5 ms·

This is all fun until you talk to someone who is absolutely brainwashed or alien to a peaceful behavior. Do you really want to lose the debate to flat earth ad

by avaika 4y ago

This is all fun until you talk to someone who is absolutely brainwashed or alien to a peaceful behavior. Do you really want to lose the debate to flat earth advocate? Do you want to lose a debate to a war aggressor supporter? Do you want to lose a debate to a serial killer? I bet you don't. PS. Maybe I didn't get something right, but I suffered a lot in conversations with close relatives who are denying that killing other people is bad in the light of ongoing war in Ukraine :(

FlyingSnake 4y ago
Of course the will be outliers and edge cases for most of the advice you receive. This observation from Derek is more or less a guideline, not an iron rule. He's not advocating to forgo common sense when dealing with people.
- jnsaff2 4y ago
  I think that the fact that Derek found this interesting enough to write about and people find it controversial to discuss about here kinda proves that his wish is the outlier and the norm is arguing with bad faith actors or people who have made up their mind and want to convince you, not really learn anything. Maybe this is an internet thing but genuine enlightening discussion is kinda hard to be found on internet.
iinnPP 4y ago
>close relatives who are denying that killing other people is bad Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing. Your close relatives believe Russia is on defense. Kind of like how the US was on defense in Iraq. So, from their perspective, the way to save lives is to negotiate an end to the war where Russia takes that tiny bit of land, and Ukraine stops being considered for the UN. Come to the discussion using human life as the topic. Figure out where solutions exist that save the most lives. Talk about how many die and what is gained or lost as a result. Moving the conversation from nations to humans will not only help the argument make more sense, it will have you coming away with far superior respect for your incredibly important family unit.
- xiphias2 4y ago
  What's interesting in this is how many people still think that in politics there's a ,,good side'' and a ,,bad side''. Europe would stay much stronger together with Russia, so it was worth for US to increase the conflicts between the two powers (destroying Nordstream wasn't the nicest move). Putin was used to high gas prices making his power the highest, but he wasn't used to the power of LNG that US has, as it's the first time that LNG comes into geopolitics in Europe so strongly. But as you wrote, nobody wants to kill people, it's a terrible consequence of geopolitics.
  - rhaway84773 4y ago
    So why did Putin attack Ukraine if it was so obvious that it would benefit the US?
    - xiphias2 4y ago
      He probably expected an easier win and smaller help from US, but again that's geopolitics, it's still not about ,,people liking killing people''
    - iinnPP 4y ago
      That's a great question worth a full deep dive. A debate where losing is beneficial and where being a spectator is worthwhile.
  - BlueTemplar 4y ago
    Russia has been developing its own LNG with the French know-how and with Chinese money, and while the volumes that EUrope imports are still relatively small, they are now only an order of magnitude smaller than pipeline methane at its peak... and growing. It's also questionable just how long the US will be able to afford to export that methane (phase change isn't free), since the related tight oil seems to already have peaked ? (Maybe a few decades still ?)
- yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
  That bit of land isn’t tiny, and the russians aren’t going to stop at 20% of Ukraine. The aim of fascist russia is the total erasure of Ukraine. That means genocide. Trying to make a “peace deal” means more dead civilians, not fewer. Anyone who does not understand this is clueless, and it is quite frustrating how many Chomskys love to indulge themselves pontificating on such a serious issue with sweet fuck all real insight.
zepolen 4y ago
...who are denying that killing other people is bad in the light of ongoing war in Ukraine I wonder what your point of view would be if your family was killed by people who have no intention of listening to another person's point of view.

by avaika 4y ago

FlyingSnake 4y ago

Of course the will be outliers and edge cases for most of the advice you receive. This observation from Derek is more or less a guideline, not an iron rule. He's not advocating to forgo common sense when dealing with people.

jnsaff2 4y ago
I think that the fact that Derek found this interesting enough to write about and people find it controversial to discuss about here kinda proves that his wish is the outlier and the norm is arguing with bad faith actors or people who have made up their mind and want to convince you, not really learn anything. Maybe this is an internet thing but genuine enlightening discussion is kinda hard to be found on internet.

iinnPP 4y ago

>close relatives who are denying that killing other people is bad Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing. Your close relatives believe Russia is on defense. Kind of like how the US was on defense in Iraq. So, from their perspective, the way to save lives is to negotiate an end to the war where Russia takes that tiny bit of land, and Ukraine stops being considered for the UN. Come to the discussion using human life as the topic. Figure out where solutions exist that save the most lives. Talk about how many die and what is gained or lost as a result. Moving the conversation from nations to humans will not only help the argument make more sense, it will have you coming away with far superior respect for your incredibly important family unit.

xiphias2 4y ago
What's interesting in this is how many people still think that in politics there's a ,,good side'' and a ,,bad side''. Europe would stay much stronger together with Russia, so it was worth for US to increase the conflicts between the two powers (destroying Nordstream wasn't the nicest move). Putin was used to high gas prices making his power the highest, but he wasn't used to the power of LNG that US has, as it's the first time that LNG comes into geopolitics in Europe so strongly. But as you wrote, nobody wants to kill people, it's a terrible consequence of geopolitics.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  So why did Putin attack Ukraine if it was so obvious that it would benefit the US?
  - xiphias2 4y ago
    He probably expected an easier win and smaller help from US, but again that's geopolitics, it's still not about ,,people liking killing people''
  - iinnPP 4y ago
    That's a great question worth a full deep dive. A debate where losing is beneficial and where being a spectator is worthwhile.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  Russia has been developing its own LNG with the French know-how and with Chinese money, and while the volumes that EUrope imports are still relatively small, they are now only an order of magnitude smaller than pipeline methane at its peak... and growing. It's also questionable just how long the US will be able to afford to export that methane (phase change isn't free), since the related tight oil seems to already have peaked ? (Maybe a few decades still ?)
yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
That bit of land isn’t tiny, and the russians aren’t going to stop at 20% of Ukraine. The aim of fascist russia is the total erasure of Ukraine. That means genocide. Trying to make a “peace deal” means more dead civilians, not fewer. Anyone who does not understand this is clueless, and it is quite frustrating how many Chomskys love to indulge themselves pontificating on such a serious issue with sweet fuck all real insight.

zepolen 4y ago

...who are denying that killing other people is bad in the light of ongoing war in Ukraine I wonder what your point of view would be if your family was killed by people who have no intention of listening to another person's point of view.