2024 Presidential Election Shittastic Shittacular

[viscousmemories]

Not a lot, granted! In my defense I figure any thread with "shittastic shittacular" in the title is fair game for whatever transpires. Plus the election is over so we really should start a "New World Order" thread or something to talk about the Trump admin.

[LarsMac]

Hard to argue with that.
Carry on.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

This is a really great example of why these discussions are so frustrating and exhausting, to the point where it seems almost certain that you are trolling. I have already explained why nothing I wrote can be reasonably assessed as a fallacious appeal to authority, yet rather than just admit you misused the term you are now doubling and tripling down on the accusation, molding its definition to fit your use case.

I think I've explained my position well enough.

We're not arguing over the definition of an appeal to authority, I'm complaining about specific behavior that I have pointed out. I think in some cases it has (given the lack of substance aside from pointing to credentials) seemed a bit like a fallacious appeal to authority. And you're complaining about a lack of citation as a reason why you don't need to engage with the critiques made of your authorities. Which again, seems a bit like a fallacious appeal to authority.

No shit. However, as I pointed out before the issue isn't that it is impossible to use diplomacy and force simultaenously, but that NATO (dominated by the US, though that seems lost on some here) has explicitly rejected diplomacy since the very start of the war in favor of encouraging and supporting a continuously escalating armed conflict that, it seems, is destined to end badly for Ukraine.

What is the evidence that they've rejected diplomacy for the entirety of the war? What is the evidence that Putin has been sincerely committed to diplomacy? Am I just missing it in the media all the public overtures for peace that Putin has made? The eminently reasonable offers he has made?

There are two sides here and there are public positions and private positions. Publicly, Ukraine says they won't cede any territory. On the other hand, if Putin were to offer to withdraw to the areas Russia controlled in 2021, are you sure that Ukraine wouldn't consider it? Or that if they didn't, it would be because of the West telling them not to? I'm guessing that Putin could, at minimum get Ukraine to cede Crimea, if the rest of the offer were sufficiently favorable. He probably would be able to get Donetsk and Luhansk if there were sufficient guarantees/it would open the way to Ukraine joining the EU/NATO.

There is also public diplomacy and private diplomacy. As I said, Ukraine publicly says one thing. But it's entirely possible that privately they've said something else to Russia. How do you know who's to blame and who is and isn't making diplomatic contact?

And I would note that "rejecting diplomacy" can be a matter of perspective. Obviously it depends on what you consider to be within the realms of negotiation. Just because one side makes an offer doesn't mean it's committed to diplomacy. They can make insulting offers (for example, Russia has made offers that require Ukraine to give up territory that Russia doesn't even currently occupy). They can engage in negotiations without being serious.

The Sticking Points That Kept Russia and Ukraine Apart - NYT

I can't say that the Russian position there seems so reasonable that there's no way Ukraine would've rejected it without the US pressuring them to do so.

I know you believe that the US is just a benevolent mentor who only does what is best for the Ukrainians, per the Ukrainians, but in the world I inhabit the US actually has strategic interests of its own that it will pursue at any cost to Ukrainian lives.

Where did I say that? And how does pointing out that the US acts in its own interests lend support for the idea that Ukraine will get a better outcome with a weaker military?

I do think that 1. US/Western public opinion is not merely motivated by trying to throw Ukrainian bodies at Russia and US/Western public opinion is part of what has enabled US/Western government support 2. Ukrainians have agency 3. even if so, what is the relevance here? I do think US interests enter into things, yes. Things can be both good and in the US's interests. They are not inherently contradictory.

That's why the US and NATO scuttled the peace negotiations in Turkey at the start of the war, and why they want to keep funneling weapons to Ukraine despite analysis (now growing in the mainstream) that suggests doing so is only prolonging the misery for Ukraine.

What's the evidence that it was the US and NATO that caused negotiations to fail? And that their concerns were unreasonable, if their concerns were a factor? You can't just say "Putin did diplomacy!" without it being relevant what his demands were.

You wrote:

In context it was obvious you were referring to people, like myself, who were expressing very legitimate concerns about the Biden administration's unequivocal support for Israel's genocide in Gaza, and using that reductive phrasing to dismiss them (us) as irrational. You seem to think "pro-Palestine" is just some isolated political issue a certain small segment of the population is unreasonably attached to, and not what it actually is: shorthand for anti-genocide, anti-ethnic cleansing, pro-human rights.

I think the point there is pretty clear: that things can get worse. Concern for things that are bad is not contradictory with concern that things could get worse. But there were certain segments of people who were saying, literally, that things couldn't get worse. "What's worse than genocide?!" has the clear implication that there isn't something worse, ergo that things cannot get worse.

I don't believe that was your position, am I right? But it's definitely something some people were saying.

And yes, I was referring to that sort of thinking dismissively, because I think that acting with the idea that things can't possibly get worse is, in fact, stupid and bad.

This whole section is a wild ride, I honestly can't follow it. I think the answer is that offensive realism is a theory about how nation-states interact, and what is happening in Palestine is that one nation-state, Israel, is commiting genocide against a group of people who it occupies.

You can't follow it? I don't think this is that hard to follow.

I don't think it's that hard to consider the parallels between the US/NATO being to blame for Russia invading Ukraine and Iran being to blame for Israel invading Gaza and Lebanon due to their support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

I think you're just evading the question because it's uncomfortable. You're saying things are different but not explaining why or how those differences matter.

I didn't mock the idea of regime change because it's "unobjectionable", but because the idea of the US clutching its pearls over something it has done countless times all over the world forever was absurd.

Well, for one, you weren't responding to "the US", but to a particular person! I wasn't aware we had US government officials posting here in their official capacities, because otherwise "the US" did no such thing in any thread here. What stupid shit is that.

And your mockery didn't seem to come with any recognition that, in fact, it would be good to prevent regime change in Ukraine. So because the US did bad things, the US shouldn't try to do good things, is that the point? And the extension of that by people who are not your allies is Trump saying "We're no angels" to excuse barbarity by other countries - and one could easily see it being extended to say "who cares?" about Israel's behavior.

And for another point, it's pretty absurd for you, an American, to clutch your pearls about Israel bombing Gaza when the US nuked whole cities killing significantly more people in mere minutes.

Or does that make sense? No, I don't think so.

I never said (and wouldn't say) that the issue with supplying weapons to Ukraine is that doing so "gives them false hope of victory", but yes it undeniably prolongs the war, especially accompanied (as it is) by a total lack of any diplomatic efforts.

And why does it prolong the war? You clearly don't think it can result in them winning the war. Do you think Ukraine also realizes this, but persists anyway... because...?

And what's the evidence that there are no diplomatic efforts?

The only near comparison is the US continuing to supply weapons to Israel to commit genocide (another $8 billion of which Biden sent on his way out) which I also oppose.

Okay, but is it not also possible that Iran has given Palestine false hope of victory?

From what I've read, there were people in Hamas who expected Iran and Hezbollah to attack simultaneously as soon as they realized what was happening on Oct 7. That clearly did not happen, and Iran's attacks on Israel have seemed a bit half-assed, to be honest. Do they deserve any blame for what happened? If Iran had withdrawn support for Hamas and made it clear they would not participate in any actions like Oct 7, would things be different in Gaza right now?

It is beyond absurd to suggest that Ukraine shouldn't "accept essentially a Russian victory" if the facts on the ground are (as they seem to be) that the end result is likely to be essentially a Russian victory. You (and US/NATO, apparently) seem to think every last Ukrainian dying in war and the loss of all their territory is preferable to "letting Russia win". My point all along has been that nobody needs to "let Russia win". If "winning" means taking (and holding) the four oblasts Russia is currently occupying it seems like they are going to win. The question is how many more people have to die and how much more land will Ukraine have to give up before that apparently inevitable outcome materializes.

It is beyond absurd to suggest that Hamas/Palestinians shouldn't "accept essentially an Israeli victory" if the facts on the ground are (as they seem to be) that the end result is likely to be essentially an Israeli victory. You (and Iran and a number of other Muslim states, apparently) seem to think every last Palestinian dying in war is preferable to "letting Israel win". My point all along has been that nobody needs to "let Israel win". If "winning" means taking (and holding) the majority of the West Bank, it seems like they are going to win. The question is how many more people have to die and how much more land will Palestinians have to give up before that apparently inevitable outcome materializes.

And yes, the US government bears a fair bit of responsibility to helping Israel, and you are an American. But you are not part of the US government, and your ability to influence it is even lower now than it was before. Your tiny bit of influence here is not so much that it ought to change what you would advise Palestinians to do. Your ability to stop Trump from sending more bombs to Netanyahu is approximately the same as your ability to stop Kim Jong-Un from sending troops to support Putin, which is to say, very very little. Yes, you want the US to withdraw support for Israel. But in fact, you know and I know that the US will not withdraw support for Israel regardless of what you or I do, or at least, certainly not any time in the next two to four years. So why doesn't this hardnosed realism to say "Suck it up, you lost those oblasts, you should cut your losses and make a deal so you don't lose more" not also lead you to say "Suck it up, you lost. Those Israeli settlements? You lost that land. You should cut your losses and make a deal so you don't lose more."?

That's what I was asking about. Repeating the "suck it up, you lost" spiel about Ukraine is not an explanation for why there isn't a "suck it up, you lost" spiel for Palestine.

Again, this is just an insanely inapt comparison. The Palestinians have been struggling for a ceasefire since the beginning, and it has been repeatedly scuttled by the US and Israel. Most Palestinians would undoubtedly be thrilled to find a diplomatic resolution. They would not (and should not) reject one in favor of fighting until the death against unbeatable odds. That would just be stupid.

But Israel did make offers. For example, early on it offered a week-long ceasefire in exchange for the release of 40 hostages, and Hamas said no. Apparently, the mere act of making an offer that Hamas rejected doesn't lead you to claim that Israel is committed to diplomacy and the other side is rejecting it. I'm guessing the details of those Israeli offers matter to you.

The biggest reason the comparison between Ukraine and Palestine is irredeemably batshit is that "cutting their losses" in Ukraine amounts to giving up some territory, and in Palestine it would mean accepting the complete annhiliation of an entire nation of people.

Oh, do Ukrainians not live in those territories? Millions of people wouldn't be affected?

And I'm not sure what you mean by that. Cutting their losses would mean every Palestinian would be dead? Or do you just mean that they might cease to be distinct from, I dunno, Jordanians? I don't think they would, because while there might be some point to the claim that Palestinians were not, prior to recent history, seen as distinct from other Levantine Arabs (esp. Southern Levantine Arabs), even if we were to say "There never was such a thing as Palestinian as opposed to a Jordanian before 1940 or so" that can hardly be said to be the case now (in much the same way that we can say there wasn't an Israeli identity similar to today's a hundred years ago or so... which hardly negates the fact that it exists now). But if Eastern Ukrainian culture isn't worth preserving, as Russia will surely aim to assimilate them entirely, would Palestinian culture be worth preserving if it were merely called Western Jordanian culture?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I figure any thread with "shittastic shittacular" in the title is fair game for whatever transpires.

Undeniably true, but hey, this is . What thread ISN'T fair game for whatever transpires?