> Back when it used military power to commit war crimes the world over, and gained or maintained financial capital supremacy from it? As compared to now, when it can only use military power to commit war crimes on a smaller scale, and is throwing away American hegemony in the process?
Such comments either are propaganda or they play into the hands of propagandists.
There is a huge difference in the degree of corruption and malfeasance of this administration. Implying that the current regime is so similar to prior ones downplays the critical importance of restoring competence.
Or, it might be the case that the prior regime had tactfully hidden all of those things being accused by the GP's comment, and this regime is simply doing it in the open with no regard.
Even if this were true (which of course it's not), doing bad stuff in the open actually is far and more deleterious to the fabric of society than doing bad stuff in secret.
It is absolutely true. The USA has a history of making shit up, kill some million(s) of people, steal their oil.
The only difference is that Donald Trump doesn’t care about plausible deniability at all, unlike previous presidents,which is why the American public remembers (the demons) George Bush neutral or slightly positive. They should both have died in prison.
This is an extremely popular view that recently has been disseminated and while based on fact, is emotional propaganda. It basically exists as a justification for Trump’ and this administrations actions, along the lines of “they’ve always done it, at least we don’t hide it” and gives them a combination of legitimacy and a strange sense of “doing the right thing”.
I understand that it’s true that the USA has been problematic in the past but in this case, the story being sold to people about the US “always” having been bad exists to convince people that there is no other way, and you either have to accept it or tear it all down. Interestingly both benefit the current administration
No, this is not “propaganda “ to justify anything Trump is up to.
The USA has not been “problematic”, it has enforced a particular ideology on the world with the rest of us unwilling participants.
The USA has repeatedly overthrown diplomatically elected leaders(Iran ironically being the best example, a democratic government toppled because it was stopping American business interests and democratising its oil resources) so the USAs ownership class can make their fortunes.
Sometimes , it has stopped elections, exterminated millions, set their villages on fire, because the people were picking the wrong ideology.
Yes those are all bad and you are naive if you think a USA that relishes brutality could not or would not be 1000x worse.
Militarily, the US can trivially eradicate entire countries. It is “only” our leadership and their sense of morals (imperfect and spotty as they are) that prevents this.
for which society? the American society, maybe? they get to feel good about themselves
for the societies all over the globe that have been the targets of such policies for more than a century, I think it's better to call a spade a spade. the non-American politicians and aristocrats that benefit from US imperialism get to hide much better if the Americans are "the good guys"
No even for other societies, it would be far worse if American politicians felt no imperative (moral, political, economic, or otherwise) to not behave like raving lunatics.
This is of course what we're seeing today, where Trump is just discovering his taste for utilizing American military power to achieve his whims.
Hopefully we get bogged down in Iran enough not to continue, but obviously as soon as we started the Iran conflict, the GOP was already talking about "Cuba's next" etc, which is obviously the start of an infinitely long list of places to "liberate."
This situation is far worse for everyone than the one where the US is mostly benign (despite mistakes) relative to its incredible power.
Whether the US is capable of hiding their maleficence or not should not be an indicator of whether it is safe to deal with them. If your indicator for the US being a good partner in _anything_ is that "well we did corrupt things in the past, but people didn't use to care about it", then the US is still not a good partner.
It's not like the US has never e.g. openly threatened NATO allies with war: There is quite literally a standing law that allows the US president to invade the netherlands if any US military personnel is ever detained by the International Criminal Court.
This law has been on the books for over 20 years and has the publically announced intention to prevent the US from being prosecuted for all the other atrocities committed in e.g. Iraq. This bill was supported by both democrats and republicans.
The reality is that the US' stance towards the rest of the world has not changed with the recent administrations (nor would I expect it to: Trump does not happen in a vacuum). What did change was willingness of the rest of the world to act on the US' actions.
May I recommend Chris Hedges' American Fascists The Christian Right and the War on America, published in 2007. The current situation didn't develop in a vacuum, it is the mushroom that shows how far the mycelium has spread and how old it is.
fwiw i agree with you that the current situation is much worse than in the past, given all the horror's being done in the open without any nod toward reason, multilateralism, or public consent
I don't have rose-tinted glasses with regard to US actions in the past, especially in OEF/OIF. So many instances of horror in Vietnam, WW2, and so on.
But all of those things are the awful things that happen during war even with a military, political, and legal apparatus that tries to mitigate it.
We are now dealing with a regime that claims and will make no such efforts. The only reason the Iran war hasn't so far yielded the same horrors is because so far we haven't attempted to occupy Iran.
If we do, I absolutely promise you that a military populated by people who know they can be court martialed, jailed, or even executed for crimes against the local population will be significantly better behaved (even if imperfectly, per your article) than one that is told – from the very top – that they will be accountable for nothing except maximal brutality and lethality.
The past was bad. But the current is far worse. Tell it to the people disappeared in the ICE concentration camps. Or to any trans people in any bad state.
The US government always committed war crimes and all sorts of human rights abuses abroad.
The previous presidents were just more competent stewards of these activities.
In some ways, not being from the US, I don't dislike Trump. He may be a senile buffon and apparent pedophile, but at least he laid bare what the US truly stands for. He was elected twice after all, and still has substantial support.
At least other countries can stop pretending the US is in any way friendly.
> The real test: his personal email should be pretty uninteresting except for stuff like HIPAA, amazon purchases, communications with friends / family. (good for HUMINT) But other than that, there shouldn't be anything in there which should make the news.
I have no idea why this would be the default assumption for somebody as sloppy and erratic as Patel. Look at how many people were emailing damning stuff to/from Epstein's personal email accounts from their own personal email accounts!
I believe it's the second half of parent's comment that is doing the heavy lifting.
A 9-0 ruling written by Clarence Thomas which puts basic human rights (internet access) above civil liability - try asking a chatbot to find many of those.
Their key insight is that you don't have to manufacture consent when so many voters just love the guy in the White House and will stand by him no matter what.
Why waste time convincing anybody of anything, when support for the war will just converge on the president's approval rating anyway?
It certainly appears to be a cult of personality. If he had a massive stroke tomorrow, or one of his secret service detail took him out, could anyone around him pick up the baton and get that same level of support?
They could at the very least just package it up to run with Wine, but Sweeney is stubbornly set in his linux hating ways. I could use their store through the Heroic launcher, as I do with GoG, but I won't because fuck you Tim.
If we're being realistic from a business standpoint: Linux is at best, 3% market share. A very passionate 3%, but 3%. Using resources to support such a niche sector is a hard sell.
3% of millions of people is a massive number of people. Given how easy recent work on wine has made porting from windows, it's really hard to defend not having a linux version, from a business standpoint.
I'd hope this community of all places would understand that "just integrate X with Y" is never as simple as "just". It's still something a team needs to do, and the gain is minimal unless Epic is also going to try and make their own console-esque device. That's the incentive for Steam.
Going by the Steam hardware survey, 3/4 of Linux users were not using Steam Decks when they got polled. So I’m not sure if a console-esque device is actually required. A large part of the reason why Linux usage is growing, is probably that it mostly just works these days
Yes, it's not the most optimal business decision as a software company to invest in hardware. The clear move is to either grease Microsoft's palms, or let then outright acquire Steam (or Valve as a whole). Valve not doing that is either in part ideological, or part very long term thinking on the best financial path later, instead of now.
But at the same time: while the ends was "be independent from Microsoft", their means at first was very Microsoft esque. Partner up with hardware vendors, make some Pcs with Steam built in, and brand it as such. Didn't work. Their goal had to be to roll their own hardware because that's what was needed to get the ball rolling (as well as a form factor that accompanied a desktop instead of competed against).
The problem for an also-ran app store is that you need every user you can find.
Linux support may not be a huge deal in the overall market (although it's growing due to the steam os devices) but it's just one more element to Steam's moat.
It's a glorified wrapper around curl, wine and a webview, a few interns could knock this out in a few months. For "3% market share" (growing every day, thanks to Valve) its a no brainer, but Sweeney has no brain.
Having somebody less incompetent, senile, and corrupt at the helm may not make things "magically go back to normal," but it's a step in the right direction. Necessary but not sufficient.
Perhaps you'll be explicit though, what is the "sickness" you perceive?
>Perhaps you'll be explicit though, what is the "sickness" you perceive?
It's that a significant number of Americans are mean, selfish, racist, arrogant, and delight in the victimization of those they perceive as belonging to an outgroup.
2/3 of your electorate either voted for him (meaning they liked what they saw) or were sufficiently unbothered by him to not vote (meaning they were more or less okay with Trump).
These crocodile tears about how "we were bamboozled" are just that. It was plainly obvious to the rest of us looking in from outside, even before his first term but certainly after, that he was exactly the person he is now, and fully two thirds of American voters accepted this.
Today is MAGA, yesterday it was the "Tea Party" faction, before that it was something else, and tomorrow there will be another.
Every time there's a cycle of fringe-right blowing up in popularity, pushing an agenda and flaming out, it's still the same people they're appealing to who are voting for them.
>The left won’t accept this awful truth about the American soul, a beast that they believe they can fix “if only the people knew the Truth.”
>But what if the Truth is that Americans don’t want to know the Truth? What if Americans consciously choose lies over truth when given the chance–and not even very interesting lies, but rather the blandest, dumbest and meanest lies? What if Americans are not a likeable people? The left’s wires short-circuit when confronted with this terrible possibility; the right, on the other hand, warmly embraces Middle America’s rank soul and exploits it to their full advantage. The Republicans know Americans better than the left. They know that it’s not so much Goering’s famous “bigger lie” that works here, but the dumber and meaner the lie, the more the public wants to hear it repeated.
The main problem with your thinking is that you fail to realiZe that a lot of conservatives criticism of Trump is that he is too weak on the things he promised to be hard on.
They want MORE ICE, more cuts to government programs, more police.
So give me a way to completely disable this nonsense via ADB.
This is hot garbage. Eliminating third party app stores like F-Droid defeats the whole purpose many of us even bother running Android instead of locked down Apple stuff.
The US was historically self-interested in empire building, with an excellent PR campaign in front of it, but... it also did useful and good stuff, both for its allies and for unrelated parties. USAID was a testament to this.
PR spin aside, it was largely a force for global stability (a few notable and disastrous military quagmires aside). "Free trade" isn't much of a philosophy to hang your hat on but it is an ideal of sorts, and it allowed a more connected world.
Now? Brazen corruption, kleptocracy, hostility towards allies...
It's certainly fair to say the US never lived up to the ideals it espoused, but now it's not even espousing those ideals and seems to actively be working against them.
That’s a different topic. This is about how America acts towards the world, historically the so-called second and third world but now apparently to potentially everyone.
They're related, though. Most other hegemons sought absolute domination and a weakening (and impoverishment) of everyone else. The US was generally confident in its security and prosperity that it allowed others to become prosperous, too.
Yes this is I think the key thing... the "rising tide raises all boats" strategy. The deal was, if you play by the US rules and let their corporations in, they'll leave you alone or even give you back something useful in return.
Now the rug pull... you've been operating this way for the last 50 years, and suddenly the US is out to extract as much from you as possible no matter how close an ally you are or how friendly to their corporations you are.
I'm tired of the both-sidesing that I see on places like HN to justify the current administration's actions. The US historically didn't shake every country down (even allies!) under the implicit threat of its military might, because global stability and prosperity was good for US business interests.
It did try to overturn unfriendly regimes but it was far less brazen and reckless about this, operating over longer timelines, and the instability caused by those disastrous interventions seemed like it was a lesson learned (but now has clearly been forgotten).
South Korea and Taiwan were definitely not first world countries when they started. Not even inhabited by white people (so less likely to be favored by 60s America, for example).
The Persian Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE).
Israel also wasn't developed in 1947.
Let's not ignore facts when they're inconvenient.
In the Western Hemisphere the US track record has been a total mess but in the Eastern Hemisphere I'd say about 30% of the time US allies tripped on their own feet on the way to prosperity.
Your whole side topic here is an exercise in ignoring the inconvenient facts of murder and destruction in favor of some supposedly rosy alliance narrative.
Yeah I remember elementary school too. Where people don't care if one of the kids is an a*hole because "he's nice to me".
> Microsoft has barely even dabbled in an adjacent area with the Hololens.
This is revisionist, Microsoft has been tilting at the same windmill for a long time too.
They even created and subsequently removed their own native platform for Windows, used by many hardware vendors, whose products were bricked by the Windows update that removed the feature.
I also commented on WMR, but I took that as MS not being "all-in on the metaverse". VR alone isn't the same thing, and HoloLens as a platform seemed to have more of a vision for working in shared mixed reality.
I love my WMR headset, but Microsoft wasn't really pushing hard for the kinds of "social" experiences Meta was trying to get us to participate in.
Such comments either are propaganda or they play into the hands of propagandists.
There is a huge difference in the degree of corruption and malfeasance of this administration. Implying that the current regime is so similar to prior ones downplays the critical importance of restoring competence.
reply