3 ms·

If you feel that way, surely you wouldn’t mind me moving into your house, sleeping in your bed, eating your food, etc. After all, there is no right or wrong, ev

If you feel that way, surely you wouldn’t mind me moving into your house, sleeping in your bed, eating your food, etc. After all, there is no right or wrong, everything is grey, and reductionist logic can be applied to deflect from any argument that is inconvenient to one’s simplistic worldviews.

thriftwy 3y ago
So I'm saying that a course of action that led a country towards becoming fractured, empoverished and in a hot war with its larger neighbour was wrong course. To the contrary, you are saying this course of action was right and should be taken as a guidance, because it averted even larger catastrophe (which I have trouble contemplating) and because it will all pay off at the end (are they gambling?) That's not even grey area, that's bungee jumping. Another piece of discussion where a person suggested self-immolation to other parties. Reminds me of 3 reasons why one would consider sitting on a hedgehog.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > So I'm saying that a course of action that led a country towards becoming fractured, empoverished and in a hot war with its larger neighbour was wrong course. What if what led a country to become involved in a hot war its larger neighbour was entirely on its larger neighbour.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    As a gingerbread man, your first priority would be that you make sure nobody eats you. This is very important! As a country, your first priority is that nobody attacks you, especially a larger party. On whom this is, becomes irrelevant. I've often seen tourist guides telling tourists to not flash expensive jewelry and electronics on the street. They never seem to say "do what you want, you are an independent human being, if somebody decides to rob you it's entirely on them". But that's exactly what the world was telling Ukraine for decades. Still keeps telling. Teaches others to follow that history of success. From that perspective, if you're Ukraine and confident that Russia went ballistic, then you will have a rock solid, "Russian friendly" government and do everything you can so that Russia attacks Kazakhstan instead.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > From that perspective, if you're Ukraine and confident that Russia went ballistic, then you will have a rock solid, "Russian friendly" government and do everything you can so that Russia attacks Kazakhstan instead. I think Russia would have attacked and taken over Ukraine either way (either by political force or military might) and that the plan was always to do this. I don’t think Ukraine could have avoided this fate by not keeping its belongings its car. Sometimes cars get broken into anyway, and I think this is that case. I think it’s very telling that the victory article Russian media posted then deleted suddenly on what would be the 4 or 5th day of the war talked heavily about writing historical wrongs (Ukraines independence) and didn’t really mention a coup or NATO or anything like that.
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        As far as I remember, the victory article Russian media posted then deleted suddently, also did not really mention annexing Ukraine or even parts of it. I suggest you dust off that text and re-read it. Now that is off the table as Russia has formally included large part of Ukrainian coast into Russian Federation. Indeed there is an example of Belarus, which is a smaller country that is still independent (in the sense that it has its own statehood, laws and international relations) and intact. If that is what you mean by independence, then if Belarus pulls it, Ukraine could also. If by independence you mean the ability to persistently ignore your largest, trigger happy neighbour concerns - indeed such independence was likely doomed from the start. That's the "flashing jewelry" part for you. And again, I'm not really talking about personal choices (maybe Ukraine did have to go through Second Independence War like USA did), but about the desirability of such scenario to be copied by other countries.
        _kbh_ 3y ago
        > Now that is off the table as Russia has formally included large part of Ukrainian coast into Russian Federation. That was off the table in 2014 when they did the exact same thing to Crimea, so theres no real change there, not that it changes the status of any of the territory they still remain areas of Ukraine (like Crimea) they are just temporarily occupied. > If by independence you mean the ability to persistently ignore your largest, trigger happy neighbour concerns - indeed such independence was likely doomed from the start. That's the "flashing jewelry" part for you. Independence means the right to choose whatever you want for your alliance. Which Ukraine has the right to do. > And again, I'm not really talking about personal choices (maybe Ukraine did have to go through Second Independence War like USA did), but about the desirability of such scenario to be copied by other countries. I think it should be desirable for other countries to be independent and not subjugated by their bigger neighbours.
- cycrutchfield 3y ago
  So the US Founding Fathers were wrong to declare independence from Britain because the Revolutionary War was bloody and painful? Instead the US should have remained colonies and everything would have turned out better?
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    That is actually a great question. There is USA, there is Canada which has never declared independence, and I can't say outright that Canada is a worse country than USA, or has less self-determination, after taking population and geography into account. USA did lose quite a large amount of men in independence-related wars, though. The same question about the French Revolution. Yes, they have no choice but praise it now, but Britain had no revolution and we are all now writing in English. Had France averted Revolution, it is likely that we would all be writing in French now, and English would be a niche language of England and some very backwards African ex-colonies. Was it worth it? Sure, French Revolution led to Napoleon, who could be a success had he not jump under the Russian steamroller. The best thing about revolutions is not having them and waiting for a bigger sucker to have one. The benefits of somebody out there having a revolution seem to be shared, whereas the cost seems to be footed by the ones who did it to their country. These suckers then have no choice but to make their largest failure the central point of their ideology. France did, so did USSR and arguably USA, however here it's not as clear-cut.

thriftwy 3y ago

So I'm saying that a course of action that led a country towards becoming fractured, empoverished and in a hot war with its larger neighbour was wrong course. To the contrary, you are saying this course of action was right and should be taken as a guidance, because it averted even larger catastrophe (which I have trouble contemplating) and because it will all pay off at the end (are they gambling?) That's not even grey area, that's bungee jumping. Another piece of discussion where a person suggested self-immolation to other parties. Reminds me of 3 reasons why one would consider sitting on a hedgehog.

_kbh_ 3y ago
> So I'm saying that a course of action that led a country towards becoming fractured, empoverished and in a hot war with its larger neighbour was wrong course. What if what led a country to become involved in a hot war its larger neighbour was entirely on its larger neighbour.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  As a gingerbread man, your first priority would be that you make sure nobody eats you. This is very important! As a country, your first priority is that nobody attacks you, especially a larger party. On whom this is, becomes irrelevant. I've often seen tourist guides telling tourists to not flash expensive jewelry and electronics on the street. They never seem to say "do what you want, you are an independent human being, if somebody decides to rob you it's entirely on them". But that's exactly what the world was telling Ukraine for decades. Still keeps telling. Teaches others to follow that history of success. From that perspective, if you're Ukraine and confident that Russia went ballistic, then you will have a rock solid, "Russian friendly" government and do everything you can so that Russia attacks Kazakhstan instead.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > From that perspective, if you're Ukraine and confident that Russia went ballistic, then you will have a rock solid, "Russian friendly" government and do everything you can so that Russia attacks Kazakhstan instead. I think Russia would have attacked and taken over Ukraine either way (either by political force or military might) and that the plan was always to do this. I don’t think Ukraine could have avoided this fate by not keeping its belongings its car. Sometimes cars get broken into anyway, and I think this is that case. I think it’s very telling that the victory article Russian media posted then deleted suddenly on what would be the 4 or 5th day of the war talked heavily about writing historical wrongs (Ukraines independence) and didn’t really mention a coup or NATO or anything like that.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      As far as I remember, the victory article Russian media posted then deleted suddently, also did not really mention annexing Ukraine or even parts of it. I suggest you dust off that text and re-read it. Now that is off the table as Russia has formally included large part of Ukrainian coast into Russian Federation. Indeed there is an example of Belarus, which is a smaller country that is still independent (in the sense that it has its own statehood, laws and international relations) and intact. If that is what you mean by independence, then if Belarus pulls it, Ukraine could also. If by independence you mean the ability to persistently ignore your largest, trigger happy neighbour concerns - indeed such independence was likely doomed from the start. That's the "flashing jewelry" part for you. And again, I'm not really talking about personal choices (maybe Ukraine did have to go through Second Independence War like USA did), but about the desirability of such scenario to be copied by other countries.
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > Now that is off the table as Russia has formally included large part of Ukrainian coast into Russian Federation. That was off the table in 2014 when they did the exact same thing to Crimea, so theres no real change there, not that it changes the status of any of the territory they still remain areas of Ukraine (like Crimea) they are just temporarily occupied. > If by independence you mean the ability to persistently ignore your largest, trigger happy neighbour concerns - indeed such independence was likely doomed from the start. That's the "flashing jewelry" part for you. Independence means the right to choose whatever you want for your alliance. Which Ukraine has the right to do. > And again, I'm not really talking about personal choices (maybe Ukraine did have to go through Second Independence War like USA did), but about the desirability of such scenario to be copied by other countries. I think it should be desirable for other countries to be independent and not subjugated by their bigger neighbours.
cycrutchfield 3y ago
So the US Founding Fathers were wrong to declare independence from Britain because the Revolutionary War was bloody and painful? Instead the US should have remained colonies and everything would have turned out better?
- thriftwy 3y ago
  That is actually a great question. There is USA, there is Canada which has never declared independence, and I can't say outright that Canada is a worse country than USA, or has less self-determination, after taking population and geography into account. USA did lose quite a large amount of men in independence-related wars, though. The same question about the French Revolution. Yes, they have no choice but praise it now, but Britain had no revolution and we are all now writing in English. Had France averted Revolution, it is likely that we would all be writing in French now, and English would be a niche language of England and some very backwards African ex-colonies. Was it worth it? Sure, French Revolution led to Napoleon, who could be a success had he not jump under the Russian steamroller. The best thing about revolutions is not having them and waiting for a bigger sucker to have one. The benefits of somebody out there having a revolution seem to be shared, whereas the cost seems to be footed by the ones who did it to their country. These suckers then have no choice but to make their largest failure the central point of their ideology. France did, so did USSR and arguably USA, however here it's not as clear-cut.