5 ms·

I didn't mention any rumors. I talked about an interview Lula gave that I watched. Not sure why you are so stressed.

alganet 1y ago
I understand, it's not intentional then. I'm talking about foreign relations. That's why I mentioned the Itamaraty. You're talking about news, media, interviews, etc. You didn't noticed what my angle was, and you wanted to participate, but ended up talking about a different thing.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  So your point is president Lula's own statements are worthless and we should be discussing possible diplomatic backroom deals instead. Who's really discussing rumours here? The only diplomacy I want to see is of the gunboat kind. The supreme court made it clear gunboat diplomacy was their condition for folding. They said something akin to "if they park an aircraft carrier next to us then we'll see". I would have loved to see that.
  - alganet 1y ago
    Perhaps I'm saying he trusts the Itamaraty with official information. Official diplomatic channels are the norm, not media theatrics (miles ahead of you, "do your art of the deal thing" was the first thing I said, you failed to see behind the nuance). Perhaps I'm saying nothing about election politics, and I'm more worried about the longstanding brazillian diplomatic tradition. Perhaps I knew someone would bring a specific discussion to this, and disarmed it beforehand (which is super weird, I agree, but within the realm of previsibility). Let's put some possibilities on the table: 1. You have no knowledge about diplomacy. You think it's talking soft or something like that, and you're repeating things you heard from someone else. 2. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb. 2a. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb to provoke me into going into a discussion that clearly has no conclusion. 2b. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb because you're suspicious of the way I approached the subject outside of common narratives. 3. You understand as much of the dynamics as I do, but you're putting me in a situation that I need to explain it more pedanticly (totally fine, I already explained in a simple way before, so this would be dumb on your part). --- Which one is the closest to what you feel? Is there another one? Please, enlighten us. Don't be shy to assume option 1 if that's what it really is. See? Cards on the table. Honesty. Try it, it's good.
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      I don't have much knowledge about diplomatic channels and their dynamics. I'm only interested in this issue because it could provide a solution to the supreme court problem. Trump is putting pressure on Brazil; whether that's political, military, economic or diplomatic pressure seems like a minor detail. What matters to me is how that's going to change Brazil. I'd appreciate a discussion about how the diplomats might contribute towards solving the judiciary dictatorship problem. I assume they would only act to preserve the status quo via negotiation and deescalation. That's the opposite of what I want them to do.
      - alganet 1y ago
        Not everything is about you. Keep your stuff away from mine.
        matheusmoreira 1y ago
        I'm having trouble understanding what "your stuff" even is. You apparently believe that diplomats act independently of the brazilian administration and that the president's words and actions have no diplomatic consequences. Lula's words directly contradict what you said in your first post: he said he will retaliate with tariffs if negotations do not move forward. I'll just do what you asked and refrain from replying to you in the future.
        alganet 1y ago
        Generally: Your stuff: "I heard that...", "Leader says...", "You're like a teenager..." etc My stuff: "Traditionally...", "What is reasonable?", "I'll explain..." etc These two kinds of discourses don't mix.
        matheusmoreira 1y ago
        For the record, not once did I call you a teenager or anything of the sort. That was someone else.

I understand, it's not intentional then. I'm talking about foreign relations. That's why I mentioned the Itamaraty. You're talking about news, media, interviews, etc. You didn't noticed what my angle was, and you wanted to participate, but ended up talking about a different thing.

matheusmoreira 1y ago
So your point is president Lula's own statements are worthless and we should be discussing possible diplomatic backroom deals instead. Who's really discussing rumours here? The only diplomacy I want to see is of the gunboat kind. The supreme court made it clear gunboat diplomacy was their condition for folding. They said something akin to "if they park an aircraft carrier next to us then we'll see". I would have loved to see that.
- alganet 1y ago
  Perhaps I'm saying he trusts the Itamaraty with official information. Official diplomatic channels are the norm, not media theatrics (miles ahead of you, "do your art of the deal thing" was the first thing I said, you failed to see behind the nuance). Perhaps I'm saying nothing about election politics, and I'm more worried about the longstanding brazillian diplomatic tradition. Perhaps I knew someone would bring a specific discussion to this, and disarmed it beforehand (which is super weird, I agree, but within the realm of previsibility). Let's put some possibilities on the table: 1. You have no knowledge about diplomacy. You think it's talking soft or something like that, and you're repeating things you heard from someone else. 2. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb. 2a. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb to provoke me into going into a discussion that clearly has no conclusion. 2b. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb because you're suspicious of the way I approached the subject outside of common narratives. 3. You understand as much of the dynamics as I do, but you're putting me in a situation that I need to explain it more pedanticly (totally fine, I already explained in a simple way before, so this would be dumb on your part). --- Which one is the closest to what you feel? Is there another one? Please, enlighten us. Don't be shy to assume option 1 if that's what it really is. See? Cards on the table. Honesty. Try it, it's good.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    I don't have much knowledge about diplomatic channels and their dynamics. I'm only interested in this issue because it could provide a solution to the supreme court problem. Trump is putting pressure on Brazil; whether that's political, military, economic or diplomatic pressure seems like a minor detail. What matters to me is how that's going to change Brazil. I'd appreciate a discussion about how the diplomats might contribute towards solving the judiciary dictatorship problem. I assume they would only act to preserve the status quo via negotiation and deescalation. That's the opposite of what I want them to do.
    - alganet 1y ago
      Not everything is about you. Keep your stuff away from mine.
      - matheusmoreira 1y ago
        I'm having trouble understanding what "your stuff" even is. You apparently believe that diplomats act independently of the brazilian administration and that the president's words and actions have no diplomatic consequences. Lula's words directly contradict what you said in your first post: he said he will retaliate with tariffs if negotations do not move forward. I'll just do what you asked and refrain from replying to you in the future.
        alganet 1y ago
        Generally: Your stuff: "I heard that...", "Leader says...", "You're like a teenager..." etc My stuff: "Traditionally...", "What is reasonable?", "I'll explain..." etc These two kinds of discourses don't mix.
        matheusmoreira 1y ago
        For the record, not once did I call you a teenager or anything of the sort. That was someone else.