The main concern is quality. Embedding YouTube without original content will get it deleted. "hey, check out David Harvey explaining das Kapital" will be deleted but, "at 3.28 David Harvey explains the concept of use value. I'm still having trouble understanding the different types of value and why the distinctions are necessary. Aside from use value there are exchange and labour value but he also distinguishes price from exchange value. Why? "

If it's "just news", then it's not philosophy and it goes into the Shoutbox or the News thread. If there's a philosophical point to be made, then it can be included in a thread if it's also accompanied by original content.

For anthropological, or possibly psychological, reasons I'm interested in your reasoning steps from "no social media" to being "part of Trump's project 2025 program".

No.

I hope this doesn't include YouTube. I embed a lot of short clips from there. — T Clark

It certainly covers YouTube shorts. For other videos it will be context dependent. I will delete any video embedded where you say "oh lookie, this guy really argues my point well for me". People not willing to make an effort to create original content should stick to regurgitating other people's ideas on X.

Also, please add this change to the site guidelines page. — T Clark

That was updated almost simultaneously but thanks for double checking.

Yes, the concept is indeed fuzzy. We therefore encourage posters not to explore borderline cases.

Edit: scrolling through your post history it doesn't really look like this will be a problem for you. I suppose it wouldn't be thephilosophyforum.com if someone didn't argue for the sake of argument...

Apart from the obvious?

If you’re not sure whether something counts as “social media,” err on the side of caution. — Benkei

MAGA defense for leaking secrets amount to "it ain't a crime if you don't get caught!" or in this case "it ain't a crime if nothing bad happened!". Sigh.

Or for once you can stop giving a shit what he thinks or says.

Being pro-Israel automatically disqualifies anyone from having any opinion on anything whatsoever.

I couldn't care less about the USA's dumpster fire version of politics. Dumb shits defending the current administration can take their tribal idiocy and keep it local. The sooner the USA fucks off from the world stage of international politics by making themselves irrelevant the better.

My personal favourite part is all these "small government" idiots partying everytime Trump guts something in a vindictive retaliation at his perceived enemies while Musk stands to win over 50 billion USD in government contracts. As if we didn't see that coming from a mile away. Fucking imbeciles.

It's exactly this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15633/kingdom-come-inc-by-benkei

Attempted or succesful assassinations of the President of the USA is nothing new or interesting. Why do you think there's a secret service? It's estimated at 6-8 serious attempts per year and thousands of threats that need to be investigated regardless of sitting President although I'm sure Trump illicits even more with his destructive behaviour. So, no that one became public is not relevant context.

Well, exactly. And look how they marketed that as a full blown attempt at a coup d'etat.

Now those same people are getting up in arms about this Tesla thing being seen in its proper political context. The same people, mind you, who were in such a rush to quickly forget two assassination attempts on the leader of the opposition. — Tzeentch

Your inability to tell the difference between vandalism by angry people and the storming of a parliamentary hearing buttressed by right wing activists waving confederate flags and other seccessionist movements, where the new President would be inaugurated is telling.

poisoning the well argument. Nice. Why are you projecting US partisanship on a European? It doesn't make sense. Feel free to search my posts about scathing complaints about Biden. Also, I'm not downplaying anything and calling it what it is: vandalism. Just resisting an exaggerated framing that is the verbal dicksucking of those in power.

Only the most determinedly brain-dead would mistake a few Tesla bonfires for domestic terrorism. The U.S. legal definition of domestic terrorism, as per 18 U.S. Code § 2331, requires acts that are (1) dangerous to human life, (2) intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence government policy, or affect government conduct through mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. Smashing up a few overpriced battery sleds fails on almost every count unless we're now pretending that setting fire to a car is the same as sending anthrax to Congress.

For it to be terrorism, these arsonists would have to be attempting to pressure the U.S. government into banning Tesla, outlawing tech billionaires, or perhaps forcing Musk to finally finish building that Hyperloop he promised a decade ago. But there is no grand anti-Tesla manifesto, no underground resistance fighting the tyranny of overpriced self-driving software that doesn’t work. There’s not even a particularly cohesive movement—just pissed-off individuals torching status symbols.

And yet, because Tesla is Musk’s sacred cow, and Musk has successfully bought himself a direct line to lawmakers and regulators, we must all now pretend that this is a crime of national consequence. We must feign horror that people might not like a man who turned a revolutionary electric car company into a meme stock-slash-cult. That individuals, acting alone and without coordination, might express their frustration in a way that is destructive but nowhere near the level of, say, blowing up a federal building.

Hating Musk is not a political position, no matter how much he’d like to believe he’s the ideological lynchpin of the free world. It’s a personal preference, much like preferring your autopilot to not drive you into a stationary object at highway speeds. The notion that vandalizing Teslas is a threat to the nation is as ridiculous as calling a key scratch on a Ferrari an act of economic sabotage. If anything, this is proof that Musk has ascended to the final stage of billionaire pathology: where even the slightest inconvenience to his interests is rebranded as an attack on civilization itself.

Vandalism equated to terrorism? God, what a bunch of losers. They're so insecure they see enemies and danger everywhere.

What is problematic about this exchange is that the argument "but the other guy did it too" is a fallacy and you don't appear to see it immediately for what it is. What is problematic, what both sides of the political machine in the US have created, is outsized power of the executive where they are ruling by executive decree. What is problematic is that both sides think it's ok to ignore court orders if it's thought politically expedient. What's funny is that NOS4A2 with a simple "but he did it too" has you defending Biden when there's every reason, every day to continue to hold Trump accountable for his shit. Biden isn't in power, Trump is. Nothing NOS4A2 says is worthwhile to engage in. It's uncritical Trump worship.

I've been in popcorn mode with respect to US domestic policies since Trump was re-elected.

Love the jealous rant.

That's a process the West itself set in motion with its finger-wagging "rules-based order" while operating on a principle of 'rules for thee, but not for me' - synonymous for the exact 'might makes right' we're supposedly trying to avoid. The West has ZERO credibility in that regard. — Tzeentch

In your opinion. We haven't nearly reached rock bottom there mostly because of course we don't have the logistics to project military power. But the idea that inconsistent application of principles means we have no credibility is simply nonsense; there's no instance where any EU member invaded another country.

Idealism that is not balanced by realism is dangerous, and leads to the very conclusions you seem to be putting forward: Ukraine must continue on the path of its own destruction, to save a 'rules-based order' which we ourselves never were sincerely committed to, and still aren't. — Tzeentch

Don't confuse the US with the EU. The EU is committed to that order, especially within what it considers its sphere of influence. And Ukraine mustn't do anything; if they want to give up, they can. But they won't and as long as they won't, the EU should support them.

But what "free stuff" are you talking about? Aren't you aware we're fighting a bitter war over there - that it's the Ukrainians who are dying to impose a cost on Russia so we can tell ourselves some sort of fairy tale that "aggression wasn't rewarded"? This is the ego talking here, not the brain. — Tzeentch

It's free as far as Putin is concerned. Ukrainians and Russians dying aren't his problem. If you want to talk about ego, maybe you should be analysing him instead of me. You might recall I'm an international law trained lawyer; what you call "ego" is what is laid down in many treaties since Bretton-Woods. No annexation of land through force. Ever. No exemptions. If we want to move beyond a "might is right" or "real politik" system of international relations, fighting for those principles is important. Probably more important now than ever due to the shifting geopolitical power. After WWII leaders understood such a principle based relation between nations would avoid wars but most seem to have forgotten. Apparently, so have you.

Ukrainians have made a choice to fight as long as there's no certainty on containing the threat that Russia keeps posing. They've become less interested in the return of land than the beginning of the war and are now looking primarily for security guarantees. Without ReArm Europe there will be no country capable of doing so since Trump clearly isn't willing and considering his disdain for agreements made in the past, it reflects the inherent unreliability of the US political system. Relying on the US to fulfil its commitments is past.

But even if they agreed to the 30 days outright, that would still leave open the question of where to go from there, and as far as I can see no-one has much of an idea. This is a risk for both sides but I figure that Putin thinks that he can play the West like he did after the Crimean and Donbas invasions. — Echarmion

What versions are there? How much did Iraq keep of Kuweit? How much did Germany keep after losing WWII? Or for that matter, how much did the Allies keep after WWII? Only East Germany felt oppressed and when the Mauer fell it was cause for celebration. On the face of it, there are only two options that will give us a just peace: total defeat of Russia or a negotiated peace where Russia gets nothing and Crimea is returned.

More likely, Crimea will not be returned but since that was already the status quo before the start of the last war, that is not really a bargaining chip anymore. And since any negotiation suggests compromise, Ukraine is expected to give away more. Ukraine won't do anything without security guarantees, which Trump obviously is not going to give which requires a stronger Europe. What do you give an aggressor without giving him anything? Words at most. But will it be enough?

If I turn to ReArm Europe there might be an interesting leverage here. If ReArm Europe is successful, I think Putin got exactly the opposite from what he wanted. Sure, a bit of land but suddenly a very powerful anti-Putin war machine next door. Avoiding that coalition materialising is probably worth quite something to him, which might just be the pressure he needs to go along with peace talks or at least manage that process in such a way that the willingness to arm the EU will peter out to near-nothing. That last situation is in my view a considerable risk where a lot of Europeans don't seem to understand the geopolitical landscape (in fact more than half of Dutch parlementarians don't). Weakness under pressure reveals the lack of clear vision and understanding at least in the Netherlands. The exception is Frans Timmermans but he's an academic "elitist" fronting a labour party that sold out labourers decades ago and he's not winning back their trust.

Possibly but it was still Zelensky and his team that executed it and incorporated whatever advice they got.

Russian negotiations tactics: demand something ridiculous, don't move an inch and wait for a western democracy to give something. Yay for free stuff.

The initial move from Ukraine to quickly agree to the ceasefire and the fact it was hammered out in a few hours with the US was excellent diplomacy and cornered Russia to only be able to react in favour of Ukraine (either agree or become the obstacle). From the country that was an obstacle to peace in the narrative in the US, they were now leading for peace. That was handled well by the diplomatic corps in both Ukraine and the USA - and dare I say it: Rubio.

Of course, anybody ever having negotiated with Russians knows the caveats are an effective no to any just peace. There will be no peace unless the Russians get shit for free: Ukraine joining NATO or EU being off the table, annexing land, whatever. It's more important than ever there's a single front and it's impossible due to the orange monkey but also shit holes like Hungary and the Netherlands.

It's been my experience as a day trader. — frank

I'll accept that as true since consumer protections in the US are higher in this area due to the absence of a general duty of care for brokers and banks. But even then, anecdotal evidence in a single economic activity leads you to making general claims about regulation in these respective economic regions. I trust you see the issue with that leap?

When it comes to trade, Americans are much more heavily regulated that Europeans, or really just about anybody else in the world. — frank

Nonsense.

How much of a reduction in the value of their shares will folk abide? — Banno

The market corrects and then continues. They will abide, it's actual prices of milk and gasoline and bread that will get people up in arms.

What disinformation bubble are you in that you would describe that sabotage as such? First, we still don't know who did it so pretending you know it was NATO is ridiculous. The most likely candidate is still Ukraine, but possibly a non-state pro-Ukraine actor. Ukraine by then was already at war and therefore l, if they did do it, they retaliated against Russian infrastructure within the scope of the already existing war.

I refuse! No more benefits for foreigners!

Yes, happily defending democracy in writing (outside of this little community).

Why would you point to a technicality to consider Europe and Russia to be at war, when clearly in practical terms we are not at war? — Tzeentch

It's not a technicality. It's the existing framework along which these things are assessed. That Europe so far has decided not to act reflected a lack of political will. But the situation and our rights are crystal clear. If Russia wants war with Europe, it's welcome to it because it will lose just as it lost the Cold War.

Why is his X in Cyrillic script?

Errr... sabotage is only "permitted" in war. There's no "let's do a little so it isn't war". Sabotage means war otherwise they are crimes against humanity, which you can answer with armed force. So yes, we're at war with Russia, whether you consider that within the expected scope is just an opinion.

As to arming Ukraine; that's perfectly legal and doesn't constitute war. Countries sell arms to each other all the time.

Those are the ones reported, but it's much more. For instance: https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/hybrid-threats-russias-shadow-war-escalates-across-europe?utm_source=perplexity

Well, it puts Europe on war footing with Russia, for one. — Tzeentch

We are on a war footing already!

Your best post so far. It made me laugh. :rofl: Maybe you should stick to more concise posts?

European boots on the ground at this stage of the war is courting disaster. — Tzeentch

There's historic precedent without it leading to disaster. So what disaster are you thinking of?

Trump's relationships are transactional. What's he getting out of it? I think part of the answer is that he's clearing his desk in order to attend to China and another part is that he's trying to peel Russia away from China. Ideally, he would like Putin as an ally, but making him neutral would help too. It's quite likely that he sees Putin as a better ally than Europe. — Ludwig V

Your first two sentences make complete sense to me but your answer to your own question doesn't.

I don't buy for a minute Trump has a geopolitical agenda - he's never shown any inclination to understanding international relations or find a country on a map. Whatever motivates him has to be much nearer in time, benefit and probably more personal, considering his obvious narcissism.