There is plenty of evidence that Trump was and is a Russian asset. — Fooloso4

He staffed his administration with anti-Russian and anti-Iranian hawks like Jim Mattis, Mike Pompeo and Jeff Sessions, and made noise about upgrading and expanding U.S. nuclear capability, a sharp break from the rhetoric of previous administrations. Just days into his presidency, he phoned Putin and trashed the 2010 New Start nuclear arms control treaty, claiming that he wouldn’t renew it. It would later come out that Trump rejected the Kremlin’s offer of full normalization of relations.

...

April 2017 saw Tillerson visit Moscow for the first time. It was a disaster for renewing the countries’ relationship, with Tillerson and his Russian counterpart sniping at each other at the press conference, largely due to tension over Trump’s airstrike in Syria earlier that month. CNN noted Trump’s honeymoon with the country was markedly shorter than those of previous presidents. — https://inthesetimes.com/article/media-russia-russiagate-trump-putin-rachel-maddow-msnbc

The downing of the Su-22 threatened to bring Washington and Moscow into conflict in the war-torn country. In the aftermath of the incident, Russia announced the end of deconfliction arrangements with U.S. forces and that it had decided to treat future U.S. flights west of the Euphrates River as hostile. — https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/26/trump-is-tripping-over-iran-and-russias-red-lines-in-syria/

President Trump took his agenda promoting what he calls American “energy dominance” on the road at the outset of his second foreign trip, with a pitch for Europe to buy America’s abundant natural gas.

The message offers a direct challenge to Russian President Vladimir Putin — whose country supplies much of Europe with natural gas — https://time.com/4846889/trump-putin-g20-natural-gas/

I can see a lot of anti-Russian policies which emerged from the Trump administration. I'm not so clear on what Trump actually did for Putin.

What policies did this Putin-puppet put in place during his four year tenure in service of his master?

those people weren't shut up or their stuff wouldn't be around for all to see. (Thinking of Russia? :grin:) What you label "Dissent" is how things work. — jorndoe

If you have anything more than simpering apologetics to contribute there might be more to discuss. As it is I don't know what can be added. You're wrong. It's not just 'how things work' and I've above cited the evidence of several of the respective countries' top scientists, lawyers, and public servants saying exactly that.

If you seriously think just saying 'it was fine' is some kind of stunning coup de grâce, I don't know of a more gentle way to let you down I'm afraid.

The problem here isn't whatever an individual says in particular, it's a matter of taking all of it into consideration to get it dealt with — jorndoe

Yes. Which is exactly what the people I cited above have concluded did not happen. Did you even read them?

there are experts doing that as well — jorndoe

The experts aren't the problem. Most experts have already recognised the mistakes and plan to learn from them. It's the public that are the problem. Morons like you who can't handle the fact that they were played by social media algorithms and so double down on their fanaticism which makes it harder for politicians to actually act on the more sound advice the experts are now giving them. You're the problem now.

Anyway, hopefully the Frump will see justice and/or go away. — jorndoe

I don't see any cause to hope. If he goes away he'll be replaced by an identical figurehead with an identical agenda. Did you really think he was a one man show?

So because one crime is more damaging than another crime then we shouldn't care about the latter? I don't see why. People can care care about both crimes. — Michael

Oh I must have missed those other threads on the starvation in Africa, the corruption of share stocks, the effect of lobbying, the homelessness crisis, the opioid devastation, the union busting, modern slavery, refugee crises...

There's only one front page. It matters what's on it.

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.

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"?

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"?

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"?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't care if rich and powerful politicians get away with committing crimes? — Michael

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

23 million people are on the brink of starvation right now across Africa and it's all the result of completely legal behaviour.

Politicians being able to hold shares in the industries they're supposed to be regulating, accepting lobbying payments from corporations they might otherwise legislate against, walking out of office into lucrative board jobs with the companies whose interests they just served...

All vastly more damaging than misappropriation of campaign funds. Being smart enough to get away with your chosen corruption isn't something to be impressed by.

The current government, the ones wielding the actual power right now, are driving the world toward more war, more famine, and more destitution... And the talk is all about this pointless micro-story about some stock-in-trade level corruption.

Honestly, if the best counter the American left can come up with for Trump's populism is some classist sneering and petitions to "Have a little faith in the system" (the same one that just fucked women's reproductive rights) then they bloody well deserve another four years of him, another 20...

Christ. Have you lot got nothing better than this? Trump's not Joan of Arc, his arrest, incitement, rallying, corruption, or stupidity are all completely irrelevant. If it wasn't him it'd be some other figurehead. He's hardly got the intelligence to put his trousers on the right way round, let alone lead an insurgence.

The problem is not Trump, it's the sentiments which drive his support, and all the while you all play into the narrative that he's some uniquely corrupt figure who's removal and punishment are major concerns, the actual root problems which have given rise to populism in numerous countries just grow stronger.

Try walking into the home of an unemployed ex-industrual worker in Idaho, and telling him to "Have a little faith in the system", see if you get out with your nose unbroken, let alone any shift in his voting intentions.

You do for your own posts, and you should exercise the capability more often. — Changeling

I'll be sure to follow your example and only post when I'm sure what I have to say is sufficiently jejune as to be worth less than disdain with which it is read.

If you don't care about actors like European coiuntries or Russia's objectives in this war, let others talk about them. — ssu

I'm not preventing anyone from talking about anything. I don't have the capability to censor or remove posts.

Which would still be external to the system under analysis.


And just as arbitrary. — NOS4A2

I didn't say it wasn't arbitrary. That's the point. Any step in a causal chain could be called 'the cause' there's no right answer, it depends on the context.

Does talk about the will have to do with anything else? — NOS4A2

Not if you beg the question, no. But if you're asking if there is such a thing, then talk about it very much does have to do with forces outside the body. Those being among the alternative explanations for action you'd have to dismiss the possibility of to prove your position.

For some reason you’ve limited the discussion to “cause” only, but the body also controls, regulates, orders, directs such activity, and it does it under no other influence. — NOS4A2

Again, just spouting nonsense you happen to reckon is not a substitute for a rational argument. Have you studied human physiology? Have you put any effort at all toward checking if your 'reckon' is correct, have you examined these 'controls, regulations orders, and directions' to see if they do indeed occur without any outside influence?

No.

You just spew up whatever you happen to think and expect to be taken seriously. If you want to discuss human regulatory physiology, then learn about it first.

I think the real story here is not in what Hersh wrote, but in how it was received. — SophistiCat

We agree on that much, but probably for different reasons.

Again this just promotes the unquestioned narrative that anything mainstream must be normal and anything opposing it 'extreme'. Nicely ensuring nothing ever changes, the oppressed remain oppressed, the marginalised remain marginalised, and the powerful remain in power.

Here it's media. The 'normal' corporate media just respond always in normal, harmless ways which are unworthy of comment. This despite them being the single most powerful force in influencing people's understanding of the situation.

No. The real important response, the one that it is vital we discuss, is the all important lunatic fringe. Because we all know how much power and influence a few tinfoil hat wearing rednecks have on global socioeconomic development.

Do let's spend the next eight months analysing in tremendous depth the reactions of the utterly powerless, those whose actions count for virtually nothing.

Let's just leave those corporate behemoths, big enough to dwarf most small countries, out of our analysis, they hardly matter.

I hear mouthwash gets the taste of boot polish out sufficiently.

Oh, and... The OP

The situation in Ukraine is becoming more dire by the minute. NATO is implying Russia is planning to invade Ukraine, whereas Russia denies this. Russia claims it will not allow Ukraine to enter NATO, as this would effectively put a hostile military alliance - NATO - right at the borders of Russia.

There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies - soon after the disaster in Afghanistan. And Putin is wanting to shift attention away from pretty bad conditions in Russia do to the COVID pandemic and rising prices. — Manuel

It is you who are off topic if you want to restrict discussion to Russia. Feel free to start a thread focusing on Russia's role, but that is not the topic of this thread.

If you aren't willing to discuss the role of Russian politics, Ukrainian politics or other European countries, then just step aside then when others do — ssu

This is a public forum. If you don't want unsolicited responses to your posts, then you're in the wrong place. Echo chambers of the type you're seeking can be created with invite-only groups on Mastodon or Discord, or similar. You can set up such a group and invite only people who agree with you. This is not such a place, this is a place where a diversity of opinions are allowed and you should expect dissent if you post here.

The problem with this thinking is that it leads simplistic navel gazing where absolutely everything evolves around in the end the US and everyone else is either a pawn or a victim of the Superpower. And people thinking like this don't understand just how condescending they are toward others and how it leads to faulty conclusions. — ssu

You confuse what is said with what is understood.

I don't have to talk about my disgust at Russia's actions in order to feel disgust at Russia's actions.

I don't have to discuss the role Russian politics played in initiating this war in order to understand the role Russian politics played in initiating this war.

the war in Ukraine is quite real for me as it has had effects on my life — ssu

Exactly. So why don't we have a grown up conversation which accepts our biases and motives rather than one where you pretend to be a dispassionate analyst, rather than admit that you have a strong vested interest in promoting a narrative which increases the chances of a resounding military defeat of Russia?

it’s about you dishonestly framing things the way it suits you — neomac

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.

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.

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?

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.

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? — neomac

Yes, that would be right. If I didn't support Ukrainian resistance then I'd be consenting to Russian occupation since that is what the most powerful actor in that group is going to do if unresisted.

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. — neomac

Yes. That's right.

His latest "blockbuster" has been fact-checked using OSINT and found to be lacking in some crucial details. — SophistiCat

It's like talking to children. It's been 'fact-checked' has it? By whom? and how is it that they have access to 'The Facts'? Has there been some breakdown in military intelligence? Has there been a mass refusal of the Official Secrets Act? Do these 'fact-checkers' possess some supernatural abilities denied to mere mortals like Sy Hersh?

Honestly, this is what we've come to. Someone writes 'fact-checker' in title of their organisation or website and it's all it took to convince idiots like you that they have some special access to truth. Is that really the threshold of your gullibility, is it that easy?

Do you know what we used to call 'fact-checkers'... Journalists. And you know what? They didn't always agree.

So everyone that opposes Western governments is put on a pedestal and hailed, because they oppose Western governments and their actions are "understood". Right. — ssu

Basically, yes. Obviously lunatics are excluded, but since we're talking about experts here we can relieve ourselves of that burden at the outset.. So, yes. Voices which are critical of power are raised up. Do you have any argument against doing so, or did you think rolling your eyes was sufficient?

Then your outrage is meaningless, because you don't have universal values that you judge people and nations by, but everything is just politics driven by an agenda. — ssu

Who said I don't have any universal values? Just because I don't wear my heart on my sleeve?

it would be an error to conclude that therefore we are, or may be, always deceived. — Banno

Absolutely. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the nature of language is such that we cannot possibly be always deceived - against what truth would we measure that deceit?

As you say we theorize that there is something, some configuration of particles or energy or whatever, more or less invariant which gives rise to human perceptions of a particular tree. — Janus

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. It's a common misinterpretation of all predictive coding models, they're models of how information is processed, nothing to do with the physics of the universe. They're not making any ontological claims.

The term 'external states' (which has caused an immense amount of confusion here for some reason) refers to that state of a node in an information diagram. Like {on/off} or {high/low} something like that. So, whilst I dislike bridging cognitive systems theories and social constructs, it would be something like that external nodes must be in some state (contain some data) that is at least moderately consistent because our inferences about the state of those nodes from our internal nodes yields fairly predictable changes when acted upon.

That the tree is made of atoms is still all inference. It's not 'tree = internal, and 'atoms' = external.

The tree as it is in itself as opposed to the tree as it appears to us is a voherent logical distinction — Janus

No, I don't believe it is because you've used the term 'it' (as I pointed out earlier). For the 'tree-as-it-is-in-itself' to be anything it must already be inferred (no less than the 'tree' was in the first place). It's existence is no less a product of our perception.

this is just a diferent way of thinking and talking about it than your preferred way, but neither way is priveleged in the sense of presenting any matter of fact; they are simply two different ways of thinking. — Janus

As usual with arguments like this...

"thisis'nt just a different way of thinking and talking about it than your preferred way, and one way is privileged in the sense of presenting any matter of fact; they are not simply two different ways of thinking."

Can one assume that the above 'way of thinking' is, by your own theory, no more privileged than the one you espoused from which it is derived, by negation? Just a different way of thinking, yes? Equally valid.

Random noise, duh! — invicta

That would be randomness then. Not 'will'.

Your causal chain begins rather arbitrarily, at the point where the hammer strikes the tendon, and not in the doctors brain for instance. — NOS4A2

Which would still be external to the system under analysis.

that the environment can affect the body is a given. I’m speaking about the body, — NOS4A2

So your argument is "if we limit ourselves to speaking about the body... then we find that all events are caused by something in the body". well, no shit.

Do you think externally generated signals must be stopped at some point in order for free-will to exist? — ToothyMaw

To be honest, I think talk of free-will and talk of CNS signals are from two different worlds and don't have much corroboratory overlap. We use words like 'free-will' to talk about coercion by others, it's a word used in a social context when entertaining concepts of blame, responsibility, and autonomy. the only overlap I can see with neuroscience or cognitive science is where we can identify a pathology to say "he would have acted differently had it not been for X" and then show that by reference to a 'normal' CNS functioning without this pathology.

All I'm saying here with the examples I've given to @NOS4A2 is that if one were to theorise a 'free-will' in a physiological sense (which is the sense in which @NOS4A2 introduced it), then it would have to somehow interrupt that chain of action potential > action potential which seems to run all the way from sensory input to motor output.

What if there is some function by which beliefs, for example, are stored and represented at least partially by some sort of stochastic factor and then this sort of moderately understandable randomness results in enough deviation to allow one to say, with moderate certainty, that their beliefs are not formed only from external signals and personal valuation, but rather also a number of hidden factors that may or may not be physiological? What if we couldn't even observe the means by which beliefs are formed and acted upon, at least not on the right level? — ToothyMaw

There's certainly a lot of stochastic activity in the brain. Neurons will fire randomly just due to depolarisation as a result of gradual leakage of Na+ through some non-selective membrane channels (as well as a few other, less significant causes). There are also damages which can make it more likely for these random firing to occur in clusters. But we have tow main mechanisms to prevent this from having any effect. first most neurons will be wired such as to require a number of preceding neurons to fire in order to raise sufficient action potential, so one random firing in that set is unlikely to do anything. the second is more complex. Various cortices act together to 'interpret' the signal entering them before sending on some 'result' to the cortices above them in the brain's hierarchy. As part of this process they have backward acting neurons which suppress signals that don't fit an 'expected' pattern, This way signals which are likely to be noise never reach the next stage in the processing hierarchy.

It's possible that some signals make it through all of these controls and I think it likely that these may be interpreted post hoc (when detected by interoceptive cortices) as 'spontaneous thought'). But I don't see any way these could be frequent enough, nor from a complex enough source to hold our beliefs.

In addition, lesion studies and, more recently, single neuron probing studies, seem to have a greater evidence base for our beliefs being encoded in quite normal parts of the brain taking up positions in the chain of CNS processing which we can identify with some degree of certainty.

But, yes, there's a lot we don't know about how brains work.

Seems like some want to forget that (perhaps not even keep it part of the equation). :zip: — jorndoe

disagree
verb [ I ]
uk
/ˌdɪs.əˈɡriː/ us
/ˌdɪs.əˈɡriː/
B1
to not have the same opinion, idea, etc.:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disagree

Some seem not to have come across the term before so I thought I'd help with your continuing education. You're welcome.

And the above is all about 'will' of course. We needn't even go that far.

Your nonsense is shown simply by the first diagram alone. There is an external stimuli, heat, which deforms the nonselective Ca2+ channel in the cell membrane... We can stop right there because this very first stage immediately disproves your claim that...

Every action... is controlled and regulated and caused by a single entity: the human organism. — NOS4A2

It isn't.

The opening of the membrane's Ca2+ channels at the epidermis is caused by heat. External heat.

Look at the diagram I posted above of the electro-chemical reactions at the skin surface in response to external stimuli.

You've agreed that at one end of the neural chain acetylcholine is released which innervates a muscle fibre causing it to move.

You see from the diagram, that at the other end of the chain external stimuli cause electro-chemical responses in neurons.

Each nueron has an axon. Each will either cause a neighbouring neuron to fire or it won't (depending on signal strength)

The only way that motor neuron is going to release acetylcholine is if it's been stimulated to do so by a preceding neuron (barring random noise).

So. Where's the break in the chain? Because I've studied the human neurological system quite closely and all I see are more neurons, each connected to the preceding one and each only stimulated to fire by that preceding one (again, barring random noise).

So where's the 'will' get in?

And where do those externally generated signals get stopped?

A motor neuron — NOS4A2

And what causes a motor neuron to release sufficient acetylcholine to innervate that muscle?

But isn’t the rising of the leg caused by the contraction of muscle? — NOS4A2

What causes the contraction of the muscle?

why is it so hard to understand that you can agree or disagree about the opinions and conclusions that people make? — ssu

That's exactly the point I'm making. It's you who keeps declaring that certain experts don't know, or understand 'The Facts'. It's you who keeps raising your mere opinion above that level to distance it from the opinion of those you disagree with.

It's not the deification of experts we're concerned about here, it's the deification of your personal, uneducated, opinion. Your analysis of the facts has no special power. When others (qualified others) disagree with you, that means, by definition, that what you think is a 'fact' is not so. It is an opinion, about which there is expert disagreement.

Now, we can have a civilised discussion about opinions. It looks like this...

- I find professor X's theory compelling because of these reasons...

- Really, I find professor Y's contrasting opinion compelling because of these reasons...

It does not, as your posts, consist of telling everyone who disagrees with you that they've misunderstood something, or must be a Putin apologist, or must be unaware of 'The Facts'.

If you are critical about the US when it does something bad, you ought to be critical when some other country does something bad. — ssu

Nonsense, because we're not fucking St Peter's little helpers. We're not compiling Santa's list, nor playing a game of 'who's the baddie'.

We're an English language forum, with a primarily Western audience, and comprise primarily Western members.

It is therefore the actions of primarily Western governments about which we protest. That's how politics works.

Your claim...

Every action... is controlled and regulated and caused by a single entity: the human organism. — NOS4A2

It's not. The reflex is caused by the hammer.

Here's a nice user-friendly diagram of the various TRP channels at the skin boundary and the way external agents cause neuronal responses.

I wasn’t talking about not being fine with how Sy Hersh's story has been treated.
I’m not fine with you talking about "suppression" in reference to Hersh's article.
It’s a rhetoric exaggeration, a caricature, due to your militant mindset. — neomac

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".

Mainstream media didn’t suppress Hersh’s article. — neomac

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?

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.

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)?

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...

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?

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

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 try to 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.

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.

It still is something completely different to a termite, a forester, and a koala. And none of them are mistaken. — Wayfarer

Define 'completely' different. As opposed to what other type of difference? We determine what a thing is in our naming practices. We theorise that the astonishing degree of consistency in our interactions with that thing are because the properties we assign to it are constrained in some way by external states, but nothing in these external states is 'the tree' - not 'as-it-is', nor 'in-itself', nor 'really', nor any other weird euphemism, because 'the tree' is the thing we named thus.

Anything else is why we named it, not the thing we named.

So yes, there are differences. If we hypothesised external states as an homogeneous soup it would be hard to explain how we end up identifying such an incredibly consistent set of boundaries, but they're not the 'real' boundaries, nor the 'boundaries-as-they-are-in-themselves', they're an hypothesis to explain cognition. Something contained squarely in the textbooks of cognitive science.

Let's not pretend we're now having an actual conversation. You know full well that many experts far more qualified to judge than you or I think that demanding a full Russian retreat is a non-starter. You'll say those experts are wrong because they haven't looked at 'The Facts', I'll ask how it is that you know 'The Facts' when they don't, and we'll be back to the question you keep refusing to answer - why you believe your experts. Why you choose the ones you choose.

https://scheerpost.com/2023/03/12/chris-hedges-ukraines-death-by-proxy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=chris-hedges-ukraines-death-by-proxy

This guy should be listened to.

As opposed to the in-depth and thoroughly argued...

should be listened to. — ssu

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/03/14/whose-stalingrad-will-bakhmut-be/

This one has words in.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/03/15/the-danger-of-downplaying-the-ukrainian-battlefield-toll/

This is relevant

https://original.antiwar.com/mbenjamin/2023/03/15/the-not-so-winding-road-from-iraq-to-ukraine/

I agree with this.

Oh. we're back to just posting stuff we agree with, with only trite vapid commentary (if any).

I wouldn't want to rock the boat...

Do you think that it follows from the the fact that something appears that the something is as it appears. — Janus

Yes. I think that's what 'something' means. It refers to the linguistic/cultural object we're collectively constructing. So 'it' is all about appearance. We theorise (when we do cognitive science, not in day-to-day life) that an external (external to the system concerned) state constrains the parameters that object can take. We theorise this largely to explain the consistency of reaction we get when interacting with these objects.

But whilst the parameters of a 'tree' might be constrained by external states, none of those external states can be said to be the tree 'as it really is' because the tree is a social construction. It 'really is' how it is constructed to be. It 'really' has branches and leaves because we made it that way and how we make it is how it 'really' is.

One cannot, with consistency, declare the category 'spider' to contain all creatures with eight legs and then also claim there's some 'real' grouping 'spider' whose properties we're only guessing at. We just christened the group 'spiders' and in doing so we determined it's properties.

Likewise with trees, and cups, and numbers, and 'external states', and 'noumena', and 'things-as-they-really-are', and...

The control the human body has over itself is near total. — NOS4A2

Under these conditions, how can the will be unfree? — NOS4A2

I can't be. Not under those conditions you just specified.

Now do you want to discuss the actual conditions which prevail in the real world? Or continue to make up whatever shit comes into your head and then say "hey, if this bullshit I've just 'reckoned' is true than some other bullshit I also reckon must be true too" and pretend that's serious thought?