Science does provide that evidence, based mostly on the remarkable explanatory power of Morality as Cooperation Strategies for cultural moral norms and our moral sense. It is irrelevant to my arguments that there are people who will reject them for irrational reasons such as "God told them something different". — Mark S

The first claim doesn't make sense to me: it sounds as if you are claiming that evidences are based on an empirical theory (if Morality as Cooperation Strategies is an empirical theory) while it should be the other way around. Empirical theories must be based on evidences. Besides you keep lauding the success of such theory, yet providing very little to support it.
The second statement confirms my suspects: taking "solving cooperation problems" as a rational condition (à la Gert) to establish what "morality" is, it's a NORMATIVE criterion, it's external to actual historical cultural moral norms, not descriptive of them (against what you seemed to be claiming in past posts). And it remains generic until you specify what constitutes a cooperation problem and its solutions independently from actual specific cultural moral norms.

Those who could might have already migrated. But it's unlikely that people working on sensitive weapons for the military are that free to move as they please. Anyway until Putin keeps punishing military, intelligence, and weapon developers for his failures, that's good news to me.

nothing new: https://www.thedailybeast.com/putin-claimed-his-hypersonic-missiles-were-invincible-then-he-jailed-the-developers

My claim is that Morality as Cooperation Strategies can contribute to rational discussions about which moral norms to enforce. Specifically, understanding the origins, function, and motivating power of cultural moral norms will provide objective evidence for resolving such disputes. — Mark S

The present chief barrier to resolving moral disputes by rational discussion is the existing murky, mysterious origins and power of cultural moral norms. Morality as Cooperation Strategies removes that barrier. — Mark S

Identifying origins, function, and motivating power of cultural moral norms can inform a rational discussion about moral norms. I’m not sure that would be enough to overcome cultural clashes though e.g. when cultural moral norms are grounded in religious faith. Besides I’m questioning the way you conceptually frame cultural moral norms as strategies to solve cooperation problems from the start. On one side, if this is the RESULT of an empirical investigation you can’t include it in the definition of morality from the start. On the other side, cultural moral norms can be diverse and incompatible. This fact suggests that there might be limits to the possibility of cooperation which may be at the roots of cultural moral norms. In other words, there might be an ambivalence in morality similar to building walls around a limited area which can be good at keeping certain people within it but also at keeping other people out of it.

And your claim is that a culture and mind-independent understanding of the origins, function, and motivating power of cultural moral norms will NOT provide objective evidence for resolving such disputes? I can’t make any sense of that. — Mark S

My claim is simply that you didn’t provide evidence, so neither that there are not such evidences nor that there won’t be. Try to have a rational discussion with muslims while claiming that putting a head-scarf is a way for men to exploit women, so this cultural moral norm is wrong because cultural moral norms are there to solve cooperation problems.

Such discussions would be much more likely to be resolved than if the origins, function, and motivating power of cultural moral norms remained mysterious. — Mark S

That is more likely expressing your confidence (or hope?) about that, it doesn't constitute evidence that your theory can actually contribute to solve moral clashes. Wearing a heads-scarf is cultural moral norm in some societies not in others, do you have any actual evidence that your understanding of morality as solving cooperation problems would fix such difference where it is bitterly defended (like say in a Taliban society)?
The problem is that cultural moral clashes are rooted in incompatible cultural moral norms, so they can't possibly solve cooperative problems in the same sense and as you admitted they generate cultural clashes AS WELL, so they can not be claimed to have the function to solve cooperation problems, only because this might be a possible effect or that knowing this is enough to more likely start overcoming moral differences. There are other effects too: like generating conflicts. Cultural moral norms can be invoked also to justify our cooperation limits.
Maybe it's simply a rationalization trying to find one function (or a function) for moral norms. Different individuals may rely on cultural moral norms to cooperate, others to engage in rivalries, others to spiritually distance themselves from society, others only as socially inherited/imposed habits since early childhood.

Diefenbach does give credit Michels and understands that his conclusions have importance. He also makes quite astute observations. So what is the problem here? The answer is: ideology overriding rationality and logic. This ideology is shown well in Diefenbach's conclusion:

The danger of oligarchy is always there – but, luckily, it does not always materialise. I therefore think that it is more appropriate to call Michels’ theory not the iron law but the iron threat of oligarchy.


By talking about the 'danger' and 'threat' of oligarchy that "luckily will not materialize", Diefenbach clearly shows what he thinks about oligarchy. And this is the trap many fall into: they see the structures of organizations as ideological or ideologically constructed and morally good or bad, and spend little if any thought on the logical and rational grounds on just why organizations have evolved to what they are now.

Perhaps "The Iron Law of oligarchy" is the wrong way to look at this phenomenon. Perhaps it would be better to call it "The fundamental limitations of collective decision making". Collective decision making takes time, people think inherently differently, will disagree and will make different choices. The only answer to this is to try to seek some sort of consensus. Also, specialization of roles in an organization is natural in creating efficiency. Hence the outcome and the effect will be that some people will have pivotal roles in the function of an organization. And hence, you will have "the oligarchy" in some way or another. That "oligarch" might then be the secretary of the council, an employee of the firm like a CEO or an wealthy financier of various enterprises. At this general level, there isn't so much use for this law. That few people will have power over others in any organization should be obvious and insisting that you can eradicate "oligarchy" at this general level is just a thought that hasn't much to do with reality.

Hence the mistake is think about the "Iron Law of Oligarchy" from an ideological viewpoint. Or to give too much ideological value to what basically is a logical or rational outcome of a complex issue. — ssu

:up:

Cultural moral norms are diverse, contradictory, and strange mainly because of 1) different definitions of who is in favored ingroups and disfavored or exploited outgroups and 2) different markers of membership in those ingroups and outgroups.

Understanding the origins of these differences provides an objective basis for groups to resolve them. Groups may not always be able to resolve their differences (different goals for moral behavior may be intractable), but at least they can focus on the right issues. — Mark S

The irony is that you keep pointing at an issue of your definition of morality as solving cooperation problems which then you refuse to acknowledge. If cultural moral norms define "who is in favored ingroups and disfavored or exploited outgroups" and related "markers of membership in those ingroups and outgroups" which are at the origin of moral differences and clashes then cultural moral norms can solve AS MUCH AS can generate cooperation problems !

some more "provocations":
https://www.dw.com/en/common-threats-bring-japan-south-korea-closer-together/a-65562167
https://www.dw.com/en/amid-tensions-with-china-philippines-gets-bolder/a-65591689
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-wants-more-cooperation-with-aukus-allies-advanced-technologies-2023-05-08/

From a top-down perspective, we can understand that cooperation problems in our universe must be solved by all beings that form sustainably cooperative societies. Further, game theory shows that for these strategies for intelligent, independent agents to be successful, violators must be punished. Hence, just as predicted, cultural moral norms exist and can be identified as norms whose violation is commonly thought to deserve punishment. — Mark S

Also traffic rules can be explained in terms of cooperation strategies, yet they are not commonly understood as moral rules. So something more specific about morality seems to be left out in your functional analysis.

Because it is empirically true.

From a bottom-up perspective, all past and present cultural moral norms (norms whose violation is commonly thought to deserve punishment) can be explained as parts of cooperation strategies. — Mark S

If that's true, then how come that societies in the past and present do not have the same cultural moral norms? As I said there are also cultural clashes because societies do not share the same moral cultural norms, so maybe there are limits to the possibility of cooperation which morality must account for. But if cooperation is not possible, then what's left to do with societies with non-shared cultural moral norms? Exploitation?

Proposed counterexamples of moral norms that are not parts of cooperation strategies are always welcome. — Mark S

Yet you wrote: Knowing the function of cultural moral norms is to solve cooperation problems enables us to predict when those moral norms will fail, so it seems you are suggesting that there are cultural moral norms which might fail to meet the function you are attributing to them. And failing to meet a certain function may also mean that there is no such intrinsic function, the function is an external criterion.

Knowing the function of cultural moral norms is to solve cooperation problems enables us to predict when those moral norms will fail. — Mark S

How do you know that? Maybe cultural moral norms fail to solve cooperation problems indeed because they do NOT have such function.
Again, if the function of ALL cultural moral norms is defined externally or independently from such cultural moral norms, and according to such unique set of external/independent criteria you can establish if any cultural moral norms are right or wrong, then - one might argue - you are not describing what that culture moral norms are actually about. If you claimed that the function of culinary recipes is to nurture us in a healthy way, so the recipes which do not conform to such function are wrong, we may object that you have it backwards, culinary recipes may fail to make us eat healthy simply because that’s not their function. And if a description of the external function of cultural moral norms equates to establishing moral prescriptions (what ought to be done), then you can be accused of conflating what is with what ought to be, description and normativity, roughly as much as claiming that only recipes that make us eat healthy ought to be considered “legitimate” culinary recipes

We ought (conditional) not follow the Golden Rule when “tastes differ” and in certain times of war and when dealing with criminals in order to not decrease the benefits of cooperation. — Mark S

When we ought not to apply the golden rule, given that the golden rule is a cooperative heuristic strategy, what other heuristic strategy should we apply? An exploitative strategy? Criminals in jail ought to be exploited? Enemies in the battlefield ought to be exploited? If not exploited what else?

And we perhaps ought not (conditional) follow marker moral norms such as eating shrimp and masturbation are abominations once we understand their arbitrariness as markers of membership and commitment to ingroups. And understanding “women must be submissive to men” and “homosexuality is immoral” are norms about cooperating to exploit outgroups gives us reasons we ought not (conditional) follow them in order to achieve the goal of moral coherence. — Mark S

To me the relevant sense in which your “oughts” are conditional is wrt the function of morality which you defined as solving cooperation problems, not necessarily “moral coherence”. So “moral coherence” at best is an instrumental goal toward such ultimate moral end. And no matter how arbitrary “markers” norms are but if they actually preserve or boost cooperation, then they are morally legitimate.
Besides solving cooperation problems may be assessed wrt different dimensions: quantity (increasing the set of people joining the cooperation), quality (increasing the reliability of people cooperating), duration (increasing the stability of cooperation trends), resilience (increasing the recoverability of cooperation against external or internal shocks), etc. Now, if different cultural moral norms show different moral profiles wrt such dimensions, what may look as solving cooperation problems for one cultural system, it may look the opposite for another cultural system. In other words, “cooperative problems” and “solutions” would still look cultural-dependent, and not unique for all cultures, even when solving cooperation problems may be considered a likely effect (if not a function) of certain moral norms.

Many think that your proposal may fallaciously conflate normative and descriptive level of analysis, if not reduce the former to the latter. I'm not entirely sure if that's the case also because I have some doubts about how to understand "the naturalistic fallacy" per se.
Yet I doubt that your descriptive belief that moral norms are heuristics for solving cooperation problems has relevant analytic power for at least 2 reasons:
1 - if moral norms are “heuristics for solving cooperation problems”, one is capable of defining “cooperation problems” and their possible solutions INDEPENDENTLY from any specific society’s actual set of moral norms, but then morality is not about the cooperation problems that you defined independently from any specific society’s actual set of moral norms unless their moral norms perfectly match the way you formulated cooperative problems and solutions independently. On the other side if cooperative problems and solutions are defined as a function of specific societies’ actual set of moral norms, then the definition of “cooperation problems” and “solutions” varies depending on the society, so what is “cooperation problem” and “solution” to society X may not be such for society Y. In other words, X’s moral norms would not be about “cooperation problem” and “solutions” for Y.
2 - The meaningfulness of a concept is related to its semantically contrastive value. So when you claim that moral norms are “heuristics for solving cooperation problems”, since “cooperation” is the opposite of “competition”, I do wonder why morality can not be understood AS WELL in terms of “heuristics for solving competitive problems”. The previous point is indeed suggesting that different individuals and societies my compete also due to their different moral norms, if not inseparably from their different moral norms. So the moral space is contested as much as the domain of scarce resources for survival (the latter being common between humans and animals), and both can shape social competition/cooperation conditions.

It would be also useful if you clarified how you understand the notion of “heuristics”.

I'm gonna be off topic so I'll understand if you ignore my comment, but it would interesting to see if you can just draft an argument clarifying how the idea that morality is about solving cooperative problems can actually help in addressing the moral case for supporting or denying support to the Ukrainians against the Russians.

The shortest answer is that to assess such responsibility one should be able to distinguish what is feasible (by the ruler) from what is desirable (by whom? The ruler? Humanity? You?). Being the most influent and powerful ruler on an “anarchic” international system doesn’t necessarily imply that the ruler has enough power to reset the world according to what is desirable on a global scale (BTW the scientific investigations on the global environmental effects of human development, its promotion and popularisation are all integral part of the US-led world, so global environmental self-awareness are also a product of the evil American demiurge). — neomac


This does not in anyway even contradict the my statement:

Why wouldn't the party with the most influence and power in setting a policy, not be the most responsible for the results? — boethius


Everything you said doesn't comment on who's most responsible for the result of a policy. Sure, the most influent party does not control events, but they would still be most responsible. If all the nation-states together push for this policy (to do nothing about environmental catastrophe) the most influent party would still be the most responsible. — boethius

I didn’t mean to contradict your claim. I meant to question:
1 - the strength of your accusation: “the most responsible“ is wrt what the US could have done, not wrt what was desirable, they might be very much different. Since that statement doesn’t make any such discrimination, from that sentence we don’t know what more specific facts the US can be legitimately accused of.
2 - its possible implications (e.g. that we should oppose the US leadership). Maybe the US has made big mistakes, that doesn’t exclude that such big mistakes might not be enough good reason to justify opposing the US leadership by the Westerners. It depends on what the viable alternatives are, including other forms of compensation. Even at the national state level, there are no democratic regimes immune from corruption or bad policies, that doesn’t mean one is ready to give up on democracy and move to ISIS theocracy just to give it a try.

The idea that environmentalism is a US policy to begin with is truly remarkable, but we could continue that discussion in the climate change thread. — boethius

I didn’t claim it’s a “US policy” but one of the most direct and self-conscious products of the US-led world.

Who would? — neomac

The question is not who would, the question is "would you?"
You can answer no. Now, I'm pretty sure many members of the Nazi community in Ukraine would genuinely have no upper bound on the sacrifice of Ukrainians they are willing to make to fight the Russians. — boethius

What bothers me in your questions is that they are done in a void of realistic assumptions about human motivations. Given the current war, I doubt that there are Ukrainian Nazis willing to fight to death and promote this attitude among Ukrainians by mere principles or ideological indoctrination. Fighting to death to most ordinary people as well as for indoctrinated people may likely be motivated by traumatising experiences of personal loss and collective memories of oppression and abuses, so these feelings are not rooted in any specific ideology. They are very personal like personal feuds with related sunk costs. For that reason I do not have the pretentiousness of either empathising with or dismissing such feelings. They are part of the human fabric, so instead of repressing them or being judgemental about them, it might be profitable to channel them toward greater goals (for Ukrainians, independent Ukraine from Russia, for the Westerners, contained Russian imperialism).
Said that, until the one in power to take presidential decisions is Zelensky, he has to respond for Ukrainian policies in this war, not the Nazi community. Zelensky must care about the Ukrainians’ views on the war at large, not about fringe movements. At least, this is what I must assume if I believe Ukraine is a sovereign state, which I do. In any case, I have no evidence supporting the claim that Zelensky or Ukrainians “would genuinely have no upper bound on the sacrifice of Ukrainians they are willing to make to fight the Russians”.

Give the example and tell me how many losses would be worthwhile to you (if you had to choose)? — neomac

Deflection, deflection, deflection, as soon as it's "what cost is reasonable" it's somehow all of a sudden a ephemeral netherworld of philosophical speculation we can hardly even scratch the surface of. — boethius

If you talk about “reasonable cost” I would like to understand what the reasoning is, other than your/my gut feelings. If we are talking military, I guess that for a military resistance one needs to take into account really many factors among them the rate of Ukrainian vs Russian people that can be enough trained, equipped and deployed on the battlefield, and their morale. I don’t have the actual figures available to decision makers, nor the military expertise to do the math, nor an insider sense of their morale. I guess neither Russians nor Ukrainians would fight literally to the last man, but they keep their military calculations secret for obvious reasons (e.g. the rule of 1/3 defensive vs offensive doesn’t seem to support an offensive action on either side given the overall deployed manpower on the ground, but depending on given circumstances and other asymmetric advantages this ratio maybe less relevant). I can just guess that they will keep fighting until the ratio in manpower and equipment between opponents supports the idea that there are still decisive moves to be made on the weakest defensive points of the opposing side. Otherwise the war will likely stall, even if there is no declared truce or peace. There is no need to have an anti-American bias to acknowledge that the military situation for the Ukrainians is ugly and chances to regain territories manu miltari are not encouraging. There is no need to have an anti-Russian bias either to acknowledge that Ukrainians might keep fighting as the Afghans kept fighting against foreign occupation, the Palestinians keep fighting and the Kurds who never even had an acknowledged state for their own. For generations. Do you think Afghans, Palestinians, Kurds would be impressed by your “reasonable cost“ line of argument to fight their wars? It’s precisely the frightening idea that “reasonable cost“ for the Russians might be significantly higher than the Westerners could tolerate, that Russian morale is stronger than the Western morale what needs to be countered. That’s the blackmailing trap the Russians, pardon, I meant you, are “proposing” and “recommending” people to fall in. What the Ukrainians are teaching the Westerners, it’s precisely what “morale” it takes to fight for one’s freedom against genocidal authoritarian regimes like Russia.

However, if there was some credible way to just remove Russia from Ukraine and completely end the war and achieve peace (something that I don't believe is actually feasible, but if I'm assuming it is) then 30 000 killed I'd find a reasonable cost, I'd hope for less but be satisfied if spending 30 000 lives achieved this military objective and bought peace with such methods. — boethius

Why 30k ? Why not 3k? Or 300k? And why would it be relevant to anybody that you start feeling uncomfortable at 30k? If one starts feeling uncomfortable only at 60k or hundred times more, what are you going to do about it?

However, if there was some credible way to just remove Russia from Ukraine and completely end the war and achieve peace (something that I don't believe is actually feasible, but if I'm assuming it is) then 30 000 killed I'd find a reasonable cost, I'd hope for less but be satisfied if spending 30 000 lives achieved this military objective and bought peace with such methods.

In the real world, an attempt to remove Russia entirely from Ukraine by force I would expect would cost hundreds of thousands of lives and not succeed, and, even if it did, would not result in peace but the war would still be on. — boethius

Putting these 2 arguments together reinforces the Western concern that Putin is testing a military plan that can be replicated by himself and other potential emulators again: Putin will occupy territories with whatever excuse good for pro-Russian propaganda against neighbouring countries and then threat tactic nukes if there is a serious chance to suffer a decisive conventional military defeat.
That in turn may reinforce the Western motivation to support Ukraine to prevent Russia (and its possible emulators) from being encouraged to replicate the same strategy elsewhere. How? If an outright and full victory is not possible on the battlefield, nor by diplomatic means, then bogging down the Russian military involvement in Ukraine as long and as costly as possible to Russia without escalation measures may be an effective strategy. But that has its costs, obviously. Especially for the Ukrainians.

the main one being not joining NATO (which is only useful to join before the war ... not after the war) — boethius

.

But the threat of war won’t be over even after peace. For example, Russia may still want to get Odessa once it has restored its military capacity or start somewhere else encouraged by a too favourable peace deal. And find other economic and political ways to bully Ukraine, to corrupt its politicians or oligarchs.

The higher the cost paid, the more the stronger party requires compensation for the cost, not less. — "boethius

That might be true also for a weaker but indomitable party.

Your analysis made no sense and I'll ignore it, does not support your conclusion, and your conclusion is false anyways. — boethius

But I can’t ignore that all three accusations lack arguments to support them.

However, to start the analysis an idea of what amount of lives is worthwhile to spend to achieve what must be posited. — boethius

Sure, but that’s not on me to establish. Politicians and military leaders/experts are there to do the job.
At best I can reason over their arguments, and suspend/withdraw my reliance on them if I find their arguments enough questionable. I’ve read elsewhere many if not all of your arguments (like Ukraine won’t be able to regain its territories from 2014, or Russia might use tactical nukes if there is a risk it will lose territories, or the lack of the Western commitment to Ukrainian victory, the peace deal refused by the West). But again I’m more interested to discuss geopolitical and moral implications/assumptions than to discuss the actual status of the Ukrainian military and morale. For the latter I mostly limit myself to get input from more reliable sources.

I discuss policies as any avg dudes who is neither a politician nor an activist. And since I’m in a philosophy forum, I’m interested to explore assumptions and implications without feeling pressed by political/military/economic urgency, or frustrated out of lack of expertise. — neomac

Well, thanks for clarifying you have no idea what you are talking about. — boethius

Well, thanks for clarifying you have no idea what I was talking about.

However, if you're interested in assumptions, the assumption of commanding soldiers to fight in a war is that there is something that can be achieved militarily and the cost in lives is reasonable. The implication of war is people die. — boethius

The other assumption is that I’m not a commanding soldier. So I’ll let other people more credited and qualified than I am to express their competent views on military matters. The war has also geopolitical implications like the rise of the Ukrainian nation against their genocide by the Russians.

Concerning the question about Finland/Europe, you shouldn’t ask me, you should ask Russia. To your questions, I would add mine: e.g. was there any scenario in which Ukraine was invading Russia? Was there any scenario in which NATO or the US was going to invade Russia?
NATO enlargement can grow the military and reputational costs and threats against Russia’s imperialism. That’s the point. — neomac

You made the claim Finland joining NATO is some big geopolitical strategic loss to Russia, I pointed out it doesn't really change anything ... and now you say I should ask Russia about it? — boethius

Again I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand. You asked me “Is there any scenario in which Finland / Europe is going to invade Russia?” as if invading Russia is the only strategic concern for Russia. That is questionable. The Ukrainian case is there to prove it.

The difference with Ukraine compared to Finland is that there is an important Naval base in Crimea, there are lot's of Russian speakers in Ukraine, Ukraine is a former soviet republic, and there is first and foremost an economic conflict over Ukraine (spheres of influence of the major powers).
Finland was never part of the Soviet Union, was squarely part of "the West" and never part of Russia's sphere of influence. There is no conflict between the West and Russia over Finland. — boethius

If that’s the case then invading Russia is not the most realistic security and strategic problem that Russian imperialism has to face. Notice that Putin never presented the Western security threat specifically as a threat to the naval base in Crimea (other points were e.g. denazification Ukraine, NATO neutrality, demilitarisation). Besides Russia has Russian minorities in other ex-soviet union countries and accused other neighbouring countries to have nazi regimes. So the problem is not just what Russia did, but what it might do next if the war ends the way Russia wishes. Russia is challenging the West world order so this war must be assessed in that perspective not just as some beef between Russians and Ukrainians over marginal territorial disputes.
That Finland joins NATO is a problem for Russia for at least 3 reasons:
1 - Reputation: Finland doesn’t fear to anger Russia and feels safer within NATO as other countries who joined NATO.
2 - Security: Russia is compelled to react because if NATO enlargement was a downplayed provocation prior to the war in Ukraine by the Westerners, now Finland joining NATO is an overt provocation to Russia. Since NATO border is widening and the NATO control over the Baltic Sea getting stronger Russia must deal with related security threats.
3 - Network: NATO has become more anti-Russian by having countries like Finland and maybe later Sweden within NATO (counterbalancing the weight of other US allies milder against Russia).

This conflict is the US wanting to expand it's imperial influence in Ukraine and diminish Russia's imperial influence, made the bold move of orchestrating a coup to replace a legitimate leader willing to compromise with Russia (i.e. not insane and in power because many Ukrainians did, maybe still do, support compromise with Russia over conflict and warfare).

There are two empires sorting out the question of who indeed does have more influence over what happens in Ukraine at the end of the day.

Neither empire has a moral case. — boethius

Talking about “a coup to replace a legitimate leader” is a way to dismiss a popular revolt against an illegitimate leader. If it was the case and Russia had by far the popular support of the Ukrainians, I doubt that Western coups would succeed. Besides Ukrainians have a long history of opposing the Russian rule and have suffered for that a great deal (way more than they are doing now in terms of body counts). Even the entanglement with Nazism (as it happened in Finland) was also due to historical grievances with Russia. There is nothing here that the US propaganda invented.
I don’t know what you take to be a “moral case”. And if no wars in human history are grounded in what you consider “a morale case“, then I would find your moral claim useless. As far as I can tell there are no wars that aren’t morally controversial so when we talk about the morality of war we should take into account that moral controversy management is part of the game, and as far as I am concerned, how differently is played in Western democracies vs non-Western-like authoritarian regimes. So if you prefer the former to the latter then you better ask yourself what “reasonable cost“ is worth to spend to keep it that way.

The Rest is not an economic-military-technlogical integrated block yet as much as the West. And again power must be understood in relative advantages, timing, trends. You are unnecessarily focused in the present (which is not what geopolitical agents do when engaged in power struggles). Things my look very differently over the next decades depending on how this war ends. — neomac


That's because actual evidence exists in the present and only speculation exists about the future.
To conclude one speculation is better than another, turns out requires evidence in the present to support. — boethius

You look more pressed to conclude how the West failed practically on all relevant grounds (military, economically, politically, morally) against Russia, based on a very selective view of the evidences you claim to have. So speculations (like in your hypothetical scenarios) are framed accordingly: Russian wins whatever military strategy pursues (annexed territories consolidation, more land grabbing, tactic nukes, wartime economy, alliances with the Rest), the US loses whatever military strategy pursues (with less engagement Russia wins, with greater engagement escalation to nuclear war, with peace on Russian deal-breaker terms then Russia will result victorious). But if the US is losing whatever it does, you should be glad. The primary/entirely responsible for the human suffering and global environment unimaginable devastation for decades is digging its own grave, isn’t that worth millions of Ukrainian deaths over 8 billions world population and more if one considers the well being of future generations? Why isn’t THAT a reasonable cost?

Until EU will build enough unity to support of common foreign strategy and cumulate deterrent/coercive power against competitors like Russia, China and the US.
This war suggests that the EU is not only far from that, but things may go awfully wrong if the alliance with the US will break. The void or significant weakening of American hegemony in Europe can likely boost the economic/military/ideological competition between European countries (the premises are already there, see the divergence between the UK and the EU, Eastern European countries and Western European Countries wrt the war in Ukraine, the rivalries between north Europe and South Europe about the immigrants) which can’t rely on the Western-lead international order, and between global powers (now including the US) which will bring their competition in the heart of Europe worse than in the past decades (including during the Cold War). And will more likely encourage authoritarianism even in Europe, to control ensuing social unrest (the right-wing turn in many European countries may favour this trend). — neomac

This seems accurate.

I don’t claim to be an impartial observer if that means that I do not have preferences or that I didn’t pick a side: I prefer an avg life in the West than an avg life in China, Russia or Iran. I side with a strategy that weakens Russia’s aggressiveness as much as possible. But this partiality is perfectly compatible with objectivity in understanding how the game is being played by competitors. And presenting it as honestly as possible (at least if one is not doing propaganda!). — neomac

This literally means:

“A proponent of US foreign policy” — neomac

If you are supporting the arms supply to Ukraine and the policy of not-negotiating, even frustrating any attempt to do so, but "let them fight".

If you are starting to doubt if the lives this policy costs are worthwhile to spend, then "preferring the Western avg life" does not exclude the idea that Western intervention in Ukraine is not leading the avg Ukrainian to the avg Western life, but to trauma and sadness and death. — boethius

Oh if that’s enough to call me “a proponent of US foreign policy” then you are “a proponent of the Russian foreign policy” since opposition to “supporting the arms supply to Ukraine and the policy of not-negotiating, even frustrating any attempt to do so” is what Russia propaganda does. Actually I’m tempted to say the same for all your arguments.
“Preferring the Western avg life" does not exclude either the idea that the Western LACK OF intervention in Ukraine is not leading the avg Ukrainian to the avg Western life, but to trauma and sadness and death like the Ukrainian genocide during the Soviet Union. Worse, it could lead the avg Western life close to the avg Ukrainian life more than the other way around.

You also seem to agree the US is the world's super power and global hegemon ... and not merely today but, most critically, in the 1990's after the fall of the Soviet Union and before the rise of China US was even more top dog than it is now, and it's that decade that was the most critical for setting climate and environmental policy.

Why wouldn't the party with the most influence and power in setting a policy, not be the most responsible for the results? — boethius

The shortest answer is that to assess such responsibility one should be able to distinguish what is feasible (by the ruler) from what is desirable (by whom? The ruler? Humanity? You?). Being the most influent and powerful ruler on an “anarchic” international system doesn’t necessarily imply that the ruler has enough power to reset the world according to what is desirable on a global scale (BTW the scientific investigations on the global environmental effects of human development, its promotion and popularisation are all integral part of the US-led world, so global environmental self-awareness are also a product of the evil American demiurge).

Would you be willing to sacrifice a million Ukrainians on the battlefield and still lose, a more-or-less fight to the death scenario, as the principle is more important than the result? — boethius

Who would?

Do you find it acceptable the losses since Russia's offer last spring (assuming the offer was genuine: give-up claim to Crimea, independent Donbas) in the event the lines do not change further? — boethius

Who would?

Would the losses since the Russian's offer be worth it in the event Ukraine outright loses? — boethius

Why would they?

Finally, to achieve the goal of removing Russia further from Ukraine, both including and excluding Crimea, how many losses would you (if you had to choose) be worthwhile? — boethius

Give the example and tell me how many losses would be worthwhile to you (if you had to choose)?

If you want to discuss, don't deflect further with "Ukrainians want to fight it's not my decision, the West is just supplying arms", but engage in the argument and put yourself in the position of choosing the number of lives for the given scenario. Certainly you'd be willing to sacrifice 1 Ukrainian to achieve complete removal of Russia from Ukraine if it was both possible and your decision to make (I'd make the same decision; one life for the complete end of the war? no hesitation, will obviously save many more lives than the war continuing), so just keep increasing the number from there until you either reach a zone where you start to be uncomfortable (100 000, 200 000, 500 000) or then never become uncomfortable and inform us every single Ukrainian life is worth sacrificing to remove Russia from Ukraine. — boethius

Give the example and tell me what’s the number you start feeling uncomfortable with.

And these sorts of decisions are part of NATO military training (which I've done) that the cost in lives must be justified by the worth of the objective achieved. The mere fact the other side is presumably "bad" (otherwise why are we fighting them) does not justify fighting at all cost to both your own troops as well as civilians. We are willing to sacrifice X to achieve Y is the fundamental framework of all military decision making. — "boethius

Your questions are all heavily framed to hint an obvious answer.
But I’m questioning the framing for the following reasons:
1 - Context: as the Multivac would answer, “insufficient data for meaningful answer.” (cit.). Am I the president of Ukraine or some avg non-Ukrainian dude? What does “lose” mean? Just lose a battle or the war, and what does losing the war implies? What principle are we talking about? The principle of of being free to buy a second mobile phone or the principle of keeping the nation free from subjugation, exploitation, or genocide? What does “at all cost” mean? Context is always much richer of relevant details, constraints and uncertainties that are relevant for decision making, than your framed & simplistic hypothetical scenarios may suggest. Besides many assessments can be done only a posteriori, if done in advance they may be speculations as plausible as others, even if they turned out to be the best approximation to reality, later on.
2 - “Morale” vs “moral”: to me, the two notions may be related but they do not refer to the same things. “Morale” is a psychological condition. It has to do with motivation, emotional resilience, discipline, "having the guts". It’s unreasonable to expect/require that an avg dude not directly involved in the war has the “morale” or can empathise with the “morale” of those involved in the war. It’s unreasonable to expect/require that ordinary individuals have the “morale” of trained and leading political/military/decision-maker figures (it’s not by chance that division of labor and labor specialization exist also in the political and military context).
“Moral” has to do with reasons to act in a certain way. One may have “morale” to pursue “immoral goals“ and one may not have the “morale” to pursue “moral goals“. The result of your psychological test may be good to assess “morale” or capacity of empathising with involved parties’ morale (I even doubt that because we are talking about hypothetical scenarios), but it doesn’t equate to a moral assessment of the reasons behind a war.
3 - “Military” vs “geo/political”: to me, the two notions may be related but they do not refer to the same things. A geo/political strategy doesn’t coincide with a military strategy. Military strategies are way more constrained than geopolitical strategies, and also subordinated to geopolitical strategies. "War is the continuation of policy with other means" (cit.). I’m obviously very much interested in military arguments from experts, and military analysis about how much the Ukrainians can afford to sacrifice as a function of military objectives. And I do not mean to discount them at all, but they are one aspect of a geopolitical strategy. An example is the Bakhmut battle, which is said by many military analysts to be of little strategic importance to justify the heavy losses on both sides, yet it has now gained great political importance (for its reputational costs? For the morale of all supporters within and outside Ukraine?).

Conclusion: I don’t answer your questions not because I’m emotionally uncomfortable, but because I’m intellectually uncomfortable to answer heavily framed questions for which I can't provide a meaningful answer (even if I was tempted to answer them exactly the way you would answer them). I’m interested to argue about morality and geopolitics, not about morale and military.

Then you have no place in policy discussion about warfare, because that's what it's about. — boethius

I discuss policies as any avg dudes who is neither a politician nor an activist. And since I’m in a philosophy forum, I’m interested to explore assumptions and implications without feeling pressed by political/military/economic urgency, or frustrated out of lack of expertise. As I argued in other occasions, I think all these points need to be addressed to make sense of the impact of a policy:
1. Values: saving lives may not be all that matters. Freedoms and welfare count too.
2. Present vs future: saving life or standard of life now as compared to saving future lives and standard of life.
3. Actual vs counterfactual: saving life or standard of life by actually doing X vs saving life or standard of life by counterfactually doing Y
4. Strategy: the relative risk&payoff of a strategy (relative to other players’ strategy) is more relevant than its absolute risk&payoff of that strategy.
5. Bounded rationality/morality: all relevant actors have a limited cognitive resources to process consequences of different strategies, and will to respond adequately to moral imperatives. The cumulative effects of all these limits introduce imponderable constraints in all policies.
6. Matrix of competitive/cooperative strategies: every individual and group of individuals is immersed in a multi-dimensional matrix of cooperative and competitive games which are totally a-priori uncoordinated (precisely because coordination is the more or less stable result of how these games are actually played)
7. History: historical legacies (power relations, bad habits, bad memories, historical debts) from past generations hunt current generations despite their current dispositions.
8. Decision process: how much the decision is concentrated in the hands of few and hierarchical the chain of command.

But I don’t see how all such points can neatly fit into a reliable mathematical formula that gives anybody the best moral guidance in quantifiable terms (like a body count) easily computable by anybody. To have something quantifiable one needs to give for granted lots of shared assumptions on a computable set of variables. In other words, as far as I’m concerned, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to calculate and execute an optimal strategy in practical sense, and a certain degree of fault-tolerance for mistakes and even big mistakes may be required because nobody can prove to be able to do better just “in theory”. For that reason, I’m skeptical about responsibility attributions which do not take into account such predicament, but instead look for a convenient scapegoat to blame for man-made world catastrophes.
In any case, if I do not have place in policy discussion about warfare in moral terms WITH YOU because that’s what it’s about TO YOU, why do you keep addressing my comments?

Why don’t you pick whatever historical example and show me how YOU would do the math? Here is an example: ”Civilian deaths during the war include air raid deaths, estimates of German civilians killed only by Allied strategic bombing have ranged from around 350,000 to 500,000.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II). By taking into account that the civilian deaths were estimated in the range of 350,000-500,000, do you calculate that it was morally worth bombing Nazi Germany or not? How did you calculate it?

Exactly why strategic bombing is so controversial is that it's difficult to argue it saved more lives than it cost, which is the usual framework for these sorts of calculations. — boethius

OK, give me a historical example of hundred of thousands of innocent civilians killed were morally worth the cost, because my suspect is that you are NOT doing any math. You are simply convinced that there is no historical example of wars with massive casualties also among innocent civilians that was morally worth fighting. But if that is the case, you are offering an argument against wars (defensive and offensive), not against this war, and independently from who started it or provoked it.

Certainly Russia's reputation is decreased in the West ... but is it really true world wide? Vis-a-vis China, India, most developing nations? Certainly not enough for these nations to stop trading with Russia.[/quota]

Most likely, Russia looks weaker (than prior to the war) and particularly needy to the Rest too. Indeed, they exploit Russia’s predicament to reap the benefits and blackmail the West. For that reason India and China may want the war to last as long as possible. But without too much exposure so far, indeed if India and China felt so confident to challenge the West, they would support Russia’s war more openly and directly as Iran is doing.

— boethius

- Security costs: e.g. NATO enlargement and the rearming of European countries — neomac

Is there any scenario in which Finland / Europe is going to invade Russia? Does any of that actually matter in the current geopolitical "power struggle" as you put it? — boethius

Concerning the question about Finland/Europe, you shouldn’t ask me, you should ask Russia. To your questions, I would add mine: e.g. was there any scenario in which Ukraine was invading Russia? Was there any scenario in which NATO or the US was going to invade Russia?
NATO enlargement can grow the military and reputational costs and threats against Russia’s imperialism. That’s the point.

That's how political blocks work. If you are in a geopolitical power struggle with the West, then being economically tied to the West exposes you to coercion (the whole point of the sanctions). Sure, Iran and Saudi Arabia (and obviously China and India) have more influence with Russia, but there's no evidence right now these parties are seeking to harm Russia through those economic ties and influence, whereas that's very clearly the West, and in particular the US', stated policy since decades (containment, no "peer competitors" can rise in any region etc.). — boethius

The Rest is not an economic-military-technlogical integrated block yet as much as the West. And again power must be understood in relative advantages, timing, trends. You are unnecessarily focused in the present (which is not what geopolitical agents do when engaged in power struggles). Things my look very differently over the next decades depending on how this war ends.
Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have increased their influence in the Middle East (e.g. Syria), Central Asia (e.g. Armenia vs Azerbaijan), and Africa (e.g. Sudan) at the expense of Russia.
China looks still interested to keep relations with the EU and to protract the Ukrainian war at the expense of the US, but not to the point of escalate it and be heavily dragged into the Ukrainian war by Russia. So if the EU (more precisely France and Germany) find a way to mediate between China and the US, that too might be bad for Russia too.

The primary reason Germany and France would be fed up with the US is that the US creates this mess in Ukraine and then also blows up European infrastructure. But, otherwise, I agree that the US' main competitor in this conflict is the EU and the possibility of the Euro emerging as a "peer competitor" to the USD. — boethius

Until EU will build enough unity to support of common foreign strategy and cumulate deterrent/coercive power against competitors like Russia, China and the US.
This war suggests that the EU is not only far from that, but things may go awfully wrong if the alliance with the US will break. The void or significant weakening of American hegemony in Europe can likely boost the economic/military/ideological competition between European countries (the premises are already there, see the divergence between the UK and the EU, Eastern European countries and Western European Countries wrt the war in Ukraine, the rivalries between north Europe and South Europe about the immigrants) which can’t rely on the Western-lead international order, and between global powers (now including the US) which will bring their competition in the heart of Europe worse than in the past decades (including during the Cold War). And will more likely encourage authoritarianism even in Europe, to control ensuing social unrest (the right-wing turn in many European countries may favour this trend).

It's difficult to interpret this as something other than being a proponent of US foreign policy.

But if you really want to believe yourself to be some impartial observer, then we can discuss on that basis. If that's true you should have even less problem answering questions of what you feel is a reasonable sacrifice to achieve what, as you can be more objective in evaluating the costs and the benefits. — boethius

I don’t claim to be an impartial observer if that means that I do not have preferences or that I didn’t pick a side: I prefer an avg life in the West than an avg life in China, Russia or Iran. I side with a strategy that weakens Russia’s aggressiveness as much as possible. But this partiality is perfectly compatible with objectivity in understanding how the game is being played by competitors. And presenting it as honestly as possible (at least if one is not doing propaganda!).
“A proponent of US foreign policy” to me means being engaged in political propaganda as an activist or a politician to support the US in general or in this war. I’m neither. I’m not here to fix the world. To solicit people in this thread to press our politicians to support more the US in Ukraine or to express my moral outrage against those who oppose the US in Ukraine or to spread memes boosting “morale” for one party against the other. That’s not what I’m doing. That’s the kind of activity you and your sidekicks are doing.
I’m here just for the fun of re-ordering my beliefs and assumptions in a more rationally compelling format, while challenging other interlocutors to do the same.
Finally, to repeat it once more, I can try to answer only questions that at least make sense to me: e.g. asking what you feel is a reasonable sacrifice to achieve what doesn’t “feel reasonable” to me. And it's symptomatic that you didn't answer it either.

However, if you want to argue climate change isn't happening, species loss isn't happening for this and a bunch of other reasons as well, or this environmental destruction, to the extent you agree it's happening, won't be extremely bad, better to argue that in the climate change thread.
For this thread, I'm sure you can appreciate that someone who concludes the environment has been grossly mismanaged and the US primarily responsible, won't assign much moral superiority to US foreign policy. — boethius

I’m neither arguing that “climate change isn’t happening” nor that “won't be extremely bad”. I’m questioning your way of assigning responsibility and its implications.

Of course, the debate remains, even in your basic framework of "US good", as to whether the war in Ukraine is morally justified if it is sacrificing Ukrainians for this US "rules based order" without any benefit to Ukrainians.

As well, even assuming it's true that it's morally justified to sacrifice Ukrainians (or let them sacrifice themselves for Western purposes), if the war is actually harming Russia and benefiting the US. — boethius

I already argued against this miscaracterization of my views.
- my basic framework of "US good” as opposed to your basic framework “Russia good”, “Iran good”, “China good”, “North Korea good”?
- the war in Ukraine is morally justified if it is sacrificing Ukrainians for this US "rules based order” as opposed to “the war in Ukraine is morally justified if it is killing,raping,deporting,destroying Ukrainians for Russia anti-West order?
- "without any benefit to Ukrainians" as opposed to “without any benefit to Russians”?
I questioned the assumption that the West “is sacrificing” the Ukrainians.

As yet, no pro-US policy proponent here has answer the question of how many Ukrainian lives are worthwhile to sacrifice to accomplish what objectives. — boethius

I can’t answer such a question if I don’t know how I am supposed to do the math or if it makes sense. Why don’t you pick whatever historical example and show me how YOU would do the math? Here is an example: ”Civilian deaths during the war include air raid deaths, estimates of German civilians killed only by Allied strategic bombing have ranged from around 350,000 to 500,000.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II). By taking into account that the civilian deaths were estimated in the range of 350,000-500,000, do you calculate that it was morally worth bombing Nazi Germany or not? How did you calculate it?

Likewise, if Russia survives sanctions, as they seem to be doing, and stabilise the front, which they seem to be doing, and continue their arms manufacturing, which they seem to be doing, how exactly does this war harm Russia's geopolitical standing, compared to increasing power and influence and put them in a position to strike deals with Iran and Saudi Arabia for example? — boethius

It has already harmed Russian’s political standing:
- Reputational costs: e.g. Russian military standing didn’t impress on the battlefield
- Security costs: e.g. NATO enlargement and the rearming of European countries
- Economic costs: e.g. economic decoupling between Russia and the West
It’s Russia which increased power and influence, or it’s Iran and Saudi Arabia that increased power and influence over Russia?

Now, if Russia is gaining power and but China even moreso, for all the reasons we've discussed and you seem to agree with, ok, sure, maybe Russia's relative power vis-a-vis China is decreased, but if this China led block that includes Russia, in whatever influence you want to assign them, is on the whole increasing in power, how is this good for the US? — boethius

What might be the lesser evil for the US is to break a Western-lead globalization which was benefiting more EU, Russia and China than the US. And re-compact the West in a logic of political, economic, security blocks as in the Cold War. But this attempt may fail not necessarily because of Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia have significantly increased power and influence. But because of EU, in particular Germany and France ,are fed up with the US. Or because of a domestic internal crisis in the US.

You are obviously a proponent of US foreign policy with regard to this Ukraine war, if your justification is that it's good for US empire then that's your justification. — boethius

We discussed that already. I’m not a “proponent of US foreign policy”. One thing is to try to make sense of what the US is doing, another is to decide what do about it. As far as I am personally concerned, independently from what the US does, I can only say as much: I’m a person who prefers to enjoy standards of life, freedoms or economic opportunities of avg Western people instead of enjoying standards of life, freedoms or economic opportunities for avg people living in authoritarian regimes like Russia, China or Iran. Therefore I’m inclined to see as a threat an increase of power and aggressiveness of such authoritarian regimes at the expense of the West. If the West can and wants to do something against such threat, then I would welcome it. And since I’m aware of how messy and dirty human history is, I limit myself to reason in terms of lesser evil.

:up:

That’s what I asked you because that is what Tzeench claimed “the western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII” and that is how you interpreted it: “The one that causes most death and misery”. — neomac


@Tzeentch's claim here is pretty easy to support.

We are literally in a 6th mass extinction event heading towards civilisational collapse that is entirely due to US policy and acquiescence of their fellow Western acolytes, not to mention pollution of various other forms as well as neo-colonialism and US imperialism (however "soft" you want to call it -- being smothered by a pillow can have the exact same end result as being stabbed in the chest).

Now, if you want to argue that the Soviet Union, China and India weren't and aren't any better and would have done equally bad or worse things (and did and do their best to help destroy the planet as second and third fiddles) had they been the dominant super power and setting the terms of world trade, I'd have no problem agreeing to that.

But the reality is that the dominant power since WWII setting most economic policies on the planet (what and how things are produced) has been the US, and the consequence has been destruction on a hitherto unimaginable scale.

Unsustainability literally equates to destruction, that's what it means: destroying the ecosystems we require for survival, not to mention a host of other species.

And global unsustainability has been a Western choice, championed by the US and supported by their vassals. The policies for sustainability are pretty easy and known since the 60s (public transport, renewable energy, less meat eating, sustainable fishing, strict care what chemicals are allowed in the environment and how much, and farming in ways compatible with biodiversity and soil protection) and since the 60s the policies critical to sustainability could have been easily implemented to create a smooth transition.

The War on Terror, and now this conflict with Russia and China, are sideshows to the main event. — boethius

“Setting most economic policies on the planet (what and how things are produced) has been the US” may have significantly contributed to many events: triplication of the World population, peace/ greater wellbeing/cultural emancipation in Europe, technological progress, rise of competing powers (like China and Russia), not just destruction of “the ecosystems we require for survival” or its destruction on a “unimaginable scale” (whatever that means). But even acknowledging the latter won’t be much of a help in conceiving a realistic strategy to fix the world. The point is still the same: enforcing policies on a global scale effectively and stably is possible only if there is enough economic/coercive power (which I doubt the US/the West still have, if they ever had it). But such power doesn’t come for free (i.e. not all humanity will benefit from it, no possible cynical abuses or nasty unintentional consequences can be systematically prevented) nor without consensus (e.g. by being the perceived as the lesser evil wrt realistic alternatives). The point is that no long term goal policies (whatever they are) can be ensured if there isn’t enough economic/coercive power to support it, so no economic/coercive power will be likely spent by political elites to pursue such policies if that is perceived as just loss of power for themselves and/or for serving their base. Conclusion: until humanity can’t self-govern by itself (how?) and will rely on politicians to do what they are incapable or unwilling to spontaneously do by themselves, then the politicians will reason in terms of power to govern people for the good or the bad (including an unimaginable scale of human or environmental damage) with the populace’s or workers’ consensus as long as this is perceived to be the lesser evil.

Which, as I've mentioned before, is the counter argument to your actual position:

Sure, here I restate it again and bolden it: The end game for NATO/US involvement in this war doesn’t need to be to stop Russia or overturn its regime. But to inflict as much enduring damage as possible to Russian power (in terms of its economic system, its system of alliance, its capacity of military projection outside its borders, its its technology supply, its military and geopolitical status) to the point it is not longer perceived as a non-negligible geopolitical threat to the West. Outrageous right?! — neomac


The West has no moral high ground. I wish it did, but it doesn't and so there is no justification to "inflict as much enduring damage as possible to Russian power" because there is no moral superiority. Our system is no better than the Russian system and arguably far worse (if only due to scale). Russian imperialism is a pretty banal reflection of our own imperialism, far from being in some different and worse category, and is far less destructive for the reasons Isaac has outlined in some detail (mainly as it's regional and not global).

The West is not a responsible steward of global affairs and so there is simply not much moral differentiation that justifies sacrificing so many Ukrainians for the US policy of inflicting enduring damage on Russia, as you eloquently put it, which is debatable if that's even happening. — boethius

First, power struggles do not need moral justification to make sense. And most certainly they do not need to be grounded on your understanding of “moral justification” (which I find questionable for reasons I argued a while ago). Power struggles can simply raise from security concerns that transcend specific ideologies. And the intervention of the West in Ukraine is meant to frustrate threats from powerful anti-West competitors, independently from the question of who are the good guys or the bad guys. On the other side, your “morally justified” policies (whatever they are) would need massive concentration of coercive and economic power to be enforced on an international scale. So until you show me compelling evidences to support the idea that Russia or China (as US power competitors) or Europeans have means and will to enforce an ecologist program on a global scale more effectively than what the US can do, I’ll keep believing yours is just wishful thinking.
Second, if “Russian imperialism is a pretty banal reflection of our own imperialism” is reiterating the idea of the provocations from NATO enlargement or the US/Western intervention in the Middle East or in ex-Yugoslavia, then the argument would sound more compelling if it wasn’t for the entire history of Russia until Putin and the memories it left or the impression it leaves in neighbouring countries like Ukraine.
Third, that “our system is no better than the Russian system and arguably far worse (if only due to scale)” is debatable. In some relevant sense there must be a very significant difference in standards of life, freedoms or economic opportunities otherwise people would have more incentives to migrate from the West to China, Russia, Iran than the other way around. Even Russian, Chinese and Iranian political/economic/ideological elites’ kids enjoy studying and living in the West more than the other way around. And your claim would sound hypocritical if said by a Westerner who still prefers to enjoy standards of life, freedoms or economic opportunities of avg Western people instead of enjoying standards of life, freedoms or economic opportunities for avg people living in Russia, China or Iran.

you tried to back him up with more handwaving. One can't fairly accuse others of "vacuous handwaving" while indulging on his own vacuous handwaving. That was the whole point of the two previous posts and I clearly stated so. — neomac


Yes. And I'm clearly stating that your claim of 'handwaiving' is not a "sharply formed, evidence-accompanied type of claim" and so fails your own requirements. You simply declared it to be so. You require of others what you fail to supply yourself. — Isaac

You dishonestly chopped out “from somebody accusing me of handwaving” again. I wasn’t the one who started accusing others of “vacuously handwaving”. Baden accused me of “vacuously handwaving” in the first place. And you backed him up. So I retorted: it’s on you both to give the example first, then you may challenge opponents to reciprocate. But you didn’t, so there is nothing on me to reciprocate.

Suggesting a vague relation between what I’m asking now and what you reported in the past, doesn’t prove that you already offered evidences to answer my question. — neomac

No. You actually taking the bare minimum of effort to look back (or even remember) what has been offered already is what would prove that. The evidence has been given. I'm not going to re-supply it every time it's asked for because the asking is itself just a rhetorical trick to make your opponent's positions sound un-evidenced. If you genuinely have just forgotten or didn't noticed you would be making a polite request for a repeat. You're not. — Isaac

Sir, would you kindly provide pertinent evidence which I was asking here: “Do you mean that since the end of WW2 until today at least more than 50% of the non-Western World misery (=poverty and sickness?) and death was the direct and exclusive consequence of ‘the western world under US leadership’’s policies? All right. Quote your preferred expert’s report concluding as much. Or prove it yourself”?

I claimed “I abundantly argued” and that’s a fact. I didn’t claim you agreed or you found my arguments persuasive or that the magical expected effect was changing your mind. — neomac

Then why "apart from the fact…”? If 'the fact' consists of nothing but your having written what you consider to be an argument, then my response doesn't stand "apart from" that fact, it stands alongside it. I've not disputed the mere fact that you've written copious words. I've, in fact commented several times on the inordinate length of your posts. — Isaac

Because I was accused of “vacuous handwaving” by Baden but I offered arguments that he or whoever else is interested can address. There is nothing in the accusations of “copious words” or “inordinate length of your posts” that contradicts the fact that I provided arguments. And if my arguments are vacuous handwaving I want to see who isn’t handwaving here when talking about geopolitics and morality.

A part from the fact that you were talking about calculations not me and that your defence of Baden’s accusations of “handwaving” against me is handwaving in all sorts of directions, but the point is that there is no way to get rid of the speculative and approximative dimension of geopolitical and moral considerations. That’s why a pretentious accusation of “vacuous handwaving” (or “give me the metrics“ or “no shred of evidence”) which you tried so clumsily to defend, is doomed to be self-defeating. — neomac


Bollocks. It's an absurd argument to say that if one cannot provide the actual mathematical calculations we are therefore in some hyper-relativistic world of speculation and hand-waiving. A bomb is more destructive than a stick. I don't need to do the maths, but nor is it mere speculation. — Isaac

You lost track of what I was talking about. When I asked “What is “taking into account” “those victims’ lives” supposed to mean?”. You answered: Including them in the calculation about what course of action we ought morally support. I abundantly and repeatedly argued against an “accounting model“ (not only against you), and I didn’t receive any compelling counter-argument, mostly just cheap dismissals like “inordinate length”, “copious words“. As I summarised previously: “there is no way to get rid of the speculative and approximative dimension of geopolitical and moral considerations”, that’s why cheap accusations of “vacuous handwaving” can be as cheaply retorted. In other words, “taking into account” “those victims’ lives” can be done, and it’s done, even without giving an exact and reliable estimate of the moral/geopolitical costs of certain policies (e.g. in the military context, how can one exactly estimate “morale” and “morale difference” in opposing armies when the war is ongoing? But morale is relevant in the conflict as much as affected by losses, among other factors). And if that’s true for experts, it is even more so for avg dudes.

In this thread, we have abundantly seen how problematic is to talk about “demonstrable effect” depending on the nature of the facts (e.g. an accounting of the victims of an ongoing war), the reliability of the source of information (e.g. if it’s mainstream or not mainstream, if it comes from Russia or Western sources of information etc.), the time range in which one wants to see the effects (the chain of effects is in principle endless which can cumulate and clash in unpredictable ways), the relevance of such effects (there might be all sorts of effects not all equally relevant for all interested parties, e.g. not all Ukrainians and Russians think that nationalities are just flags), the explanatory power presupposed by “effects” and “policies” (depending on the estimated counterfactuals, and implied responsibilities), and so on. — neomac


I don't know why you keep thinking this is a remotely interesting line of argument. Yes, different ways of working things out yield different answers. The same is true of your arguments (despite your pretence to some AI-like hyper-rationalism). So what? That just means that the matter is underdetermined - which is the argument I've been making all along. we choose which argument to believe. — Isaac

Because as long as human beings do not work out their moral/political differences and can’t tolerate each other, nor can avoid each other, then they will likely fight each other, as it happens in Ukraine.
The fact that human beings fail to work out differences is not necessarily a failure in rationality: i.e. opponents can overall be both rational, or both irrational, or one rational and the other irrational. 2 chess players can rationally move in compliance with basic rules and with sensible strategies, yet have opposing endgames. In a war between Russia and the West, it’s a rational move for Russia to run anti-West propaganda the most effectively they can, and for the West to run anti-Russia propaganda the most effectively they can. If it is rational for Russia to react to Western provocations, it is rational for the West to constrain potential competitors. If it is rational for Russia to threat nuclear escalation, it is rational for the West to not show panic. And the examination can go on, toward more general assumptions (e.g. the rationality of wars) or toward more specific assumptions (e.g. the rationality of supporting Ukraine the way the US did so far).
Concerning claims such as “the matter is undertermined“ and “we choose which argument to believe”, what is the argument? How do these claims support Baden’s accusation of “vacuously handwaving” against me? And if one chooses to believe in arguments, then why is there any need for arguments at all? One can choose to believe any claim without arguments.
If we are rational we can’t choose to believe fallacious arguments or arguments grounded on premises we find implausible. As long as there are reliable and shared epistemic rules to establish what premises are plausible and what arguments are fallacious we can converge in our assessments about statements and arguments. And if one fails them then this would be an unintentional rational failure, not a choice. If two arguments reach opposite conclusions from equally plausible premises, then one suspends judgement, not choose which argument is right.
“Choosing to believe an argument” happens when we do not engage in rational examination of our certain arguments on their own merits either because we can’t as when we trust experts or because we do not want to as when we indulge in wishful thinking.

“Diplomacy” requires leverage namely exploiting or exploitable dependencies over often unfairly distributed scarce resources (related to market opportunities, commodities at a cheaper price, or economic retaliation, military deterrence/escalation, territorial concessions, etc.) — neomac


Not at all. It can appeal to humanity, to popular opinion. It can appeal to public image, future stakes, the willingness to avoid mutual destruction. there's all sorts of levers for diplomacy that are not traditional forms of power. — Isaac

First of all, the examples I offered weren’t meant to be an exhaustive list (that’s why I put “etc.”), and the examples you suggested are nothing worth the qualification of “not traditional”. Most certainly, I didn’t mean to exclude “public image” among the leverages of power struggles, I argued about reputational costs in the international arena on several occasions. But the main argument is still the same: also good reputation needs to be capitalised by elites if it serves to win power struggles (that’s particularly evident when ideologies are involved like when we talk about the Roman Empire converting to Christianity or the end of slavery in American Civil War or Putin allying with the Orthodox Church). And the fight between Western democracies and authoritarian anti-West regimes is matter of reputation as well.
Second, “appeal to humanity, to popular opinion”, “public image” fall in the domain of propaganda for public consumption with related risks of hypocrisy or exploitation (like any “panem et circenses” of the past). Power struggles can boost propaganda wars as in this war where Russia (along with China) is expressly challenging the Western world order, the Western notion of human rights, sovereignty, international laws, US leadership. So those kinds of appeals may work for diplomatic compromises as much as to nurture propaganda wars (like when the Russians accuse the West of using Ukrainians as “cannon fodder”). And precisely because propaganda wars as much as economic and military wars can be threatened that they can be the content of a diplomatic pressure, as prospected by Western analysts when talking about military defeating Russia, but offering Putin something he could claim as a “victory” for his internal propaganda.
Third, most importantly, “appeal to humanity, to popular opinion”, “public image” do not necessarily offset imbalance on other leverages of power. That’s the diplomatic lesson given by Thucydides’ Melian dialogue: the power with greatest economic/coercive resources will impose its will over the much smaller power and the diplomatic argument would simply be like “if you want to survive, surrender to our dominance” from the former to the latter. For the same reason, also the allusion of “willingness to avoid mutual destruction” presupposes power to destruct each other e.g. in the form of nuclear arsenals. BTW the US, while leading “the most destructive force on Earth since WWII”, was running the risk of a mutual destruction situation and it didn’t screw up. It even promoted denuclearisation. So maybe the US too is not doomed to screw up after all.

“Sustainable development” and “fair trade“ presuppose public infrastructures, compliance to contracts, a financing flow efficiently allocated to say the least which all require a massive concentration of economic and coercive power. — neomac


No they don't. Things can be fairly traded on trust. and there's absolutely no requirement for "massive coercive power" to simply grow sustainably. what's more, the largest and most powerful force is, as history has repeated shown us, the populace. People strive for their well-being and will strive against authorities which seek to suppress it. It's people who represent the greatest coercive force. Mobilising those people is what drives progress. — Isaac

Maybe “the populace” drives progress and holds the greatest coercive power, but I still see elites in power practically everywhere, since states have been formed. And whenever the populace revolted, even when if that contributed to regime change, they just put new elites in power, sometimes as bad if not worse than the elites they revolted against.
Can you kindly provide examples of goods “fairly traded on trust” between countries, sir?

“International law” and “human rights courts” presuppose the monopoly of a coercive power (the opposite of disarmement) to be enforced or powerful economic leverage (whose effectiveness depends on how unfairly economic resources are distributed) — neomac


again, it does no such thing. Human rights laws were instigated against the will of those in power by force of will from those subject to that power. they are a restraint on power that was opposed at every step. People in power are (or should be) afraid of those over whom they have power. Governments are afraid of revolution. Company boards are afraid of strikes. Leaders are afraid of non-compliance. The moment they're not we get no progress at all. Human Rights are the result of that fear, not the exercise of their power. — Isaac

A part from the fact that fear of social unrest is what turns many political elites to be authoritarian and suppress “human rights”. Indeed what would be the point of being authoritarian if the populace is spontaneously submissive?
Anyways I didn’t talk about the genesis of “human rights laws”, I talked about their enforcement. And to enforce laws one needs the monopoly of coercive power (if not in theory, in practice). But the tragedy in “international law” (differently from national laws) is that there is no superior coercive power, so states have to ensure the means of their own security. You must know all that because you champion Mearsheimer’s offensive realism.

“Democratic reforms” can happen only if there is democracy (and assumed we share the notion of “democracy”), so how can democratic reforms happen when one has to deal with non-democratic regimes in building institutions like “International law” and “human rights courts” that should support and protect democratic institutions? — neomac


People. It was the people who brought down the Ceaușescu regime, not armies or international law. Workers. — Isaac

So now we do not need international laws anymore nor armies (yet Ceaușescu’s communist regime precipitated when his army turned against him, so I’m not sure it’s a good example), workers are enough (should we assume that the Romanian workers very happy after the fall of Ceaușescu, democracy and wealth spreading all around, no more corrupted elites, human rights raining everywhere?). Where are the workers revolting against Putin, Xi Jin Ping, Kim Jong-un, Ebrahim Raissi? What are they waiting for?
Besides, are you suggesting Western workers or populace should make a revolution against Western governments? Start a civil war against “the most destructive force on Earth since WWII”? If not, why not? After all given the following superlatives and bold expressions of anonymous outrage, populace and workers of the globe should mass revolt against the US all at once yesterday, shouldn't they? What was slavery in the US, absolute monarchy in France, Russia, China or Iran compared to what the US is doing to the entire earth at an unimaginable scale?!
“The western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII by an incredibly large margin, having positively ruined dozens of countries.”
“the one that causes most death and misery”
“We are literally in a 6th mass extinction event heading towards civilisational collapse that is entirely due to US policy and acquiescence of their fellow Western acolytes, not to mention pollution of various other forms as well as neo-colonialism and US imperialism”
“the dominant power since WWII setting most economic policies on the planet (what and how things are produced) has been the US, and the consequence has been destruction on a hitherto unimaginable scale.”
“Our system is no better than the Russian system and arguably far worse (if only due to scale). Russian imperialism is a pretty banal reflection of our own imperialism, far from being in some different and worse category, and is far less destructive for the reasons Isaac has outlined in some detail (mainly as it's regional and not global)”

“Dis-coupling of politics from industrial influence (share holdings and lobbying)” like in China, Russia, North Korea, Iran you mean? Like in the Roman, Mongol, Islamic, Carolingian Empire you mean? Like in some Taliban village or in some aboriginal tribe in the Amazon forest? — neomac


The latter. If something's not having been done in recent history is your only argument against it being possible then I can see why our politics are at such odds. Had homosexuals ever been allowed to marry in law before this millennia? Good job you weren't involved in that campaign. Had slavery ever been outlawed before the eighteenth century? Did women previously have the vote and merely had it returned to them in 1928?

The idea that if a thing doesn't have precedent it can't happen is utterly absurd. — Isaac

Where on earth did I write that “a thing doesn't have precedent it can't happen”? You persistently lose track of what I’m arguing, or don’t understand it and make random objections. What I argued is that concentration of power leverages (economic, coercive, ideological, etc.) is a common trait of political entities we live in, namely states, and such concentration of power is required to enforce rules over wide enough territories and population. This is true from the earliest historical formation of states, it’s constitutive of them, that’s why there is no precedent. Acknowledging that there are no precedents, it’s relevant to investigate the reasons behind such phenomenon. The examples you are bringing up do not question my assumption, they confirm it in the most evident way: there was no homosexual, women, slavery revolutions led by the oppressed ones for their emancipation (“revolution” as in “French revolution”, “Russian revolution”, “Chinese revolution“, “Iranian revolution”) in any major state constituting the Western world. But there were homosexuals, women, blacks which allied with some pre-existing elite political power in a battle against other political competitors. It is claimed by some that none of such social changes ended exploitation and discrimination for blacks, women, workers. Exploitation and discrimination just evolved in new forms, to some, more tolerable, to others, still intolerable, or widened into something catastrophic if not apocalyptic (e.g. “the western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII”, “the dominant power since WWII setting most economic policies on the planet (what and how things are produced) has been the US, and the consequence has been destruction on a hitherto unimaginable scale”, “Our system is no better than the Russian system and arguably far worse (if only due to scale)”). The point is that if one day there will be a decoupling of “industries” and “politics” the concentration of leverages of power will come in some other form (which doesn’t mean you or the populace or the workers will like it better). An example is the emergence of powerful elites leading the technological revolution of information which are competing with elites dominating more traditional technologies. As I already argued, competing moral or ideological movements require power to win over competitors (practical rationality demands it), so typically either they harvest economic/coercive power within them (which often leads to the emergence of a new powerful elites) or they rely and ally with on pre-existing power to succeed.
The end of the American hegemony in favour of authoritarian regimes won’t change that, I don’t even see how this could be a first step in that direction. The void of American hegemony will more likely boost the economic/military/ideological competition between European countries (the premises are already there, see the divergence between the UK and the EU, Eastern European countries and Western European Countries wrt the war in Ukraine, the rivalries between north Europe and South Europe about the immigrants) which can’t rely on the Western-lead international order, and between global powers (including the US) which will bring their competition in the heart of Europe more than ever. And will more likely encourage authoritarianism even in Europe, to control following social unrest (the right-wing turn in many European countries may favour this trend).

to ensure policies over time one advocates one needs to rely on massive, stable and unequal concentration of power in the hands of few with all related risks in terms of lack of transparency, lack of accountability, exploitation or abuses — neomac

No one doesn't. Progress has been a matter of resisting that power with an equal and opposite power afforded to the masses. — Isaac

It’s a very romantic and populist view of progress. It overlooks the role of the masses in social regress (how many revolutions - including the communist ones, which didn’t happen in capitalist societies contrary to Marxist predictions - ended up in bloody dictatorships, because populace and workers can turn out to be shitty human beings as those who exploit them), the role of pre-existing elites which promoted social progress to win over political competition, the role of technological inventions (which didn’t come from the populace or the workers) in altering power relations favouring social progress.

I’m expecting substantial claims that are sharply formulated and accompanied with required evidences. Your blah blah blah is still flying in the domain of vague possibilities. Namely, more hand-waving. — neomac


Is the latter claim supposed to be an example of this sharply formed, evidence-accompanied type of claim you're wanting to advocate? "Your blah blah blah is still flying in the domain of vague possibilities" I'm not sure I can live up those standards. — Isaac

You dishonestly chopped out “from somebody accusing me of handwaving”. Baden accused me of erasing “the entire post WWII history of western violence and the culpability that comes with it with vacuous handwaving”. And you tried to back him up with more handwaving. One can't fairly accuse others of "vacuous handwaving" while indulging on his own vacuous handwaving. That was the whole point of the two previous posts and I clearly stated so. Your clumsy attempt to retort the burden of proof for the second time is still failing.

What do you mean by “the one that causes most death and misery”? Do you mean that since the end of WW2 until today at least more than 50% of the non-Western World misery (=poverty and sickness?) and death was the direct and exclusive consequence of “the western world under US leadership”’s policies? All right. Quote your preferred expert’s report concluding as much. Or prove it yourself. — neomac


It's already been cited several times over. I'm not playing this stupid game where every few pages you all pretend that there's been no evidence presented in the hope that no one will bother to go back and look. I've already discussed the papers showing the deaths from the US's 'war on terror', the deaths and near starvation condition of nations in the developing world, the links between those conditions and US/European trade policy, IMF loan terms, colonial history... There's plenty of scope for disagreement, but don't sink to this childish level. The evidence is there. If you disagree with it, that's fine, it's underdetermined enough for you to do so, but then I'd ask why. — Isaac

I’ll repeat once more: “Do you mean that since the end of WW2 until today at least more than 50% of the non-Western World misery (=poverty and sickness?) and death was the direct and exclusive consequence of “the western world under US leadership”’s policies? All right. Quote your preferred expert’s report concluding as much. Or prove it yourself”. That’s what I asked you because that is what Tzeench claimed “the western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII” and that is how you interpreted it: “The one that causes most death and misery”. Suggesting a vague relation between what I’m asking now and what you reported in the past, doesn’t prove that you already offered evidences to answer my question.
Providing evidences to support the claim “the one that causes most death and misery”? Do you mean that since the end of WW2 until today at least more than 50% of the non-Western World misery (=poverty and sickness?) and death was the direct and exclusive consequence of ‘the western world under US leadership’’s policies” is not the same as providing evidences to show “the deaths from the US's 'war on terror', the deaths and near starvation condition of nations in the developing world, the links between those conditions and US/European trade policy, IMF loan terms, colonial history”. And since the previous 2 posts were about accusing people of handwaving by Baden and you, you are still handwaving.

A part from the fact that I already abundantly argued against such accounting model of understanding geopolitics and its moral implications — neomac


It's not 'apart from the fact...'. I know this will be a difficult concept to get into your messianic brain, but I disagreed with your argument. I did not find it persuasive. Strangely, you merely writing it down did not have the magical effect you might have expected. — Isaac

I’ll repeat it once again: A part from the fact that I already abundantly argued against such accounting model of understanding geopolitics and its moral implications. I claimed “I abundantly argued” and that’s a fact. I didn’t claim you agreed or you found my arguments persuasive or that the magical expected effect was changing your mind. Indeed, I can’t care less if my arguments do not sound persuasive to you, that’s the magic effect of not caring about convincing people. I’m arguing as if you will NEVER change your mind. I’m arguing as if you are and will always be like the ugly Donkey Kong in a Super Mario video game. If you have counterarguments the game continues, otherwise it stops. That’s all. So keep throwing your barrels, dude.

give a concrete example of what such calculation looks like — neomac


Again, I already have. A concrete example looks exactly like the arguments I've already given. If a policy leads to over 300,000 civilian deaths and has no demonstrable effect, I don't need to do any "maths" to derive a sound opinion that the policy is flawed. If a country bathes in opulence whilst one it is trading with, has investments in, has a colonial history of abuse with... has 50 million starving children in it, I don't have to do any "Maths" to hold the sound opinion that one country is probably exploiting the other. — Isaac

A part from the fact that you were talking about calculations not me and that your defence of Baden’s accusations of “handwaving” against me is handwaving in all sorts of directions, but the point is that there is no way to get rid of the speculative and approximative dimension of geopolitical and moral considerations. That’s why a pretentious accusation of “vacuous handwaving” (or “give me the metrics“ or “no shred of evidence”) which you tried so clumsily to defend, is doomed to be self-defeating.
Of course you don’t need to do the math when you can conceal possible reasons for disagreement behind childish hyperboles. In this thread, we have abundantly seen how problematic is to talk about “demonstrable effect” depending on the nature of the facts (e.g. an accounting of the victims of an ongoing war), the reliability of the source of information (e.g. if it’s mainstream or not mainstream, if it comes from Russia or Western sources of information etc.), the time range in which one wants to see the effects (the chain of effects is in principle endless which can cumulate and clash in unpredictable ways), the relevance of such effects (there might be all sorts of effects not all equally relevant for all interested parties, e.g. not all Ukrainians and Russians think that nationalities are just flags), the explanatory power presupposed by “effects” and “policies” (depending on the estimated counterfactuals, and implied responsibilities), and so on.
Of course you don’t need to do any math to denounce the link between the “opulence” of certain countries and the “starving children” in other countries when it’s enough to vaguely hand wave at the trite arguments by populist propaganda one can easily find on facebook too. And the problem is not simply that such emotional appeal looks so “powerful” because it’s oblivious about the pervasive and rational nature of power relations, but also that it can be very much instrumental to surreptitiously advance the agenda of interested parties as any emotional blackmailing. In other words the argument itself is liable of being accused of exploiting “starving children” to advance agendas that do not give a shit about “starving children”. Russia and China sell themselves as “benign” powers for the Rest of the World because either the Rest of the world is too ignorant/corrupted to believe them OR simply because even CYNICAL & GREEDY & ELITIST & UNFAIR & AUTHORITARIAN & EXPLOITATIVE & IMPERIALIST & WARMONGERER agents are perceived to be USEFUL BY the exploited countries/people (as well as to jacobins, apparently), if they look the lesser evil!

Maybe you should rephrase it, but if you accuse your opponents to claim a false couple of alternatives (no matter if accurate), then you should show at least a third alternative clearly distinct from the other two, not just hand-wave at it. — neomac


again, this has already been asked and already answered. Diplomacy, sustainable development, fair trade, disarmament, international law, human rights courts, democratic reform, dis-coupling of politics from industrial influence (share holdings and lobbying)... I'm not about to list the entire agenda of the various progressive, socialist, or human rights groups in the world. That's why I talk about it in terms of your imagination. It is utterly ridiculous to paint only two alternatives as if we lived in a world where no one was presenting any other. It's an absurd tactic to suggest that the third (or fourth, or fifth) options are somehow these mysterious options barely mentioned. There's entire global movements advocating for them. — Isaac

A part from the fact the alternatives I was talking about were obviously related to what I was arguing (i.e. “it must be acknowledged as well that the western world under US leadership fought against its perceived enemies”) not to whatever you think it’s worth discussing. But if you want to hand wave in that direction, I’ll hand wave back.
“Diplomacy” requires leverage namely exploiting or exploitable dependencies over often unfairly distributed scarce resources (related to market opportunities, commodities at a cheaper price, or economic retaliation, military deterrence/escalation, territorial concessions, etc.)
“Sustainable development” and “fair trade“ presuppose public infrastructures, compliance to contracts, a financing flow efficiently allocated to say the least which all require a massive concentration of economic and coercive power.
“International law” and “human rights courts” presuppose the monopoly of a coercive power (the opposite of disarmement) to be enforced or powerful economic leverage (whose effectiveness depends on how unfairly economic resources are distributed)
“Democratic reforms” can happen only if there is democracy (and assumed we share the notion of “democracy”), so how can democratic reforms happen when one has to deal with non-democratic regimes in building institutions like “International law” and “human rights courts” that should support and protect democratic institutions?
“Dis-coupling of politics from industrial influence (share holdings and lobbying)” like in China, Russia, North Korea, Iran you mean? Like in the Roman, Mongol, Islamic, Carolingian Empire you mean? Like in some Taliban village or in some aboriginal tribe in the Amazon forest?
Concerning the “entire global movements advocating for them” (assumed they are immune from criticism and they are not promoted by the West), people can “advocate” all they want (even Khomeini was advocating for more democracy before establishing his Islamic theocracy), the problem is that to ensure policies over time one advocates one needs to rely on massive, stable and unequal concentration of power in the hands of few with all related risks in terms of lack of transparency, lack of accountability, exploitation or abuses (as the Jacobin dictatorship has proven). That is why there are exactly ZERO democratic & humanitarian & disarmed & pro-international law & pro-human rights courts & immune from industrial influence governments in the entire known human history. The closest to such ideal society the entire human history could ever get was within the most developed Western-like societies but for Isaacs that is still not good enough on the contrary they are labelled as "the most destructive force on Earth since WWII by an incredibly large margin". Isaacs think that with old fashion imperialism which means land grabbing through wars, overexploitation (see forced labor in Russia and the nightmare of Chinese factories) and genocide humanitarian goals are better served. Power to the imagination.

Why should we care if the rest of the world doesn’t share our view? — neomac


Because unless you're wildly hubristic, it might just indicate that you're wrong. I realise for someone with your who that would be difficult to comprehend, but for the rest of us, a mass of peers disagreeing is at least cause for consideration. If you can give some plausible account of why the rest of the world light disagree with the west about the lost appropriate course of action, then by all means provide it. But absent of such an account the mere fact alone is worthy of comment. Its cause for concern — Isaac

.

Maybe you should rephrase it but from somebody accusing me of handwaving I’m expecting substantial claims that are sharply formulated and accompanied with required evidences. Your blah blah blah is still flying in the domain of vague possibilities. Namely, more hand-waving.

Why is “the most destructive force” supposed to mean? — neomac

The one that causes most death and misery. It's not complicated — Isaac

.

And that’s the problem. What do you mean by “the one that causes most death and misery”? Do you mean that since the end of WW2 until today at least more than 50% of the non-Western World misery (=poverty and sickness?) and death was the direct and exclusive consequence of “the western world under US leadership”’s policies? All right. Quote your preferred expert’s report concluding as much. Or prove it yourself.

What is “taking into account” “those victims’ lives” supposed to mean? — neomac

Including them in the calculation about what course of action we ought.morally support — Isaac

.

Again more hand-waving. A part from the fact that I already abundantly argued against such accounting model of understanding geopolitics and its moral implications, anyways, if you feel so confident in your understanding of Tzeench’s claims and so eager to provide arguments at his place 
(as it happened with Baden, and Boethious), then give a concrete example of what such calculation looks like. Here is an example: ”Civilian deaths during the war include air raid deaths, estimates of German civilians killed only by Allied strategic bombing have ranged from around 350,000 to 500,000.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II). By taking into account that the civilian deaths were estimated in the range of 350,000-500,000, would Tzeench calculate that it was morally worth bombing Nazi Germany or not? Show me the math Tzeench would do.

It’s left to people to guess. — neomac

It really isn't. To most normal people the terms were sufficiently clear to carry a message — Isaac

.

Like any handwaving claims by self-handwaved “most normal people”. BTW are you suggesting I don't belong to the “most normal people” and not simply someone disagreeing with you? And what would the problem be with being not part of the “most normal people”? Does that mean that your "most normal people"'s narrative frame is more real/true or better than mine?

it must be acknowledged as well that the western world under US leadership fought against its perceived enemies — neomac

Again, your lack of imagination is not our problem. If seriously the only two alternatives you van think of are than the us was killing people for.fun, or that it.must believe they're genuine collateral damage in an existential fight against 'enemies', then I don't know what to say. Try a little harder, perhaps? — Isaac

Maybe you should rephrase it, but if you accuse your opponents to claim a false couple of alternatives (no matter if accurate), then you should show at least a third alternative clearly distinct from the other two, not just hand-wave at it. Indeed, as far as I’m concerned, the present post (as the previous one) is about accusing opponents of “handwaving” not about encouraging your clumsy attempts of shifting goalposts.

No it isn't, because your 'pointing out' was in direct response to an attempt to take those victims' lives into account in determining if such strategies are worth it.
As such, you need to justify the relevance of your 'pointed-out' fact to that argument. — Isaac

A part from the fact that such an objection would be excusable if it came from somebody I didn't exchange with as regularly as I did with you, but I just see more hand-weaving in there. Here is part of the targeted post: We in the West might have a view of NATO and the US as benign powers, but the rest of the world doesn't share that view. The western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII by an incredibly large margin, having positively ruined dozens of countries. Why should we care if the rest of the world doesn’t share our view? Does the rest of the world care to share our views? Why is “the most destructive force” supposed to mean? What is “taking into account” “those victims’ lives” supposed to mean? It’s left to people to guess.
So I’ll kindly hand-weave back: unless the argument is that "the western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII, having positively ruined dozens of countries“ (and that’s just a catchy claim not an accounting spreadsheet) for the fun of killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent victims, it must be acknowledged as well that the western world under US leadership fought against its perceived enemies and the death of innocent civilians resulted from such fights AS MUCH AS the hundreds of thousands of death of innocent civilians resulted from bombing Nazi Germany by the Allies (I bet those German civilians didn’t see the Allies as a benign power either) since Nazi Germany was their perceived enemy. But then, a part from specific military responsibilities (whose assessment still presupposes Western supported standards, institutions, and culture, not Russian, Chinese, Iranian or North Korean’s), one can question both threat perception and threat management from a geo-strategic point of view, e.g. in the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria (which might end up showing that the war in Ukraine is NOT like the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria in a relevant sense). Or go for a moral argument about that predicament. Yet Tzeench’s claim didn’t offer any such arguments, just hand-waved at them. And he could get away with it easily, because certain past American foreign policies look already highly controversial also to many Westerners who still find the American leadership irreplaceable or approve the American intervention in Ukraine. Indeed, things might have sounded very different if the claim was something like “The western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII by an incredibly large margin, having positively ruined dozens of Nazi countries”. (BTW isn’t Russia selling this special military operation as a war against a Nazi regime?!)

As for the rest, the implicit acknowledgement that the millions of civilian victims of western aggression since WWII are not appropriately categorised as "enemies" and thus disregarded, but better as "innocents" is enough for me to consider the substance of my original objection well made. — Baden

There are innocent victims also in the war in Ukraine. But I’m not the one who keeps mentioning it even though it would be a convenient argument to support the Western military aid to Ukraine. Others do. You know why? To ultimately put the blame again on the US/West, even though such innocent victims are LITERALLY killed, raped, deported by the Russians that the US/West are indirectly fighting.
So the problem is not explicit or implicit acknowledging or regarding/disregarding innocent victims and stress the fact that they are “innocent” and not simply “not enemies”. But what one wants to infer from such facts. For example, one common argument (however poorly formulated) is “Stop fucking interfering in the rest of the world simply to make profits for the powerful oil, arms, fertiliser and pharmaceutical industries.”
Is it reasonable to think that if the US didn’t interfere in the rest of the world, there would be no millions of innocent victims due to wars? Is it reasonable to think that the US is interfering in the rest of the world simply for the profit of powerful oil, arms, fertiliser and pharmaceutical industries? Hell no.
To me under the surface of actual ideological/political/economic reasons specific to the US there are deep security concerns that are independent from ideological/political/economic reasons specific to the US, and therefore such security concerns are transversal to any political regime (democratic or not democratic). They are deep to the extent they are felt as existential by entire territorially limited collectivities. Such security concerns fuel power struggles.
Wars and millions of innocent victims are the dramatic expression of such power struggles. The end of the American empire (as in the case of the end of Persian, Roman, Han, Umayyad, Mongol, Ottoman, Spanish, Russian, or British empire, etc.) doesn’t imply by any means the end of power struggles and its most horrific consequences. Nor an improvement for the world. Authoritarian regimes (Russia, China, Iran) competing against the US will fill the vacuum created by the collapse of the American empire and impose their will on the West, Europeans including, as hardly as they can because they are emboldened by their victory, because authoritarian regimes have no problems to sacrifice their own people, why should they give a shit about the Westerners?, because there is a history of grievances against the West, confirmed by many Westerners who so passionately self-confessed their own guilt for millions of innocent deaths, exploitation and colonization, to the point that the Rest feels fully entitled for a fair pay back with interests. And because they have their security concerns to deal with.
Powerful oil, arms, fertiliser and pharmaceutical industries are instruments of hegemonic projection as much as the Russian and Chinese army, oil, financial, high-tech industries to eliminate competitors. And no power will handicap itself to benefit a competitor.

The original claim is demonstrably true. — Baden

Demonstrate it then. BTW my claim is demonstrably true as well, isn't it?

your multiple patronising ad homs — Baden

Quote two of my patronising ad homs and explain why they are fallacious.

You can't erase the entire post WWII history of western violence and the culpability that comes with it with vacuous handwaving. — Baden

Dude, chill out, I’m in no power to erase any historical events from people’s memory with a post on a philosophy forum thread. Even less so if the thread is full of very much active and vocal participants that keep reminding everybody else how evil is the US.
My pointing out the fact that the US-lead world order was beneficial to its allies is vacuous hand-weaving as much as your reference to “the entire post WWII history of western violence and the culpability”.

It's not indicative of an anti-western bias to acknowledge the reality of the millions of innocent civilians killed in e.g. Vietnam and Iraq due to the attacks on those countries by the US and its allies. There is no "maybe" about it. That in no way excuses Russia's recent actions but it may be relevant to the overarching context. — "Baden

But the bias may lie in what one wishes to infer from the acknowledged reality of the millions of innocent civilians due to the attacks on those countries by the US and its allies, or it may lie in what sense certain facts are taken to “be relevant to the overarching context”. That’s what I’m after. That’s what I might want to question.

:up: That is certainly a WTF? attitude. As if the invasion of e.g. Iraq only resulted in the destruction of the regime and the real victims (innocent civilians) never existed[/b]. — Baden

That's as good as "That is certainly a WTF? attitude. As if the invasion of e.g. Iraq only resulted in real victims (innocent civilian casualties) and the destruction of the regime never existed". Focus.
What is difficult to understand is not that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, if not billions, if not zillions of innocent victims due to horrifying wars and that this thought makes you really want to vomit outraged emojis all over philosophy forum posts because the world must know you are a very sensitive anonymous dude. What's more difficult to understand are genesis and responsibilities for such wars. And that political governments can not be simplistically judged by their failed wars.
Innocent casualties happened in Iraq as they are happening now in Ukraine. What is debatable is who is to blame for such predicament and its implications. If it's in Iraq, who is to blame? To many, the US of course. If it happens in Ukraine, who is to blame? To many, the US of course. If it happens in Rwanda who is to blame? To many, the US of course. Well I question that is obvious.
The original claim I was targeting was "The western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII by an incredibly large margin, having positively ruined dozens of countries". So I countered: "Destructive toward enemies (fascist regimes, Islamist regimes, dictatorships), beneficial to allies (among them the Europeans)."
More in general, as long as the West is depicted just as a destructive force to blame for wars around the world and their consequences, I will counter that this is a ridiculously myopic vision from a geopolitical, political, historical and moral point of view.

Trying to sweep hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of innocent dead under the carpet by labeling them as part of "regimes and dictatorships" is beyond disgusting. — Tzeentch

And it can be easily retorted. Trying to sweep fascist regimes, Islamist regimes, dictatorships under the carpet by labeling them as part of "hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of innocent dead" is beyond disgusting.

Hard to believe people on a philosophy forum would take such a stance. — Tzeentch

Expression of outrage has no philosophical value to me. Actually, the opposite of it.

Destructive toward enemies (fascist regimes, Islamist regimes, dictatorships), beneficial to allies (among them the Europeans).

It seems to me for a lot of people this war has become about Putin. It has become about a person, therefore personal, and therefore emotional. My impression is that this "personalization" happened intentionally by Western media to whip up enthousiasm for support of the war. — Tzeentch

There is a benefit in personalizing the war, first do not put the blame on an the Russians as a whole, and second incentivize political elites (also within his entourage) to replace Putin, use him as a scapegoat.

The idea of "Putin winning" is something that's hard to stomach, which is why people have become invested in a Ukrainian victory to a degree that is no longer rational, and, in my opinion, cannot be morally defended by people who do not bear the cost of war. — Tzeentch

The West bears significant economic, political, and security costs of course. Certainly, it's not as existential and gruesome as the Ukrainians though. But it might be one day.
Besides it's not necessarily the idea of "Putin winning" something hard to stomach, if it's limited to Russian public opinion, or the Western public opinion to some extent.
What's more hard to stomach is the idea of "Putin winning" among the most influential political elites and administrations worldwide.

The West needs to make up its mind. Either we are committed to a Ukrainian victory and we send our own troops to fight, or we make efforts towards a cease fire and peace negotiations as soon as possible. We shouldn't be in this questionable situation in which we cheer on the Ukrainians to sacrifice more lives for a lost cause. — Tzeentch

Not only the personalization of the war incentivizes an emotional response, but also personification does, which is always a risk in sentences like "The West needs to make up its mind". The West is constituted by a plurality of governments with a temporary democratic mandate and involved in non-democratic international relations, so their action can not be coordinated as if it was a single head's choice by an authoritarian dictator.

So my understanding of “propaganda” is not based on such broad understanding. And from my definition, I don’t do propaganda. You do. — neomac


It's remarkable that you think you can write this. Do you really read that back and think others would read it as anything other than self-serving delusion. You're literally saying you've chosen your own personal definition of 'propaganda' to make your argument right. — Isaac

Is there anything at all that is NOT self-serving in your view? There is nothing delusional in my choice nor fallacious in my notion of “propaganda”. Indeed my definition is more rational than your interpretation of Cambridge’s definition, and it doesn't contradict that definition either. I explained your broad understanding of that notion has overly poor contrastive meaning and it’s inapplicable. So it’s intellectual garbage. My definition is more specific and applicable. Besides you reported just one definition. Here is another one that is closer to mine:
Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda and the more you read the entire wikipedia entry the more you understand why mine is a pretty good definition: for political propaganda is important the propagation of the message over a collectivity and its mobilisation according to a political agenda, then there is the manipulative aspect of course which is however typical of the worse propaganda, if we want to make room for a neutral notion of “propaganda”).
So until you offer a better one, I’ll stick to mine. And by applying it, you do propaganda here, I don’t.

Second, the claim that neither intent nor one-sidedness can be proven is not part of the definition of “propaganda” you offered, and no argument has been offered to support such belief. — neomac


I didn't think one was required. Intentions are private thoughts and cannot be examined or identified by a third party because no-one can mind read. There. — Isaac

If my word “intention” refers to a private phenomenon and your word “intention” refers to a private phenomenon, since we can’t compare private phenomena, then how do we know we refer to the same thing with the word “intention“? So how could you even learn the word “intention” from others?

The problem is that if one-sidedness and intentions can not be proven, then how could anyone possibly understand and learn how to apply the notion of “one-sidedness” and “intentions”? — neomac


What? the notion of intentions doesn't require us to always, or even ever, know what those intentions actually are. I don't need to know your memories to know that you probably have some. — Isaac

But your conception doesn’t seem matter of “not always”, but of “never”. You simply and categorically wrote “Neither intent, nor one-sidedness can be proven, they are opinions”. So how do you know? What makes you think that is probable that I have some intentions (or memories) if they are private phenomena?

These notions must be shareable, reusable, and have contrastive value to be meaningful. — neomac


Of course they're shareable, but they're not determinable. You cannot determine what my intentions are. You can theorise about them, but then other competing theories will have equal plausibility and you have to choose between them, which is the interesting matter for discussion. — Isaac

How can you assess that they are equally plausible? If there is nothing that can be presented as supporting a theory since intentions are private phenomena, in what sense there is a plausible theory of intentions at all? Why aren’t they equally implausible instead of being equally plausible? The way you talk about such “theories” looks like talking about fantasies more than theories. Not surprisingly accusing others of having poor imagination looks a powerful objection to you.

if there are biases you see in my views you must be able to show them in concrete cases by using a notion of bias that is shareable, reusable and contrastive wrt what is not bias. I’m still waiting for you to do that though. — neomac


No. You're not 'waiting' you're ignoring. I've talked extensively about position which are held because of biases in fundamental beliefs that are unexamined. You then use this "Oh, you've never shown any" rhetorical trick any time you're stuck. It's like the other classic where people wait a few pages and then claim I've not provided any sources. Or to quote your good self on the matter... — Isaac

I’m not ignoring, I even enumerated all my counter arguments against your claims/arguments and asked you many questions about your “unexamined narrative” accusation. You didn’t address any of them, here.
You didn’t offer rational arguments showing my bias. Actually, given your beliefs, you are incapable of showing anything at all in any sense that is rationally compelling, since you question the nature of rational confrontation. For you, contradictorily, all narrative frames are equally valid in terms of truth or good, we do not share rational rules, there are no provable intentions to follow rational examination. So where is room for the notion of bias, other than an arbitrary attribution of bias?

I quoted and argued your claims considering what you actually said about them in past comments. And precisely because I did it already, I don’t need to repeat them again every time — neomac


...

if motives are “open topics for debate” why shouldn’t I speculate about them? And if intentions can’t be proven as you believe (but I don’t), what else can I do other than speculating about them? — neomac


Speculating about intentions is[not what I opposed. Read what I've written, it's in the quote you responded to.

Either our motives are open topics for debate, or they aren't. In the latter case, stop speculating on mine. In the former case, you've got to give me more than just your say so as evidence. — Isaac — Isaac

Why should I give you more? What difference would this make? Any evidence I might provide, won’t change the nature of my speculation as speculation, since intentions remain private phenomena. Besides you never specified what kind of evidence you might need, let aside we do not know for what. Asking for evidence is pointless since they are not used to prove anything. BTW you could use your fervid imagination instead.
As far as I’m concerned, I quoted you, argued against your fallacies and that’s enough evidence to me to apply my notion of “propaganda” to you. And “worse propaganda“.

it’s not enough to say that I’m biased and that I commit cognitive mistakes IN GENERAL, you need to show that to me in concrete cases by using shared, pertinent, reusable rational rules (e.g. fallacies) as much as I do when I rationally examine your claims/arguments. — neomac


Again ...

I quoted and argued your claims considering what you actually said about them in past comments. And precisely because I did it already, I don’t need to repeat them again every time — neomac


...

if you keep saying that we do not share the rules of such rational examination you are going to be unintelligible to me. You would take yourself by your own initiative out of the pool of potential rational interlocutors to me, no matter how many times you keep repeating I’m biased. There is no recovery from this. — neomac


Yes. That's why discussion on actual matters of fact are pointless if you disagree about how matters of fact are to be assessed. — Isaac

The irony is that you wish me to both acknowledge this fact and yet acknowledge equal plausibility/goodness of all other people’s narrative frames (even if I didn’t examine them, to call my narrative “examined”!). Which is absurd. The first goes along with the denial of the second.

What is the “unexamined narrative” in all what I said? — neomac


Your world-view. The things you take to be foundational. The beliefs at the centre of your web. whether you follow Collingwood, or Quine, or some other version, We all have to believe some things on faith. We can't 'rationally' work out the universe from first principles. We just believe some things to be the case without argument and build from there. Accepting that is an 'examined narrative' It's the best you can get since you've no grounds to go further. Denying that such foundational beliefs exists and maintaining that one is 'rational to the core' is an 'unexamined narrative’ . — Isaac

It’s really hard to understand what you write even charitably.
First, previously you were talking about my “unexamined narrative” and now you claim that ”denying that such foundational beliefs exists and maintaining that one is 'rational to the core' is an 'unexamined narrative’”. But can you quote where exactly I denied that “such foundational beliefs” exists and maintained that I’m 'rational to the core'? Or else quote what I wrote that logically implies or presupposes either? Because if you can’t, your claim that mine is an examined narrative is irrational.
Second, I get you are trying to say something meaningful and deep about the limits of rationality, yet your conceptual and argumentative elaboration is too sloppy to look compelling. The claim “we all have to believe some things on faith” has a very ordinary meaning that I certainly do not question: e.g. if my friend tells me that he declared all his revenues in his tax declarations, I would believe him on faith of course, I’m not going to hire a private investigator to make sure what he said is true. Sure, we all have such kind of ordinary beliefs based on faith of what other people say. The claim that “We just believe some things to be the case without argument and build from there” has a very ordinary meaning that I certainly do not question: perceptual beliefs typically stem from our perceptual experience of the world, they are not the result of arguments, and we can build on them in the sense that they become the base for certain empirical generalisations. Nothing of that looks even remotely as an objection to anything I said about the war or about rational examination.
Third, I suspect that what you are trying to say, is what I already said, much better than you though, when talking about epistemic reliability, which I won’t repeat. But if that is the case, then of course I do not deny epistemic reliability. I argued for it. And I take it to be presupposed by rational examination. So nothing of that looks even remotely as an objection to anything I said about the war or about rational examination.
Fourth, you set 2 different conditions for the notion of 'examined narrative’:
A) Examined narratives are those narratives where someone is aware that the frame through which they view events is one of many equally possible frames and that other frames will yield other equally valid positions
B) We all have to believe some things on faith[/b]. We can't 'rationally' work out the universe from first principles. We just believe some things to be the case without argument and build from there. Accepting that is an 'examined narrative’
Question: what happens if I believed on faith that other narrative frames however based on faith will NOT yield other equally valid positions? For example people from religious denomination X do not have a problem to accept that people from religious denomination Y believe certain things on faith, yet often they do not think that what other Xs believe on faith is equally valid to what Ys believe on faith. Would this narrative be considered examined according to B or unexamined according to A?
Another question: is A something you believe on faith? If so, what if I believed on faith non-A? Would you consider my position equally valid?

the fact that within both the mainstream and the independent media there is room for competing views. — neomac


A classic example of what I was just referring to. This is not a 'fact'. That the earth is round is a 'fact'. That 1+1=2 is a 'fact'. Things you happen to really strongly believe are not 'facts’. Look at the wording here. You've used the term "competing views", but what you determine to be "competing views" depends on that unexamined world-view of yours. If you are embedded in the modern political system, then support for (in America, say) the Democrats becomes a "competing view" with support for the Republicans. Outside of that particular world-view, however, things look different. How many anarchist news-pieces are published in mainstream media? How many communist opinions? How many radical ecologist perspectives? How many Nazi positions? How many UFO/5G/Lizardmen conspiracies?
If you unquestioningly accept the current Overton window as 'reality' then of course, the mainstream newspapers show a diverse range of competing opinions. But that's an unexamined narrative. There's no rational reason at all for thinking our current window of acceptability is the 'real' one. — Isaac

First, that there is a difference between “belief” or “strong belief” and “fact” (or “opinion” and “fact”) from a third-person point of view is clear, and it works as a general reminder to engage in epistemic prudence. Fine. However the relevance of such general distinction vanishes in the context of a first-person report. So if you wished you could use that distinction as an objection against me, it easily backfires: you really strongly believe that “the earth is round” is a fact, that doesn’t mean that “the earth is round” is a fact. What are you going go to do about it?
Second, pointing out the fact that not all competing views one can conceive of are equally represented on mainstream media is not a valid objection to the factually correct claim that mainstream media offer competing views. On the contrary, I would argue that’s expected also because there is no society in the past or present to my knowledge where all competing views one can conceive of are equally represented on mainstream media. So what might be more relevant for you to point out is what you believe you can infer from that fact.

I have some difficulty to imagine mainstream media which are not “in the thrall of” governments and corporate interests — neomac

It's quite simple.

Before Clinton’s radical legislation passed into law, approximately 50 companies controlled 90 percent of the media and entertainment industries; as of 2022, only five or six conglomerates control the same market share. With overlapping membership on corporate boards of directors and interconglomerate coordination and joint ventures, just a handful of giant corporations dominate everything from book and magazine publishing, to radio and cable and network TV, to movie studios, music companies, theme parks, and sports teams. In command of these goliaths is a small cadre of billionaires and multimillionaires12 who exert near-total control over today’s global media landscape. — https://www.currentaffairs.org/2023/03/how-deregulation-created-a-corporate-media-nightmare — Isaac

You mean that the problem is that five or six conglomerates are worst than 50 companies because it reduces the opportunity for a wider range of competing views to go mainstream? Do you have evidences that support it? E.g. when there were 50 companies, “how many anarchist news-pieces are published in mainstream media? How many communist opinions? How many radical ecologist perspectives? How many Nazi positions? How many UFO/5G/Lizardmen conspiracies?” compared to 5/6 conglomerates?
Let’s say, it’s the case, what do you want to do about it? What does that have to do with the war in Ukraine?

the bitter truth (whatever it is) is definitely worth to bipartisanly cover up, as long as possible, during war time. — neomac

... if you have faith in the good-will of your government. another unexamined assumption. — Isaac

That claim of mine doesn’t presuppose any good-will. It might be worth for the interest of exclusively 3 plutocrats or for the sake of the entire humanity. I suggest you to reason as if I do not give for granted good-will in anybody, including you, unless I expressly say otherwise.

The existence of battles indicates a belief in the state you describe. It doesn't prove the truth of it. — Isaac

And what would prove the truth of that to you? Can you state it clearly? Can you offer concrete examples of what such proof might look like? Because if you can’t, you are making a meaningless objection to me. — neomac

Why is an objection meaningless if it shows your view can't be proven, but your original view (the one which can't be proven) was apparently meaningful enough to make? — Isaac

Oh then your objection is worse than I thought. Previously I thought you were trying to raise the standards of an evidence-based reasoning beyond what I can afford, therefore I asked you to specify the standard I should apply otherwise the request for proof would be meaningless, obviously. If so then I might have countered that if it’s not within what I can epistemically afford so I must reason under uncertainty and through reliance on the available information to me (as usual?!).
Now I realise you wish to claim you showed me that my claim can’t be proven. But that’s evidently false. Notice that your initial objection was a non-modal claim “it doesn’t prove” and not a modal claim “it can’t be proven”. But even if the latter is what you meant to object, you most certainly didn’t “show me” the truth of such objection. What I take to be “showing” in this case would be to offer a rationally compelling argument that I MUST recognise as such through rules we MUST share, reuse and with pertinent and relevant discriminatory power. You didn’t offer any of such argument. You just made a claim.

your militant choice is perfectly compatible with the idea that: “ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US) and for one single motivational factor (it’s all about money for a bunch of American plutocrats)”. — neomac


So? Your view is 'compatible' with the idea that you're a closet Nazi and are working undercover to gain influence before converting people to right-wing extremism by PM". A view being merely 'compatible' with some crazed notion is not sufficient grounds to accuse someone of holding it. — Isaac

Focus. I didn’t claim that compatibility suffices to prove my claims about your beliefs, I simply denied that your objection shows an incompatibility between what I claim you believe and what you claim you believe. Indeed, I was countering your objection “So, the dozen or more times that I and others here have repeated the notion that we argue against those agencies over which we have some responsibility…they've just fallen on deaf ears?” raised against certain beliefs I was attributing to you, as if this was evidently incompatible. In response, I was simply denying that there is such an incompatibility. It’s like X made the claim: “Y believes that it’s 15h37” and Y objected “so, all the times I told you I’m going to check my watch to establish what time it is… they've just fallen on deaf ears?”. This would be a pointless objection, because the fact that Y is checking his watch to establish what time it is, is perfectly compatible with the fact that Y might believe it’s 15h37.

I ignored such arguments not because “they just don't fit you preferred narrative” but for a very compelling reason: they are pointless objections. Here is why: wanting to “argue only against those agencies over which we have some responsibility” is part of YOUR (& others’) militant attitude and YOUR goal (& others’) of offering arguments to mobilise people accordingly. But I’m not militant nor I’m here to help you, I’m here to rationally scrutinise views on this war including related assumptions — neomac


What you're here do do has no bearing on the fact that you ascribed to me a view which is not one I hold. — Isaac

But why is that blow against US hegemony/imperialism desirable or the lesser evil? Because ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US). And why is that? As you summarised your militant views about this war: “Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lends support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” — neomac

... another good example of your biases. You present this as if it were a rational argument, but you jump from a weighing exercise (US hegemony vs authoritarian regimes - in terms of harms) to "all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root". All evil.
This is because whilst weighing merits of two competing forces, you have very weak ground to stand on. The US's record on immiseration speaks for itself. Only by painting it as some 'irrational, militant hyperbole' can you hope to win ground.
In other words, you are deliberately distorting the presentation of the argument to suit your preferred political position. Propaganda, in other words. — Isaac

First, let’s go back to my full quote " I made many arguments over several pages since the beginning of our exchanges. And repeated them too. So I won’t repeat all of them again. But if I were to summarise in a few words why I find your (and others’) understanding of this war (and related disputes over media coverage) unilateral and simplistic is that ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US) and for one single motivational factor (it’s all about money for a bunch of American plutocrats)."
Second, from my full quotation it’s clear that I was not making an argument but presenting a conclusion. And that conclusion was a summary in a few words of “your understanding of this war” not your understanding the universe from the beginning of time to its end. So “all evil“ must be obviously understood within the scope of what has been debated over the war in Ukraine in this thread by you (& others). Here is a schematic list of what is included in that “all evil”:
- the beginning of the war due to NATO enlargement, meddling in Ukrainian politics, training Ukrainians, making claims about Ukraine joining NATO, etc.
- the continuation of the war due to rejection of peace talks, talking about Ukrainian victory, drip-feeding weapons etc.
- the material and human damage suffered by the Ukrainians during the war
- the material and human damage suffered by the rest of the world during the war
- the American military-industrial-financial-energy plutocrats getting richer
- the risks of escalation of the war due to engaging with and keep poking in the eye a nuclear superpower
- the the risks of economic predation for Ukrainians after the end of the war
Third, the problem I see in your views and argued against on many occasions (scattered over many past exchanges about morality, international relations, power, the metrics of the war, the Russian threat, etc.) is absolutely NOT due to a hyperbolic understanding of “all evil” which I manipulatively attributed to you (and which most certainly would be enough to excuse all the times you did that in the past and will do that in the future), because on my side there was no intention to suggest such hyperbolic understanding of “all evil” to begin with, indeed I left indications to understand my summary, including the notion of “all evil“, wrt the context of our debate about the war in Ukraine. The problem I intended to point out is instead your simplistic and unilateral assessment and explanation of the above “all evil“ as a function of the US foreign policy or, more specifically, of a bunch of greedy/cynical American plutocrats.
Ironically, while you are accusing me of distorting your views due to your own misunderstanding of my summary “in a few words” (reason why you could have asked me for clarifications if “all evil“ sounded as an intolerable exaggeration to you), you yourself are once again insisting on the same unilateral and simplistic view of the US by widening the scope of “all evil” beyond the limits of the war in Ukraine (“The US's record on immiseration speaks for itself”).
Fourth, I didn’t present in a distorted way your views. That alleged distortion was the result of your misunderstanding, but even if I was doing “propaganda” according to your own understanding of that notion (not mine), yet you can not prove it applies to me by your own admission. While I can keep accusing you for spinning your propaganda according to your own definition, as easily.

To me political propaganda consists in an activity focused on mobilising people typically through evaluative/emotional arguments or direct solicitation into doing some political action wrt politicians or policies or the collectivity — neomac


Well, the dictionary has...

propaganda
noun [ U ]
mainly disapproving
uk
/ˌprɒp.əˈɡæn.də/ us
/ˌprɑː.pəˈɡæn.də/
C2
information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions — https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/propaganda


... so pretty much the definition comes down to intent, and one-sidedness. Neither intent, nor one-sidedness can be proven, they are opinions. As such, you cannot play your Dr Spock routine on it. Not only do I think your arguments are one-sided and intended to influence, but I think you dismiss the arguments of others on exactly those grounds (that they have missed some 'other side', and that they are intended to influence.

But your semantic pedantry doesn't progress the argument. It doesn't matter what we call it. the point of my comment that you are responding to is that your personal biases, beliefs, and goals colour the narratives that you use to understand events. Just like everyone else. The idea that anyone can form some kind of 'position from nowhere' is absurd.

That means the questions we can sensibly analyse are 1) why you choose the narrative you do, and 2) is your chosen narrative overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary - ie is it unsustainable.

That's what I'm trying to get you to see so that we can actually engage in productive discussion. all the while you're thinking this is some kind of chess game we'll get nowhere, because if it's a chess game, it's one in which we do not agree on the rules. — Isaac

First, dictionary definitions are a good starting point for a conceptual analysis/clarification they do not replace it, they certainly help convergence or standardisation in usage but usage is also dependant on the context. And you took just one dictionary definition. So if that’s the definition you want to rely on, fine, but I’m not committed to it because it’s still insufficiently determined. If unspecified one-sidedness and unspecified intention of influencing were enough to classify something as propaganda, “propaganda” would lose its contrastive meaning: indeed, nobody is capable of discussing about anything from all possible view points, for all sorts of constraints (including cognitive ones), and since our communicative acts presuppose motivation to communicate to interlocutors with some intended effect, then any expression of our opinion would be propaganda. Including the definition of “propaganda” itself! In other words “propaganda” would be useless to discriminate claims/arguments since it has no relevant contrastive value. So it wouldn’t be surprising if you take all expressions of opinions from anybody to be propaganda: mathematicians when proving a theorem are doing propaganda, scientists and all experts like Mearsheimer are doing propaganda, astrologists are doing propaganda, your beloved ones who express their affection to you are doing propaganda, anything anybody said here is propaganda, even the rules of this forum are propaganda, giving the time would be propaganda, etc. If understood this broad way, the definition of Cambridge would be garbage. So my understanding of “propaganda” is not based on such broad understanding. And from my definition, I don’t do propaganda. You do.
Second, the claim that neither intent nor one-sidedness can be proven is not part of the definition of “propaganda” you offered, and no argument has been offered to support such belief. The problem is that if one-sidedness and intentions can not be proven, then how could anyone possibly understand and learn how to apply the notion of “one-sidedness” and “intentions”? Of course one can have some doubts in certain exceptional or complex cases (e.g. when we want to identify the intentions of drunk guy or the intentions of the Biden’s administration) but that can’t possibly be the case in very ordinary circumstances. These notions must be shareable, reusable, and have contrastive value to be meaningful.
Third, the claim “your personal biases, beliefs, and goals colour the narratives that you use to understand events” is plausible in general, if it is plausible also in particular cases. So if there are biases you see in my views you must be able to show them in concrete cases by using a notion of bias that is shareable, reusable and contrastive wrt what is not bias. I’m still waiting for you to do that though. If the claim “The idea that anyone can form some kind of 'position from nowhere' is absurd” is meant to be an objection against me, then it’s off target because I never denied that idea and practicing rational scrutiny is perfectly compatible with the fact that personal biases, beliefs, and goals colour (if that means “determine”) the narratives that I use to understand events. Here an analogy to make you understand how pointless is your comment: your weight, height, health determine the way you play basketball, the idea that anyone can play basketball without a set of bodily features is absurd. Would this be an objection to somebody who claims to be playing basketball according to certain rules, or wanting to do so? Of course not.
Fourth, to answer those questions you find useful for a productive discussion I’d say in general: 1) I would choose narrative A over B if A looks more rationally compelling than B, 2) It depends on what “overwhelming evidence” is supposed to mean when we talk about events which we do not have direct experience, which look uncertain and/or incomplete. Yet I’ m afraid that if we do not agree on the rules of evidence-based reasoning you won’t be able to make me see anything you claim to be able to see.

I don’t participate in this forum to mobilise people into taking politician accountable or save people’s lives or fix the world, I’m here just to engage in rational scrutiny. — neomac


Look, you can't reasonably expect a situation where you are allowed to wax lyrical about my intentions, regardless of what I actually say about them, and then expect to be able to just declare what yours are and have them taken as gospel. Either our motives are open topics for debate, or they aren't. In the latter case, stop speculating on mine. In the former case, you've got to give me more than just your say so as evidence. — Isaac

First, I wasn’t talking only about your intentions but also about other people’s intentions, since in your previous objections you weren’t exclusively referring to yourself as opponent.
Besides I quoted and argued your claims considering what you actually said about them in past comments. And precisely because I did it already, I don’t need to repeat them again every time, as in that context, where I needed to simplify. I’m not speculating about your intentions. I’m asserting what I think they actually are. I might be wrong, but I don’t think I am. And you didn’t offer any alternative intentional explanation of those claims of yours so far.
Second, I don’t even understand what you are inviting me to do: if motives are “open topics for debate” why shouldn’t I speculate about them? And if intentions can’t be proven as you believe (but I don’t), what else can I do other than speculating about them?

if you want to meaningfully talk about being “biased”, “cognitive failings” and “unexamined narrative”, you yourself must have an idea of how to establish “biased” vs “unbiased”, “cognitive success” vs “cognitive failures“ and “unexamined narratives” vs “examined narratives”, and be able to illustrate such distinctions over concrete cases in a way that is sharable and reusable. — neomac


Of course. I don't see how that's not possible.

A biased view is one where one's conclusion is affected by factors other than those habits which have a track record of reaching truth (typically 'rational thinking’). Unless you're super-human, I can say with certainty that your thinking will be biased because everybody's is. We all engage in thinking practices which include factors other than those we can identify as being associated with a significantly increased chance of arriving at the truth of the matter.

Cognitive success is likewise a set of algorithms or heuristics which are demonstrably more likely to arrive at the truth of the matter than otherwise.

Examined narratives are those narratives where someone is aware that the frame through which they view events is one of many equally possible frames and that other frames will yield other equally valid positions. An unexamined narrative, such as yours, is one where the person thinks there's is the only (or the only 'true') way of looking at things and so their version of reality is better, or more 'real' than others’. — Isaac

Let’s say that the first 2 clarifications are fine as a general starting point. They also look related, because to identify biases, you would first need to identify beliefs that do not match what would typically result from rational thinking. In other words, you would need to identify actual irrational beliefs through actual rational examination, what exactly I’m also trying to do. So it’s not enough to say that I’m biased and that I commit cognitive mistakes IN GENERAL, you need to show that to me in concrete cases by using shared, pertinent, reusable rational rules (e.g. fallacies) as much as I do when I rationally examine your claims/arguments. To me you failed to do so, so far. But worse than this, if you keep saying that we do not share the rules of such rational examination you are going to be unintelligible to me. You would take yourself by your own initiative out of the pool of potential rational interlocutors to me, no matter how many times you keep repeating I’m biased. There is no recovery from this. And it’s also hypocritical that you keep saying that we all are biased because we are not super-human and expect me to agree, while at the same time you never admitted even once to have committed the clamorous cognitive failures I attributed to you.

The last clarification is puzzling for several reasons:
1 - What is a narrative frame wrt the narrative? Can you give examples illustrating what your narrative frame and mine are?
2 - By which standard one can come to believe that other narrative frames are “equally valid positions”? If it’s “truth” and “reality” as you seem to suggest then the standards is rational thinking I guess from your own claims (“those habits which have a track record of reaching truth (typically 'rational thinking’)” “a set of algorithms or heuristics[/b] which are demonstrably more likely to arrive at the truth of the matter than otherwise”). But according to rational thinking not all narratives are equally true or correspondent to what reality is. Were this the case one would be in the predicament of holding contradictory beliefs and that is not rational. If one narrative says “Ukraine is not part of Russia” and another “Ukraine is part of Russia”, one can’t possibly hold both claims unequivocally true rationally. If the standard is good or useful, it depends on the goal each of us has or is committed to, so all narrative frames that do not fulfill that goal can not be equally valid wrt the ones which do. So when can we rationally talk about “equally valid” incompatible alternatives in the practical or cognitive sense? The only cases I can think of is when either we can tolerate incompatibility (X thinks that Ukrainians and Russians are two different nations, Y doesn’t so the two beliefs are incompatible, yet X and Y can live with that incompatibility, those beliefs can not epistemically coexist but they can socially coexist in those who hold them) or we are equally uncertain about the alternatives prior or after examination (a Ukrainian soldier thinks that deserting is better for his life but worse for his country, and he is torn between these 2 alternatives because he doesn’t want to sacrifice his life and yet he doesn’t want to betray his country). In any case the notion of “examined narrative” presupposes an examination, so if you do not specify the criteria of such examination the qualification “examined” looks arbitrary.
3 - From your own reasoning, I would infer that also unexamined narratives must be valid positions according to all those who are aware that other narrative frames are equally valid, why? Because among the “other narrative frames” there are also unexamined narratives, of course. So they too must be equally valid position for all those with examined narratives. Or are you claiming that examined narratives are better than unexamined narratives? Besides, If all narrative frames are equally valid, equally true, equally good, why do we choose one over the other, instead of supporting all of them at the same time?

Never heard of the battles against fake news and conspiracies involving social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube? — neomac

The existence of battles indicates a belief in the state you describe. It doesn't prove the truth of it. — Isaac

And what would prove the truth of that to you? Can you state it clearly? Can you offer concrete examples of what such proof might look like? Because if you can’t, you are making a meaningless objection to me. And most certainly, as long as you don’t clarify this, I’m fine just with making plausible speculations reliant on how the media system works in the West in the current conditions.

ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US) and for one single motivational factor (it’s all about money for a bunch of American plutocrats). — neomac

So, the dozen or more times that I and others here have repeated the notion that we argue against those agencies over which we have some responsibility…they've just fallen on deaf ears? You didn't understand them? Or, more likely, they just don't fit you preferred narrative, so you just ignore them. — Isaac

I ignored such arguments not because “they just don't fit you preferred narrative” but for a very compelling reason: they are pointless objections. Here is why: wanting to “argue only against those agencies over which we have some responsibility” is part of YOUR (& others’) militant attitude and YOUR goal (& others’) of offering arguments to mobilise people accordingly. But I’m not militant nor I’m here to help you, I’m here to rationally scrutinise views on this war including related assumptions, and your militant choice is perfectly compatible with the idea that: “ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US) and for one single motivational factor (it’s all about money for a bunch of American plutocrats)”.
There is however another problem with this objection. It looks like an a priori political imperative which could have very dangerous consequences. If two wild boxers intensely fight also with blows under the belt, it would be utterly dumb for the coach of one of the 2 just complain about the punch under the belt of his boxer, or worse if the coach jumps on the ring to hold back his boxer in a way that would let his adversary keep punching him, just because the coach have authority over his boxer. So any critical attitude toward certain behaviour ON OUR SIDE may be more or less opportune depending on the circumstances and relative moral hazards wrt opposing side. Russian conscripted soldiers on the front in Donbass don’t not need to agree on Putin’s reasons to start this war nor feel personally compelled to participate in this war, yet they might feel personally compelled by the idea that Russia’s integrity, sovereignty and future prospects are anyway at stake now that they are at it. So even if they hate Putin for this mistaken war, they might still be determined to fight for Russia, because this would be the lesser evil. The same holds for the Westerners wrt the US in this war. One doesn’t need to sympathise with the American foreign policies. One doesn’t even need to sympathise with the American attitude toward Russia to the extant it contributed to the genesis of this war. One just needs to think that supporting the US would be the lesser evil, if the alternative is to empower and embolden authoritarian competitors like China/Russia (with the support of the Rest hostile toward the West) to become more aggressive at the expense not only of the US but also of its allies. That’s why one thing is to criticise/oppose the US over Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, another is to criticise/oppose the US when the US is indirectly engaging in a full conventional war started by Russia and backed by China, ultimately aiming at destroying the US-led world order as such. The moral hazards are arguably very different. Unless of course one thinks that criticising and opposing the US and Western involvement in this war just to reach peace as soon as possible would be the lesser evil NOT ONLY for the Ukrainians, why? Because it would be a big blow against US hegemony/imperialism no matter if that may benefit its authoritarian competitors or endanger the fate of the US allies. But why is that blow against US hegemony/imperialism desirable or the lesser evil? Because ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US). And why is that? As you summarised your militant views about this war: “Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lends support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/681277”). Western capitalism entails, as an intrinsic part of it's approach, efforts to destroy or harm alternative systems. As such, systems compete, and are successful, not on a metric of human well-being, but on a metric of being able to survive that inter-system competition. The most sucessful systems are those which compete best in that fight. If that's a metric you're impressed by for some reason, that's your problem. The 'solution' such as it is, is to bring down capitalism so that it is not one of the competitors. That way alternative systems can compete on the grounds of their impact on human well-being rather than on the grounds of their ability to withstand the onslaught capitalism directs toward them.(https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/677420). Even your last intervention, was focusing on the same accusations against the US-leadership: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/792409

we are left with the doubt that either such mainstream news outlets are overly constraining at the expense of the investigative value of Hersh’s article (as Hersh suggests) or Hersh wants to be free to take greater risks at the expense of the investigative value of his article — neomac

Again, in your limited world-view, we are left with only those two options, yes. But not in the view of others. You are, again, confusing your personal belief system with the actual truth. Hersh simply doubts their integrity. You can't because it just doesn't fit the role they play in the story you have — Isaac

.

If what I suggested is a false alternative, you should be able to show the other alternatives.
The claim that “Hersh simply doubts their integrity” if related to his choice of not going to mainstream news outlets (because otherwise it would be irrelevant) is not necessarily a third alternative,
indeed Hersh may question news media integrity PRECISELY BECAUSE mainstream news outlets are overly constraining at the expense of the investigative value of Hersh’s article (as Hersh suggests)
Besides it’s definitely false that I can’t doubt mainstream media integrity. Indeed I made nowhere an argument or claim supporting what you accuse me of, nor anything I said implies it. I can doubt mainstream media integrity AS WELL AS Hersh’s reliability.

that some editorial fact-checking for reputational and legal reasons are common practice for investigative journalism. And that if the journalist can self-publish, he is more free to take greater risks (e.g. by taking one anonymous source or leak as enough reliable by only his own judgement). — neomac

..without a shred of evidence to that effect. Where is your evidence that editorial fact-checking limits single anonymous sources? https://fair.org/home/anonymous-sources-are-newsworthy-when-they-talk-to-nyt-not-seymour-hersh/ https://fair.org/home/journalisms-dark-matter/
Again, you just assume, because it's part of your foundational narrative - it's unexamined. — Isaac

.

Another objection completely off target. I never claimed that “editorial fact-checking limits single anonymous sources”. I’m well aware that anonymous sources, or even single anonymous sources, are used by mainstream news outlets, because this is expressly stated by the mainstream news outlets themselves:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/reader-center/how-the-times-uses-anonymous-sources.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-do-you-use-an-anonymous-source-the-mysteries-of-journalism-everyone-should-know/2017/12/10/fa01863a-d9e4-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html
https://www.ap.org/about/news-values-and-principles/telling-the-story/anonymous-sources
But sources need to be identified, scrutinised, and validated by dedicated figures from the news outlets and this is the reason why there might be divergences with the investigative journalist. Here I referred to the shred of evidence Hersh himself offers: In that interview (starting from 20min03), Hersh claims that he didn’t approach the Washington Post or NYT, because he thought they wouldn’t publish his article, because they want to know his source and he got burned once by revealing his source to an editor of NYT (but he doesn’t like to talk about that because “the NYT is still a good newspaper” and then he complains about 90% of editors). Yet it’s not clear what “being burned” is supposed to mean nor what that past experience has to do with Hersh’s belief the NYT and Washington Post wouldn’t publish his piece now (maybe Hersh used and is still using anonymous sources that the NYT or Washington Post would find unreliable?). . Acknowledging that Hersh has editorial issues, as I do, doesn’t imply AT ALL that I I’m siding with the mainstream news outlets. Indeed, precisely because I don’t need to side with the mainstream media, that I can write: we are left with the doubt that either such mainstream news outlets are overly constraining at the expense of the investigative value of Hersh’s article (as Hersh suggests) or Hersh wants to be free to take greater risks at the expense of the investigative value of his article (after all there have been OSINT people questioning Hersh’s articles accuracy in the past and present, like Oliver Alexander and Bellingcat who are also independent self-publishers like Hersh and also risk their lives for that: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/01/12/christo-grozev-russias-most-wanted-list-intv-ebof-intl-vpx.cnn).
The reason why it looks like I’m siding with the mainstream media vs Hersh, predictably depends on the assumption that mainstream news outlets are agents of the Western capitalism (the greatest evil according to your views) so whenever there is a clash with independent people like Hersh, it’s obvious to you that the problem is on mainstream news outlets’ side and claiming anything slightly different is serving their narrative, so it’s siding with them. But that’s a militant logic applied to our exchange in a philosophy forum (and the accusation can be easily retorted against you as I did in the past), which you embrace but I do not. I’m not militant, I prefer to leave militant logic to where it belongs, politics and wars, not bring it into our rational examination of such logics.

it’s not hard to offer a plausible argument to support the idea that Hersh could have published in some American mainstream outlet — neomac


...which is not that same as claiming it is a true claim which cannot be rationally challenged. — Isaac

You are insisting on an objection which already failed once. And now it is failing twice. Indeed, I don’t think the truth of “it’s not hard to offer a plausible argument to support the idea that Hersh could have published in some American mainstream outlet” can be rationally challenged, of course. That’s precisely what I argued for!

What’s harder to offer is a plausible argument to support the idea that, given very specific circumstances, Hersh was unable to publish his article other than by self-publishing on Substack or equivalent: — neomac


He didn't trust the mainstream media. It's not complicated. Mainstream media are owned by corporate interests who influence editorial policy. Hersh wanted to avoid that influence. you may not agree, that's normal, rational adults disagree sometimes. What's abnormal is you claiming that your opinion is literally the only rational view to hold and everyone else is dishonest. And you don't even get that that's weird. — Isaac

The claim you attribute to me is indeed very weird as much as it is wild fabrication. Indeed you can not quote me saying such a dumb thing. When I accused you for being intellectual dishonest it is not because e.g. you may agree with Hersh but it was for such kind of objections, where you ARBITRARILY and REPEATEDLY attribute to me claims or arguments I never expressed, implied or suggested, and despite all clarifications.

f one wants to self-publish, then he is expected to be the only one paying the consequences of potential legal/economic/political/reputational issues, if not even risking life. For that reason, he is more free to take greater risks by self-publishing, if he wishes so, than by publishing with a more risk-averse publisher. — neomac


You haven' given any reason why the publisher is more 'risk-averse'. You haven't given any reason why being the one who takes the brunt makes one 'more free' . A journalist writing for a newspaper can write an incendiary piece, be protected by the huge legal team and deep pockets of his paper, whilst his editor, if he's even fired, will walk out with a huge pension fund and a golden handshake. What exactly is the comparable risk you're imagining? — Isaac

The plausibility of my general assumption doesn’t depend on specifying any of that. The difference between working for somebody or be self-entrepreneur is evident practically in any professional domain: a self-entrepreneur is free to take certain decisions that he wouldn’t be free to take if he was working for somebody else, because in that case it’s somebody else who’s taking decisions. In investigative journalism anonymous sources may be certainly precious to discover scandalous truths but also a very risky thing. Why? Because they can have their own agenda (and in a period of domestic political polarisation and international tensions we can’t underestimate it), BUT they will not be held accountable for what they said, if wrong. For that reason, between the investigative journalist and his editor there may be divergences over the reliability of the anonymous source for all sorts of reasons. In that case, the divergence may lead to the rejection of the article by the editor, while the journalist would still be free to self-publish it. Notice that this reasoning assumes neither that anonymous source reliability is the only reason why the editor may have problems with investigative journalist’s article (other possibilities could be e.g. corruption or political interest, lack of adequate legal support against legal retortion from the target of the article, life-threatening blackmails from thugs, etc. might press the editor into rejecting a certain article), nor that whenever there are divergences about the anonymous source the editor must always be right. Given Hersh’s confessions and background history I have good reasons to believe he has editorial issues and such issues may concern his anonymous sources. And given the fact that non-mainstream OSINT people have questioned his reports based on anonymous sources, I have reasons independent from the mainstream coverage of Hersh’s article for being suspicious about Hersh too (however noble his intentions are).

I can as arbitrarily attribute to you the belief that “mainstream media must be wrong, because people not on the mainstream media are right because the people not on the mainstream media say so”) — neomac

You can't because I'm not arguing that the mainstream media are wrong. — Isaac

Really? Because I’m not arguing that “mainstream media must be right” either (indeed you can not quote me making such claim), yet that’s what you arbitrarily accused me of.

You paint all opposition as propaganda and fail to see your own biases. It's either monumentally naive or messianic. You're not some kind of zen master rationalist, no matter how much you'd love to see yourself that way. You're an ordinary human - biased, culturally embedded, and cognitively as limited as any human. Your hypothalamus steals control from your prefrontal cortex under stress the same as the rest of us. In short, you are biased, you succumb to the same cognitive failings, you defend beliefs on the basis of how well established they are, your assessment of truth is embedded in a narrative which itself is unexamined…just like everybody else. — Isaac

Terminology needs to be clarified because I too have been accused of spreading Western propaganda, by you and others, yet I don’t think we share the same notion of “propaganda”. For example, I still don’t understand, in your jargon, what kind of attitude, activity, beliefs or claims can the notion of “propaganda” be contrasted to, to get its distinctive meaning. As far as I am concerned, I can disagree with Tzeench’s “diversion hypothesis” to explain the starting of the War, Boethious’ explanation of the American/Western attitude in supporting Ukraine for fear of a “nuclear escalation”, and with the idea that mainstream media aligned with the government are purposefully ignoring or downplaying Hersh’s report because it goes against their interest. But that’s not a reason to call such arguments “propaganda”. If I find an argument or claim irrational or not enough rationally compelling and therefore I oppose it, that doesn’t mean I would consider it propaganda. So it’s false that I paint all opposition as propaganda. To me political propaganda consists in an activity focused on mobilising people typically through evaluative/emotional arguments or direct solicitation into doing some political action wrt politicians or policies or the collectivity (I use “militant” or “activist” to describe people engaged in political propaganda activities). I don’t have necessarily a problem with that but things turn bad when the arguments and counterarguments turn into repeated fallacious attempts to support ones’ views, misrepresent opposing views, and discrediting opponents. My problem is more with that part.
Now, in our past exchanges I might have been biased, instrumental to some political agenda, spread some propaganda memes, said things that offended you and others, nurture some deep desire to fix the world but it must be clear that I’m not militant in the sense I specified, I don’t participate in this forum to mobilise people into taking politician accountable or save people’s lives or fix the world, I’m here just to engage in rational scrutiny. That’s why, differently from you, I do not care if after 400 pages people didn’t change their mind (other than for the fact that they may become boring by repeating the same arguments) or if they don’t participate in spreading Hersh’s investigation (independently from its accuracy) for a powerful response against politicians or fight along with you against the capitalist imperialism. But I do care about how fallacious is the way people like me and you talk, argue, and counterargue. I do care to profit of any or almost any occasion to express my thoughts through consistent and plausible arguments, illustrative examples, terminological clarifications instead of outraged sarcasm.
Concerning your objection, I would counter that it looks pointless, self-defeating and self-delusional.
Pointless because a certain practice like rational scrutiny, zen, chess, jogging, etc. can be pursued and enjoyed even if one is not excelling at it. And the fact that me, a zen master, a chess player, and jogger are “ordinary human - biased, culturally embedded, and cognitively as limited as any human” doesn’t exclude that rational scrutiny, zen, chess playing and jogging are different activities, or that I must practice and enjoy them equally. So, “rational scrutiny” is not “doing propaganda”. They are two different activities. Here I practice rational scrutiny not propaganda as you do. I enjoy practicing rational scrutiny even if I do not excel at it. And all that doesn’t equate nor needs to equate to explicitly or implicitly denying that e.g. I am “an ordinary human - biased, culturally embedded, and cognitively as limited as any human” as you seem to suggest.
It’s self-defeating because if you want to meaningfully talk about being “biased”, “cognitive failings” and “unexamined narrative”, you yourself must have an idea of how to establish “biased” vs “unbiased”, “cognitive success” vs “cognitive failures“ and “unexamined narratives” vs “examined narratives”, and be able to illustrate such distinctions over concrete cases in a way that is sharable and reusable. Since to me those distinctions are essentially resulting from the practice of rational scrutiny, you yourself would need to practice rational scrutiny over my beliefs in a way that is pertinently similar to what I do when I actually illustrate your own intellectual failures through how you actually argue and talk in given circumstances. And look more rationally compelling than I am, at least, occasionally. But if you too need to practice rational scrutiny, and those pointless observations and accusations would constitute an objection against me practicing rational scrutiny, the same would hold for you.
It’s self-delusional because we both know how hard it is for you to practice rational scrutiny. Indeed you need to caricature my views, strawman me, opportunistically chop my quotations in order to identify my putative intellectual failures. In other words, you need to artificially fabricate or distort your opponents’ views to be able to sound rationally compelling. But that’s intellectually dishonest, that’s punching under the belt. Not to mention that the general and most certainly compelling assumption that I’m “an ordinary human - biased, culturally embedded, and cognitively as limited as any human” doesn’t replace the actual effort required to apply rational scrutiny to my claims in concrete cases.
Conclusion: your objection is not rationally compelling at all.

The difference with you, and a few others of similar ilk, is that part of that unexamined narrative is the idea that there is no unexamined narrative. When it's pushed (if it's pushed hard enough) it reaches this brick wall where there's no part in the story, there's no role. It's what you do then... that's the interesting bit. — Isaac

No idea what you are talking about. What is the “unexamined narrative” in all what I said? In what sense is “unexamined”? What did I say that makes you believe “that part of that unexamined narrative is the idea that there is no unexamined narrative”? If I believed “there is no unexamined narrative”, why would I need to engage in rational scrutiny at all?

which of the 2 Substack articles do you want me to rely on? — neomac


We're not talking about your reliance. You're free to do what you want. we're talking about the effect of having mainstream media in the thrall of governments and corporate interests. That's what this is about. Hersh's articles went against those interests and as such is was summarily either ignored or smeared. That treatment is a danger to freedom of thought because the implied authority of the mainstream media amplifies their voice. As such, if that voice is captured by minority interests, it harms debate - it skews public discourse in favour of those minorities artificially. Since independent journalists are manifold and (as you say) present a wide range of opinions with a low centre of authority, the issue is one-way. A handful of companies own virtually all mainstream media, and can be shown to directly influence it. That's the issue here. — Isaac

First, who is “we”? You accused me of “lauding” the mainstream media or making the following argument “mainstream media must be right because people not on the mainstream media are wrong because the mainstream media says so”, nobody else did in this thread, and I talked about reliance to clarify why claiming that I’m “lauding” the mainstream media is an exaggeration or that the circular argument you attributed to me is a strawman. That comment you quoted wasn’t meant to talk about my reliance but to suggest that the contrast you were highlighting between mainstream and independent media is emphasized at the expense of the fact that within both the mainstream and the independent media there is room for competing views.
Second, it’s Hersh’s article that went against those interests or Hersh himself that went against those interests? It’s been years that Hersh is publicly polemical about the major news outlets which he used to work for and rejected other past investigations of his (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/seymour-hersh-syria-report_n_4409674). Their reaction and Hersh complaining about it fit already into such rivlarous pattern independently from the content of Hersh’s current article.
Third, probably due to my limited imagination, I have some difficulty to imagine mainstream media which are not “in the thrall of” governments and corporate interests, if we are talking about news outlets, given the relevance of the news outlets to influence people, the available means and institutional role of such subjects. So if that would suffice to endanger freedom of thought, maybe it’s not independent journalists what we really need, but to remove government and corporations as such. Until then, the freedom of thought one can realistically expect is whatever one can get at best in a media system where mainstream news outlets are “in the thrall of” governments and corporate interests, and yet there are other independent sources of information, like we enjoy in the West. Indeed, even Hersh himself needs Western mainstream news outlets to spread his reports. as it happened in many past occasions. Wasn’t it the case Hersh didn’t have anything to complain about. But this suggests that the problem doesn’t need to be the fact that mainstream news outlets are “in the thrall of” governments and corporate interests, but in the specific conditions that enable or compromise independent investigative journalism to be published or get visible though mainstream news outlets. Like what conditions? Well in the case of Hersh e.g. antagonising his old publishers (to which one might add the choice of joining the company of anti-mainstream narratives on Substack plus a history of “editorial issues”), and refusing to go to other potentially interested mainstream publishers (the mainstream antagonists of Biden’s administration).
Fourth, I don’t want to dodge the issue of the newsworthiness of Hersh’s article (several mainstream outlets might have grabbed Hersh’ article just due to its newsworthiness, also because Hersh is/was one of the well-reputed investigative journalist after all), so what other condition might have weighed in and overshadowed Hersh’s article’ newsworthiness? I guess the war itself. After all, it’s said: truth is the first casualty in war. And this may be very well true also for Western democracies. By that I do not mean to specifically suggest that Hersh’s article is accurate in part or fully (possibility that I do not need to exclude a priori), but that the bitter truth (whatever it is) is definitely worth to bipartisanly cover up, as long as possible, during war time. Why? Because this truth might be big trouble for the US and its allies, and get in the way of their joined but still not fully-committed fight against Russia with problematic consequences that might survive Biden’s administration: e.g. if the responsible was Russia, it would be an attack on NATO soil, if it was a NATO country it would an attack from NATO to Russia, unless the Ukrainians did it with the help of Poland, etc. Indeed these scenarios might be A) offering an incentive to escalation with Russia B) nurturing political tensions within the American alliance system in the West (especially with Germany) and beyond (if the US had direct or indirect responsibilities for the sabotage), C) be another source of embarrassment with the Western/the Rest public opinions for the cover-up, D) not to mention that full account about that sabotage may reveal sensitive details which are still vital for the war against Russia. BTW, political tensions with Germany might be assuaged behind doors with a compensation (e.g. more generous gas supply) for the missed opportunity of resuming business with Russia through Nord Stream 2 immediately after the war. In the end, Nord Stream 2 was financed by the Russians (not the Germans), its usage was halted due to the war, Germany dependance from it was overwhelmingly reduced, and the missed opportunity is not irreversible (i.e. the damage can be repaired within months).

it’s matter of you deciding to bring here in this forum the worst propaganda style of arguing that anybody can easily find on partisan posts of popular social networks. You could be more rationally compelling just by removing all paraphernalia of the worst propaganda without distorting the content of what you want to express (including criticising the government), if there is any substance to it, of course. Unless this goes against your militant compulsion. — neomac


Yeah, this is just an incredibly weak 'dispassionate rationalist' trope. Firstly, it's bollocks on its face. I’ve written plenty of dispassionate, well-sourced, rational arguments without a trace of 'militancy’. It makes fuck all difference. They are ignored, insulted or dismissed in equal measure with my most polemic rants. It's a common myth. I challenge you to find a single example from this thread, or any other, where a calm dispassionate expression of strongly anti-mainstream views has been met with respectful considered responses. It simply doesn't happen, because people are frightened of being challenged, whether that's a choleric fanatic or a Jain monk. Take a look at a figure like Jordan Peterson. Unpopular opinions (many of which I strongly disagree with), delivered always in a calm rational manner. Has it helped? Not in the slightest. He's as vilified as any load-mouthed preacher. — Isaac

I guess that you are talking about the reactions of your opponents, because my impression is that you have several people (I’m tempted to say the majority of people) sympathising with your views and sharing common opponents in this thread.
In this case, since I can’t speak for other opponents of yours, I’m tempted to accept the challenge if you could show me an example of what you take to be “dispassionate, well-sourced, rational arguments without a trace of 'militancy’” which I “ignored, insulted or dismissed in equal measure with my [your] most polemic rants” when you were exchanging with me. As far as I can remember, I’ve always argued my views and my objections against your views. And I remember you also complaining about my text walls, the pedantry of my rational(-ist?) approach, and often taking the initiative about polemic rants without evident provocation against your views.
On my side, the only insult I can remember at the beginning of our exchange is “preposterous” which doesn’t sound to me stronger than “it's bollocks on its face” nor an intolerably offensive thing to say if one identifies a putative clamorous mistake in his opponent’s views. If one player failed a very easy shot or worse made an own goal at football, that would look dumb and any euphemism, however literally accurate, might sound even more offensive to some. While accusing you of intellectual dishonesty or misery may be insulting and induce animosity, but that has nothing to do with your anti-mainstream views as a such, as I argued. Nor it prevents me from pursuing “rational arguments without a trace of ‘militancy’” contrary to what happens with you. And I really don’t see the point of dragging with polemic rants here other then for the fact that either you hope to change people’s minds about political matters that concern you, or you need to vent your frustration for failing to achieve that.
At least the good news is that you too seem to admit that there is a difference between “rational arguments without a trace of ‘militancy’” and “polemic rants”, and that you are not always engaged in “rational arguments without a trace of ‘militancy’”, as I claimed. Yet I’m not sure if we understand that difference in the same way, e.g. when I talk about “rational arguments” I’m not referring to the fact that they are expressed in a calm/dispassionate vs aggressive/passionate tone. I don’t mind insults and sarcasm as long as one can offer rational arguments, not as a replacement of them! Besides, it may sound oxymoronic to talk about “a calm dispassionate expression of strongly anti-mainstream views” because “strongly” may be understood in emotional terms i.e. as an equivalent of “passionate”. So probably you meant “extreme anti-mainstream views”.

given the clash between the US/NATO and Russia — neomac

What clash? I thought the US were barely involved and it was all about the Ukrainians? — Isaac

No you didn’t. Besides, your irony doesn’t apply to me. I never downplayed or overlooked the clash between US/NATO and Russia, I focused on it on several occasions. What I found questionable is downplaying or overlooking Russian responsibility and threat after it started this war, and the Ukrainian agency in legitimately pursuing self-defence.

your militant rhetoric and intellectually miserable tricks are manipulative, typical of the worst propaganda. This is a literally accurate description of your attitude in most, if not all, posts you addressed to me and not only. — neomac

Anyone who disagrees with you must be spreading propaganda. Saves you the bother of actually having to argue the case. — Isaac

The problem is not disagreement and not even propaganda itself. The problem is intellectual dishonesty. Some are pushed to such dishonesty by their intellectual self-esteem, others more by their urge to fix the world. Like in your case. That’s why I didn’t accuse you to just spread propaganda, but to talk and argue as the worst propaganda.
Besides I made my arguments and clarified them several times, and I’ve also been accused of writing text walls for that matter. Indeed, I’m here precisely because I’m interested in intellectually honest and rationally compelling arguments, not in fixing the world or persuading people through sophisms or by caricaturing their objections. So I don’t need to save myself from arguing. That’s the game I came to play here and welcome opponents’ arguments to the extent that they participate in the same game honestly and compellingly.

I’m relying on the Western media system for the simple reason that is free and pluralistic enough that any truth against the government has more chances to become mainstream than under any authoritarian regime media system. — neomac

That makes no sense at all. The choice is between mainstream media and independent media. No Russians need be involved. Substack is not (last I checked) attempting to annex California. — Isaac

First, I said I do not feel pressed to choose between Hersh’s article (as an example of independent media) and NYT/Washington Post’s treatment of Hersh’s article (as example of mainstream media). That’s the freedom of thought I wouldn’t enjoy in Russia or China. So I’ll enjoy it here and welcome its protection.
Second, I don’t find this choice generalisable the way you do: both independent and mainstream media can have people with their self-interested marketing or political agendas to pursue. Their competition would be physiological in a free market of information and potentially fruitful if it wasn’t exploited just to spin political polarisation (which Hersh apparently wanted to avoid, the irony).
Third, Russia (and other authoritarian regimes) can infiltrate and pollute the wells of both mainstream and independent media in Western democracies. Indeed, certain Western political polarisations may very well be instrumental to foreign powers at the expense of Western democracies, and so worth surreptitiously nurturing.
Fourth, I do not have any specific aversion to Substack whose editorial principles I find promising on the paper and therefore I welcome its being part of our media environment (as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc.). BTW there are also Substack articles criticising Hersh’s Substack article: https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe (which of the 2 Substack articles do you want me to rely on?)

You repeatedly solicited interlocutors to take our politicians accountable for their blameworthy foreign policies about the war in Ukraine (and not only) and passionately made that as your main if not exclusive argumentative focus. That shows your militant urge. — neomac


I love this! It's now "militant" to hold one's government to account. "Just shut up and do as you're told". — Isaac

Yes it is, if you participate in this thread with the spirit of fighting for a just cause by whatever rhetoric means. And no it’s not matter of "Just shut up and do as you're told”, it’s matter of you deciding to bring here in this forum the worst propaganda style of arguing that anybody can easily find on partisan posts of popular social networks. You could be more rationally compelling just by removing all paraphernalia of the worst propaganda without distorting the content of what you want to express (including criticising the government), if there is any substance to it, of course. Unless this goes against your militant compulsion.

To make it more explicit: people that are fanatically opposing a regime (thanks to their putative superior imagination and noble intentions), more easily find support on alternative sources of information critical of the mainstream narratives which they too oppose, of course, no matter if such sources are questionable in turn, often for the same reasons such fanatics question certain mainstream narrative (spinning political propaganda to serve cynical, if not ideologically obtuse, interests). — neomac


The clarity wasn't the problem. I was quite clear on what you were claiming the first time you said it. What was lacking was any evidence whatsoever that your claim was actually the case. — Isaac

Evidence for what? Never heard of the battles against fake news and conspiracies involving social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube? I mentioned Substack too as a popular place for anti-mainstream narratives (remember you talking about Hersh’s article on Substack by any chance?). You are asking me for evidence as if you come from another planet.

reason why I rely on my speculations more than yours is that they are arguably less unilateral and simplistic than yours. — neomac

OK, crack on then. Make that argument — Isaac

.

I made many arguments over several pages since the beginning of our exchanges. And repeated them too. So I won’t repeat all of them again. But if I were to summarise in a few words why I find your (and others’) understanding of this war (and related disputes over media coverage) unilateral and simplistic is that ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US) and for one single motivational factor (it’s all about money for a bunch of American plutocrats).

I didn’t infer “is not” from a “may”. In clarifying my assumption, I talked in hypothetical terms when the subject I was referring to was “news platforms” (e.g. “news platforms, mainstream and non-mainstream (like icij or propublica), may scrutinise…”). Then I talked in actual terms when the subject I was referring to was the assumption itself: it’s not just matter of selling newspapers and newsworthiness. — neomac

Right. so nothing more than speculation then. They may scrutinise more, or they may not. Good to know both possibilities exist. Thanks for clearing that mystery up — Isaac

.

We are reasoning under uncertainty, aren’t we? But my speculation is not the product of some fervid imagination (nurturing powerful simplistic and unilateral speculations like yours), but of very realistic circumstances. Indeed Hersh himself talked about issues with the editorial process of mainstream media like NYT and Washington Post. Besides my speculation is not about clearing mysteries but pointing at a specific one: since we don’t know what editorial issue Hersh has encountered with the NYT in the past or might have encountered if he had approached NYT or Washington Post to publish his article, we are left with the doubt that either such mainstream news outlets are overly constraining at the expense of the investigative value of Hersh’s article (as Hersh suggests) or Hersh wants to be free to take greater risks at the expense of the investigative value of his article (after all there have been OSINT people questioning Hersh’s articles accuracy in the past and present, like Oliver Alexander and Bellingcat who are also independent self-publishers like Hersh and also risk their lives for that: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/01/12/christo-grozev-russias-most-wanted-list-intv-ebof-intl-vpx.cnn).

the point is that mainstream publishers may choose editors and follow editorial guidelines to their liking not to Hersh’s liking. And if that’s the case, that’s a relevant difference. — neomac

Relevant how? You were claiming they had mechanism in place to better check sources. Now you're just saying they might choose editors Hersh doesn't like. How does 'Hersh not liking them' make them better at checking sources? — Isaac

Then you didn’t understand what I was saying. I wasn’t assuming or arguing that mainstream media have better fact-checkers than the independent ones. But that some editorial fact-checking for reputational and legal reasons are common practice for investigative journalism. And that if the journalist can self-publish, he is more free to take greater risks (e.g. by taking one anonymous source or leak as enough reliable by only his own judgement). And that’s not a problem only if one is already heavily relying on Hersh more than mainstream media. But I don’t, so I’m fine with keeping my doubts as long as it takes.

they all look too much like attempts (however self-defeating) to convince people, as political propaganda is supposed to do. Unfortunately trying to deny it may also be part of the job. — neomac


I know... fucking mastermind, aren't I? Although I'll deny that too (but only by repeating it sarcastically)...triple bluff... or is it?*

*(it isn't)** — Isaac

My imagination can’t go that far, I’m afraid.

I don’t think the truth of that claim can be rationally challenged, of course. — neomac


Wow. So you think it is literally impossible that Hersh could have been unable to sell his story to some Western mainstream news outlets. You think the claim "Hersh could have sold his piece to some Western mainstream news outlets" is impossible to be false. Western mainstream outlets are what... somehow compelled by the laws of physics to by Hersh's story? — Isaac

You got misled by the way you chopped the following line “Hersh could have sold his piece to some Western mainstream news outlets (not given his scoop to somebody else for free or without acknowledgment)”. That line was just the beginning of my argument, and the point I was making is that I was speculating over the possibility of selling Hersh’s piece to some Western mainstream news outlets, and not over the idea of Hersh giving his scoop to somebody else for free or without acknowledgement as you seemed to suggest (That decision having been made, he's hardly in a position to sacrifice it by giving the scoop to someone else). Again I’m not speculating over my own speculations.
Additionally, as a starting point, that possibility was definitely epistemically plausible given that, in the US, Biden’s administration has plenty of powerful enemies like Trump who is also against NATO, has already supported anti-Biden’s narratives (remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory ?) and is currently suffering from legal problems that could hinder his next year presidential campaign (so big troubles for Biden’s administration might be a big help, most of all if true!), and like the whole editorial world gravitating around Trump, starting with Murdoch whose mainstream outlets were very much interested in Hersh’s article. Not to mention the load of articles against Biden administration’s responsibility in this war and against NATO one can find in mainstream media. In other words, if means, motives, and hawkishness are factors that make the US an epistemically plausible suspect of the Nord Stream 2 sabotage, then the same holds for the epistemic plausibility that Hersh’s article could have been published by that part of the mainstream world that is adverse to Biden.
Conclusion: it’s not hard to offer a plausible argument to support the idea that Hersh could have published in some American mainstream outlet (and I’m just simplifying because I didn’t consider only American mainstream outlets, there are other platforms for independent investigative journalism, etc.) given the current American political and editorial environment. What’s harder to offer is a plausible argument to support the idea that, given very specific circumstances, Hersh was unable to publish his article other than by self-publishing on Substack or equivalent: in that interview, Hersh is explaining why he chose to self-publish on Substack, but he limits himself to talk about approaching NYT or Washington Post (but they are not the only mainstream outlets, and given their political leaning, less likely adverse to Biden), which he didn’t even try (why not? NYT or Washington Post even support op-ed pages where authors non affiliated with the publication's editorial board can publish, a and he could have also made a sensational case of his rejection as you are trying to do for him), because there might have been editorial issues related to his anonymous source (that’s all vaguely and anecdotally stated). Is Hersh's explanation enough compelling? Hell no.

if one is self-publishing, then he is more free to take greater risks, obviously. — neomac

How so? Are the self published immune from prosecution? Do they get some kind of special redundancy payouts if their projects fail? What is this safety net that independent journalists have which the mainstream outlets lack? — Isaac

Another objection that shows a very poor understanding of what I’m claiming. Unless you’re playing dumb, of course. If one wants to self-publish, then he is expected to be the only one paying the consequences of potential legal/economic/political/reputational issues, if not even risking life. For that reason, he is more free to take greater risks by self-publishing, if he wishes so, than by publishing with a more risk-averse publisher.

the fact that Substack (whose editorial principles sound promising on the papers) has become a haven for “anti-mainstream narrative” authors like him and posting a mainstream outlet denouncing substack articles is exactly illustrating the point I’m making. And, if you need it (coz I don't), similar accusations can be found elsewhere too: — neomac


So just repeating the same circular argument (sorry - I mean "self-defeating attempt to parody the very notion of epistemic reliance as I understand it.")? — Isaac

I didn’t make any circular argument. You clumsily attributed one to me (“mainstream media must be right because people not on the mainstream media are wrong because the mainstream media says so”) as if it was a compelling objection. In reality it’s not only completely off-target (because my claim was simply about Hersh being in good company of anti-mainstream narratives supporters on Substack, and if Substack can be used to criticize mainstream media the reciprocal holds as well) but it’s also easy to retort (indeed I can as arbitrarily attribute to you the belief that “mainstream media must be wrong, because people not on the mainstream media are right because the people not on the mainstream media say so”). Not to mention that I too rely on non-mainstream and self-published content in English (like Perun, B. L. Slantchev, Peter Zeihan ) and non-English language.
Concerning the links, I simply wanted to widen the options of critical views about Substack by citing also non American corporate mainstream news outlets. So e.g. Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) are non-profit NGOs. Mashable was a mistake though.

And if it was as Hersh says it was, it's really a panicky bad choice for Biden to make: Germany wasn't going to go for Nordstream gas anyway as there was no energy Armageddon or even one blackout in Germany this winter. — ssu


By that time Germany had already reduced its dependence on Russian gas from ~50% to ~9% and was on course to eliminate it entirely. And it wasn't getting any gas from Nord Stream anyway, since the Russians had already shut it down indefinitely in an apparent attempt to cause as much pain for Europe as they could before they lost their leverage entirely. — SophistiCat

If we want to focus on the US (but I don't think it is the only suspect), the problem is not only if they actually ordered/executed the sabotage, but also if it can be proven that they somehow knew about the operation but they didn't warn the Germans, or somehow enabled it.
Anyways, as long as there are proven Western responsibilities for that sabotage at the expense of Germany and whose importance is way more political than economical for the reasons SophistiCat explained, one may wonder if this predicament is such an own goal by the Westerners that it will severely destabilise if not end the Western alliance. I don't think that must be the case, Germany may leverage this predicament to demand and receive a convenient compensation for that, behind doors.

Claiming that Hersh’s article has not been suppressed having in mind how suppression of free press is actually practiced under authoritarian regimes is no rhetoric. It’s literally accurate. Your evoking the idea of “suppression” to comment the mainstream news outlets’ reception of Hersh’ article ...is meant to suggest an equivalence between such treatment and the actual suppression perpetrated by authoritarian regimes. That’s what your militant rhetoric is designed to achieve. — neomac


I don't know what to say. If your head is really so far up your own arse that you can't even contemplate the idea that your rhetoric is anything but "literally accurate" whilst that of anyone who disagrees is "propaganda", then it's clear why we are at such an impasse. But in case there's just a glimmer of light...

...having in mind... — neomac


...is rhetoric. What you "have in mind", the context in which you express opposition, the language game in which you determine the meaning of terms... that's rhetoric. — Isaac

And the context that gives meaning to the term “suppression” the way you used it, is exactly the one I previously described, namely one that given the clash between the US/NATO and Russia tries to blur the differences between news suppression under authoritarian regimes and “news suppression” under democratic regimes by surreptitiously stretching and deforming the meaning of the words like “suppression” (to the point of making such clumsy claim “That's a ridiculously low standard for what qualifies as a lack of suppression "if you're not banned of in jail, you're fine”, as if not being fine is enough to talk about being suppressed). Not surprisingly you are in good company with such militant terminology:
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202303/1287409.shtml
https://tass.com/world/1584753

And no, you do not get to decide for me what “rhetoric” means:

a: skill in the effective use of speech
b: a type or mode of language or speech
also : insincere or grandiloquent language

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric

speech or writing that is intended to influence or impress people, but which is often insincere or lacking in meaningful content

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-french/rhetoric

(formal, often disapproving) speech or writing that is intended to influence people, but that is not completely honest or sincere
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/rhetoric?q=rhetoric

I’m not lauding mainstream news media. That’s another example of exaggeration, caricature, distortion of what the reality is. — neomac

As opposed to...

militant rhetoric — neomac

manipulative, typical of the worst propaganda — neomac

intellectually miserable tricks — neomac

...which I suppose you'll hold to be "literally accurate"? — Isaac

You supposed right. Let me repeat it once more: your militant rhetoric and intellectually miserable tricks are manipulative, typical of the worst propaganda. This is a literally accurate description of your attitude in most, if not all, posts you addressed to me and not only.

I use the word 'lauding' to express your apparent sense of trustworthiness and that's a "exaggeration, caricature, distortion of what the reality is", but painting me a a militant wanting to bring about a return to some Putin-led authoritarianism is apparently "literally accurate"? — Isaac

Again I didn't "laud" the mainstream media in general, nor in particular for ignoring Hersh's article (which neither got suppressed by the government nor rejected by mainstream outlets, as far as I know). That's an exaggeration. I’m relying on the Western media system for the simple reason that is free and pluralistic enough that any truth against the government has more chances to become mainstream than under any authoritarian regime media system. I don't feel pressed to take a position wrt Hersh's article, nor I need Hersh’s article to suspect about the American involvement in Nord Stream 2 sabotage.
And I'm not painting you something you are not. I find literally correct to call you militant and your arguments propaganda based on what you actually said and how you said it. Indeed I always quoted you and argued my understanding of your questionable arguments. You repeatedly solicited interlocutors to take our politicians accountable for their blameworthy foreign policies about the war in Ukraine (and not only) and passionately made that as your main if not exclusive argumentative focus. That shows your militant urge. Satisfying it with simplistic and poorly argued assumptions over moral, politics, and geopolitics, spreading views critical toward the government (independently from their accuracy), fallacious counterarguments, and mostly profusion of discrediting remarks and dishonest rhetoric tricks are exactly illustrations of what I literally take to be the worst propaganda. No need to attribute to you nor suggest any "wanting to bring about a return to some Putin-led authoritarianism” (however I think your claims literally instrumental to Putin-led authoritarianism and authoritarian regimes’ propaganda, indeed most of the arguments you made are the ones that the Russian propaganda supports). After all it’s hard to guess the endgame supported by somebody like you. Too limited imagination here, I’m afraid.

the latter might more easily nurture the fanaticism of certain people trying to convince the less fanatics that they know better or they could do better because they have a more fervid imagination or more morally noble intentions. — neomac

Why? What mechanisms are in place in mainstream media to prevent people writing in those outlets from "trying to convince the less fanatics that they know better or they could do better because they have a more fervid imagination or more morally noble intentions”? — Isaac

Your question doesn’t make much sense, if you understand my objection. To make it more explicit: people that are fanatically opposing a regime (thanks to their putative superior imagination and noble intentions), more easily find support on alternative sources of information critical of the mainstream narratives which they too oppose, of course, no matter if such sources are questionable in turn, often for the same reasons such fanatics question certain mainstream narrative (spinning political propaganda to serve cynical, if not ideologically obtuse, interests). That’s the mindset of fanatic people like you.

we might have ended up having more evidences to assess Hersh’s article credibility vs mainstream media credibility: maybe the Washington Post or NYT would have accepted to publish his article, or maybe they would have rejected it because they fact-checked the article or identified his anonymous source and in either case his article was questionable, or maybe they would have rejected it without further comments but this might have been suspicious, etc. — neomac

Why? What mechanisms are in place in mainstream media to ensure, or promote the discovery/use of "more evidences" if a story is published there than if one is self-published?


News platforms, mainstream and non-mainstream (like icij or propublica), may scrutinise more or less rigorously the pieces they publish in terms of fact checking, identification/assessment of the sources of information (like anonymous sources), and legal counseling/vetting (in case of legal consequences), especially in the case of controversial content. — neomac


Yep. Or they may not. Do you have anything beyond idle speculation? — Isaac

Not sure you understood the point I’m making. When we are uncertain about the accuracy of an investigative piece against the American government, we can wonder about the reliability of the source. The problem is when we have plausible reasons to doubt the reliability of the source too, and reciprocal avoidance (Hersh didn’t go to mainstream news publisher, many mainstream news publisher ignored Hersh’s article) doesn’t offer more useful contextual evidences to clarify the reasons of such reciprocal avoidance and use them to assess reliability. So one can speculate about direct political interference, political interest of involved parties or other reasons (marketing/reputational reasons). In any case, my assumption is that at some point the bitter truth about the American government (if there is one) will come out roughly with the same likelihood as it came out other times (also thanks to the kind of findings Hersh’s investigations could offer).
If my speculations are idle, they are not more idle than your speculations (about political reasons and interference behind the treatment Hersh’s article received from mainstream/governmental sources). And the reason why I rely on my speculations more than yours is that they are arguably less unilateral and simplistic than yours.

So it’s not just matter of selling newspapers and newsworthiness — neomac

No. Your evidence says "may", you can't conclude an "is not" from a "may". Pretty basic stuff. It "may not" be just a matter of selling newspapers... or it may be, depending on the outcome of any evidence that this "scrutinising" that you tell us "may" happen actually is, you know... happening. — Isaac

I didn’t infer “is not” from a “may”. In clarifying my assumption, I talked in hypothetical terms when the subject I was referring to was “news platforms” (e.g. “news platforms, mainstream and non-mainstream (like icij or propublica), may scrutinise…”). Then I talked in actual terms when the subject I was referring to was the assumption itself: it’s not just matter of selling newspapers and newsworthiness. Roughly speaking, speculating is fine, but speculating over one’s own speculations would be a bit too much for this thread, I guess.

Hersh himself claims that for his self-published article he worked with a team of editors, fact-checkers, and at-that-time “known” anonymous sources to address the interviewers’ concerns about the reliability of his piece — neomac


So... the mainstream would have done what differently?


the claim “they have no special insight, no tools to get at the truth denied ordinary folk. They're just people, like Hersh” is obviously false: investigative journalism no matter if independent or not, is a specialised profession often relying on conditions (like special permissions granted only to professional journalists) and a network of informers (like anonymous inside witness and leakers), normally not available to ordinary folks. — neomac


Hersh is an investigative journalist — Isaac

.


In that interview (starting from 20min03), Hersh claims that he didn’t approach the Washington Post or NYT, because he thought they wouldn’t publish his article, because they want to know his source and he got burned once by revealing his source to an editor of NYT (but he doesn’t like to talk about that because “the NYT is still a good newspaper” and then he complains about 90% of editors). Yet it’s not clear what “being burned” is supposed to mean nor what that past experience has to do with Hersh’s belief the NYT and Washington Post wouldn’t publish his piece now (maybe Hersh used and is still using anonymous sources that the NYT or Washington Post would find unreliable?).
In other words, we are left to assume that there are some unspecified editorial issues with certain mainstream outlets behind Hersh’s decision of self-publishing. So the point is that mainstream publishers may choose editors and follow editorial guidelines to their liking not to Hersh’s liking. And if that’s the case, that’s a relevant difference.

What you failed to do so far however, is to convince me that spreading anti-mainstream narratives no matter if they are accurate because it’s an emergency is the best way to improve the system. Actually I suspect this is part of the problem, more likely so if insults, sarcasm, caricatures are the best counterarguments you can offer. — neomac


I'm not trying to convince you — Isaac

.

Yet, reiterating in several occasions claims like “the US and it's allies are our governments. It is they who we must hold to account and they to whose electorate we are speaking” (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/787564), marketing the narrative you support with rhetoric tricks, and giving advice to people on how spin a counter-narrative (no matter if accurate) for a powerful response under emergency, as you did with me, they all look too much like attempts (however self-defeating) to convince people, as political propaganda is supposed to do. Unfortunately trying to deny it may also be part of the job. Unless, of course, you lack self-awareness.

I’ll repeat it once more. Hersh could have sold his piece to some Western mainstream news outlets — neomac

It doesn't get more true the more you repeat it — Isaac

.

I don’t think the truth of that claim can be rationally challenged, of course. The reason why I repeated it is to avoid further objections based on a misunderstanding of my full argument which that claim is part of.

there are also platforms for independent investigative journalism. The reputed ones apply some internal reviewing of the piece before publication — neomac

Do they? Using what methods? — Isaac

Haruspex?

there might be reputational and legal hazards at the expense of the publisher to be assessed and addressed — neomac

Are self-published authors immune from prosecution? That's news to me. — Isaac

I wrote “publisher” which applies to both mainstream publishers and self-publishers. On the other side, if one is self-publishing, then he is more free to take greater risks, obviously. Is that news to you?

not to mention that he seems to be in good company on this “amazing” Substack — neomac


Brilliant. The mainstream media must be right because people not on the mainstream media are wrong because the mainstream media says so. Got to hand it to you guys, you come up with the very best in utter bullshit. — Isaac

First, your intellectually cringey understanding of what would make your arguments more rationally compelling reflects on your intellectually cringey understanding of your opponents’ claims. The argument you are clumsily attributing to me is in the end a self-defeating attempt to parody the very notion of epistemic reliance as I understand it. Indeed relying on a source of information (be it from your sense organs, memory, reasoning, instruments for observation and measurement, witnesses, professionals, experts) consists in a certain disposition to accept as plausibly true what the source of information presents as being the case, unless there are compelling reasons or evidences to the contrary (being all of them, in principle fallible). And we normally do not rely on a single source of information, but on an environment of sources of information that we learn to use and crosscheck depending on epistemic needs, background assumptions, and circumstances. That’s also how we can develop a critical non-naive understanding of media, mainstream or not, and therefore form opinions with greater caution. And that’s also the reason why wrote: “I’m relying on the Western media system for the simple reason that is free and pluralistic enough that any truth against the government has more chances to become mainstream than under any authoritarian regime media system.”
Second, concerning Hersh’s article, I argued that I’m not pressed to dismiss it as unreliable, just because it didn’t make headlines in major news outlets. And this shows I do not automatically align with mainstream attitudes and views just as if mainstream news outlets are always right (BTW mainstream news can even contradict one another).
Third, my comment wasn’t even about who is right or wrong, but about the fact that Substack (whose editorial principles sound promising on the papers) has become a haven for “anti-mainstream narrative” authors like him and posting a mainstream outlet denouncing substack articles is exactly illustrating the point I’m making. And, if you need it (coz I don't), similar accusations can be found elsewhere too:
https://www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/anti-vaxxers-qanon-influencers-and-white-nationalists-flocking-to-substack/
https://act.counterhate.com/page/98112/petition/1?locale=en-GB
https://mashable.com/article/substack-writers-leaving-misinformation
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2000220227551
https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/campaign-group-chief-says-substack-profiting-from-misinformation-deaths/

I'm not 'dishonestly' framing things the way it suits me. I'm doing so openly and honestl. The only difference between us is your dishonesty in pretending that you're doing otherwise. You defend the status quo and your rhetoric is designed to do that, just as mine is designed to oppose it. — Isaac

Yes you are framing things the way it suits you. And you did again in this comment. Claiming that Hersh’s article has not been suppressed having in mind how suppression of free press is actually practiced under authoritarian regimes is no rhetoric. It’s literally accurate. Your evoking the idea of “suppression” to comment the mainstream news outlets’ reception of Hersh’ article is a rhetoric trick (which I should “tolerate” to not sound “pedantic”) and is meant to suggest an equivalence between such treatment and the actual suppression perpetrated by authoritarian regimes. That’s what your militant rhetoric is designed to achieve. This associative talking and thinking is manipulative, typical of the worst propaganda. I don’t need such intellectually miserable tricks to make my point about Hersh’s article as you do. And that’s the key difference between me and you.

Ignored, avoided, dismissed? Even if political interference might have obstructed Hersh’s publication in Western media (which doesn’t automatically imply that the article is accurate though), yet I see another problem: Hersh preferred self-publishing over going to mainstream media. So he might have been served the same cold treatment he himself served to the mainstream media. — neomac

Might he? And what would posses mainstream media to act like a bunch of teenage girls in that respect? Is this the credible institution you laud? One which does not investigate serious allegations against the government because they came from someone who turned them down as a publication route? What are they, twelve?


In the end, he could have always tried to sell his article to mainstream publishers, and after rejection he could have still self-published his article plus take revenge against mainstream publishers by publicly denouncing their refusal to publish his extraordinary piece. — neomac

Yep, could have. Or, could not have. What difference does that make?

I was making a general point. Here is a list of American media outlets with different political bias: — neomac

I was asking you which of those had power? Which of those can cause the US government to act in a way it wouldn't otherwise?

The same mainstream news outlets publishing experts and academics criticising Nato enlargement, American military aid to Ukraine, American refusing to negotiate with Russia, etc. could have published Hersh’s article as well. And take credit for it, if Hersh’s article turns out to be accurate. — neomac


Yep. they could have. Or, again, they could not have. I don't see where this line of enquiry is going. What does it matter that Hersh could have not self-published? Editorial oversight is not the same as peer review. It's not like a scientific journal. Editors publish stories they think will sell papers, their decision is based on that and that alone, they're not Gods, there's no Secret Society of Editors dedicated to Truth. They have no special insight, no tools to get at the truth denied ordinary folk. They're just people, like Hersh. — Isaac

1 - I’m not lauding mainstream news media. That’s another example of exaggeration, caricature, distortion of what the reality is. The fact that I’m relying on them as many do out of necessity, and as a default entry point also for all news alternative sources may find contentious, it doesn’t mean that I do not have a critical understanding of their function and limits, nor it means that I’m ready to replace Western mainstream news with Hersh, substack, jacobin.com, or Tass. The latter too may misinform, run political agendas, and suffer from conflicts of interests. What’s worse is that the latter might more easily nurture the fanaticism of certain people trying to convince the less fanatics that they know better or they could do better because they have a more fervid imagination or more morally noble intentions. And their outraged sarcasm, caricaturing, insults against their opponents should prove it beyond any doubt, especially if their targets show intolerance and childishness by daring to protest against such an unfair treatment.
2 - I already explained the difference. “The inconvenient upshot of such a counterfactual [trying to sell and then being rejected] might have been to solicit a public report on the reasons why his article got rejected by the mainstream publishers, something Hersh might have been interested to avoid”. In other words, we might have ended up having more evidences to assess Hersh’s article credibility vs mainstream media credibility: maybe the Washington Post or NYT would have accepted to publish his article, or maybe they would have rejected it because they fact-checked the article or identified his anonymous source and in either case his article was questionable, or maybe they would have rejected it without further comments but this might have been suspicious, etc.
3 - I can’t nor need to predict under what conditions Western mainstream news media can influence any specific American policy. Lamenting the treatment Hersh’s self-published article received by the American mainstream news media must pertinently presuppose the belief that such news media have a certain capacity of shaping the general consensus around the American government foreign policies and influence it accordingly.
4 - News platforms, mainstream and non-mainstream (like icij or propublica), may scrutinise more or less rigorously the pieces they publish in terms of fact checking, identification/assessment of the sources of information (like anonymous sources), and legal counseling/vetting (in case of legal consequences), especially in the case of controversial content. So it’s not just matter of selling newspapers and newsworthiness (was this the case, Hersh’s article is arguably very much newsworthy). Indeed, in that very interview I linked previously, Hersh himself claims that for his self-published article he worked with a team of editors, fact-checkers, and at-that-time “known” anonymous sources to address the interviewers’ concerns about the reliability of his piece (in addition to self-promoting remarks, I mean).
Besides the claim “they have no special insight, no tools to get at the truth denied ordinary folk. They're just people, like Hersh” is obviously false: investigative journalism no matter if independent or not, is a specialised profession often relying on conditions (like special permissions granted only to professional journalists) and a network of informers (like anonymous inside witness and leakers), normally not available to ordinary folks.

a pluralistic media and political environment may constrain news agencies’ misinformation more likely than under authoritarian regimes. — neomac

Yes. I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. Are you suggesting the only two choices we have are Western corporate-infused media as we have it now, or authoritarianism? Is that really the limit of your imagination? — Isaac

In the Western-like pluralistic system one can find e.g. mainstream news outlets, independent investigative platforms (like propublica and icij), self-publishing platforms (like Substack), OSINT sources, academic papers platforms, etc. and different political orientations. That’s pluralistic and free enough compared to what one can get in authoritarian regimes like Russia, China, Iran, Nord Korea. And for that reason worth preserving.
Said that, you shouldn’t convince me that is generically possible or desirable to improve the Western information system we currently have, if that’s what you’re trying to do with your pretentious questions. That’s easy to concede: between preserving and improving, I’d prefer improving of course. What you failed to do so far however, is to convince me that spreading anti-mainstream narratives no matter if they are accurate because it’s an emergency is the best way to improve the system. Actually I suspect this is part of the problem, more likely so if insults, sarcasm, caricatures are the best counterarguments you can offer.

in the specific case of Hersh’s article about Nord Stream 2, why exactly couldn’t he? — neomac

Simply put, all mainstream media is either directly owned by, or relies on revenue from, large corporations whose interests drive the editorial agenda. If it's in no corporate interest to publish a highly speculative story about US involvement in the Nord Stream bombings, then none will. Hersh seems to have concluded that to be the case sufficiently often to choose to rely on his own income stream. That decision having been made, he's hardly in a position to sacrifice it by giving the scoop to someone else. Self-employment isn't nefarious, it's not some oddity in need of explanation. — Isaac

I’ll repeat it once more. Hersh could have sold his piece to some Western mainstream news outlets (not given his scoop to somebody else for free or without acknowledgment). There are several, inside and outside the US , with different political orientations, and some critical toward Biden’s administration and his foreign policy (there are plenty of articles in mainstream outlets against NATO enlargement, military aid to Ukraine, refusal of peace negotiations, etc.). Besides there are also platforms for independent investigative journalism. The reputed ones apply some internal reviewing of the piece before publication, understandably so because no matter what economic and political reasons can distort such process, yet there might be reputational and legal hazards at the expense of the publisher to be assessed and addressed. Self-publishing spares the author such process imposed by another publisher.
The kind of argument Hersh himself offered in that interview sound overly vague, erratic and colloquial to me, so there is room for speculation about his reasons for self-publishing (and relying on his actual statements would be more persuasive than guessing Hersh’s reasons out of your understanding of how mainstream media work) but we can not speculate about the reasons why his article got rejected by mainstream outlets such as Washington Post and NYT, because according to Hersh this didn’t happen (so his article neither got suppressed by the government nor rejected by mainstream news outlets). As he himself indirectly suggested, the combination of new technologies for self-publishing (like this “amazing” Substack) and polarised politics (which we are left to assume Hersh is averse to), created the conditions enabling (self-promoting?) independent journalists to compete with mainstream media for audience and reputation. His self-interested remarks plus innuendoes at the expense of the NYT (one might wonder if he ever got burned by one of his anonymous sources though) or lamenting the “doom for good reporting on newspapers” are pointing in that direction “in the long run” (not to mention that he seems to be in good company on this “amazing” Substack https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/01/27/substack-misinformation-anti-vaccine/). But if we are talking about competition, then it’s in the corporate interest of the publisher to minimise the impact of the competitor, certainly not to promote it (this is something also people older than 12 can understand, I guess), especially if the mainstream outlets had reasons to suspect that Hersh self-published because his article couldn’t pass a stricter review, or if the mainstream outlets were warned about a line of investigation more plausible (or more convenient?) than Hersh’s by their own anonymous insiders, because in this case they also had pretexts along with motives.

Sy Hersh no longer confines his lies to talks. His latest "blockbuster" has been fact-checked using OSINT and found to be lacking in some crucial details. — SophistiCat

Maybe he is not lying just making false claims. Anyways, talking about OSINT, I was aware of Oliver Alexander's review of Hersh's article: https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe

Or are you referring to somebody else?

In the past Bellingcat was critical about Hersh's claims: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/06/25/will-get-fooled-seymour-hersh-welt-khan-sheikhoun-chemical-attack/
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/07/28/khan-sheikhoun-seymour-hersh-learned-just-write-know-move/

Well perhaps consider a little more tolerance and a little less childish pedantry. We're talking about the treatment of the article by the mainstream media on a public discussion forum. I don't think there's any chance of me accidentally starting the next Marxist revolution here so you can probably rest easy about my "militant rhetoric”. — Isaac

It’s not about pedantry or Marxist revolutions, it’s about you dishonestly framing things the way it suits you so that e.g. you can flatten relevant differences concerning how independent journalists are treated in Western-like democracies (not suppressing their independent journalists’ pieces against the government) vs Chinese/Russian style authoritarian regimes (suppressing their independent journalists’ pieces against the government). Protecting such kind of differences is what may justify Western democratic regimes' policies against authoritarian regimes’ threats, so I have a good reason to insist on it. Your way of questioning and arguing is highly manipulative and I don’t see why I should “tolerate” such militant rhetoric also in the context of a philosophy forum. I find it intellectually dishonest and deserving to be treated as such.

Then what did they do to it? What's the word you'd prefer we use to describe their smearing and studious avoidance? What word could we put in place of "suppression" which carries a lower risk of inciting the proletariat? — Isaac

Ignored, avoided, dismissed? Even if political interference might have obstructed Hersh’s publication in Western media (which doesn’t automatically imply that the article is accurate though), yet I see another problem: Hersh preferred self-publishing over going to mainstream media. So he might have been served the same cold treatment he himself served to the mainstream media. In the end, he could have always tried to sell his article to mainstream publishers, and after rejection he could have still self-published his article plus take revenge against mainstream publishers by publicly denouncing their refusal to publish his extraordinary piece. Unless, the inconvenient upshot of such a counterfactual might have been to solicit a public report on the reasons why his article got rejected by the mainstream publishers, something Hersh might have been interested to avoid.

I’m simply questioning the idea that Hersh’s story would earn greater credibility by being sponsored by Russian propaganda outlets like TASS relative to alternatives like the BBC. — neomac

An idea nobody espoused. — Isaac

I didn’t assume otherwise. You misunderstood part of my claims when I was considering Hersh’s article credibility wrt his editorial fortune. So I clarified that to you.

I just don’t feel pressed to question a Western government’s deeds when there are so many powerful agents readily doing so — neomac

I must have missed those. Could you provide a couple of links to these 'powerful' agents (a primer on the concept of 'power' in international relations, if you need one - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2151022)? — Isaac

I was making a general point. Here is a list of American media outlets with different political bias: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
Not all of them are supportive of Biden’s administration right?
The same mainstream news outlets publishing experts and academics criticising Nato enlargement, American military aid to Ukraine, American refusing to negotiate with Russia, etc. could have published Hersh’s article as well. And take credit for it, if Hersh’s article turns out to be accurate.

the Russian government is... far from being vocally challenged by competitors internal or external to the government — neomac

...one of the more ridiculous things said today... If only more people would speak out against Russian actions... — Isaac

My point wasn’t about how many people speak out against Russia. But how a pluralistic media and political environment may constrain news agencies’ misinformation more likely than under authoritarian regimes.

If an independent journalist wants to be read by many, he could sell his articles denouncing a government’s misdeeds to a mainstream outlets. If he doesn’t trust any mainstream outlets, he could still publish in some well reputed independent platform like https://www.icij.org/about/ — neomac

Could he? You just assume this on faith, yes? — Isaac

I was making a general argument there, so in the specific case of Hersh’s article about Nord Stream 2, why exactly couldn’t he? Did he try and get rejected by all mainstream news outlets? All the biggest ones? All the ones critical of Biden’s administration too? All the European outlets too? How about icij or propublica? As far as I can tell, there are no evidences of such attempts and rejections (e.g. at 20min03 of this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUTwLiuiNh0 Hersh claims he never thought to approach the mainstream news papers he used to write for, the Washington Post or the NYT, because he never thought they would publish his article about the Nord Stream 2 sabotage). But if you have evidences to the contrary, post them here.

I can keep my doubts in either case and suspend my judgement. — neomac — Isaac

No. Your 'suspended judgement' is just consent to whatever the US (or your own country) are doing. Because they're doing it now. If you don't stop them, you consent. There's no 'suspended judgement' the situation is happening in front of you, right now and you have to decide one way or the other.[/quote]

So there is no third option now? Just either or? So in your case if you don’t support the Ukrainian fight against Russian invasion, then you consent to the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because that is what your attitude performatively equates to?
Anyways, my “suspended judgement” about Hersh’s article credibility, is not consent to whatever the US has done in Nord Stream 2 because, contrary to what we already know about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I still ignore if Hersh’s accusations are accurate. But I get the implied risks of my position and am fine with it. We are reasoning under uncertainties, so risks are part of the game.

It's like seeing a man with a gun about to shoot another. You can't 'suspend judgement' about who's guilty, who's attacking whom. You either act (and protect the one being shot at) or you don't act (and let him get shot). 'Suspending judgement' is just performatively identical to the latter. — Isaac

Or it's like seeing Russia invading Ukraine. You can't 'suspend judgement' about who's guilty, who's attacking whom. You either act (and protect the one being invaded) or you don't act (and let him get invaded). 'Suspending judgement' is just performatively identical to the latter.