BRICS FOREVER, AN END TO COLONIALISM — boagie

@boagie, are you a bot...?

'No-fly zone' effectively means 'bombing Russian SAM sites by NATO forces'. How exactly is that different from NATO starting a war with Russia? — Jabberwock

Well, it wouldn't be a NATO operation (under the auspices of NATO), except the combined force would include NATO members. More importantly, it would be a bona fides Ukraine defense operation, operating in Ukraine, irrespective of invader, within Kyiv's mandate. Wouldn't be an invasion of Russia. But, you're right, it could (incorrectly) be perceived/cast (by some) as NATO warring against Russia, which would be propagandized, especially because such a move can push invading forces out of Ukraine. That's the "wargame" set up by Kremlin strategists. Ironically perhaps, such a move could save lives, defender/Ukrainian lives at least (while limiting propagation of Kremlin authoritarianism).

But, [...] it's not likely to happen — Dec 27, 2023

Analysis: Putin promises Xi to 'fight for five years' in Ukraine
^{— Katsuji Nakazawa · Nikkei Asia · Dec 28, 2023}

↑ some of this is news to me

What many people don't seem to realize is that this, too, is democracy. The problem isn't Trump, isn't Orban, it's the very phenomenon of democracy itself. In a democracy, people defend their own interests. And this inevitably leads to tensions. A common way of coping with those tensions is to try to discredit the others. — baker

I'd go further and call this crap a cultural or human thing. Democracy has always contained the possibility of its own undoing, it just takes a majority vote of someone non- or anti-democratic.

Continuing earlier suggestions, this can work to free Ukraine (whatever links are embedded)...

• no-fly zone in Ukrainian airspace officially declared by Ukraine
• Ukrainian no-fly zone (and that alone) maintained by combined international air force designated so by Kyiv
• with advance warning, hostilities toward combined air force deterred or neutralized

To my knowledge, there isn't anything against this by international law. Besides, it's Ukrainian airspace. Logistics etc demanding. Where combined air force lands is irrelevant as long as OK'd by Kyiv (it's their airspace to defend, their choice to make). None of this is proxy war or terrorism, or intended so. After some time with clearer skies, civilians can be expected to be a bit safer, though not to the extent of resuming international commercial air traffic.

• combined air force turn to hostile artillery, missiles + launchers, mortars, ammunition depots, arms transports

Combined air force not limited by minefields. Can be monitored by international observers, e.g. to ensure integrity or whatever. After some time, civilians can be expected to be safer, maybe to the extent that Ukrainians having fled can return (assuming what they call home hasn't been razed). As of typing a fifth or so of Ukraine is occupied.

• Ukrainian ground forces can better sweep minefields and move

Call it a "special defense operation" if you must (or escalation or both). Doubtful that the Kremlin can withstand such a move (cf their posturing propaganda threats). A fairly straightforward strategy. Can send a message to other would-be invaders, by the way. But, while reasonable enough, it's not likely to happen (giving fuel to things like @boethius's "drip feed" hypothesis), at least not with NATO as the combined international air force:

What is a no-fly zone, and why has NATO so far rejected calls for one over Ukraine?
^{— Teaganne Finn · NBC · Mar 7, 2022}

Incidentally, such a combined air force could ask Kyiv for additional (political democratic transparency non-aggression) guarantees. Pro et contra?

(apologies for the copy/paste)

For sure the people in Washington are evil, and the people in Brussels are ignorant. But my intention was never to exonerate Russia, rather to make clear that the West is just as bad as they, and that all this narrative spin is just window dressing for a cynical game that is about power and nothing else. — Tzeentch

Neither evil nor ignorant:

Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption and abuse of power, the influence of oligarchs, police brutality, and human rights violations.^(29)(30) Repressive anti-protest laws fuelled further anger.⁽²⁹⁾ — Revolution of Dignity (Wikipedia)

More copy/paste that pertains to the comment:

(There's a bit more at Euromaidan (Wikipedia).)

Part of this stuff was about shedding the shackles of the dominant (regressing) northern neighbor, whom you'll notice have some of those same problems the Euromaidan protests were about. Protests/assembly have more or less been stomped out by the Kremlin. The Ukrainians said "No", looked elsewhere, backed by the UN (ES-11/6 and prior), and have gone through moves addressing some of those problems in negotiation with the EU. I'd have thought it difficult in wartime, but they have made some improvements. They're trying, while being bombed. The Kremlin orders the bombing, and their trying is on another path.

A covert conspiracy for Ukraine to become a modern democracy, eh? :D "The Kremlin involvement" was of a different nature. — Dec 26, 2023

There are observations evidence references documents developments whatever — specifically related to Euromaidan — not exactly all from the US (or specifically related to the US). — Dec 26, 2023

Questionable in terms of evil/ignorant:

Contrariwise (selling and) "simply buying your postulate" converges on conspiracy theory. Using it as a premise in arguments would then be misleading. — Dec 26, 2023

Prejudice overriding example to the contrary. :/

I know why. I should follow the money. — Merkwurdichliebe

Have you followed the oil industry money?

, that's too bad. There are observations evidence references documents developments whatever — specifically related to Euromaidan — not exactly all from the US (or specifically related to the US). Contrariwise (selling and) "simply buying your postulate" converges on conspiracy theory. Using it as a premise in arguments would then be misleading.

EDIT ... Hmm this ↑ works in the direction of exonerating the Kremlin in 2014 because "conspiracy" :D

those evil damn Westerners, intruding with their democracy, "progressiveness", homosexuals, and — Mar 3, 2023

Hmm , you kept repeating your grievance with the US without responding to the Euromaidan comments, which was a response to a comment of yours. Stay on the Euromaidan track you initiated?

(I've only lived in the US ≈ half a year, mostly business related and in the past, if that's what you mean.)

I don't know how anyone can seriously deny US involvement in the Maidan coup — Tzeentch

Sure, there was "US involvement" (+ other involvement) supporting ...

Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption and abuse of power, the influence of oligarchs, police brutality, and human rights violations.^(29)(30) Repressive anti-protest laws fuelled further anger.⁽²⁹⁾ — Revolution of Dignity (Wikipedia)

(There's a bit more at Euromaidan (Wikipedia).)

Part of this stuff was about shedding the shackles of the dominant (regressing) northern neighbor, whom you'll notice have some of those same problems the Euromaidan protests were about. Protests/assembly have more or less been stomped out by the Kremlin. The Ukrainians said "No", looked elsewhere, backed by the UN (ES-11/6 and prior), and have gone through moves addressing some of those problems in negotiation with the EU. I'd have thought it difficult in wartime, but they have made some improvements. They're trying, while being bombed. The Kremlin orders the bombing, and their trying is on another path.

A covert conspiracy for Ukraine to become a modern democracy, eh? :D "The Kremlin involvement" was of a different nature.

The most direct cause of Crimea 2014 was the 2014 Revolution. It was a loss of control and influence for the Kremlin. Ukrainians explicitly started looking elsewhere, while the Kremlin circle has propagandized that Ukraine isn't a real country.

you missed our discussion about — frank

Apologies, yes, the comment assumed the US is still in NATO.

By the way, this stuff is also on-topic over here: Ukraine Crisis

, @Tzeentch is just going to recite Mearsheimer again. :)

Why do you say that? — frank

I'm just thinking that the Kremlin can't be that dumb. :) Then again, it's just conjecture on my part. I suppose they could make it look like they were attacked first?

They're more likely to inserting covert operatives/agents in such cases. — Dec 25, 2023

, it seems unlikely that Russia will attack NATO countries. They're more likely to insert covert operatives/agents in such cases.

That project sought the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO, and zero attention was paid to Russia's many objections, who spoke about red lines, fundamental security threats, etc. — Tzeentch

It's less so about NATO in particular and more so about what the Kremlin can control. That said, NATO is the most visible limit to the Kremlin's control, and hence what they talk about. Their officials have gone as far as saying that Russia is doomed for destruction unless they follow the (present) Kremlin.

You underestimate the (under)current of sentiments against the regressive authoritarian anti-democratic trajectory Putin has put Russia on. When this sort of down-slope happens to the largest country in the world, a technically developed country with resources, the danger can't be ignored (unless chosen to). As a result of the Ukrainians looking elsewhere, the Kremlin has come pretty close to portraying Kyiv as traitors (they went with Nazis).

Another one down:

Not long ago I announced my intention to run for office. On December 17, we held a meeting of the initiative group, which supported my nomination. On December 23, the Central Election Commission refused to register my initiative group.

Due to restrictions established by law, I will not be able to hold a second meeting of the initiative group, but we can nominate my candidacy from a political party. I ask you to consider the possibility of holding a congress and nominating me from the "Yabloko" party.
— Yekaterina Duntsova · Dec 23, 2023

The voiced claims of the commission for holding the meeting have no legal basis: we collected all the passport data of the participants in advance and verified them, the notary also certified that the signatures were signed with his own hands. Voting on issues on the meeting agenda took place in strict accordance with the law. Let me remind you that on the eve of the decision, the Ministry of Justice came to the notary with an "unscheduled inspection". — Yekaterina Duntsova · Dec 23, 2023

In the present system her chances would be slim anyway.

Hmm... Worries have been raised that the fighter-bombers were shot down by arms supplied by the West... I suppose, had they been supplied by Moldova or Lithuania, then the Kremlin could conceivably come up with another pretext for threats/aggression (though it would be a...posttext).

The Russia Aerospace Forces (VKS) reportedly lost three Su-34 attack aircraft in southern Ukraine between December 21-22. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Ukrainian forces downed three Su-24 aircraft on December 22 in the southern direction, and Russian milbloggers claimed that Ukrainian air defenses downed the Russian aircraft in the Kherson direction near Krynky.[8] Russian milbloggers responded to the isolated incident with great concern about Ukraine’s air defense capabilities in southern Ukraine.[9] The VKS previously lost two Mi-8 helicopters, a Su-34 bomber, and a Su-35 fighter during an incident in Bryansk Oblast on May 13, 2023, which Russian forces similarly seized on to voice anxiety over Ukrainian air defense capabilities.[10]

[8]
https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid09rfymGKjCXTxFQfY6whVqgpENGj9v1vpoQ96E7Jdj3TSDHtreps6abFAavdZNKpAl
https://t.me/MykolaOleshchuk/168
https://t.me/SJTF_Odes/4255
https://t.me/rybar/55255
https://t.me/notes_veterans/14411
https://t.me/milinfolive/112984
https://t.me/vysokygovorit/13928
https://t.me/NeoficialniyBeZsonoV/31769

[9]
https://t.me/milinfolive/112984
https://t.me/voenkorKotenok/52885
https://t.me/grey_zone/21718
https://t.me/notes_veterans/14411
https://t.me/rybar/55255
https://t.me/vysokygovorit/13928
https://t.me/NeoficialniyBeZsonoV/31769

[10]
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-13-2023
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-jets-helicopters-downed/32410378.html
— Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment: December 22, 2023 · Institute for the Study of War · Dec 22, 2023

Kyiv might have declared a no-fly zone in Ukrainian airspace [...] (Dec 10, 2023)

, toss the occasional envy in there for good measure. ;) But there are political and cultural problems, lots in need of improvements and attention. Fascista-Nazista creep just ain't the answer. (unless you want to leave it to me of course)

Anyway, problem-identification is one thing, I'm less optimistic about avoiding the known pitfalls. Pointing them out doesn't seem to have done much. :shrug:

Orbán has Trump's back.

'Evil is eating away at Western democracies,' says Hungarian PM Orban
^{— Euronews + Agence France Presse · Dec 21, 2023}

Such easy things to point out (especially when skipping the larger contexts), but, hey, maybe he's right. How would he characterize the Kremlin, then? (In public, no holding back, preferably?)

What sentiments are there here...?

• irrelevant, there's no climate change
• there's climate change, and it has nothing to do with humans
• there's climate change, and it won't affect humans
• there's anthropogenic climate change, and nothing can done
• whatever the case, risk assessments are required before anything else (best-case, worst-case)
• there's climate change, and we know too little, need more conclusive research before anything else
• there's climate change, and whatever can be done should be done for the sake of future humans
• a far-reaching revolution is required immediately to deal with climate change
• mankind is doomed, deal with it, and go on about your business
• climate scientists/activists = grifters

Something else or some combination?

It's too easy/cheap to point at some isolated thing or peddle/suggest conspiracy theories. I'm fairly sure some of those sentiments above can be binned, and others not so much.

^{Related: human "footprints" all over (roads, cities, farms, factories, wars, waste), impressive (post-)industrialization fossil burnage, pollution all over the place, population growth, anthropogenic resource deprivation, biodiversity impairment, extinctions, nature/wildlife displacement, deforestation, renewability, ...}

Well, another element of the climate grift was how they chose a child, Greta, as their spokesperson. That's a pretty classic example of grift. — Tzeentch

Besides, children don't make things believable. Only a fool would listen to a child on a topic like this. The choice of a child was deliberate, because people don't like to criticize children. And grifters don't like criticism. — Tzeentch

Yes, "they" ("them", "the secret behind-the-scenes conspirators") deliberately chose her while "hiding in the shadows", due to their "ulterior motives". :D A vast conspiracy, at that. The ↑ comments are just another example of ad hominem in service of incorrigible faith.

EDIT: apparently forgot one above: • climate scientists/activists = grifters

the Great Patriotic War — ssu

A mad time + place. The Great Purge preceded the Great Patriotic War. Incidentally, invading Nazis found mass graves from the genocidal activities of Stalin's NKVD (isn't often brought up, was after all used as propaganda by the Nazis). Not exactly the kinds of things we want to see again.

, if anything like that, the Kremlin pushed Finland towards NATO, that just doesn't sound as nice/imposing/strong in terms of Kremlin propaganda.

A century or so ago saw idiotic authoritarianism emerge in several places.

Mussolini, to be called Il Duce by his followers, kick-started his fascist thing in Italy, 1919, with Bianchi. In 1921 he turned it into his National Fascist Party, and from 1922 he turned Italy authoritarian, one step at a time. In a typical strong-man gesture, Italy rolled into Ethiopia in 1935.

Not much says ruthless authoritarian like Stalin, who held the Soviet Union (+ Russia) in a murderous iron grip from 1924 to 1953. Some of the European fascists declared themselves anti-communist and acquired followers that way, authoritarianism against authoritarianism.

Hitler, Der Führer, learned from Mussolini's fascism, and went on to do his Nazi thing. He took over Germany in 1933 and initiated the 2nd world war in 1939. Some methods that were systematized (+ "industrialized") by the Nazis have found employ to this day (state-governed directed indoctrination and propaganda, what-have-you).

Dollfuss took on power in Austria in 1932. A milder authoritarianism that didn't get along with the Nazis, who murdered him in 1934 and took over Austria in 1938.

Salazar ruled Portugal from 1932 to 1968. A relatively mild authoritarianism.

General Franco, Caudillo, dictator'ed Spain from 1939 to 1975 after The Spanish Civil War. A good buddy of Hitler's and Mussolini's.

In South America, Argentina had a string of authoritarian rule during the period, Uriburu (1930), Justo (1932), Ortiz (1938), Castillo (1942).

France and the UK also had idiotic movements around the time (just took some political disillusion), that fortunately didn't quite catch on (some other European nations were less infected). Similarly, North America saw The German American Bund (Nazism) and The Black Legion.

The influence of some of these fizzled down with the end of the 2nd world war, though quite not all.

Roughly a century later, the creepshow seems to be rearing its head again, as if there was no history to learn from. Anything familiar? Other parallels, anyone? Can't accept ongoing democracy, responsible freedom, transparency, humanitarian values, separation of religion and politics, whatever? Disillusioned? Just leave the ruling to me.

Russia boosts nuclear forces amid ‘hybrid war’ with the West: Putin
^{— Al Jazeera · Dec 19, 2023}

In Ukraine, those who are aggressive towards Russia, and in Europe and in the United States – do they want to negotiate? Let them. But we will do it based on our national interests. We will not give up what is ours. — Pukin

The article summarizes some of what's come out of the Kremlin lately. Threats (still) extend to a couple or three continents altogether; Moldova and Finland have received a bit more of that lately; their Ukraine objective apparently extends to, well, Ukraine. There doesn't seem to be much to come after.

Sanctions can be a way to express (for some at least) ...
• "We're not going to help, or partake in, what you're doing"
• "You won't benefit in any way from us while doing that, expect counter-measures"
• "We won't make it any easier for you to continue doing that"
• "Our depreciation is serious, and we won't be complicit or contribute"
Something along those lines. Expressed by action, not just statements (e.g. the UN).

Did the Kremlin move Russia into a wartime economy over Ukraine...? (Due to miscalculation?) What reactions do they expect from this stuff?

And who the heck is Igor Salikov anyway? If he is who/what he claims, I'd recommend carrying a Geiger counter and staying within walking distance of a hospital. Stay off balconies, too.

I'm not quite sold on modal metaphysics, at least not as distinct.
There are incompatible metaphysics that each are unverifiable and unfalsifiable.
Metaphysics could be who-knows-what, just not contradictory, so that's the logic part.
Are all such metaphysics possible, then?
By Chalmers, logical = metaphysical; by Shoemaker, metaphysical = physical.
Anyway, examples would help.

Depraved clown. What does that make his voters?

Trump tells rally immigrants are ‘poisoning the blood of our country’
^{— Chris Michael · The Guardian · Dec 16, 2023}

At least someone has a spine and calls him out.

Trump’s rhetoric in final campaign sprint goes to new dark extremes
^{— Zachary B Wolf, Ariel Edwards-Levy · CNN · Dec 18, 2023}

Ukrainians may have a not-so-merry Christmas this year:

Analysis: Ukraine has had a terrible week. Blame the US and the EU
^{— Nick Paton Walsh · CNN · Dec 17, 2023}

Some got caught up in traffic jam:

Third Ukrainian truck driver dies in Poland border blockades-TV
^{— Ron Popeski, Alistair Bell · Reuters · Dec 16, 2023}

Cold war at least, well err + some hot spots:

In Russia, All Policy Roads Lead to the War
^{— Alexander Gabuev · WSJ · Dec 8, 2023}

According to multiple sources, Dec 17, 2023:

Finland was taken and dragged into NATO. What did we have, some kind of dispute with Finland? All disputes, including those of a territorial nature in the middle of the 20th century, were all resolved a long time ago. We had the best, most heartfelt relations. Economically, everything was developing. Yes, in the timber industry, there were some problems linked to the necessity to develop timber processing within the country. But that was all. Just a small detail in reality. There weren't any problems, but now there will be. Because we've now been forced to create a Leningrad military district and concentrate a certain number of military units there. Why do they need that? It's just nonsense. The same goes for other countries, including NATO countries. With whom did we have problems? Nobody. They're the ones who are artificially creating problems with us. Because they don't want such a competitor as Russia. — Putin

Starting false here (nope, Finland chose, Sweden chose, Ukraine chose) again exemplifies the alternate world type stuff. Conclusion(s) kind of fizzle out (ex falso quodlibet). Seems doubtful that the Kremlin circle could have missed / not understood (i.e. mala fides), but maybe they do need a wake-up call? The UN (and the good baker Jones of upper Negombo, Sri Lanka) have repeatedly clarified, and, yes, their claims/side have been considered. Unless/until called out, they can continue their moves and threats and story-telling. Ought a (diplomatic) dialogue address these issues?

False and fabricated intel promoted by the people in the White House themselves, yes. — ssu

If nothing else, at least the story hasn't been "disappeared" / suppressed.

Opinion: ‘At my first meeting with Saddam Hussein, within 30 seconds, he knew two things about me,’ says FBI interrogator
^{— Peter Bergen interviews George Piro · CNN · Mar 21, 2023}

Investigated all the way down to Curveball's involvement, and fairly consistently and openly criticized, including by Americans — a scandal/travesty and lesson learned that might not quite have seen the light of day elsewhere. Something similar will happen again though, whether the US or someone else.

Ough :/

Microplastic pollution rained down on Canada during a hurricane
^{— Carolyn Wilke · New Scientist · Dec 7, 2023}
It's raining microplastics: Hurricane Larry dropped plastic particles all over N.L.
^{— Jean-Benoit Legault · Toronto Star · Dec 16, 2023}

'I Didn’t Change My Number': Macron Still Open To Dialogue With Putin If It Helps To Bring Peace
^{— Samuel Petrequin · AP · Dec 15, 2023}

At some point the French president stopped the relationship with us. We didn’t do it, I didn’t. He did. If there’s interest, we’re ready. If not, we’ll cope. — Putin

I didn’t start the war unilaterally, breaking the treaties I’d agreed to. And it wasn’t France that decided to commit war crimes in the north of Ukraine, making discussions virtually impossible. Well, we have to be serious, so I have a very simple position. I haven’t changed my number. If President Putin has a willingness to engage in dialogue and serious proposals to move forward and emerge from the conflict and build a lasting peace, that is to say one that respects international law and therefore Ukrainian interests and sovereignty, I’ll take the call. — Macron

How to negotiate with alternate world type stuff? The Kremlin has demands masquerading as proposals.


Oryx have investigated equipment losses (ongoing) — Russian, Ukrainian — which seems rather comprehensive, Russian in particular. Personnel losses are reportedly rather comprehensive as well, in line with the amount of explosives burned.

U.S. intelligence assesses Ukraine war has cost Russia 315,000 casualties -source (yahoo)
^{— Jonathan Landay, Guy Faulconbridge, Daniel Wallis, Bill Berkrot, Jonathan Oatis · Reuters · Dec 12, 2023}
Russia Has Lost Almost 90% of Its Prewar Army, U.S. Intelligence Says (msn)
^{— Warren P Strobel, Matthew Luxmoore · WSJ · Dec 12, 2023}

The numbers are a noticeable fraction of invasion forces and available resources, unlike Crimea 2014. The Kremlin may not care much about humans (though they keep speaking of "Ukrainian sacrifices"); did they anticipate those numbers though? What do they anticipate for them to "cleanse" Ukraine? (in Kremlin-speak, "Nazi" ≈ non-irredentist + having chosen not-Kremlin, or whatever, which may or may not include Nazis)

, Iraq was based on false/fabricated intel and later turned into a disaster. (also Nov 14, 2023) If not much else, at least Saddam Hussein's wretched rule ended. I think Afghanistan is different, though. Not so much due to the US rationale to catch Osama bin Laden (and end Al-Qaeda), but due to the takeover by extremist, anti-humanitarian Taliban (also 2001), whose wretched effects we can see today (even if overshadowed by Israel-Hamas, Russia-Ukraine). But that's more of a reason not to abandon Afghanistan. Where's the UN?

But when one believes in the existence of the world, but says there is no justified belief in the world when not perceiving it. What would you class the position? — Corvus

Justified yes (evidential), proven no (purely deductive). ← different

↪Corvus, it's safer to think that what you won't know can still kill you.
But hey, you won't find any purely deductive disproof of solipsism either. — Nov 25, 2023

Hence, we try to seek justification on our beliefs and perception.
But point here is, can belief be justified properly? Belief is a psychological state, which cannot be justified rationally in nature.

Or are some beliefs also epistemic when justified? But if it cannot be justified, then it can't be. How do we justify our beliefs rationally? — Corvus

By "properly" do you mean deductively, with logical certainty?

Metaphysics that have survived (this far, sort of, in corners of academia at least), are just that. For some proposition, p, if attainable evidence is compatible with both p and ¬p, then we strand there. And we're venturing into metaphysics. Not particularly informative, like a difference that makes no difference (though Bateson used that phrase differently).

So, taken together, pragmatic safety, those novelties, our errors, annoying constraints, our agreements, stuff like that (taken together), give us anti-idealism if you will. But not as a matter of mere deduction. Observations, evidence, experiences, linguistic practices, life, and rationality too. Ethics involve an extra-self world as well.

Besides, there are some pitfalls in thinking that axiomatic logic can derive particulars of the real world by itself (logicing). Such logic is non-ampliative, derives what's contained in axioms, however complex to prove, and that's it. Hence it can be extended with modal logic. Knowledge of the real world needs the real world to stand on, if you will.

Have a good weekend. Grabbing a JD#7 on the rocks.

they didn't anticipate the Ukrainian response — ssu

That would be my guess as well, though there are some (ambiguous) signs...
"others are out to destroy Russia"
tightening domestic control + nationalist propaganda/indoctrination
"new world order" (the multipolar thing)
nuclear armament + posturing
foreign destabilization efforts
threats + polemics
cold war trajectory

Incidentally just scrolled by:

Comparison of mild physiological effects of surgical masks and N95 respirators over 60 min at rest
^{— Valerie C Cates, Anthony L Marullo, et al · Mount Royal University · Jul 5, 2023}

According to this research, masking up has inconsequential negative effects.

There's a fair roundup over here, though the latest may not have made it in:
▸ Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (Wikipedia)
Collaboration, mRNA/protein technology, etc.

FYI, for a simple overview, I think this will do:

the Russian wartime economy is getting to it's feet — ssu

Warring was what they had planned all along, or Ukraine turned out tougher than they anticipated, or ...?

One has to wonder, why does this State of Nature seem to work on such a grand scale, and with such non-entities, but is refused on the smaller scale and with real, living, flesh-and-blood human beings? — NOS4A2

Because a group is more powerful than any of its individuals alone?
No individual alone could put a satellite into orbit, end the Holocaust, create or maintain all that's required for this forum to function as it does, ...
It seems that whatever groups (be they states or corporations or whatever) emerge sort of naturally?
I guess an individual's expected actions, as part of a group, can be partially pre/proscribed and/or constrained, and if they're born into a group...
(Apologies if you had something else in mind.)

Will Putin beat Stalin?



Catherine the Great ruled for 34 years.

In a TV Q&A (of sorts) on Dec 14, 2023 with Pukin (NBC, AP, Reuters), Mikhail Khodorkovsky noticed some unanswered Qs:

“Why does your reality differ from ours?”

“Mr President, when will real Russia stop being different from the one on TV?”
“Hello, how can I move to the Russia they talk about on Channel One?”

“For how long will you keep manipulating the percentage of inflation?”

Alternate world type stuff. Observed a few times in the thread prior. Apparently also observed by some Russians.

Quickly thrown together (some of those on the left are related):


The derogatory "Putler" was allegedly coined in Russia and/or Ukraine. Might have been motivated by something like the above taken together. Anyway, evidence for the above can be found throughout the thread. Haven't compared with Imperial Japan or Fascist Italy.

Hyper-critique could be down to finding a single fault + subsequent complete dismissal, not in logic/mathematics, but more social/human matters. Normalization of hyper-critique is a part of what I had in mind. Some trends and thoughts that might be related to what I'm thinking of (with the requisite name-dropping) ...

• science (Popper (1930s)) → methodical falsification attempts
• suspicion (Ricœur (1960s)) → onwards to radical suspicion
• cynicism (Sloterdijk (1980s), Žižek (1980s)) → knowing and not caring
• bullshit (Frankfurt (1980s)) → not caring
• postcritique (Sedgwick (1990s)) → reparation of paranoia
• distrust (Latour (2000s)) → on to radical distrust

So, post-truth, the Trump, pandemic reactions, Evangelism resenters demagogues onboard for the ride, UFOs, mind-control, ...? Examples can be found here on the forums, too. Say, where does "being reasonable" fit in? (in a colloquial sense, with a nod towards ethics)

Thank'ye @unenlightened. :)

Why are you so quick to defend big pharma. Does your grandmother receive her pension from them? — Merkwurdichliebe

Who said I am? Just pointing the childish generalization at itself. :D