There is a genuine soul-enriching point to human existence which doubles as the reason for society (individual humans acting together in a community) to exist. I'm convinced that an inability to understand this reason is why all civilizations inevitably collapse.

The entire point of human and societal existence is to conquer all of the universe. We are in something of a video game, and the single long-term goal is either exploring all of the universe after which we discover the creator by ourselves, or enough of the universe that the creator decides that we deserve his revealing himself to us.

How do I know this?

It is implicit in the existence of everything. In:

i. The naturalness of human curiosity and exploration.

ii. The boringness of existence without definite goals.

Once you solve your basic problems around things like food, clothing and shelter, what else is there to do? What might it be that humans are supposed to do?

Spending all of our time seeking personal pleasure clearly doesn't work. It leads nowhere. And, at its nadir, leads to cultural degeneration and eventual civilizational collapse.

It makes total sense. Think about it.

The only way to prevent civilizational collapse is to never allow the correct kind of culture degenerate. To ensure which, you need to forever uphold it. Which is impossible without continual long-term goals. What is the ultimate long-term goal?

Exploring and conquering all of the universe.

The huge distance between everything in the universe and the expected lifespan of the universe both entirely make sense within that context.

"Wow. All of that is insane. How do you even know that a creator exists in the first place?"

It is obvious that a creator more powerful than us created the universe.

The usual kind of people who believe that they are smart like to make easy counterarguments to argue against God with the straw man of Abrahamic religions and similar poor conceptions of God and smirk at having defeated arguments about the existence of God.

Abrahamic conceptions of God are obviously very weak. Maybe there are better ones?

The obvious argument for the existence of a creator is that we have no other explanations for how things come into being other than that they were created by someone or something. Since we have no other explanations for things coming into being, it is only reasonable to accept the only one that we do have to be true.

Hence the most reasonable assumption we can make is that a creator of the universe does exist.

Our world is very clearly a programmed environment. There are consistent rules to how things work (which we continue to discover and call 'Physics'), and certain limits (limit to the speed to light, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) to ensure that the entire environment remains stable no matter what we do.

It's all very simple.

"But but.. the big bang"

If a 3 year-old human child can set up falling dominoes and know what will happen, why then isn't it possible that the creator of our world can make what we refer to as 'the big bang' or a precursor/several precursors to it happen knowing that 'intelligent life' ends up created at some point in the process?

If a creator created us, who then created our own creator?

Given that we can only operate based on knowledge that exists within our own world, it is hard, and maybe impossible to answer that question. And it is maybe possible that we come to develop very good theories about that the more we understand about our own world in the future.

Once you understand that there is a concrete goal which human society is supposed to pursue, it becomes easy to solve several other problems which humans currently pretend are difficult.

The failure to understand the point of existence is what leads people down false paths and focus on all of the catastrophic ideologies which are contemporarily popular or becoming increasingly popular.

Essentially, there is a concrete goal to be pursued and every single human who is part of society really is a team member with different strengths and weaknesses who has to work on helping achieve the ultimate goal.

Understanding this makes it a lot easier to answer the usual questions around how to run society.

(Via: https://buttondown.com/tZero19e/archive/the-point-of-human-existence-the-purpose-of/)

How is nobody asking how we got here? This should be a major topic of conversation, wtf is wrong with these corrupt political parties and why do we keep voting for them

Edit : Everyone telling me how my vote is wasted if I don't vote for Harris or Trump is disappointing.

I refuse to vote for a DEI hire or a nut that spray paints himself orange every morning to be the final voice of reason before launching nukes. Nothing said here is going to convince me otherwise.

Something I’ve noticed is that we are the closest we’ve ever been to nuclear war but also the public' utter indifference towards it is really something.

Escalating Conflict with Russia

The war in Ukraine has brought U.S.-Russia relations to a post-Cold War low. I absolutely think Ukraine should win and Russia was completely in the wrong, but I also based on the history of the 20^(th) century but I also feel we are taking a gigantic risk here.

At a glance, Russia has about ~1700 deployed nuclear warheads based on a triad of delivery systems: intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs),submarines and  bombers. Russia has not exchanged official data with the United States about the structure of its strategic nuclear forces – (Russia's Nuclear Weapons. Congressional Research Service, updated September 30, 2024, IF12672, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12672. )         

-Reading about them, with the exception of bombers (5-50 megaton payload) these Russian systems tend to be MIRVs and where they fire a series of smaller ones  that kind of spread out and do more damage (https://youtu.be/zqbUG5dKjYo?t=150) %C2%A0) Here’s a picture example one of the warheads/~800kT yield  (https://imgur.com/a/uP37VRD)

-Putin has deployed his nuclear forces and lowered the threshold in which they maybe used.

Now if we look back through the cold war

Vietnam- We did not go into North Vietnam throughout the entirety of the cold war as to not agitate to Russia and start a wider war.
Soviet Afghan war – We funneled money and weapons through Pakistan’s intelligence services (ISI) and it was all done in secret to prevent agitation of the soviets.

People really don’t consider that what we are doing right now, openly giving a party tanks and planes, we have never agitated an opposing nuclear power to this degree and are in uncharted waters and also a key marker of the start of other previous world wars other countries are now openly fighting in Ukraine.  https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4954081-north-korean-troops-ukraine-war/

China

U.S.-China relations have worsened due to disputes over Taiwan, trade, and the South China Sea.  We are in an pretty much open cyber war and information war and drug war with China.

Cyber warfare

China remains the most active and persistent cyber threat to US government, private sector and critical infrastructure.   THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE'S 2024 ANNUAL THREAT ASSESSMENT https://www.cisa.gov/topics/cyber-threats-and-advisories/nation-state-cyber-actors/china

 Chinese hackers have stolen TRILLIONS in intellectual property 

China has been expanding its nuclear arsenal at an alarming rates https://youtu.be/b8rye_VyfdM?t=276

Drug warfare

Opiates have killed approximately 1 million US citizens since the turn of the century, and synthetic opiates deaths are increasing – CDC https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db457.htm#Key_finding

China is actively sending Fentanyl into the United States and working with Cartels.    

“Currently, China remains the primary source of fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances trafficked through international mail and express consignment operations environment, as well as the main source for all fentanyl-related substances trafficked into the United States “ -DEA Intelligence executive Summary 2020  https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/DEA_GOV_DIR-008-20%20Fentanyl%20Flow%20in%20the%20United%20States_0.pdf

They are also providing cartels logistical support in helping launder money - https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2024/06/18/federal-indictment-alleges-alliance-between-sinaloa-cartel-and-money

These Cartels in turn are bold enough to be actively growing their product inside our borders  https://time.com/archive/6915037/mexican-drug-cartels-set-up-shop-in-california-parks/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/mexican-drug-cartels-are-targeting-americas-last-great-place-rcna130822

I think China clearly remembers the opium wars and 100 years of humiliation, and they are all too happy to turn the tables on the West.

Breakdown of International Treaties

Russia's decision to suspend participation in the New START Treaty (which limits the nuclear arsenals of both countries) also raises concerns about an unregulated arms race.

Several key nuclear arms control treaties have broken down in recent years. For example, the U.S. pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia in 2019, and there are concerns about the future of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). These collapses make it easier for countries to expand their nuclear capabilities unchecked. 

The United States is NOT ready for a major war.

The United States shows key signs of not being ready for a major war in the follow ways: Youth population unable or unwilling to serve in the military of their own country, with NATO allies not fairing much better with historically small militaries.

Executive Summary: Report of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy  

https://www.rand.org/nsrd/projects/NDS-commission.html (Click executive summary for faster read)

“The threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war” (pg.2)

“The 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS) recognizes these nations as the top threats to the United States and declares China to be the “pacing challenge,” based on the strength of its military and economy and its intent to exert dominance regionally and globally.1 The Commission finds that, in many ways, China is outpacing the United States and has largely negated the U.S. military advantage in the Western Pacific through two decades of focused military investment. Without significant change by the United States, the balance of power will continue to shift in China’s favor”

This is supported with their rapid militarization, not to mention rapid expansion of their nuclear forces

US loses in War Game Simulations

A US Air Force war game shows what the service needs to hold off — or win against — China in 2030- We have lost multiple war games against China in a hypothetical scenario of fighting for Taiwan.https://www.defensenews.com/training-sim/2021/04/12/a-us-air-force-war-game-shows-what-the-service-needs-to-hold-off-or-win-against-china-in-2030/

The United States is the smallest it’s ever been since prior to World War 2.  Army ended 2023 with only 452,000 active duty soldiers, its smallest force since 1940.  https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-begin-2024-smallest-military-182418127.html

You have to consider it takes YEARS to build up a military and is not something you can just do overnight.

An Unfit Population

~71 % of the US youth is unfit to serve in their own military then of that population of a whole single digit percentages (or close to)  would even consider the military -  they crashed the selective service website at the mere thought of a draft to fight Iran

 -https://www.cdc.gov/physical-activity/php/military-readiness/unfit-to-serve.html 

-https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/04/us-military-draft-iran-selective-service-system) %C2%A0)

-https://jamrs.defense.gov/Portals/20/Documents/YP51Fall2021PUBLICRELEASEPropensityUpdate.pdf

With everything going on in the world, Iran and Israel potentially going to war and this continued escalation in Ukraine (North Korea joining the fight, that’s huge in terms of prior historical markers).

This could bring a major war.

NATO Allied militaries the also the smallest they’ve ever been.

Germany-  180,215 active-duty military

Italy - 165,500

UK- 185,980 personnel

Australia- ~60K

Taken together, these factors create probably the most dangerous era we’ve been in, in 80 or so years, possibly ever (it's 90 seconds to midnight according to the doomsday clock) and people’s indifference to the fact is just astounding to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OygHnodf0XM

I'm currently learning about our presidents and policies and am asking about the New Deal. A couple of days ago I asked about reagenomics. Today I'm asking about FDR's new deal policies and if they succeeded. Some liberals love FDR and show his new deal policies as an example of liberalism working. Some conservatives say his policies didn't work and WW2 was the reason America got out of the depression.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/25/jeff-bezos-killed-washington-post-endorsement-of-kamala-harris-.html

It's seems there's a recent brouhaha about several newspapers (owned by billionaires it seems) refusing to endorse a presidential candidate, leading to some staffers protesting.

Does anybody else remember a time when news organizations were really focused on delivering unbiased news for everyone? Whether they did or not is another issue, but they certainly used to make a big deal out of being neutral and trustworthy.

Have news orgs just given up on even trying to be that, and should people just accept that things like a news outlet being for a specific candidate is part of our culture?

Ethics and morality is basically rules and ideas for how people should relate to each other.

If you are stranded on some uninhabited island, without any interaction with anyone else, then there's no way you can practice any kind of ethics and morality there.

Ethics and morality make sense only in society and in relationships with others.

Some individuals can benefit by taking advantage of others and manipulating them. And some individuals can benefit by honestly and sincerely cooperating with others for mutual benefit.

So, for individuals it can be a subjective choice whether to be ethical or unethical with others.

But for society as a whole, you can experimentally and objectively show that honest and sincere cooperation between everyone and absence of exploitation leads to the most successful and the most prosperous society. While any deviation from this ideal makes the society less successful as a whole.

One possible objection to this idea is that in today's world, we have many societies, who are interacting with each other.

So, we can have group selfishness, where one society exploits and takes advantage of another. It's the idea of a patriot, who says "It's my country, right or wrong."

A whole society under its leadership can choose to behave either ethically or unethically towards other societies.

Which makes inter-societal ethics subjective.

But then you need to look at the larger picture of humanity as a whole.

You can show objectively that humanity as a whole does best, when all of its societies cooperate with each other for mutual benefit and none of them try to exploit others and take advantage of them.

Perhaps only ethics for humanity as a whole is truly objective. Because it includes all interactions.

The whole is different from its parts. Cancer cells can benefit by taking advantage of other parts of the body. But you can objectively show that the whole body doesn't do well in such a situation. The whole body does best when all of its parts cooperate well for mutual benefit.

It's the same thing for humanity, for societies, and for their individuals.

Building off my last post - for my podcast this week, we started reading Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of The Internet by Julian Assange (et al.). In it, Assange suggests that encryption is actually a stronger force than decryption and will essentially remain a step ahead due to it being the natural state of the universe. Building from there, he suggests that this is the reason crypto technologies will be the path to freedom from authoritarian governments. So even as authoritarians figure out hoe to decrypt some old technology, new encrypted technologies will emerge.

I think there is something deep to this idea. However, I don't have any idea if it is actually 'true', but I do enjoy the optimism of it.

What do you think?

The universe believes in encryption. It is easier to encrypt information than it is to decrypt it.

We saw we could use this strange property to create the laws of a new world....And in this manner to declare independence.

Scientists in the Manhattan Project discovered that the uni- verse permitted the construction of a nuclear bomb. This was not an obvious conclusion. Perhaps nuclear weapons were not within the laws of physics. However, the universe believes in atomic bombs and nuclear reactors. They are a phenomenon the universe blesses, like salt, sea or stars.

Similarly, the universe, our physical universe, has that property that makes it possible for an individual or a group of individuals to reliably, automatically, even without knowing, encipher something, so that all the resources and all the political will of the strongest super- power on earth may not decipher it. And the paths of encipherment between people can mesh together to create regions free from the coercive force of the outer state. Free from mass interception. Free from state control. (Assange - Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of The Internet)

If you're interested, here are links to the full episode:
Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pdamx-31-3-the-cryptographic-arms-race/id1691736489?i=1000674227020

Youtube - https://youtu.be/T1FvCJ0ase8?si=sthUAxjqE3TC3kx8

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/musk-putin-secret-conversations-37e1c187

This post might seem unusual for this subreddit, as it’s not your usual political post, no racial undertones, no implications of the “Deep State”, no biased news articles about topics that have been long debunked, no arguments about which Guru has gone off the deep end or if they’re just so ahead of everyone else that they just seem crazy. This is a post about perspective. Expectations vs. reality. A topic that all of you have strong feelings about and believe to be true, but haven’t really thought about what the alternative should be.

It’s also a little bit of an exercise, which I’ll get into a bit more.

• The Topic: Physician workload, salaries, and fair compensation.

• The Why?; I’m an ER physician. Relatively fresh out of residency, yes, but during training I took care of an estimated 20,000 patients over the course of roughly 10,000 hours of clinical training over the course of the last 3 years. So I have atleast some perspective on our workload, as well as the specialists I trained under. I, my specialty, and the physician profession gets attacked quite a bit, usually just lip service in news articles and the internet about how we’re robber barons, sucking the public’s wallet dry with our greed, and “writing people prescriptions of medications they don’t need so we can keep them coming back to treat the side effects, which we’ll call new diseases”. But recently I’ve had some experiences shared with me from colleagues throughout the country, where their ERs were physically attacked, not to mention recent murders where physicians were literally stalked outside of their clinics to be shot dead by disgruntled patients.

So I want to do a little bit of an exercise-

I want you to take a guess what what I get paid per patient that I take care of. You can also choose a few different specialties that I have some deeper knowledge of from my time during training (Family Medicine, Inpatient Internal Medicine, Critical Care (ICU doctors), Pediatric Critical Care), even nursing.

After you’ve guessed what I actually get paid, I want you to tell me what you think I, or any of the other specialties should get paid. And why.

You can use whatever resources you’d like to look up average hours worked, patients seen, average ER bill, average annual salary, but if you’re going to do the actual math to break it down per patient, I want you to do the actual math, you aren’t allowed to look it up.

If you made it this far, thank you. I think this is the kind of post that belongs here if you guys see yourselves as critical thinkers, as it’s a perspective on a common topic that people have very strong opinions about, but I don’t think many have actually thought about the granular details about whether physicians are “overpaid” or not. I think anyone who actually goes through with it will be very surprised about the actual numbers.

The big reason I made this post is that I’ve been thinking alot about perspectives vs. reality. Usually about other topics where people throw numbers around without knowing whether they’re high or low, or their significance, but I thought about it in my own context a little while ago when someone from the public ranted on one of our medicine subreddits about their surgery costing $3k, and about how surgeons “make too much money”, because they actually believed that said surgeon made $3k off of them, and falsely extrapolated that to the 3 other surgeries that surgeon performed that day.

The perception of US elections as legitimate has come under increasing attack in recent years. Widespread accusations of both voter fraud and voter suppression undermine confidence in the system. Back in the day, these concerns would have aligned with reality. Fraud and suppression were once real problems. Today? Not so much. This piece dives deeply into the data landscape to examine claims of voter fraud and voter suppression, including those surrounding the 2020 election, and demonstrates that, actually, the security of the US election system is pretty darn good.

https://americandreaming.substack.com/p/us-elections-are-quite-secure-actually

For my latest podcast, I read some early cypherpunk texts, including Wei Dai's "B-Money" where he describes how crypto-anarchy created out of alternative forms of money that will be untraceable and unregulatable.

I personally find this idea very exciting - not to mention impressively prescient, given that it was written in 1998 - in that a mode of community cooperation that exits the government system seems like the only way to rid ourselves of the current levels of authoritarianism experienced globally.

I also see this as the true power and implication of crypto technologies - not a get rich scheme, but rather a true anarchic exit of existing power structures.

Unlike the communities traditionally associated with the word "anarchy", in a crypto-anarchy the government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and permanently unnecessary. It's a community where the threat of violence is impotent because violence is impossible, and violence is impossible because its participants cannot be linked to their true names or physical locations.

Until now it's not clear, even theoretically, how such a community could operate. A community is defined by the cooperation of its participants, and efficient cooperation requires a medium of exchange (money) and a way to enforce contracts. Traditionally these services have been provided by the government or government sponsored institutions and only to legal entities. In this article I describe a protocol by which these services can be provided to and by untraceable entities. (W. Dai - B-Money)

Link to Wei Dai's paper - http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt

Link to my podcast:
Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pdamx-31-2-the-cypherpunks-live-on/id1691736489?i=1000673369430

Youtube - https://youtu.be/7DVbiJoGGSQ?si=Him3vUAgcDYYWBia

America was born from an idea—an idea so radical, so bold, that it changed the world. It was the idea that a nation could be built on principles, not on the whims of kings or the might of empires, but on the enduring values of liberty, equality, and justice. This nation would be governed by the people, for the people, and its strength would come not from conquest or exclusion, but from the shared belief that anyone, regardless of origin, could come here and thrive.

At the heart of this idea is the Constitution, a document not of convenience but of conviction, laying down the framework for a nation ruled by law, not by men. It enshrines the principles of democracy, freedom of speech, and equality before the law—principles that have made America a beacon of hope for generations of people seeking freedom from oppression.

America has always been a nation of immigrants, forged by the hands of those who came from distant shores in search of a better life. From the earliest settlers to those arriving today, immigrants have brought with them ambition, innovation, and a belief in the promise of this land. It is through their contributions, through their diversity, that America has thrived. To deny this is to deny the very foundation upon which this country was built.

But lately, there has been a troubling shift. Too many have chosen to abandon these guiding principles in favor of nationalism and isolationism, which focus not on unity, but on division; not on justice, but on exclusion. This version of America is a shadow of its true self—a hollow echo of greatness that seeks to close itself off from the world, to protect only those who look a certain way or hold a particular view. It is a vision rooted in fear, not in faith.

Isolationism, the turning away from the world, is not how America became a leader among nations. For more than a century, the United States has stood for something larger than itself, acting not just in its own interest, but in defense of democracy and human dignity across the globe. We have supported our allies, opposed tyranny, and fought for the rights of people everywhere. To retreat from this responsibility now would be to abandon our role as the leader of the Free World—a role not imposed upon us, but earned through the sacrifice and service of generations.

The true strength of America is not found in walls, in slogans, or in fear. It is found in the principles that unite us—the belief that all are created equal, that the law applies to all, and that the greatness of this country comes not from closing our borders, but from embracing the talents, dreams, and hopes of people from all walks of life. America is great not because it is perfect, but because it has always aspired to be better.

Our founders knew this when they set forth the ideals of liberty and justice for all. They knew that these principles would be tested, but they also believed that a free and open society could endure those tests. Today, we are once again being tested. And the question before us is not just what kind of country we want to be today, but what kind of country we want to leave for our children and grandchildren.

Do we retreat into isolation, letting fear guide our actions, or do we reaffirm our belief in the strength of diversity, democracy, and the rule of law? Do we cling to a vision of America rooted in exclusion, or do we continue striving toward that shining ideal of a country where liberty and justice truly are for all?

To be an American is to believe that we are always moving toward a more perfect union. And that is where America’s true strength lies—not in slogans or symbols, but in the enduring principles that have guided us for more than two centuries. This is the America we must continue to build, not just for ourselves, but for the world.

I have heard a lot of good things about President Reagan. And there's no doubt that when he was president, America was at its best economically. However I have also heard alot of criticism about Reagen from his slow response to aids, his failed drug war, and giving crack to black neighborhoods. Ok that last one is more of a conspiracy (but if someone could explain me that rabbit hole that would be great) but his biggest critique is reagenomics. Some people say that Reagenomics was great till Bill showed up, some say Reagenomics is one of the reasons why things are getting more unaffordable. If someone could explain simply what is reagenomics, and why or why not was it good?

Hi! I'm currently taking a course in healthcare ethics. I'm writing a paper about transgender minors and young adults, and the ethics involved with medical decision making. I would like to include an opposing viewpoint from someone who works with young people. All contributions are completely anonymous, and I promise to respectfully present your views. Video chat, phone call, or reddit chat are great, or anything else if I can figure it out.

Thanks for your consideration!

Hello, I recently listened to Vivek Ramaswamy on the Lex Fridman Podcast and I found he made a very compelling argument for modern conservatism. Although, I do not want to be overly swayed by one person on the right who is charismatic and a strong communicator. Therefore, I am looking for someone to make a similarly strong case on the left. Can someone recommend an individual who can steel man the case for modern democrats in the United States? A specific episode or speech I can listen to in the car would be very useful! Thank you to anyone who responds this would be immensely valuable to me!

I just recently ran into some liberals proclaiming that "sadly, only liberals care about facts, while conservatives work on false narratives". Similarly, I could surely go onto a conservative forum and find within 10 seconds, a comment about how only conservatives are awake to facts, while the liberals work on flawed narratives.

While we could get into the nature of disagreement and polarization, I want to focus the conversation on these words themselves and their meaning in philosophy.

• A fact is something that is undisputably true. It's measurable. It does NOT have an explanation. It's repeatable, making it a law rather than mere anecdote. It's mechanistic, meaning you have a detailed way of measuring/calculating it, so as not to leave too much room for intuition.
• A theory is something that argues the cause for a measurable fact. Theories can range from valid to invalid (or true to untrue), depending on the assumptions (accepted theories) built into the base system of logic, or body of thought, being used.

One of the great follies is confusing a valid or true statement with a factual statement. People often believe they are basing their views on facts, when they are actually basing their views on valid arguments within a set of assumptions.

How many people actually realize this? And what does it mean for society if few people do?

Elaborating a little more...

Rationality and science are often confused, but "True Science" is the intersection of fact and theory. Rationality is factual, Intuition is theory. With just rationality and no intuition, you lack the ability to account for complexity and higher logical structures not immediately measurable (although the growth in computational power is attempting to override this). With just intuition and no rationality, you lack the ability to efficiently observe fundamental laws of nature, giving you a lack of basis of knowledge for your intuition.

It seems like there are some hyper-rationalists in "counter culture" (which might as well be conceived as culture creators rather than absconders), and there are some hyper-inuitionists (if that was a word) as well. It's a bit strange that there's a lack of representation for the idea that both are important.

In my view, the democrats need to stop nominating establishment democrats and go more for outsider democrats.

Our world has a kind of world government. It's the United Nations organisation.

But this world government is dominated by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. It's undemocratic and unrepresentative of the world it rules. And any one of the five members can veto any Security Council resolution or decision.

In effect this means that any of the five members or any country they support can do anything they want in terms of killing and destroying, without breaking any law or resolution.

The veto power provides immunity and impunity.

So, does this mean that no crimes are being committed in such a situation?

Or can you say that this is a crime anyway in moral and ethical sense?

Are crimes against humanity just breaking the law and UN resolutions?

Or can you call it a crime against humanity, whenever humanity is being wantomly damaged, regardless of any rules and laws?

And is it possible to commit crimes legally, where the law sanctions and allows people to commit crimes?

In the past, slavery was legal in USA. So, some people legally did all the abhorrent things that slavery involved.

And in Nazi Germany, they had some laws and rules that enabled them to commit genocide legally.

Do we say they committed crimes, just because they lost the war? Would it be crimes, if they had won the war?

Can the law itself be criminal?

PS:

I'm a little surprised by the answers I got so far. Nobody seems to know that the word crime has more than one meaning.

I've looked up the definition of the word crime at the Meriam-Webster dictionary. And it says:

Crime:

1 : an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government especially : a gross violation of law

2 : a grave offense especially against morality

3 : criminal activity efforts to fight crime

4 : something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful It's a crime to waste good food.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime

I've asked the same question and the context I've posted here in ChatGPT 3.5. And it had no trouble understanding that even in a lawless situation you can have crime.

It gave me a very thoughtful and very intelligent answer.

Perhaps AI is more intelligent than we realise. This might be the AGI that some people are expecting and are afraid of.

For all that Americans worry about foreign countries influencing their politics, it is American culture wars that are increasingly exported abroad. This article explores how QAnon and other MAGA conspiracy theories have taken root in the US and then spread to Eastern Europe, along with the global influence of Trumpism, especially concerning LGBT people.

https://americandreaming.substack.com/p/the-qanon-ification-of-the-world

What, how and why some history or a topic in history is studied is based on the socio-economic and political landscape of the time in the nation/society when that history writer is writing the history. As such history writing is always influenced by politics of the time to some extent and many crucial events needs to be revisited again and again to study them from a new perspective. The best example of this is Historiography of the French Revolution. How since the establishment of the French Revolutionary studies in Sorbonne University in Paris. First chaired by Aulard who championed Danton and then there were generations of only Marxist historians holding the chair like Mathiez, Soboul and Lefebvre writing only Marxist Historiography. And then it takes a whole lot of work to bring a new perspective which is brought by Revisionists like Cobban, Furet and K. Baker. So as we can see new perspective are always needed in history writing. Is there any topic in history you would like to study from a particular perspective? Or, would like to point how some perspective in history get marginalised due to politics (like in post-Independent India, the non-Marxist historians got marginalised, sidelined and in some unfortunate cases their career destroyed by Marxist historians) or want to offer some thoughts on how politically balanced history can be written.

Basically share any thought or comment you have regarding the politics of history writing

TLDR: History writing is influenced by the political context of the time, often marginalizing certain perspectives. For eg- The French Revolution's historiography, dominated by Marxist views for decades, was later challenged by revisionists like Cobban and Furet, showing the need for fresh perspectives. This raises questions about how balanced history can be written amid political influences.

I ask this question completely in good faith.

I don’t really like to identify as something politically, but if a nation state put a gun to my head, I would say libertarian/minarchist/anarchist depending on how you define each of those.

I have never heard a convincing answer to this question.

Me personally? Sure I’ll contribute to the local roads, the local hospital, the local schools; but I cannot stand behind giving permission to someone who I don’t know and didn’t choose, to put a gun to someone else’s head and force them to pay for those things.

I really would appreciate being swayed on this issue, it can be a real drag defending it sometimes. I just don’t see how it can be right.

Throughout my 50 years on the planet, I’ve heard certain segments of our populace say that we are a Republic and not a Democracy, which through a certain historical lens is true.

They go on to champion the electoral college (mainly when it’s on their side) saying that it is our only protection against “mob rule,” the specter of which haunted the founding fathers in their sleep.

But try, for a moment, to think critically about what “mob rule” really means. The phrase stirs visions of angry miscreants ravaging our streets with lawless anarchy.

However, at its essence, the “mob” they are referring to is the American voting populace, you and me. And by rule, they mean decision making and creating and executing laws. Put the two together and you have the American voting populace making decisions by voting.

How is that any different than a government “by the people and for the people,” which even Trumpers still say they want to some degree?

Isn’t “mob rule” just a scarier way to say “the will of the people?”

If it’s so important that we have an electoral college for the presidency, why is every other position we vote for just simple majority? Does that mean we have “mob rule” currently, except for the presidency, and always have?

It becomes less and less clear what we’re afraid of here the further you break it down.

Let's look at political positions of Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, people most likely to be appointed in Harris administration:

Kinzinger:

In 2017, Kinzinger voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

Kinzinger opposed the Dodd–Frank Act.

Kinzinger gained a 94% lifetime rating from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a business-oriented group

Kinzinger voted in line with President Donald Trump about 90% of the time and voted against Trump's first impeachment

Liz Cheney (hoo boy...)

Cheney has supported bills to further restrict opioids in the face of the opioid epidemic. She voted against the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act of 2019/2020 (H.R. 3884), which, among other things, would have removed cannabis from the list of scheduled substances regulated by the Controlled Substances Act and establish a process to expunge criminal convictions for cannabis.

In 2009, Cheney refused to denounce adherents of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (birtherism) on Larry King Live, saying that the birtherism movement existed because "people are uncomfortable with a president who is reluctant to defend the nation overseas".

In 2009, Cheney gave the keynote address at a dinner hosted by the Center for Security Policy, an anti-Muslim think tank deemed a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and known for promoting the false claim that Obama is a Muslim

Lawrence R. Jacobs has said, "Cheney is an arch-conservative. She's a hard-edged, small government, lower taxes figure and a leading voice on national defense."

Cheney has supported the use of torture. In 2009, she defended the use of waterboarding during the George W. Bush administration, comparing it to SERE training.

In 2018, when U.S. senator John McCain criticized CIA director nominee Gina Haspel, Cheney again defended the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, saying that they "saved lives, prevented attacks, and produced intel that led to Osama bin Laden". Cheney's remarks were criticized by Meghan McCain, who responded that her father—who was tortured as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War—"doesn't need torture explained to him".

On September 26, 2021, during an interview with Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes, Cheney reaffirmed her support for waterboarding, saying that it is not torture

It's one thing to accept endorsements from such people (which is also bad, but that's my opinion), but to give them an actual power - is completely different.

Majority of people who will be voting for Harris are center-left or left-wing (obviously). They are concerned about preventing Trump from winning but they have other concerns. Like cost of life crisis, spiraling inequality, accessible healthcare, housing, etc. I'm not even talking about foreign policies, only domestic ones. And then Harris comes out and says she'll pack her administration with people like Kinzinger and Cheney in attempt to "win moderates' votes" "and "bring back bipartisanship". Which means that Harris' presidency will be another four year of tax cuts for wealthy, deregulation, slashing of welfare spending, dismantling of trade unions, destroying environmental protections, etc. Because that's what Republicans do when they're in power (obviously). Is this really what people want from Kamala Harris?

And the best part is that after all of that, when Harris will try to enact some modest progressive reform, Republicans will block it anyway, call her Marxist and spread rumors about her birth certificate or some shit. Because that's what Republicans do. That's what they did to Obama when he was trying to be "bipartisan centrist".

I just responded to a user that believes the 2020 election was stolen and I figured I’d offer to go through a bit of evidence with them. Figured I’d make a post as I’m curious if any of you have even heard about the content of these two links:

https://youtu.be/MWiuX9CPOSA?si=aSan1-YSF3U5h1kS

Edit: Affidavit reading begins in earnest at about 2:20. The judge attempted much earlier, but it’s a shitshow.

First, a federal sanctions case involving the “elite strike force” or “Kraken” legal team. Federal Judge Linda Parker goes through several of the most important affidavits submitted by these lawyers to justify their cases. She reads them and then questions why the lawyers thought they were compelling (their answers are… well, judge for yourself) and why they made no efforts to examine the claims themselves.

https://d.newsweek.com/en/file/465949/dominion-slide-deck.pdf

Second, the slides Dominion was going to use in their defamation lawsuit against Fox News. These slides make it clear that many prominent pundits knew Trump’s claims were bullshit, believes Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani were crazy or liars, and knowingly lied to their viewers because they didn’t want to lose them to even crazier news organizations such as OAN or Newsmax.

I’ve watched/read both myself fully and can answer questions if you have any. Curious if you’re aware of any of this and if these change your mind regarding the intellectual honesty of Trump and his lawyers.

Edit: I’m done. I’d hoped there wouldn’t be such resistance to reading/listening to actual evidence and facts. Apparently, fan fiction, speculation, and logical fallacies are more persuasive than simply clicking a link and consuming a primary source.

People from the left love to deny that there is any correlation between immigration and housing/rent/wages - except positive. Well how exactly wouldnt negative consequences happen?

The birth rate is roughly at replacement level. Then you let in 5 Million immigrants every year. 2.5 Million legal ones and 2.5 million illegal ones. All these people have to live somwhere.

But the country is building just 500 000 new housing units every year. Meaning that there is a lag. Demand outpaces supply. Even if you increase the 500 000 to 1 Million new housing units within 5 years and immigration does not increase - in these 5 years there were 25 Million immigrants but just some 4 Million new housing units built. Meaning there are too many new people too quickly and rent/housing gets more expensive.

Also just building a lot more extra housing units is very bad for the environment.

Same with jobs. The last job reports claimed something like 5 Million new jobs created in the last 2-3 years - most of them part time - but the number of illegal/legal immigrants in thouse 2-3 years was probably around 10-15 Million. So there is now an oversupply of labor reducing wages.

With rising immigration levels this problem gets worse over time. So why exactly wouldnt large scale immigration lead to to an increase in house prices/rent and reduced wages

This isn’t intended to get the two party folks in here shrieking , just an honest question looking for honest opinions

I was discussing with my dad how the federal government has committed serious abuses in the past, such as the forced sterilization of Native Americans and Puerto Ricans, infecting Black men with STDs in the Tuskegee Study, and incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge. Are there any similar actions happening today that would be considered abhorrent? Are there any past incidents that remain largely unknown to the American public?

Saw this quote attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, and since reading it have been mulling it over. Not advocating for or against this view. Just trying to better understand this view, it's merits and implications. Thoughts?

The current 'border crisis' is largely overblown fear-mongering and it shouldn't be considered a top issue going into the election.

The vast majority of hispanic immigrants, legal and illegal, are hardworking non-violent people in search of nothing more than economic opportunity.

The people risking their life to cross the border are the economic glue keeping small businesses going and the system running.

While non-skilled American citizens are increasingly dropping out of the workforce and dying of 'deaths of despair', illegal immigrants are able to fill the preposterously low wage jobs that keep society running.

Who are the ones working in the kitchen of your favorite local restaurant? Who are the construction workers? Who are the ones working at the farm you don't even know exists providing the produce to the restaurants you eat at? Who are the custodial workers and other 'invisible' people doing shitty jobs at $10 an hour?

Inflation's been insane since ZIRP / Covid and if we didnt have illegal immigrants willing to work near minimum wage jobs consumer prices would be even worse.

Also the data simply doesnt support the massive safety concerns people have around an 'unsecured' border. Cities absorbing large populations of illegal hispanic immigrants arent experiencing significant crime rate increases and gang activity is across the board lower than it used to be in the 1990s.

These people are not more dangerous / violent and they're not making American cities less safe. Also from an anecdotal perspective I've lived in a major Texas city for 30 years and the idea that theres some 'invasion' due to lax border security is fucking hilariously ridiculous. Sure the Hispanic presence has gradually increased, but it adds value to the city..like life isnt more dangerous lmao

I dont think eliminiating illegal border crossings is possible and the resources it would require at scale are definitely not worth the cost. Its insane that people want to build a 2000 mile wall and have A.I constantly scanning underground and above, especially when millions of people cross the border daily with legitimate reasons

I understand the issue is primarily related to Fentanyl and the reality that terrorists could likely easily get into the U.S via the Southern border. In a perfect world we would be able to strengthen border security posture to curtail this, but the rhetoric around immigration and the notion that the current state of border security is a top tier political issue to me is silly