3 ms·

>The fact that you need to dial back to 1823 to make some kind of moral equivalence argument between the two powers should be telling you something. Libya was

>The fact that you need to dial back to 1823 to make some kind of moral equivalence argument between the two powers should be telling you something. Libya was in 2011. Iraq was in 2003. Afghanistan in 2001. I can go backwards to 1823, solely for the United States (and accordingly NATO). >Which is what you reason to be the basic reason we have the war in Ukraine right now, is what I'm hearing. The basic reason are fundamental realities of IR, which you somehow take to be a unique aspect of Western-Russian relations.

aguaviva 2y ago
"The US did something bad, therefore if Russia also does something bad (even if not really comparable) then it's just the fundamental realities of IR, and in fact the US basically made them do it" is how your thesis currently reads.
- nataliste 2y ago
  This is more of a you problem than a me problem. Perhaps you should try not to reduce arguments to less than 200 characters, but I suspect it's uncontrollable due to longterm Twitter usage given your particular patois.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    As long as I am summarizing your thesis accurately, I see no problem at all. As it happens, I haven't intentionally read anything on Twitter for well over a decade. But if it is helpful for you to simply assume that, should anyone care to question your deep, penetrating analysis of recent human history and its impact on current events today; and even worse, fail to appreciate your enthusiasm for run-on paragraphs full of ungrounded abstractions and broken analogies, peppered with fancy latin idioms (for style I guess); and all in the service of watering down, and therewith attempting to "explain" actual, real and incredibly blatant neocolonial aggression happening today -- why gosh, it must be because they're an analphabetic, Twitter-addled idiot, that's all -- then I suppose that this is a "valid" strategy for you.
    - nataliste 2y ago
      >[...] peppered with fancy latin idioms (for style I guess) [...] I honestly don't think you understand the thesis or have the historical understanding to do so. This accusation of using Latin for rhetorical purposes is an admission of this. You could've asked yourself "Do I understand the significance of Carthago delenda est in this context? Could I ask for clarification?" No, you just made a sophistic jibe, twice. There's no substance to the rest of your rant, so I'll kindly request for you to read and use Paul Graham's How to Disagree[1]. [1] https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        You could've asked yourself "Do I understand the significance of Carthago delenda est in this context? Could I ask for clarification?" And if you prefer to believe that if people don't buy into your hand-wavy, faux-erudite arguments, then it must be because they're simply too dumb to understand the intended import of Carthago delenda est -- then that may provide you with an additional layer of comfort. I honestly don't think you understand the thesis or have the historical understanding to do so. The precious irony here is that this very sentence is an overt instance of the second class on Paul's list of argument styles to avoid, in the very article you cite (and attempt to chide others for not having read) -- the venerable ad hominem attack. (The other sentence quoted above was essentially a variant of this attack, if in a slightly roundabout fashion). Speaking of fancy latin phrases.
        nataliste 2y ago
        >I understand that historical references can definitely add depth to a conversation, but if they aren’t framed well or contextualized, they come off as pretentious. I don't think you did a good job contextualizing your references, so it comes off to me as pseudo-intellectual and apologetic for the Russians. Comparing an active warzone to historical trivia also seems inappropriate for reasons I don't quite understand. I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, can you clarify what you meant by Carthago delenda est? Sure, I'd be happy to clarify! In the ancient Mediterranean, Rome and Carthage were the two dominant powers. The phrase Carthago delenda est, meaning "Carthage must be destroyed," was used by Roman statesman Cato the Elder to stress the need for Carthage’s complete elimination in the leadup to the Third (and final) Punic War, even though Carthage wasn’t an active threat at that point. Rome imposed strict limits on Carthage’s military actions, and despite Carthage adhering to these treaties, Rome still found a pretext to accuse them of aggression after a conflict with a neighboring kingdom. Ultimately, Rome used this as justification to invade, destroy the city, and remove Carthage as a competitor entirely. In invoking this reference, I’m suggesting that geopolitical dynamics often follow a similar logic—where powerful nations might frame another power as a threat, even if that threat is not imminent, in order to justify aggressive actions. I’m not apologizing for Russian actions, but pointing out that the motivations behind international conflicts often follow the same patterns throughout history: framing one power as an existential threat to justify intervention or destruction, whether or not the threat is real. When we start framing the people of entire nations as irredeemable enemies even in our own private thoughts, it becomes easier to rationalize extreme actions that we would otherwise question (such as flippantly fracturing the global FOSS community). My point isn’t to excuse Russia’s actions but to highlight how these narratives can be manipulated, often leading to outcomes that are far more destructive than if people kept things in perspective. Hope that helps. :)

aguaviva 2y ago

"The US did something bad, therefore if Russia also does something bad (even if not really comparable) then it's just the fundamental realities of IR, and in fact the US basically made them do it" is how your thesis currently reads.

nataliste 2y ago
This is more of a you problem than a me problem. Perhaps you should try not to reduce arguments to less than 200 characters, but I suspect it's uncontrollable due to longterm Twitter usage given your particular patois.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  As long as I am summarizing your thesis accurately, I see no problem at all. As it happens, I haven't intentionally read anything on Twitter for well over a decade. But if it is helpful for you to simply assume that, should anyone care to question your deep, penetrating analysis of recent human history and its impact on current events today; and even worse, fail to appreciate your enthusiasm for run-on paragraphs full of ungrounded abstractions and broken analogies, peppered with fancy latin idioms (for style I guess); and all in the service of watering down, and therewith attempting to "explain" actual, real and incredibly blatant neocolonial aggression happening today -- why gosh, it must be because they're an analphabetic, Twitter-addled idiot, that's all -- then I suppose that this is a "valid" strategy for you.
  - nataliste 2y ago
    >[...] peppered with fancy latin idioms (for style I guess) [...] I honestly don't think you understand the thesis or have the historical understanding to do so. This accusation of using Latin for rhetorical purposes is an admission of this. You could've asked yourself "Do I understand the significance of Carthago delenda est in this context? Could I ask for clarification?" No, you just made a sophistic jibe, twice. There's no substance to the rest of your rant, so I'll kindly request for you to read and use Paul Graham's How to Disagree[1]. [1] https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      You could've asked yourself "Do I understand the significance of Carthago delenda est in this context? Could I ask for clarification?" And if you prefer to believe that if people don't buy into your hand-wavy, faux-erudite arguments, then it must be because they're simply too dumb to understand the intended import of Carthago delenda est -- then that may provide you with an additional layer of comfort. I honestly don't think you understand the thesis or have the historical understanding to do so. The precious irony here is that this very sentence is an overt instance of the second class on Paul's list of argument styles to avoid, in the very article you cite (and attempt to chide others for not having read) -- the venerable ad hominem attack. (The other sentence quoted above was essentially a variant of this attack, if in a slightly roundabout fashion). Speaking of fancy latin phrases.
      - nataliste 2y ago
        >I understand that historical references can definitely add depth to a conversation, but if they aren’t framed well or contextualized, they come off as pretentious. I don't think you did a good job contextualizing your references, so it comes off to me as pseudo-intellectual and apologetic for the Russians. Comparing an active warzone to historical trivia also seems inappropriate for reasons I don't quite understand. I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, can you clarify what you meant by Carthago delenda est? Sure, I'd be happy to clarify! In the ancient Mediterranean, Rome and Carthage were the two dominant powers. The phrase Carthago delenda est, meaning "Carthage must be destroyed," was used by Roman statesman Cato the Elder to stress the need for Carthage’s complete elimination in the leadup to the Third (and final) Punic War, even though Carthage wasn’t an active threat at that point. Rome imposed strict limits on Carthage’s military actions, and despite Carthage adhering to these treaties, Rome still found a pretext to accuse them of aggression after a conflict with a neighboring kingdom. Ultimately, Rome used this as justification to invade, destroy the city, and remove Carthage as a competitor entirely. In invoking this reference, I’m suggesting that geopolitical dynamics often follow a similar logic—where powerful nations might frame another power as a threat, even if that threat is not imminent, in order to justify aggressive actions. I’m not apologizing for Russian actions, but pointing out that the motivations behind international conflicts often follow the same patterns throughout history: framing one power as an existential threat to justify intervention or destruction, whether or not the threat is real. When we start framing the people of entire nations as irredeemable enemies even in our own private thoughts, it becomes easier to rationalize extreme actions that we would otherwise question (such as flippantly fracturing the global FOSS community). My point isn’t to excuse Russia’s actions but to highlight how these narratives can be manipulated, often leading to outcomes that are far more destructive than if people kept things in perspective. Hope that helps. :)