xzar_monty

A survey done in England found out that well over two thirds of Britons would use "woke" in a disapproving sense, and only 11% would use it approvingly. I'm also not certain whether anyone condemning other people as "worthless" on the basis of one single word is worth taking seriously, in a discussion. Pot and kettle, and all that.

Whenever someone puts forth this argument, especially if it also contains the suggestion that "both sides are probably right in parts, and the truth is somewhere in between", I think of a discussion between a mathematician and someone who approaches numerals from a refreshingly different viewpoint. The first person thinks that 2+2=4, whereas the second thinks that 2+2=22. Thus, we'd be forced to conclude that 2+2=13.

By the way, the arrest of the journalist Evan Gershkovich makes the current Russia look even worse than any of the previous ones, in terms of what is tolerated. There is, of course, the remote possibility that he is guilty of what he's accused of, but that looks very unlikely. What is happening is that Russia is becoming more totalitarian than it ever was. And that's scary. Journalists and diplomats have been treated much better before.

It's like the astonishing split-second decisions that people make in extremely urgent and dangerous situations and manage to save themselves. They are impressive, yes, but it's not as if decisions like that are the rule: it's just that if you make any other decision, there will be no tale to tell.

This requires a particular definition of "fine", though. Russia's economy was astonishingly small for a country of its size to begin with, and it is unlikely to improve because of the war. The freedoms of the average Russian citizen weren't all that great to begin with, and things have got a lot worse since the war began. So I wouldn't say "fine" in any meaningful sense that I can interpret the word.

They were not necessarily misinformed, except for the guy making the big decisions. It seems to me that this was a particularly clear case of subordinates telling the boss what he wanted to hear and the boss then making his decisions on the basis of completely inaccurate information. Apparently the subordinates had been telling Putin all sorts of rubbish for years and years, just to please him.

The mirror, incidentally, is not a Russian invention.

Ok, thanks. Funnily enough, I both thought that Carter was going to be your choice and think that he would probably me my choice, too. And no, Carter wasn't all that effective. After all, when the question of his re-election came up, his message of "Let's talk better mileage" couldn't compete with Reagan's message of "Let's kill the bástards". As far as getting your string of four asterisks together is concerned, I remember the soccer player Megan Rapinoe telling of how she became eligible to vote and then went on and voted for George W. Bush thinking that her action was commendable simply for the fact that she was voting in the first place. Subsequently, her views have obviously changed. But the point was that her choice of candidate and her reasoning (d'oh) for the choice was yet another example of the kind of thing that makes me wonder how on earth does the world's richest nation get to have such an awful system of education. I mean, it's effing unbelievable. (And yes, I know that the US probably also has the best education in the world available, but that's not the norm, as I'm pretty sure we'd agree.) There's an awful lot I like about the US, and I have thoroughly enjoyed my stays there. But I almost certainly wouldn't want to live there, unless it was somewhere like Boulder, Colorado, or a place like that.

Slightly off topic, for which apologies, but who do you think was the most recent genuinely good American president? (And why, perhaps.) The reason I ask is that some kind of loathing for the government tends to be so common among Americans, and I often wonder whether they regard their system of government as inherently effed or whether they just think they've had particularly bad rulers in the recent past. Either way it is, I think it's extremely unfortunate, particularly because so many Americans seem to be totally uninterested in the whole political process or regard it as not worth participating in. In my view, this is in sharp contrast with the fact that so many Americans also think that it's the greatest country in the world and it generally has nothing whatsoever to learn from any other country anywhere. And these two things fit together rather badly, in my view. I tend to be both sceptical and critical towards my own government, but as a rule, I think the system actually works quite well: I am extremely pleased with everything that I have received with the taxes that I've paid (everything from superb education to excellent health care and so on), and while "the system" certainly isn't perfect, I honestly think it's at least OK and definitely a lot better than in most countries in the world. Size, of course, is a factor, which I certainly am aware of. Anyway, I would love it if Americans were more interested in their system, cared more about refining it and didn't constantly comment so disparagingly upon it. But it is also possible that they are right in thinking that it's all beyond saving now -- and if that is the case, it's a sorry state indeed.

Strictly on the subject of Snowden and whistleblowers: I find it curious that Obama[*] got and still gets such good press. Of all the US presidents, he is by far the most aggressive and punitive when it comes to whistleblowers. Also, he made a plea for Snowden to return to the US so that he could receive a "fair trial", even though he must have known that as a person suspected of treason, Snowden was not going to have any right for a "fair trial", i.e. Obama was lying. But this is how it goes with facts vs. general perception. It's endlessly fascinating. [*] How on earth he was awarded the Nobel Peace Price is beyond me.

The Nordic Resistance Movement and Nordic Strength are neo-Nazi parties / groups, whereas the SD are not, despite plenty of shady things in their past (and present). I don't think there's much to argue about in here.

The Twitter link you posted tallies perfectly with some of the points that the historian Timothy Snyder made in the link I recently posted. Ukraine is a huge threat to Russia because it is in the process of demonstrating that a former Soviet state is capable of developing into something of a democracy and getting closer to other European nations. This is intolerable for Russian rule, because it cannot allow its citizens to dream of a "better world", so to speak. In Russia, all elections are just a show[*], and this is why Trump was such a gift from heaven for Russia: the whole Trumpian enterprise was to cast doubt on the democratic process, and nothing could have pleased the Russian rulers more: the more discord there is within democracies, the better it is for Russia, because it allows them to claim with at least some justification that other countries aren't any better than Russia. [*] An academic who studies Russia said recently that all talk of democracy, human rights, environmental concern etc. are, in Russia, just empty talk to such an extent that most Russians are genuinely unable to believe that things like this can have any substance anywhere else in the world, either. (It's the old chestnut about liars being unable to trust anyone else.)

The SD has some neo-fascist past, this much cannot be denied. It's also on the right. To conclude from this that it's a Neo-Nazi party is precisely the kind of thing that tends to make internet discussions both abrasive and worthless. I think it would be a good idea to either become better informed or less extreme [sic] in how your phrase yourself. And no, I have no sympathy for the SD at all.

Goodness gracious me what on earth are you talking about?

Just as a side note, I wonder whether this well-known error / problem is in fact somewhat necessary or at least positive, from the point of view of morale. And we know that loss of morale is pretty much the worst enemy you can have in war. @Gorth, it would indeed be interesting to know what Russia's current aim really is, as the original target is pretty much lost and Ukrainian hatred for Russians[*] is guaranteed for generations upon generations. Personally, I doubt they even have a specified aim, they're sort of improvising because they're unable to stop. [*] Most of Russia's neighbors either fear or hate Russia, or both. It's a sad indictment indeed.

Not sure at all that Swedes should be making derogatory comments about how other nationalities maintain morally acceptable behaviour during wartime... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_iron-ore_industry_during_World_War_II

Well it only took me 10+ days to see your question, so I suppose I'm still around. Not much to talk about, though.

The highest number I've seen in the mainstream media over here is in excess of 500K, combined (Ukraine + Russia). I doubt it's much higher than that, but obviously I don't know -- what do the files say, then?

But there genuinely is information that is better and safer left undisclosed. Think of the Edward Snowden case: the leak contained an awful lot of stuff that was very inconvenient for the NSA, and the press did not comply to any requests to keep it away from public view, so the description of the media as good doggies doesn't really hold, at least not in all cases. Note: I don't know what's in the files, so what I wrote above may not apply. But again, the situation is probably more complex than how you describe it. Over here, for instance, there are certain facts concerning what has and what has not been done to help Ukraine, and in my mind there's no question that information such as this should not be in the public domain, because it's better if Russia doesn't get hold of it. But in terms of US history, it is true that the government does have an awful record of lying to the public, and I think it's absolutely clear that this is one of the reasons that conspiracy theories are so rife in the US, even if there's ordinarily a logical flaw in succumbing to them. (History is a bit of a bítch: the fact that folks like Galileo and Semmelweis were mistreated and misunderstood enables every crackpot to think that they are equally mistreated and misunderstood, when in fact almost none of them have anything worthwhile to offer to the world.)

I don't think the disease model of addiction is a particularly fruitful way of viewing the problem, although there is obviously a semantic component to the question as well, i.e. how do you define the term disease. Often, what ultimately creates an addiction is a desperate attempt to cure or at least come to terms with or escape the original, underlying dis-ease (sorry), i.e. some sort of intense psychological suffering. This is one reason why addictions are so very difficult to overcome: often the first thing that happens after some sobering up is the intense reoccurrence of the original problem, and this is generally where people relapse, because the suffering is so intense. (Hence the AA joke about how it's not necessary to try to get in touch with your emotions, as they will get in touch with you, just you wait.) I think it was Jung who pointed out that neurotic behaviour tends to be a substitute for real suffering. So, for instance, if there's something in your psyche that would like to manifest but is too painful for you, you may, instead, bite your nails or go on the internet or whatever, and once this has been repeated enough times, the neurotic behaviour itself has turned into a serious problem without the original impetus never once being addressed or even experienced properly.[*] Anyway, I agree that the fact that many drugs of addiction are illegal produces a completely unnecessary extra layer of crime and suffering and almost never helps anyone overcome their addiction. It's an effing big problem. [*] Curious fact about humans: they often react to interior problems in ways that only exacerbate them. Think of the husband who is so utterly terrified of losing his wife that he becomes jealous and starts behaving like such a príck that he ultimately makes his fears come true: no longer willing to tolerate awful behaviour, the wife will in fact leave him.

I understand. One of the problems with the War on Drugs is that many of the policy choices are made by people who prefer to remain unaware of the kind of circumstances some people have to deal with on the seedier side of society. I mean, if your childhood experience contains plenty of fatherly rape and spitting upon (this example directly from Maté's book), then you're likely to enter young adulthood in a state of constant and serious suffering, which means that your capacity for sound judgement is seriously impaired, which means that if there's a strong bodymind anaesthetic available, your chances of trying it and becoming addicted to it are going to be quite high. As you well know, a vast proportion of people with drug problems are people who were dealt an awful hand long before they had a drug problem, but as things like this would require multi-level intervention, the punitive approach is a lot easier, even if it ends up wasting more resources and producing more suffering than the alternative. All in all, I think it's heartbreaking. It's yet another sad example of the Matthew principle in action.

This is true, no question. However, I wonder if you agree that there are definite degrees to how much words like this tend to jar in fantasy settings. (And if not, fine.) I find "fascist" particularly jarring, probably because it's so recent, unlike the words you list (except sadism). It's also a question of application, i.e. placement and context matter. For me, Salvatore was groan-inducingly Salvatorean in his usage of the word "fascist", it just made me think that he doesn't know what he's doing, especially because pretty much all the rest of the book also made me think he doesn't know what he's doing. Just for comparison, I haven't found anything in Tolkien that would bother me in this particular sense. Not a word, literally.

I think it's a great insult, but you're right about how it compares to the actual ISIS. The reason I brought it up is that great insults are rare, and I regard that as one. It's terse, descriptive and cruel, and it has no adjectives. Someone like Oscar Wilde would probably approve.

Essentially the same goes for the War on Drugs: there is overwhelming evidence that it is extremely counterproductive and that an awful lot of misery, crime and waste of human resources could be avoided simply by spending all those huge sums of money in a more humane way, but it just doesn't happen, quite possibly because being punitive "sells better on election day it seems". The Canadian doctor Gabor Maté has a book called In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters With Addiction. It's good, but the view it gives you of the North American approach is really quite depressing.

"Russia is basically ISIS, only with snow", said the Ukrainian soldier known as Operator Starsky. Now, I probably wouldn't go that far, but that is a marvelously pithy phrase, so hats off for that.