Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

You look even more stupid. And Chomsky absolutely did not ask Ukraine to "roll over". So you are also just making shit up.

This topic has already been beaten to death here.

https://www.counterpunch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Open...

" To stress the main point again, you do reject diplomacy, evading the fact by keeping to negotiation strategy. And your apologetics for Washington’s undermining of diplomacy makes that even clearer. We are left with your very clear advocacy of the “ghastly experiment,” which I do find shocking. I hope you will reconsider your position, and think through the evasions and misrepresentations. The proper reaction would be to publicly withdraw the accusations that you have widely circulated, but that’s your business. And it’s far less important than publicly withdrawing your advocacy of the ghastly experiment. That reinforces the stand of others who are willing to gamble with the fate of Ukrainians, and far beyond."

As chomsky explains, the so called supporters of Ukraine - sitting on a comfortable couch in another country- are insisting on performing a "ghastly experiment" with the Ukrainian people. The correspondence above, shows how chomsky's critics really have no interest in the well being of Ukrainians, but are more focused on beating up Putin, just like you.

In fact, present day Ukraine has a very complex history and is a mixture of ethnic (sub)-groups, and to the extent that you can even talk about a "Ukrainian ethnicity" it contains more internal diversity than the "Ukrainian vs Russian" difference.

And obviously you can't use language as a determinant. If you've ever spent any time in Ukraine you would know that until recently most "ethnic Ukrainians" spoke mostly Russian, even in the West. This is largely the case even today - Zelensky's mother tongue is Russian and his Ukrainian is still pretty rough. And there are ethnic Russians in Ukraine that speak better Ukrainian than Russian.

But setting that aside, and ignoring the fact that even if you accept Ukrainian and Russian as separate ethnicities, they are still incredibly close, like Norwegians and Swedes, it's still hard to understand how this could be an "ethnic cleansing", the bombs and artillery kill Russian and Ukrainian civilians indiscriminately.

I mean if you bomb a city where ethnic Russians make up say 40% of the population, which is not uncommon in Donbass where most of the fighting is taking place, then that proportion won't change. If anything, the overall proportion of Russians in Ukraine will decrease since they are bombing the parts of Ukraine where most of the very large Russian minority lives.

So obviously the war is not about ethnic cleansing. If they just wanted to kill Ukrainians there are millions of them in Russia. It's about political control.

Present day Ukraine also contains many ethnic sub-groups and groups, in the East a large portion are obviously Russians, in the West there is of course a strong Polish influence.

But even setting aside the complex demographic history, and being generous and

I think maybe the biggest obstacle to getting anything productive done in society is that we seem (in an almost fractal way, from like a nation-wide election down to an HN comment section) just so fucking committed to pretending that mechanism design doesn't work. It absolutely, 100% does. People as individuals, organizations composed of individuals, fucking viruses, the whole show: these things respond to incentives. Even the "higher" stuff is easily modeled as slightly more abstract incentives.

These 2022 S&P 500 corporations are stupidly, absurdly, Ronald Reagan-spontaneous-hard-on "good" at cranking "shareholder value". Which is precisely the job we've set them and the executives tasked with running them. They're doing their job.

That goal happens to align only coincidentally and peripherally with a more abstract goal I like a lot better: something like "the broader social good".

Edit: On a second read, it might not have been clear that I was elaborating on your point, not arguing with it.

Second, the documents were happily stored because they were not under the purview of her political opponents. If Republicans on the Benghazi Committee wanted those documents they could have subpoenaed those documents. But they didn't. So why are we supposed to be upset that she deleted documents that weren't under the scope of the subpoena?

Third, I notice you failed to articulate any crime, so again I ask: what was the crime? If Republicans didn't ask for unrelated into, and FBI couldn't find she deleted related info, then what unique insight do you have that she was attempting to evade a subpoena, aside from a vague hypothetical?