101–110 of 141 posts
Too long, didn't finish. I need a summarizer. ADHD sucks.
> I’ve often wondered why, in a poor country where women work as hard as men to feed their children, feminine softness is so highly prized. As for me, I no longer consider it a valuable attribute. Isn't this its own answer? It's prized precisely because it is unattainable for most.
> I’ve often wondered why, in a poor country where women work as hard as men to feed their children, feminine softness is so highly prized. As for me, I no longer consider it a valuable attribute. Isn't this its own answer? It's prized precisely because it is unattainable for most.
That explanation doesn't work for me. Women in Germany at my age never had a shortage of anything. Yet most of them present themselves as strong and fiercely competitive. It's rare to see a German woman embrace her softer side or act playfully in public.
Too long, didn't finish. I need a summarizer. ADHD sucks.
I don't have ADHD but I also could not finish this. I am too used to reading scientific papers where the gist is literally given in the first paragraph and interesting information is easy to find.
Now she's back in her still devastated home country, created an organisation helping women acquire skills they could use to earn money in a country that's about two tech-levels behind advanced countries of this world.
Most enthralling parts of the piece are memories of her luxurious childhood, which most modern kids in western countries would already abhor as abject poverty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ” And, BTW, the most well hidden secret is that USA supported Pol Pot and even provided financial support to his government.” According to Wikipedia, the USA did not materially support the Khmer Rouge, though they did vote in favor of certain UN resolutions which favored the regime. Do you have some evidence or support for your claims? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_s...
IIRC from [0] US politicians long regarded the horror stories out of Cambodia as exaggerated tales at best, enemy propaganda at worst, since the Cambodian regime was opposed to the newly formed Vietnamese government. They couldn't politically support the cause of their former enemy, so Cambodians suffered for longer, until Vietnam got bold enough to invade and liberate them (Edit: I don't know whether the aim was to…
Most people don't realize how dangerous philosophers actually are, with their entitlement to enshrine great value in their musings without any requirement for them to be backed up with actual knowledge or existing data.
When you look at all the bloody revolutions you'll find philosophers inspiring and often guiding them.
Interesting thing to watch is "Power of nightmares" by Adam Curtis. It tracks the history of islamists and US neo-conservatists starting from their respective (very similar) philosophical roots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that the nazis were killing people based on who they were; the communists purged people based based on their belief that they had committed crimes against the state or were working against it. One can dispute this belief, and no doubt they were both brutal, but there is a difference between a genocidal policy with the aim of extermination, and the state exerting its power to punish those it thinks a…
No, you're seriously misrepresenting history there. First, the Nazis were also convinced that the Jews and certain other minorities had committed crimes against the state and the German people, so there's not a meaningful difference between Hitler's and Stalin's motivations. Second, calling the murdering of the kulaks > the state exerting its power to punish those it thinks are working against its interests is as bad…
This does not explain why the Nazis were also targeting the disabled and blacks, for example, does it? What crimes had the disabled and blacks committed against the state? Also, how could people not living in Germany, the Poles and Slavs, have committed crimes against the German state?
See, the Nazis were not motivated by any good faith belief that the groups they targeted had committed any specific crimes against the state. They believed that these groups should not exist at all, and they were prepared to, ultimately, hunt them down for extermination anywhere in the world.
I think equating the Communists and the Nazi is rather repugnant. Yes, both were brutal, but to downplay the unparalleled evil of the Nazi regime betrays a lack of critical analysis of what actually happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, I think when comparing the deadliness of ideologies, the true measure should be something like mortality/(time x population) For example, the Nazis killed 11M over 12 years and the German population was about 70M in 1939. Thus, their deadliness is 11/(70x12) ~ 1/70 The USSR killed 40M (a middling estimate) over about 70 years and the Soviet population was 170M in 1939, so their deadliness is 40/(170x80) ~ 1/340…
> For example, the Nazis killed 11M over 12 years and the German population was about 70M in 1939. Thus, their deadliness is 11/(70x12) ~ 1/70 I don't have real numbers, but I'd guess at least 95% of the people the Nazis killed were foreigners. So that math makes little sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't call deaths in the USSR "accidental". Starving and executing kulaks was no accident, they were punishing the rich. People worked to death in the gulags were not an accident. They may have killed less people per year compared to Nazis but that doesn't make them less deadly. In terms of sheer human loss for society, they were 4 times worse than the Nazis (according to your estimate). If you consider how much…
The difference is that the nazis were killing people based on who they were; the communists purged people based based on their belief that they had committed crimes against the state or were working against it. One can dispute this belief, and no doubt they were both brutal, but there is a difference between a genocidal policy with the aim of extermination, and the state exerting its power to punish those it thinks a…
The whole system was set up to routinely fabricate absurd evidence against innocent people and send them to Gulags (or straight against the wall). It was needed, because the rulers needed their population to be terrorized (less chance of a rebellion) and also because it provided huge amounts of free labor for the Gulags.
I don't think anybody up high believed for a second that any significant fraction of people they condemned to death, torture or lives destroyed in Gulags were guilty of anything.
I especially like how she calls out Vietnamese philosophers of their communist revolutions. Most people don't realize how dangerous philosophers actually are, with their entitlement to enshrine great value in their musings without any requirement for them to be backed up with actual knowledge or existing data. When you look at all the bloody revolutions you'll find philosophers inspiring and often guiding them. Inter…