drmanhattan16
No bio...
User ID: 640
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
I wasn't aware of this, and I think my comment suggested my lack of knowledge about the Crimean independence issue. This is a fair rebuttal to the point. I don't think this changes my view that Kiev and Moscow's relationship to Crimea aren't equivalent enough to call both of them tyrants in the same measure, and I do endorse the idea that if Crimea wants to be free, Ukraine should seriously consider letting them be as such.
I'm not familiar with the repressions you're speaking of, got a link?
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Well, it's not as much as you imagine. My expenses are low and I work a tech job, so $10k isn't too problematic for the time being. But that's my commitment to the current international order. I find that order valuable and want it to continue existing, so material support makes perfect sense.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
When the rules say, "every option to influence other countries is allowed except the only one you're good at"
Those other options are literally all of soft power. I understand the distaste for letting charisma and popularity dictate all things, but if Russian soft influence can't compete, that's hardly anyone else's fault. Get good, as they say.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
I would certainly hope that the post-Maidan government sought to ratify its legitimacy after Yanukovich fled. If parts of Ukraine desire to secede, that desire should probably be listened to. But I don't consider it unreasonable for the government to assume that anyone wanting to do so has to engage with the existing systems in place to depart, not automatically be considered independent since a non-democratic change just took place. I understand the concern that they wouldn't agree, but there is nothing wrong with at least trying.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
It's just so far out of the realm of possibility that Ukraine captures Crimea, let alone the other lands that were taken. It would cause hundreds of thousands of military deaths on both sides. And hundreds of billions of dollars. Minimum.
I don't have any illusions about the sheer difficulty of even coming close to Crimea, let alone actually taking it. This war is going to be slow, I accept that. I recognize that a lot of people have died and many more will continue to die. As for money, the US is drowning in it. If that can be thrown around to send Russia on a path away from its current one (and hopefully not one even worse than this), that's a wise investment.
The theory that if we don't stop Putin here he'll take over Poland, then the Baltics, then the world! It's Hitler at Munich all over again unless we DO SOMETHING!
I have no idea who you're even referring to or how popular this conception even is. The stronger argument you should contend with is the message this sends to every other wannabe conquerer in the world, in particular China.
Yes, if we spend a couple trillion dollars and send in troops we can push Russia back to the 1991 borders. Maybe there won't even be a nuclear exchange.
The odds of nuclear exchange are very, very low. You should look up Russia's nuclear doctrine, it states that it won't use those nukes unless its actual core territory is threatened. What it has taken in Georgia might qualify, Crimea and the other Ukrainian gains are highly unlikely to count.
How much of the cost are you personally willing to bear? Would you spend $10k of your own money, $100k, volunteer in Ukraine, fight in Ukraine?
If I could donate $10k and be guaranteed that enough people would do so to ensure Ukraine is stocked to the gills on modern military tech? I think that would be a reasonable offer. I have human impulses that keep me from doing as much, but I can't really justify those. I am unlikely to have $100k any time soon, but depending on how much of my savings that would translate to, sure.
As for volunteering or enlisting? I'm a homebody. Not really my thing, and I wouldn't change that any time soon. But I admitted as much in my original comment to you, I said I have very little personal stake in the conflict. The closest is having a Ukrainian friend.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Overwhelming advantages have existed before, and have observably gone away before. thinking that they can't go away seems to make them go away faster.
I don't think it can't go away at all, but it seems to me like the US is sitting in a pretty comfortable lead against Russia and China. It also has a great many people working on ensuring that gap doesn't shrink and ideally expands much more. That's ignoring all the nations in the world which benefit from the US-backed order and thus also support it, either by having market ties or even agreeing to buy American military goods at a scale which makes those units cost less.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Especially the idea that Ukraine is going to reconquer the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine or Crimea and then what?
Those are parts that all sides agreed were Ukraine's back when the USSR broke down. I have no reason to think Ukraine is going to engage in pogroms or other repression against its ethnic Russians. If they want to leave, so be it, but I'm not expecting a reverse Holodomor.
I have no problem withe ethnic Russians in Ukraine asking to secede. But that land first needs to be returned to Ukraine, and then we can go on.
Sometimes I think we just have to let countries do what they will.
This is the naturalistic fallacy. Since imperialist powers have a tendency to naturally want to expand, we ought to not interfere too much, or so it goes. I reject this argument entirely. We can and frequently do insist that people not follow through on natural desires - rapists do not get to escape punishment simply because they felt the very natural desire for sex. This holds for nations and their leaders just as much.
To allow Ukraine to be destroyed for a theory is not worth it IMO. We had our chance to win, and we couldn't do it. Russia beat the sanctions and stopped the counterattack. Now it's a meat grinder. How many more young men must die for a theory of US world order?
What theory are you even referring to? The idea that Russia will collapse? I said that would be nice, not that it would happen. If Russia fucks off and gives Ukraine everything including Crimea back, I'm happy with that too. Russia's regime imploding would be superogatory.
Secondly, it is unfortunate that the Ukrainians are disproportionately suffering in this conflict. But that's literally how reality works - war affects the people near it, not the people away from it. If China invades Taiwan, the Taiwanese will suffer more than anyone else. If they all fled, people would call them cowards for not being willing to defend themselves.
Thirdly, you should watch Perun's videos on Ukraine. He's done a fairly good job of arguing that Ukraine can win (not easily, but still) if the West provides far more support. Russia is holding for now, but they can't do it forever. Either more people will have to be recruited, or more spending will have to go towards the war. My understanding is that they plan to spend a third of their total budget on the war in 2024.
It may take years, but I do think that Russia can be defeated. At horrendous cost, yes, but the tree of liberty requires the blood of patriots and tyrants.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
I have no idea what your point is. I don't see any issue with America exporting security to nations it doesn't border, especially when those nations have neighbors who have less-than-ideal respect for things like the sanctity of national borders in the current status quo.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
it attempted to use military force to prevent aggrieved supporters of that overthrown leader from seceding.
Are you referring to the 2014 Crimean referendum? I have qualms about a referendum on a topic directly impacted by the Russians importing their own into that land and deporting the Tatars for centuries, but even setting that aside, Crimea was recognized by all side to be part of Ukraine. It is not the same for a nation to insist its territory remain part of it and a nation to invade another with the goal of yoking the recipient because it has strategic interests to do so.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
What will be left of Ukraine after Russia and the West are done with their proxy war?
Ideally Ukraine will be a part of NATO as its allies fund its reconstruction. Even better if it means the death of current Russian regime. No better message for every other tyrant eyeing the lands near them.
It's hard to get good numbers as both Russia and Ukraine lie about everything. But it feels that Ukraine is exhausted and will soon lose this war. My heuristic for this is reading between the lines of the news.
"Both sides lies" is a meaningless platitude. Perun covered this exact topic 2 weeks ago and argued that Ukrainians are still incredibly supportive of fighting Russia, though they recognize that its going to be hard and grinding. Russians are harder to poll due to fear of state punishment for the "wrong" opinions, but even then, there's less support on the Russian side for fighting the war to its conclusion than there is on the Ukrainian side. He also doesn't ignore all the things "between the lines", talking explicitly about the average Ukrainian soldier's age issue in the linked video.
I have to ask, at this point, why does the West still support Ukraine? Yes, it's very convenient that Ukraine is willing to destroy itself to hurt Russia. But, as a utilitarian, I am very skeptical of the benefits of "grand strategy" type decisions like this. The world is complicated. If we let Putin have the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine will he then demand the Polish-speaking parts of Poland? No. It's not like this war has been a resounding success. Furthermore, he could die tomorrow.
Supporting Ukraine is an affirmation of the post-WW2 status quo in which war for the sake of expansion will not be tolerated. Russia may fear Ukraine slipping from its control, but the reason Eastern Europe did that is precisely because Russia has acted on this notion of spheres of influence. Moreover, every dead Russian, while tragic, and every spent ruble on military equipment is part of the cost that Russia will have to deal with. No better cost-effective solution for depleting the resources of an expansionist and corrupt system.
Moreover, you know why Putin won't demand the Polish parts of Poland? Because Poland is in NATO. That's precisely the threat of Ukraine after the 2014 revolution, it may join America's umbrella and then it can never be touched.
Peace would be nice. But, and I recognize that I have less stake in the issue given that I'm not losing people myself over the issue, I believe it would still be good for the Ukrainians to continue fighting. I support giving them as much as they ask for and more.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
It can appear that way because individual games often get their own category, but there is a substantial non-gaming presence on the platform.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Yes, and if this was a more casual conversation, you would rightfully call me out on it. But I am not lying when I say that I only believe in the motte.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
The point of the saying is that targeted bans are not seen for what they are, and that what may be an ostensibly universal ban is only focused on one particular group more than others.
It is, as you say, those with murderous inclinations who are most affected by bans on murder. But the existence of good targeted bans shouldn't be a shield for any particular one.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
I see. I seem to have fallen for xkcd's "how much the experts people who engage with the topic" issue.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
...is that sarcasm? I have to assume you are at least aware that Twitch isn't only for gaming, right? I know you said you don't watch it, but the idea that Twitch or even live-streaming in general is just about gaming is trivially demonstrated as false.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Why are you assuming your standard is the same as theirs?
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Why don't we say it "levels the playing field" to prevent women from using their sex appeal to crush their competitors on a gaming platform?
It's not only a gaming platform, that's why. They have an art section where people spend their time drawing, or a just chatting section where people can do things like day trading or politics or whatever.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
But a rich person wouldn't sleep under the bridge, which is the whole point of that saying. Namely, that what counts as a universal ban can often just be a targeted ban at a select group of people, even if that was never the intent.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
I'm not sure why they bothered to reverse course.
Advertising. Advertisers are set on the family-friendly image, they are thus highly averse to anything associated with "adult themes". Their analysis of such things is often shallow, but that's a separate issue.
So Twitch has to be family-friendly safe while also catering to the audiences of these e-girls who spend money through Twitch on subs and whatnot.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
And so on. Even though no one is taking command, dividing tasks among participants, etc., the end result is still a bunch of people working together to find dirt on someone.
Okay...and?
I'm reminded of a recent Sam Seder conversation with Jesse Singal, in which the former referred to a publication by Sam Harris in 2004 called "In Defense of Torture". Seder said it was horribly irresponsible in the context of what the US was doing to captured terrorists, but this is precisely how 99% of humans work - you talk about a subject when its relevant, unless you're an academic who explicitly focuses on that. Given that none of the people involved are, I don't see any problem with them doing this.
Do you remember when someone brought up some weird Bay-Area Rat woman trying to date people via Google Docs, and this whole place suddenly devolved into a knitting circle trying to one-up each other in passing judgement on the woman's life choices? Well, are they not free to discuss it? Sure they are! But just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
There are ways of doing things which can make or break them. I recall the incident you're referring to, but not the discourse here. Without checking, I'm assuming there was some rather uncharitable psychoanalyzing of Bay Area Rationalists and women. But the issue there is the uncharitability, not the inherent discussion.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
This is like demanding people be honest when responding to Nazis asking if there are Jews in your basement.
It is nothing like this. The appropriate analogy would be someone accusing you of hiding Jews in your basement under Nazi Germany. You should probably issue a denial regardless of what those people say.
Also, if a commie wants to make funny videos with an occasional "eat the rich" meme thrown in, he should be able to do so, without being forced to go through bizarre struggle sessions.
The question is precisely if he is or isn't a commie, in this case. Which you can certainly be, but if you're not, it would probably be better to clarify once this level of scrutiny arrives.
I will back down from "good/proper behavior" to "useful behavior", though.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Sure, I'm willing to admit that my evaluation of his political follows was incorrect. I was correcting someone for what I had actually said.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
In what sense is that "coordinating to slander a guy"? Those people are discussing him and the various memes or jokes he's snuck in as a reference to 4chan humor. Where is the coordinating in that thread? If they believe that the standard of evidence has been met, then why are they not free to discuss it?
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
So if someone is accused of believing in something, they are duty bound to be open and forthcoming about what their political beliefs actually are, regardless of how flimsy the evidence presented that they believe in it?
Perhaps "good" is a bit much, I'll stand back from that claim. But I do think it would be useful for him to actually clarify, now that it's a subject of discussion.
If he doesn't, then so be it. But he'd avoid quite a bit of headache if he at least stated it was all humor. Then we can have a more rational conversation in his defense. Until then, we're just left fumbling in the dark.
Check out how uncharitable one can be:...
Wow, haha, that is a crazy coincidence. Genuinely, I didn't pick the numbers with any mind for his girlfriend, I was actually just 16 at the time and had read the Watchmen comic.
In any case, the point I'm getting at is that bad actors will do what they want, but there can be obligations or good ideas which one should obey regardless. I have no doubt that a statement would do nothing for his accusers, in the same way that you could just dismiss the defense I gave above as obviously a pro-ephebophile person trying to hide their stance. But rational discussion would probably be aided by such a statement regardless.
Undeniable proof
More options
Context Copy link