Let’s have a war!

[ousdahl]

Yea.

So how do we get more “patriots” to take Biden’s word for it instead?

What could Biden do to improve his messaging and win more support?

[MICHHAWK]

a stimulus check in my mail would go a long way.

[ousdahl]

Go figure mich looking for more freeloading liberal handouts.

Supple that teat!

[jfish26]

Ah. I see. Fascinating.

And what if Cory’s “something mean” involved things that were far worse than teasing and calling names? Things that involved weapons and injuries and deaths as well?

Sure, that doesn’t mean Shawn shouldn’t be responsible for any harm he’s done, but does that change anything toward Cory’s responsibility?

Would that, at the very least, be maybe a tad more complicated yet?

You are showing exactly why bothsidesing is such a powerful rhetorical tool.

We are all inclined to seek to understand things by finding balance. We are disinclined to accept asymmetry, to accept that what might be quite irrational for us might be perfectly rational for someone else, someone playing by different rules.

Because the math isn't adding up for you - because you cannot accept that Putin would do what he is doing without justification you consider adequate - you are inclined to search for the adequate justification that must exist.

This leads you to, whether you like it or not, adopting and amplifying Putin's nonsense talking points.

[jfish26]

Secret Russian foreign policy document urges action to weaken the U.S.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... us-weaken/

Russia’s Foreign Ministry has been drawing up plans to try to weaken its Western adversaries, including the United States, and leverage the Ukraine war to forge a global order free from what it sees as American dominance, according to a secret Foreign Ministry document.

In a classified addendum to Russia’s official — and public — “Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation,” the ministry calls for an “offensive information campaign” and other measures spanning “the military-political, economic and trade and informational psychological spheres” against a “coalition of unfriendly countries” led by the United States.

[...]

The document for the first time provides official confirmation and codification of what many in the Moscow elite say has become a hybrid war against the West. Russia is seeking to subvert Western support for Ukraine and disrupt the domestic politics of the United States and European countries, through propaganda campaigns supporting isolationist and extremist policies, according to Kremlin documents previously reported on by The Post. It is also seeking to refashion geopolitics, drawing closer to China, Iran and North Korea in an attempt to shift the current balance of power.

Using much tougher and blunter language than the public foreign policy document, the secret addendum, dated April 11, 2023, claims that the United States is leading a coalition of “unfriendly countries” aimed at weakening Russia because Moscow is “a threat to Western global hegemony.” The document says the outcome of Russia’s war in Ukraine will “to a great degree determine the outlines of the future world order,” a clear indication that Moscow sees the result of its invasion as inextricably bound with its ability — and that of other authoritarian nations — to impose its will globally.

[...]

Though the Foreign Policy Concept also charges that the United States and “its satellites” have used the Ukraine conflict to escalate “a many-years-long anti-Russia policy,” it also states that “Russia does not consider itself an enemy of the West … and has no ill intentions toward it.”

Russia hopes the West will “realize the lack of any future in its confrontational policy and hegemonistic ambitions, and will accept the complicated realities of the multipolar world,” the public document states.

[...]

The creation of the Foreign Policy Concept and the classified addendum followed a call to Russian academics for policy suggestions. One proposal submitted in February 2023 to the Foreign Ministry by the deputy head of Moscow’s Institute for the Commonwealth of Independent States, which maintains close ties to Russia’s security apparatus, laid out Russia’s options more bluntly still.

The academic, Vladimir Zharikhin, called for Russia to “continue to facilitate the coming to power of isolationist right-wing forces in America,” “enable the destabilization of Latin American countries and the rise to power of extremist forces on the far left and far right there,” as well as facilitate “the restoration of European countries’ sovereignty by supporting parties dissatisfied with economic pressure from the U.S.”

Other points in the policy proposal, which was also provided to The Post, suggested that Moscow stoke conflict between the United States and China over Taiwan to bring Russia and China closer together, as well as “to escalate the situation in the Middle East around Israel, Iran and Syria to distract the U.S. with the problems of this region.”

[twocoach]

Yea.

So how do we get more “patriots” to take Biden’s word for it instead?

What could Biden do to improve his messaging and win more support?

He is not going to win support from that group. There is no point wasting time or effort in attempting to do so.

[MICHHAWK]

old uncle is a war mongering fella.

other peoples wars, on the other side of the world, don't so much register.

there is always unrest in the $#!Thole middle east. whoopdeedoo. wake me when they ain't fighting.

[ousdahl]

Ah. I see. Fascinating.

And what if Cory’s “something mean” involved things that were far worse than teasing and calling names? Things that involved weapons and injuries and deaths as well?

Sure, that doesn’t mean Shawn shouldn’t be responsible for any harm he’s done, but does that change anything toward Cory’s responsibility?

Would that, at the very least, be maybe a tad more complicated yet?

You are showing exactly why bothsidesing is such a powerful rhetorical tool.

We are all inclined to seek to understand things by finding balance. We are disinclined to accept asymmetry, to accept that what might be quite irrational for us might be perfectly rational for someone else, someone playing by different rules.

Because the math isn't adding up for you - because you cannot accept that Putin would do what he is doing without justification you consider adequate - you are inclined to search for the adequate justification that must exist.

This leads you to, whether you like it or not, adopting and amplifying Putin's nonsense talking points.

AGAIN, I do not think Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is justified. Not one bit! AGAIN, kindly spare me those words in my mouth.

If anything, I’m trying to justify the U.S.’s actions here. Help me out! Can you assure me this latest aid package for Ukraine is gonna be some sort of game changer?

I really do think there is room for some valid criticism of U.S. militant efforts, without knee-jerk dismissing it as Putin talking points.

If fact, to knee-jerk dismiss as much as Putin talking points, seems exactly to accept that asymmetry you speak of. It’s not like criticism for U.S. militarism never existed until Putin tried to leverage it, right?

To suggest any less, seems to be you admitting you and your own views and rhetoric are indeed playing by different rules; that it’s suddenly quite rational to reject valid criticism for one side’s militarism but not the other.

Either that, or please do demonstrate where that line is drawn between valid criticism and Putin propaganda.

Israel?

Ukraine?

Afghanistan?

Iraq?

Vietnam?

Cuz, historically speaking, when it comes to imperial meddling and militarism abroad, and speaking as objectively as possible - I’m just not sure the U.S. has the best track record.

[ousdahl]

To use your own analogy - it’s like you refuse to consider Cory’s “something wrong” may have been anything more than calling Shawn poor and antagonizing Shawn about Topanga.

That doesn’t justify Shawn taping and murdering, no.

But if it came out that Cory’s “something mean” actually also included assaulting Shawn for years to begin with, that still doesn’t justify Shawn, but it wouldn’t mean Cory should bear no responsibility either.

[TDub]

https://youtu.be/0U2zJOryHKQ?si=Vi2b6VRqejNngOOm

[KUTradition]

i love me some cherries

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-a ... y-not-war/

[twocoach]

Ah. I see. Fascinating.

And what if Cory’s “something mean” involved things that were far worse than teasing and calling names? Things that involved weapons and injuries and deaths as well?

Sure, that doesn’t mean Shawn shouldn’t be responsible for any harm he’s done, but does that change anything toward Cory’s responsibility?

Would that, at the very least, be maybe a tad more complicated yet?

You are showing exactly why bothsidesing is such a powerful rhetorical tool.

We are all inclined to seek to understand things by finding balance. We are disinclined to accept asymmetry, to accept that what might be quite irrational for us might be perfectly rational for someone else, someone playing by different rules.

Because the math isn't adding up for you - because you cannot accept that Putin would do what he is doing without justification you consider adequate - you are inclined to search for the adequate justification that must exist.

This leads you to, whether you like it or not, adopting and amplifying Putin's nonsense talking points.

AGAIN, I do not think Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is justified. Not one bit! AGAIN, kindly spare me those words in my mouth.

If anything, I’m trying to justify the U.S.’s actions here. Help me out! Can you assure me this latest aid package for Ukraine is gonna be some sort of game changer?

I really do think there is room for some valid criticism of U.S. militant efforts, without knee-jerk dismissing it as Putin talking points.

If fact, to knee-jerk dismiss as much as Putin talking points, seems exactly to accept that asymmetry you speak of. It’s not like criticism for U.S. militarism never existed until Putin tried to leverage it, right?

To suggest any less, seems to be you admitting you and your own views and rhetoric are indeed playing by different rules; that it’s suddenly quite rational to reject valid criticism for one side’s militarism but not the other.

Either that, or please do demonstrate where that line is drawn between valid criticism and Putin propaganda.

Israel?

Ukraine?

Afghanistan?

Iraq?

Vietnam?

Cuz, historically speaking, when it comes to imperial meddling and militarism abroad, and speaking as objectively as possible - I’m just not sure the U.S. has the best track record.

Do you believe that if left unchecked that Putin would stop at Ukraine? Yes or No.

Or do you believe that he would continue on and end up invading a NATO country which would result in a full-blown war with US soldiers on the ground? Yes or No.

Sometimes there is a need for some sort of military presence and participation to try to avoid a full blown military escalation into war.

[KUTradition]

seems q’s fantasyland fairytales extend far beyond KU basketball recruiting and roster construction

whoddathunkit?

[jfish26]

Ah. I see. Fascinating.

And what if Cory’s “something mean” involved things that were far worse than teasing and calling names? Things that involved weapons and injuries and deaths as well?

Sure, that doesn’t mean Shawn shouldn’t be responsible for any harm he’s done, but does that change anything toward Cory’s responsibility?

Would that, at the very least, be maybe a tad more complicated yet?

You are showing exactly why bothsidesing is such a powerful rhetorical tool.

We are all inclined to seek to understand things by finding balance. We are disinclined to accept asymmetry, to accept that what might be quite irrational for us might be perfectly rational for someone else, someone playing by different rules.

Because the math isn't adding up for you - because you cannot accept that Putin would do what he is doing without justification you consider adequate - you are inclined to search for the adequate justification that must exist.

This leads you to, whether you like it or not, adopting and amplifying Putin's nonsense talking points.

AGAIN, I do not think Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is justified. Not one bit! AGAIN, kindly spare me those words in my mouth.

If anything, I’m trying to justify the U.S.’s actions here. Help me out! Can you assure me this latest aid package for Ukraine is gonna be some sort of game changer?

I really do think there is room for some valid criticism of U.S. militant efforts, without knee-jerk dismissing it as Putin talking points.

If fact, to knee-jerk dismiss as much as Putin talking points, seems exactly to accept that asymmetry you speak of. It’s not like criticism for U.S. militarism never existed until Putin tried to leverage it, right?

To suggest any less, seems to be you admitting you and your own views and rhetoric are indeed playing by different rules; that it’s suddenly quite rational to reject valid criticism for one side’s militarism but not the other.

Either that, or please do demonstrate where that line is drawn between valid criticism and Putin propaganda.

Israel?

Ukraine?

Afghanistan?

Iraq?

Vietnam?

Cuz, historically speaking, when it comes to imperial meddling and militarism abroad, and speaking as objectively as possible - I’m just not sure the U.S. has the best track record.

I am engaging on Putin’s war on Ukraine. Not on … checks notes … Vietnam or Second Manassas or any of the six Battles of Carthage.

It should be a massive red flag, to any discerning observer, that Putin’s justifications for his war range from gross exaggerations to lazy, outright lies.

If someone is trying to sell you something, and they are lying about it, then that person is TELLING you out loud that whatever the actual merits of the thing are, the actual merits of the thing are NOT enough for a discerning person to buy what is being sold.

In other words, if what Cory actually did was SO bad that it at least adequately explained why Shawn would do what Shawn did, then Shawn would not exaggerate and lie about what Cory actually did!

[Sparko]

Putin has been playing a Hitleresque long game. Only a fool would normalize or minimize the danger that poses.

[jfish26]

If anything, I’m trying to justify the U.S.’s actions here. Help me out! Can you assure me this latest aid package for Ukraine is gonna be some sort of game changer?

Of course I cannot, and will not.

But you should pay attention to how this game works, because it is played over and over again, and you are falling right into the trap.

Step 1: Identify something you do not like.
Step 2: Break or cripple the thing.
Step 3: Watch the broken or crippled thing fail.
Step 4: Blame the thing for failing (or, more accurately but less succinctly-worded, blame the people who created the thing, but who did not break or cripple it, for the thing’s failure).

[ousdahl]

Wut?

If you cannot and will not justify the U.S.’s actions and whether the latest aid package will make any difference, what else might you suggest?

I’m not trying for some 4 step blame game. I’m just trying to understand what our strategy is supposed to be.

[ousdahl]

You are showing exactly why bothsidesing is such a powerful rhetorical tool.

We are all inclined to seek to understand things by finding balance. We are disinclined to accept asymmetry, to accept that what might be quite irrational for us might be perfectly rational for someone else, someone playing by different rules.

Because the math isn't adding up for you - because you cannot accept that Putin would do what he is doing without justification you consider adequate - you are inclined to search for the adequate justification that must exist.

This leads you to, whether you like it or not, adopting and amplifying Putin's nonsense talking points.

AGAIN, I do not think Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is justified. Not one bit! AGAIN, kindly spare me those words in my mouth.

If anything, I’m trying to justify the U.S.’s actions here. Help me out! Can you assure me this latest aid package for Ukraine is gonna be some sort of game changer?

I really do think there is room for some valid criticism of U.S. militant efforts, without knee-jerk dismissing it as Putin talking points.

If fact, to knee-jerk dismiss as much as Putin talking points, seems exactly to accept that asymmetry you speak of. It’s not like criticism for U.S. militarism never existed until Putin tried to leverage it, right?

To suggest any less, seems to be you admitting you and your own views and rhetoric are indeed playing by different rules; that it’s suddenly quite rational to reject valid criticism for one side’s militarism but not the other.

Either that, or please do demonstrate where that line is drawn between valid criticism and Putin propaganda.

Israel?

Ukraine?

Afghanistan?

Iraq?

Vietnam?

Cuz, historically speaking, when it comes to imperial meddling and militarism abroad, and speaking as objectively as possible - I’m just not sure the U.S. has the best track record.

I am engaging on Putin’s war on Ukraine. Not on … checks notes … Vietnam or Second Manassas or any of the six Battles of Carthage.

It should be a massive red flag, to any discerning observer, that Putin’s justifications for his war range from gross exaggerations to lazy, outright lies.

If someone is trying to sell you something, and they are lying about it, then that person is TELLING you out loud that whatever the actual merits of the thing are, the actual merits of the thing are NOT enough for a discerning person to buy what is being sold.

In other words, if what Cory actually did was SO bad that it at least adequately explained why Shawn would do what Shawn did, then Shawn would not exaggerate and lie about what Cory actually did!

Of course Putin’s “justifications” are a massive red flag.

But, in the interest of avoiding asymmetry - how is it not also a red flag for the U.S. to insist upon this vague carte blanche support and “not matter how long it takes” rhetoric for Ukraine, particularly on the coattails of 20 fucking years in Afghanistan?

[Overlander]

i love me some cherries

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-a ... y-not-war/

Great contribution to a thread in free fall!

[jfish26]

AGAIN, I do not think Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is justified. Not one bit! AGAIN, kindly spare me those words in my mouth.

If anything, I’m trying to justify the U.S.’s actions here. Help me out! Can you assure me this latest aid package for Ukraine is gonna be some sort of game changer?

I really do think there is room for some valid criticism of U.S. militant efforts, without knee-jerk dismissing it as Putin talking points.

If fact, to knee-jerk dismiss as much as Putin talking points, seems exactly to accept that asymmetry you speak of. It’s not like criticism for U.S. militarism never existed until Putin tried to leverage it, right?

To suggest any less, seems to be you admitting you and your own views and rhetoric are indeed playing by different rules; that it’s suddenly quite rational to reject valid criticism for one side’s militarism but not the other.

Either that, or please do demonstrate where that line is drawn between valid criticism and Putin propaganda.

Israel?

Ukraine?

Afghanistan?

Iraq?

Vietnam?

Cuz, historically speaking, when it comes to imperial meddling and militarism abroad, and speaking as objectively as possible - I’m just not sure the U.S. has the best track record.

I am engaging on Putin’s war on Ukraine. Not on … checks notes … Vietnam or Second Manassas or any of the six Battles of Carthage.

It should be a massive red flag, to any discerning observer, that Putin’s justifications for his war range from gross exaggerations to lazy, outright lies.

If someone is trying to sell you something, and they are lying about it, then that person is TELLING you out loud that whatever the actual merits of the thing are, the actual merits of the thing are NOT enough for a discerning person to buy what is being sold.

In other words, if what Cory actually did was SO bad that it at least adequately explained why Shawn would do what Shawn did, then Shawn would not exaggerate and lie about what Cory actually did!

Of course Putin’s “justifications” are a massive red flag.

But, in the interest of avoiding asymmetry - how is it not also a red flag for the U.S. to insist upon this vague carte blanche support and “not matter how long it takes” rhetoric for Ukraine, particularly on the coattails of 20 fucking years in Afghanistan?

But you keep starting from these false starting places.

I think you misunderstood how I used “asymmetry” earlier - in fact here you are trying to find symmetry.

There is no such thing even sought that could be characterized as “vague carte blanche support.”

And “20 fucking years in Afghanistan” is not a relevant comparison* here, where we are talking about support that is intended, fundamentally, to prevent putting US servicemembers in harm’s way.

* That this is often brought up is instructive, though, in the context of the exploitation by Putin of those with sincerely-held anti-war positions.