Not sure about degrees, but of amount of confidence. As Russell said (forgot where) the highest degree of confidence belongs to my percepts. The second "lower" confidence would be the report of other people's percepts. The last would be our confidence in our theories about the world.

Yeah. As the much cliched quote goes, war is politics by other means. What can be done through war, can also preferably be done through political negotiation - for the most part.

There are a few neocons here and there. That's life.

It's a condemnation of the species that after so many pointless, savage wars we still continue to wage them...

And yet what is the alternative? A principled stance for peace will not prevent someone else from pursuing their goals through war, and always avoiding escalation just hands all the cards to the other side. It's not a practical strategy if you care about the outcome. — Echarmion

I understand that. But we are speaking about nuclear powers. You have to measure if your principles stack up against the real possibility of nuclear annihilation, not just in this case, but many others.

It's not pretty, much less fair.

That seems like a very bleak outlook. What makes you so pessimistic about this? — Echarmion

What they've said, what they've sacrificed in war and national pride. Doesn't help they changed official nuclear doctrine. Remember The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has changed from hours to minutes to midnight about two years ago. These are serious people.

And thus they should give up? Or what is the conclusion you're arriving at here? — Echarmion

It's about measuring how much they're going to lose. 52% of Ukrainians now want negotiated settlement, that should count for something.

I find this an odd question. NATO has been very successful. There have been no overt attacks on any NATO member. Who would dismantle a successful system of mutual defense? What possible interest could that serve? — Echarmion

What have they done? Help in tearing apart Yugoslavia? Destroy Libya? Support Israel? Intensify tensions in China?

I don't see why Europe should need the US to pay for their defense. Europe should have its own foreign policy, independent of the US.

Now if that European Defense organization wans to ally with the US for something - they should do so.

I'd be curious as to what your source of information on this is. As far as I know there were informal talks behind closer doors, the details of which aren't public. Reportedly Russia asked for some kind of special status within NATO.

Perhaps NATO could have been more accommodating. But perhaps also Russia should not have made demands at that time. — Echarmion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

If they wanted to "isolate" China, this could have been a smart move. But alas, it was rejected.

What qualifies as a "threat to the world"? Was the Soviet Union a threat to the world? Was Germany in 1914?

On the one hand, most people just want peace and prosperity. On the other hand there are clearly different visions as to how the future world looks, and they're not equally appealing from where I stand. — Echarmion

Good question. As far as I see, anything that the West doesn't like. China, Iran, North Korea, Russia.

Hence Ukraine can get / could have gotten a better deal like Japan or Poland. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why the defeatism? There'd be no Finns, we'd be basically Russians just like the Mari people or other Finno-Ugric people in Russia if we would have that kind of defeatist attitude, if we would never had fought for our independence. — ssu

52% of Ukrainians now want a negotiated settlement. Historical parallels are interesting and potentially informative, but each conflict is new and brings unique difficulties to the table.

There are no forever wars.

All wars, even the Hundred years war, came to an end. The longest conflict that are going are the Kurdish insurgencies. Another long conflict is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Even they aren't active all the time. But nothing close to forever. — ssu

I was replying to your comment. Of course, literally, no war is forever. But they can be very long, like Korea, which is still ongoing.

Yet winning never has been that Victory Parade on the Red Square for Ukraine. — ssu

Winning is stopping the killing. What other winning is there? That Russia is defeated- that they go back pre-invasion days? That's not going to happen.

I don't like Putin; I don't like the current Russian government. That has nothing to do with winning or losing.

Yet it is important to remember that strategic decisions still happen. If there was an inescapable spiral of escalation, then the soviet union would have attacked the US navy ships blocking the shipping lanes to Cuba. They did not though. — Echarmion

Correct. But NATO is making it worse, not better. We will see how it pans out shortly.

As you probably already know, we were literally one word away from nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We can't keep playing tightrope forever, eventually someone will fall and by extension everyone else will.

And negotiations will happen. Everyone is aware that the war must end with negotiations. How else could it be? The question is how one-sided the negotiations will be. — Echarmion

I don't see a world in which Russia retreats from the territories they conquered in this war. They would rather commit collective suicide. I just don't see them doing this.

Maybe I am completely wrong - maybe they will in some future scenario, swap land for peace. But then Ukraine can never be a part of NATO.

No option here is one in which Ukraine has a favorable hand. It's a question of how much they will lose. They can lose more or lose less. That's how I see it.

A situation where either Russia or Ukraine are building up for the next round to address their grievances isn't stable. A situation where the West leaves Ukraine by the wayside to be absorbed in the Russian orbit would badly damage the cohesion and credibility of NATO.

On the other extreme a destabilised Russia would be volatile and cause all kinds of future security risks. Again it's a strategic calculation. It's not simply about a binary win/ lose outcome. — Echarmion

But why does NATO exist? It's stated goal was to defend against the Soviet Union. That collapsed and NATO remained.

You are probably aware that Putin asked Clinton is Russia could join NATO but was rejected. Had Russia been in NATO, this war would not have occurred.

They only remaining "threat" is China. They're a threat to Taiwan. Not to the world.

Yeah, they will take more land. It might be a forever war. But negotiations have to happen.

Ukraine simply cannot beat Russia now the numbers don't add up.

Are you implying that's not what they have been doing? — Echarmion

Last I saw Kiev was functioning. It wasn't like Baghdad was left.

I mean full and total devastation of Kiev.

Why though? They don't actually "have to" do anything. This really reminds me of the talk about the invasion itself. Oh Russia "had to" do it because of provocations X, Y and Z. But we're talking about strategic decisions and countries are very well able to take a loss and roll with it. — Echarmion

Yeah, in an ideal world they would just take hits and not do anything. This is not that world.

In my scenario, the US would eviscerate Cuba and attack Russia.

But I am not here to debate this topic with you or anyone else. After nearly 3 years, what would be the point?

All I'm saying is that I think this is extremely reckless behavior. You disagree. Fine.

How is Russia without options? The russian state is not remotely threatened. They're facing more difficult logistics and aerial campaigns which might eventually degrade their capacity to fight in Ukraine but not immediately. Even if Russia's offensive momentum is completely halted it would be able to negotiate, given how difficult it has been for Ukraine to make any headway against heavy fortifications.

This is bad for Russia but not "mutual suicide is our only option" levels of bad.

Why do you think Russia might use a nuclear weapon? What would be their goal? — Echarmion

That's right this does not threaten them. But it is US and UK soldiers using US and UK machinery firing into Russia.

Imagine Russian missiles being shot with Russian technology from Cuba into the US. What would happen?

That's direct involvement. What are they going to do take it?

They probably will hit Ukraine very hard. But if these attacks continue, they have to reply in kind to the US or Britain. And then what happens? You can imagine.

So, unless you really believe they will just take attacks without retaliation, I don't see how you don't see this as being dangerous in the extreme.

Yes sure, that may well be the case.

But we know that "limited nuclear war" cannot be fought with those two countries. It's a total fiction.

The current situation doesn't seem remotely close to those situations. — Echarmion

I don't know how much more evidence one needs to know that Russia is being serious. It is being left without options.

This is horrifying. Worse that many American and some Europeans think this is a good idea - not all of them to be clear.

I don't understand how people think this is good. We are standing at the precipice of annihilation.

Is Sartre worth reading? I've only ever read his novel Nausea, which was really good.

I find his phenomenology (the bits I've read) dubious, but you've quite likely read more than me.

Yeah it was very quick and as far as I know, not very effective.

Just not a good idea. But I believe we have different takes on this war.

And now Ukraine can send missiles into Russia.

Great.

And honestly, this isn't necessarily bad thinking when you consider some particularly dangerous policies that have been recommended, such as Trump's push to make almost all federal employees with any decision making authority political appointees who can be fired based purely on political loyalty. This would be an unmitigated disaster, easily the most damaging policy proposed in recent memory. Many Republicans know this is idiocy, and the filibuster keeps them from having to actively switch sides to vote against it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Ah sure. I mean the way I see it, is that Republicans keep going further to the right (than almost any other developed country on Earth) dragging Dems to the right as well. Look at what happened with Build Back Better, Sinema and Manchin gutted it. So, can the 60 rule be changed or modified? I think Dems might want to consider this, the Republicans have too much influence.

than the general electorate. Think about it, who is going to get themselves to the polls in the spring or winter, long before the general election (particularly for off years when there is no presidential race and much less media buzz)? Who is going to want to actively declare themselves as a member of either party? On average, these people tend to be more ideologically motivated. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I see your point. I agree with a good deal of it. But outside of the Culture War stuff (and now immigration), I don't see how actual Republican policy would appeal to anyone other than the 1%. It's just deregulation and tax cuts, but they then add abortion and minority rights, etc., as the red herring that's how they get votes. I think those who profit from the Republicans know this, hardcore followers and more casuals too.

With Dems it's somewhat different. I mean compare them to what FDR did, it's hard to believe they even have the same name. I believe a populist Sanders social-lefty message would resonate with a lot of people. By the time it reaches the mainstream (the National stage), then you get issues about deficit and political feasibility thrown in to make the whole platform sound like Soviet Russia.

Yes, the 60 votes rule is now a serious problem. I don't know what it will take to get the Constitution amended again. I don't quite follow what you mean by "more radical". Do you mean politicians who promise public good but then don't deliver?

I remember who good Palin did when they tried ranked choice voting in Alaska. Great stuff. I agree with what you list, for sure, those would be welcome changes. I also assume overturning Citizens United would be good - but with this Supreme Court, it's not happening.

As for the Culture War. Yeah. That's a problem. Or better, it is presented as a bigger problem instead of focusing on much more serious stuff: destruction of the Earth's climate, raising inequality, etc.

That one is also difficult to navigate.

:100:

Well.

Let's hope we make it out alive during these 4 years. Maybe we will have a good strategy by then.

Yeah - this view is wild to me. Sanders is too far left damn,,,

Sanders would fit into right wing political parties in Europe. The American people must somehow not want healthcare and social services.

Or people in positions of relative privilege, don't want to sacrifice a bit of income, for a better country...

Well - maybe in certain situations such a measure could be appropriate.

In the meantime, it's not as if one is going to go to Truth Social or some site like that to reason with anyone. Yes, we react - maybe that should change.

I don't see where to start at the moment, other than donating to causes, participating in events. The thing is to communicate with those that are not yet completely gone.

It's very hard to fight against cults. Just looking at some of the survivors or people who quit - it takes a lot of time and they usually have to hit rock bottom to awaken and notice they've been had.

Truth is certainly a big component, the issue for me is that the standards of evaluation from which we can make informed decisions are labeled as "political" instead of being taken as facts.

I fear that only when people notice how f*cked they are, will they change their minds. By then too much damage will have been done.

Worst of all, if the Democrats keep with this centrist "bi-partisan" crap, they may win in 2028 - but if they don't change quite radically, the cycle will repeat itself all the time going further to the right, which drags everything to the right as well. That's not a path that will lead to sanity.

I have seen your political posts and discussions here and elsewhere.

I frankly don't think there would be any point in discussing these matters with you.

It's hard to say. We can only hope for the best and try to help out whatever way we can to combat this right-wing plague surging everywhere.

Your son is Australian right? He will be fine if he's white, most likely. It's black and brown people that will have an issue, sad to say.

Maybe another candidate could have won. Maybe not. Hard to say. Biden being so old and being the current president makes it difficult to campaign criticizing him harshly, which is what I suspect most Dems would have liked.

On the one hand, there is no doubt this was the Democrats race to lose (they have more registered voters). On the other, so many people in the US are just clueless and very badly informed.

It should be evident very soon. The people saying I regret voting for Trump" will come put so quickly. It is so predictable and maddening.

Along with all else mentioned, yeah, we're fucked.

You know, I suppose the only silver lining here, quite literally (for me), is that I think Trump is right on Ukraine IF he is honest about it.

That view triggers the hell out of libs. But he's right about it, gotta say it.

Everything else (Israel included) will be much worse.

I don't think "tree" applies in this case because "time" is being compared to other ideas with no body — Paine

Then let's speak of an idea of a tree then. Are we going to say that an idea of a tree exhausts what a tree is?

Or let's take his example of time, does our idea of time exhaust itself by being present to our minds? That's doubtful, unless you believe an idea is all there is to the thing you are having an idea about.

True, the 1.5 goal was already surpassed this year, but the important issue is to avoid going much further beyond that.

Now it will be almost impossible to stop maybe even 2 degrees, and that's a disaster.

I mean, we don't know until we get to it (with 100% certainty anyways) but growing food will become much harder, a huge percentage of marine life will vanish, living in many parts of the world will become unfeasible.

That's pretty bad.

Well, I mean if Trump just completely cuts most (if not all) climate regulation and accelerates oil extraction then it is most certain we will not reach 1.5 nor even 2c by 2030, essentially guaranteeing the end of civilization. Granted, this is somewhat medium-ish term, but that's big.

As for the rest, well, I hope you are right in this case. I shudder to think things will change to the significant worse. But your prediction is bad enough if it comes to fruition.

Interesting times indeed...

True, but before no states had abortion bans. It's fine for individual states to get that right, for sure. Sucks bad for those women who can't do much in those 13 states.

If not for the federal ban, then as you say, it is quite progressive in many social aspects, most notably and most importantly, freedom of speech.

That is one area in which the US clearly has the upper hand compared with most other countries. It's an impressive win vs. the state.

Let's hope Trump doesn't squash those freedoms.

I explicitly referred to developed nations. I don't think it makes much sense to compare Germany to Ecuador. You can do so if you want to, but it would be better to compare Germany to France or to Japan.

If you want to compare the US to other countries, then it is most sensible to do so with a Western European countries or Canada. On economic and social issues, the democratic part is to the right of every developed country, so the Democratic party could not run with the platform they have and call themselves "the left".

That's just a fact.

If Roe got re-introduced as law, then you can argue, with some reason that the US is to the left of other countries on social issues.

That's up to people's consideration as to what counts as left or not.

That's my arrogant view.

I risk a reply out of annoyance. But it's best not to waste time with people who believe this

It will be a nightmare.

Lo que nos toca ahora es muy jodido....

I've been reading about it and find myself confused. Even proponents of the EU claim there's a lack of accountability. — frank

Very confusing, Varoufakis and Modi have good books on the EU, but it is a bureaucratic mess. Not all of it is bad by any means, but still, highly perplexing.

Wow.

You are missing the point big time.

Should've expected it.

And ignore the evangelicals at your risk.

Not economically no. Now, or as of the removal of Roe, not even socially. If they manage to get Roe back in, then we can speak about the Democrats being left on world standards.

Of course, the US is not Europe. The US is an outlier in first world countries, failing to provide healthcare as right to everyone, among other scandals.

So yes, the US is to the right of the developed world by these standards. Doesn't mean the people are, but the system is. If you remove comparisons between developed countries, then there is no metric to say what's left or right or anything else.

I mean, for reference, anything to the right of Trump is called "radical left". That's insane.

It's a complex subject. The way it is currently structured is based on a system which basically gives German banks the power to control the value of the Euro based on German elite financial needs.

In an ironic twist, the European Central Bank is worse than the Fed. The only mandate the ECB has is to control inflation. At least the Fed attempts to keep unemployment low as one of its mandates, in addition to controlling inflation.

So yes, it is an Oligarchy - as everywhere else, but it has a very strange dynamic to it.

If they move any further to the left, they would just be centrist or maybe center-right. They would not be left in any European country. Not even the right in Europe would dare privatize health care.

As for Israel, you better be thankful the US donor class "supports" it, because it has no friends left and is a pariah state, for good reason. And your friends those fanatical Evangelicals are the most anti-Semitic of them all

Immediately after your quoted sentence he says:

"It is not new facts about time which we want to know. All the facts that concern us lie open before us."

Let's replace "time" with anything, say a tree or an idea. It is not the case that "all the facts" are open to us, only those facts which we are of aware of at the given time and (crucially) those facts which we may have no access to.

We are limited on our observations about trees relative to the capacity of our senses and the capacity of our cognitive components.

This applies to our mental powers, or mind as well and much else. He is problematizing something like mental mediation here, which is not clear to me what the problem is.

This is an important connection than my merely trying to record the aghast commonly felt at what is seen as removing the self (just, as an object), when he is just following through the categorical error of the ‘strong temptation’ of causality. I would only add that we would be “standing on the outside trying to look in” to ourselves as well if we imagine we can “look into” our own casual object (agent, “self”). Not to move further from the text but to place this in company, the PI will treat the other as opaque and talk of boxes with things hidden, etc. — Antony Nickles

I see him saying that we are not concerned with the "causal connections" here, not that they are a category error. We can discuss this if we want, rather, we are choosing not to do so now.

I would agree that we can't - despite (some of) us wanting - peer more into the nature of the self than something like what Hume describes. In this part, I do agree with the example and the general outlook.

It's a good idea.

But it would go against monied interests, so it can't happen. At least not through Cable News.