4 ms·

The most you can get with that kind of "extrapolation" is some grounds for suspicion that something similar might be happening in the current day. Meanwhile, m

The most you can get with that kind of "extrapolation" is some grounds for suspicion that something similar might be happening in the current day. Meanwhile, my concern is with what is actually happening, you know, in current physical reality. Based in turn on some form of observable evidence. Not with what "might" be happening. Which for some reason, seems to thoroughly flummox people in the "multipolar" crowd. It's like they've bought into this idea that events 40+ years ago establish a magical "pattern" that overrides any need to gather and ascertain the actual truth in the current moment (for example, in terms of what is happening in Syria). So when we ask them why they believe US is, in actual fact, doing a certain bad thing (like causing regime change, say) in country X, despite no visible evidence of such -- it's become quite common for them to simply point out past shenanigans in other countries, and the resulting "pattern" that they see arising from such, as their "basis" for this belief. "Iraq/Vietnam/Chile/etc, therefore everything the US does is also bad, therefore whatever is happening in country X today must be simply the US up to its usual imperial shenanigans, and if you can't see this you must be willfully blind or worse" is the apparent line of thinking here. Which as a way of looking at things I find to be, well, rather weird. Do ya wanna have some freedom fries with that? No thanks, I've had enough junk food for today.

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
> Which as a way of looking at things I find to be, well, rather weird. I don't, because up to now, maybe with a few decades delay, most of that 'batshit crazy conspiracy stuff' turned out to be true. I'd call this 'evidence based'.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Most of that 'batshit crazy conspiracy stuff' turned out to be true. I'd ask you to quantify -- but no one is saying, or even insinuating, that it's "batshit crazy conspiracy stuff". Only that they don't see any particular evidence for it. The fact that you're making such an obviously ungrounded implication (or you don't see the huge difference between the two positions) suggests you've become unduly caught up in your own semantically confused internal dialogues. I'd call this 'evidence based'. Except it's not, and in fact you're engaging in very common form of faulty generalization.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
    If you say so? shrug
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      No, because you made a strawman argument. It seems you're also unclear as to what "evidence-based" actually means.
      - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
        No. I've just grown very bored with people citing this and that over about five decades of living, which goes against my personal experience :-) Of course this will confirm to you that I'm just a stubborn old fart, getting more and more senile and set in my ways. But again: Shrug?
        aguaviva 2y ago
        This is a safe space, and you can be as stubborn as you want to be. I'm tired of citations as well. I just find that reality is often greatly more nuanced, and contains many more contradictions and exceptions than we might want it to be/have. That's why I tend to be a suspicious of broad, predictive patterns, and prefer to sit back and wait for the boring factual details to trickle in. Either way, thanks for clarifying.

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago

> Which as a way of looking at things I find to be, well, rather weird. I don't, because up to now, maybe with a few decades delay, most of that 'batshit crazy conspiracy stuff' turned out to be true. I'd call this 'evidence based'.

aguaviva 2y ago
Most of that 'batshit crazy conspiracy stuff' turned out to be true. I'd ask you to quantify -- but no one is saying, or even insinuating, that it's "batshit crazy conspiracy stuff". Only that they don't see any particular evidence for it. The fact that you're making such an obviously ungrounded implication (or you don't see the huge difference between the two positions) suggests you've become unduly caught up in your own semantically confused internal dialogues. I'd call this 'evidence based'. Except it's not, and in fact you're engaging in very common form of faulty generalization.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
  If you say so? shrug
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    No, because you made a strawman argument. It seems you're also unclear as to what "evidence-based" actually means.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
      No. I've just grown very bored with people citing this and that over about five decades of living, which goes against my personal experience :-) Of course this will confirm to you that I'm just a stubborn old fart, getting more and more senile and set in my ways. But again: Shrug?
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        This is a safe space, and you can be as stubborn as you want to be. I'm tired of citations as well. I just find that reality is often greatly more nuanced, and contains many more contradictions and exceptions than we might want it to be/have. That's why I tend to be a suspicious of broad, predictive patterns, and prefer to sit back and wait for the boring factual details to trickle in. Either way, thanks for clarifying.