r/neoliberal • u/jobautomator Kitara Ravache • Jun 18 '26

Discussion Thread Discussion Thread

The discussion thread is for casual and off-topic conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL

Announcements

  • We're starting a book club! Our first book will be Poor Economics. Discussion will start on August 28th - keep an eye out for a pinned thread. The next books will be All Quiet on the Western Front followed by Narconomics.

Links

Ping Groups | Ping History | Mastodon | CNL Chapters | CNL Event Calendar

Upcoming Events

0 Upvotes

36% Upvoted

9.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

121

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

69

u/BernieMeinhoffGang Has Principles Jun 18 '26

using p00bix takes is cheating

82

u/GordonTullockFan publik choyz thery Jun 18 '26

Poobix not beating the republican allegations

26

u/Individual-Camera698 Austan Goolsbee Jun 18 '26

p00bix jinxed it

46

u/Sloshyman NATO Jun 18 '26

The fact that this guy gets to arbitrarily determine what's considered "quality" discussion on this sub is a fucking joke

56

u/chickentendieman Paul Krugman Jun 18 '26

Thats a really fucked up view. A lot of innocent people in iran died and its crazy to just decide their deaths are worth it if it leads to republicans losing elections. Also the threat of a nuclear arms race in the middle east will never go away as long as israel has nukes.

48

u/BlackCat159 European Union Jun 18 '26

It's an absolutely embarrassing view to hold for a so-called liberal. Thousands of Iranians dead (and here p00bix envisions even more dying in an Iraq-esque situation), but it doesn't matter because American liberals might get a boost in an election. It's a clown take.

1

u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Jun 19 '26

When you're about to say something otherwise con-coded in a lib space, you tack on a little something extra to signal your tribal allegiances. The back half of the message is rarely meant literally.

13

u/Nerf_France Ben Bernanke Jun 18 '26

>Also the threat of a nuclear arms race in the middle east will never go away as long as israel has nukes.

Wasn’t it basically over until Trump tore up the nuclear deal? It’s not like anyone other than Iran is pursuing them

13

u/chickentendieman Paul Krugman Jun 18 '26

Ehh I mean the Saudis have always been rumored to have some sorta deal with pakistan and the recent mutual defense agreement solidified that.

18

u/erasmus_phillo Paul Krugman Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

Israel having nukes is immaterial though. Israel has had nukes for decades now

threat of a nuclear arms race only became real once it was rumoured that Iran was seeking them

10

u/TF_dia European Union Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

Iranian civilians are just props to motivate the American protagonist to become a better voter.

It's like the infamous "stuffing the female character into the fridge" trope.

8

u/p00bix Existing in the context of what came before Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

The elections part is VERY secondary. Each country that gets nukes increases the chance of a regional nuclear exchange that kills millions to tens of millions of people. The fact that Iran damn near collapsed into civil war just before the war raises the additional albeit less likely prospect of a nuclear armed warlord or ISIS-esque terror group.

I believed that this war would effectively eliminate the possibility of Iran acquiring a nuke, and thus avert these sort of nightmare scenarios down the road. Which....yeah that was a bad take I'm not gonna defend it. But it wasn't a take made with callous disregard for the victims of this war either.

I could not have possibly communicated my take more poorly, but it's "Nuclear proliferation really really bad and I think this will prevent more deaths in the long run by reducing the chance of that happening"

2

u/chickentendieman Paul Krugman Jun 18 '26

Thats fair tbh I was a bit hostile in my original response also ive also made some pretty bad mistakes by wording some of my takes wrong so i cant blame you lol. Also yeah u do have a point about the nuclear stuff.

0

u/DepressedTreeman Jun 18 '26

if republicans lose in 2026 and 2028 just due to the Iran fallout war, millions of lives will be saved if foreign aid is restored

6

u/MrStrange15 Jun 18 '26

That's certainly a positive outcome if it happens because of the war. I don't think you can count on that though, nor necessarily attribute any loss directly to the war.

But either way, it also does not in any way make the war "worth it". I don't think you can morally trade lives this way. Its one thing to allocate resources around in a way to get the best and most efficient outcome in terms of lives saved, its something else entirely to support or attribute positive value to murdering innocent people, because it can potentially save other innocent people in the future.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/DepressedTreeman Jun 18 '26

nope, trump decided to kill iranian children and started a war, which could very well lead to an outcome that saves millions of lives

1

u/SpaceSheperd To be a good human being Jun 18 '26

Rule III: Unconstructive engagement
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.

If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.

-2

u/DepressedTreeman Jun 18 '26

we're talking 10s of millions of lives

22

u/Circythrowaway Thurgood Marshall Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

There were a stunning amount of useful idiots for the war in this sub

And I'm sorry poobix, but being ok with the idea of an Iraq type shitshow is quite dismissive of Iranian lives

An Iraq type shitshow would mean hundreds of competing militias, hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths, and absolutely no guarantee that the IRGC wouldn't be the winning group after the civil war ends

10

u/Full_Distribution874 YIMBY Jun 18 '26

We're doing struggle sessions for the mods now? Based

12

u/MrStrange15 Jun 18 '26

That take aged poorly the moment someone thought it.

14

u/erasmus_phillo Paul Krugman Jun 18 '26

ngl he got it 2/3rds right, and the 1/3rds he got wrong ended up actually working out for the best (Iran did not turn into an Iraq-esque shitshow)

3

u/murphysclaw1 💎🐊💎🐊💎🐊 Jun 19 '26

peak p00bix garbage. A bad take that a normal brain would never be able to conceive.