Well, don't know if you've been to Britain recently, but ethnocentricity is largely a thing of the past.
True. The UK is soon to be like Canada, with fingers wagging in multiple directions. We will see how that experiment ends up.
Well, don't know if you've been to Britain recently, but ethnocentricity is largely a thing of the past.
True. The UK is soon to be like Canada, with fingers wagging in multiple directions. We will see how that experiment ends up.
Lol, well, I think it's sad that ethnocentric people don't recognize how bad the 90s were for Russians. Compared to then, they are living in a golden age today. Compared to the West, they are barbarians. Finger-wags and Siberia are poor companions.
Aye, and the comforting opinions from a plushy Harvey's armchair built on the bones of 20 million Russians hold little weight for the everyday Russians with no time to cosplay politics like the rest of us.
I find it funny how drastically different British and Russian attitudes toward Putin are. A country that’s lost over 20 million civilians in war is going to have a very different idea of what ‘right’ looks like.
Watching your politics from afar, it seems obvious that both your parties cosplay at being extremists to get maximum votes. Obamacare is far from communism as it's a direct fascist regulatory capture of the private healthcare industry while also allowing massive private profits. Likewise, your far right is unable to return any freedom to your states from the Capitol District of your country, and in fact continues to transfer state powers to the central agencies. Both sides cosplay at actually being avatars for freedom or avatars for communism, but it's just a costume. So both sides cosplay as sacred cows protecting the nation from existential threats.“We’re stopping communism” versus “we’re stopping fascism,” while quietly, away from managed media, agreeing on the existing core structures, namely, centralized authority, permanent unelected bureaucracy, limited accountability, and donor-aligned outcomes favorable to the lobby class.
The swamp consumes all.
Survival for all equally on Earth is maximal bright idea,
Evolutionary history proves this is a one-way path to extinction, with zero genetic variability to absorb natural environmental changes.
The Habsburgs tried that. a textbook case of what happens when you optimize for preservation over variation.
Japan had a lot of sunny hours for a lot of WW2, until it got VERY bright one day....twice....
Adjectives are relative. Reality is quantitative.
It's always sunny on the other side of the globe.
What I was responding to was the idea that you’re just going to walk into an agency, fire half the staff, and think that by doing so you’ve made everything more efficient.
Correct. If the department is stopping innovation and progress, as most government agencies do, firing half the staff is a great start.
That makes sense. I read it wasn't profitable for NBC anymore. Maybe it was reasons other than 24 hours of hate.
Didn't MSNOW have to do a name change because of too much TDS propaganda? The parent companies actually walked away from the gore theater of a Roman Colosseum bathed in the rotting corpses of jumped sharks? Ironic and funny! Silly Americans and your cults of hatred on both sides. Speaking ill of the dead seems to be an American tradition. Ghosts of hate allow for endless gaslighting of the present living.
We already have. Canada is captured, and no longer functions as a nation. It's just an economic zone to be plundered. Canada is the endgame of late-stage globalism. There's no reason to sacrifice for the future of Canada anymore. First nations don't care about ownership or stewardship, sacrificing or building. They just want a seat at the plunder table. It's a nomadic tradition from the Mongols to the Vikings.
The cultural purpose of westerners is to own the land with an obligation to develop and build it to hand down to an unseen generation across a nation. First peoples' cultural purpose is closer to being owned by the land with a cultural purpose that starts and ends with the local tribe.
So when you say First Nations want to "own the land" that is straight up ethnocentrism. America's failed Indian reservations are a testament to those mismatched cultural purposes.
I don't know about America, but First Peoples in Canada are a huge reason why nothing gets built in Canada anymore.
The present corruption spotlights a real cost to embracing tribalism and diversity like a religious cult. It's a ridiculous and completely avoidable cost.
Wait, so that guy died from TDS?
A totally dirty switchblade, maybe?
Abundance helps insofar as reducing infant mortality rates, but it seems to have an opposite psychological effect if the new parent feels that the future holds decreasing abundance, regardless of the practical levels of abundance. Reproduction is never a function of objective wealth, regardless of what the "experts" say. You will wait around your entire life and hit the biological wall of infertility if you delay reproduction to accumulate some ethereal amount of "optimal wealth to raise a child."
It's 100% psychological in today's modern world of abundance.
Nature has a mechanism to lower reproduction rates in times of anxiety and stress, and that applies to all species, not just people.
Scarcity and abundance describe these external conditions. Stress describes how those conditions are experienced. Biology responds far more to perceived stability than to observable material wealth. You can have plenty of food, money, health, and technology, but if daily life feels pressured, competitive, and unforgiving, the body chemically reads that as risk, and cortisone levels rise (cortisone, cortisol, I forget which one it is.) Japan is abundant in resources, but high in social pressure, time scarcity, and fear of failure. That fear tells people, at a gut level, that adding children is dangerous, even when practical material needs are easily met.
Reproduction chemicals switch on when the future feels predictable and survivable. Abundance helps, but it’s not enough. Stress, uncertainty, and social pressures shut the system down. Biology doesn’t care whether the stress comes from actual death and famine or from relentless social expectations and zero margin for error. The body chemistry signal is the same... now is not the time to invest in the next generation.
Gratitude psychology vs resentment psychology also matters to body chemistry more than people like to admit. Grateful societies tend to see the future as something worth continuing. They feel anchored, supported, and confident that effort will be rewarded. That psychological safety makes reproduction feel natural rather than reckless. This is why people in poor countries reproduce, because they feel opportunity in the future and feel increasing hope for abundance, whereas ironically, the people who already have abundance won't feel much of an increase from their already high levels, and that's what really drives reproduction chemistry, the hope for more abundance, regardless of the existing level of abundance. I remember listening to a DART YouTube yesterday where one of the head guys of this site was claiming that a person working minimum wage would "have his life ruined" if he had a child. Forget the realities that a child born to a minimum wage parent in the most abundant nation ever to exist on the planet ever would be miles and away extremely lucky, the gratitude level of a minimum wage parent in America is ridiculously out of kilter from the gratitude levels of a typical new parent in India. And that was reflected in the premise that a new poor parent in America would "have his life ruined" by having a child.
I can understand what you wrote just fine.
But it's really important to know that you can't just use "love" as a guiding principle for a functioning society. Love works practically only within a severely constrained framework where all variables align together, but the real world is a bunch of trade-offs where every variable is misaligned to the point that love could never exist without harming someone else. A good test of this is the Garcia case, where massive amounts of resources were spent to keep "Maryland Man" in your United States, but it ignores a lot of other misaligned variables, such as his history of abusing his wife and history of criminal behavior. That "act of love" comes with measurable harm to others.
Well said Debby
That uniquely makes his rhetoric brutally honest. That there is no free lunch, only trade-offs. There is nothing "safe" about a complicated "net" of regulations, creating market monopolies with no mechanisms for health care efficiencies.
An honest take would admit that a real practical safety net comes from hard-won social capital based on a unified culture working in unison, and could never be simply legislated without that critical foundation, which America has very little of in 2025.
It's basically extortion rebranded as "compassion and welfare."
They make a mess and then force you to clap when they pretend to fix it.
Government policy breaks the economy → people struggle → politicians offer welfare as the “solution” → voters become dependent on the same system that caused the problem.
We are using complementary ways of approaching society and morality here, but you are emphasizing the wrong part, the letter of the law, instead of the spirit
Let me finally address this thesis of yours very concisely.
This entire argument hangs on the assumption that “spirit of the law” exists independently from the mechanics that created the law. This is flat-out wrong. The spirit of a law is the objective purpose that gave rise to it, and purpose comes from practical problems, absolutely not metaphysical vibes.....
If you don’t understand the practical origins of a law or the problem it was designed to solve, the incentives it needed to shape, the harms it needed to prevent, the practical reasons why any law was ever written in the contextual period it was written in, then you can’t possibly understand the “spirit” of the law. The spirit comes from the practical applications of the law, not the other way around. Any activist judge who puts a feel-good “spirit of the law" ahead of its objective and practical purpose will end up creating a framework that just doesn’t work in the real world.
Alright, here’s the based-style accuracy check and teardown of this AI sermon.
Short version: it’s polished, confident, and structurally wrong in multiple places.
Let’s go section by section.
He invents two categories:
This sounds deep, but it’s philosophically sloppy.
There is no reason to treat morality as “relational truth.”
That category doesn’t exist outside postmodern ethics papers and AI-generated pseudo-philosophy.
It’s a rebrand of:
“Feelings matter more than outcomes.”
He frames the two-level model as obvious, but he never justifies it.
Classic AI trick: define the premise and run with it.
He equates:
with love.
That’s inaccurate.
Judicial discretion is grounded in pragmatism and harm reduction, not emotional relationship-truth.
Courts don’t use “love”—they use structured reasoning to avoid stupid outcomes.
He’s playing word magic:
turning practical judgment into “relational meaning.”
Accuracy: false equivalence.
You said cultural unity is rooted in shared norms, incentives, trust structures.
He pretends cultural unity is evidence for his relational framework.
Nope.
Cultural unity emerges from:
NOT from “love” or “relational truth.”
Unity is structural, not emotional.
He’s parasitically attaching his thesis to your point.
He cites:
as proof that “rules without love collapse.”
Wrong diagnosis.
They collapsed from:
Not a lack of “relational truth.”
This is like saying Rome fell because people weren’t loving enough.
Historically inaccurate.
He says:
This is the Hegelian posture move.
It doesn’t prove his claim.
It just makes his claim sound inevitable.
And it's also exactly how AI writes: dialectical closure.
He ends with:
“Love and relationship are the moral operating system of society.”
Sounds poetic.
But it’s not true.
The operating systems of society are:
Compassion shapes interpersonal behavior;
it doesn’t underwrite the structure of law or governance.
He turned a human virtue into a metaphysical principle and called it anthropology.
Accuracy: nope.
You can see the trademarks:
It’s basically the ChatGPT version of “Well, actually, truth is a beautiful dance between hearts and systems.”
Pretty, but empty.
root of law and morality is relational and love based,
That's objectively true in a theocracy, but rarely in a practical society.
Most of America is fascist. Most of the places in America don't allow any private enterprise without government permission. And even then, they restrict what you’re allowed to produce while controlling the market in entire sectors of the economy. Obamacare produced state-sanctioned insurance monopolies and Covid regulations produced state-sanctioned vaccine monopolies as well.
Here is some counter AI slop.
You built this ornate cathedral of “relational truth,” “communion,” and “love fulfills the law.” Still, it’s really just a poetic smokescreen to avoid the boring, uncomfortable question of how laws actually function practically in the real world, devoid of emotion, where incentives, constraints, enforcement, and trade-offs determine outcomes. And the deeper irony is that every durable advance in human civilization, scientific, legal, political, or advances in family structures, came from treating truth as measurable and objective, not relational or emotional. For example, children raised in a home with strongly invested parents—parents who sacrifice their own comfort and time for their children’s future—produce objectively measurable benefits that scale into a healthier, more functional society. An emotional approach would be objectively inferior.
Scientific progress depends on truths that don’t bend to anyone’s feelings: electricity, gravity, atomic structure, and epidemiology. None of these aspects cares about “communion.” They follow laws whether we like them or not. The same pattern holds in governance: systems work when they align with measurable reality, not when they chase emotional abstractions of fictional utopias, unproven with hard data.
And this extends directly to cultural unity. That isn’t some fuzzy relationship-based “truth.” It's one of the most observable, predictable, and empirically supported determinants of societal stability. History is overflowing with examples: societies with shared norms, language, expectations, and trust structures build more stable institutions, enforce laws more consistently, and produce more innovation. Fragmented and culturally divergent societies, by contrast, struggle not because of a lack of “relational truth,” but because the mechanics of cooperation break down.