Page 99 of 115

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:06 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
CorruptUser wrote:My complaint wasn't that Seoul itself wasn't relocated, but that it was built up and that the capitol itself wan't relocated. If it turns out that Washington DC is actually on top of a huge volcano that'll blow sometime in the next 200 years, I would understand not evacuating the entire city immediately, but I wouldn't suggest that the city be expanded.


200 years is longer than a lifetime. People will go build houses in a zone that they know will flood if a hurricane comes through. If the disaster might not happen until after I'm dead, eh...that's a long timescale for people. Particularly people who have just gotten through a war, and would rather rebuild, not undertake a herculean effort.

It's not going to be a normal outcome of individual decisions. You can maybe argue that government could have forced it, but I doubt they should have. Seoul has become economically quite prosperous. Having to move stuff a long ways before rebuilding would have made that task harder, and probably a great deal less successful.

I also think that people sometimes overestimate the artillery fire. Yeah, it can absolutely mess up a city and kill many, but it's not going to kill the majority or anything. Life'll go on. Also counter-strikes on the artillery will almost certainly happen rapidly.

Plus, nowhere is ever wholly safe. War is always a potential, no matter where you live. Sure, there's a little added risk living there, but balanced against the other risks of life, it's not obscene.

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The first statement was "they were on board".

Then in the second statement, Tyndmyr wrote:South Korea was instrumental in pushing for the deal

If you'd said something like, "Okay not on board, perhaps, but at least unwilling to rock the boat and risk relations with the US after the fact," then this argument wouldn't have happened. But while you didn't literally use the word "encouraged", you did literally say "pushing for", which I suspect everyone here understands to mean essentially the same thing.


The second statement was part of an attempt to clear up the misunderstanding. SK was, in fact, pushing for the peace deal. If you read the entire three sentences you cherry picked the quote from, it is clear that I'm talking about their valuation of it after the fact, not claiming they engineered it.

Ya'll finding any excuse to willfully misinterpret my words is annoying.

CorruptUser wrote:The coastal city thing is actually a bone of contention for me, due to the way flood insurance is subsidized by the US government.


Edit: It should probably not be subsidized, but even if it were not, some people would no doubt continue to choose to build on the beach. The cost is worth the risk to them. Seoul is a similar case.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:35 pm UTC
by Zohar
Tyndmyr wrote:The second statement was part of an attempt to clear up the misunderstanding. SK was, in fact, pushing for the peace deal. If you read the entire three sentences you cherry picked the quote from, it is clear that I'm talking about their valuation of it after the fact, not claiming they engineered it.

It's really not clear, which is why this argument began.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:15 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Well, to clear it up, it was an aside explaining why it is unlikely to threaten the US/SK relationship. Nobody seems to have disagreed with the point, merely the explanation.

The clarification linking the source, in which I summarized "It appears they believed it was a worthwhile attempt" should suffice to explain why it supports the point.

The above all seemed incredibly obvious, but hopefully everyone's on the same page now and the conversation can proceed to something new.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:35 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Sure, as long as in future you make some attempt to either respond to the point you quoted or else make it more clear that your response is actually about something else.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:37 pm UTC
by sardia
https://www.propublica.org/series/documenting-hate
Moving on to more dark news.
Turns out those Nazis from the Charlotteville protest are an organized, well trained Paramilitary group. And they mostly escaped punishment and are everywhere. They don't look like skinheads, they look like jocks.
One is a Marine who was so blatantly a Nazi, that his fellow Marine ratted him out. The investigation was dropped.
Another works at Northrop Grumman, and wasn't fired until he as interviewed by reporters.
Other juicy tidbits- the Nazis are better trained, better armed and more numerous than the antifascists.

You'll notice a pattern of organizations not caring about Nazis until the reporters start asking questions.

Hmm, I should write a Shadowrun or GURPS table top rpg adventure on this. At least in that universe, the Nazis lose.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:43 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
sardia wrote:Hmm, I should write a Shadowrun or GURPS table top rpg adventure on this. At least in that universe, the Nazis lose.


Eventually, but before they do they have to almost win. It's not a good story if the villain is defeated without having been a position to obtain victory in the first place.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:03 pm UTC
by sardia
CorruptUser wrote:Eventually, but before they do they have to almost win. It's not a good story if the villain is defeated without having been a position to obtain victory in the first place.

Well in my session, a shadowy corporation is just using the Nazis to scare the public into more military spending and tax breaks. But a supervillain whose plan is to save billions on his taxes is boring, and punching Nazis is fun, or that's what the player feedback has been.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:26 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
sardia wrote:But a supervillain whose plan is to save billions on his taxes is boring,
Well, if you must run a game so closely based upon reality…

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:05 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
In the interests of public transparency, Montgomery County, MD released a document listing the various bribes to Amazon in return for a corporate HQ.

It's ten pages, but every line is redacted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/05/technology/amazon-headquarters-hq2.html

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:08 am UTC
by ucim
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm placing rather more hope in the value of deterrence. So far, that's proven to be fairly reliable.
Pre Trump, yes. But our Supreme Leader is poking crocodiles with sticks, both in our own country and around the world. And the premise is that the US wipes North Korea out with our nuclear weapons, claiming that "they started it". At that point, the hope you have in the value of deterrence is completely negated. By definition it didn't work, and a once-soverign country is now a nuclear slag-heap, with Trump probably saying to the rest of the world "and let that be a lesson to you!".

You really think the world will sit calmly by, and tacitly acknowledge Donald Trump to be the Supreme Leader of the Entire World? Because that's what sitting by would actually do.

Jose

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:13 am UTC
by Mutex
ucim wrote:You really think the world will sit calmly by, and tacitly acknowledge Donald Trump to be the Supreme Leader of the Entire World?

Yes. What do you think would happen? They'd threaten a country that has just demonstrated itself perfectly willing to reduce another country to molten rock?

Maybe you're thinking the rest of the world would sanction the US into oblivion. Well, maybe, although there are quite a few things that can only be bought from the US, as China is finding. So any extension economic action would have to be part of a long term coordinated effort to remove all reliance on the US.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:28 am UTC
by elasto
Mutex wrote:Yes. What do you think would happen? They'd threaten a country that has just demonstrated itself perfectly willing to reduce another country to molten rock?

Countries certainly wouldn't threaten. Attention-seeking terrorist organisations probably would though. (Yes, as low as America's reputation has sunk it could sink yet further...)

Sanctions would take long enough to roll out that I imagine most countries would simply choose to wait out Trump's term(s) of office and hope someone slightly saner arises next time around.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:33 am UTC
by Mutex
I just checked previous post. He was clearly talking about what actions other nuclear armed countries would take within an hour of the exchange between USA and NK, seemingly suggesting they'd launch an attack on the US. Which seems a very odd idea, when they can just stay out of it and not get nuked. Maybe if the US used their entire supply of nukes, another country would take advantage of a temporarily nuclear-disarmed US and attack, seems unlikely that would happen in an exchange with NK though.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:55 am UTC
by commodorejohn
I mean, ultimately, whether MAD works or not, is that really the kind of thing you want to test?

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:03 am UTC
by elasto
Mutex wrote:I just checked previous post. He was clearly talking about what actions other nuclear armed countries would take within an hour of the exchange between USA and NK, seemingly suggesting they'd launch an attack on the US. Which seems a very odd idea, when they can just stay out of it and not get nuked.

Oh. Wow, yes, he does seem to be exploring that notion.

No, I can't see any way that would occur, globalisation has seen to that. Countries like China and even Russia are too deeply interconnected with the West economically to want to rock that boat by turning a skirmish into a planetary extinction event.

Pakistan is the only country I can think of that might conceivably have little enough invested in the status quo to go for it, but I don't think they have enough nukes to destroy the US, merely inflict a lot of pain.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:09 am UTC
by Link

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:06 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm placing rather more hope in the value of deterrence. So far, that's proven to be fairly reliable.
Pre Trump, yes. But our Supreme Leader is poking crocodiles with sticks, both in our own country and around the world. And the premise is that the US wipes North Korea out with our nuclear weapons, claiming that "they started it". At that point, the hope you have in the value of deterrence is completely negated. By definition it didn't work, and a once-soverign country is now a nuclear slag-heap, with Trump probably saying to the rest of the world "and let that be a lesson to you!".

You really think the world will sit calmly by, and tacitly acknowledge Donald Trump to be the Supreme Leader of the Entire World? Because that's what sitting by would actually do.

Jose


Alright, North Korea launches a pre-emptive strike.
The US retaliates.

Now other countries are faced with the decision of "shoot at a country that is known to have a fuckton of nukes and has a track record of being willing to use them in order to defend...north korean aggression" or....not that.

Why would they choose the former? How would it benefit them to do so?

Strongly worded statements, UN resolutions, sure. Nukes flying everywhere, no.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:15 pm UTC
by addams
oh,...
With words he has damaged our reputation.
With a Nuke, he could isolate us.

Try to imagine sanctions against the U.S.
No more Strawberries in the winter.

No more easy goods from China.
No more easy crossing North nor South.

Sure; We could still get anything we want from Russia....maybe.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 5:37 pm UTC
by elasto
Think back to Bush1's invasion of Iraq, which was in response to Iraq's attack on another sovereign country. Support was essentially world-wide.

I think support would be even more universal if NK preemptively attacked SK. It would probably still be near-unanimous even if Trump provoked it in some fashion.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 5:58 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
There's been 3 decades of anti-American propaganda spread by Russia and others since then. Are you absolutely sure that the public would have a similar reaction to the US liberating SK as they reacted to Kuwait?

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:05 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
North Korea's not exactly popular in the world. Who's gonna want to die for them? They're sort of the definition of an international pariah.

Toss on "used nukes first", and you've basically set up the most unsympathetic scenario possible for a country. Shit, China might join us in nuking them.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:32 pm UTC
by elasto
CorruptUser wrote:There's been 3 decades of anti-American propaganda spread by Russia and others since then. Are you absolutely sure that the public would have a similar reaction to the US liberating SK as they reacted to Kuwait?

America was actually quite well-viewed under Obama. Heck, he even got awarded a Nobel Peace Prize (which was a bit of a joke).

Yeah, we've gone back to viewing you as a bit bat-sh*t crazy again, but with the rise of right-wing nationalism across the West, Trump feels more like a symptom than a cause. Everything's just done bigger in America, ya know?

So, yeah, I think the world would band together against NK aggression even with (God help us...) Trump as Commander-in-Chief.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:13 pm UTC
by cphite
Tyndmyr wrote:North Korea's not exactly popular in the world. Who's gonna want to die for them? They're sort of the definition of an international pariah.


Still, my guess would be that the international reaction would be far less sympathetic, at least publicly. This would be due in large part to the past few decades of the US throwing its weight around; as well as orange asshole currently residing in the White House.

Toss on "used nukes first", and you've basically set up the most unsympathetic scenario possible for a country. Shit, China might join us in nuking them.


That would be insane. Why in the hell would China want an additional nuke going off in their own backyard? Why would they risk North Korea launching a response towards them in desperation?

Even assuming that China is convinced that seeing the Kim regime destroyed is in their own best interests, they have a very serious incentive to not see a nuclear exchange so close to their own homeland; much less actively engage in one. So unless they had some real, confirmed information that Kim was planning a strike against China, the odds of them using a nuke are effectively nil.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:33 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
cphite wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:North Korea's not exactly popular in the world. Who's gonna want to die for them? They're sort of the definition of an international pariah.


Still, my guess would be that the international reaction would be far less sympathetic, at least publicly. This would be due in large part to the past few decades of the US throwing its weight around; as well as orange asshole currently residing in the White House.


People would no doubt take the opportunity to snipe about old grudges. Happens every conflict. That said, this usually takes the form of statements and maybe trade restrictions. Tossing nukes around isn't usually done lightly.

Everyone who has nukes implicitly accepts second strike usage as fair. If they didn't, they wouldn't need nukes. Pretty much everyone publicly decries first strike policies as not a great idea.

Toss on "used nukes first", and you've basically set up the most unsympathetic scenario possible for a country. Shit, China might join us in nuking them.


That would be insane. Why in the hell would China want an additional nuke going off in their own backyard? Why would they risk North Korea launching a response towards them in desperation?

Even assuming that China is convinced that seeing the Kim regime destroyed is in their own best interests, they have a very serious incentive to not see a nuclear exchange so close to their own homeland; much less actively engage in one. So unless they had some real, confirmed information that Kim was planning a strike against China, the odds of them using a nuke are effectively nil.


Bluntly, they have more to gain by doing so than by taking North Korea's side at that point. China is largely motivated by a desire to not have North Korean refugees flooding over the border. So, they want North Korea to be kind of stable. Sure, they'll provide some support to keep things at that point, but if NK launches, stable has gone out the window.

Also, NK doesn't have a ton of nukes. If they start using them in a first strike fashion, they will very rapidly lose any remaining deterrent. This is not true for the US. A limited nuclear exchange between US and NK will not significantly impact our arsenal, but it will NK. At that point, they have nothing to gain by backing NK, but siding with the winners has historically worked out well. Remember when Russia declared war on Japan quite late in WW2? Same scenario. Also, from a cynical point of view, use of nukes on NK will decrease the refugees available to flood the border.

North Korea, obviously, is aware that launching first would be straight up suicidal, so they're much more likely to just keep doing the level of saber rattling they can get away with.


Anyways, in depressing news, we have a government forcing an allergic woman to grow grass in her yard or face up to twenty years in prison.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/08/06/bureaucrats-want-to-make-a-woman-with-a-grass-allergy-grow-a-lawn-shes-fighting-back/

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:01 pm UTC
by cphite
Tyndmyr wrote:
cphite wrote:Even assuming that China is convinced that seeing the Kim regime destroyed is in their own best interests, they have a very serious incentive to not see a nuclear exchange so close to their own homeland; much less actively engage in one. So unless they had some real, confirmed information that Kim was planning a strike against China, the odds of them using a nuke are effectively nil.


Bluntly, they have more to gain by doing so than by taking North Korea's side at that point. China is largely motivated by a desire to not have North Korean refugees flooding over the border. So, they want North Korea to be kind of stable. Sure, they'll provide some support to keep things at that point, but if NK launches, stable has gone out the window.


There is a vast amount of area between taking NKs side and joining a nuclear exchange.

Understand, if the situation ever gets to the point of open warfare, the Kim regime is going to assume that their only chance of survival is to cause enough carnage to convince their opponents to cease hostilities. That means doing massive amounts of damage in a limited amount of time; that's why they want nukes in the first place. China does not want to place themselves on that list, especially since they are right next door.

Also, NK doesn't have a ton of nukes. If they start using them in a first strike fashion, they will very rapidly lose any remaining deterrent. This is not true for the US. A limited nuclear exchange between US and NK will not significantly impact our arsenal, but it will NK.


This is not a video game. China isn't going to risk losing one or more cities based on the premise that North Korea can only destroy a few. Just one would be a massive disaster; hell for that matter just one on the Korean peninsula would be a massive disaster from their perspective. Adding to that disaster does not serve their interests.

The only way China would ever consider using a nuke against NK would be if they had reliable intelligence that NK would launch against them - and that's way outside the realm of shit that's ever going to happen.

At that point, they have nothing to gain by backing NK, but siding with the winners has historically worked out well. Remember when Russia declared war on Japan quite late in WW2? Same scenario.


Totally different scenario. Russia made a deal with the allies to engage with Japan after the fall of Germany, and was promised territory. Also, Japan was a major military power that had proven themselves both willing and capable of aggressive expansion. And finally, they were still thinking in conventional (non-nuclear) terms - where striking first gained you heavy favor in terms of outcome.

The only thing China would gain from a nuclear exchange with North Korea would be massive casualties, radioactive fallout, and mass unrest; there is really no outcome that would be good from their perspective.

Also, from a cynical point of view, use of nukes on NK will decrease the refugees available to flood the border.


Quite the opposite. A nuclear attack would mean that the survivors would have far more incentive to migrate, even if they were outside of the targeted cities. The refugee flood would be larger.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:59 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
I think he is assuming that there would be fewer survivors. That's... not really true. The city of Hiroshima had a population of 350,000 prior to the bombing, meaning that the bomb only killed 1/8 near-instantly and another 1/8 in lengths of time anywhere from hours to weeks. Granted that nukes are more powerful now, but it's unlikely that we'd kill more than half the population, virtually ALL of which are going to be fleeing the fallout into China/SK.

Nuclear fire is more insidious than regular fire because it's a relatively short but hot flash as compared to a slow cooking, so much like tossing a steak from the freezer into a broiling oven, the outside of the body is ash (including eyes if exposed), while the vital organs are untouched. You'd be surprised at how long a human can survive with the skin burnt off, especially when the wounds are are cauterized. Now if you avoid most of the burning but absorbed a bit too much radiation, well, now you have the worst possible fate. Your immune system tries to repair the damage, but it's simply overwhelmed, and necrosis sets in.

Really folks, don't use nuclear weapons on civilians.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:17 pm UTC
by sardia
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexand ... -grifting/
Secretary Ross, like Trump, is obsessed with money. Even seemingly small amounts, he'll try to steal it and then lie about it. For example, he violated an insider trading rule for a measly 10,000 profit. Remember, this guy has half a billion dollars. Of course, not being a billionaire really gets to him. So he likes to inflate his wealth.
Other crimes he's accused of
1. His employees are supposed to get fee free investing at his mutual fund. Instead he charged them for it without telling them. This is akin to a cheap restaurant owner telling their employees that they eat free, but then deducting their paychecks.
2. When his mutual fund charges an expense ratio(yearly fee based on percentage of assets managed) he kept charging them on the highest value of the fund, even though the fund was losing value. Ex charge 1% of one hundred millionaires dollars in assets. Assets decline to $50 million, he would still charge as if it's 1% of the full$100 million. He would pocket the difference.
3. Interest that belonged to person A, would be illegally diverted to Ross. This is just stealing.
He's accused of stealing a total of 120 million. All in small chunks.
If half the claims are true, he would be one of the largest grifters in history of America.
The behavior reminds me of Trump a lot. Just the really petty theft, and the realization that he's not as rich as he claims. And the fear of loss of power if anyone every caught on.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... fting/amp/

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:38 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
cphite wrote:There is a vast amount of area between taking NKs side and joining a nuclear exchange.


There is. Most countries would fall somewhere into the area of "taking no military action". However, states in general tend to condemn aggressive action, and understand the need for reactions. Nuclear war puts a great deal more importance on this than usual. North Korea is generally lacking in friends due to it's usual behavior. It isn't rich, powerful, or influential enough to get away with a nuclear first strike.

Everyone would at that point view it as a dangerous, but easily defeated threat. That's...not a good position to be in.

Understand, if the situation ever gets to the point of open warfare, the Kim regime is going to assume that their only chance of survival is to cause enough carnage to convince their opponents to cease hostilities. That means doing massive amounts of damage in a limited amount of time; that's why they want nukes in the first place. China does not want to place themselves on that list, especially since they are right next door.


China is not in fear of North Korea. NK is vastly inferior to China in every respect I can think of. China's policy towards North Korea appears to be driven by logical self interest and a desire for stability, not fear. They're a useful stick to poke the west with on occasion, so long as they don't get out of control, but China tends to lean on them a bit(while also being seen to play the part of peacemaker) when things look too messy. The status quo benefits China, why would they seek to upset it?

However, if NK upsets it, they won't be overly happy with them.

Also, NK doesn't have a ton of nukes. If they start using them in a first strike fashion, they will very rapidly lose any remaining deterrent. This is not true for the US. A limited nuclear exchange between US and NK will not significantly impact our arsenal, but it will NK.


This is not a video game. China isn't going to risk losing one or more cities based on the premise that North Korea can only destroy a few. Just one would be a massive disaster; hell for that matter just one on the Korean peninsula would be a massive disaster from their perspective. Adding to that disaster does not serve their interests.

The only way China would ever consider using a nuke against NK would be if they had reliable intelligence that NK would launch against them - and that's way outside the realm of shit that's ever going to happen.


China has a no first strike policy. Their nukes are explicitly for second strikes.

Why would being seen to stand against an out-of-control North Korea be against their interests? If NK has already launched, they have comparatively little stick left. NK doesn't have much in the way of nukes, launchers, or launch facilities. If you hit them, they don't get to hit back, particularly if they've already expended a first strike. There simply isn't danger of NK retaliation at that point.

At that point, they have nothing to gain by backing NK, but siding with the winners has historically worked out well. Remember when Russia declared war on Japan quite late in WW2? Same scenario.


Totally different scenario. Russia made a deal with the allies to engage with Japan after the fall of Germany, and was promised territory. Also, Japan was a major military power that had proven themselves both willing and capable of aggressive expansion. And finally, they were still thinking in conventional (non-nuclear) terms - where striking first gained you heavy favor in terms of outcome.

The only thing China would gain from a nuclear exchange with North Korea would be massive casualties, radioactive fallout, and mass unrest; there is really no outcome that would be good from their perspective.


Why would they sustain causalities? In any case, becoming involved would put them in a good position to exercise more direct influence over their wayward neighbor. It's literally next door to them, they're not going to ignore a fight in their back yard. They're going to make a play in their self interests.

Also, airbursts have minimal fallout. Standard nuke usage on the korean peninsula wouldn't have a great deal of effect on china. This might not be true if NK resorts to ground bursts while retreating or similar, but that falls into "actions that annoy china", not actions that keep china from doing anything.

This whole "everyone launches against everyone, and fallout is everywhere" viewpoint of every nuclear exchange seems like an odd relic of the cold war.

CorruptUser wrote:I think he is assuming that there would be fewer survivors. That's... not really true. The city of Hiroshima had a population of 350,000 prior to the bombing, meaning that the bomb only killed 1/8 near-instantly and another 1/8 in lengths of time anywhere from hours to weeks. Granted that nukes are more powerful now, but it's unlikely that we'd kill more than half the population, virtually ALL of which are going to be fleeing the fallout into China/SK.


The assumption is that if NK is desperate enough to get into that position, they're mostly going to be refugees anyways. Injuries and lingering deaths also inhibit people's ability to walk to the border, so in a situation where north korea is falling, the resulting cost is probably not theirs to clean up.

This isn't a statement of moral support, merely a cynical note that it happens to serve China's interests in more ways than one.

Anyways, in more cheery topics: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/could-epa-proposal-could-lead-new-uses-cancer-causing-asbestos-n898546, Trump's administration is seeking to have the EPA look into allowing more uses of asbestos. In celebration, a russian asbestos company slaps his face on their product.

Trump's historically been pretty pro-asbestos, which seems...odd. The toxicity of asbestos hasn't changed, really. It's not something that we've learned is really pretty safe, it's not a controversial thing, and it's a threat that doesn't really go away. Once you slap that in a house or something, it stays there until eventually someone tears it down. I'm all for re-evaluating threats on occasion, but this isn't a marginal or controversial one.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:42 pm UTC
by sardia
Counterpoint, China warned both North Korea and the West that first strikes are bad and they'll respond to each. If Kim strikes first, China won't help. But if the West preemptively strikes, they'll fight for North Korea. How much that is bluffing, nobody can say.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:01 pm UTC
by addams
Tyndmyr wrote:
Anyways, in more cheery topics: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/could-epa-proposal-could-lead-new-uses-cancer-causing-asbestos-n898546, Trump's administration is seeking to have the EPA look into allowing more uses of asbestos. In celebration, a russian asbestos company slaps his face on their product.

Trump's historically been pretty pro-asbestos, which seems...odd. The toxicity of asbestos hasn't changed, really. It's not something that we've learned is really pretty safe, it's not a controversial thing, and it's a threat that doesn't really go away. Once you slap that in a house or something, it stays there until eventually someone tears it down. I'm all for re-evaluating threats on occasion, but this isn't a marginal or controversial one.
oh,...Good Grief!
That &%$?# keeps getting weirder and weirder.

On the Up Side; If we ever get out on the other side of this...what ever it is,
Those Stamps will be valuable 'War Relics'.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:47 am UTC
by Link

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:49 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Yeah, MD's reading a fuckton of police to stand by for that.

I plan to be nowhere close to DC at that time.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:37 pm UTC
by sardia
Tyndmyr wrote:Yeah, MD's reading a fuckton of police to stand by for that.
I plan to be nowhere close to DC at that time.

It'll be a lot easier if the police and military aren't filled with Nazi sympathizers. Depending on how you define it, from "Nazis aren't any worse than minorities", to "I'm a Nazi who infiltrated the police department."

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:59 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
MD police, eh....honestly...it depends.

It's good in that they're expecting/attempting to prepare for potential trouble, but the quality of officer varies. It being DC, I can't imagine they'll allow firearms, open flames, or anything of that nature. Might end up being fairly heavily cordoned off, and having minimal effect. I certainly can't imagine their protest gaining them much sympathy or benefit within the city no matter what happens, but potential for conflict is definitely there.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:16 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
It's DC. There's 3 protests every single day there...

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:17 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
That's a factor, but it's also an area that is not particularly sympathetic to alt-right viewpoints. I also don't see them as making a good attempt to appeal to people outside their demographics. They will not be liked.

It'll get media attention either way, and I suspect that's what they actually want, though.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:35 pm UTC
by sardia
Tyndmyr wrote:That's a factor, but it's also an area that is not particularly sympathetic to alt-right viewpoints. I also don't see them as making a good attempt to appeal to people outside their demographics. They will not be liked.

It'll get media attention either way, and I suspect that's what they actually want, though.

The appeal of a town like Charlottesville, with its relatively small population, its whiteness, and its politically liberal bent must have made it seem somehow up for grabs, a battleground in itself, between the Virginia Gentleman stomping ground it used to be and the more liberal academic place it is becoming.
The Nazis are seeking out liberals. To be disliked is the point. That, and to terrorize their opponents while claiming free speech. If you look into the archives, you'll notice that the Nazis are well armed and organized for a supposed nonviolent protest.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08 ... -supremacy

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:54 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
I agree that they're seeking conflict, but DC firearms laws mean that they'll not be overtly armed here. Or if they are, they'll get into conflict with law enforcement almost immediately.

Thus, I believe they're taking a publicity angle. Shock folks, get additional media attention for being shocking, and make political hay of any reactionary actions. It's the only thing that really makes sense as a strategy.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:33 pm UTC
by Link
Well, yeah. Unfortunately it only takes one counter-protester stepping out of line to make every racist, xenophobe and alt-right adherent feel validated. They're hoping to get an excuse to start a full-blown race war, and I fear it's just a matter of time before they succeed.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:40 am UTC
by Mutex
So on the day only 20 Nazis turned up, none of them were allowed firearms, hundreds of counter protesters drowned them out, and after a couple of hours it started raining so hard everyone went home.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45165656