3 ms·

Funny, most of my discussions regarding Ukraine involve people making that very claim (or variations thereof)

by hackinthebochs 2y ago

aguaviva 2y ago
Most likely what they were saying was actually quite different from that. So you're gaslighting yourself, in effect.
- hackinthebochs 2y ago
  Instead of linking you to some randoms comments, how about from the horses mouth: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/albright-says-russia-has-nothing-to-fear-from-nato-idUSTRE61A4KY/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/albright-says-russia-h... This is just one example of many if you Google. And don't bother trying to parse words to claim this isn't really an example of claiming NATO expansion is benign to Russia's security, it'll just confirm you are engaging in bad-faith.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Even if we accept your paraphrase, that's still quite different from saying "... is irrelevant to Russia's security." Especially when we look at the broader context of what Albright was trying to say in that situation. And don't bother trying ... Keep it civil, please.
    - hackinthebochs 2y ago
      No, its not at all different. Like I said, bad faith. Edit: Lol didn't recognize your username. If you didn't begin your engagements on such an adversarial footing, you might get more constructive replies.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        No, its not at all different. And that's your mistake. The statements are clearly quite different. In exactly the same way that the statement: The tumor is benign Is obviously quite different from: The tumor is irrelevant If you didn't begin your engagements on such an adversarial footing, Nothing of the sort is happening here. You were provided with a necessary correction, in the hope that it would be helpful to you.
        hackinthebochs 2y ago
        "And even more precisely: it's a claim that absolutely no one makes." "So you're gaslighting yourself, in effect." Come now, those are very much adversarial. Regarding the main point of contention: Russia complains about NATO expansion raising security concerns and the response from NATO/US representatives is "NATO is defensive pact", "Russia has nothing to fear from NATO", "This is a new NATO... Its enemy is not Russia", and so on. This list could go on and on. But the denial of NATO presenting a security concern to Russia is just an assertion that NATO is benign to Russia's security. In other words, NATO expansion is irrelevant to Russian security. These terms all mean the same thing in the context of whether NATO and NATO expansion is a security threat to Russia. Seriously, this is all just the basic meaning of words. If it's not obvious to you, then I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps consult ChatGPT.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Come now, those are very much adversarial. The first statement (the one that began the engagement) obviously was not. And ironically -- your misinterpretation of that statement (as adversarial when it clearly wasn't) is exactly what I was referring to in the second statement. By which was meant, in somewhat longer form: "It seems you're going out of your way to read adversarial intent when there simply isn't any in there."
        hackinthebochs 2y ago
        Yes, we clearly live in different universes. The only time someone says "absolutely no one thinks/says/does X" is when they are politely accusing someone of lying or bullshitting. So yes, very much adversarial. This should all just be so obvious. >The tumor is benign You left off the contextualizing clause which just changes the meaning of the sentence. "The tumor is benign/irrelevant to your continued ability to play the piano" has the same meaning with either phrasing.

Funny, most of my discussions regarding Ukraine involve people making that very claim (or variations thereof)

aguaviva 2y ago

Most likely what they were saying was actually quite different from that. So you're gaslighting yourself, in effect.

hackinthebochs 2y ago
Instead of linking you to some randoms comments, how about from the horses mouth: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/albright-says-russia-has-nothing-to-fear-from-nato-idUSTRE61A4KY/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/albright-says-russia-h... This is just one example of many if you Google. And don't bother trying to parse words to claim this isn't really an example of claiming NATO expansion is benign to Russia's security, it'll just confirm you are engaging in bad-faith.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Even if we accept your paraphrase, that's still quite different from saying "... is irrelevant to Russia's security." Especially when we look at the broader context of what Albright was trying to say in that situation. And don't bother trying ... Keep it civil, please.
  - hackinthebochs 2y ago
    No, its not at all different. Like I said, bad faith. Edit: Lol didn't recognize your username. If you didn't begin your engagements on such an adversarial footing, you might get more constructive replies.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      No, its not at all different. And that's your mistake. The statements are clearly quite different. In exactly the same way that the statement: The tumor is benign Is obviously quite different from: The tumor is irrelevant If you didn't begin your engagements on such an adversarial footing, Nothing of the sort is happening here. You were provided with a necessary correction, in the hope that it would be helpful to you.
      - hackinthebochs 2y ago
        "And even more precisely: it's a claim that absolutely no one makes." "So you're gaslighting yourself, in effect." Come now, those are very much adversarial. Regarding the main point of contention: Russia complains about NATO expansion raising security concerns and the response from NATO/US representatives is "NATO is defensive pact", "Russia has nothing to fear from NATO", "This is a new NATO... Its enemy is not Russia", and so on. This list could go on and on. But the denial of NATO presenting a security concern to Russia is just an assertion that NATO is benign to Russia's security. In other words, NATO expansion is irrelevant to Russian security. These terms all mean the same thing in the context of whether NATO and NATO expansion is a security threat to Russia. Seriously, this is all just the basic meaning of words. If it's not obvious to you, then I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps consult ChatGPT.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Come now, those are very much adversarial. The first statement (the one that began the engagement) obviously was not. And ironically -- your misinterpretation of that statement (as adversarial when it clearly wasn't) is exactly what I was referring to in the second statement. By which was meant, in somewhat longer form: "It seems you're going out of your way to read adversarial intent when there simply isn't any in there."
        hackinthebochs 2y ago
        Yes, we clearly live in different universes. The only time someone says "absolutely no one thinks/says/does X" is when they are politely accusing someone of lying or bullshitting. So yes, very much adversarial. This should all just be so obvious. >The tumor is benign You left off the contextualizing clause which just changes the meaning of the sentence. "The tumor is benign/irrelevant to your continued ability to play the piano" has the same meaning with either phrasing.