Is there a philosophical reason that you have for avoiding music as a topic of conversation? — Arcane Sandwich

Nope. I just try to stick to the actual topic of the thread.

Are we not members of our respective nations? Am I not an Argentine? Are you not a Finn? This talk between you and me is a talk between two different nations in that sense. — Arcane Sandwich

In that sense, but then again this is also talk between two people who are interested in philosophy.

So, what is the need of reciprocity here, between you and me? — Arcane Sandwich

Again, it's about the topic of the thread, that starts with the opening paragraph of @Bob Ross, which is on intent quite provocative. Imperialism isn't reciprocity, it doesn't start from mutual benefits as peaceful engagement does. Looking at World history from the viewpoint of Great Power competition hides or forgets a lot what happens in peacetime.

A very different history than the one that characterized Finland during the 19th and 20th centuries. — Arcane Sandwich

Not actually so different, if you take the 19th and 20th centuries. Both have had civil wars. Both have gotten independence from an Great Power. Both have fought the British (Finland as a Grand Dutchy of Russia then, but still). Where the difference is from being on different continents: Finland never has had a military junta and has had no extermination campaigns. Finland has stayed as a democracy and has prospered rather well, still being poorer than Sweden or Denmark, but still.

Perhaps that's why the communication between you and me is so incredibly difficult, — Arcane Sandwich

Is it?

Individuals talking about philosophy is a reason itself, as we can get new insights from each other and can improve ourselves with the discourse. I'm all for that.

Nation states and the people acting as their representatives, it's a bit different. They talk as representatives and usually have a political domestic agenda, which foreign policy should implement and help.

For nations to engage each other there is this need of recipocity and something for the leadership to show for. Usually the leadership of a country has a mandate to do something, usually to improve the situation of it's people.

Hence if it's Javier Milei meeting our President Alexander Stubb, the obvious question is how trade between the two countries can be increased or what kind of investments could Finland do in Argentina. This is what both Milei and Stubb would want and it would be mutually beneficial for the two countries. The rather small trade between the countries is telling: Finland exported about 400 million euros worth of industrial equipment to Argentina while Argentina exported a meager 10 million euros worth to Finland, mainly wines. Only ten or so Finnish companies operate in Argentina and they employ only 400 people. In Uruguay Finnish investments are far larger with forty companies operating and the exports being over twice as to Argentina, so there obviously is much room for improvement as Argentina is a larger country than Uruguay.

Argentinian wines are good and Argentinian steaks are World renown. Naturally Finland wants to sustain some level of production in agriculture as it's sea lanes could be cut off (and Finland couldn't sustain itself by land connection by Sweden), yet I would think there would be a market for more Argentinian beef and wine. Also as Finland wants to diversify it's energy exports, why not buy LNG from Argentina?

As both Presidents are likely on a tight schedule and likely will have only some brief time to engage with each other, the discussion on commerce and political relations would be important. Yes, they could have a wonderful talk about philosophy, but would that be the most useful way for heads of the political structures to spend their time?

And why would this be important for Argentina? Because exports for Argentina are only 12,93% compared to the GDP, while Finland it is 40,96%. On the trade openess index Finland is on place 106th while Argentina is 192nd out of 196. Here you can see the real effects of Peronism as international trade simply isn't an important part of Argentinian economy. For Peronism "economic independence" has been one of the cornerstones of the political ideology. In fact, as Peronism is actually one type of populism, you can see what the effects on the long run have been in Argentina. At the start of the 20th Century, Argentina was far more wealthier than Finland with far higher GDP / per capita. Now the

Commerce has been the way that rich countries have become rich. For smaller countries (and larger ones, like Germany) international trade has been very important. Yet there's a false narrative that they are rich because they have exploited other countries. Being colonial powers has usually made only a few very rich and in the end have been a more of a problem. Portugal as one of the first European colonial powers and the last one just shows how detrimental it has been and how poor the country was with trying to fight colonial wars in Africa in the 1970's.

When the question is how X looks, one can only answer in terms of how it appears to his / her vision directly from real time observations, and that is all one can do. — Corvus

Empiricism and science goes far further than this, and this was already evident during the time of the first empiricists. Science starts from theories, as it understands that the present ideas can change and we can obtain even better models and theories in the future. Hence rarely do we truly talk about laws of nature and we aren't taught at school laws of nature, laws of physics.

Above all, the scientific method tries to be objective and evade subjectivity. Let's take literally what you said: what X looks like, "can only answer in terms of how it appears to his / her vision directly from real time observations, and that is all one can do." How limiting is that? What then about sounds or radio waves, everything else in the electromagnetic spectrum that we cannot see? Scientific theories here help us to define these, by having a spectrum defined by wavelength or frequency. It helps us to create machines that can use these other frequencies and we can "see" by radio waves (radar) or infrared light etc.

And lastly, if we say that this is our science and the scientific theories we use at the present, it doesn't mean that the theories are less important or less valuable, because they can be replaced in the future. It especially doesn't mean then that a hypothesis like "the Earth is flat" has value, because perhaps in the future there would be a theory that would prove it. Science doesn't work like that. It is built on earlier findings and seldom something is shown to be wrong, but simply not adequate to answer everything. Perfect example of the is Newtonian physics compared to Einsteinian physics. Newton's theories are quite accurate on many occasions, but in some situations Einstein's relativity gives us a better answer.

So in the end, we could say that the theory of Earth being ellipsoid is far more useful to us than the theory that the Earth is flat. And since we can even prove that the Earth isn't flat, but an ellipsoid, the theory of it being flat can be said to be simply false.

For example, would it make sense for Argentina and Finland to form a bloc, with a few other countries? — Arcane Sandwich

If there is a reason for it, if the cooperation would be mutually good for all countries involved, why not? There has to be a reason. Otherwise it's just empty talk, handshakes and the usual photo opportunities.

Your vision can be deceiving. You aren't using the scientific method if you just assume what you see is true. This is the kind of thinking that actually empiricists like Bacon were against in the first place. Me with my bad eyesight cannot see all the stars in the sky, especially not any galaxies or black holes or what ever. It's not a scientific argument to say that what is in the night sky is only the things I myself can see.

Ah, so you believe in blocs, is that it? Like the BRICS, for example. That sort of political organization is what you believe in? That's what's best for the Nordic countries? — Arcane Sandwich

There are different kinds of political organizations. Some are just for talk, but some have a lot more beneficial effects than just leaders meeting each other. Cooperation is beneficial. If two countries don't have relations, there will be a lot of mistrust.

Latin America is a good example of this. In the 19th Century there were a lot of very bloody wars between the countries (like the war of the Confederation) and still you have borders wars like between Peru and Ecuador or Venezuela threatening annexation of large parts of Guyana. This means that the relations, even if better than earlier, are still a bit tense. But they could be better.

As I made clear that the shape of the Earth changes depending on where you are looking at it from. — Corvus

Any object looks different from where you look at it. It's called perspective. Perspective doesn't refute truth or falsity of a statement regarding objective truth about the universe. Here even the theoretical model or the axioms you start with can be questioned.

How is it not? It is purely empirical for the fact that the knowledge is based on my observations on different locations on the Earth. How more could you get empirical, scientific and logical? — Corvus

Do note the implementation of the scientific method. It is far more than just "a perspective" you have. You have this whole methodological process that isn't similar to any random observation I can take by looking at something. It is worth reading Bacon and Locke on this issue (among others) as using the scientific method is far more than just an observation.

So you believe in the Nordic countries as something higher or greater than Suomi, and of Scandinavia? I'm not sure that I understand the point that you seem to be making here. — Arcane Sandwich

Not higher, but something that Finns can relate to with other Northern European countries. Hence Swedes, Norwegians and Finns etc. can refer happily to being part of the Nordic countries. Many times it's very beneficial to have close ties with states and it's something that many countries are very much seeking to build. Hence in Europe we talk about the Benelux-countries, the Visegrad-countries, the Baltic States, the Nordic countries and so on. Trading blocs and political blocs can be very useful when they function.

For Finland it was actually extremely crucial that Sweden joined NATO at the same time (even if thanks to Turkey it was a long process for the country).

And it's something that many times is totally lacking from the historical narratives of "Great Power competition" where the strong defeat and conquer the weak and where Great Empires emerge and collapse. The focus is on conflict, not peace and stability. The last war between the Nordic / Skandinavian countries was fought between Norway and Sweden, which is also the last war that Sweden has fought, happened in 1814 between Sweden and Norway. Hence that is 211 years of peace between the countries, which earlier had many wars starting from the Middle Ages with basically the bellicose Sweden being in constant war all the time.

I am not familiar with either Flat Earthers or Round Earthers claims. — Corvus

How? Seems you value them to be similar, that one isn't better than the other, at least theoretically to make a theoretical argument. And not knowing "their claims" doesn't free you of answering which one you believe to be true, actually, if the you think the World is flat or round.

From my own point of view, I am not a Flat Earther, and I am not a Round Earther either. I am an empiricist. Whether the Earth is flat or round depends on what location you are seeing the Earth from. — Corvus

That's not at all empiricism or being an empiricist. It's not just our sensory experience makes it true, it's also the empirical evidence that something is so. Roger Bacon himself opposed the older Aristotelian view in this way. And that empirical evidence cannot make both to true.

But there are the majority of the Earth population who have not gone out the place they were born, and seen the Earth only from where they stand. — Corvus

And this obviously is the reasoning just why not all historical cultures came to the conclusion that Earth is round. Eratosthenes had to have a lot of exact information to calculate the circumference of Earth (which he got nearly right) in 200 BC.

If you accept the fact that philosophy is more than just believing everything you read and see on youtube, internet, and what is told in the classroom, then you would open your mind and listen to the other folks different ideas and methodologies in arriving their own beliefs and claims. — Corvus

We help others the best with really thinking about what they say and supporting them we think they correct and also disagreeing with them, when we see something incorrect in their reasoning. I value much about the responses I get in this forum. If someone disagrees with me, that's OK. If many disagree with me and say the similar reason for why I am in error, I do have to look at my reply. That's the best kind of help you can get here.

My point was that methodologies of arriving the knowledge is as important as the knowledge itself. — Corvus

Then for this topic, the important question here is: Just why some people, if they indeed are have thought about the issue, come to the conclusion that Earth is flat?

Why is there https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php ? Why do they have the mission of:

The mission of the Flat Earth Society is to promote and initiate discussion of Flat Earth theory as well as archive Flat Earth literature. Our forums act as a venue to encourage free thinking and debate.

The Flat Earth Society mans the guns against oppression of thought and the Globularist lies of a new age. Standing with reason we offer a home to those wayward thinkers that march bravely on with REASON and TRUTH in recognizing the TRUE shape of the Earth - Flat.

Are we "free thinkers" if we believe in something that is false? Do we have to be so different, or otherwise we are the sheeple that conspiracy theorists believe others, the mainstream, being?

The Round Earther's knowledge must have come from the Science class, books and media i.e. it is based on the authority of the institution.

Hence the Flat Earthers' knowledge is more Scientific than the Round Earthers' in terms of the method of their knowledge acquisition i.e. it is based on their own experience and observation rather than relying on the popular beliefs based on the authoritarian inculcation and propaganda.

Therefore the Flat Earther's beliefs are more scientific than the Round Earthers? — Corvus

???

Trying to troll me exactly the way I said that Flat Earthers troll us? Or are you really serious? :smirk:

I don't understand your viewpoint. If there are things that puzzle me that I can see with my own eyes that go against Flat Earth idea, where Science (and geometry) gives me a good answer, why would it then be
about authority of institution, propaganda telling me this? Do you think that learning in school is just a form of remembering lines that the teacher tells you? A lot of that learning is things that I can see working in reality. Just as I can believe in arithmetic, because it works, it gives me answers of my surrounding reality. That's the real idea of understanding: you just don't "learn by heart" or accept something as true because an authority figure has said so, you can observe it yourself that it is so.

In fact, the vast majority of "Flat Earth" conspiracy theories start exactly the way you think Science education works. They see a video in YouTube, which gives an argument about a huge conspiracy. Bigger than the so-called "Moon landing hoax". And this is, in fact, it is actually exactly that "relying on the popular beliefs based on the authoritarian inculcation and propaganda", which you talk about. The authoritarians are just the conspiracy theorists themselves.

As I explained before, you can observe from multiple things that show that the Earth is a sphere. I just gave two examples that I myself have experienced. I could give others. I have been in Central America, in Costa Rica (which has been closest to the Equator) and notice that my shadow is quite under me, a thing where my shadow never is where I live. And there I can see new stars and constellations that I couldn't see at any time in Finland. And I've been in Australia and New Zealand and noticed the a totally different star constellations that I've never seen in Finland. So you tell me how all that is possible with in the flat Earth world?

I need to correct this thing that I said. Scandinavia also includes Denmark, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. Why didn't you point out this mistake that I made, ssu? — Arcane Sandwich

Because Faroa Islands aren't a sovereign state, they are part of Denmark. Even if they have autonomy, just like Greenland or Åland Islands have autonomy from Finland.

Of course there more regions to the Nordic countries too, so ask yourself, do you know all the flags and what regions they represent here?

All I'm saying is, don't deny me that right, because since I'm a South American, I have the same right as a North American to call myself an American simpliciter. But I just say that I'm from Argentina instead, just to avoid unnecessary rambling. — Arcane Sandwich

Actually it's quite telling of the attitude of people of the US to refer to themselves to be Americans, even if it logically refers to all people in the Continent and not just themselves. It would be like if people of the member states of the EU would refer themselves being the Europeans. What role then for the Swiss or for the Norwegians etc?

Hence when Trump is talking about Canada being part of the US, he is talking about annexation, not about a merger of states, where Canada's status would be diminished to be a state like Rhode Island with a governor.

Just how easy it is to prove these issues simply question just what on Earth this Flat-Earth nonsense is about. Is it simply trolling? Is it simply an attempt to try to make nonsense so credible, that people fall for it and have a laugh about it? It looks a conspiracy theory pushed to the extreme, as an outrageous extrapolation of the sum of all conspiracies. Or the intent is to get the "science people" to be angry about the ignorance of the common folk and thus show their hidden elitism and how they look down upon others.

It reminds me of Sasha Baron Cohen's skit playing the character Ali G interviewing a former US Surgeon General, who obviously didn't know who Cohen was (or his character Ali G), seemed to have genuinely thought that that the "hip hop rapster"-interviewer was as idiotically ignorant as Cohen portrays Ali G to be. It's just an extremely hilarious exchange about (def) death starting at 3:50. If you haven't seen it, worth watching.



Flat Eartherism is perhaps something similar: if we believe that people are so ignorant and dumb to believe that the Earth is flat, what does that tell of our attitude toward others? Or then it's simply the algorithms that make this discourse so talked about. When something is blatantly wrong, it gets a lot of replies of the issue being wrong.

So, if you were challenged, someone said "Don't rely on any experts, scientists, NASA photographs -- prove yourself that the earth is round," what do you do? Don't look up the answer, try to come up with one yourself. — flannel jesus

Go to the ocean shoreline on a clear sunny day and look at how outgoing ships simply "sink" into the horizon and incoming ships emerged from the horizon. If the Earth would be flat, the ships would just get tinier and tinier.



And this is why there's a very common "submarine sighting" on the ferries going from Helsinki to Tallinn. Observing people notice the "submarine" emerging, then slowly going past the ferry and later submerging again. Well, it's not a submarine, it's a well known rock that simply looks like a tower of a submarine.



Or if you have a friend, put your head on the ground (perhaps at the shore) and watch the sun go down while your friend is behind you somewhere higher, perhaps on the fifth floor of a building. Talk to each by phone and yell "now!" when the last glimpse of the sun's circle has dissappeared to the horizon. The difference is notable. Now I've done both of these "experiments" and have seen how large ships drop into the horizon as well as seen the difference between the sighting of the sunset.

There is a difference of about three minutes between the first sunset and the last sunset. For Islamic ritual purposes, the building is divided into three zones. In Ramadan, people in the highest floors have to break their fast about 2 minutes later than people on the lowest levels.

Hmmm... I'm not sure if I understand this. What do you mean, when you say those words? — Arcane Sandwich

If the citizens of the US have this national identity of being "American", it's hard to tell that actually now you are going to be Northamerican and so put that antiquated Stars and stripes flag away as it's only a local flag and officially use another new flag. And refer to yourself from now onward as Northamericans when foreigners ask who you are.

If the European Union is Europe's best attempt at articulating European Continentalism, then it's not good enough, because if it was, people would have never even thought about Brexit as a concept, or even as "the right thing to do in such circumstances". — Arcane Sandwich

First of all, many Americans think about secession of their state, at least as a theoretical option. The Brits here can tell just how and why UK did Brexit happen, there's a whole thread about it. However do notice that actually Brexit showed other member states just how awful and economically disastrous such a stupid move would be. How badly it went and what UK citizens now think about Brexit is very telling and has actually been noticed by many people, who do have had their criticism against the EU in their own countries.

It's usually the American commentators who declare the imminent demise of the EU integration project, something that they have done now for decades.

Yet what is also telling is that those who really are keeping up the dream of the EU are Ukrainians and Georgians, who have seen how other neighboring countries have become stable and prospered inside the European Union. It's in these countries who want to avoid to be under the control of the Russian Empire that cherish the thought of European integration.

By contrast, Latin America is not a continent, it's just a group of countries in which the inhabitants speak a language derived from Medieval Latin — Arcane Sandwich

That does connect still somehow, even if there is Brazil. Of course, these countries aren't as in such good terms with each other than are for example EU members, but still especially the contrast towards the US is there. There's a lot of feeling to be together in Latin America than just being North American.

Yet the most important question is, for what would you need Northamericanism? What is the narrative of it? Where do you use it?

I'll take the loose definition of the Nordic Countries to explain this. First of all, it isn't Skandinavia, as Finland is not part of it and because when the idea of the Nordic countries emerged, the Baltic States belonged to the Soviet Union. Yet in order to have such a group, many things have to happen.

And above all, there ought to be a genuine feeling for borders being a needless division between friends. The states have to have cordial friendly relations and respect. Above all, there ought not to be any historical grunges and feeling that the other ones behind the border are totally different, even possibly a threat.

Not only with a bully like Trump, as his disrespect even towards Canada is evident, will there emerge anything like the idea of Northamericanism. Mexico lost huge amounts of territory in the Mexican-American war and the later US actions during the Mexican Civil War and afterwards is at the root of anxiety towards the "Gringos" in Mexico. And the imperialism that the US has shown earlier in Central American and in the Caribbean is there to be remembered. Trump's unabashed imperialist views that are meant to be a distraction only poke the fears and hatred towards the US.

And in the end, when states do have a national identity, this cannot be replaced. This means that there then should be a higher level identity above this, which the countries can relate to. Just like the North European countries that all are happy to use the term "Nordic" or like three European countries can be called "Benelux"-countries.

The English calling their country the "United Kingdom" and everybody accepting to being "British" have been successful in this (except for the Irish, that is). Yet the whole idea is now forgotten so badly, that even the English start to ask just what being "British" or "English" means. Yet it can be a possibility, a higher level identity binding together people with different national identities is possible.

This is something that the EU ought to put more importance to than it does. The EU may have a flag, even a hymn, but it lacks at the present the ideological zeal and purpose. It isn't marketed to the member state citizens as it ought to be. The EU has never been marketed to the people as a savior from our bloody past seen from our history, but just as a technical bureaucratic institution that is good for commerce. Bureaucrats in Brussells won't do that. Their effect is the opposite. The EU-citizen hasn't been involved in the experiment, only the elites.

I am horrified by Trump's announcement that he intends to take Greenland and Panama Canal and will use military force if need be. — Athena

Even if the main object is distraction and to dominate the narrative, this still would be closer to imperialism than actual war. But indeed this is the mentality that an aggressor needs to start wars. More likely is to use force in the case of Panama than in the case of Greenland/Denmark. Even as I'll repeat, the main purpose for this rhetoric is to distract and to get people to respond to your narrative and discourse.

Northamericanism ( — Arcane Sandwich

Northamericanism? What is that? Note that Mexico is part of North America, so why if logical with continentalism, then simply both South and North America? Mexico is actually very close to the US than to Europe.

And notice that many countries embrace that civic nationalism. Few truly embrace ethnic nationalism, like Israel does.

Since you never cite what you quote, — NOS4A2

Never? See here and Trump turnaround here

You also don't mention that Trump started to change his mind about h1-b's shortly after his comments in the debate you cite, — NOS4A2

You seem not to notice that I'm talking about policy implementations that Trump did during his administration, his executive order. Do you understand that? See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/22/us/politics/trump-h1b-work-visas.html

To try to deny what actual policy Trump implemented / tried to implement is telling of your intellectual dishonesty. Trump tweets and says things so much, that his changing rhetoric isn't that important. Anyway, Elon Musk has been very consistent on this while Trump has not, which is very typical for him.

Changing one's mind is probably tantamount to lying in anti-Trump world — NOS4A2

Lol. Well then, I assume then that no politician ever lies, because they just simply change their minds. Just like Putin said he won't invade Ukraine, but then changed his mind, perhaps on February 21st 2022 or so.

And oh, the references of this:

I believe it's often fear of what other governments might do that keep governments from becoming totally tyrannical, corrupt, and incompetent. — Brendan Golledge

I think that it's far more that the people working for the government want to serve well and the people that are governed themselves either accept or not the government. People who have some job usually want to do it well, those working in the public sector aren't different from others. Outside governments rarely check on the doings of other states or then there has to be dramatic violations from the ordinary.

Corruption and autocracy is something that people simply adapt to, it becomes "the way how things are", the "way of the land".

. In practice, all governments are rule by men. — Brendan Golledge

Don't generalize the US reality to the World. Women can have a considerable role.

Share of women in the US Senate: 25%
Share of women in the House of Representatives (US): 29%
Share of women in the Danish Parliament: 45,3%
Share of women in the Finnish Parliament: 46%
Share of women in the Swedish Parliament: 46,4%
Share of women in Mexican Congress: 50%

The whole of our society is based on instincts and biological drives similar to animals. We've just gone way forward from the hunter-gatherer pact, that basically smart species can form too. From family pacts to an elaborate specialization of work, agriculture and various industries and services that we call societies and cultures.

The same way has warfare as an institution evolved. The real question is just how much can we learn about our current institution from let's say observing two packs of monkeys fighting over territory? Does that really give us valuable insight? Do we use similar examples from the animal kingdom when we look at other human endeavours, commerce, science, leisure, whatever?

Some of it is about wiring and chemicals, especially testosterone, as triggering aggression. — Jack Cummins

We, just as many other animals, are quite inquisitive and curious about our surroundings. What does that tell of modern science? How much and what can you explain about 21st Century science, the scientific method and the scientific World view with humans being curious?



I would view that just as explanatory as curiosity is to modern science, so is "testosterone triggering aggression" is to war, perhaps with curiosity being far more explanatory to modern science. Especially when more an more armed forces do have women soldiers. Above all, being an soldier, a NCO or an officer is a role, just like being a teacher, a fireman or a nurse. The idea that women soldiers would be less aggressive because they are female, simply misses the mark of how modern armies operate. Again, I would argue that to emphasize "testosterone triggering aggression" as a reason for war is more of the view of pacifism, as the normative ideology puts great importance to this kind of reasoning.

Just as there's a lot more to the philosophy of science than "humans are curious", there should be a lot more to the philosophy of war than "men are aggressive". The logical start would be to look at the issues what Sun Tzu and Clausewitz among others have written, but also what generals from Ceasar and Napoleon to the present have done and said. They contribute a lot more to the understanding of war and the philosophy of war, just as a historian like Thomas Kuhn tells about the philosophy of science or contributing philosophers like David Hume or Rene Descartes argue about science.

It is funny, in a way, because Anti-immigrant Trump supporters fell for the lie that Trump was anti-immigrant just as anti-Trumpers did. — NOS4A2

What are you rambling about?

Opposing H-1B visas wasn't a Trump tweet, it was a policy implemented by Trump.

On June 22, 2020, the Trump administration issued a presidential proclamation suspending the entry of individuals to the United States on select nonimmigrant visas, including H-1B, H-2B, J-1, and L-1 visa holders, as well as their dependents.The order comes as an expansion of the Trump administration’s executive order from April 22, 2020, suspending the entry of individuals traveling to the United States on immigrant visas. The April 2020, order included a provision tasking the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Homeland Security to review various nonimmigrant visa programs to determine their potential impact to unemployed U.S. workers returning to work as stay-at-home orders are lifted.

The June 22 suspension expands the travel ban to several core temporary work visa categories. The suspension will now cover persons holding H-1B, H-2B, J-1 and L-1 visas.

And btw the only one consistent here on the issue has of course been Elon Musk, not Trump:

Tech leaders have criticized President Donald Trump’s latest immigration crackdown on the visa programs that their companies rely on to employ thousands of staff.

Trump signed an executive order on Monday that suspends foreign work visas including the L-1 visa that allows firms to transfer staff from overseas offices and the H-1B visa that enables companies to hire highly skilled people in certain fields.

Google’s Sundar Pichai, YouTube’s Susan Wojcicki and Tesla’s Elon Musk were quick to condemn the restrictions, as were representatives from Amazon, Facebook and Twitter.

Musk said that he disagreed with the action “very much” on Twitter. “In my experience, these skillsets are net job creators,” he wrote. “Visa reform makes sense, but this is too broad.”

So I have no idea just what "lie" you are talking about. This is just a perfect example of Trump U-turns and how he lies about everything. Perhaps building the Wall was a similar lie "that Anti-Immigrant supporters of Trump fell for". Well then, what the hell does he stand for then? For his own enrichment I guess... How is the good for his voters?

After all, opposing H-1b visas was one of the reasons why Trump was so popular in the first place:



And btw, the ordinary Trump lie is that his company used H-1b visas (which ought not to be, according to candidate Trump), but actually H-2b visas, the one's for not so highly educated professionals. :grin:

Of course.

Yet denial is so sweet for the Maga-people.

I just love how Trump so clearly shows just what he is, even before taken the oath and before starting his administration:

“I’ve always liked the visas, I have always been in favor of the visas. That’s why we have them,” Trump said by phone, referring to the H-1B program, which permits companies to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations.

“I have many H-1B visas on my properties. I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program,” added Trump, who restricted access to foreign worker visas in his first administration and has been critical of the program in the past.

I didn't change my mind, we have to have the most confident people in our country, we need confident people, we need smart people coming into our country and we need a lot of people coming in — Trump

:blush: :heart:

The best thing is how now all the Laura Loomer's (that are silenced in X after trolling free-speach warrior Elon) have to just shut up and suck it up to the infallible God-Emperor Trump. Because the next time they can voice their anger about how things are going in the US is only afterwards when the Democrats take to power. Only then can they say the truth. Now it's the time of faith and waiting... just like when Brexit happened, a wonderful economic revival was just around the corner for free UK. And still, same people believe in Nigel Farage (because he was so wise to go off from politics after the vote had been won).

This all before it has even started, before even the first gut punch against the poorer American from DOGE has not even swung yet. :lol:

Heck, I don't have even my popcorn ready and the show has already started.

If someone is about to kill defense is needed. — Jack Cummins

And that's the way you get down the rabbit hole: So defense from aggression is justifiable and understandable. If so, is then a pre-emptive attack justifiable, if there really exists that evident threat (and the threat isn't just proganda lies)? And when is an military intervention justifiable to another nation state? Was it justifiable for Vietnam to intervene in Kampuchea and overthrow the Khmer Rouge or the Allies to occupy and overthrow the Nazi regime in Germany and Japan?

Why are these questions important when talking about war and the underlying philosophies of it? The reason is that when talking about war, we easily fall into a normative view rather than an objective view, because people getting killed, even if they would be only soldiers, is a bad thing. Thus the viewpoint comes to be a normative one.

The trouble is that war is often not just about defense but an attempt to destroy a perceived 'enemy' and to conquer triumphantly. — Jack Cummins

Yet the vast majority of armed forces in the World during any time aren't engaged in actual warfare. In fact, the majority of sovereign states have not started wars and military actions and have been faithful to the UN charter, which actually starts with the words:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind,

The majority of armed forces are basically training organizations that upkeep deterrence. Many simply exist for domestic security issues and would be very weak to engage in war with foreign armed forces. Only a few countries have the ability to fight a land war beyond their borders or neighboring states.

Attempt to destroy the enemy is an action. In events that we call wars enemies aren't just 'perceived'. The loose use of the word like with "War against Drugs" or "War against Poverty" do obviously have a vague or an undefined "enemy", yet in war that enemy is quite real. And when the enemy doesn't give up, when no other understanding can be found, then it's the turn of for the well rehearsed and well thought systemic violence perpetrated by armed forces. There simply has to be literally the conflict of interests that no political outcome can be achieved. Only then war ensues.

Hence if we ask "why war?", the reasons are political, not that "people are bellicose and want war".

Perhaps the admins were Finns and were disgusted about the idea that Sweden would have more heavy metal bands than Finland. :wink:

Well, I guess there ought to be at least someone else wanting that, and still my English is better than my Swedish. So thank you, but hold on still. :up:

Most Australians tend to see themselves as sophisticated city folk, urban hipsters, etc, emulating New York and London rather than any hic desert state. — Tom Storm

I think the stereotype of laid back friendly Australians is quite accurate. It's even more accurate when one compares Australians to the other down under people, the uptight old-school English colonists, that are said to be New Zealanders. (And no, I'm not talking about the Maori's.)

I love posting in Spanish with you, yet I think we are not entitled to do so in this thread. — javi2541997

Yep. No other languages allowed here.

I remember starting having a conversation in Swedish with a PF member and the PF-NKVD shut it down extremely quickly.

Unfortunately there's not enough Swedes and Finns (or other Nordic people) for a Swedish discussion site. And anyway, Swedish is usually worst for the Finns and the Danes, Norwegians do better.

I don't think it's even the classified part. Ordinary civilan government stuff is classified. Foreign relations has a lot of classified stuff and so does trade relations. It's not because that we simply don't know about it.

I come from a country were military service is compulsory for men and voluntary for women, hence military service is very normal. There's no division in the civilian male population between those who do their service and those who do not, as only a minority opt not to do military service. Hence there isn't this kind of support of "thank you for your service" as it's simply still viewed as an ordinary thing you ought to do. When you don't have compulsory service, any armed forces looks really different. Hollywood films hide how in the end normal the military is as in the end, it's made up of quite normal people. Societies where you have all volunteer forces create themselves this idea of a 'separate people'. Above all, if the country or nation state doesn't have an imminent outside threat, there's not going to be compulsory service and military service will look like an oddity.

Now if I would have been born let's say an American, I've never would have enlisted. Not that I'm against the military, but I wouldn't have thought I would have it in me as I suffered from very low self esteem as a young adult. I would sure be one of those supporting our guys and gals, but as I was lousy at sports in my class, I would have decided that military stuff really was not for me.

And actually armed forces usually make everything to be as normal. Above all, it's all very rational in a sense. You are put into stressing situations, because war is a stressing situation. You are taught handling your rifle by repetition that it comes robotic or nearly unconscious, because when artillery rounds start exploding, that are the things you member to do. It all has to be extremely well coordinated (as otherwise you will at worst accidentally kill each other, blue on blue), hence orders and time tables have to be kept. And then there's a paradox of while obeying orders, you also have to show initiative when it's needed. This all has logical reasoning because of warfare itself and this is not so much understood or simply thought about. For example Foucault views the rigid command system and military discipline as way to crush the individual to become a servant to the government.

But let's take another example: a symphony orchestra. There too is a rigid command system lead by the orchestra conductor and the various musicians play exactly when the conductor wants them to play. Not like you have a full orchestra of 80 to 100 musicians all playing their own tunes when they themselves feel like it. The coordination is essential for the sound to be great and that's the main reason for the conducter to be in such prominent position. But of course, you can view the role of the conductor and the musicians as merely a power play in classical music circles for something else than for the music...

So Russian men basically party full blast until they die. Is that a cultural thing? — frank

They don't only party. They drink to forget the reality. Just like with American popping pills and using drugs. Or do you think that all those fentanol use drugs to party full blast until people they die?

(2014) Russians may toast with the words “Na zdorovie” – "to your health" – but a new study finds that Russian men are often literally drinking themselves to death.

It shows that Russian men double their risk of dying over the next 20 years by drinking three bottles of vodka a week. It helps explain why Russian men have one of the lowest life expectancies in the world – 64 compared to 76 for U.S. men.

And vodka production has been a government monopoly for ages. Just like drugs in the US, it has a role in controlling the people. Drug users and alcoholics focus on their addiction and aren't politically active. Which for some political systems is a good thing.

Only two Russian leaders have tried to curb Russian drinking habits. Both were ousted and the whole nation collapsed in both occasion. No really, first one was Tzar Nicholas II and the second Mihael Gorbachev.

Now hopefully the younger generations don't drink as the older generations did, but the damage has already been done.

I would be fired on the spot for having sex at work. — frank

You work in a school, in a kindergarten or are employed by a church? But anyway, government programs that promote people having more children are a bit odd.

When I speak of the nature of war, I am coming from the angle of thinking how so many deaths may be unnecessary. — Jack Cummins

Then think just what we call the most successful military operations? They aren't called wars. They're just military operations.

Just like Operation Danube, the most successful military operation that the Soviet Union made, with perhaps in the Russian history comes the annexation of Crimea in second place. That military operation was done with thousands of tanks, a quarter a million men that later came to be half a million strong occupying force from various countries. The outcome of the operation? 96 Soviet soldiers were killed with 84 of them in accidents. Civilian losses? Negligble, only 137 civilians (and opposing soldiers) were killed with 500 seriously wounded.

It worked so well, that in the First war of Chechnya and in Ukraine 2022 that "Operation Danube" was tried to be mimicked by the Russian leadership. But it's not a war, because we know it as The 1968 Occupation of Czechoslovakia.

In fact, it was Sun Tzu himself that said: "The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.” This tells a lot about the nature of war and it's relationship with politics as a continuation of policy, as Clausewitz argued.

Photos from a military operation that was a brilliant military success:


Even the Czechs got the message in the end: Before 1968 the Russians were their friends, aftewards they were their brothers, as the saying goes.

Hence in fact, Jack Cummins, I would argue that you are describing the nature of pacifism, not war. It is pacifism that sees peace and non-violence as the opposite of war and war as this great evil demanding human sacrifices to itself. It is the pacifist ideology itself that see war as an entity that has to be opposed, not a method that humans has evolved and put so much emphasis and hard work at. Above all, it is pacifism that doesn't want to go down the rabbit hole and ask just what war is if it's a continuation of our policies. Or that nation states even in peace do have armed forces. Pacifism see war and peace as opposite, while the vast majority of military leadership don't see it this way. For them, the best use of a military is like the use of nuclear weapons; that they aren't used in anger, but create that deterrence. After all, as the old Roman saying goes, Ci vis pacem, para bellum.

Military is an integral and essential part of historical and modern societies, even if we don't admit it. Even those few countries that don't have militaries, do have international agreements for defense and aren't without military capability (as usually the police has capabilities of acting in the role). Only the Antarctic is exempt of a military, but it's a continent without a real human society, but an assortment of researchers, just like space is now.

Armed forces will remain an essential part of the society, even if societies can are at peace with other simply for the reason of deterrence. And international efforts to counter the necessity for this deterrence is simply dwindling at the present when even war of annexation has become a reality again. We are simply backtracking now.

When we go from the individual to how groups and societies behave between each other, there comes much complexity to the situation.

Ample reasons why Australia wasn't a home for many millions of Aboriginals in 1788. When the English came around there were likely as many as there were Finns living in Finland then. With a less harsh environment, that wouldn't have been so.

Now Queensland has a population similar to Finland, even if it's five times larger. And we call our country rather empty (by European standards).

Only got to 30℃ yesterday. — Banno

Now, just back to dust, harvest detritus and grass/tree pollen. Plus 42C 4pm now. No need for the overcoat until later this evening,perhaps. Life in the rural regions! — kazan

The Aussie Christmas holidays. :sweat:

Even if the sun is shining (for the six hours it does today) and it's a clear day and not windy, -13 ℃ starts to be on the colder side in the South where I am. (In the north, no sun at all and -33 ℃.)

Ahhh, the h1b-visas :hearts: ! The cornerstone of US science and technology, that the nativists simply hate. Funny thing that DOGE hasn't even started and some Trumpers are having their fits against Donald's favorite native African.

In fact, when Elon naturally won't part from his businesses when working for the government (of course not!) it's going to be interesting to see just how much power a DOGE will really have. And if it's "trillions" of waste that is put away, I wonder just how appreciated most favorite immigrant will really be among the Trump base.

Yet they haven't got the reputation what the Belgians got after with their actions in Africa as "European colonists". Yet the Dutch are a perfect example of what a small country can do when focuses on commerce and trade over seas.

Warrior gene? That sounds to me like stuff that people with absolutely no knowledge of war and warfighting and a very negative view of "warriorhood" would give a name to something that is basically about higher levels of behavioral aggression in response to provocation. Especially when it's the certain mutations of this gene that have been linked to an increased risk of violence, when there has been abuse in early life, which seems to act as the trigger that turns on the dormant predisposition to violence with men. Easily provoked aggressive people (read men) are not the kind of methodological people that make good experienced soldiers. That aggressive psychopaths, criminals, outcasts make the best soldiers is more of an idea that Hollywood champions than what reality tells us. Even if you cannot be timid and afraid in war (which would basically be the opposite of aggressiveness), quick thinking, training, stamina, leadership and the ability to operate in a team is far more important than strength and aggression.

In fact, I view this as a misconception or that we simply do not think of the whole notion of war much. It isn't psychopatic violence, it is something that our species has simply perfected up to whole new level. It's not about the individual, it's about a group, society and nation. If for an animal hostility toward other animals is crucial in defending it's territory, it's flock or pack, our reasons for war are also totally on different level. Noah Hariri said it well when he said that we fight wars for the narratives we tell us. That is a long way from the agenda just being food security.

I don’t remember much about Dutch history, but I would guess that they haven’t done anything monumental towards the course of history. We are not talking about countries that merely survived but, rather, plummeted humanity into a new age or significantly expedited the development process. I am not sure if the Dutch count here… — Bob Ross

The Dutch have had their colonial wars, but it's usually said that the Dutch have been quite smart when it has come to their colonies. But they tried to hold on to their Indonesian colonies, and had their own lost colonial war also.

(Feb 25th, 2022) The Dutch government formally apologised last week for its role in “systematic and extreme violence” during Indonesia’s fight for independence from Dutch colonial rule between 1945 and 1949.

The apology overturns the official Dutch government position since the last state-sponsored inquiry in 1969. That inquiry held that Dutch military “excesses” during the Indonesian National Revolution had been irregular and exceptional. The Dutch government based the official apology on Dutch and Indonesian historians’ findings. Their project was funded by the Dutch government through three Dutch research institutes. The historians conclude that Dutch leaders in the late 1940s enabled extreme violence by fostering conditions of impunity for military perpetrators. Their atrocities went largely unpunished. The researchers were careful to emphasize the findings lay no blame on individual soldiers. Yet Dutch soldiers’ own records – especially amateur photographs, many thousands of which survive – have long contained evidence of atrocities. They also recorded other kinds of violence that have yet to receive proper attention.

The legal definition may be a means of defining what is acceptable, including ethical assumptions. However, it does not look at the nature of war in any deeper analytical way. It could be seen as having an implicit assumption of war being 'natural'. However, it does not query the status quo at all, the history of war as a solution and the question of why do people fight wars? — Jack Cummins

War in a way is legalized violence as the nations or groups that usually consider each other belligerents or enemies. It is also normalized: in a war, you can be a soldier and you kill enemy soldiers, that are also trying to kill you. This is deeply ingrained in every human society and we don't see how absurd it is. But it's very logical, even if absurd.

And what do people mean by the "nature" of war? What is the "nature" of let's say commerce or of scientific research, or education? There are the objectives of war, the technology and military thinking that has let it to be as it is now. What do you ask when you ask for the "nature" of war?

How do you see the concept or definition of war? — Jack Cummins

And armed struggle between either nations or groups of people. Then you have the legal definitions of just what is conisidered to be a war. And all related definitions like "civilians", "enemy combatants" and "prisoners of war" etc.

An inner struggle of a person or his or her relationship with the society I wouldn't call war. Viewing this as "war" sounds quite dramatic or melodramatic, but I guess on a personal level it is quite different from the social-political (anti-social?) phenomenon of war.

I am writing this thread after discussion with a friend about outer and inner war. My friend maintains that he has had a 'ceasefire' from social situations as he was 'at war with the world'. — Jack Cummins

In my view this wouldn't be the first definition of use for the term "war". Inner struggle or something?

Thank you then for the +500 comments that you have made in this forum then. :heart:

But if there's a new annoying thread that we all have gotten all
wrong, please give your wisdom and insight to us, even if you have
vowed not to be active in the net again.

Happy New Year!