Jump to content

Ukraine 20: We’re not bluffing and you can tell we aren’t by how we say we aren’t bluffing…


Ser Scot A Ellison
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

...

Or invade and satellite every country with the capacity to develop said nuclear capacities.

In the interest of world safety. 

Firebrand Jace -- I like where you're going with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think NATO should intensely target (with conventional ordinance) Russian military bases and deployment zones wherever they may be, but leave civilian population areas alone (barring the occasional accidental off course bit of collateral damage) I would also look to destroy transport infrastructure that Russia uses to deploy people and hardware into Ukrainian territory. IMO that should be the response to the first use of a nuke. The second response to a nuke should be the conventional bombing of the Kremlin, and other govt headquarters used in support of the war (the Russian equivalent of the Pentagon for instance) and the known hidey holes of Putin and his war cabinet.

NATO countries should not resort to nukes unless it is 99.9% certain Russia will not stop using nukes without it. If the US wants to come out of this thing with the image of being a responsible hegemonic power then it should show a measure of reluctance to resort to nukes even in the face of Russia making the first nuclear move.

No doubt there will be hawks within the Biden cabinet and the military that will want to nuke Russia back to the stone age as soon as Russia uses its first nuke.

The one upside of using a shit load of nukes some time in the next year would be we will have put off global warming for a generation or two, maybe even solved it completely, though perhaps gone too far in the other direction. Bit of an extreme way of solving global warming though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

...

Or invade and satellite every country with the capacity to develop said nuclear capacities.

In the interest of world safety. 

Feels not so far from the Peter Thiel school of being in charge of everyone and everything: Democracy and freedom are incompatible. I guess in the Jace school of being in charge of everyone and everything freedom and safety are incompatible. Which is I suppose related to the saying of whoever it was that those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither. The logical conclusion of that is such people deserve oppression and threat.

Edited by The Anti-Targ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Feels not so far from the Peter Thiel school of being in charge of everyone and everything: Democracy and freedom are incompatible. I guess in the Jace school of being in charge of everyone and everything freedom and safety are incompatible. Which is I suppose related to the saying of whoever it was that those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither. The logical conclusion of that is such people deserve oppression and threat.

Freedom is a common myth, used to reinforce devotion to a preferred oppressor. As a motivating factor it carries less than no weight. Every political grouping in the history of Earth has invoked it as justification. It is an empty word in any language. 

Safety, on the other hand? Perceived risk? That's something I can measure. 

 

Do not mistake me. I am a democrat. You know this. I do not approve of harming others who would not harm you. I don't like the amount of money we give over to our military corporations and the things they use it for. 

I did not create the structures of the world inside which we all operate. I am merely describing them as accurately as I am able. Something that schools could have done if we, as Americans, weren't so lazy and apathetic that we just let the civil government become subsumed by the realities of MAD. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

Freedom is a common myth, used to reinforce devotion to a preferred oppressor. As a motivating factor it carries less than no weight. Every political grouping in the history of Earth has invoked it as justification. It is an empty word in any language. 

Safety, on the other hand? Perceived risk? That's something I can measure. 

 

Do not mistake me. I am a democrat.

If you think freedom and liberties are a "myth" whereas "safety and order" is measurable, then no, you are not a democrat.  You are Hobbesian.  Enjoy your Leviathan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

If you think freedom and liberties are a "myth" whereas "safety and order" is measurable, then no, you are not a democrat.  You are Hobbesian.  Enjoy your Leviathan.

Since freedom and liberties are not the same thing you can't claim that Jace's rejection of the political conceptions of freedom applies equally to liberties. Liberties form part of the rule of law in any civil structure, be that democratic or otherwise.

Edited by The Anti-Targ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Since freedom and liberties are not the same thing you can't claim that Jace's rejection of the political conceptions of freedom applies equally to liberties. Liberties form part of the rule of law in any civil structure, be that democratic or otherwise.

Yikes.  Liberties are freedoms.  That's their literal definition.  They are freedom FROM government, whereas "rights" are freedoms the government is obligated to protect, but both liberties and rights are the two aspects of freedoms.  Anyone that doesn't understand this needs a refresher in government 101, which I've taught for over a decade now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you're alright down there. 

But I do not share your academic certainty in these definitions, sir. History is not written on scantron, but on precedent. Hence my unqualified horror at the world which would unfold in the aftermath of improperly punished nuclear deployments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

But I do not share your academic certainty in these definitions, sir. History is not written on scantron, but on precedent. Hence my unqualified horror at the world which would unfold in the aftermath of improperly punished nuclear deployments.

Nobody uses scantrons anymore and Thomas Hobbes and John Locke and plenty of others developed political philosophy that changed the world.  Or at least the western world.  Your continued anti-intellectualism is no less pathetic than the abjectly pathetic QAnons.

Edited by DMC
plenty of others
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Firebrand Jace said:

Freedom is a common myth, used to reinforce devotion to a preferred oppressor. As a motivating factor it carries less than no weight. Every political grouping in the history of Earth has invoked it as justification. It is an empty word in any language. 

Safety, on the other hand? Perceived risk? That's something I can measure. 

Spoken like somone who has never lived without it. You're walking on the knife edge of  facism here. I've seen a lot of people like you come to China, and end up an apologist for the authorities within a year. They come being a little edgy and see; the order, that you can walk around in a city of millions in the middle of the night with no fear of bodily harm, that the cities are clean and new and of course the trains run on time. They see the prosperity; that contrary to popular belief the economy is doing better then the numbers show, that thanks to clever accounting and economies of scale China has already left the middle income trap in terms of developement and lifestyle. Even the capitals of the backword. provinces are filled with gleaming skycrapers, And what is freedom really? The people here don't want it,the fish don't see the sea they swim in. 

Look I get it there is so much  fake freedom in America. American culture is governed by the ideas of the 60s and ran by theater kids from the 80s and thus freedom and rebellion are fetishized there is so much fake rebellion, of course lauded as subversive by everyone who matters in the cultural sphere. And yet the ability to go out of the bounds of society is vitally important. You say you can't measure freedom it's trivially easy, are you allowed to hold and advocate for positions that the majority of society hates and is revolted by?  The only reason we have things like gay rights today is because of the the ability for activists to  to go far outside the bounds of normal society and advocate ideas that the majority of society viewed as repulsive and evil. It's why free societies outperform unfree on pretty much all rights. Even rights that were decreed by the society, see Soviet feminism for example.

And you Ms. Pony Queen are exactly the type of person who gets ground to to dust in such a system. You advocate for dangerous ideas and color outside the lines. You're exactly the type of person who gets called down to the university political office for "little chats" too many of those and you'll be dismissed enjoy working in a factory the rest of your life. Oh you're a woman? Well enjoy not being able to organize against rampant misogyny in society because the government is trying to fix it and implying they haven't makes them look bad, plus activism is dangerous, don't you know? and too much introspection raises uncomfortable questions about important party people (all men of course) But hey the fundamentals are good the measurable prosperity and order are amazing and you are allowed to talk about anything you want except for the things you aren't. 

But yes freedom and liberty are lies and only cold realpolitic matters. I will say the majority of Russians I have met share this view that anyone who believes in an ideology is a fool and everything is just lies and propoganda. i think that some of the Russian miscaculations rely on this, not realizing the western leaders actually do believe in the idea of liberal democracy and it''s not just a window dressing for cynical realpolitic. The thing is basing things on just "rational realpolitic" leads to bad outcomes the same way basing something on pure ideology does. It ignores the way the world actually works. 

Edited by Darzin
formatting issues and clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have, perhaps once or twice in the past, been known to become over indulgent in my cynicisms. 

It's all love. An angry, hateful love that consumes like a fire lit by the gods. But at least I'm not boring, eh? A very... lively... personality, mine has been called. ^_^

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Darzin said:

But yes freedom and liberty are lies and only cold realpolitic matters. I will say the majority of Russians I have met share this view that anyone who believes in an ideology is a fool and everything is just lies and propoganda. i think that some of the Russian miscaculations rely on this, not realizing the western leaders acutally do believe in the idea of liberal democracy and it''s not just a window dressing for cynical realpolitic. The things is basing things on just "rational realpolitic" leads to bad outcomes the same way basing something on pure ideology does. It ingors the way the world actually works. 

Spot on. Coloured revolutions or countries wanting to join NATO/UE are effect of Western schemes. People are creatures lacking in will, if they do something it means they have been paid as it is impossible one works just for idea. Morale does not matter etc.

The mindset is also characteristic for many people in Poland. Values like human rights, division of power or fair elections are just words, we know how it all really works, wink wink.  Hence the suprise when EC blocked money :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DMC said:

Yikes.  Liberties are freedoms.  That's their literal definition.  They are freedom FROM government, whereas "rights" are freedoms the government is obligated to protect, but both liberties and rights are the two aspects of freedoms.  Anyone that doesn't understand this needs a refresher in government 101, which I've taught for over a decade now.

Ah I see, you misread (at least by my understanding of Jace's meaning) and therefore mis-wrote in your first reply to Jace. You and she wrote freedom not freedoms. Freedom is an abstract, nebulous, philosophical concept which is as attainable as nirvana without chemical assistance. Freedoms are as you say, part of the established social contracts of a given society, which will change from society to society. Saying "freedoms and liberties" is of course a tautology, which one should avoid when intending to write with clarity of meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I keep posting maps of the Ukrainian advance; and have discussed targets and defensible points to halt and regroup etc - mostly by looking for things that google really doesn't want to show (rivers and railways) - so I've decided to "make" my own google map overlay showing those things. The issue is that to see these things on the maps, you have zoom so far in, you've lost track of what else is where.
I'm not going to make any attempt to keep track of the frontline, or contested areas etc; it's just something that can be seen in a separate tab, to make a little more sense of the tactical/logistical situation.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1Ko18DV24Vhfmz8FR0XUfjsVF7PNYG6E&usp=sharing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Ah I see, you misread (at least by my understanding of Jace's meaning) and therefore mis-wrote in your first reply to Jace. You and she wrote freedom not freedoms. Freedom is an abstract, nebulous, philosophical concept which is as attainable as nirvana without chemical assistance. Freedoms are as you say, part of the established social contracts of a given society, which will change from society to society. Saying "freedoms and liberties" is of course a tautology, which one should avoid when intending to write with clarity of meaning.

A new thread to snip this derail out of the Ukraine thread:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Freedom is an abstract, nebulous, philosophical concept which is as attainable as nirvana without chemical assistance. Freedoms are as you say, part of the established social contracts of a given society, which will change from society to society. Saying "freedoms and liberties" is of course a tautology, which one should avoid when intending to write with clarity of meaning.

LOL, freedom and liberty may be something of a "tautology" sure - I basically said as much - but acting like there's a difference between "freedom" and "freedoms" is just about the dumbest way to try to weasel your way out of an argument I've ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Botox king is annexing.

edit: He said he would negotiate peace, but annexed regions are not negotiable and would defend them with all means. Very clever.

The part about the West is really hillarious.

Please somebody nuke Moscow right now.

 

Edited by broken one
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...