[hayst4ck]

> How many people don't want to go to war.

Nobody wants to go to war. All war is based on rhetoric about its necessity. I think war with china is necessary, and I think the longer we don't go to war, the more pain China will be able to deal us when war breaks out (willing to accept alternative argument, for example, that unchecked dictatorship will rot china's ability to wage war). I absolutely don't want to go to war with China, but Xi is clearly delusional and has embedded into the Chinese system of government a future declaration of war against Taiwan and has made no shortage of rhetoric about using force if necessary. He's even demonstrated colonial imperial ambition directly against Hong Kong showing that his threats are not idle.

I don't want the war at all, but Xi does. I can't change Xi. That leaves one choice: prepare for war.

> there is no one size fits all for humans.

Humans have blood that carry oxygen to their brains. We have to eat to obtain energy to function. We don't know the extent to which other chemicals or structures govern our thoughts (including social ones) or not. So if you believe that our consciousness has a basis in physicality, we can't know to what extent this statement is false or to what degree it is false.

That also ignores that there are systems that govern us. All humans are subject to the idea that "the most powerful entity wins." All humans are subject to death.

That's ignoring that:

> there is no one size fits all for humans.

and

> Then we can teach people to not treat men like gods.

are a contradiction. You are trying to make one size (no gods) fit all.

If there is no one size, then conflict is necessary, and war is just a degree of conflict.

> Then we can teach people to not treat men like gods.

You want to teach people to not treat mean like gods, while they want you to teach you to have the same gods they do. You are asserting the authority and superiority of your own belief system under the implicit condition that you have more power than they do. I identify as liberal, so I believe liberal systems are better, but unless liberals can maintain power, then liberal belief systems don't matter. We are seeing America slowly become a white christian state because ethnic forces have used their power to corrupt the judicial branch while we see liberal forces floundering and incapable of achieving any goals like rule of law (the idea that laws apply to people with power).

So there is a cycle:

Ideology -> power -> war -> ideology

Ideologies generate power, which are used to win wars, which are used to increase ideology. In this way ideologies are competitive and naturally selected.

As for the second statement, you are quick to blame a leader for their delusion, and you seem to have a top down view. My view is bottom up, that small scale (a single person) delusions grow into large scale delusions, and once there are two incompatible large scale delusions, there is war.

I don't think I've moved any goal posts, I think you need to confront the idea that there is probably a person who exists with the direct opposite opinions of yours with the same desire to spread their opinion, and who is functionally equivalent in power.

> We've been doing this for tens of thousands of years, don't you think it is time we start discussing preventative measures?

If we've been doing it for tens of thousands of years, then it seems like those memes (in the technical sense of the word) have been naturally selected for because they are more viable than other memes, that is to say, we have the privilege of living in high resource times and therefore having high resource privilege, but in low resource times, we might choose to kill rather than starve. Whether the resource is food, microchips, oil, or anything else that modern society depends upon, it might be that willingness to kill your neighbor could be a competitive advantage and we see the results of those forces of natural selection alive today.

We are animals and I think we both believe in fighting our animal nature and the animal law (natural selection) that binds us, but we can't do it in violation of reality.

[godelski]

> I don't want the war at all, but Xi does. I can't change Xi. That leaves one choice: prepare for war.

I agree. But at the same time I also think the average Chinese person feels the same as you and I. Maybe they think it is Xi, maybe they think it is Biden (/US). But does that matter? The point I'm getting at is that those in power are able to paint this narrative, even if it is of their own doing. They make the story they write a reality by getting people to follow them.

> are a contradiction. You are trying to make one size (no gods) fit all.

Gods, not god. (I think you're also not giving that comment, which has a history older than our combined age, a good faith read)

> If there is no one size, then conflict is necessary, and war is just a degree of conflict.

This too isn't true as flexibility exists.

> My view is bottom up

Actually I think both our views are bottom up. I think you see the differences in our opinions and are creating a larger divide than there actually is.

[hayst4ck]

Yes. Xi co-opted the institutions of indoctrination to teach hyper nationalist "century of humiliation", "Xi Jinping thought", and the 3 evils.

If you think that you can teach that treating humans as gods is bad, why do you think that blind nationalism can't be taught. If blind nationalism can be taught, why can't the average Chinese person be made to feel that war (to prevent the evil of separatism) is regrettable, but necessary?

He did the same thing you wish to do (indoctrinate people with a no gods ideology) to indoctrinate people with a Xi is a god ideology.

I think the average educated Chinese person probably isn't very happy, but I think the average Chinese fox news watcher equivalent is probably just fine, maybe a little suspicious of zero covid policy, but overall whipped into a nationalist frenzy.

There's plenty of video evidence of Russians not feeling the same way as you or I. There are clearly unrepentantly evil people.

> This too isn't true as flexibility exists.

I don't understand this refutation. We are seeing the results of non-flexibility in abortion politics in America, in Ukraine, and in countless other examples.

Making someone flexible violates the idea that you can't change someone (to be how you want).

Our very existence, being male and female, binds our species to eternal conflict. Genetic propagation is a limited resource that must be competed (fought) over. It doesn't take too long watching Planet Earth before it's clear that conflict is axiomatic to genetics (in the general case).

> I think you're also not giving that comment, which has a history older than our combined age, a good faith read

That is disappointing to hear. How do you think I am reading it, and how do you think I misinterpreted it?

> I think you see the differences in our opinions and are creating a larger divide than there actually is.

I think we both are likely to agree with enough time and patience. I think we would probably agree on many outputs, given the same inputs. I think your confusion and uncertainty is a result of unresolved contradictions in the axioms you hold.

I don't think you've run into a delusional person, like a manager or a parent, exercising their power over you despite every attempt made to negotiate or achieve mutual understanding, in a manner that forces you to fight rather than submit. I think your mental model of how reality works is not burdened with that experience.

Trying to get your Alzheimers grandpa to remember you is an exercise in futility. No amount of wishful thinking, desire, effort, or anything else is going to make that happen. Same for trying to get some people to feel empathy.

I think you feel grief over the state of conflict in the world, for which the first stage is denial, then you get to bargaining "something must be able to be done, we must be able to solve this or prevent it." I think eventually you will get to acceptance.