Many people have come to the same conclusions that Chomsky did, independently. If anything, Chomsky is too harsh.

people really think, with a straight face, that they are self-governing in any way, shape, or form. — StreetlightX

So what's the solution, revolution? In this case I believe the solution is evolution, not revolution, and not the ex-nihilo creation of some perfect political paradise out of a void.

Is this a basic moral principle of yours or did you deduce it from more basic moral principles? Can you elaborate on this? — neomac

Wars cause enormous harms, including to people who have no say in the decisions (children, future generations), so only the plausible avoidance of greater harms justifies it. Having a different flag over your Parliament building is quite obviously not such a greater harm.

Do you mean that the only morally legitimate fight against a military aggressive ruthless tyrant is not through war but through economic sanctions and non-violent protests? — neomac

It depends on the circumstances, but I think at all times there should be a good faith and active commitment to bringing about peace through dialogue from all parties. I can't see any reasonable argument favouring war over dialogue on principle.

the claim that the West recklessly and knowingly provoked Putin into waging war against Ukraine at the expense of million of innocent civilians doesn’t seem to me supported by a more objective understanding of the historical and strategic interactions between Ukraine, Russia and the West with its related moral implications. — neomac

Then perhaps you could explain why so many experts in history and strategy have reached that exact conclusion.

So what would be the other available options that the strong-minded enough would go for? — neomac

You seriously can't think of any? Are you saying that the only two strategies you think are possible are Western neo liberalism and Russian anocracy?

Well then there are no national security concern for Russia after all. But Russia could yell "not yet". Couldn't they? So until Russia can ensure a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine the risk is still there — neomac

You're still assuming 'threats' can only come in the form of some military attack. Is there any plausible threat of military invasion to America? No Does America have legitimate security concerns? Yes. That should be all you need to know. There does not need to be an immediate threat of actual invasion for Russia to have legitimate security concerns.

you seemed to claim that Putin acted out of legitimate national security concerns triggered by the West. But if Putin didn’t act out of legitimate national security concerns, then there were no legitimate concerns that the West triggered in Putin leading him to start a war against Ukraine. — neomac

You appear to be unfamiliar with multi-causal events, perhaps read up about the concept before pursuing this further.

The point is that there were no provable aggressive intentions from Ukraine against Russian national security, — neomac

Why would they need to be provable? The illegality of Putin's attack is pretty much beyond doubt. We're talking about what was foreseeable, not what was provable.

I cited this earlier in the thread, worth reiterating in this context that America has form in this, it's right out of their standard playbook

My job [in Syria] is to make it a quagmire for the Russians — US envoy James Jeffrey

Only in a democracy can you complain about your own government without fear of reprisal.

Only in a democracy can you complain about your own government without fear of reprisal. — RogueAI

You can also play Scrabble. With equal effect.

You can also play Scrabble. With equal effect. — Isaac

:brow:

...or shitpost pointless emoticons. Ah...freedom!

This thread is a pig pen.

It's pretty bad.

Without some minimum degree of freedom of expression, new ideas just don't get expressed because expressing them would be dangerous. And if one can't express new ideas, why have them? So only cultures that are reasonably open and tolerant can generate new ideas at a sustained rate. Of course these things come and go: cultures evolve all the time.

You're right. Let's bring it back round.

I hate Putin. He's, like, really bad and stuff. He's killed people and killing people isn't nice, so that's, like, bad.

I hear there's some great bars in Budapest!

That better?

It looks like your average reddit thread because it is insufficiently moderated.

It looks like your average reddit thread because it is insufficiently moderated. — Olivier5

And one of the moderators is one of the worst offenders of this thread's behavior. :shade:

Outside of that, we've got reports that the planes that broke into Swedish airspace had nuclear weapons on board. But people can please continue to say that Russia is no worse than the US when it comes to nuclear weapon threats since the argument seems to be that because they used them in 1945, Russia is no nuclear threat because the US already used them. Fuck there's a lot of stupidity in this thread :shade:

It looks like your average reddit thread — Olivier5

Oh. Do people disagree with you on reddit too?

But people can please continue to say that Russia is no worse than the US when it comes to nuclear weapon threats

Huh?

Only in a democracy can you complain about your own government without fear of reprisal.
— RogueAI

You can also play Scrabble. With equal effect. — Isaac

Only in a democracy that complaining and protesting have little or no response from the government. It proves they are not afraid of public opinion.

It proves they are not afraid of public opinion. — FreeEmotion

Nonsense. Leaders in democracies are obsessed with public opinion and constantly monitor it through public and internal polling.

Nonsense. Leaders in democracies are obsessed with public opinion and constantly monitor it through public and internal polling. — RogueAI

By directly pitting the predictions of ideal-type theories against each other within a single statistical model (using a unique data set that includes imperfect but useful measures of the key independent variables for nearly two thousand policy issues), we have been able to produce some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the
preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non significant impact upon public policy. — Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens - Martin Gilens Professor of Politics at Princeton University

...or we could just make shit up instead. Your choice

All part of the feedback loop - Plan - Do - Check - Act to see if the manipulation is working and the propaganda is working.

I think it's objectively true that in WW2, America was fighting for the good side and Germany was fighting for the bad side. — RogueAI

In some years, given the current trends, it looks like Nazism and Fascism will be fully rehabilitated, and history rewritten once more.

Is the dissolution of nation states something to be hoped for or admonished? — Banno

What would Nato do if there would be no nation states anymore?

To your question: How soon do you want a Mad Max scenario to be be brought about? Aside from perhaps nuclear devastation, a ruthless capitalism seems to be the quickest path to it, while nationalism stands in its way as an obstacle.

https://www.newsweek.com/nolan-peterson-why-ukraine-population-shrinking-559697

...or we could just make shit up instead. Your choice — Isaac

Leaders in democracies DON'T monitor public opinion through polling? Is that what you think?

Let's not loose sight of the fact that tens of millions of people are being displaced, thousands of people killed, entire cities laid to waste, and all for no good reason. — Wayfarer

Who are you to judge that it is "and all for no good reason"??

Here in our little sheltered workshop everything is very comfy.

Speak for yourself. How many of you here are close enough to the Ukraine to actually be affected by what is happening there?

So, do you believe that organisations like CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., are doing something other than reporting the news? — Wayfarer

For instance the RSF Press Freedom Index. — Olivier5

Journalists have way too much power. They are, first and foremost, moralizing busybodies. They are playing god.

The very idea that someone, anyone could have an "objective, unbiased" view of a situation is philosophically problematic to begin with.

Even more problematic is the idea of granting that someone else to have such a view, to trust them so much.

Philosophers have been working on the notion of "How do we know what is true?" for millennia, but we should all take for granted that the problem is actually trivial and that the journalists and the average Joe have solved it???


And this is a philosophy forum, not the watercooler.

Leaders in democracies DON'T monitor public opinion through polling? Is that what you think? — RogueAI

For a start, the comment I responded to was...

It proves they are not afraid of public opinion. — FreeEmotion


Nonsense. — RogueAI

Ie, the claim that it's "nonsense" to say that politicians are unafraid of public opinion. If you want to retract that claim and only argue that they do, in fact, regularly poll, then it'd be a different argument. Polling doesn't mean that you're interested in the entire result. You might be interested in a key demographic in a swing region, but you can't only poll that demographic without making it obvious what your tactics are.

Regardless. The discussion is about the power ordinary people have in a democracy to affect policy. I've forwarded some evidence concluding that it's "minuscule, near-zero, statistically non significant".

Do you have any contrary evidence, such that we could actually discuss the relative merits, or is it just that you've had 'a bit of a think about it' and you 'reckon' they probably do have a big say?

we've got reports that the planes that broke into Swedish airspace had nuclear weapons on board — Christoffer

Yes, they are nuclear-blackmailing the whole world now. It's "me or chaos", nuclear style.

For a start, the comment I responded to was...

It proves they are not afraid of public opinion. — FreeEmotion


Nonsense.
— RogueAI — Isaac

The entire quote was:

Nonsense. Leaders in democracies are obsessed with public opinion and constantly monitor it through public and internal polling. — RogueAI

Next time, quote the whole thing.

Next time, quote the whole thing. — RogueAI

OK

Nonsense. Leaders in democracies are obsessed with public opinion and constantly monitor it through public and internal polling. — RogueAI

The claim that it's "nonsense" to say that politicians are unafraid of public opinion is false. If you want to retract that claim and only argue that they do, in fact, regularly poll, then it'd be a different argument. Polling doesn't mean that you're interested in the entire result. You might be interested in a key demographic in a swing region, but you can't only poll that demographic without making it obvious what your tactics are.

Regardless. The discussion is about the power ordinary people have in a democracy to affect policy. I've forwarded some evidence concluding that it's "minuscule, near-zero, statistically non significant".

Do you have any contrary evidence, such that we could actually discuss the relative merits, or is it just that you've had 'a bit of a think about it' and you 'reckon' they probably do have a big say?