.
.
Shouldn’t his/Biden’s tenure be winding down, not being prolonged?
Two months past the election date, is two months too long… that deadline needs to go/needs to be shortened, for it will only be used for malice and bad.
If Russia wants the Ukraine so bad, I highly doubt they’re going to be nuking it.
I say do massive evacuations and beat them to it so they can stop with this bullshit.
Make it so.
.
The collapse of civilisation starts with the collapse of our borders, of which the opportunity to smuggle illegals through is being taken advantage of by profiteering gangs. Which @Carleas thinks doesn’t exist.
I’m not even going to grace this with a reply. Such a complete non-issue and false reference, let alone gross historical misunderstanding AND mischaracterization of the entire geopolitical situation between the US, Ukraine and Russia.
Oh wait, does this post count as a reply? Shit. Well I won’t be gracing this with any further repllies, then.
Yes, as soon as a new President is elected via the vote of the people through the electoral college count, that should be official the next day. New guy sworn in as soon as possible. This 2-month period is becoming a little window of scheming and fucking things up as much as possible for the losing group.
Don’t worry though, nuclear war is going to make Carleas happy, so at least one person is cheering for this extreme escalation. As long as we don’t “appease any dictators” then it’s all good to allow 100 million people and our entire civilization to vanish in nuclear mushroom clouds.
…Although I find it odd that someone would prioritize and value that way, considering where Carleas says he lives… which would be prime target number one if Russia decides to strike.
I second Carleas’ motion but percentwise only percentwise like , 59.000000000000>9 percent gee til that close , Orban’s recent summation ply’s that out well.
The Democratic principles are worth a lot more on paper, then any popularly vetoed referendum, on the long run.
Lest forgetting that history does repeat its self, and if that lesson cannot be learned, well then, it has to repeat the lesson. Kierkegaard’s aesthetic Repetition contrasted to the more popular will of self determination is, unfortunately a stark reminder of the converse lesson learned that art determines reality retrospectively.
Policy is shaped to procedure, the processing of that revision is pretty much a sour grapes reassertion of ‘I told you so.
The Wilsonian-Chamberlain of isolationism reaffirms the unthought, unreachable lesson , within the brackets of uncertainty, The similarities are more formidable than not to give creedence, where the naturally arising simulation as well reminds us lest left forgotten.
The miracles of Life’s agency leave existential dread insufferably narrow minded and fearfully short circuited.
Before determining whether or not civilization is collapsing, let’s define civilization.
Gee, the holidays just aren’t the same without you, buddy.
So you don’t say it’s collapsing, you say it’s transitioning. You’re able to track change between the two paradigms — you can see their differences, but… Can you give a proper definition of civilization? Which one is closer and which one is further away from the true paradigm? How do you justify it as being the true paradigm?
Democratic principles, like… defending Ukraine which is entirely anti-democratic? They cancelled elections and arrest people for thought crime. They also openly arrest journalists they don’t like.
Or maybe democratic principles like undermining and ultimately stealing elections? Yeah, because the people can’t be trusted to vote for their president if that president is someone you don’t like. That is definitely democratic! Shout out to all the democrats who tried to get Trump removed or banned from being on ballots. Or who want to invalidate the clear will of the people by subverting the electorate voting process in January.
Or maybe the democratic principle of counting out votes on electronic machines that have been proven to have been designed precisely to allow easy manipulation and alteration of the vote totals. Hm…
And to that I say:
Cheers to ‘democracy’! 
Or not least, the democratic principle of “I hate one man (putin) so much that I would choose to risk thermonuclear world war and the annihilation of hundreds of millions of people (at minimum) under mushroom clouds just to express how much i really really hate that one man!”
Yep, dEmoCrAcyY at work!
Now all we need is another pearl harbor-like or 911-like false flag to get the plebs on board with “democracy” too!
Oh goodie I can’t wait. I wonder how long it will be! Until DEMOCRACY rears its majestic head once again! And save us from this horrible nightmare Tyranny of the Big Bad Orange Man!!
Does it matter he was elected by the people? NO of course not! That can’t be democracy!! DUH because it’s orangeman!!
Good glad you finally understand the true meaning of democracy!
What you’re saying about Ukraine, …can you back it up with facts?
I saw this documentary that showed how Russia went in there and destroyed their culture and replaced it with Russian culture. Up to the level of what they teach children.
You don’t want Putin having any more power.
Taking out Zelensky (more like giving up to Putin) would be like taking out Saddam Hussein and letting ISIS take over. Not that Hussein and Zelensky are even comparable.
On defining civilization…
Certainly Western imperialism collapsed a lot of civilizations, but it also built the current global hegemon, in large part from inviting people from all over the world seeking a better life for themselves and their family.
Bigoted nationalist conservatism is a lie, free migration is a noble tradition of the West.
When they cater to the rich, they’re called “citizenship advisors”; when they cater to the poor, they’re called “profiteering gangs”.
I’ve never said that nor anything that entails it. If this is more than a misunderstanding on your part, link to the post.
Going ostrich doesn’t make your position stronger. What you’re arguing for is the literal definition of appeasement: " making political, material, or territorial concessions to an aggressive power with intention to avoid conflict." In the context of “bringing us into… world war”, we have 2 named examples, and appeasement played a prominent role in the larger of the two.
I’d be open to an argument that the situation is relevantly different in its particulars, but to my mind the claim that appeasement is the only or obvious path to avoiding a world war is presumptively suspect. The argument that letting dictators keep lands they invade encourages dictators to invade sovereign neighbors is intuitively reasonable, and many who know the history better than I have laid the blame for WWII on appeasement.
When you quit a job a Dairy Queen, two-weeks’ notice is standard. 60-days’ notice is a common notice period for major changes in complex contracts. A peaceful transfer of power between two sincere administrations, handing off a sprawling bureaucracy in a way that doesn’t lead to widespread institutional failures, takes time.
.
ILP verbatim quotes, that were used by people out in the real world, in…
TV series
Republican political speeches
Major films
Adverts
Instagram accounts
Used to form [bad] governmental policies
Major Science podcast discussions, by well-known names
Various Philosophy podcasts
The Philosophy School that I frequent 
There’s probably more, but I can’t recall them all…
.
Agree ^
-
Biden pardoned his son, even though he said he wouldn’t… so definitely taking advantage of the two month handover time.
-
The willingness that many accept war with, is astounding… One would think that they think they are indestructible from bombs and radioactive fallout, and seem nonchalant about a ‘prospective’ destruction of Western civilisation. Crazy!
-
Anyone living near a major town or city should be more hesitant about any escalations, considering their proximity. The mind… boggles.
I too am curious about specifics. What post, quoted where? I love the idea that ILP is that influential, but I’m skeptical.
I’m skeptical of Russia’s true nuclear capacity. So far, they’ve proved much less powerful than many people expected, with aging and poorly maintained equipment, and poor troop training and discipline. It’s likely much of their nuclear stockpile is in a similar state.
But more importantly, I don’t think Putin is suicidal, and there’s no scenario where nuking an major western city ends in anything other than the complete destruction of him and everything he cares about. I actually think he’s particularly concerned with his legacy, that’s how I interpret what he’s doing in Ukraine: restoring the Russian empire to cement himself as ‘Vladimir The Great’.
Nuking parts of Ukraine is more believable, but would still unite resistance against Russia, particularly if it targeted civilians.
Contrast this with religious terrorists, many of whom would happily destroy all life on earth if it meant killing all infidels. Even if Putin were willing to make trade on that level out of sheer narcissism, not enough of the people it would take for him to follow through with it would be.
I didn’t say “true paradigm,” no, I said “new paradigm,” one that makes more sense in light of the discoveries in cosmology and quantum physics within the last hundred years.
The old paradigm is basically a general world view that has been shaped and bound together (for a few millennia now) by the “mythological nonsense” implicit in the many (and incompatible) world religions.
And as I have stated elsewhere, I have often portrayed the ascension of modern science (i.e., quantum physics, astrophysics, etc.) in the metaphorical terms of being like a frantically flapping butterfly wing that is in desperate need of the symmetry of its other wing (spirituality), which is still stuck in the “chrysalis” of archaic beliefs.
In other words, we need a new spiritual vision of reality, one that can perhaps even make sense to the materialists.
So you don’t think our current worldviews shape our interpretations of the data at all, or the sort of data we permit into public consumption/analysis, or the sort of data-producing experiments that get funding?
Are you familiar with how science got off the ground? Are you familiar with how the narrative about that has adapted over the years? Adapted to reality… or adapted to worldviews?
So you think we need a new worldview to adapt to the worldviews that resulted in changing worldviews?
Or what is this raw data untouched by worldviews to which worldviews need to adapt?
Are you saying this data can show some worldviews to be false and some worldviews to be … true?
Worldviews. Interpretations. Paradigms.
Your questions are over-complicating the point I am making.
The simple truth is that since the time of the Egyptian pharaohs, humanity (in general) has been happily functioning away under the influence of the mythological nonsense set forth in a myriad of diverse religions.
Furthermore, during that period of, say, five millennia, which is represented by the red circle on the left of the Venn Diagram I used in a prior post…
…science and religion, although always at odds with one another, nevertheless, managed to peacefully coexist.
However (and in a nutshell), that peaceful coexistence pretty much ended in the late 19th/early 20th century with the discovery of quantum physics, relativity theory, and the eventual advancements in cosmology (e.g., humans landing on the moon and taking photographs of the earth from outer space), etc…
Now when you couple all of that with the ascension of human consciousness brought on by the wide-spread use of mind-expanding drugs/entheogens, then it becomes clear that the old creation myths have been left floundering (and drowning) in the wake of these new developments - (all metaphorically represented by the grey area of the Venn D).
Furthermore, if you are like me and the billions of other humans who believe that it is utterly ridiculous to think that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of chance,…
…then you will understand why there is a need for a new (and unifying) creation myth that makes more sense than the rag-tag collection of old paradigm myths which have us on the brink of destroying ourselves (again, represented by the grey area of the V.D.).
And, of course, the yellow circle on the right-hand side of the diagram is a metaphorical representation of what I am “hoping” will be a new “material/spiritual paradigm” where science and ̶r̶e̶l̶i̶g̶i̶o̶n̶ spirituality can once again maintain a reasonably peaceful coexistence.
And in regard to your question…
…I’m just guessing, but I imagine it began in a way that is perhaps similar to the opening scene in the movie “2001: A Space Odyssey,” where the proto-human (hominid) first experienced the inner phenomenon of “imagination” where it suddenly pictured using a large bone as a tool or a weapon (hence, where “science” first got off the ground). 
1 Like