3 ms·

> Another common reference is this one, which has numbers as high as 1,000,000+ But that source does not speak of US forces. > I wonder: does it seem possible

by prvit 4y ago

> Another common reference is this one, which has numbers as high as 1,000,000+ But that source does not speak of US forces. > I wonder: does it seem possible that humans might choose (and psychologically/epistemically favor) one source over another according to how well it supports their pre-existing worldview? This is exactly what you are doing, yes. You’re picking a number intended to quantify something entirely different and comparing it against mine. > "Clearly". What else would you call Russia repeatedly using low precision missiles to strike population centers? They’ve done this with fucking MLRS, an area denial weapon. What else could you call Russias extensive campaign against the power infrastructure in Ukraine? This can’t possibly achieve any military goals this long into the war, the only purpose is to hurt the civilian population.

mistermann 4y ago
> But that source does not speak of US forces. Rumour has it that the US Military had some involvement in the Iraq war. > This is exactly what you are doing, yes. Technically, this is your perception/interpretation of what I am doing. > You’re picking a number intended to quantify something entirely different and comparing it against mine. I'm not asserting "my number" (actually, it is just one example among many on that page) as factual, but I get the impression that you present yours as such. Am I mistaken in that? Do you actually wonder what is true? >> "Clearly". > What else would you call Russia repeatedly using low precision missiles to strike population centers? They’ve done this with fucking MLRS, an area denial weapon. I was just teasing a bit about the phenomenon where humans tend to believe that what is "clear" to them is synonymous with what is true. Feed incorrect training data to a neural network and then ask it questions, and it will give incorrect answers, but to it, the answers would be "clearly" true. > What else could you call Russias extensive campaign against the power infrastructure in Ukraine? This can’t possibly achieve any military goals this long into the war, the only purpose is to hurt the civilian population. I would call it: an unfortunate turn of events...yet another consequence of ongoing human folly, and in this case: a cultural inability (reinforced and enforced in numerous places) to desire to speak truthfully.
- rat87 4y ago
  > Rumour has it that the US Military had some involvement in the Iraq war. Yes but their point is that the US army didn't kill most of those civilians. Now you can make moral arguments that we deserve some to most of the blame for destabilizing the country but its still pretty different from killing the civilians

by prvit 4y ago

mistermann 4y ago

> But that source does not speak of US forces. Rumour has it that the US Military had some involvement in the Iraq war. > This is exactly what you are doing, yes. Technically, this is your perception/interpretation of what I am doing. > You’re picking a number intended to quantify something entirely different and comparing it against mine. I'm not asserting "my number" (actually, it is just one example among many on that page) as factual, but I get the impression that you present yours as such. Am I mistaken in that? Do you actually wonder what is true? >> "Clearly". > What else would you call Russia repeatedly using low precision missiles to strike population centers? They’ve done this with fucking MLRS, an area denial weapon. I was just teasing a bit about the phenomenon where humans tend to believe that what is "clear" to them is synonymous with what is true. Feed incorrect training data to a neural network and then ask it questions, and it will give incorrect answers, but to it, the answers would be "clearly" true. > What else could you call Russias extensive campaign against the power infrastructure in Ukraine? This can’t possibly achieve any military goals this long into the war, the only purpose is to hurt the civilian population. I would call it: an unfortunate turn of events...yet another consequence of ongoing human folly, and in this case: a cultural inability (reinforced and enforced in numerous places) to desire to speak truthfully.

rat87 4y ago
> Rumour has it that the US Military had some involvement in the Iraq war. Yes but their point is that the US army didn't kill most of those civilians. Now you can make moral arguments that we deserve some to most of the blame for destabilizing the country but its still pretty different from killing the civilians