Forums / Discussion / General

Then the question is "who can replace him?"

Ideally nobody, lol

Permanent NATO access to the Black Sea and its ports is another.

Remember it's only a problem of NATO expansion when it's Ukraine. The NATO bases likely coming to Finland aren't a problem, the NATO naval base being built in Romania as we speak is a not a problem, half of the black sea and all of the Baltic sea being NATO aren't problems, only Odesa or Sevastopol getting a NATO base is a problem.

Glad to see you've graduated from caring about civilians to "pragmatically" caring about civilians to just propagating actual "multipolar good" "muh nato expansion" "bush sr. lied" narratives now. Keep up the demasking your pursuit of honest self expression is great.

And once again, it's irrelevant if you don't know the costs incurred or the potential outcome. Even if Russia was losing catastrophically, which I don't believe it is…

No. All your attempts to explain it away can't change the simple logical fallacy, the error in construction of logic. 2+2 does not equal 5, you cannot try to bludgeon your way through this with stubbornness of your own reality.

A millionaire continuing a project even if it's only worth an infinitesimally small amount of their net worth does not change that he's committing the same logical error as someone investing their life savings. They key is investing more resources, because they already have.

Did you read an "unless if it's an 0.X percentage of resources" in the above definition? No, there was none. You mentioned earlier about facts, well these are simples ones.

Trade is one thing. Permanent NATO access to the Black Sea and its ports is another…Not in remote places like the Baltics or Finland where logistics aren't the easiest, but in what's essentially the doorway into Europe

Still imperialism, you haven't actually refuted that, not to mention it's an arbitrary focus on the Black Sea which does nothing for Russia's security. You're not even going to keep the pretense of the civilian benefits?

The above is also a fast track to this as it will involve:

The only real solution is NATO troops, but that would be extremely unpopular in the countries and a fast ticket into WWIII.

Now you get my point?

At some point the war has to end and internationally-accepted lines have to be drawn.

Territories and even countries can stay in limbo. Although in this case there was an international pronouncement, as there was already a vote on Russia's annexation attempt:

Remember it's only a problem of NATO expansion when it's Ukraine. The NATO bases likely coming to Finland aren't a problem, the NATO naval base being built in Romania as we speak is a not a problem, half of the black sea and all of the Baltic sea being NATO aren't problems, only Odesa or Sevastopol getting a NATO base is a problem.

Do Finland, Romania and especially the Baltic states have the naval infrastructure to house and maintain warships in the same way as the region that built a large part of the Soviet Navy throughout the last century?

to just propagating actual "multipolar good" "muh nato expansion" "bush sr. lied" narratives now.

Should we disregard any and all geopolitical factors that may have influenced the reasoning Russian invasion, including NATO expansion, simply because the Russians have used them in the propaganda? The war could very well be about two global empires fighting over their spheres of influence, regional dominance and power projection, of which Crimea plays a big part of.

The narrative of one crazed evil tyrant doing bad things, and that he'll keep going on unless we stop him, is just too simple and too convenient, and not at all new or uncommon. People feel comfortable when the enemy has a name and a face to hate. Like they did with Saddam, with Gaddafi or with Bin Laden. Propagandists love this. Putin might be the devil for all I know, but in the world things are rarely as simple as they sound.

No. All your attempts to explain it away can't change the simple logical fallacy,

This isn't a business. This isn't about life savings, this isn't going to a casino and hoping you hit the jackpot. You keep trying to oversimplify it, it doesn't work that way.

Still imperialism, you haven't actually refuted that, not to mention. The above is also a fast track to this.

Refute what? Are you still under the premise that I'm somehow trying to justify the invasion? I'm trying to find out rational explanations that fit logic. Still imperialism? Well, duh. It's invading another country to force a regime change that benefits them.

You should know, how long" territories and even countries limbos can stay in limbo.":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition

There was also a vote on Russia's annexation attempt:

That is up to the negotiating parties and their mediators. When a peace deal is achieved both countries will require any agreement to be internationally recognized. The alternative is to keep prolonging the war for years and I don't think either side is willing to go that far.

You know something I am starting to hate about the internet?

You get tired of politics altogether? Get tired of the constant stream of leftwing politics on reddit even though you agree with it all you kind of want a break from reddit bulshit?

Tough luck….

Cause any nonpolitical place any place that isnt controlled by the left will be swarmed by annoying rightwingers spamming their own propaganda except its worse cause not only is it bigoted they go out of their way to be as mean ass possible and constantly tell people to kill themselves and doxx you and shit.

There is no rest on the internet

Nobody who makes jokes of trans people killing themselves or killing trans people is ever seeing heaven or even purgatory for that matter.

Like even if all trans people are "delusional and mentally ill" God will most likely NOT like it someone making fun of a mentally ill depressed person killing themselves and goading them to do so.

Bro, are you alright? Like genuinely, your tone is concerning. I think you should take a break from this thread, or the forums in general. You really need a digital detox. Like, take a week off.

I'm worried about you. Take care of yourself.

@TheHolyEmpress

This isn't a business. This isn't about life savings, this isn't going to a casino and hoping you hit the jackpot. You keep trying to oversimplify it, it doesn't work that way.

You keep on trying to obfuscate it. What makes two farmers fight over fences is what makes two emperors go to war, and as you finally admitted it's a crude land-grab. Proportions don't change that.

That's the nice thing about logical principles, it very much does work that way, accept the facts. If I'm hammering this, it's because if you can't accept that, than there are no alignement on basic facts.

Refute what? Are you still under the premise that I'm somehow trying to justify the invasion? I'm trying to find out rational explanations that fit logic. Still imperialism? Well, duh. It's invading another country to force a regime change that benefits them.

No, I believe from what you said that (at best) you've decided that the side against Russia would be easier to persuade to surrender than the Russians, so you have decided to do what you do. I think it is misguided and will burn up your own political capital. The exact same way this bullshit weakened the far-left in France.

You also did not put that disclaimer first, only when the argument became untenable. Recall that I said it was imperialism at the start remember? Than you tried to obfuscate it that is was something 'complex' and 'different', like with the sunk cost fallacy. In the end, it wasn't.

That is up to the negotiating parties and their mediators. When a peace deal is achieved both countries will require any agreement to be internationally recognized. The alternative is to keep prolonging the war for years and I don't think either side is willing to go that far.

On that I agree, although I'm not sure if you internalized that Russia tried to try a land-grab in a time, place and political alignement that is not acceptable and thus will not get anything from prolonging the war. Emphasis on 'mediators', Russia tried to might makes right on Ukraine, than cried foul that it wouldn't be allowed to pick off countries by itself.

Also, as an example of how conflicts don't get neatly compartmentalized and the obfuscation you've been engaging in:

The narrative of one crazed evil tyrant doing bad things, and that he'll keep going on unless we stop him, is just too simple and too convenient, and not at all new or uncommon. People feel comfortable when the enemy has a name and a face to hate. Like they did with Saddam, with Gaddafi or with Bin Laden. Propagandists love this. Putin might be the devil for all I know, but in the world things are rarely as simple as they sound.

See what I meant above by your whataboutisms and all that? You gave your explanation before like this one, and in the end after much pushing it turned out to be a crude one. Funny, that like all Russian 'great power' explanations it also conveniently removes the voices of Eastern Europeans, who are against Russian expansion (and also plays into the Russian belief that they're a great power who has the 'right' to act like this, well they're not the Soviet Union and they can't unilaterally declare anything anymore).

Do Finland, Romania and especially the Baltic states have the naval infrastructure to house and maintain warships in the same way as the region that built a large part of the Soviet Navy throughout the last century?

Russia's black sea navy has been moved out of Crimea earlier this summer. Too vulnerable, like their initial Pacific Fleet in the Russo-Japanese War. The Sevastopol shipyards are also currently mostly out of commission, turns out factories don't do well in active war-zones, hopefully China actually remembers with Taiwan, I think using history for past ideological behaviour is more reliable than using history to gauge infrastructure capacity.

Also, is St-Petersburg near the Black Sea or the Baltic Sea? You know, the second most populous city in Russia with 3,5 times the people of the 3rd most populous city and many times the economy? I think you're laser focusing on the Black Sea, because the Russians do need to feel as if they've gotten something, that it will all be worth it somehow. Instead the realization that the war was never worth it, it used a hard power solution for a soft power conundrum and degraded both for Russia is something that Russians will have to deal with.

Oh sure, you can appeal to the fog of war, but in this case even I can poke holes in this argument.

No, I believe from what you said that (at best) you've decided that the side against Russia would be easier to persuade to surrender than the Russians, so you have decided to do what you do. I think it is misguided and will burn up your own political capital. The exact same way this bullshit weakened the far-left in France.

No, not persuaded. Forced.

See, during 2022 we all were bombarded by this propaganda of how weak Russia was and still is. How it was a house of cards that would collapse under the weight of sanctions and its own incompetence. "Just wait a few years if not months and it will all crumble down". "They can't survive without exporting oil and gas to Europe. They can't import chips for their weapons, they need washing machines, they're importing crap from China that doesn't work". "Russian commanders are stupid, they can't learn tactics, all they do is throw men at the problem." "Their tech is inferior, Russian engineering is garbage". "Meat wave tactics". "They're taking 3/5/10/whatever number of casualties more than the AFU, they can't sustain it".

What happened? Every single prediction was either wrong, blatantly false or twisted half-truths at best, with even Ukrainian themselves, Western think-tanks and "experts" often admitting how wrong they were. But people, (especially in the West) keep believing the bullshit, because Ukraine turned itself into a propaganda machine so efficient and effective it would make Goebbels blush.

Hell, how many times have I got downvoted on this site for pointing out some piece of news or information that contradicts the narrative? Using sources from news outlets like Reuters? Or for even daring to suggest anything that even slightly aligns with Russian propaganda, because it automatically makes me a "stooge"?

Now you have people, including Zelenskyy, begging for Ukraine to be allowed to use long range weapons into Russia, despite Washington telling them that they would have limited effect at best You don't shut down the military industry of a country the size of Russia with a few cruise missiles. It increases the cost of the war from them, sure, with a massive risk of escalation, but it doesn't stop them. Same with attacks on refineries, ships or air defense. Same with incursions into Russian territory without clear strategic objectives. Yet people don't understand the logic, because they're either so blinded by misinformation or just don't comprehend the situation. Or worse, because they don't want to understand.

Ukrainian people signed up to fight a war under those false pretenses. Now they have hundreds of thousands dead, and survivors who will bear physical and mental disabilities and scars for decades to come. And that's just soldiers, not the hundreds of thousands of civilians displaced, killed or who lost their homes and family member. And yet you have people far detached from the war, who will most likely never even get close to a war zone or have a single bullet fired at them, cheerleading the war and telling Ukrainian people to go keep dying because "Putin bad". So bad, in fact, that even thinking of surrendering for the pure survival of the country is terrible.

Well, here's something for anyone who keeps thinking Putin must be defeated at all costs, including that of human lives. The Ukrainian International Legion is still accepting members below 60 years old. You can put your money where your mouth is.

No, not persuaded. Forced.

Try it.

And in your despair, you sabotage as much as possible, by arguing on a meme website. Everything you said, the manipulation, the lies, the regurgitation of propaganda (particularly the "great powers" bit) and the disregard for people is something you've committed in your attempt to argue with us. Talk about becoming one's antithesis.

"Fanaticism turns into nihilism very quickly" and "anti-imperialists turned to the cause of imperialists" indeed.

You can put your money where your mouth is.

Tell you what, as I'm not a soldier and am too old to be useful (forgive me for that, even if they accept up to 60), I've already been donating to causes to aid Ukraine refugees, but I'll go a little bit further this month as a reminder.

Funny thing, how despite being against Bush and Blair's 'War on Terror', I've never decided to support Saddam in response, despite there being accusations from those who were in favour of those wars.

It is an unpleasant surprise, that now that there's an actual crisis, a lot of the former 'coalition of the willing' is useless as now that issue has now bounced back. Yet, citizens of those countries now have the temerity to lecture on values that they betray and misuse? Unbelievable.

Try it.

I'm not the one waging the war. And let me remind you, I'm also not the one advocating for war, for more military spending and I'm definitely not the one posting with glee whenever people I don't like get killed, like some people on this site do.

And in your despair, you sabotage as much as possible, by arguing on a meme website. Everything you said, the manipulation, the lies and the disregard for people is something you've committed in your attempt to argue with us. Talk about becoming one's antithesis.

The only despair I feel is that of arguing with people who keep ignore all the context and arguments in favor of the same simplified narrative regurgitated over and over hoping to paint me as a stooge or pro-imperialist for daring to question if maybe, just maybe, prolonging a brutal war is not in the best interest of the people who are fighting on the side of the smaller country, or that the empire on the other side of the Atlantic might not truly have their best interests at heart.

So what lies and what manipulation? Feel free to disagree with me and post your arguments, I'll be glad to admit I was wrong and change my mind if they ring true.

Tell you what, as I'm not a soldier and am too old to be useful (forgive me for that, even if they accept up to 60), I've already been donating to causes to aid Ukraine refugees, but I'll go a little bit further this month as a reminder.

Good, donating for humanitarian aid is a very respectable cause.

Look, I'm going to be honest. I've watched more than enough videos of the aftermath of artillery or cluster munition attacks, bombs and missiles from both sides, including on civilians, to form a very strong opinion about this. There's been a couple videos that screwed me up me for a while and I wish I could forget, but I never will. So seeing anyone demanding for more lethal aid to be sent and saying that the war must go on at any cost, especially immoral warmonger clowns like Graham bragging about the money they're making with the war, not only makes my blood boil, it makes me wish they all get sent straight into the trenches so they have experience those things firsthand. "But Russia". Yes. It applies to the warmongers there as well. With the biggest difference being that they're not the ones being held as the paragons of morality, international law, democracy and freedom.

We can be here debating why Russia started the war, all the morality and justifications or lack thereof and be here until the cows come home, but what really matters to me is who ends the war and how, and at what cost.

I'm not the one waging the war. And let me remind you, I'm also not the one advocating for war, for more military spending and I'm definitely not the one posting with glee whenever people I don't like get killed, like some people on this site do.

Let me say something that I think is relevant:

I once have an argument with Spaghetto where he said some version of how my preferred policies would lead to getting shot. He quickly back-tracked and pretended it wasn't a threat, it was just an observation and a natural process of popular anger (further context, he said Supreme Court Judges facing electoral backlash from women via voting for repealing Roe vs Wade were threats). I don't normalize that.

What you said, did come close to "what some people on this site do". Don't you dare try that again, there's enough of that.

The only despair I feel is that of arguing with people.

No, I do think that your description of the evolution of your views and events:

Look, I'm going to be honest. I've watched more than enough videos of the aftermath of artillery or cluster munition attacks

Is worrying. Well, do whatever you want.

who keep ignore all the context and arguments in favor of the same simplified narrative regurgitated over and over hoping to paint me as a stooge or pro-imperialist for daring to question if maybe, just maybe, prolonging a brutal war is not in the best interest of the people who are fighting on the side of the smaller country, or that the empire on the other side of the Atlantic might not truly have their best interests at heart

But that's the issue, I've just responded to you in every part of those arguments. You regurgitate just as much and as the sunk-cost fallacy shows I think it's infuriating and it goes horribly with the idea that you're trying to "show us a truth we refuse to accept" (when multiple holes have been poked). You make a dichotomy between surrender and peace that is reminiscent of Laval and in the cases of Russia's cassus belli you almost outright lied. Plus, your 'great powers' view is something I find is ironically very imperialistic, reminiscent of the Soviets. In your demand for peace, you are just as much speaking for and over people as you accuse others.

Quite frankly, I'm more annoyed at the Americans faffing about than the ones being useful. You lot really screwed a lot of Ukrainians over with that stop to aid among other events (although it's not the only country in the 'West' France included).

So what lies and what manipulation? Feel free to disagree with me and post your arguments, I'll be glad to admit I was wrong and change my mind if they ring true.

No. we've being doing this for days and as the "it's complicated" to "actually it's just an imperialist war" bit shows, I suspect you were deliberately trying to being obtuse (I've had to ask you to answer a question a few times). That you seemed to have reverted with Wisehowl on that bit doesn't strike me as good news. Truth or not, as I said that does cost political capital (aka trust). I've also been repeating some of my past points, there's little point.

Plus, it would have gone better if you said up-front what your goal was, of persuading, wait "forcing" us. You cannot seriously expect having us figure out later was going to go over well?

Good, donating for humanitarian aid is a very respectable cause.

Sure, do it as well as it'll be more productive than all of this.

Oh, last bit that I should probably respond to.

With the biggest difference being that they're not the ones being held as the paragons of morality, international law, democracy and freedom.

You know, you're still operating on a black and white moral basis. It's uncanny how things said at the start of the discussion has a way of coming back.

It's because you expect so much of these 'paragons' that you're now disappointed and trying to think everything is a lie. If something fails your standards it's just as bad as the worse, hence your attempts at equating Ukraine with Russia.

Sure, in comparison to Russia there is more moral incentives, international law, democracy and freedom. I'm willing to stand by that. I've seen American and Western hypocrisy at it's worst, and I still appreciate American aid in support and intelligence (it'll be ungrateful otherwise) and I definitely appreciate the help of the Brits (antipathy does get overcome with common threats).

We can be here debating why Russia started the war, all the morality and justifications or lack thereof and be here until the cows come home, but what really matters to me is who ends the war and how, and at what cost.

And your answer has been "immediately, give Russia what it wants so they stop" with all further arguments serving that purpose, even if you have to outright argue about logical fallacies. That is just not a debate.

What you said, did come close to "what some people on this site do". Don't you dare try that again, there's enough of that.

I don't think you're getting the context of what I said. I mean people reporting with glee any time Russians get killed. While they're nowhere near the level of sociopathy as most Twitter users, you still have people, for example, saying "hope it happens more" referring to the video of a misfire incident that injured if not killed some Russian soldiers.

Is worrying. Well, do whatever you want.

It's inevitable when you research and follow events of the war as closely as I do. One of the videos that hit me hardest wasn't some raw direct war footage, but a report from a big news site published on YouTube. Even then, it gives you only a small glimpse of the magnitude of the brutality. I can only begin to imagine how it is for the people there, yet some people don't seem to have an ounce of sympathy and justify the fueling part of at least some of the brutality with what at best is an overly idealistic and naively detached "fight for their freedom" narrative, at worst a cynical attempt at profiteering and geopolitical maneuvering.

But that's the issue, I've just responded to you in every part of those arguments. You regurgitate just as much and as the sunk-cost fallacy shows I think it's infuriating and it goes horribly with the idea that you're trying to "show us a truth we refuse to accept" (when multiple holes have been poked).

No, you just keep repeating the same stuff about "but Russia withdraws" and "sunk-cost fallacy". I tell you why it's extremely unlikely either will happen and why it's unrealistic to think it will. Yet you bring it up again. And again. If you're trying to convince the Russian policymakers of their error of judgment I'm not the tree you should be barking up.

You make a dichotomy between surrender and peace that is reminiscent of Laval and in the cases of Russia's cassus belli you almost outright lied.

I am hypothesizing what the casus belli could be, based on geopolitical factors and historical context, making educated guesses and conjecture, which may or may not be completely wrong. Like you would when you study any historical conflict. It does not imply justification or support. I have said it many times, yet every time it falls in deaf ears. You equate explanation or consideration with support, in the same way wisehowl has equated my skepticism with denial, in an attempt to paint me as a supporter of the invasion, tacit or explicit.

Plus, your 'great powers' view is something I find is ironically very imperialistic, reminiscent of the Soviets. In your demand for peace, you are just as much speaking for and over people as you accuse others.

Stating that Russia has a bigger industrial base, a bigger army, a bigger air force and a bigger population base than Ukraine is not imperialism, it's stating the facts. How bigger it is and how stronger it is in practical terms is difficult to ascertain, because both sides have a vested interest in overstating their own capabilities while understating those of the enemy. Similarly, stating that shutting down the Russian industrial capability by force is most likely beyond the reach of the UAF is based at the very least on historical context. Hitler tried in 1941, with a much bigger army. Ask Germany how that went.

Plus, it would have gone better if you said up-front what your goal was, of persuading, wait "forcing" us. You cannot seriously expect having us figure out later was going to go over well?

What, you honestly think I'm some agent of the Kremlin going around posting in meme sites trying to convince people that, "you know, actually, Russia isn't that bad, so plz surrender? Pretty please, with a cherry on top"? Get a grip.

I have questioned the consequences of a surrender and the humanitarian cost of keeping the war going. I have questioned the motivations of Western countries and of those who want to keep the war going. I have questioned the Ukrainian government and the veracity of the information they publish in the light of demonstrable misinformation they have propagated. I have never demanded anything, it would be nonsensical of me to do so.

It's because you expect so much of these 'paragons' that you're now disappointed and trying to think everything is a lie. If something fails your standards it's just as bad as the worse, hence your attempts at equating Ukraine with Russia.

I pointed out that Western foreign policy is based on self-interest, at the very least by some of the actors with a conflict of interest, who disguise it as something with noble intent. You may excuse their faults by saying "well, but the other side is worse". I cannot in good conscience.

And your answer has been "immediately, give Russia what it wants so they stop" with all further arguments serving that purpose, even if you have to outright argue about logical fallacies. That is just not a debate.

You appear to believe only in absolutes. Russia fights or Russia withdraws. Ukraine fights or Ukraine surrenders. Reality it's not that simple. I have said before, I believe the war will end in negotiations, not in complete capitulation for either side, because that would be completely impractical.

So let me put it this way: As of now, I think as of today Russia has a better hand to play in negotiations, and that it is increasingly unlikely that Ukraine will be able to turn the tide. That does not make me biased or makes me a supporter of imperialism or aggression, that's just my estimation of the facts, and if you have data to disprove it I'm willing to debate about it. And here's the important point. Ukraine has to decide whether to keep fighting and try to improve their hand, or cash out with whatever chips they still have. Because that fighting will increase the humanitarian cost immensely. It is possible Ukraine will claw back some chips, in land or resources, but the human cost is irrecoverable. And it's also possible Ukraine will lose chips and be forced to negotiate from a weaker position, on top of incurred human losses.

You have to look, pragmatically, not emotionally or idealistically, not wishfully, what is the best play for Ukraine from here. I need to remind you, it's not my people being sacrificed out there, and I presume neither is yours.

Tell you what, as I'm not a soldier and am too old to be useful (forgive me for that, even if they accept up to 60), I've already been donating to causes to aid Ukraine refugees, but I'll go a little bit further this month as a reminder.

Wait, hold the phone. You're over 60?

That's kind of sad. Do you have any other hobbies, man?

@TheHolyEmpress

Forgive me, but could we take a break? I will answer your points tomorrow, first because I need time to think as I am actually tired of arguing this particular topic and to be more fair, because to be honest the; "No, not persuaded. Forced" line did actually shock me, and intent or not I will not have been fair in any of my responses after that.

Patience isn't a trait, it's fuel and it needs time to recharge.

Second, I don't want to have any more debates/arguments/talks while Spaghetto is in the mix.

The only thing more pathetic than being on a meme-site is manipulating scores on a meme site.

I said I was 'too old to not be a burden as a soldier, even if they accepted those up to 60', that doesn't necessarily entail being over 60. That being said if I was retired, I'd have a lot of free-time to waste on stupid mass-media and online interactions, wouldn't I?

The better question is what everyone is doing, but the way I see it being a student, idle rich, online worker, retired, a housewife/house husband, unemployed or being restricted in other interactions for some reason would explain being extremely active here. (Chewybunny is a professional so he's here sporadically).

Personally, I don't care or want to know, but you truly are someone with no positive qualities.

Sure, not a problem. I definitely need to take a break as well. I see how I worded that statement in a way that could be misconstrued, so I'll try to avoid that in the future. Like I said, this is a topic I have very strong opinions about and at times I may come across as overly hostile or antagonistic, so apologies for that. Take as much time as you need.

Turns out the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago was not a huge disaster given the circumstances that this convention shared many similarities to the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
I think the main difference was that 1968 was a contested primary while 2024 was essentially a ceremonial rally for Kamala Harris.

To take a break from ribbing, I recall a number of posts during past "waves" of "downvote bots" that implied some members of staff (at minimum James, the coder) could see who voted on what. Not sure about moderators, but judging from those past incidents, if they can, they probably don't want to due to almost never finding suspicious activity.

Here's a relevant post from 2018 on this topic.

You're wrong. Or lying again. I contacted Jill about this before, here's the full message from the start of August 2024, not 2018 (hopefully the exchange & conversation allowed me to share this), I can even screenshot it from my inbox:

"You're not adding to the workload, don't worry.

The inherent problem is that we cannot directly see who is upvoting what. There is technically a back way to sort of tell on the main site (with a crazy amount of timing, patience, and obsession on both the mod's and downvoting user's part) , but nothing on the forums.

All the mods that I've talked to agree that this is harassment and it shouldn't be happening. We generally are in agreement that this clearly falls under the "behave" rule. Granted, that is generally where users downvote anything that someone posts, especially if it includes innocuous things. Things that are political/controversial I feel are much more of a grey area (to a point. IE: images that say Bridget/ Vivian is trans being downvoted are arguably in the grey area. The people who downvote any and all Bridget/Vivian images, even if these images make no reference to their identities are cleary just upset they exist.)"

So no, it's not because "they don't find any suspicious activity".

This reply suggests that actual vote bombing is rare, and that moderators can see who votes on what, at least when it comes to images and comments (with no explicit mention of forum posts in either direction).

And this post says that James is able to at least delete votes. No actual insight as to whether he can see forum votes, though.

For good measure, I took a brief look into the source code of both a forum page and a comment section (many modern browsers have this functionality), and the vote buttons for the forums are of a different object class from those used for both comments and images, being "vote upvote/downvote red small button user" instead of "thumb up/down off user". This isn't exactly new information, though, since they look different and perform different permutations of the same concept, but it'd be interesting to look at what actually distinguishes the two pairs of classes.

I am too afraid to ask if these downvotes are from bots.

Edit: Asking because some downvoted posts don't feel like they deserve it that much.

That's what I think, but there's two claims disputed here:

1) There are down-vote bots/alts active now. There's been multiple users saying so for a while now.
That the counter-evidence is from 2018 saying "there's no problem at all" is pretty flimsy. Now the explanations has ranged from 4chan to lurking users.

2) I'm saying Spaghetto did it, because there's the double issue that this issue most often occurs when he's active, and he's affect mostly positively, and last page had 19 total votes on his second comment, just for the vanity to avoid going into the negatives.

No one else benefits from the bots, like he does.

But that's my accusation. Draw your own conclusion.

@TheHolyEmpress

Sure, not a problem. I definitely need to take a break as well. I see how I worded that statement in a way that could be misconstrued, so I'll try to avoid that in the future. Like I said, this is a topic I have very strong opinions about and at times I may come across as overly hostile or antagonistic, so apologies for that. Take as much time as you need.

Okay, thank you. Just to get back into the rythme of things after clearing the air, there's one thing I want to ask first:

What, you honestly think I'm some agent of the Kremlin going around posting in meme sites trying to convince people that, "you know, actually, Russia isn't that bad, so plz surrender? Pretty please, with a cherry on top"? Get a grip.

You exaggerate (and no, I don't think you're a secret kremlin agent, I already said what I thought you were trying to do), but do you know why I kept on insisting on the sunk cost fallacy issue?

It's because to me it's such a strange thing to dispute, because by it's definition the argument that "you have spent too much, you can't back out" is a sunk cost fallacy. It's not an opinion. For further context, I've had to deal with this same breakdown when discussing the Iraq & Afghanistan war. I said it was a sunk cost fallacy, that they partly only staying because they had spent too much, they said it wasn't that there were other reasons. It seems stupid, but most discussions broke-down after that (and now I can only conclude after that the 'War against Terror' was just absurd and pointless).

Yes, I know you mentioned there were other "plans", but one of the explanations you yourself gave was "they can't back down now". Isolating that argument, specifically without any other, isn't that reasoning a sunk cost fallacy?

So, what's the issue here? Maybe I'm not explaining this correctly? Do you think it's reductive (because I get there's more factors at play, but that doesn't mean there isn't an element of sunk cost fallacy)? My initial accusation was because I thought you were being obtuse about it on purpose, that it would it somehow reinforce your argument to deny it. Better to get the why cleared up.

(Unlike the bits on tactical details where I cannot give good answers, I will answer the rest of the post later).

Let me bring up the definition of sunk cost fallacy from Cambridge dictionary:

"the idea that a company or organization is more likely to continue with a project if they have already invested a lot of money, time, or effort in it, even when continuing is not the best thing to do.

That final sentence is the important bit. Unless you have at least an idea of what is the prospective cost versus the prospective gains, you don't really know whether that is the best thing to do.

Russia cutting and running would make it necessary to accept the Ukrainian's terms for peace, which include a complete withdrawal of Russian troops, restoring 1991 borders, prosecution for Russian political leaders and guarantees against future invasions, which all but guarantees Ukrainian NATO membership and possibly some degree of demilitarization for Russia. In essence, Russia has everything to lose and really nothing to gain, except maybe relief from international sanctions. As you can see, they every incentive to fight tooth and nail against that outcome.

"the idea that a company or organization is more likely to continue with a project if they have already invested a lot of money, time, or effort in it, even when continuing is not the best thing to do.''

"Even", not "only if".

That final sentence is the important bit. Unless you have at least an idea of what is the prospective cost versus the prospective gains, you don't really know whether that is the best thing to do.

No, it's not a cost-benefit analysis, as you accused me of doing and what you are trying to do with not the question on what choices are best. I made the ROI comment for the Black Sea ports.

This is a logical principle, the presence of faulty logic makes it faulty logic. It's like a gambler doubling in because it's unknown if they'd win, so if they just spent even more, and the chances of them actually getting something to recoup (because backing off with losses would be ruinous). No matte if they win or not, they were still operating on bad logic.

They just can't, once they sent the troops into Kyiv there was no turning back. They've sunk too much into the war to even start considering it.

Russia cutting and running would make it necessary to accept the Ukrainian's terms for peace, which include a complete withdrawal of Russian troops, restoring 1991 borders, prosecution for Russian political leaders and guarantees against future invasions, which all but guarantees Ukrainian NATO membership and possibly some degree of demilitarization for Russia. In essence, Russia has everything to lose and really nothing to gain, except maybe relief from international sanctions. As you can see, they every incentive to fight tooth and nail against that outcome.

Why would all of that be enforced? That scenario would only possibly occur in the event Russia continued on in the war until they outright collapsed. In effect, they're fighting to the end for a scenario which will only occur if they fight to the end.

Here, let me give some examples with other logical fallacies to better illustrate, and how they can be become used and even justified in serious arguments:

1) "When ice cream sales are up, so are shark attacks. Therefore, buying ice cream increases your risk of being bitten by a shark."

Ridiculous, right? Now this causal fallacy forgets some potential other causes that these two events rise at the same time (more ice-cream and shark attacks during beach visits). However, in politics you can have other metrics who may increase or decrease with each other.

Think of health, pollution, inequality, immigration, crime, safety, policies enacted and politicians elected. Lots of things get conflated, and in the end whether it's right or not relying just on the causal link is a bad idea and a logical fallacy.

It doesn't mean that it's bad in-itself, but you need a bit more to explain whether correlation is causation.

2) A monster might be living under the bed, because no one has ever proven that there wasn't a monster.

I've heard the less innocent variation of "Iraq/Ukraine has weapons of mass-destruction/bio-weapons and you haven't proven they don't exist". It was serious and this is also known as the burden of proof fallacy, and the claim that something must be true because it hasn’t been decisively proven false.

Having a logical fallacy doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong, or that the conclusion is wrong. That in itself is a fallacy. However, that doesn't change the fact that mitigation circumstances or differences circumstances has any impact on faulty logic.

No matter the ends there was unsound means.

I tried to rephrase some explanations. I wish you could edit these posts after 30 minutes:

"Whether something is a fallacy or not relies on it's logic. Nothing else.

If you're using the argument of potential 'winnings', it's like someone continued to gamble after they lost money in their initial gamble. Because whether they'd win or not is unknown, they decide that if they just spent even more it would be possible for them to recoup prior losses (and because backing off with losses could be ruinous). The problem is that no matter if they win or lose, they would still be operating on bad logic (desperation just makes it seem more necessary).

"Having a logical fallacy doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong, or that the conclusion is wrong. That in itself is could be considered the fallacy fallacy. However, mitigating circumstances or differences in size between a person and a country collectively making an argument does not have any impact on whether an argument is relying on faulty logic."

The initial "investment", for the lack of a better word, is the cost of the invasion, in manpower, in materiel and in international reputation. That is sunk cost.

The faulty logic of the sunk cost fallacy is the tendency of using that investment to justify further costs, disregarding logical assessments of cost-benefit.

In this case you have a country that has a massive sunk cost, but the fallacy would mean they're biased in their decisions regarding cost-benefit. To ascertain whether it is faulty logic or a rational decision we would need to know the cost-benefit.

The gambler analogy does not apply here. For once, because quitting implies giving up all winnings made, on top of the already sunk cost. And secondly, because it's not a completely randomized outcome. I'm pretty sure it could be better represented in game theory through a payoff matrix, but that's far from my area of expertise.

Why would all of that be enforced?

Because Ukraine isn't giving up on its intended goals just because Russia retreats. Until a peace agreement is reached you would expect at the very least for international pressure and sanctions to continue, less likely a continuation of military actions such as drone strikes on Russian infrastructure.

If Russia is giving up the captured land as part of negotiations process, then Russia has an incentive to retain as much of what they've obtained as possible. This is why both Putin and Zelenskyy have put forward peace proposals with very harsh conditions which are completely unacceptable for the other side. In any negotiations short of unconditional surrender both countries will have to make concessions. The stronger the hand one country has, the better deal it should be able to secure.

it appears to be old fashioned butthurt and vote-puppets

We should make sure mars is exclusively colonized by autistic people and just see what happens. It could be an utopia potentially

Either i didn't express myself correctly or people didn't understand what i meant with this.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/donald-trumps-hush-money-case-indictment
I do not understand this so can someone explain this properly so I can understand why Donald Trump has become a hypocrite.

I think Trump being convicted and becoming a felon goes against the Republican Party's claim of being the party of law and order.

What about the hooker he paid? Is it true? And I am gonna need sources for that?

Going from Trump's indictment, the jury was convinced from testimonies from people like Michael Cohen to reach that verdict he violated campaign fiance laws for paying money to a hooker.

That doesn't sound like an answer to me. I want more details so I know better

Ah sorry, I guess maybe I can point you to Michael Cohen's testimony, since he was Trump's fixer and already plead guilty to campaign finance violations, among other things, that was connected to the money being paid to the hooker.

What the hell is going on in France?

My fear of vote bots on this site has come true

@TheHolyEmpress

The initial "investment", for the lack of a better word, is the cost of the invasion, in manpower, in materiel and in international reputation. That is sunk cost.

Yes.

The faulty logic of the sunk cost fallacy is the tendency of using that investment to justify further costs, disregarding logical assessments of cost-benefit.

Okay, same page here.

The gambler analogy does not apply here. For once, because quitting implies giving up all winnings made, on top of the already sunk cost. And secondly, because it's not a completely randomized outcome. I'm pretty sure it could be better represented in game theory through a payoff matrix, but that's far from my area of expertise.

Okay, my bad the Gambler's analogy was flawed.

In this case you have a country that has a massive sunk cost, but the fallacy would mean they're biased in their decisions regarding cost-benefit. To ascertain whether it is faulty logic or a rational decision we would need to know the cost-benefit.

No. It becomes a less blatant example if there's a cost-benefit, (fallacies can be part of an overall point that still has better arguments), but if the 'investment' becomes a reason itself to continue, than it is already present. Thinking about it, most any war will have some version of the "sunk cost fallacy" even those going well will have appeals to keep on going because people had already died.

You appear to believe only in absolutes. Russia fights or Russia withdraws. Ukraine fights or Ukraine surrenders. Reality it's not that simple. I have said before, I believe the war will end in negotiations, not in complete capitulation for either side, because that would be completely impractical.

So let me put it this way: As of now, I think as of today Russia has a better hand to play in negotiations, and that it is increasingly unlikely that Ukraine will be able to turn the tide. That does not make me biased or makes me a supporter of imperialism or aggression, that's just my estimation of the facts, and if you have data to disprove it I'm willing to debate about it. And here's the important point. Ukraine has to decide whether to keep fighting and try to improve their hand, or cash out with whatever chips they still have. Because that fighting will increase the humanitarian cost immensely.

We can move on to the cost-benefit analysis and the point of your final paragraph:

Although there is one thing I will repeat first, you're making a dichotomy between surrender and be spared or fight and be hurt. From the horror stories of the Ukrainian refugees, surrender and be hurt is at play here, with Russia. As you said that Russia cannot go back, than even more so it's opponents cannot back down.
_______________________________________________________________

Because Ukraine isn't giving up on its intended goals just because Russia retreats. Until a peace agreement is reached you would expect at the very least for international pressure and sanctions to continue, less likely a continuation of military actions such as drone strikes on Russian infrastructure.

What makes you say that? A big part of Ukraine's goals are it's own land and guarantees that this war doesn't occur again on it's soil (because as I said, Russia invading twice is not an accident), and if that occurs a lot of support it receives lessens.

The reason for the dichotomous view on how this war will end is victory for Ukraine & Allies is either Russia withdraws and goes through whatever political fallout is needed for both political & societal change (in a bit of irony, if Russia had a regime change it would less likely to continue receiving sanctions or even any demands as part of a peace-deal). Or it fights to the end and must do it or collapses, and than the situation becomes more chaotic.

As the situation currently stands however, other scenarios in-between where Russia keeps on squatting on disputed land they annexed as ruined grey zones stretches the situation into revanchisme if they hold each other's territory. Continued strikes on each other as borders fortify and calcify, and if Ukraine still manages to develop as the war becomes low-intensity (because in this scenario the EU is not going to make nice with Russia, and there will be no links as Russia did destroy them itself), than there will be a new war once everyone has re-armed. If the UN vote is any indicator few will recognize any Russian annexed lands as most everyone has an incentive to not reward these kind of land-grabs. The 'agreement" option to me, just seems less like peace and more like a prelude to another war. Why do I say that? Because that's what happens. Next time would be more horrid, because both sides will have had chances to learn and buildup their stocks. I think this will have the singularly worst outcome. That or Russia just taking the time to re-arm and annex the rest of Ukraine.

Another outcome is one side or other enforcing their demands, but that's practically impossible, as you said.

I pointed out that Western foreign policy is based on self-interest, at the very least by some of the actors with a conflict of interest, who disguise it as something with noble intent. You may excuse their faults by saying "well, but the other side is worse". I cannot in good conscience.

If you think a lot of the "West" is not trustworthy even in comparison (which is fair), why exactly do you think the "West" is going to let Russia lick it's wounds? By this very logic, wouldn't it become even more dire that Western response is included in the cost-benefit analysis?

Based at the very least on historical context. Hitler tried in 1941, with a much bigger army. Ask Germany how that went.

Ask Nazi Germany how it went to invade Ukraine while their opponents were provided with lend-lease. Russia is not the Soviet Union (I'd say it's closer ideologically to the Germans at that time).

If Russia is giving up the captured land as part of negotiations process, then Russia has an incentive to retain as much of what they've obtained as possible… It is possible Ukraine will claw back some chips, in land or resources, but the human cost is irrecoverable. And it's also possible Ukraine will lose chips and be forced to negotiate from a weaker position, on top of incurred human losses

I think the Gambler's analogy was very flawed. I don't think that strategy necessarily works. To reference WWII too again, that was Hitler's plan with the Battle of Bulge, that he could force the allies to get to the negotiation table. It caused a lot casualties, but also hardened attitudes and depleted what Nazi Germany had to bring to the table.

'Escalate to de-escalate' has mixed success, as you yourself said deaths especially civilians can give birth to hatred and societies militarize and just becomes a signal that one wants more war. Counter-intuitively, sometimes continuing a war only ensures that it would last even longer.

You have to look, pragmatically, not emotionally or idealistically, not wishfully, what is the best play for Ukraine from here. I need to remind you, it's not my people being sacrificed out there, and I presume neither is yours.

No, but I have no illusions that it will eventually become mine if aid is not given. We hang together, or we hang separately.

That's the thing, under all of those lenses it makes senses. The arguments about how hopeless Ukraine's situation is, the harder it presses the clearer it becomes that Russia must be fought. Societies which somehow consider the cost-benefit of this war as a positive (even with casualties in the 6 digits) will not stop until they stop thinking that.

@GeneHunt

What the hell is going on in France?

The wonders and horrors of a parliament and thus the need to build coalition, with a Presidential system where unlike with a Prime Minister they still have power in the event of a deadlock.

France truly is a weird place. Riots all the time. Perverts who do not have standards. Macron.

Allow me to prove you right, by saying:

Up yours, mate ! :P