121–130 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Please don't take HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar, regardless of nation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
About Crimea, it seemed that the poster proposed a clear-cut situation, to which I replied with a prestigious example of disagreement: Gérard Chaliand. That has nothing to do with any nationalism. It just happen to be a position (an intellectual position) that some nationalists will appreciate more than others - but that is just a coincidence. The intellectual in question is French; the rebuttal from Aguaviva is appreciated.
The latter part of the post from Romwell, I honestly and not without some reason mistook for a statement that "if you are a citizen for nation N, democratic, then you are responsible for the actions of your governments". Being that a twisted idea, that Romwell in the end does not hold but as I also specified later some people do hold, I countered it. Again, this does not seem to be to be especially tied to nationalism.
It seems to me that we all discussed in very civilized manner - rhetoric aside. (From my post replying to Romwell on, I mean.)
If I am missing any detail (as I seem to be), please indicate.
Edit: Dang, are you simply afraid that people will "trigger"? If so, I think this branch proves otherwise... It seems to show that we are able to discuss quite rationally (well, with these members we have been lucky).
I just watched Patlabor 2 last night, about a civil war in post-Cold War Japan. The main theme is the following: The thing about one-in-a-million events is that they are eventually going to happen once the other 999,999 occur. Thus a government which does not plan for one-in-a-million scenarios is truly derelict and incapable of survival.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still have mine from 2017 in a kitchen drawer, as an immigrant it was quite informative, it's how I've learned that Sweden will never surrender and any messaging about it is enemy agitation to be ignored.
> that Sweden will never surrender and any messaging about it is enemy agitation to be ignored. Oh ye, the outlawing of losing wars. Not very convincing for adults but I guess teenagers think it sounds cool.
Of course if pushes come to shove the reality is not black and white, no need to be an asshole about it because every adult understands that, quite juvenile of you to think they don't. Guess your kind of rhetoric earn points with the teens, no?
In retrospect, it seems like it was a bad idea for Western countries to assume that things were going to remain peaceful after the fall of the USSR. Glad to see the threat of war being taken seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "Sweden will never surrender" part refers to the brochure warning against enemy propaganda which suggests that Swedish forces have surrendered and people should leave enemy forces unharmed. It is mentioned on page 5 of the English-language brochure: https://rib.msb.se/filer/pdf/30874.pdf
So how do you enforce an armistice when the standing order is "never to surrender"? I.e. not "enemy propaganda" but government orders. You would have units disregarding it left and right. I don't think it is a good idea to give the soldiers the impression that they will fight to the last man, since that encourages killing their officers at an earlier stage than they would otherwise. Preferably, you want to lure with…
If Sweden ever were to surrender in war it will most likely be broadcast by the prime minister and/or the king/queen (Sweden is a constitutional monarchy). Until such a time and until such a message is confirmed we'll just assume that Sweden has not surrendered.
A simple note: if you live sufficiently south for p.v., in a home, you can sustain services disruptions significantly: - p.v. with storage means freezers operational, and freezers means food, protein in particular, for potentially very long periods - even without p.v. a home in the wood means being able to heat in the winter sourcing wood in nature, uncomfortable but still heat, also usable to cook - you have room to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m Russian, am I the problem? We need @dang here to address this racism here.
Unless the outcome of elections in Russia is completely controlled by Putin, people do carry responsibility for their government's policies to some degree.
I had to discuss for months with a mate, who insisted proposing that "Bolsonaro [would be] responsible for the actions of Lula, and Lula [would be] responsible for the actions of Bolsonaro" (actually much worse). And this is just a formulation that should show a paradox; other complexities exist that in the proposed idea of "responsibility" are overridden.
A simple note: if you live sufficiently south for p.v., in a home, you can sustain services disruptions significantly: - p.v. with storage means freezers operational, and freezers means food, protein in particular, for potentially very long periods - even without p.v. a home in the wood means being able to heat in the winter sourcing wood in nature, uncomfortable but still heat, also usable to cook - you have room to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that Sweden will never surrender and any messaging about it is enemy agitation to be ignored. Oh ye, the outlawing of losing wars. Not very convincing for adults but I guess teenagers think it sounds cool.
It's part of the defence strategy to not allow quick capitulation due to enemy's propaganda, the idea is to form armed resistance on the vast Swedish forests as a last resort for insurgency. Of course if pushes come to shove the reality is not black and white, no need to be an asshole about it because every adult understands that, quite juvenile of you to think they don't. Guess your kind of rhetoric earn points with…
I am sorry. I agree most people 'get it'. The point I am trying to make is that those who don't 'get it' are a big problem if you have nifty slogans like that. Also in a non-total war setting.
> Guess your kind of rhetoric earn points with the teens, no?
I honestly believe that my rhetoric would score very low amongst teens.