Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526
Results 251 to 256 of 256

Thread: Jordan Peterson

  1. #251
    Senior Member Sinny's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth View Post
    I have to say I admire the amount of energy you're able to put into people that you really don't like. When I decide I think someone's full of crap I just stop looking into it.
    Anger is an abundant source of energy.
    Fortunately/unfortunately for me, I'm full of it

    I refer you to: http://forums.intpcomplex.com/showth...-amp-Tri-types

    Kali's a 7w8, she's full of energy too.
    Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

    ~ Robert Jackson, Statesman (1892-1954)


  2. #252
    Faster. Than. Ever. Sloth's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Somewhere, I'm sure.
    Posts
    1,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinny View Post
    Anger is an abundant source of energy.
    Fortunately/unfortunately for me, I'm full of it

    I refer you to: http://forums.intpcomplex.com/showth...-amp-Tri-types

    Kali's a 7w8, she's full of energy too.
    Pshhh, in recent years I realized I'm probably an 8 too (not sure of my wing tbh, I think 9 because I have an odd obsession with peace). I was fortunate enough to find my passion in my early 20s, and it happens to be a super healthy outlet for my natural urge to be RLY FKING ANGRY ALL TEH TIME OMFG. Without the energy my anger gives me I'd be useless (and that scares the shit out of me). I think of myself as a greyhound too, but I'm lucky enough to get to run in marathons sometimes.

    Spoiler: relevant




    It's funny this came up, because some stuff went down today that's definitely constituted an angry blog post later.

  3. #253
    Senior Member Sinny's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth View Post
    Pshhh, in recent years I realized I'm probably an 8 too (not sure of my wing tbh, I think 9 because I have an odd obsession with peace). I was fortunate enough to find my passion in my early 20s, and it happens to be a super healthy outlet for my natural urge to be RLY FKING ANGRY ALL TEH TIME OMFG. Without the energy my anger gives me I'd be useless (and that scares the shit out of me). I think of myself as a greyhound too, but I'm lucky enough to get to run in marathons sometimes.

    Spoiler: relevant




    It's funny this came up, because some stuff went down today that's definitely constituted an angry blog post later.
    *Eagerly stay's tuned for that blog post*

    Should I make hot chocolate? I think yes.

    It's 3.55am here
    Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

    ~ Robert Jackson, Statesman (1892-1954)


  4. #254
    Member MarkovChain's Avatar
    Type
    IXTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    980
    Quote Originally Posted by Tekton View Post
    The right remind liberals that handguns will prevent tyranny in the US because they will be enough to literally subdue the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marine Corps and their attendant intelligence agencies and arms producers. Not to mention nuclear weapons. You know, nukes. No one seems to make the obvious point that places with roving posses armed to the teeth aren't exactly associated with democratic rule of law.
    I'm surprised by how many people have this idea that if there was a civilian uprising, the government would just come in and blow everything up and nuke its own territory. This line of thought is overly simplistic and and is missing a lot of obvious points.

    First of all, no country would ever willingly nuke its own land. Modern nukes are very clean compared to the ones dropped on Japan, but they still produce a decent amount of fallout. It would irradiate a large area and make it uninhabitable until it's cleaned, which is not easy. You also have to consider the amount of damage a nuke will cause to the infrastructure of a city. Tall buildings will be knocked down, freeways and bridges will be destroyed, the sewer system probably won't fare well, and all the power lines will be knocked down. Rebuilding all these things will take a lot of money and man hours, but if you kill everyone in a city who's going to rebuild these things?

    A possible response to the above is that the government still has conventional weapons and bombs that they could use, but conventional weapons are still pretty strong and you would have a lot of the same issues as a nuke. It's not hard to turn a city into rubble with plain old bombs. Back in WWII the Allies firebombed the city of Dresden and completely destroyed it in a single night and they were using old clunky bombs, not the modern ones we have today.

    The next obvious thing you need to realize is that the government isn't this soulless monolithic thing. It's run by regular people like you and me. Forcing people to wage war on their family and friends won't be easy. Droves of soldiers would desert their posts. Then who's going to pilot all these tanks and airplanes?

    Even if the government decides to wage war on it's own citizens and wins, you're going to have a large amount of people who will resent it. Terrorist groups would pop up all over the place. Think IRA, but 10X worse.

  5. #255
    schlemiel Faust's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,510
    @MarkovChain, mostly agreed with the sentiment, though it doesn't take the whole of the non-monolithic govt to respond to insurgency which is ultimately pointed and geographically dependent (this is probably even more true with larger pockets of populations coming out of the woodwork to protest). The police in the face of violence would be charged to respond forcefully, at least at the onset. Probably a fight that ought to be won otherwise but if things get so far gone that a "mass uprising" is in effect then the leadership is already untrustworthy, one would hope at that point either outside pressure capitulates the situation or the military takes things into its own hands.

    There have been a handful of uprisings this decade with varying results and escalating levels of violence. Egypt did not demand so much, Syria was a shit show, purportedly due to the fact that the govt is minority controlled (in terms of religion/ethnicity) though I'm not sure if this describes the make up of the military. Self-preservation is a powerful instinct anywhere.

    The authoritarian Orwellian Russian/Chinese treatment seems rather effective at curbing response from the population. We'd like to think they aren't immune from uprising but the machine seems pretty damn efficient. The leaders will be envious.
    "All my heroes are dead" - John Zorn

    "It's not selfish if you hate yourself"

  6. #256
    Member Tekton's Avatar
    Type
    INTJ
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkovChain View Post
    I'm surprised by how many people have this idea that if there was a civilian uprising, the government would just come in and blow everything up and nuke its own territory. This line of thought is overly simplistic and and is missing a lot of obvious points.

    First of all, no country would ever willingly nuke its own land. Modern nukes are very clean compared to the ones dropped on Japan, but they still produce a decent amount of fallout. It would irradiate a large area and make it uninhabitable until it's cleaned, which is not easy. You also have to consider the amount of damage a nuke will cause to the infrastructure of a city. Tall buildings will be knocked down, freeways and bridges will be destroyed, the sewer system probably won't fare well, and all the power lines will be knocked down. Rebuilding all these things will take a lot of money and man hours, but if you kill everyone in a city who's going to rebuild these things?

    A possible response to the above is that the government still has conventional weapons and bombs that they could use, but conventional weapons are still pretty strong and you would have a lot of the same issues as a nuke. It's not hard to turn a city into rubble with plain old bombs. Back in WWII the Allies firebombed the city of Dresden and completely destroyed it in a single night and they were using old clunky bombs, not the modern ones we have today.

    The next obvious thing you need to realize is that the government isn't this soulless monolithic thing. It's run by regular people like you and me. Forcing people to wage war on their family and friends won't be easy. Droves of soldiers would desert their posts. Then who's going to pilot all these tanks and airplanes?

    Even if the government decides to wage war on it's own citizens and wins, you're going to have a large amount of people who will resent it. Terrorist groups would pop up all over the place. Think IRA, but 10X worse.
    I basically agree with all of this, but I quibble with some of it.

    I don't think that any government would be eager to nuke its own territory, given the environmental and political costs associated with it. It's true that the US government has conducted over 1000 nuclear weapons tests on its own territory between the end of World War II and the early 90's, but I take your point that it's unlikely for such a weapon to be used on an urban area. My line about "you know, nukes" was more a hyperbolic response to Ben Shapiro's grossly cynical attempt to link the sentiments behind the Second Amendment to his ancestors' deaths at the hands of the Nazis.

    All the rest of your post I totally agree with, with the exception that I think it's more likely (at least in the American context) that the military would split into factions. In that situation, I think that a heavily armed populace would still not be what tips the scale between two militaries with tanks, bombers, fighters, drones and regulars. At best, I think they would mount a nasty insurgency and things would look much more like Syria. But that example also does not lend credibility to the first clause of the Second Amendment which holds that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •