor will not necessarily be more hostile to diplomacy even if he is more anti-American. Washington should not expect that its policies can dictate the outcome of the Iranian election, and it should not allow the election to dictate its own policies.

Second, Tehran is trying to create a ticking clock with its nuclear program. The parliament passed legislation that sets up a series of dates when Iran is to take new nuclear steps. The most provocative next step, a significant reduction in international inspector access, is slated for late February. But these deadlines are purely artificial. Iran's nuclear policy is ultimately under the control of Khamenei, not the rambunctious, hawkish parliament or the lame-duck president. Deadlines can and will be fudged depending on the overall political environment.

Third, Tehran continues to bolster its forces and lash out in the region, a not-so-subtle reminder to Biden about its capability to cause trouble. Washington noted with increasing concern last week that Iranian-backed forces were planning to attack U.S. soldiers based in Iraq to mark the anniversary of the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. (Foreign Minister Javad Zarif responded with the bizarre suggestion that "Israeli agent-provocateurs are plotting attacks against Americans" in Iraq.)

On Monday, armed Iranian forces boarded a South Korean tanker and are apparently holding it hostage until Seoul facilitates the release of some $7 billion of Iranian assets frozen in Korean banks. The following day, Iran launched significant exercises with military drones.

But these shows of force may end up being self-defeating, as they turn more countries against Tehran. For example, increased Iranian provocations may push Gulf Arab states closer to Israel, strengthening the agreements normalizing relations between these countries and Israel that were brokered by the Trump administration last year.

Even if Iran does escalate its nuclear program or its provocative regional activity, Biden has tools to deflect the pressure. He plans to strengthen relations with key U.S. allies, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, which are party to the nuclear agreement. Under Trump, European states spent as much time condemning Washington as they did Tehran. With unity between the U.S. and Europe, new Iranian provocations will only further isolate Tehran. The three European states on Wednesday issued a sharp condemnation of Iran's latest nuclear steps, a sign of future U.S.-European unity. Russia and China, the other signatories to the agreement, will also oppose Iranian efforts to significantly expand its nuclear program. Israel will remain laser-focused on Iran and probably will set clear red lines to box in Iranian activity.

How Biden decides to proceed with Iran will depend in part on his other priorities, as well as the views of U.S. allies. During the presidential campaign and transition, Biden and his aides indicated a desire to bolster the verification provisions of the nuclear deal and extend the duration of its physical restrictions. They have also expressed an intention to conduct broader, regional negotiations. All of these steps will require painstaking multilateral diplomacy. Ultimately, Biden should not feel rushed for these critical negotiations — and he should leverage his sanctions inheritance to advance these objectives.

[mishkin]

Thought I don't necessarily disagree with Mishkin's comments directly, it is a rather Eurocentric view. Even in Eastern Europe, there is more misogyny than in Western Europe and United States. And in Asian countries? Oh my. One of the world's largest economies, Japan, has cultural norms that many progressives in United States would find absolutely horrifying. The same is of course true of South Korea.

I never mentioned Europe, I still don't know if South Korea is more misogynistic than, say, my own country (Spain), and I don't even know why I should bother to make a comparison.

--------------------------------------------------

Are they not an advanced society?

Not as advanced as I thought, I say that exactly in the post you quoted. Who spoke here of "primitive societies"?

Why dont you answer Aexodus?

[sumskilz]

I never mentioned Europe

Eurocentric, some relevant definitions:

Oxford: "implicitly regarding European culture as preeminent"

Merriam-Webster: "reflecting a tendency to interpret the world in terms of European or Anglo-American values and experiences"

Specifically, your comments denote a worldview in which Western-derived progressive values are inherently superior and should be normative for all cultures regardless of whether those cultures share those values. On what authority are your sanctimonious judgements of South Korean culture based other than a culturally-derived sense of moral superiority?

[mishkin]

Eurocentric, some relevant definitions:

Oxford: "implicitly regarding European culture as preeminent"

Merriam-Webster: "reflecting a tendency to interpret the world in terms of European or Anglo-American values and experiences"

Specifically, your comments denote a worldview in which Western-derived progressive values are inherently superior and should be normative for all cultures regardless of whether those cultures share those values. On what authority are your sanctimonious judgements of South Korean culture based other than a culturally-derived sense of moral superiority?

I never mentioned Europe, I still don't know if South Korea is more misogynistic than, say, my own country (Spain), and I don't even know why I should bother to make a comparison.

[sumskilz]

I still don't know if South Korea is more misogynistic than, say, my own country (Spain), and I don't even know why I should bother to make a comparison.

That you are critical of some elements of Spanish culture is irrelevant to the question:

On what authority are your sanctimonious judgements of South Korean culture based other than a culturally-derived sense of moral superiority?

[mishkin]

That you are critical of some elements of Spanish culture is irrelevant to the question:

I have said that I am critical of misogyny in Spain and that I do not know if South Korea is more misogynous than Spain. I have also said that any comparison seems stupid. In my original post, I compare how advanced South Korea seems to be with the opinion that, for whatever reason, I previously had of South Korea. That's the only comparison I make. I did not compare Korean society with European society. As much Eurocentrism as there may be, I did not made any Europe - Korea comparison, my comment was not racist or xenophobic at all, and, @Aexodus, I did not refer to any culture as primitive at all. And of course, I don't need any moral superiority to criticize misogyny anywhere.

[sumskilz]

I have said that I am critical of misogyny in Spain and that I do not know if South Korea is more misogynous than Spain. I have also said that any comparison seems stupid. In my original post, I compare how advanced South Korea seems to be with the opinion that, for whatever reason, I previously had of South Korea. That's the only comparison I make. I did not compare Korean society with European society. As much Eurocentrism as there may be, I did not made any Europe - Korea comparison, my comment was not racist or xenophobic at all, and, @Aexodus, I did not refer to any culture as primitive at all. And of course, I don't need any moral superiority to criticize misogyny anywhere.

You have not given the impression that you consider traditional Spanish culture to be superior to South Korean culture, rather your posts continue to indicate that you consider yourself morally superior to South Koreans. There is no doubt that the "progressive" moral values to which you subscribe are culturally European in origin since their philosophical roots are well known.

You must know that different cultures have different values, since you see some as less advanced. The criteria for this appears to be that the more a culture's values differ from your own, the less advanced you deem them to be. Assuming that you don't believe that your values are derived from a high power, I'm curious why you believe your personal moral judgement is superior to that of South Koreans?

[mishkin]

You have been working with assumptions for two pages and asking questions that have nothing to do with my criticism of misogyny in South Korea based on an announcement from their government. I repeat, It is ridiculous that you insist that I cannot criticize behavior in other countries

[sumskilz]

I repeat, It is ridiculous that you insist that I cannot criticize behavior in other countries

I never said anything remotely of the sort. That's some serious projection right there. In fact, I vehemently support your right to express whatever sort of bigotry or cultural chauvinism you like. Although, it would be less off-putting if you dialed back the sanctimony a bit and tempered it with some visible degree of self-awareness.

[mishkin]

if a Korean and a British say something obviously misogynistic, I'll say exactly the same to both. If they say "it's because of our culture", I'm going to tell them that their culture sucks a lot. Sorry if this offends you, dont care anymore if you call it bigotry, racism or whatever. And I'm sorry if this doesn't fit the perception you have of me or what you think are my beliefs.

[pacifism]

Indeed, but one must be able to solve conflicts if they are unavoidable.

If.

An NPR opinion piece on Biden's approach to dealing with Iran:

Very interesting. Nice to see that it's not unsalvageable. I still think that the long term effects of America reneging on the nuclear deal is dependent on whether other countries see the Trump administration as a one-time aberration. That narrative kind of relies on whether the Republicans ever regain power while staying Trump-y, which is they very well could do.

[Infidel144]

"Amazon urging halt to union mail-in vote at Bessemer warehouse

Amazon is calling on the National Labor Relations Board to pause the vote among the company’s Bessemer warehouse workers on whether to unionize, citing “serious and systemic flaws” with the board process for conducting the vote amid the COVID-19 pandemic."

https://www.al.com/business/2021/01/...warehouse.html

[Aexodus]

I was trawling wikipedia earlier (read: procrastinating) and I thought these quotes were really interesting. They show much the government's attitude and power has changed.

Following the assassination of William of Orange in 1584 with a concealed wheellock pistol, Queen Elizabeth I, fearing assassination by Roman Catholics, banned possession of wheellock pistols in England near a royal palace in 1594.^[70] There were growing concerns in the 16th century over the use of guns and crossbows. Four acts were imposed to restrict their use in England and Wales.^[71]The Bill of Rights restated the ancient rights of the people to bear arms by reinstating the right of Protestants to have arms after they had been disarmed by James II. It follows closely the Declaration of Rights made in Parliament in February 1689.^[72] The Bill of Rights text declares that "the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law".^[73]

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the Assistance of divers evil Counsellors, Judges, and Ministers, employed by Him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion, and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom ... (b)y assuming and exercising a Power of dispensing with and suspending of Laws, and the Execution of Laws, without Consent of Parliament ... (b)y causing several good Subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same Time when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to Law ... (a)ll which are utterly and directly contrary to the known Laws and Statutes and Freedom of this Realm ... the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections, being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation, taking into their most serious Consideration the best Means for attaining the Ends aforesaid, do in the First Place (as their Ancestors in like Case have usually done), for the vindicating and asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare, ... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence, suitable to their Condition, and as allowed by Law.

The rights of English subjects and, after 1707, British subjects, to possess arms was recognised under English common law. Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms.^[74]

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Formerly, this same British common law applied to the UK and Australia, and until 1791 to the colonies in North America that became the United States [LOL]. The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of common law.
After the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745, harsh laws providing, amongst other things, for disarming the Highlands of Scotland, were enacted by the Parliament of Great Britain: the Disarming Acts of 1716 and 1725, and the Act of Proscription 1746.
The first British firearm controls were introduced as part of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which was set up in a reaction against the large number of people roaming the country with weapons brought back from the Napoleonic wars. It allowed the police to arrest "any person with any gun, pistol, hanger [a light sword], cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon ... with intent to commit a felonious act". It was followed by the Night Poaching Acts 1828 and 1844, the Game Act 1831, and the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, which made it an offence to shoot game illegally by using a firearm.

and

The right of individuals to bear arms had previously been, in the words of the 1689 Bill of Rights, "as allowed by law". The 1920 Act made this right conditional upon the Home Secretary and the police. A series of classified Home Office directives defined for the benefit of chief constables what constituted good reason to grant a certificate. They originally included self-defence.^[77]As the 1920 Act did not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms illegally, in 1933 the Firearms and Imitation Firearms (Criminal Use) Bill was submitted to Parliament. It increased the punishment for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime and made it an offence punishable by up to 14 years' imprisonment for anyone to "attempt to make use" of any firearm or imitation firearm to resist arrest. Possession of a real or imitation firearm was also made an offence unless the possessor could show he had it for "a lawful object".

The Firearms Act 1920 was partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of firearms available following World War I and also fears of working-class unrest in this period....

...The same year, the Home Secretary ruled that self-defence was no longer a suitable reason for applying for a firearm certificate and directed police to refuse such applications on the grounds that "firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger".^[80]

The last bit about self defence was the one that picqued my interest the most. I thought the whole history here shows the potential that caveats placed upon civil rights can effect down the line, even hundreds of years later.

[Peresvet]

Film of russian activist and political oppositionist Alexey Navalny about palace of russian president and dictator Putin and his corruption

[mishkin]

Film of russian activist and political oppositionist Alexey Navalny about palace of russian president and dictator Putin and his corruption

[Lord Thesaurian]

China has passed a bill that allows its coast guard to use weapons when foreign ships involved in illegal activities in waters claimed by the country fail to obey orders, state-run media reported, in a move that would complicate relations with Japan.

As Beijing claims that the Senkaku Islands, administered by Tokyo in the East China Sea, are part of its territory, the legislation could target Japanese vessels navigating around the uninhabited islets, which are known in China as the Diaoyu.

New U.S. President Joe Biden, who took office Wednesday, reportedly told Suga in November that Article 5 of the Japan-U.S. security treaty covers the Senkakus, meaning that Washington will help defend the islets in the event of a conflict there.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...uard-senkakus/

The Philippines has protested a new Chinese law that authorizes its coast guard to fire on foreign vessels and destroy other countries' structures on islands it claims, Manila’s top diplomat said Wednesday.
Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr. said in a tweet that the new Chinese law “is a verbal threat of war to any country that defies” it. Failure to challenge the law “is submission to it,” he said.

“While enacting law is a sovereign prerogative, this one — given the area involved, or for that matter the open South China Sea — is a verbal threat of war to any country that defies the law,” Locsin said.

China’s Coast Guard Law, which was passed on Friday, empowers the force to “take all necessary measures, including the use of weapons, when national sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction are being illegally infringed upon by foreign organizations or individuals at sea.”

The law also authorizes the coast guard to demolish other countries’ structures built on reefs and islands claimed by China and to seize or order foreign vessels illegally entering China’s territorial waters to leave.

https://abcnews.go.com/International...t-war-75511461

Beijing either wants war, or is confident the Biden Admin is all talk and won’t really back up regional allies if push comes to shove. I have a sinking feeling they may be right.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Enrique Tarrio, Hispanic leader of the “white supremacist” group Proud Boys, has reportedly been an undercover informant for law enforcement for years. This news comes as halfwit politicians in Canada passed legislation to designate the group as a terrorist organization. #Awkward

[PointOfViewGun]

Enrique Tarrio, Hispanic leader of the “white supremacist” group Proud Boys, has reportedly been an undercover informant for law enforcement for years. This news comes as halfwit politicians in Canada passed legislation to designate the group as a terrorist organization. #Awkward

Why awkward?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Because if this symbolic effort to put political pressure on Trudeau actually works, and the Proud Boys are formally designated as a terrorist entity in Canada, just being associated with the group could make someone a terrorist. The USG would have no legal mechanism to cooperate since US law does not criminalize ideology or charge someone with being a domestic terrorist. Even if the FBI could try and work around the fact that one of their informants is now considered the equivalent of Osama bin Laden in his home country, cooperation with the terrorist label has the potential to drive the group further underground, complicate efforts to monitor and prevent violence associated with them, and undermine aspects of the U.S. legal framework for counterterrorism investigations - basically, the label would probably backfire. The same thing was pointed out when Trump said he wanted to make Antifa a terror group.