The All Things Political Topic - Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities

[Guard Dog]

56 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

GD how is life in Wisconsin compared to Tennessee? Are the people any different, more friendly or less friendly 

And have you tried any of that famous Wisconsin 10+ year old mature cheddar cheese, you must try it and let me know what it is like...its one of my bucket list items before I die 

A little less friendly I'd say. But I don't get out much. Most of my day I'm working. Aside from my cousin and her family I don't know anyone nearby so whatever friends I have here are really Gail's friends. But I have gone on calls with her a number of times to help and that has been a great experience. 

[Darkpriest]

An interesting point of view, not one I think FED and DEMs would be willing to pull off this year before midterms, but if they would lose dramatically, it would be an option as they would still hold POTUS. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/fed-repo-oracle-zoltan-poszar-explains-why-powell-must-crash-market

I still think that is a far fetched logic, but it is not impossible, and not entirely improbable at this point. A year ago I'd call it science-fiction, but today, I call it highly improbable, but possible after dems crashing in midterms. 

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

I just think it's irresponsible and reflects poorly on you to use the language of mental illness to describe someone who disagrees on a point.

Pretty traditional though. Terms like spastic and cretin were medical terms before entering common usage.

6 hours ago, Elerond said:

That quote shows that they had authorization from UN security council to use force in order to protect civilian population. That they did poor job doesn't change fact that they acted with security council's mandate.

Yeah, just try substituting Russia with NATO in that situation and see if anyone would accept 'poor job' as an excuse. You don't even need to, just look at how the Russian intervention in Syria was portrayed.

They didn't just do a poor job. It wasn't an accidental misinterpretation. They 100% deliberately used it as an excuse to do exactly what they wanted to do, whatever it actually authorised. Having spent days getting an acceptable compromise resolution through they ignored every bit of compromise in it. And then had the temerity to cry about not being given similar powers again and how China and Russia were big meanies; they also systematically lied about the content of the resolution. So not only dishonest in application, dishonest in justification too.

The original question was why Russia would distrust NATO anyway, and that shows pretty much absolutely why they wouldn't. Regime change was 100% not authorised, regime change was 100% pursued from the outset.

6 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

I would not be surprised that it was US special forces using mortars to draw accusiations from both sides in Donbas and start a shooting conflict there.

There'd be a 0% chance of the US being directly involved in something like that. If they wanted a provocation there are plenty of Ukrainians they could get to do it completely deniably. While most Ukrainians have a more or less realistic assessment of what would actually happen in a war- they'd lose, badly- there are most definitely enough who think it'd end with Novgorod and Vladimir-Suzdal being reunited with the motherland to do something stupid if encouraged.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Zoraptor

[Chairchucker]

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Which is one of the reasons I am not going to use that word anymore so thanks for pointing it out 

But you didnt disagree or comment on the article, you just criticized the word Marxist and the word triggered 

Whats your view on the article ? 

Checked it out in a different article. Seems like it's less about being 'too woke' or whatever and more about not getting their kids back into school, and not focussing on things like kids' mental health or allocating resources to kids. They're not mad at the renaming of schools because of what it is, but because it's not the focus on students that they want.

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

Checked it out in a different article. Seems like it's less about being 'too woke' or whatever and more about not getting their kids back into school, and not focussing on things like kids' mental health or allocating resources to kids. They're not mad at the renaming of schools because of what it is, but because it's not the focus on students that they want.

Thanks but please dont use the word woke, its very offensive in many cultures because it represents racism towards white people and white people being blamed for things that arent true. I think its important on this forum that we all try hard to respect each others personal views and not offend each other 

Im joking obviously, you can use any words you like when you debate with me. But on a serious note, after you mentioned that the word triggered is linked PTSD I didnt think it was true and I thought you were being a snowflake but I didnt say anything because I like you and I didnt want to offend you further because I like our debates 

Anyway I looked the word up to confirm and you right, it is linked to PTSD and thats the same definition for the word on dictionaries like Urban Dictionary where much most of the Internet slang and vernacular  is defined

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Triggered

I consider PTSD a very serious and real condition, I have had gone through it and its not something I would make light of. I thought triggered just meant you " respond to something immediately and emotionally " 

So thanks for pointing it out because I genuinely wont use it anymore unless its in the right context 

 

[Chairchucker]

'Triggered' is a word that has been sarcastically co-opted by, I dunno, I guess mostly the younger, extremely online elements of conservatism/libertarianism? Mostly to make fun of people who've used it in the 'real' sense, but whose... I dunno, authenticity I guess? Is thought to be suspect.

 

I think it's a symptom of a larger trend where many people are increasingly becoming aware that the things they do and say have an impact on the people around them, and some people see that as an opportunity to exercise kindness by maybe avoiding topics or words that might negatively impact people around them, whereas some people are bothered by the idea of changing their behaviour to be kind to others, and take it as an attack on their freedom when others suggest that their words and actions could have negative consequences on the well being of others, and that they ought to consider this in their day to day lives.

 

I think the main issue with casual use of the word 'triggered' is that it may trivialise it for those who have actual trauma that can be, as it were, 'triggered' by sights or sounds or words or whatever. Same with other words that have authentic mental health meanings or whatever still - or recently - in use. Like, no one's gonna complain too hard about use of the word 'idiot', despite the fact that it used to denote an intellectual disability, because it's been out of use for an extremely long time to the point it's pretty much lost that meaning, whereas if you were to use 'retard' or variations of 'autistic' as a slur, there's the very clear contemporary or recent meaning.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Chairchucker said:

'Triggered' is a word that has been sarcastically co-opted by, I dunno, I guess mostly the younger, extremely online elements of conservatism/libertarianism? Mostly to make fun of people who've used it in the 'real' sense, but whose... I dunno, authenticity I guess? Is thought to be suspect.

 

I think it's a symptom of a larger trend where many people are increasingly becoming aware that the things they do and say have an impact on the people around them, and some people see that as an opportunity to exercise kindness by maybe avoiding topics or words that might negatively impact people around them, whereas some people are bothered by the idea of changing their behaviour to be kind to others, and take it as an attack on their freedom when others suggest that their words and actions could have negative consequences on the well being of others, and that they ought to consider this in their day to day lives.

 

I think the main issue with casual use of the word 'triggered' is that it may trivialise it for those who have actual trauma that can be, as it were, 'triggered' by sights or sounds or words or whatever. Same with other words that have authentic mental health meanings or whatever still - or recently - in use. Like, no one's gonna complain too hard about use of the word 'idiot', despite the fact that it used to denote an intellectual disability, because it's been out of use for an extremely long time to the point it's pretty much lost that meaning, whereas if you were to use 'retard' or variations of 'autistic' as a slur, there's the very clear contemporary or recent meaning.

Do you sometimes enjoy debates and discussions around topics related to wokeness, SJ and SJWism

I do but only sometimes, I wouldnt want to  have them all the time because I generally dont consider them as meaningful or relevant as debates around geopolitics or economic policy. Because if you enjoy them I would like to have them with you and be honest about what I personally  think or believe?

On this forum we dont really have  many discussions around these topics and thats fine because obviously we all decide what we want to spend time discussing and its normal to not want to debate topic x if you dont have the inclination. Now I can easily have these types of debates endlessly on forums like Codex but these types of debates on Codex tend to be more Conservative and or right wing and its an echo chamber which defeats the point of a debate

Let me know if you want to have these types of debates, an example of one type of debate I enjoy is the Whoopi Goldberg comments around the Holocaust. Thats an example of what I mean

But if we are going to have these debates can I ask for 2 important " rules "

• its a debate so we going to have different opinions and thats expected and the intention is to convince the other person your point is correct. Like you pointed out how triggered is inappropriate 
• its not personal so no one  should get offended and we mustnt be offensive when we make our points 

Obviously I welcome all other Obsidian members comments so maybe @Gorth, @majestic, @Elerond. @Zoraptor, @Hurlshot  @Gfted1 @Darkpriest @Amentep@Malcador and others can get involved if they want ?

And if you dont want to have these debates thats also fine 

 

 

[Gorth]

Sorry @BruceVC but my favourite topics in politics threads are

1  politicians (as individuals)

2 realpolitik and the futility of trying to establish some kind of legal framework to justify or criminalize what is "might makes right"

3 collective and individual hypocrisy (politically, individually and collectively as societies)

 

It's not an exclusive list by any means, just the topics that interests me the most. Bigotry, harassment and racism usually falls in category 3

[Darkpriest]

This just caught my attention, seems Biden's admin will want to propose ca. 770 billion annual expenditure  for 'defense'. This might explain all the huffing and puffing around Russia, as this would enrage the far left wing of democrats. 

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Darkpriest

[BruceVC]

 

33 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Sorry @BruceVC but my favourite topics in politics threads are

1  politicians (as individuals)

2 realpolitik and the futility of trying to establish some kind of legal framework to justify or criminalize what is "might makes right"

3 collective and individual hypocrisy (politically, individually collectively as societies)

 

It's not an exclusive list by any means, just the topics that interests me the most. Bigotry, harassment and racism usually falls in category 3

Absolutely I understand what you saying because what I am  suggesting is where we would we engage and read what the other person is saying but it cant take too long per post. So for example when @Chairchucker asked  " what is CRT about " and Gromnir sent him a 12 year old  document that was 120 pages long that is unreasonable and unrealistic for anyone to go through

So any links or posts we make shouldnt take longer than 10 minutes to read IMO, like the debate yesterday over the SF school board. It was started and over in 40 minutes and all links posted you could read in 2-3 minutes

But more important than that is the actual interest in topics like wokeness and that would be a completely personal choice. So I understand your  interests and what you want to spend time on and these types topics are not necessarily  them 

[Gorth]

I won't even know what "woke" means

 

Sure, I've seen it thrown around on the internet and I can probably infer a few things from how it's used. It's just not one of those things that catches my eye and get my adrenaline pumping

[Darkpriest]

43 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I won't even know what "woke" means

 

Sure, I've seen it thrown around on the internet and I can probably infer a few things from how it's used. It's just not one of those things that catches my eye and get my adrenaline pumping

Its something to do with being awoken to social/economic constructs and inequality in them. 

Really just another fancy term for ye' old commie. 

[BruceVC]

46 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I won't even know what "woke" means

 

Sure, I've seen it thrown around on the internet and I can probably infer a few things from how it's used. It's just not one of those things that catches my eye and get my adrenaline pumping '

Thats very normal to not be 100% sure of these types of words because they not " normal "  English words but you will find them in the Urban Dictionary and even then when they used their meanings will vary

My cousin Paul just sent me some videos and photos of where he is in Brisbane City , he is at a place called Howard Smith Wharves . It looks really festive and people are just socializing and having a good time. I definitely want to go their when I come to Oz which is now only going to be next year because he is coming to SA this year and he has already booked his tickets and accommodation in September 

 

[Darkpriest]

Again, language and trigger warning

However, a lot of historical facts around the Crimea etc. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stockman-were-not-useful-idiots

[Elerond]

23 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Yeah, just try substituting Russia with NATO in that situation and see if anyone would accept 'poor job' as an excuse. You don't even need to, just look at how the Russian intervention in Syria was portrayed.

Russia has not seek UN security council's approval on its actions. So I don't see any relevant comparison. It would better to compare Russian's actions to USA's actions in same area.

Question was that Nato attacks countries outside its borders and against its own rules, not how justifiable its actions have been.

[Darkpriest]

Conviniently a gas pipline exploded in eastern UA. I'm not sure of an exact position, but this I'm willing to pin on Russians. 

It's not however to get a reason to invade Ukraine and definately not Kiev... But it is to put more pressure on EU countries to force them to capitulate and start pushing UA on Minsk accords, and also to approve NordStream2. If not, gas gets it and Russia might use a scapegoat of transfering gas through UA being currently too dangerous, until a peace accord is enforced and separatist republics are recognized or there is a UN backed referendum. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Darkpriest

[HoonDing]

 

[Zoraptor]

5 hours ago, Elerond said:

Russia has not seek UN security council's approval on its actions [in Syria]

They don't need approval from the UN, since they were invited in by the recognised government*. It's kind of indicative that the West treats it like they did need its approval though, isn't it? And plenty of people think whataboutism only works one way...

*unlike the US and friends.

1 hour ago, Darkpriest said:

Conviniently a gas pipline exploded in eastern UA. I'm not sure of an exact position, but this I'm willing to pin on Russians. 

It's not however to get a reason to invade Ukraine and definately not Kiev... But it is to put more pressure on EU countries to force them to capitulate and start pushing UA on Minsk accords, and also to approve NordStream2. If not, gas gets it and Russia might use a scapegoat of transfering gas through UA being currently too dangerous, until a peace accord is enforced and separatist republics are recognized or there is a UN backed referendum. 

Position is Verhunka. Lots of people saying it's a Druzhba pipeline which is an export one and absolutely massive, but it isn't, judging by the pictures. That's a local line.

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

They don't need approval from the UN, since they were invited in by the recognised government*. It's kind of indicative that the West treats it like they did need its approval though, isn't it? And plenty of people think whataboutism only works one way...

*unlike the US and friends.

Position is Verhunka. Lots of people saying it's a Druzhba pipeline which is an export one and absolutely massive, but it isn't, judging by the pictures. That's a local line.

Zora just be honest, you are not concerned with the legality issue of Russia's numerous military  intervention in places like Syria and UN endorsement . Elerond is 100% correct 

Then we can stop pretending we " outraged " when it comes to past military interventions by the US in places like Iraq and Kosovo  which also ignored what the UN thought 

That works for me, it really does.  Russia can invade Ukraine because the economic sanctions by the West will be suitable and comprehensive  enough

But lets at least try to be consistent when we  justify a Ukrainian invasion and lets stop questioning any Western military  actions in the future 

 

[Elerond]

5 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

They don't need approval from the UN, since they were invited in by the recognised government*. It's kind of indicative that the West treats it like they did need its approval though, isn't it? And plenty of people think whataboutism only works one way...

 

 

You were one that compared Russian Syrian mission to Nato's actions in Libya. So in this case whataboutism come from you

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, nah.

I'm not saying that you're engaging in whataboutism because yeah, I brought up the comparison.

But in order to be whataboutism it has to be comparing something irrelevant. I've had this argument before a lot, and the most common response to criticism of the legality of NATO's actions in Libya once you quote the actual Resolution in general is: 'well but what about Russians in Syria then!!!'.

That is whataboutism because the intervention in Syria is legal, while regime change in Libya wasn't; so it's not actually a relevant comparison. I have a decent amount of sympathy for people who think it is because, basically, the press never questioned if the resolution said what NATO claimed it did, but has always portrayed the Russian intervention in Syria as illegitimate. If you only got your information from secondary sources then that's the picture you got.

OTOH, my comparison was to the reactions to the two campaigns, despite one being legal and the other not. That's certainly relevant to whether Russia thinks it can trust the west or not- a deliberate policy of misrepresentation does not promote trust.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

Yeah, nah.

I'm not saying that you're engaging in whataboutism because yeah, I brought up the comparison.

But in order to be whataboutism it has to be comparing something irrelevant. I've had this argument before a lot, and the most common response to criticism of the legality of NATO's actions in Libya once you quote the actual Resolution in general is: 'well but what about Russians in Syria then!!!'.

That is whataboutism because the intervention in Syria is legal, while regime change in Libya wasn't; so it's not actually a relevant comparison. I have a decent amount of sympathy for people who think it is because, basically, the press never questioned if the resolution said what NATO claimed it did, but has always portrayed the Russian intervention in Syria as illegitimate. If you only got your information from secondary sources then that's the picture you got.

OTOH, my comparison was to the reactions to the two campaigns, despite one being legal and the other not. That's certainly relevant to whether Russia thinks it can trust the west or not- a deliberate policy of misrepresentation does not promote trust.

And the killing of thousands of civilians by Russia by their bombing campaign in Aleppo is that also legal ?

And just for future reference that is not the definition of whatsaboutism

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning, to quote from the actual definition. Its not where you make an irrelevant comparision. It can be true or irrelevant but its a  deflection from the original argument 

Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?") to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.

Edited February 19, 2022 by BruceVC

[majestic]

47 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

And the killing of thousands of civilians by Russia by their bombing campaign in Aleppo is that also legal ?

And just for future reference that is not the definition of whatsaboutism

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning, to quote from the actual definition. Its not where you make an irrelevant comparision. It can be true or irrelevant but its a  deflection from the original argument 

Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?") to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.

*snort*

Great, now I have Coke Zero all over my keyboard...

Here, let me change the quote a little, just to make sure:

47 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

What about the killing of thousands of civilians by Russia by their bombing campaign in Aleppo is that also legal ?

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by majestic

[BruceVC]

18 minutes ago, majestic said:

*snort*

Great, now I have Coke Zero all over my keyboard...

Here, let me change the quote a little, just to make sure:

 

I dont understand what point you making? Aleppo is a city in Syria and thousands of civilians were killed in Aleppo by Russia. Zora said the Russia intervention was legal, I am asking if the killing of civilians is legal because they inextricably connected? Thats not whatsaboutism....thats about the intervention in Syria, they directly connected?

[majestic]

Ah, hell, what am I doing, never mind.

Edited February 19, 2022 by majestic