Barfknuckle
No bio...
User ID: 3537
Barfknuckle
23d ago
Then why don't you provide such a scheme?
Seconding this challenge. The left has collectively choked to death on the "what is a woman" meme and failed to even articulate any sort of attempt at an answer. Every single time I've ever deployed it anywhere I've gotten a bunch of circular logic and hand-waving in response, and nothing of substance.
Barfknuckle
24d ago
There's a difference between this and "it becomes omniscient somehow" and other rationalist religious exclamations.
Barfknuckle
24d ago
If you abandon Simulacrum Level 1, you might win or lose, but to a proponent of the truth it will not matter more than it would matter to an atheist which religion won the memetic competition and established a theocracy.
In other words a whole lot, depending on how each religion feels about burning atheists at the stake.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
My theory is that pretty much any country under nearly any circumstances is going to perceive a rival military alliance expanding to its border as a threat to its security.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
Many of those same wrongthinkers also had very low IQ estimates for places like Malaysia (and, a couple of decades earlier, even China) that genuinely have seen huge economic development and increases in population prosperity since then, though.
Okay, but so what? Is some of that incorrectness going to rub off on South Africa and reverse its inevitable decline into shitholery? All this tells me is that it's possible to refute the wrongthinkers, but some groups just don't seem capable of doing so.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
And once the US "understands" this, then what? They decide actually thousands of Chinese troops on their border are just dandy? They stop moving any of their own forces around in reaction, and invite China to send over a million more just for fun?
there's no answer to this question that's going to stop the US from perceiving it as a threat, and that's the point.
If you think taking actions Russia would view as threatening is a good idea because they're warmongering bullies who need to be kept in check then fine, but own it. Stop acting like it's crazy that anyone would view having your happy funtime soldiers on their border as a security concern.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
My purpose isn't to steelman Russia's military policy, it's to push back at the ridiculous notion that no one has any reason to view your Defensive Friendship Legions marching along their border as threatening.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
I understand neither the preceding comment, nor this one apparently agreeing with it. Thirty years ago wrongthinkers all knew that South Africa was a generation or two away from becoming Just Another African Shithole, and they've been very visibly proven correct on that point.
Where's the need for rehabilitation? Where even is the substantial disagreement? Is anyone out there still hopeful for the future of the Rainbow Nation? I was under the impression that we had long since reached the point where the forces of goodness and tolerance mumble some excuses and look away.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
I'm not unable to understand anything. So you are telling me if NATO drops its defenses in eastern Europe, Russia will become less threatening? Is this what you mean?
I'm saying they would perceive less threat, which may or may not be a good thing depending upon the circumstances. If you think being perceived as threatening is important to keeping a bully in line then just say so, but spare me the feigned indignity that anyone could ever consider your troops on their border a security issue.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
In the hypothetical where the PRC are invited to the Canadian side of the border: what happened that lead to that point?
Who gives a damn? Unless the hypothetical is "the PRC and the US have become best friends and the troops are just there to blow kisses" there's no answer to this question that's going to stop the US from perceiving it as a threat, and that's the point.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
The last point is the most important to me. Russia and most of the pro-Trump side justify the invasion by saying that Russia feels threatened by NATO and has no other way to protect itself. I think this is bullshit, and the only reason Russia feels threatened by NATO is because it protects countries it wants to invade. If Russia and Trump are right, then Russia should become less aggressive if NATO is less threatening. If Europe and I are right, Russia should become more aggressive if NATO is less threatening.
If you're unable to understand why adding a border nation with a substantial army to a rival military alliance could be perceived as threatening or otherwise unacceptable by Russia, or any given country, then your model of the world is woefully inadequate. Imagine the PRC pulling Canada into its orbit and stationing Chinese troops on the border of North Dakota.
I get this constant vibe, not necessarily just around here but also when discussing this subject elsewhere, this sense of "Why would anyone consider us someone to defend against? We're the heckin' good guys!" and it just feels so out of touch.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
For example, large military exercises near Russia's borders are seen as provocative, and of course they might send a political/diplomatic message, but in no conceivable scenario are they actually threats.
If you establish military alliances with countries along the borders of a rival, ship your soldiers there, and "send messages" by marching them around, then that rival is going to interpret your actions in a threatening light. Expecting otherwise is flatly ludicrous and wildly out of touch. NATO is America and its lackeys, and America does whatever it wants. America blew up Iraq just because it felt like it, and then just went "oops lol" and shrugged when it turned out that the entire casus belli was completely made up.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
Counterpoint- if the specter of WW3 with Russia is enough for Trump-aligned parties to want to cut ties with Ukraine to hedge risk and cut potential costs
Are they really worried about WW3 or does that just sound better than telling everyone that it's an inherited forever-war that's been unwinnable at any worthwhile cost for over a year and they don't feel like squandering air defense munitions on it indefinitely with China looming?
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
Nobody is alleging hidden terms. The reality is that Ukraine signed a terrible deal
So in fact they did agree to give up their nukes without firm assurance that they could enter US orbit, etc. Glad we're clear on that. That being the case, I hope we can see an end to support-maximalists waving the Budapest Memorandum around as if it says something it doesn't.
and no nation acting in its own interests should ever willingly give up nuclear weapons, ever (barring strange situations like the South African regime change).
Ukraine lacked the ability to launch those nukes and neither the US nor Russia were interested in allowing them to keep them. They gave them up because the alternative was to fight the world, and they received a meaningless deal in exchange because they had no real leverage.
It’s more of a question of honor, and whether a country has any duty to another that they goaded into demilitarizing, then funded an anti-Russia revolution in. For most of the last 10 years, Zelensky was much more pro-Russia than the US was.
America was never especially interested in Ukraine outright winning this war in the first place. Even the /r/worldnews drones complaining that Biden wouldn't give them the good stuff or let them shoot into Russia had it figured out. Ukraine was always a pawn meant to let the US buy Russian blood on the cheap, like a sale on milk. All we're doing now is arguing over how much money we really need to spend on milk regardless of how much of it we're getting for our dollar.
But they wouldn’t have agreed to it without the firm assurance that Ukraine could enter the US orbit and not be invaded by a foreign power, otherwise why would they have given up the weapons?
Can you or anyone else link to the part of the memorandum that says anyone is supposed to do more than go complain to the UNSC if Ukraine comes under attack? The terms aren't secret. The war and the discussions surrounding it have been going on for years at this point. Much like Botond above I'm very tired of hearing Ukraine supporters lie about it constantly.
It's reached the point that I just mentally discard anything that makes reference to it as being in bad faith. Anyone who cares enough to participate in such a discussion should know better by now.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
All good man.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
Yes, just like the United States lost half a million men and two thousand Abrams tanks during their failed offensive to take the Iraqi capitol during the second Gulf War. Or at least that’s what Baghdad Bob told me...
Did the fight for Baghdad drag on for three years of savage trench warfare while the US was reduced to fielding tanks from four generations ago and everyone gawped at satellite images of their empty vehicle depots? No? I'm sure Ukraine is fluffing their numbers but there's no way to imagine Russia hasn't suffered absolutely appalling losses, in a war mostly taking place a day's walk from their own border.
Was I supposed to have been under a prior impression that Russia would never ever be able to extend military force even one inch beyond their own borders no matter how much they were willing to bleed for it? Were you?
Maybe you were, maybe you're one of those Reddit heroes who were counting on truth and justice and Harry Potter and the Avengers to triumph in the end, but for some of us the writing has been on the wall for over a year. The west, including the previous administration, just gives way less of a shit about this than Russia does. Sorry if you bought the propaganda.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
This seems needlessly overwrought. Russia is exerting power like thirty miles from its own border, and only doing so at the price of tens of thousands of vehicles and hundreds of thousands of men. If nuclear weapons all disappeared tomorrow I feel like they'd need about three Russias to take down Poland at this point.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
I agree that the status quo is pointless, but I'm glad that people who want to start WW3 on "moral grounds" are far from the levers of power.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
Option B - Full Commitment
Here’s where we would treat Ukraine as the ally that they should be. This is where you own up to the Budapest Memorandum that was signed by Yeltsin and Clinton to provide security guarantees for the territorial integrity of Ukraine. (The 1994 Budapest Memorandum saw Ukraine give up nukes for security guarantees from Russia, the U.S., and others—guarantees now in tatters.)
There is absolutely nothing in the Budapest Memorandum that obligates the United States or anyone else to come to the aid of Ukraine militarily. It's a pinky-promise to refrain from attacking them, not a vow to declare war on their enemies. I expect to see this kind of lying on /r/worldnews, not The Motte.
Barfknuckle
1mo ago
Making Russia pay an exorbitant price for having invaded was the correct call and has long since been accomplished, but any real chance of Ukraine getting its land back evaporated after the 2023 counteroffensive went nowhere. This has to end at some point. If the demilitarized welfare states of the EU want to declare war on Russia to liberate the eastern oblasts then let them do so, but otherwise it's about time to start packing it in.
Besides, if I my job was protecting Trump for years and having to stand around in all kinds of weather conditions listening to him ramble for hours, and someone told me that there was a reason to think Trump might be about to get shot, I can easily imagine even as an elite Secret Service operator being like "fuck who cares, I'm tired of all this shit".
Really? If you were a Secret Service agent and your job involved such trivial and predictable hardships as standing around outside a lot and listening to the President talk, then you'd get so bored that you'd just completely ignore reports of an assassin? If this were actually an accurate description of your own level of diligence and not motivated reasoning, then you would be literally and objectively unqualified to hold pretty much any job whatsoever.
Sorry if my first post comes off as a flame, but this is a frankly ludicrous comment and I don't know how else to express it. There are absolutely no circumstances under which a Secret Service agent ignoring reports of a rooftop sniper is even the least bit understandable or excusable. That isn't being "not a super ninja" but rather being completely and utterly derelict to a degree indistinguishable from treason.
How do they know whether or not they "identify" as a "woman" if that particular word isn't associated with any actual characteristics? You've reduced it to a meaningless noise. If you tell me you're a blorb and when I ask you what that means, you tell me it's anyone who says they're a blorb, you haven't conveyed any information.
I guess the definition that transgender people are actually using, the set of characteristics they compare themselves to in order to determine if this particular word describes their "identity" or not, is... what, a secret nobody needs to know?
Typical nonsense answer on your part, and clearly not a "definition" actually being used by anyone on any side. The one trans people actually employ to make decisions remains unspoken for another day. What a surprise.
More options
Context Copy link