xzar_monty

I think this is extremely interesting, one of the most interesting pronouncements during the whole war. I am quite sure it was not Putin's intention to stress the fact, but clearly he is saying that Russia is weak, very weak indeed. After all, what kind of country can possibly have its existence threatened by a war it has itself started against a much smaller neighbour? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-russia-is-fight-existence-state-2023-03-14/

But for you to use the word "Pyrrhic", you must imply that Russia will, in some way, win. What do you think the Russian victory will consist of, then? Keeping Crimea, perhaps?

In my view, the most interesting thing about Bakhmut seems to be twofold: 1) the fact of how difficult it is to come to any definite conclusion about what is going on, and 2) the fact of how long it has been this way. It is also possible that I haven't seen the best available info, so "my view" may well be skewed.

The difference between figurative and literal use of language is indeed an important one. I am reminded of that old chestnut about an immovable object meeting an irresistible force -- which was intended to be taken literally and which therefore contains the answer in the question itself.

Wouldn't you essentially have to have Swiss / Afghan type natural fortifications to be considered unassailable? I mean, it's a strong word.

According to Czech law and practice of it, what kind of punishment is likely / possible? (I'm not sure if you know about this stuff, but I certainly don't.)

Btw, I think it's really interesting that English-speaking games journalism never grew up, so to speak. There have been some well-written pieces, of course, but it's astonishing how rare they have been. On the whole, the print era was probably a little better than the current web era, but even that was never very good[*]. (If anyone wants and manages to prove me wrong, I will be very happy.) I remember Neil Gaiman making the point that comics were never "taken seriously" as a subject for proper journalism, which I think has been true and probably still is, although I don't follow comics at all anymore. There have been exceptions here, too, one famous one being e e cummings's take on The Krazy Kat comic, and the American critic Gary Groth has done some fine work, but as a rule and as a whole... it's not good. [*] I contributed in the late 1980s, and I think it's fair to say that mostly I maintained the status quo, as far as quality was concerned.

I have no comment to make on Hoonding because I haven't seen that many of his comments, but there certainly are users, even on this thread, who never contribute anything of substance and who almost constantly have a tone of deliberately snide condescension. I love sarcasm as much as the next guy, but the problem is that if that is everything one has, it is the perfect recipe for giving the impression of an intolerable a-hole, and that's just juvenile. I'm reminded of what Robert Fripp said about music criticism, "It's better to be incompetent and kind than cruel and inept" (not that those are the only two options, mind you). One interesting thing that forums (any forums) teach you is that there are people for whom it is impossible to contribute to a discussion from a position of sincerity but who absolutely love to mock and ridicule anyone who does so.

@Gromnir, so, ahem, I surprised myself and started a new game, deciding to play a true rogue this time (knife master). At level 10, I can deal extremely impressive amounts of damage, there's no question about that. It's just that there's a bit of a problem when it comes to hitting the enemies in the first place: the rogue's average-only BAB is a definite hindrance, in my view. So, the immediate questions are: is this a genuine problem with the rogue? Is there a workaround? Does it involve serious optimization of the game mechanics? I suppose the answers are yes, yes and yes. It's not that the head honcho of my party is bad in any way, it's just that he doesn't hit as often as I think he should, to create a reasonable balance between attempts missed and damage dealt when he hits. Multi-classing as a fighter in order to increase BAB would decrease the sneak damage, so that's a bit of a no-go for me, I think.

In what way? Either your classical analogy doesn't quite work or there's something I'm definitely missing here (or something else). But would like to hear you elaborate on this.

Not very pleasant stuff, this, in terms of freedom and so on. https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-blogger-ivanov-ukraine-war-amnesty-prisoner-conscience/32308788.html

In the first 15 seconds of this video, Lavrov does a pretty good sit-down comedy routine, and the audience laughs appropriately.

The US is an extremely interesting societal experiment in so many ways, and there's an awful lot to study there. Just one small example: the early white settlers were certainly not a random selection of people -- many of them were particularly stress-resistant and outgoing folks with a definite do-or-die attitude; just consider what an effort it was at that time to cross the Atlantic and travel into the fairly unknown, think of the Europeans who made a choice about that and which of them chose to do it or not do it. Now, to what extent has this selection temperamentally and genetically influenced the American work ethic, particularly that side of it which is demanding, unforgiving, extremely competitive? I am not saying we know the answers or that we necessarily even have the tools to find them, because these are complex questions, but the historical selection of those who became today's Americans produces questions like this which are, in my view, interesting indeed.

Interestingly, btw, the US constitution still doesn't guarantee women equality. There's been an attempt to change this: the Equal Rights Amendment of 1923. Quite a large number of states have ratified it, but not enough, as of yet.

The problem has at least something to do with the fact that it concerns a phenomenon whose historical entrenchment in the so-called system is too deep. The same goes for the hideous problems with the Catholic church in Germany. It's extremely unfortunate that societal constructs have no reset button.

By what and whose definition do the things you mention exemplify radical left? I'm seriously asking this. What I'm getting at is that the term itself is meant as a derogatory epithet intended to dismiss, at least to an extent, the problems raised.

No question! I remember the IRA years very well, and the years of the Basque separatists, etc. I still stand by what I said in that the term left-wing extremism gets thrown around too much. For instance, regarding some pronounists as left-wing extremists sounds maybe a bit far-fetched, given the various extremist left-wing groups you just mentioned. I mean, it's not as if they're even in the same ballpark. @Lexx, I suppose the US hasn't had a left worth considering since... maybe the 1950s? Worth considering, here, means that it has a say in anything at all.

I don't know why you tagged me, I haven't said anything about left-wing extremism. Extremism is not a particularly good term to throw around, and I would say that it tends to be thrown around way way way too much, because the meaning of the word "extreme" would dictate that not that many things can logically qualify as extreme. Also, wanting to wipe England out doesn't have to have anything to do with left-wing thinking at all, although it might. It could be just intense anglophobia, for instance, or whatever. There was once this German guy who wanted to wipe England out but who, I think, was not a left-wing extremist...

It's a complex issue indeed because it involves some central characteristics of humanity as such, and "the leaders" are only a symptom. To put it in practical terms: if those leaders were shot into the sun, what do you think would happen? My bet would be on other leaders coming in to take their place but the core problems not changing much, if at all. Erich Fromm has a book called The Fear of Freedom. One thing that clearly appears to exist is the fact that many people prefer other people to either make their choices for them, or provide them with a simple way of seeing the world, and sometimes both, because personal responsibility is such a frightening burden. So one reason you have your Rupert Murdochs and such is that there is tremendous demand for them -- it's not the only reason, but it is one reason.

There are a few questions here. 1) It is indeed true that it is not possible to talk constructively with some people, conspiracy theorists being an excellent example. Whatever you say to a paranoid person can and will be interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the paranoia. I don't know of any good solution to this. 2) From the fact that it's not possible to talk the other side, it does not follow that "into the sun they go". This kind of thinking is itself problematic and quite naive, too, in my opinion. Interestingly, this kind of either-or approach seems to be very common, but it's quite often just bad thinking. 3) When you think that you are perfectly in the right about a certain group of people, it is good to keep in mind that that group of people almost certainly thinks they are perfectly in the right about you or the world-view you represent. That's a bit of a problem, isn't it? Not much chance of things changing with that kind of thinking. 4) Martin Luther King's approach in the American South provides a good example of what can be done even in the direst of circumstances. And yes, I know how it ended with him. I am no orator nor much of a peace-maker, but there's an inspiring example of how to meet someone you regard as your enemy. Nelson Mandela might be another, simply in the sense that there have actually been people who have not resorted to vitriol and have consequently managed to accomplish some rather good things.

I was about to make the same point myself. Some of the terminology has been unfortunate indeed. Wanting to fire people into the sun or calling for them to be thrown into the trash doesn't actually differentiate you from the very people you are talking about. So I would be more careful, surely. This phenomenon, by the way, is nicely exemplified by the current polarization in the US politics. There is little if any interest in trying to reach any kind of consensus, and there isn't much proper debate to speak of, there's just vitriol on both sides. And the interesting thing about that is that both sides appear identical in their unbridled hatred towards the other. If I were there and had to vote, I would vote for Democrats, but many of them look just as infantile and rage-engorged as many of the Republicans. There's just no difference. This is very sad.

In Civ4 at least (don't know about 3) you can toggle the workings of the random seed in the Options, to have it either work as you describe or to create genuinely random events every time.

Precisely. Similarly, everyone should expect at least some serious bigots in anyone's police forces, simply for reasons of human temperament. A person interested in being a policeman is overwhelmingly likely to be of conservative temperament, and a certain proportion of conservatives are going to be extreme in their convictions. This is an ineradicable phenomenon, I think. Conversely, you are not going to get many conservatives in a travelling theater troupe, for instance. @Mamoulian War, fair enough! No problem.

And on an unrelated topic, here's something particularly baffling from the British intelligence front. No idea about whether this is true or not and to what degree, but the fact that something like this is posted is a bit strange, to me at least.

But again, this is not what we were talking about. There have been some erroneous claims of whataboutism on various iterations of this thread. Can you recognize that you yourself are now changing the subject? "Country A has a problem with X", says someone. If your response to that is to say, "But what about the leader of country B and their problem with X", that's not rational discussion.