5 ms·

> one side is the obvious aggressor completely in the wrong If your model of any political situation resembles a moralizing children's cartoon, 99% chance you

by wyager 4y ago

> one side is the obvious aggressor completely in the wrong If your model of any political situation resembles a moralizing children's cartoon, 99% chance you are a mark, incapable of identifying propaganda. > it's rotting people's ability to actually figure out what the right side of an issue is 99.9% of issues in the population of issues we ever think about do not have a clear right answer, because if they did we would just discharge the issue immediately, and it would not stick around. Everything that remains exists in a tradeoff space, and if you think there's a clear right answer, it's probably because your understanding of the tradeoff space is naïve and low-dimensional.

igorkraw 4y ago
Okay, so what is your take on the issues GP identified? Or is the only conclusion you can arrive at "it's complicated"? GP made the very salient point that some things are clearly bad. Blind clinging to the idea that everything has two sides is just as simplistic as thinking everything can be viewed from a perspective which is just as moral as every other. Except maybe even more so, because at least the moral simplicity of black and white forces us to show flag instead of hiding in "neutrality". Nihilism, strong moral relativism and contrarianism without a constructive goal are lazy pseudo intellectual positions that do not serve any constructive purpose (be it insight or improvement of the material world) and serve only as deflections and comfort arguments. And for those that disagree with me: I'd love to hear where and why I'm wrong about thinking "Putin and other authoritarian strong men are worse than democratically elected politician" and "there are degrees of corruption, and the west is less corrupt than Russia". Because I've got evidence for these beliefs (the industrial output of Russia and Putin's palace being only two data points). What's yours?
- throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
  "The west probably could have avoided (or maybe just delayed) this war if they had taken steps X" is some the nuance you could add to your statements. Simple example of X would be stating Ukraine was never going to be part of NATO. More complicated example would be if Europe prioritized energy independence from Russia putting in a weaker position. An example that loops in nuclear power debate, one which likely could have been manipulated (see other threads around Reddit bots in addition to twitter bots) by the Russians themselves to achieve that end. -- Russian being the bad guy doesn't make conflict inevitable. And if it does, then we're probably just buying time until full scale nuclear war within the next century and none of this actually matters.
  - SergeAx 4y ago
    What is the point of talking about previous actions or non-actions today? What will change if we spend our time and energy talking about past?
  - joecot 4y ago
    I agree with all of this. The US and EU kept discussing inviting Ukraine to NATO or even the EU, and the US was pushing towards a military alliance with Ukraine. This would've caused tension even if Russia was a democratic country not run by Putin. With Putin it led to near certainty of a conflict with Ukraine. But while it's worth looking backward at that to try to get our leaders to not pull political moves like that in the future, it in no way changes the Ukrainians being on the right side of this war, and Russia being on the wrong side. Yes, the US's actions were likely to cause a war, no, Russia is not justified in starting that war. In the same way that European appeasement of Hitler and USSR's neutrality deal clearly led to the Nazis invading Europe, but do not in any way justify the Nazis invading Europe, or the Nazis being the right side.
    - marshray 4y ago
      > USSR's neutrality deal clearly led to the Nazis invading Europe Hitler (Nazis) and Stalin (USSR) were allies and jointly invaded Poland.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    I still see zero reason for Russia to start a war against a sovereign country with a democratically elected leader. It’s like saying that the other classmates didn’t let the bully copy their homework so he is right in beating the everliving shit out of a completely different kid.
    - throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
      > It’s like saying that the other classmates didn’t let the bully copy their homework so he is right in beating the everliving shit out of a completely different kid. Is this the only way that situation gets resolve or are there any alternatives? Why is the kid a bully? Why does he feel the need to copy homework? Maybe the classmates should group together and seriously injury the bully first, would they be in the right if they did so? How do you know the bully will actually harm the kid and doesn't just want to scare him? You can make any situation a simple good-evil answer by drawing arbitrary boundaries around the situation. The propaganda this thread is mentioning enforces those boundaries and potentially prevents people from discussing the real underlying problems. Doesn't mean the outcome or conclusion is any different.
- wyager 4y ago
  > so what is your take on the issues GP identified I refuse to discuss it here, because much of the site's userbase seems incapable of having an even slightly nuanced political discussion, and I will possibly get a nasty comment from moderation accusing me of flame-baiting or something. The best I can do it argue for epistemic humility, because at least people generally find that abstractly palatable. > "Putin and other authoritarian strong men are worse than democratically elected politician ... the industrial output of Russia" If your benchmark of how good a political system is is just its industrial output, China's anti-democratic system is better than Western systems. I can't even disagree with your argument, because it's not internally consistent.
  - igorkraw 4y ago
    So basically all you are doing is claiming to have a nuanced take, but you aren't capable of expressing it in a way that won't get caught by HN moderation who despite me being an eccentric hothead that can't always resist some snark manages to no accuse me of bad faith, and rarely if ever seems to censor interesting debates. Forgive me if I take this as evidence that your arguments and thought might be less nuanced and well developed than you claim. And regarding the point of China, aside from being a very naive read of Chinese economic history (see PolyMatters series on China for evidence) this is a non-sequitur, the output of a completely different culture and system has nothing to do with the output of Russia, nor did I claim this was the completeness of my argument. I observe again that all you seem to do is exclaim you cannot believe how stupid peoples arguments are for not being nuanced or developed enough, without stating your own take. For anyone reading this thread, pay note to this pattern, it's basically debate smell for someone not engaging in good faith.
    - wyager 4y ago
      > won't get caught by HN moderation who despite me being an eccentric hothead that can't always resist some snark manages to no accuse me of bad faith, and rarely if ever seems to censor interesting debates. Have you considered that this may be because your comments are insufficiently original to ever fall outside of the overton window of the site? > the output of a completely different culture and system has nothing to do with the output of Russia My friend, you are the one who claimed that industrial output was the criteria by which we could judge the russian system is worse than the western one. I agree this argument is nonsense. > without stating your own take I already explained why I can't do this on this site.
drewcoo 4y ago
> model of any political situation resembles a moralizing children's cartoon I'd actually be interested in those cartoons, if you have links. Propaganda pointed at kids is fascinating!
- viridian 4y ago
  Quite a few one dimensional villains come to mind from my childhood: Dora the Explorer's swiper the fox, G.I. Joe's cobra commander, He Man's skeletor, robbie rotten from lazy town Still, I'd say it's a stretch to call, say, the oversimplification of the idea that stealing is wrong, propaganda.
- p1peridine 4y ago
  Alice in Wonderland.

by wyager 4y ago

igorkraw 4y ago

Okay, so what is your take on the issues GP identified? Or is the only conclusion you can arrive at "it's complicated"? GP made the very salient point that some things are clearly bad. Blind clinging to the idea that everything has two sides is just as simplistic as thinking everything can be viewed from a perspective which is just as moral as every other. Except maybe even more so, because at least the moral simplicity of black and white forces us to show flag instead of hiding in "neutrality". Nihilism, strong moral relativism and contrarianism without a constructive goal are lazy pseudo intellectual positions that do not serve any constructive purpose (be it insight or improvement of the material world) and serve only as deflections and comfort arguments. And for those that disagree with me: I'd love to hear where and why I'm wrong about thinking "Putin and other authoritarian strong men are worse than democratically elected politician" and "there are degrees of corruption, and the west is less corrupt than Russia". Because I've got evidence for these beliefs (the industrial output of Russia and Putin's palace being only two data points). What's yours?

throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
"The west probably could have avoided (or maybe just delayed) this war if they had taken steps X" is some the nuance you could add to your statements. Simple example of X would be stating Ukraine was never going to be part of NATO. More complicated example would be if Europe prioritized energy independence from Russia putting in a weaker position. An example that loops in nuclear power debate, one which likely could have been manipulated (see other threads around Reddit bots in addition to twitter bots) by the Russians themselves to achieve that end. -- Russian being the bad guy doesn't make conflict inevitable. And if it does, then we're probably just buying time until full scale nuclear war within the next century and none of this actually matters.
- SergeAx 4y ago
  What is the point of talking about previous actions or non-actions today? What will change if we spend our time and energy talking about past?
- joecot 4y ago
  I agree with all of this. The US and EU kept discussing inviting Ukraine to NATO or even the EU, and the US was pushing towards a military alliance with Ukraine. This would've caused tension even if Russia was a democratic country not run by Putin. With Putin it led to near certainty of a conflict with Ukraine. But while it's worth looking backward at that to try to get our leaders to not pull political moves like that in the future, it in no way changes the Ukrainians being on the right side of this war, and Russia being on the wrong side. Yes, the US's actions were likely to cause a war, no, Russia is not justified in starting that war. In the same way that European appeasement of Hitler and USSR's neutrality deal clearly led to the Nazis invading Europe, but do not in any way justify the Nazis invading Europe, or the Nazis being the right side.
  - marshray 4y ago
    > USSR's neutrality deal clearly led to the Nazis invading Europe Hitler (Nazis) and Stalin (USSR) were allies and jointly invaded Poland.
- kaba0 4y ago
  I still see zero reason for Russia to start a war against a sovereign country with a democratically elected leader. It’s like saying that the other classmates didn’t let the bully copy their homework so he is right in beating the everliving shit out of a completely different kid.
  - throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
    > It’s like saying that the other classmates didn’t let the bully copy their homework so he is right in beating the everliving shit out of a completely different kid. Is this the only way that situation gets resolve or are there any alternatives? Why is the kid a bully? Why does he feel the need to copy homework? Maybe the classmates should group together and seriously injury the bully first, would they be in the right if they did so? How do you know the bully will actually harm the kid and doesn't just want to scare him? You can make any situation a simple good-evil answer by drawing arbitrary boundaries around the situation. The propaganda this thread is mentioning enforces those boundaries and potentially prevents people from discussing the real underlying problems. Doesn't mean the outcome or conclusion is any different.
wyager 4y ago
> so what is your take on the issues GP identified I refuse to discuss it here, because much of the site's userbase seems incapable of having an even slightly nuanced political discussion, and I will possibly get a nasty comment from moderation accusing me of flame-baiting or something. The best I can do it argue for epistemic humility, because at least people generally find that abstractly palatable. > "Putin and other authoritarian strong men are worse than democratically elected politician ... the industrial output of Russia" If your benchmark of how good a political system is is just its industrial output, China's anti-democratic system is better than Western systems. I can't even disagree with your argument, because it's not internally consistent.
- igorkraw 4y ago
  So basically all you are doing is claiming to have a nuanced take, but you aren't capable of expressing it in a way that won't get caught by HN moderation who despite me being an eccentric hothead that can't always resist some snark manages to no accuse me of bad faith, and rarely if ever seems to censor interesting debates. Forgive me if I take this as evidence that your arguments and thought might be less nuanced and well developed than you claim. And regarding the point of China, aside from being a very naive read of Chinese economic history (see PolyMatters series on China for evidence) this is a non-sequitur, the output of a completely different culture and system has nothing to do with the output of Russia, nor did I claim this was the completeness of my argument. I observe again that all you seem to do is exclaim you cannot believe how stupid peoples arguments are for not being nuanced or developed enough, without stating your own take. For anyone reading this thread, pay note to this pattern, it's basically debate smell for someone not engaging in good faith.
  - wyager 4y ago
    > won't get caught by HN moderation who despite me being an eccentric hothead that can't always resist some snark manages to no accuse me of bad faith, and rarely if ever seems to censor interesting debates. Have you considered that this may be because your comments are insufficiently original to ever fall outside of the overton window of the site? > the output of a completely different culture and system has nothing to do with the output of Russia My friend, you are the one who claimed that industrial output was the criteria by which we could judge the russian system is worse than the western one. I agree this argument is nonsense. > without stating your own take I already explained why I can't do this on this site.

drewcoo 4y ago

> model of any political situation resembles a moralizing children's cartoon I'd actually be interested in those cartoons, if you have links. Propaganda pointed at kids is fascinating!

viridian 4y ago
Quite a few one dimensional villains come to mind from my childhood: Dora the Explorer's swiper the fox, G.I. Joe's cobra commander, He Man's skeletor, robbie rotten from lazy town Still, I'd say it's a stretch to call, say, the oversimplification of the idea that stealing is wrong, propaganda.
p1peridine 4y ago
Alice in Wonderland.