I take it you’re here just to cheer on one side in the war?* I suppose part of the point I was making before is that the demands for condemnation are nothing but demands for people to declare allegiance in a battle of good guys against bad guys. It’s an extension of the war into the forum and it’s completely pointless.

See, now you’ve got me angry, by agreeing with me no less.

* EDIT: actually I now see that I’ve attacked you unfairly here, because the post I was responding to was Isaac’s reply to you.

Pointing out there are Neo-Nazi elements is "disgusting" — Isaac

The problem is that you appeared to be labelling all the Ukrainians resisting Russian attack as neo-Nazis, which is stupid and offensive, even if you were just trying to redress the balance.

in Tajikistan there were both a US military base and a Russian military base. Did he bully the Central Asian states because they had contacts with the US military? No. Russia waited and worked behind the scenes. — ssu

I expect that was all to do with Afghanistan and probably not very comparable.

I often face it with Russian stuff. I have to show I'm passionately anti-Putin before people pay attention to anything I'm saying. It's so stupid. They can't get past it. Not everyone, but certainly several, and I don't get it. Who am I that I need to show how I feel about things? I'm nobody. My opinion is not going to change the world and nothing hinges on what position I take. I don't have a responsibility to fly a flag for anyone, only (on this forum) to try and work out what is happening and why it happened.

Can someone enlighten me? Why the demand for condemnation? Are we here to discuss or just to show we're on the right side?

I'm much closer to the people affected than most members of the forum. I personally know Ukrainian people here in Russia who are worried about their children in Ukraine. My wife has many Ukrainian friends in Kiev who are sending her messages and videos, frightened people who are leaving the city to get away from the conflict.

I don't usually mention these things here, because they have nothing to do with why the invasion happened, don't shed any light on the position of the Russian government, don't reveal what divisions there might be among people in power in Russia and thus how the regime might change, and so on.

Do people need me to tell them that war is bad, that invading other countries is bad?

That's where I'm coming from.

Anyway here's a recent Russian meme:



Tolstoy, Special Operation and Peace.

I have to confirm that I'm supporting the narratives you assume I'm supporting? What kind of twisted rhetorical obligation is that? Why don't you simply read what I've written and respond to that? Why insert additional beliefs and then require me to disabuse you of them on pain of being assumed to then hold them?

I don't hold with this modern fetish for wearing one's heart on one's sleeve. If I have to preface every paragraph with "bombing innocent people is bad", or else be thought a monster then we're not going have a very productive conversation.

Likewise if all my comments are going to be skim read just to see which of the two available camps I fall into and then responded to with a series of stock phrases assigned to that group, then there's little point in me being here, the exercise becomes a piece of theatre, not a discussion. — Isaac

:100:

To all: don't forget to flag low quality posts and discussions, or let us know about problem members by private message (PM).

If Comrade Putin wishes to reconstruct the Soviet Union — Bitter Crank

He wants to reconstruct the pre-Soviet Russian Empire. He sees the Russian Revolution as an interruption of that project.

Many in Russia likely believed the lie, promoted here also, that all this war-talk was just all US hype — ssu

Not many now, I suspect. Putin supporters tend to be quietists who seek stability. I don't see how they could reconcile this invasion with a concern for stability.

Russian Celebrities, Public Figures Speak Out Against Ukraine War

(The Moscow Times is an independent Moscow-based English language newspaper that's often highly critical of the regime)

Following are some quotes from a couple of the original documents mentioned in the above article (Google translated):

From 150+ scientists:

An open letter from Russian scientists and science journalists against the war with Ukraine

We, Russian scientists and scientific journalists, declare a strong protest against the hostilities launched by the armed forces of our country on the territory of Ukraine. This fatal step leads to huge human losses and undermines the foundations of the established system of international security. The responsibility for unleashing a new war in Europe lies entirely with Russia. There is no rational justification for this war. Attempts to use the situation in Donbass as a pretext for launching a military operation do not inspire any confidence. It is clear that Ukraine does not pose a threat to the security of our country. The war against her is unfair and frankly senseless.

Ukraine has been and remains a country close to us. Many of us have relatives, friends and scientific colleagues living in Ukraine. Our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought together against Nazism. Unleashing a war for the sake of the geopolitical ambitions of the leadership of the Russian Federation, driven by dubious historiosophical fantasies, is a cynical betrayal of their memory.

We respect Ukrainian statehood, which rests on really working democratic institutions. We treat the European choice of our neighbors with understanding. We are convinced that all problems in relations between our countries can be resolved peacefully. Having unleashed the war, Russia doomed itself to international isolation, to the position of a pariah country. This means that we, scientists, will no longer be able to do our job normally: after all, conducting scientific research is unthinkable without full cooperation with colleagues from other countries.

The isolation of Russia from the world means further cultural and technological degradation of our country in the complete absence of positive prospects. War with Ukraine is a step to nowhere. It is bitter for us to realize that our country, which made a decisive contribution to the victory over Nazism, has now become the instigator of a new war on the European continent. We demand an immediate halt to all military operations directed against Ukraine. We demand respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state. We demand peace for our countries.

Let's do science, not war!

https://trv-science.ru/2022/02/we-are-against-war/

And from 150 local authority deputies in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Samara, etc:

Against the war

Fellow citizens! We, the deputies elected by the people, unreservedly condemn the attack of the Russian army on Ukraine. This is an unparalleled atrocity for which there is and cannot be justification.

The decision to attack was made personally by Russian President Vladimir Putin. We are convinced that the citizens of Russia did not give him such a mandate.

War with Ukraine will lead to catastrophic consequences. Thousands of people will die, be injured and maimed, cities dear to many Russians will be destroyed. Our country is waiting for the condemnation of the world community, isolation, rising prices and poverty. Hopes for a good life in Russia are crumbling before our eyes.

We urge you not to participate in the aggression and not to approve of it. Please don't be silent: only massive popular condemnation can stop the war.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RQwoxg7tkjM-4BhuSLftyUaPfSDPd8ONECnMtFhqkgo/

Maybe a letter from some relatively powerless local authority members from around the corner in the neighborhood doesn't count for much (I'm not sure), but it's something.

There's also this statement from Russian journalists, published via Meduza, which is Russian but based in Latvia:

https://meduza.io/news/2022/02/24/eta-avantyura-prineset-gore-v-semi-tysyach-lyudey-rossiyskie-nezavisimye-smi-vystupili-protiv-voyny-s-ukrainoy

It looks like they have something related to "Soviet empire nostalgia" — javi2541997

More like Russian Empire nostalgia, I think.

No more from me tonight.

I don't understand why you would cut them slack here. Why is Russia's interests more important to you than Ukraine's — frank

Baden has responded himself, but I thought I'd say something about this. Can you, just for a few seconds, imagine that his comment is not showing more concern for Russia's interests than for Ukraine's, and that it does not represent cutting Russia any slack? I mean, actually try and make that work in your mind. Then you might get the point. I'm not being snarky; I'm just trying to show that falling back merely on anti-Putin rhetoric and moralizing is a hindrance to clear thinking, as well as pointless and harmful.

It seems to me that Baden's comments are concerned with how to ensure peace, whereas your own approach, especially your talk of "appeasement", is--to put it as politely as I can--very much not.

Just to be clear, nobody here is cheering on Russia, I don't think, and nobody here believes there is genocide against the Russian population, as Putin claims, or that this is Putin's reason for sending in the tanks.

Being critical of the West and opposed to American interference around the world doesn't make one a tankie.

I quite like the below thread by Sam Greene over at King's, which makes alot of sense to me, and certainly more than the cartoon character caricature painted by some here — StreetlightX

:up:

As some of you know, Putin gave a long televised speech to the nation a few days ago, which is a very unusual occurrence. You can read it here:

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828

Or here: https://russiaun.ru/en/news/22022p

It's an interesting speech and everyone here should read the whole thing to get an idea of what Putin is thinking. At one point he says this:

You want decommunization? Very well, this suits us just fine. But why stop halfway? We are ready to show what real decommunizations would mean for Ukraine.

He says this after explaining how the state of Ukraine came into being, that it's a product of the Bolshevik policy of giving autonomy to the various ethnic groups of the former Russian Empire, a policy of Lenin's that Putin severely criticizes because it sowed the seeds of later disintegration. So "real decommunization" would be the reversal of this decision.

So am I reading it right, as a bald threat? "Real decommunization" being the end of Ukrainian statehood? It seems uncharacteristically careless and he doesn't really pick up on it later in the speech. I suppose it is meant mainly as a sabre-rattling intimidation directed at Ukraine's political elite, but doesn't it open him up to accusations of empire-building, which as far as I know he has up till now denied? I don't suppose he cares about that, but still, it struck me as odd.

Oh no, not dirty slushiness - I hate that! — Amity

Yes, dirty grey kerbside snow mountains abound.

Can you remember roughly - or exactly — Amity

First page. It doesn't shed much light on exactly what is happening now but it's worth looking at.

What's the weather like where you are? — Amity

Hello there Amity. Sadly it's been above zero in Moscow for a couple of weeks so a lot of the snow has gone and the streets are all yucky. My cross-country skiing trip in a week is in danger of being a washout.

As for the political weather, it's unsettled. Most Russians obviously don't want conflict with their Ukrainian brothers and sisters (as they would put it) and most Russians I know are angry with Putin and very worried about the Russian economy. I'm unusual among the people I know here in criticizing the West so much, but that's only natural, as their focus is domestic politics and my political background is Western leftism. As far as the Russians I know criticize the Western mainstream media depiction of events, it's to dismiss it as merely silly.

Any thoughts you can share? — Amity

About this topic? Not many. In this thread there are too many thoughtless sensationalist cheerleaders and useful idiots for the West, parroting the crap they are being fed by the Western media.* I'd like to say there's no point in engaging with it but there probably is--it's just that I don't have the stomach for it. Too many people here are not interested in understanding the situation. I discovered that in previous discussions. An attempt at calm assessment is greeted with demands for condemnation etc. It's a waste of time.

Plus I really don't have enough of an idea what is going on or what Putin's strategy is. And disillusionment now deters me from even trying to find out more.

I did share an article early in the discussion, which I think still applies, as does the video that I like sushi posted. They put the whole thing in context. Characteristically, they didn't produce much discussion, although I'll give credit to SophistiCat for engaging reasonably and critically with them (as I recall).

*On the other hand, I don't like Russian propaganda either, and I don't even go along entirely with anti-Western Western journalists like John Pilger, who swings too far the other way--although it would be nice to see more of those critical voices.

I don’t think you know what you’re talking about, but thanks for the apology. I shall make it so.

You insult my wife and now you want a favour? How about I change your username to Putin?

Me too as it happens. No problem.

I think that merits Mod intervention. — Banno

I don't know. None of Bart's posts seems to deserve moderation on its own, so if he/she is as disruptive as you say, the best thing would be for everyone to ignore him/her.

Banno likes to stick his nose in cause he thinks he's all wise and stuff, but you'll notice he rarely has anything substantive to say. This exchange is a case in point. — T Clark

Apparently you're the only person who's allowed to do that. What were you saying in the shoutbox about kettles and pots?

Right now I'm not going to take any mod action, but to @Banno and @T Clark I say: probably best to avoid this thread unless you're going to address the OP.

Yeah, where is he? He was also arguing that hinge propositions do not have a truth-value. — Luke

He was also arguing that propositions in general cannot be true unless they're known.

160 pages in and I'm finding it totally absorbing and enjoyable.

You might be a buffoon, even if you are correct on this issue. — T Clark

Good point. I just remembered that I am a buffoon, and thereby ill fit to judge of buffoonery.

I haven't rejected any correct answers. This problem has also been solved by over ten people so I know it's not impossible.

There is one correct, logical, complete answer. Anything else is incorrect. It's not about the answer I'm looking for or not. You're missing something. — DavidJohnson

Someone here is a buffoon. I'm not ruling out the possibility that it's me, but I don't think so.

It's not correct. — DavidJohnson

...where "correct" apparently just means "the answer I want".

You're missing a clue. — DavidJohnson

There is no way we can know what kind of answer you are looking for, given that you reject correct answers.

Not the intended solution. Also logical and follows Michael's train of thought as well. You're missing a clue. — DavidJohnson

If it's correct but not "the intended solution", then there's a problem with the puzzle.

111

Mason & Dixon by Thomas Pynchon.

What an odd thing to say. Kindly wait till I've read the papers, just as I waited for you to respond to my last substantive post. I'm still waiting for a good response, as it happens, aside from the links.

because jamalrob wanted to know what other philosophers thought that hinge's were neither true nor false. — Sam26

Note that this is not what I was criticizing. I even suggested a way for you to be able to treat hinges as neither true nor false, and this appears to be the route taken by Moyal-Sharrock.

But I won't be reading it in full until tomorrow at the earliest.

Yes, his stories are pleasingly unsettling.

Cold Hand in Mine by Robert Aickman

Of course.

Me too. I'll read it some time and say something about it here.

She's the best interpreter of On Certainty that I know of. :up:

Well, I think it hasn't been refuted and it makes sense. Those former intelligence people who did say that the conspiracy theory was true have been killed by Putin. And what terrorist would choose for a terrorist strike (that basically is a media event) sleepy suburbs? Wouldn't they pick a central downtown spot? And it does make sense as there was a peace agreement with the Chechens, so just ripping it off without any provocation would look bad. And if the Chechens had already de-facto won (then the first) Chechen war, why would they then plant bombs in Moscow suburbs? They had repelled the Russian attack. — ssu

That's one way of looking at it, but it seems to me you don't know much about it. Anyway I just wanted to make a quick point that it's a disputed account, and one that is denied not only by Russians in Putin's sphere, but by other observers. I'm not going to argue here though. Maybe another time.

by killing Russian citizens in order to start again a war that Russia previously had lost — ssu

Still peddling that dumb conspiracy theory? Although it's interesting that a while ago you presented it more as a mere possibility, but now present it as established fact.

The Sunken Land Begins to Rise Again by M. John Harrison