Ukraine III

[ks.234]

One gets tired of reading page after page of the same person trying to furiously row the boat back up a succession of waterfalls.

If that is aimed at me, then I am not rowing against anything, just pointing out when people make things up. Your post merely highlights the growing trend on this thread that any discussion that does not go with the accepted flow, any slight questioning of that flow, is to be maligned with falsehoods

 

[droodzilla]

If that is aimed at me, then I am not rowing against anything, just pointing out when people make things up. Your post merely highlights the growing trend on this thread that any discussion that does not go with the accepted flow, any slight questioning of that flow, is to be maligned with falsehoods

Indeed. It's one of the most disturbing threads I've read on this forum.

Almost any attempt to broaden the discussion or introduce nuance is shouted down as apologism.

Liberalism as a form of modern-day McCarthyism.

 

[Tony L]

I think that is a pretty paranoid perspective! The strength and quality of argument counts hugely here, and that’s on the ones swimming upstream. The platform is here to change minds. If points are well made and backed with evidence they’ll gain traction against the flow.

PS From a personal perspective I always find ‘liberalism’ as an insult from a ‘socialist’ quite bizarre as IME the latter are way more authoritarian!

 

[gustav_errata]

If that is aimed at me, then I am not rowing against anything, just pointing out when people make things up. Your post merely highlights the growing trend on this thread that any discussion that does not go with the accepted flow, any slight questioning of that flow, is to be maligned with falsehoods

With all due respect, I would suggest that if every post you make requires 10 posts clarifying or repeating your position to the point where it has become a recognizable trend ("that's not what I said!", "I never suggested that!"...it happens to everybody sometimes but rarely all the time), then perhaps the time would be better spent formulating a clear and rigid position in the first place.

 

[ks.234]

I think that is a pretty paranoid perspective! The strength and quality of argument counts hugely here, and that’s on the ones swimming upstream. The platform is here to change minds. If points are well made and backed with evidence they’ll gain traction against the flow.

PS From a personal perspective I always find ‘liberalism’ as an insult from a ‘socialist’ quite bizarre as IME the latter are way more authoritarian!

But you miss the point, no one is trying to swim upstream or convince anyone of anything. The last pile on, led by a moderator, was against any discussion of an article by Niall Ferguson, a man who has been quite accurately described as an arse. But arse or not, the mere fact of pondering his article brings forth massive assumption and misrepresentation.

If merely pondering an article by an arse, albeit an arse held in some regard in certain circles, is worthy of condemnation and false accusations, then the flow of this thread really has crashed over a cliff.

 

[matthewr]

It gets more heated because of the subject matter and quite how close to home (literally, culturally and other senses) it is compared to other conflicts which I think is worth baring in mind.

And as ever the key is for people to accept they themselves are at least partly to blame when they have a bad interaction and try to fix that. You can't stop the other person doing what they are doing and trying to improve things should always start with some introspection.

 

[droodzilla]

With all due respect, I would suggest that if every post you make requires 10 posts clarifying or repeating your position to the point where it has become a recognizable trend ("that's not what I said!", "I never suggested that!"...it happens to everybody sometimes but rarely all the time), then perhaps the time would be better spent formulating a clear and rigid position in the first place.

With all due respect... maybe you (and other posters) should read ks.234's posts more carefully, and with fewer preconceptions.

 

[ks.234]

With all due respect, I would suggest that if every post you make requires 10 posts clarifying or repeating your position to the point where it has become a recognizable trend ("that's not what I said!", "I never suggested that!"...it happens to everybody sometimes but rarely all the time), then perhaps the time would be better spent formulating a clear and rigid position in the first place.

No. First of all if I have had to post repeatedly that I have been misrepresented it is because I have been repeatedly misrepresented. If you wish to say that those misrepresentations should go unchallenged and those doing the misrepresentation have some validity because they are on trend, then that says something quite unpleasant about the attitudes that inform this thread

Second, I have made myself clear time and time again, I have stated my position by going so far as to highlight my point, but to no avail. My position has been, as clearly stated many times, that if the objective is to end the suffering in Ukraine the soonest, then a diplomatic solution has to be considered as a way forward. To be honest I’m puzzled why that attracts such hostility. At no point have I said the current position is wrong, at no point have I said anything other than the way forward for Ukraine is Ukraine’s call, or that Ukraine is wrong to fight for all it’s worth, or that Ukrainians have bought the bombing on themselves, or that Putin is a nice guy, or that Putin is anything other than culpable for death and destruction. All of that is a misrepresentation.

The sooner that children are not being brought up in a war zone the better, why does that wish have to be twisted into something else?

It is true that I have not stated my position as rigid. Any view I hold is open to evidence, evolution and change. Rigid is better applied to those who fail to produce any evidence to support their misrepresentation.

 

[droodzilla]

I think that is a pretty paranoid perspective! The strength and quality of argument counts hugely here, and that’s on the ones swimming upstream. The platform is here to change minds. If points are well made and backed with evidence they’ll gain traction against the flow.

PS From a personal perspective I always find ‘liberalism’ as an insult from a ‘socialist’ quite bizarre as IME the latter are way more authoritarian!

Nah, there are numerous examples on this thread of posts being wilfully misrepresented to paint the poster as a Putin apologist (try saying that quickly!).

As for quality of debate, it's mostly quite poor, I think (this is true across the forum, not just on this thread). There are some posters I disagree with (not always, I hasten to add) who back up their points with reason and argument - matthewr, PsB, SteveS1 and a few others spring to mind. However, most of the time, a form of groupthink prevails and, as long as you're on the "right" side of the debate, you can write any old unsubstantiated rubbish and get away with it (remember the "Putin has terminal bowel cancer" stuff a while ago).

And I do think that many so-called liberals have abandoned liberal values. My criticism of this is not socialist, per se; it is rooted in a commitment to applying liberal values universally and consistently. In my view, the rot set in after 9/11 when many of them discovered an appetite for military adventures in foreign lands (as long as it was other people's children dying). Probably a mid-life crisis thing.

 

[Tony L]

If merely pondering an article by an arse, albeit an arse held in some regard in certain circles, is worthy of condemnation and false accusations, then the flow of this thread really has crashed over a cliff.

I have to admit I didn’t read that article, and do please remember that moderators are fully allowed to draw a distinction between commenting on threads, and moderation. I very deliberately have a range of perspectives on the team. We can all happily get right in the middle of arguments without any attempt to remain politically impartial. I have no issue with that. It isn’t an echo chamber.

Please just get back to the points you were making. Your perspective is very welcome.

PS I was reading my usually Facebook feed yesterday and read that a vintage computer museum in Mariupol had been bombed out of existence (here’s a link on Twitter). Trivial in the grand scheme of things, but it really hit home with me as it highlighted just how impacted absolutely everyone is by posturing “macho” psychopathic nationalistic pricks such as Putin.

 

[Tony L]

And I do think that many so-called liberals have abandoned liberal values. My criticism of this is not socialist, per se; it is rooted in a commitment to applying liberal values universally and consistently. In my view, the rot set in after 9/11 when many of them discovered an appetite for military adventures in foreign lands (as long as it was other people's children dying). Probably a mid-life crisis thing.

I unashamedly class myself as a liberal. Like vast swathes of liberals I marched against Labour’s Iraq war and have given the party little but criticism since. You were a Labour member and activist long after that, one who campaigned door to door IIRC, so I really don’t need any lectures here!

I don’t need any lectures about how to run a discussion forum either given how the left’s attack dogs behaved online! Not as bad as the political right admittedly, but still many levels below what I would tolerate. Contrast my response to frothing racist Israel/Palestine arguments compared to Labour’s. Absolutely zero tolerance here, a highly embarrassing public enquiry finding much at fault there.

 

[gustav_errata]

With all due respect... maybe you (and other posters) should read ks.234's posts more carefully, and with fewer preconceptions.

My interactions with @ks.234 have been minimal and, I think, fair and civilised (e.g. our discussion a couple days ago about racism as it applies to European & American attention to the war, but I'll happily own up if someone points out any place where I've misrepresented his position). My remark this morning was made as an observer about what seems to be an ongoing trend in the thread, which appears only to happen to @ks.234. In no way does it imply that he should stop contributing or anything drastic like that, because of course his view is welcome especially as one dissenting from the vocal majority here. Just that clearly something isn't getting across in his argument, such that the overall flow of it seems like "this is my position", followed by wry "what if?" questions or off-hand remarks, and when these are challenged, a quick back-pedal to "this and only this is my position". It's ok to bring up hypotheticals, but I think they need to be more carefully framed, especially in providing one's own opinion and/or motivation for raising them.

 

[TheDecameron]

Note the body language as “Boris leads the international community”. Everyone else is standing back in their lines including POTUS. He also looks like he’s slept in his Oligarch bunga bunga party suit.

Forecast is for more Truss in coming days, gusting strongly, new outfits.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

This war is happening because no one has found the solution to this conundrum - maybe there isn’t one, the situation is just fundamentally flawed. The map, with its borders, doesn’t make sense, is essentially unstable, in the real world.

One one level that is correct - as a clash of perceptions/wishes. But it simply examples an unavoidable reality far more generally:

The Map is not the Territory. This is akin to the painting with the title "This is not a pipe". Which shows a *painting* of 'a pipe'. And applies in countless 'border' situations around the globe.

So, for many people around the world, map boundary lines there will put people on both sides who would have preferred the line to be different and put where they live "on the other side". But the population may vary in this from house to house in a way that makes everyone getting this impossible.

Thus the reality is that those on both sides need to compromise and treat each other decently even if they want to go on arguing *peacefully* about the 'map' and its implications. Simply invading and taking by force almost invariably makes the situation *worse* - even for the 'victor'. Winning may well be a poison cup.

But of course, in the case of Ukraine, the key is that only one person made the decision to attack, for their own personal satisfaction. It wasn't a process iof people affected getting together and coming to an agreed compromise. Hence "this is not a pipe" doesn't excuse or justify the invasion, or the slaughter and distruction.

 

[droodzilla]

I unashamedly class myself as a liberal. Like vast swathes of liberals I marched against Labour’s Iraq war and have given the party little but criticism since. You were a Labour member and activist long after that, one who campaigned door to door IIRC, so I really don’t need any lectures here!

I don’t need any lectures about how to run a discussion forum either given how the left’s attack dogs behaved online! Not as bad as the political right admittedly, but still many levels below what I would tolerate. Contrast my response to frothing racist Israel/Palestine arguments compared to Labour’s. Absolutely zero tolerance here, a highly embarrassing public enquiry finding much at fault there.

No need to take it personally. The debate on here is better than it is on lots of forums, but it's still not great. Contributions from intelligent folk like matthewr, PsB, seanm, etc. keep me here. Also, for what it's worth, I think you are pretty consistent in your defence of liberal values. I would criticise some of what you say from a socialist perspective, but that's a different story.

As for Israel/Palestine, you're behind the times. Israel's actions, both within its own boundaries, and in the occupied territories, have been judged to amount to a form of apartheid by:

Palestinian human rights organisations (unsurprising)
Israel's leading human rights organisation
Amnesty International (after an investigation of several years)
A UN special rapporteur

The tide is turning and you are on the wrong side of history.

The EHRC report is too complicated to go into here. Suffice to say that its findings are more consistent with the leaked report that was buried by the media, than with the established narrative. But this is too complex and grave an issue for cheap political point scoring.

EDIT: This is too good an opportunity not to share the following article:

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/art...ur-fighting-anti-semitism-or-faction-fighting

It's really good, I think. Although it is published in The Morning Star (so its politics are never really in doubt) it does a good job of giving all parties in the dispute a voice (a much better job than The Jewish Chronicle article it cites, which is nakedly factional - and, frankly, disgustingly cynical. I often think it's impossible to discuss the recent history of accusations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party sensibly, because to do so would require unpacking years' of distorted news coverage. This article makes a good start by focusing on a small incident (in the grand scheme of things) and on the human beings involved in what has become a highly charged debate. The article is also good on the problems inherent in the IHRA definition (see above for a list of huan rights organisations that could be labelled anti-Semitic, if the letter of the IHRA definition were followed). More than anything, the article displays nuance that was sadly lacking in mainstream media coverage.

 

[Bjork67]

Boris doing a Trump son stance

 

[ks.234]

My interactions with @ks.234 have been minimal and, I think, fair and civilised (e.g. our discussion a couple days ago about racism as it applies to European & American attention to the war, but I'll happily own up if someone points out any place where I've misrepresented his position). My remark this morning was made as an observer about what seems to be an ongoing trend in the thread, which appears only to happen to @ks.234. In no way does it imply that he should stop contributing or anything drastic like that, because of course his view is welcome especially as one dissenting from the vocal majority here. Just that clearly something isn't getting across in his argument, such that the overall flow of it seems like "this is my position", followed by wry "what if?" questions or off-hand remarks, and when these are challenged, a quick back-pedal to "this and only this is my position". It's ok to bring up hypotheticals, but I think they need to be more carefully framed, especially in providing one's own opinion and/or motivation for raising them.

Not sure what ‘off hand’ remarks you refer to. If I have been off hand to anyone who hasn’t started it, please point to it and I will apologise.

I’m not sure what the problem is with ‘what if’ questions. What if is part of my thought process and I’m not sure I should be apologising for it. Any hypotheticals I have posited have been carefully framed, but they’ve been misrepresented as capitulation

You accuse me of back peddling. I haven’t.

I haven’t made an argument other than express a wish for children being brought up in a war zone to be brought to close as soon as possible. Not peace at any price, or peace at any cost or any of the other nonsense thrown at me, a sustainable (highlighted again because it is an explanation I’ve repeatedly) peace as quickly as possible. That is a wish, not an argument. To turn that wish into an action, to decide what that peace looks like, is Ukraines call.

I think the problem here is that because a war is happening on our doorstep then a great deal of impotent rage is being generated, and much like after 9/11, where it is directed doesn’t matter and anyone suggesting anything other than escalating the anger and the rage, must be the enemy.

 

[TheDecameron]

One one level that is correct - as a clash of perceptions/wishes. But it simply examples an unavoidable reality far more generally:

The Map is not the Territory. This is akin to the painting with the title "This is not a pipe". Which shows a *painting* of 'a pipe'. And applies in countless 'border' situations around the globe.

So, for many people around the world, map boundary lines there will put people on both sides who would have preferred the line to be different and put where they live "on the other side". But the population may vary in this from house to house in a way that makes everyone getting this impossible.

Thus the reality is that those on both sides need to compromise and treat each other decently even if they want to go on arguing *peacefully* about the 'map' and its implications. Simply invading and taking by force almost invariably makes the situation *worse* - even for the 'victor'. Winning may well be a poison cup.

But of course, in the case of Ukraine, the key is that only one person made the decision to attack, for their own personal satisfaction. It wasn't a process iof people affected getting together and coming to an agreed compromise. Hence "this is not a pipe" doesn't excuse or justify the invasion, or the slaughter and distruction.

“This is not a pipe”-


Dmitre Peskov ( Kremlin spokesman) “also said that most Nato member states suffer from a hysterical and inadequate understanding of what is going on in Ukraine”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...eu-and-g7-summits-live?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Our satellites need better hysteria filters.

 

[matthewr]

There are some posters I disagree with (not always, I hasten to add) who back up their points with reason and argument - matthewr, PsB, SteveS1 and a few others spring to mind.

And conversely when one finds oneself getting on the wrong side of people you have respect for it's a strong signal to take stock and look at one's own behaviour. We all slip up every now and again and the key is to recognise our part in it and the rest will follow. Certainly it was the fact that I was crossing swords with you that caused me to think about my own behaviour, apologise and try to get back to a more constructive style of posting.

I would also mention seanm here as he seemingly never loses his cool. Consequently when I disagree with him I read his posts carefully and always try to find the bit I agree with or can learn from since, as much as I am a Gigachad and never wrong, there is always something there. My interactions with him, at least for me, are therefore consistently productive and useful even though we often disagree.

you can write any old unsubstantiated rubbish ang get away with it (remember the "Putin has terminal bowel cancer stuff" a while ago).

That's actually quite interesting. Far from being unsubstantiated it came, I believe, from the Pentagon. There was initially quite a lot of speculation about him being seriously ill particularly early on as everyone looked for explanations of "Why has he done this?". Putin being terminally ill is not an unreasonable suggestion.

The specific bowel cancer suggestion then emerged and was possibly deliberately chosen because the slightly icky nature serves to undermine Putin and his carefully crafted image. It was then amplified by a bunch of reports from various experts but often retired generals in their 70s (who can be preoccupied with things like bowel cancer) rather than doctors.

I.e. This is sort of the opposite of the pictures of bare chested Putin on horseback which, per Ioffe, we in the west misunderstand. We see them as ridiculous and laugh but in Russia where something like 60% of men don't live through their 60s people, especially women, see it as evidence of a very strong, healthy man still active and healthy at 70.

So it might actually be a real example of CIA PsyOps!

 

[kensalriser]

I think a maximum word count per thread per day per poster would focus minds and improve the quality of debate.