3 ms·

I don’t actually care who is or isn’t Russian. That wasn’t my point. I’m saying it’s a Russian talking point and a silly one. You can’t justify everything bad y

I don’t actually care who is or isn’t Russian. That wasn’t my point. I’m saying it’s a Russian talking point and a silly one. You can’t justify everything bad you ever do by bringing up the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Trust me I’ve tried.

wruza 2y ago
I don’t think that that commenter tried to justify bad things, they only brought up a seemingly skewed perception of different nations by users of this forum. The fact that you see it as a sort of justification alone should be thought inducing. They simply added a contrast to what OP was already talking about in a delicate way, which was for reasons similar to those that generated this whole subthread.
- keybored 2y ago
  Exactly. They interpreted the message backwards. Instead of: 1. This other empire/country invades countries (BAD). It would be weird for them to philosophize about “a philosophy for hard times”—that’s like a cold-blooded murderer trying to find a philosophy for the mental anguish that killing causes him, for those “hard times” (okay we’re two similes/metaphors down here maybe time to stop) 2. Likewise people shouldn’t be surprised and react with negativity[1] when someone points out that this empire/country does it (America) Instead they seem to have interpreted in this backwards, roundabout way: 1. We’re talking about America and the military 2. The main topic is not even how the military kills people, btw (that’s just the backdrop) 3. Russia enters out of left-field: Hey America invades countries so therefore it’s okay that Russia did it! Quite bizzare. [1] When I replied that reply was downvoted and at the bottom of the thread
  - dullcrisp 2y ago
    Comparisons always cut both ways. You’re saying both those things, even if you only wanted to say one. I’ll take the explanation though.
    - wruza 2y ago
      It cuts both ways in you. You read both things when one was written, for an internal reason. That’s an important distinction. Otherwise there would be no way to say one thing without implying another. Human speech can generate lots of collateral associations, but all of them live in the mind of a listener. “Assume good faith”. A good writer predicts and suppresses associations in advance, but it’s not always feasible. The main issue itt is that skewed associations are its own topic.
      - dullcrisp 2y ago
        In me and anyone else exposed to Russian propaganda, which is probably just about everyone. But in this case it’s also the literal meaning. You can’t say (or imply) that A is just as bad as B without also saying that B is no worse than A. Call it the anti-symmetric property of partial orderings if that helps.
        keybored 2y ago
        > But in this case it’s also the literal meaning. You can’t say (or imply) that A is just as bad as B without also saying that B is no worse than A. Wrong on two counts. 1. These kinds of comparisons hone in on the thing the two things have in common. Invading places. This goes back to my “salient commonality” point. Which you rejected. But now you’re back to claiming that a comparison makes things equal. They don’t. They show that two things have two specific things in common. 2. “You’re saying both those things”, referring to my second thing “it’s okay that Russia did it!” (the wrong interpretation). Somehow you’ve gone from “these two things are just as bad” (covered by (1)) to “therefore Russia doing it is okay”. I still can’t make sense of that. > Call it the anti-symmetric property of partial orderings if that helps. Dressing it up in fancy language doesn’t make it true.
    - keybored 2y ago
      > Comparisons always cut both ways. You’re saying both those things, even if you only wanted to say one. I can’t coax your interpretation into the correct lane. Even when they are so obviously wrong.
keybored 2y ago
> I don’t actually care who is or isn’t Russian. Have you stopped beating your wife? I don’t care if you’re a wifebeater, no judgement. I’m just randomly curious. Saying that someone is both a Russian and pro-Invasion (by your faulty interpretation) has a well-deserved stigma.

wruza 2y ago

I don’t think that that commenter tried to justify bad things, they only brought up a seemingly skewed perception of different nations by users of this forum. The fact that you see it as a sort of justification alone should be thought inducing. They simply added a contrast to what OP was already talking about in a delicate way, which was for reasons similar to those that generated this whole subthread.

keybored 2y ago
Exactly. They interpreted the message backwards. Instead of: 1. This other empire/country invades countries (BAD). It would be weird for them to philosophize about “a philosophy for hard times”—that’s like a cold-blooded murderer trying to find a philosophy for the mental anguish that killing causes him, for those “hard times” (okay we’re two similes/metaphors down here maybe time to stop) 2. Likewise people shouldn’t be surprised and react with negativity[1] when someone points out that this empire/country does it (America) Instead they seem to have interpreted in this backwards, roundabout way: 1. We’re talking about America and the military 2. The main topic is not even how the military kills people, btw (that’s just the backdrop) 3. Russia enters out of left-field: Hey America invades countries so therefore it’s okay that Russia did it! Quite bizzare. [1] When I replied that reply was downvoted and at the bottom of the thread
- dullcrisp 2y ago
  Comparisons always cut both ways. You’re saying both those things, even if you only wanted to say one. I’ll take the explanation though.
  - wruza 2y ago
    It cuts both ways in you. You read both things when one was written, for an internal reason. That’s an important distinction. Otherwise there would be no way to say one thing without implying another. Human speech can generate lots of collateral associations, but all of them live in the mind of a listener. “Assume good faith”. A good writer predicts and suppresses associations in advance, but it’s not always feasible. The main issue itt is that skewed associations are its own topic.
    - dullcrisp 2y ago
      In me and anyone else exposed to Russian propaganda, which is probably just about everyone. But in this case it’s also the literal meaning. You can’t say (or imply) that A is just as bad as B without also saying that B is no worse than A. Call it the anti-symmetric property of partial orderings if that helps.
      - keybored 2y ago
        > But in this case it’s also the literal meaning. You can’t say (or imply) that A is just as bad as B without also saying that B is no worse than A. Wrong on two counts. 1. These kinds of comparisons hone in on the thing the two things have in common. Invading places. This goes back to my “salient commonality” point. Which you rejected. But now you’re back to claiming that a comparison makes things equal. They don’t. They show that two things have two specific things in common. 2. “You’re saying both those things”, referring to my second thing “it’s okay that Russia did it!” (the wrong interpretation). Somehow you’ve gone from “these two things are just as bad” (covered by (1)) to “therefore Russia doing it is okay”. I still can’t make sense of that. > Call it the anti-symmetric property of partial orderings if that helps. Dressing it up in fancy language doesn’t make it true.
  - keybored 2y ago
    > Comparisons always cut both ways. You’re saying both those things, even if you only wanted to say one. I can’t coax your interpretation into the correct lane. Even when they are so obviously wrong.

keybored 2y ago

> I don’t actually care who is or isn’t Russian. Have you stopped beating your wife? I don’t care if you’re a wifebeater, no judgement. I’m just randomly curious. Saying that someone is both a Russian and pro-Invasion (by your faulty interpretation) has a well-deserved stigma.