I love how there’s a ton of comments and upvotes here, yet OP’s article is paywalled behind a subscription. Did anyone here actually read it?
It reminds me of a post I just saw elsewhere, with total nonsense in the link. Since it was already upvoted, the moderater left it up as an experiment: it got a boatload of upvotes and comments. No one cared, even with someone pointing this out in a comment. It was just a bunch of the same comments affirming what they already believed.
…That about sums up the internet for me now. People don’t actually care where information came from; they just want to drive by, then keep scrolling :(
I skipped the paywall by opening the page in my browser’s article mode. Strips out most CSS and JS popups.
I have a hard time believing every claim in this piece, since the prof makes a claim that the US economy is a ponzi scheme. I think that words matter, and “ponzi scheme” is a very specific thing, which I do no believe accurately describes banking or wall street. I notice that grifters and crypto-bros are quick to describe the traditional economy as a ponzi in order to make their own scam look better in comparison. Example.
That’s not to say that the capitalist economic system is fair, good for the world, or sustainable. Whether this is a mistake or an intentional mischaracterization, it makes me question the conclusions drawn.
They are just a bunch of anti-USA types who just think this conflict is evidence of the collapse of America, or something. And they are eager cheering on the supposed downfall, and begging for any narrative or infopoint that makes america look bad.
Bombing alone has never worked as a means of forcing regime change. So Trump will either have to succeed at this for the first time in history, back down (seems unlikely at this point) or put boots on the ground (for which he has not manufactured consent).I guess he could also just die on the shitter and make it the next guys problem. There are many avenues for the US to lose here.
No
The article was perfectly readable to me but sure cope harder.
I love how there’s a ton of comments and upvotes here, yet OP’s article is paywalled behind a subscription. Did anyone here actually read it?
It reminds me of a post I just saw elsewhere, with total nonsense in the link. Since it was already upvoted, the moderater left it up as an experiment: it got a boatload of upvotes and comments. No one cared, even with someone pointing this out in a comment. It was just a bunch of the same comments affirming what they already believed.
…That about sums up the internet for me now. People don’t actually care where information came from; they just want to drive by, then keep scrolling :(
I skipped the paywall by opening the page in my browser’s article mode. Strips out most CSS and JS popups.
I have a hard time believing every claim in this piece, since the prof makes a claim that the US economy is a ponzi scheme. I think that words matter, and “ponzi scheme” is a very specific thing, which I do no believe accurately describes banking or wall street. I notice that grifters and crypto-bros are quick to describe the traditional economy as a ponzi in order to make their own scam look better in comparison. Example.
That’s not to say that the capitalist economic system is fair, good for the world, or sustainable. Whether this is a mistake or an intentional mischaracterization, it makes me question the conclusions drawn.
“I skipped the paywall by opening the page in my browser’s article mode. Strips out most CSS and JS popups.”
Thank you, I guess I shouldn’t assume people have their web browsers configured to get past that. :/
We just comment based on the title.
I was able to view the article without a paywall.
No.
They are just a bunch of anti-USA types who just think this conflict is evidence of the collapse of America, or something. And they are eager cheering on the supposed downfall, and begging for any narrative or infopoint that makes america look bad.
Or I am someone who lost his enlisted best friend to the Iraq war.
But yeah, you totally know me and my motivations.
You worthless fucktard.
Bombing alone has never worked as a means of forcing regime change. So Trump will either have to succeed at this for the first time in history, back down (seems unlikely at this point) or put boots on the ground (for which he has not manufactured consent).I guess he could also just die on the shitter and make it the next guys problem. There are many avenues for the US to lose here.
The article was perfectly readable to me but sure cope harder.
He already backed down. Regime change isn’t the goal. It’s destroy the Iranian military. Which they will accomplish easily.