Well yeah. There's a reason I hadn't responded to that particular poster thus far. But the comment quoted is still apposite regardless of the accompanying opinions held by the person quoting it. Stopped clocks and all...

Do you have such evidence? — Isaac

Yes. The obvious evidence is that Russia has annexed Crimea. Case closed. — ssu

What? How is that evidence that Ukraine wouldn't have wanted to join anyway? We're not talking about whether Putin wants Ukraine, we're talking about whether he had any reason to, strategically.

We have a choice - what to do next. The only thing that matters is that choice, the consequences of it. — Isaac

And what do I get in response...?

the Baltic States did make a choice — ssu

More history. The question is what we should do, not what others did.

Those of us who implacably oppose Russia’s invasion but who also believe that Nato played a key role in stoking the Ukraine crisis are being mauled as ‘Putin apologists’. ‘You love Putin’ is the infantile cry of laptop bombardiers who cannot believe that some of us have refused to join in their brave social-media campaign for 20-year-old working-class men to be packed off to Ukraine to fight the Russians.

Good job a serious debating platform such as this wouldn't house such kindergarten-level analysis...

I suspect there was a reason that was buried in the Shoutbox and not attached to the Coronavirus thread. As we've heard ad infinitum from the many contributors here, Covid vaccines are an exception to the rule, the one time that the pharmaceuticals acted for the good of mankind in a rare burst of humanity, they must've been watching Disney's Christmas Carol just beforehand. All lobbying was suspended for a year, no-one was paid off, they stopped funding research academies, stopped being the major donors to the top ten media companies, removed all their CEOs from the boards, reneged all their 'revolving door' offers of plush consultancies to FDA and NIH officials. Their main investors stopped funding the WHO, severed all ties with government policymakers, and social media platforms.

So everything was totally above board and not at all unduly influenced at all in their favour.

Back to business as usual now though. Grrr!

.

I'm not sure what the pre-existing war's got do with it — Isaac

Meaning that there already has been a war going on since 2014. — ssu

I know, but that doesn't have any bearing on the point of whether American (EU) involvement is a good option. You're writing everything you know about Millgram again... Make points relevant to the discussion, not just stuff you know.

Yet that doesn't justify Russia's actions. — ssu

Why is anyone interested in justifying (or not justifying) Russia's actions? What has the justifiability got to do with anything? We have a choice - what to do next. The only thing that matters is that choice, the consequences of it. We can whinge about Russia if you like, but I don't see the gain.

It doesn't make it OK to beat up someone who didn't attack you because another guy has done also in different occasions. Of course there are no white knights and evil entities, but simply to put it: imperialism is wrong. If countries have become independent, they really have had the motivation to become independent. And they have the right for it, you simply cannot make the case that Ukrainian independence is an "astro-turf" idea. Nobody ought to say that a country of 44 million is "artificial", hence I can annex territories from it. — ssu

Again, it's not about whether it's OK, we're not standing in judgement. It's about what to do about it.

the simple fact IS THAT IF PUTIN WOULDN'T HAVE TERRITORIAL DESIRES IN UKRAINE, UKRAINE WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN NATO. — ssu

Things don't become facts by virtue of being in All Caps. They become facts by virtue of overwhelming evidence ruling out all contrary theories. Do you have such evidence?

So, at least intellectually, all one can do is pick a (metanarrative) poison – Euro-American fentanyl or Russian novichok? — 180 Proof

Yep. Pretty much.

Except we're all (most?) consumers, campaigners and voters in countries on one side of this. We can join in a futile war cry at our enemies, who don't give a shit, or we can implore our side to do better. Not many more shits given, I'll grant, but a good deal more than the snowflake's chance in hell all this anti-Russian cheerleading has of making any actual difference to the lives of the poor.

Presumably it's still in our favour if our side "wins". Whatever the fuck that means in this conflict. — Benkei

I suppose it really does depend on "whatever the fuck that means in this conflict". Who is included in the category encompassed by your use of "our"?

Me personally, in England. Probably doesn't matter at all. Even if we committed to a ground war. I wasn't affected by Iraq, nor Afghanistan. Oil prices might go up in the short term, but they'll stabilise. This is kind of the point with these petty tribalisms, we've got no skin in the game, we can pick sides but we're in the crowd, not on the pitch.

The people who'll be affected are obviously the population of Ukraine. They'll be bombed, shot at, and evacuated, have been in the separatists regions for years already. That'll happen whether we leave Ukraine to its own defence or support it militarily. The West's body count on military assistance is there for all to see. It's not unreasonable to assume fewer people will actually die if we don't get involved than if we do.

As for afterwards, I guess it depends how keen the Ukrainians are on voting. If they enjoy the whole game, they might miss it under Russian control, if they're not so fussed, then a new flag over the Rada might just make nice change. It's not as if Western democracies give any real choice. We can pick the tie colour, but that's about it. It's a charade anyway, not worth dying for.

What's it going to mean in two year's time? The soldiers and civilians are going to still be dead. Tragic, yes, but that's happening anyway, nothing we can do can stop that, now. People die in wars whether we join in or not, and let's not kid ourselves that the world's largest arms manufacturers can scrub the spots of their hands by 'helping out' here.

So, long term...

Ukraine won't be able to join the EU, but Hungary did in 2004, and it's unemployment rate, GDP growth and Government debt stand almost exactly the same today as Ukraine's is now (10%, 3% and 70% respectively)

Russia annexed the Crimea in 2014 and even Brookings admits that the economic situation there six years on is "mixed", benefiting from a $10 billion subsidy and infrastructure investment program, and this in a report bemoaning the Russian land grab.

That the economic realities of the working class transcends who owns what bit of land shouldn't really need to be spelled out anymore.

That wars kill people even if we storm in on our white chargers, shouldn't really need to be spelled out anymore.

So the only issue I see relevant to us, is the assistance we're willing to offer the economically oppressed and at the moment that's loans with unrealistic interest rates and crippling austerity tie-ins. I don't see that as a 'win' for anyone except the bankers.

Let me get this straight: for you it doesn't matter that already 14000 have been killed in a limited war that now has been changed to unlimited conventional war, where it's totally possible that even nuclear weapons could be used (and likely there's a bigger death toll). That doesn't mean anything?

Is it really EXACTLY the same thing that some George Soros finances some pro-Western group which later either succeeds or fails in elections? Really no difference? — ssu

I'm not sure what the pre-existing war's got do with it, but yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Pro-Western imperialist agendas cause more death and misery than this war will - ten times over. That's not to say (as if I should have to even spell this out) that Putin is going to put a stop to all that death and misery, it is - as my comments recently have almost exclusively been - to say that this isn't the story its painted as.

Russia are not a crazy one-off Marvel bad guy which sprung out of nowhere. The US are not white knights who are going to come in on their chargers and save the world, The EU are not wise strategists wielding sanctions like a parent might wield threats of an early bed. Ukraine is not the poor innocent bystander caught between the noble West and the evil East, wanting only it's freedom. The solutions are not careful military strategy and paternalistic sanctions planned by the wise Philosopher kings of the West vs a descent into World War 3

This is an inevitable conflict, caused as much by Western provocation and puppet-mastery as it is by Russian lunacy and stubbornness.

The solutions are a Pro-Russian proxy government painting a facade of empire over a crumbling wreck, or a Pro-Western government indebted to the hilt, acting as nothing but a supply of land and bodies for the next Amazon warehouse. Or some mess in between.

But it's clear that nuance has been forced out of this debate too.

Isaac is here to back him up: — SophistiCat

Well. This is what political debate renders down to in the Twitter generation. It's pathetic. Either toe the line on the mainstream narrative or fall into the enemy camp. These are the only two options as each discussion polarises into two easy-to-digest, media-friendly camps and everyone falls into line accordingly. I'm not on board with the 'stop Putin at all costs' message, so I must agree with everything Putin says and does - these are the only two options available to me.

Have reservations about the role of big Pharma in the Covid response? You must be like Alex Jones and frightened it's going to turn you into a 5G transmitter - these are the only two options available to you. Have concerns about women only spaces? You must be transphobic right-winger - these are the only two options available to you.

Of course - anything else would involve people actually having to think, read, and develop an opinion of their own rather than pick one of the two options available at the local Walmart.

Now, what's the connection then with neonazis and the Biden administration? — ssu

Because we don't just write a stiff letter to stop Putin. What all the propaganda and hype is about is justifying exactly the kind of regime change we've seen over and over again where Western powers don't give a shit what kind of Nazis, fascists or dictators they put in place so long as they're sympathetic to the current preferred economic strategy.

The choice is a pro-Russian proxy government, sanctioned and led by kleptocrats or a pro-US proxy government indebted to the hilt and led by stone cold profiteers.

Cheering one and booing the other is infantile.

This could have been prevented by listening to Russia previously and not expanding NATO, instead they betrayed what they said, and this happened, as predicted by Jack Matlock and others. — Manuel

Exactly. Just as the rise of Hitler might have been avoided by less punitive reparations. Dictators don't come to power in a vacuum.

To think that people are suggesting the best way to remove the dictator is to create an even greater sense of being crushed under the boot of Western imperialism.

Oleh Tyahnybok wasn't ever installed to power. That simply is not correct. — ssu

The quote...

leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party, later installed into power by the US. — Isaac

The nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party has four posts in the government. Oleksandr Sych is deputy prime minister and Oleh Makhnitsky becomes acting chief prosecutor. It also runs the agriculture and ecology portfolios — https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26415508

So are you going to address the point, or just give a history lesson on matters we all already agree on?

now, AFTER EIGHT YEARS, to reurgitate the same things again don't work. As if nothing has happened in Ukrainian politics. — ssu

So, if eight years on from this invasion, the president of Ukraine is less pro-Russian, you'll be happy to let Russia sort out any local disputes using this method then I take it?

Zelenskyi's party wasn't even then on the political arena when McCain was roaming around supporting the Maidan...

And actually, Volodymyr Zelenskyi is jewish. — ssu

What's that got to do with anything. You're just like my students who used to answer their essay questions on Millgram by writing everything they know about Millgram, and ignoring the actual question. I used to get at least one like you every year...

The point was about the alternatives to what's happening, so its about what America (and the EU) did, not what may now be the case. Did I in any of my post say that I agreed that the Ukraine needs to be denazified? Did I even mention it, allude to it or even say anything from the same era as it? No.

If you're going to respond, respond to the point, I don't want a load of clichéd, pre-prepared talking points.

it's likely that Putin will try to go for the jugular and take (surround) the capital and put a new pro-Russian government into place. — ssu

Where would he have gotten that idea from?



https://www.channel4.com/news/ukraine-mccain-far-right-svoboda-anti-semitic-protests

For any that don't know, that's Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party, later installed into power by the US.

What you seem to never understand is that you are using the "crimes of the US" as a kind of argument for downplaying the acts of Putin, for which I do not understand why you do? — Christoffer

I've already explained. Any response to Putin doesn't happen in a vacuum. If you have a problem with Bullying in your playground you don't solve it by inviting more bullies to the yard. It matters what is done in response. We can sit in our armchairs and complain about Putin all we like. If you want me to condemn him, then fine, I condemn him - I don't notice a single thing having changed in the world as a result.

Why are you continuing to argue based on that fact that others do bad things? — Christoffer

As above. The 'others' are the people who's help you'll be invoking to fight Putin. If they also do bad things, as you seem ready to admit, then we'd best be damn sure their 'bad things' aren't worse than Putin's 'bad things' before we sanction their involvement. That's why I'm comparing the two - because we've got two bad options and it's childishly naive to simply see only one of them and say, as a result of this blindness, that we must automatically choose the other.

So? What's your point based on the current events? — Christoffer

As above. An American-led response (which it will be) is likely to go the way of all other American-led responses, which have been historically, unmitigated disasters involving massive loss of life, economic destruction and the rampant profiteering of multi-national corporations.

Based on all the people in prison, all people poisoned, all people silenced. Based on all intelligence about Putin, I would say that his removal from power, the removal of his closest allies would be the best — Christoffer

And who will carry out this removal? And who will be put in his place? Shall we call on Thor? Our list of superheroes willing to carry out regime change with only the good of humanity as reward is somewhat thin.

since when has the US taken over another nation and claimed it as their own? — Christoffer

Like it matters which flag is flying over the parliament. We're not playing Risk™. There's real people living in these countries. What matters to them is whether they have a roof over their head and food on the table. If America (IMF, ECB etc) suck the welfare of the country dry to pay the interest on the reconstruction 'loans' and leech out the countries resources so that they can't provide employment or social care, then I don't think they're going to give a shit about the lack of an American flag on the passport.

Notwithstanding that, you asked...

Remember how much Putin actually risks losing by invading Ukraine, then figure out what the reasons are. — Christoffer

In 1990 the then Secretary of state for the US James Baker met with Gorbachev and agreed that NATO influence would move "not one inch Eastward"

Since then, every US president has annexed a further Eastern Block nation under NATO, with Ukraine being one of the few remaining.

In 1992 Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. In 1994 it joined the NATO-led Partnership for Peace. In 1997 it established the NATO-Ukraine Commission. In 2009the Declaration to Complement the Charter (the previous commission's foundation). In 2019 Ukraine’s constitution was amended to codify its commitment to join NATO.

So what does Putin want? Perhaps one ounce of honour from the West to it's promises?

Besides which, we don't need to know his reasons, only to weigh options. If they're all crap then it's no good bleating about how crap just one of them is.

It's a fact that NATO influence is creeping Eastard despite assurances that it wouldn't and it's a fact that Ukrainian militia have attacked and committed human rights atrocities on pro-Russian factions in parts of the country (this from Amnesty, not pro-Russian propaganda)

If we don't want the madman to invade any more countries, here's an idea. Why don't we stop poking him with NATO-shaped stick, stop funding neo-nazi groups to reduce support, stop making agreements to extend influence to his neighbours, maybe then we could use our newfound moral high-ground to condemn his political shenanigans.

We are already doing it. Unfortunately, the only real sanctions working might be the next phase. Total isolation of economic mobility. It will tank the global economy, but it might save lives. — Christoffer

Where have I heard that argument before? Again, you're not weighing options. It's 'Stop Putin at all costs!'. Right out of the current playbook - hype up one specific immanent crisis and legitimise the response to it without any sensible attempt to look at the consequences.

everyone in their right mind and knowledge is laughing at his current cock measuring behavior so if the invasion, in short term or long, becomes an embarrassment, it will shake the foundation of his power. How long then will the people be "ok" with his rule? Why remove a leader of power when you can suffocate his leadership?

We cannot do much about this situation other than what we are already doing. — Christoffer

Then what exactly is the point of your posts? Are you just wanting to whip up a more anti-Russian rhetoric for your own comfort?

What does that prove? US "de-escalation" usually fails if there are interests for US within the area of de-escalation. However, Putin's actions are not some proxy war action as I've mentioned before. This is an act that calls back to WWII aggressions. It's not the same thing as proxy wars fought over oil or imperialistic reasons. — Christoffer

Seriously? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60473233

If I tell you that we are seeing movements of aggressions around the Baltic sea, if we see aggressions from Russia that based on all military strategic analysts, points to a serious risk of actual large scale war in Europe, are you seriously saying that this is like the act of "domestic abuse" based on our alliance with US within this conflict trying to push back Putin's aggressions? — Christoffer

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The history of US involvement has been nothing but a litany of misery and exploitation and you're saying that this time it'll be different without giving any reason at all why America has suddenly had a change of heart.

it is still the ONLY system that has led nations to a more balanced life for the people with less corruption endangering that people. US isn't the only nation in the world with "democracy", so your argument of pointing out "democracy" being "bad" as well does not really matter if my argument was that Russia just plays theatre of the nation being a democracy. To imprison and kill anyone that oppose you and call yourself a democracy, that isn't being done, even in a corrupt nation as the US. — Christoffer

The point was that if all Russia is guilty of is not being a proper democracy then such a crime pales into insignificance when compared to massive death and immiseration that democracies like the US have engendered.

Sounds an awful lot like the corrupt top 1% of the Soviet regime to me, just in new clothes. What exactly is different except the form of government on paper? — Christoffer

By that notion (rich elite gets richer off the backs of poor workers) then every government ever is basically the same, nothing to chose between them. But regardless, you want to include the holocaust in Europe's track record? The genocide of the Native Americans in the US's?

You think that we're not acting in Sweden right now? We're pulling large funds to increase our military, we have the island of Gotland that is a target of Russia to seize the Baltic sea area. You think US is the only one acting on this? You think no one else is affected? — Christoffer

I didn't say 'only', I said 'led'.

The alternative for us in Europe is to be actually threatened by Russia if no action is taken. The US is an ally in this. Putin IS a bad man, his threats are out of date, his ideas are delusional misrepresentations of history. — Christoffer

I asked you what the alternative was to inaction. What do we do about the fact that Putin is a bad man? How are you measuring the consequences of those proposals to ensure they're not worse then things are as they stand?

I've already explained the reasons for this conflict and you don't seem to get it. — Christoffer

What is it about this site which seems to attract people who can't tell the difference between their own opinion and what is actually the case. You've told me what you think is the case, you haven't 'explained' anything.

Listen to the experts on Russia and Putin — Christoffer

You mean like Amb. Jack Matlock (US ambassador to the USSR from 1987-1991) who said

It seems to me that recognition of the two breakaway republics represent Putin’s current aim. That, plus negotiations that may induce the US to remove missile defense installations from EE. (This is his real sore point, and one that would be rational to meet.) …

I could not and cannot imagine that Putin would be so stupid as to invade Ukraine, bomb its cities, etc.,

..or have I gone and chosen the wrong expert again? I'm always doing that.

I have not advocated starting a war. — Christoffer

So we're going to stop Putin how? A strongly worded letter?

US is an ally that we work together with to try and deescalate the conflict. — Christoffer

Sorry, have to been to Earth recently? Have you noticed anything about the US's ability to de-escalate? Any kind of trend?

I agree, USA is really a villain internationally. This time however, it's not fucking imperialism in the way you describe it, it's not US "fault", it's a lunatic called Putin and his delusional Soviet dreams. — Christoffer

Funny how much I'm hearing that recently. "Yeah, the corporations are bad, big business is bad, big Pharma, the US military complex...all terrible..but not this time. This time they're doing it all out of the goodness of their hearts for the betterment of mankind. This time it's different." You're like victims of domestic abuse. "This time he really wants me back, he's changed". It's disturbing.

What is different, in comparison to more traditional cultures, is that modern culture has lost all sense of perspective and measure, so anything and everything can be considered "unacceptable", or "acceptable", but one can never know in advance which. — baker

Yes, I think social media acting as a rapid multiplier has exacerbated the problem massively recently. Within days an issue which no one had even thought of last week can become socially unacceptable, with everyone acting as they hadn't themselves committed those exact sins a fortnight ago.

Bertolt Brecht, presumably so concerned with the poor working class, out of "solidarity" with them wore a shirt tailored the way the shirts of workers were tailored. Except that his was made of silk. — baker

Ha. Perfect. I'm currently sporting a sympathy neckerchief for much the same reason!

Nicely polarizing. — praxis

Thanks. Job done then.

I read a similar characterization on Breitbart News this morning. — praxis

Really? That we should unionize, remove trade tariffs and "tax the fuck" out the rich. My, Breitbart has changed since I last read it.

She lost her billionaire status when she donated 16% of her net worth or $160 million. In addition to the charitable trust called Volant, she’s the founder of Lumos, an organization that works to “end the systematic institutionalization of children across Europe and help them find safer, more caring places to live.” Not too afraid of important problems, it seems. — praxis

Yeah. I'm not saying she's evil, just that she's not on my priority list.

Almost finished with Material Girls, incidentally. Well reasoned, as you might expect, and a good book for learning more about the trans controversy. — praxis

Good. My wife's reading it now, so it's on my list when she's finished.

Everyone is pointing out how Russia is a "security risk", it's political lingo. No one can speak in the way you require because of diplomacy. — Christoffer

OK. Still not getting anything on who these 'everyone' are.

Aren't you suppose to compare "America" to "Russia"? Then apply Soviet history and a guy named Putin who dream Soviet dreams, of reclaiming that power. — Christoffer

No. Russia has undergone massive regime changes since then, the US is still run by the same people. I'm comparing regimes because, you know, the soil they happen to stand on doesn't make so much difference.

Who the fuck said anything about democracy? — Christoffer

You did.

We can criticize the politics of the US, but Putin is a dictator in his rule, he's putting in place a lifetime seat as the leader of Russia and people under him is playing theatre so that the rest of the world thinks Russia is a democracy — Christoffer

Thus far the grand total of harms you've given us anything concrete (semi-concrete, anyway) about is that Putin is not democratic. The rest has been unsourced speculation about his future intentions.

What does this have to do with anything I'm saying about Putin and Russia? Your argument is essentially: "because US is really bad, has been really bad and will probably be bad in the future... therefore we don't have to worry about Putin and Russia?" — Christoffer

Yes. Because "worrying about Putin" doesn't happen in a vacuum. We can't just not not do anything about Ukraine, if you want action, that action is going to be US led, so the track record of the US is fundamentally important here. Its the alternative you're advocating in "worrying about Putin".

US involvement in foreign wars has been an almost unmitigated disaster for everyone except the arms and reconstruction industries (who've both done very well out of it, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence). It's no good pointing a finger at Putin and crying "bad man", you need to work out what the alternative to inaction is and whether anyone is actually going to be better off that way.

Again, what are you talking about? What has this to do with the current geopolitical conflicts? — Christoffer

Everything. Geopolitical conflicts don't happen in a vacuum, they don't spring out of thin air. the arms industry don't spend millions (5 million in Europe, ten times that in America) on lobbying on a whim, a vague hope that politics will just happen to turn out favouring war.

Are you actually saying that we shouldn't address what is happening at the moment because of starving people elsewhere? What about the thousands of people who will be killed if Putin does a full-scale invasion? What about if he doesn't stop there? What if he needs to fulfill the Soviet dream even further? THIS is why you are naive, you don't understand what is really going on. — Christoffer

What if, what if , what if... Do you even stop to think. You're advocating starting a war on the off-chance that your target might start one. And to not even see the link... Huge numbers of those children are starving because of American foreign policy. Again, to think these things are not connected. Western trade dominance, Western financial instruments, Western military imperialism... you think each is just coincidentally increasing, unrelated to the others?

The idea that Russia represents this apocalyptic threat to European peace and stability when the ECB and EMU exists is perhaps, the funniest part of the hysteria. — StreetlightX

Yeah, I expect the people of Spain and Greece are quaking in their boots at the prospect of a change in government in a country a thousand miles away... Oh, except they can't afford boots anymore.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-greece-poverty-idUSKBN15Z1NM

according to everyone involved with global trade, global interactions. — Christoffer

Who? 'Everyone' is not an answer. Give me a non-partisan source claiming Russia is the main threat to world peace, so we've something beyond your opinion, to work with.

We can criticize the politics of the US, but Putin is a dictator in his rule, he's putting in place a lifetime seat as the leader of Russia and people under him is playing theatre so that the rest of the world thinks Russia is a democracy. — Christoffer

So? In terms of actual harm the choose-your-preferred-colour-of-warmonger 'democracy' in America is way more damaging. I mean demonstrably so. How many has Putin killed? America's total stands a little over 20 million.

It's no good bleating about democracy when a living breathing democracy is sweeping though the world killing millions in pursuit of its imperialist ambitions. Democracy isn't going to save us here.

I can list all the wars America has orchestrated and the measures of their destruction (though it sounds as though you might already agree, saving me the trouble), so what are you putting up against the war crimes of this 'democracy' to support the notion that veering from its political methodology is the most significant threat to peace?

Are you seriously this naive as to what is an actual threat in modern times? — Christoffer

What's 'naive' is assuming that the most powerful corporations and elites the world has ever seen are in any way held back by something as trivial as 'democracy'.

20 million dead in American wars, 40 million in debt slavery serving (largely) Western supply chains, 700 children dead every hour because of poverty perpetuated by (largely) Western financial institutions...

No one's saying Russia is innocent, but try speaking to the parents of the 700 children who just died from poverty whilst you were writing your post and see if they give a shit whose flag is over Donetsk and Luhansk.

He is a real threat to world peace — Christoffer

According to whom?

just as a reminder of what the lunatic has in store if he completely loses it, tsar bomba. — Christoffer

Ah, yes. The main threat. The nuclear weapon. The one which Russia has never used. As opposed to the one which America has used. Twice. And yet Russia is the main threat here.

Do you think that all the citizens who must stay and fight against an invasion are the same? — Amity

How could I possibly? No. Just disrupting the rosy media-friendly picture of the poor underdog Ukrainians being set upon by nasty thugish Russia.

How can the blatant pro-Putin and apathy of the republican party be something the US people would support? What the fuck is wrong with people? — Christoffer

Since World War II the United States military has killed or helped kill 20 million people in the overthrow of at least 36 governments

What on earth makes you think the American people give a shit about warmongers?

Brave citizens fighting for their lives. — Amity

Yes. Brave, brave neo-nazis...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/05/ukraine-women-fighting-frontline

...powerless, but for their human rights abuses...

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/EUR50/040/2014/en/

Oh, the humanity!

would — Christoffer

if — Christoffer

could — Christoffer

If — Christoffer

could — Christoffer

could — Christoffer

...so...let's have a war!

Just in case...

you express care for Stock but none for Rowling. Maybe that's simply because you can relate more to Stock, or you personally know her. — praxis

No. She simply made useful foil in a rhetorical point.

I've no sympathy at all for those who threaten her, but I've no sympathy for her either, she's a billionaire, she'll manage. My concern in all of this is for the coveted position on the front page. If that's taken up with Rowling's 'opinion', that's shit. If it's taken up with trans activists bleating about how her opinion hurt them, that's also shit.

For a fucking year we had the death toll from covid front page every day. So I'm not buying any bullshit about 'that's the way the media is' or, 'selling papers is what counts'.

Anytime we don't have a similar running total of the children killed by poverty or forced into debt slavery front page every day it's a political decision of some over-privileged editor which they could easily have not made.

Can't help thinking there's something a little Marcusean here (alluded to earlier) about the reality of worker's demands being all too uncouth for a certain class of left-wing pundit.

Is rescuing a tormented trans art student safer than empowering a grubby factory trade union member?

Is installing a (privileged) black female supreme court judge safer than giving black female banana growers a fair price for their product?

Is getting equal pay (by way of increase, of course!) for female entertainers less dangerous than just taxing the fuck out of them to pay for such luxuries as rice and water for those less charming in an evening dress?

Are the beneficiaries of old-school socialism just too frightening for the newly elevated chattering classes, they need someone tamer, more like them, to help. Someone they are less complicit themselves in the oppression of.

Yes, "'P' is true iff P" (the classic example is "'Snow is white' is true iff snow is white") is the standard deflationary formulation. — Seppo

From the SEP article you linked (my bolding)...

In the instances of schema (T) (sometimes called “Convention (T)”), the ‘X’ gets filled in with a name of the sentence that goes in for the ‘p’, making (T) a version of (ES). Tarski considered (T) to provide a criterion of adequacy for any theory of truth, thereby allowing that there could be more to say about truth than what the instances of the schema cover. Given that, together with the fact that he took the instances of (T) to be contingent, his theory does not qualify as deflationary.

Using the 'truth' of a belief as a criterion is non-deflationary, as is using a JTB definition of truth because both use truth as a property of some entity (a belief in this case), whereas deflationary positions hold that...

there is no property of being true at all, or, if there is one, it is of a certain kind, often called “thin” or “insubstantial”.

Notwithstanding those quotes, you've not provided the support for your view that later Wittgenstein was even of this sentential version of deflation and not the more eliminative Ramseyean version which would hold that there was no such property even in the insubstantial sense.

Thanks.

That's a bit sad. — Banno

I hope you mean 'sad' the way my generation uses the term, and not the way my children's generation do.

to the point, there is nothing here about propositions that are neither true nor false. — Banno

No, but that wasn't exactly what I was looking for. What i was looking for was evidence of Wittgenstein's understanding of truth being such that ""x" is true iff x". I'm not seeing it in what you've provided, but I'm not in a position to resolve the conflict between your exegesis and @Sam26's when he writes...

Wittgenstein had a more pragmatic idea of truth. It was never outlined as some are doing in this thread. It was never, something is true, iff such and such (unless you're thinking in terms of the Tratatus), — Sam26

Reading Wittgenstein as anti-realist is a post hoc back construct; the term was invented long after his demise. It is not the only, nor the main, reading. — Banno

I see. So how do you square, in Wittgenstein's conclusion that neither idealism nor realism were quite right, the bit where realism isn't quite right? He's not an anti-realist, he's not a realist. What is he?

And the problem with anti-realism per se is Fitch's paradox; “all truths are knowable” entails “all truths are known”. Of corse, there may be ways to make sense of this. — Banno

Indeed. One of which is Ramsey's deflationary position, which is something I thought Wittgenstein had some sympathy with. I've spent a lot of time with Ramsey, less so with Wittgenstein so don't have the knowledge to pick this apart. I'll defer to either your or Sam's better judgment, but at the moment it seems they are opposed...?

Well? — jorndoe

You can hardly expect me to answer your questions after refusing to answer mine. I came for a discussion, not a lecture.

On the other hand, dissidents crippling moving forward is irresponsible, especially in public health, especially with a situation on our hands. (Some dissidents stop listening to others, while insisting that others must hear them.) — jorndoe

I agree entirely with the sentiment, but I suspect you're thinking of different people to me. Are you prepared to name names? Who are/were these dissidents who crippled moving forward and stopped listening to others?

Had some careless anti-masker infected my aging parents, then I'd be rather unhappy. — jorndoe

How on earth would you know? The whole point of these articles is that the jury is still out on whether the mask would have helped or not. It depends on the circumstances, including factors which haven't been tested yet.

See this is the problem. You want to turn believing in one specific scientific opinion into a moral duty. It's no longer sufficient that I show due concern for these hypothetical parents, I must additionally believe what you believe about which actions risk their well-being and which don't.

Mandating thresholds of care is fine, foundational to a functioning society. Mandating thresholds of epistemic responsibility I'd also say made sense (if your actions are likely to impact others you ought find out how). But assigning moral blame because I don't agree with the scientists you happen to agree with...?

I'd even go as far as to say that if a person is concerned for their health and they really believe my wearing a mask will protect them, I'm going to wear the mask, it'd be mean not to, but mandating masks on kids, nothing but a 'hope for the best' that it won't do them any harm? How's that 'respectful' exactly?

Minor first world neuroses get airtime because they are the closest thing to being acceptable to a mass audience - or rather, to those who make decisions about what mass audiences get access to. — StreetlightX

I'm not saying I'm ready to believe this yet, but this is an interesting take. I'm reminded of the role comedy clubs played in apartheid South Africa, sometimes situational comedy about the trivial consequences of apartheid was the closest activists could get to speaking out among certain crowds.

Yet...

There's been an exodus of what I call the 'old left' to places like Substack and independant publishing, and no few of them cite exactly the kind of polarisation I'm talking about as the reason for leaving. Feminist writers fed up with walking on eggshells over trans issues, anti-corporatists fed up with the recent ritual capitulation to pharmaceuticals, trade unionists fed up with the demonisation of their working class base...

The picture you're painting has the left partially gagged by the elites and speaking in euphemisms because they can't talk about what they really want to say. But in my circles (in which I include the people whose writing I've followed over the years), there's no trouble talking about poverty, militarism, debt slavery etc (at least not in the publications they write for). The problems came when they also wanted to write about women-only spaces, pharmaceutical misconduct, free speech (in the traditional sense), anti-globalism... And the problems came from others on the left.

Maybe these others saw how the wind was blowing and made the smart move to limit their battles; maybe their admonition was part of a long game, but again... There's still the nagging sense that there's an awful lot more mutual back-patting than there is progress on poverty.

Over the last 20 years for example, trans rights have gone from being barely mentioned to having their own act of parliament and the mostly sucessful exclusion of gainsayers from media and academia (not even going to comment on the rights or wrongs of this, let's just take it as a given that it's a good thing, an achievement to be proud of). In the same period the number of people in debt slavery has gone up. And not just a bit. Gone up by over 30%. Obviously as the foundation of capitalism, so they're hardly going to just let it go without a fight, but a rise? Someone's seriously taken their eye off the ball and I don't think I'm that insane for looking at what the front pages actually have been filled with (instead of the fucking enslavement of 40 million people) and seeing a link.

Ha. I tend to think this varies - as usual - by power. I'm quite inclined to believe this post-hoc rationalization for those who in fact have a stake in keeping up a police state, say, but by and large by the time it - why not? - trickles down to the Cuthberts of the world, they really do just think that violence and incivility is a bad in itself, — StreetlightX

Fair enough, I think that's probably about as far as our armchair psychologising goes. I'm acutely aware of your low opinion of psychological research, so this will be meaningless to you, but in my 20 plus years researching the social construction of beliefs I've basically become inured to the notion that no-one believes anything bar post hoc rationalisations.

It's why the whole 'cancel culture' is so ridiculous. Every time it comes up, just ask: who is being cancelled, and by what agency? — StreetlightX

True, but this cuts both ways. I'm all in favour of not giving air to, for example, a few middle class journalists who find their services no longer required because of a refusal to toe the line on gender issues, but, I'm in favour of that dismissal entirely because there are more important things to fill the front page with. Children being used as slaves in developing countries, US warmongering about to kill thousands, Israeli apartheid immiserating an entire people... So when that same front page is filled with a story from the 'new left' about women being paid less in the entertainment industry, or Dave Chappelle making an inappropriate joke (two random articles plucked from recent memory) I'm no less inclined to tell them to get their head out of their arses and find something properly important to write about.

Which is why I disagree when you say...

I get the feeling of left-failure, but I'm not inclined to blame the left for it. The avenues ofpoverty have been deliberately dried up — StreetlightX

They still have column-inches, they still have Twitter accounts, the still have the streets open to them. I don't see a way of getting around the fact that these are left-wing pundits of their own free will ignoring poverty, ignoring debt, ignoring militarism, and choosing instead to whinge about such minor first-world neuroses.

I don't see the knee of the corporate elite on their throats as they simper on about 'identity' whilst thousands have theirs snuffed out forever. I see the lure of liberal back-patting at the next dinner party.

I apologise. I appreciated everything else you said and agree with much of it. I was throwing away a riposte to a throwaway comment. — Cuthbert

No problem.

I think I have been working to a different understanding of 'civil discourse' from other posters. I do not mean 'polite conversation'. I mean 'civil' as distinct from 'lawlessly violent'. So, for example, I would count (hypothetical) comments on these forums that I am stupid, ignorant, a fascist etc as part of civil discourse, however contemptuous, unfair or provocative such comments might be. I would count a plausible threat to bomb my house as not part of civil discourse. By 'shaming, hounding and making lives permanently miserable' I imagine not unfair and discourteous comments on the internet but stalking, death threats and similar. — Cuthbert

That's fair enough, I separated out some different sense of 'incivility' myself above, but I still agree with @StreetlightX, even within your definition. Threats to stalk, immiserate and even kill are legitimate parts of the reality of politics. Sometimes they're a genuine response to being oppressed, sometimes a necessary tactic to obtain justice when other options are too slow, too ineffective, or just not morally called for.

In the case of the former, I don't think there's any academic work to be done. Remove the oppression and you remove the incivility. Simple.

In the case of the latter, I'm all for it. More if possible. It's not like the stakes are being raised on my end, they're already threats, immiseration and death.

I'm not sure that we're even ('we' being contemporary society) at the level where we can pose this question in good faith yet. I still think there's plenty of formalist objection to incivility and even polarization on the (tautological) ground that 'incivility is uncivil' and that 'polarization is polarizing'. They are effectively apolitical responses, which each yank both out of any possible context, or, what is the same, absolutize all contexts so that they are always a priori 'bad things', regardless of reasons for their use or occurrence. — StreetlightX

I agree with you about the way these responses suck the guts out of political debate, but I'm not sure I'm ready to be quite so charitable about their ingenuousness. I'm more inclined to think them a post hoc distraction for a political position that's already being held. So like, the political choice to, say, reform the police, has already been rejected and formalist complaints about 'incivility' are really just strategic laying of a long-game justification for later being able to say the BLM protests are inappropriate. Like they're going to one day say "oh...and here's an example of that purely academic notion I was talking about earlier...what luck one just happened to crop up" when really, the example came first, followed by a frantic fishing about for some academic notion from which to build a rejection.

In my eyes it goes - threat to the status quo > decision to resist that threat by any means possible > some post hoc academic idea that can be used to hastily build a argument on. That post hoc idea could be anything as its purpose is solely to give a good, objective-looking foundation to the inevitable opposition.

if we are going to talk about the integrity or incivility - I guess my usual rule to is follow the power: the more powerful and monied the other person is, the more I'm happy to let them eat shit. This includes Rowling no less than Bezos. — StreetlightX

Yes, that's a point. I suppose what I'd missed was the fact that, almost by definition, the majority of the recipients of the sort of incivility I'm taking aim at are in that position because they have wealth and power. Their very involvement in the 'debate' is a farce by the same standards I judged the involvement of their detractors to be. Let them all have at each other, perhaps, in their air castles such that I could unmoor the whole edifice and hopefully watch it float away.

But then that leaves us no better off. Still without a solution to the problem of being either not numerous enough or not threatening enough to bring about any real change, and when the enemy has F-16s I don't have much hope in the latter.

I was involved with the anti-Poll Tax protests decades ago in England and we had no trouble mobilising people from quite a diverse range of background (some I'd certainly not want to sit next to at a dinner party), and it worked - to a point, of course. I look back, perhaps overly nostalgic, and think - if we can muster a gang of egg-throwing students to hound Kathleen Stock out of her job (something I really do care about and find disgraceful), then why are we having so much trouble with something as simple as getting those same students to order a book from their local bookstore instead of propping up a genuine fascist because it's 'a bit easier'?

Something's seriously fucked up about willingness to protest if we can't even boycott a fucking tyrant like Bezos. I mean he actually has a measurable death-rate in his warehouses, it's a thing. We boycotted South-Africa, boycotted Nestle, what the fuck is wrong with people?

Is it just a coincidence that the causes people are prepared to rally around are all causes that don't really impact the plight of the working class at all, or at best do so tangentially? How did BLM turn from a genuine threat to the status quo in America's slums to a Twitter spat about which fucking sports personalities are kneeling down before their fucking corporate-sponsored shit-show of an event?

Edit - Sorry, realised this reads back as a massive rant. It's not aimed at you.

Lines in the sand don't work as every event or incident is in the end unique — ssu

Maybe, but one has to have some guiding principles, it's not just arbitrary is all I'm saying.

For some, outer-parliamentary actions are the only hope. Now in Burma or similar places this actually is the case (as there is no actual democratic process), but it isn't reality for us. Not yet. — ssu

I don't agree. I don't think a population needs to be under the yoke of an authoritarian police state to be left with no democratic option on any given matter. It's a simple structural matter. If, for example, both major parties have the same policy on an issue and your local population clearly don't care, you can tell that for all practical purposes, you've no democratic methods left to you to counter that policy. It needn't be so dramatic.

For me, there's three types of incivility...

Incivility resulting from being severely oppressed - here, we've no place commenting.

Incivility as a tool to get done what is right in an unjust environment - refusing to obey unjust laws, threatening violence if certain demands for justice are not met.

Incivility as a tool of persuasion. Here it's used to label the behaviour as so unacceptable that a civil response is no longer appropriate. It's aim is to shock and it works entirely because it's rare. The moment it becomes commonplace for minor transgressions it loses it's power. It's this third use I worry is being de-fanged by overuse.