Tretiak
18d ago
Fortunately I am still willing to engage you as to why anti-globalization conspiracy theorist is not a full or accurate representation of what the US State Department position is.
Did you even read the content of the article?
If you choose to call Chomsky a moron, that's on you. I call him a tribalist and a sophist, but fully recognize his intelligence in his field of competence- which is not geopolitics, but linguistics. (Though I have heard from others in the field that he devolved to non-falsifiables in defense of his fame-earning theories, so it's not particularly relevant.)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one went right over your head...
See? There's the learned language issue. You're using the words, but not matching them to the right contexts and so create the unintended ironies. A more native speaker wouldn't make the prior mistake of making an accusation of not representing another's position after citing a conspiracy theorist deriding another's position.
Lol. Okay.
No, I got the point you were making, it was just historically illiterate.
And yet you didn't articulate it directly.
Setting aside that the Minsk agreement did not actually propose to restore Ukrainian's sovereignty due Russian-demanded poison pill provisions that would give its proxies vetoes over Ukrainian national institutions, which would lose the ability to govern the country as a whole even as the Russian-separatist regions could engage in diplomatic agreement with Russia (thus giving the Russian-supported proxy groups more foreign power sovereignty than the government) while proposing elective systems that did not require Russia give up proxy control (which they did not relinquish)-
In 2019 Zelensky got elected on a peace platform to resolve the conflict between Eastern Ukraine and Russia. He began to move forward on it and tried to go to the Donbass. What it would have meant was a kind of federalization of Ukraine that gave a degree of autonomy for the Donbass, which is exactly what they wanted. Something like Switzerland or Belgium, but he was blocked by right-wing militias which threatened to murder him if he persisted with his effort. If you're essentially telling me that the inhabitants of that part of Eastern Ukraine don't have a right to their own freedom and self-determination because it would mean their interests would play into the hands and service the objectives of Russia, that exposes the prejudice of your personal political views on the matter; but does little to address what the source of the conflict was actually about.
-this was not only significantly different from the US government design for Japan, which not only did not enshrine foreign proxy sub-states at a constitutional level, but also was in no way a respectful recognition of Japanese sovereignty to negotiate. The American occupation system was imposed, not a result of amicable negotiation, and there was no pretense of Japanese sovereignty until a good deal after the US occupation forces left and Japanese elections were able to be held without American occupation shaping permissable conduct.
You're actually thinking Japan has this much autonomy and independence in its foreign policy establishment? It's widely accepted in most foreign policy circles that its own foreign policy conduct is ultimately subordinated and dependent upon continued American economic and military support.
Nor, and this is also relevant, does the comparison acknowledge the context of the imposition: that Japan was denied sovereign rights and agency due to having just resolved a war in which Japan was an imperialist aggressor against most of its neighbors including the US itself. Whereas the Russian justification is that Ukraine warrants a Japanese-style submission because... America bad, or something.
The ultimate Russian justification against Ukraine is NATO's military expansion up to the borders of Russia. You can appeal to undetectable, subliminal and nefarious ulterior motives all day, but short of having direct access to his mind, all you're left with in the end are Putin's own statements on the matter. And that fundamentally hasn't changed since he began talking about it.
Tretiak
18d ago
... it doesn't really establish your awareness with Euromaiden-
That it was orchestrated by the US? Yeah, that's long since been established. (1, 2)
I'd rather you build a competent historical metaphor, not your naval gazing. If your media is telling us Putin is Next Hitler, or running out of gas, or out of ammunition, pick better media, not other trash.
If your historical metaphors are on par with the propagandists you find running the narrative, I see no reason to not treat them as roughly equivalent.
If there's a solid historical argument in there that doesn't evade the facts of what happened, I haven't seen it. Only an egotist's internal monologue.
Tretiak
18d ago
However, your citation wasn't to have someone on the other side of vested western interests- your citation was on a claim of what the vested western interests were themselves supposed to be admitting.
And it says quite a bit about the integrity of one side of the argument when they won't even fully and accurate represent what the position of the other side is.
Chomsky was a senile old man at heart decades ago, given that he's been an anti-american tribalist for longer than you've likely been alive, and not a particularly impressive one unless you're awed by sophistry. If you think he's the world's foremost critic of US foreign policy, you have a very shuttered view of the world of American critics.
I'm still waiting on the counterargument. If we're essentially at a standoff where either side at liberty to disregard an argument by calling it's proponent a moron, then expect the same kind of dismissive, low effort diatribe from me in return. Otherwise, I see no rebuttal to evaluate.
(If you want intellectual heft, try the French. Defiantly not-American enough not to buy into Anglophone tropes by default, but familiar enough with both western cultural contexts and a cultural inclination towards argument structure to be delightful, and with significant national patronage in order to define themselves against the US in their attempts to align Europe to their interests.)
Let me try the same thing in kind.
"Lol. Sounds like some bullshit to me."
I suspect the difficulty is that you don't seem to recognizing a satirical tone. Neither he nor I were standing with the position, and your continuing insistence that they were (and your word choice in the process) is suggestive that part of the reason why may be that English isn't your first language.
Evidently I did miss the satire. I figured your statements were worth taking seriously and not given in bad faith. I stand corrected.
Tretiak
18d ago
Now, if you argument is instead that Japan is analogous to Russia, and that Russia should be nuked and forced into unconditional surrender in order to be occupied and forcibly reconstructed as Japan was, that might be an interesting historical parallel to make...
You completely missed the point I was making.
The Minsk II agreement was initially adopted by France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine in 2015, and endorsed unanimously by the UN Security Council. It presupposed withdrawal of George W. Bush’s invitation to Ukraine to join NATO and was reaffirmed by Obama, then vetoed by France and Germany. It called for disarmament of the separatist Russia-oriented region (Donbass) and withdrawal of Russian forces and spelled out 3 mutually dependent parts: demilitarization; a restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty that included control of the border with Russia and complete autonomy for the Donbass in the context of the decentralization of power in Ukraine as a whole. Which wasn't at all unlike the conditions the US imposed on Japan in the postwar period, by banning Japan from having an army, called for disarmament and economic integration with the western powers.
If you care to disagree with my position on historical differences mattering... let's hear it!
It seems you don't even understand my position enough to coherently disagree with it, sadly.
Tretiak
18d ago
I don't know how well read you are on the history of what happened...
Seems we both agree at the outset that he was democratically elected, do we not? His overthrow was explicitly supported by the US and it's allies. Are you not aware that there was even leaked audio of Victoria Nuland and the Ukraine's Ambassador that revealed deliberate planning of his overthrow? NATO was never a European alliance of 'peace', it's an alliance that's aimed at destabilizing Eastern Europe, with the intention to weaken Russia. Do forgive a homie for challenging American imperialism unipolarity. This whole quagmire has absolutely zero to do with high minded moral idealism against the Next Hitler, who at the same time the media tells us is losing, running out of gas, is out of ammunition, is incompetent beyond belief; and simultaneously is preparing for world domination and his next target is going to be Poland or Scandinavia. It has everything to do with continued projecting of American and western geopolitical dominance across the planet.
Tretiak
18d ago
I'm not sure why you believe Global Research .ca, an anti-globalization conspiracy website, represents the regime change wing of the State Department, but this would be both an incorrect citation and not a rebuttal to the post on hyper and hypo agency.
And where would you expect to see the other side that vested western interests have an interest in keeping suppressed? CNN? Fox? MSNBC? How about the world's foremost critic of US foreign policy? Or is he just a senile old man at this point?
Similarly, you seem to have missed that point that he was making fun of the argument structure, and not actually making a position that your argeement with would advance your position.
You're the one who obliged with the logic of that statement. Makes it difficult to argue against if you stand with it.
Tretiak
18d ago
It doesn't seem you're interested in discussing anything history or policy related at this point. I see little value in further discussion. Be well.
Tretiak
18d ago
Indeed; the automaton peasants (who lack agency) of Ukraine were told by their CIA handlers (who have agency) to riot and oust the hapless Yanukovych (who lacks agency) and was replaced by American puppet Zelensky (who has agency and should use it to sue for peace). This led noble leader Putin (who lacks agency; anyone in his shoes would do the same) to regretfully declare war.
Don't know why you're trying make a mess of history on the matter. Even the regime change wing of the State Department admits of their activities in Russia's backyard and the very thing I'm calling it out for.
Makes sense. As you say, they're beset by the same scenario and conditions. Anyone in their shoes would do the same.
And as such, Russia's response is reasonable in turn to US' operations in their sphere of influence.
Tretiak
18d ago
Seems like you're engaging in some pretty strenuous intellectual acrobatics to preserve a conclusion you wouldn't accept if another actor adopted a similar justification. Judged by the standards of moral idealism, maybe both Russia and the US fall short. Judged by the standards of the world's only superpower, Russia isn't doing anything the US wouldn't approve of in it's own defense. You want me to be more introspective, check your own actions at the door first.
Alas, the Japanese-American alliance today does not remain an unconditional military occupation with overt censorship by the occupying authority.
Which wasn't the point I was making. If you think history is important, I encourage you to read it. If not, then that tells me everything I need to understand your position.
Tretiak
18d ago
The Minsk Accords were many things- including the functional erosion of national sovereignty by legislating an external power's veto by proxy- but an amicable solution they were not.
Doesn't make for strange bedfellows when you understand the Minsk Accords mandated a similar relationship to Ukraine that the US imposed on Japan in the postwar period, which remains today.
Tretiak
18d ago
If it wasn't Zelensky, any other Ukrainian leader would be beset with the same scenario and conditions.
Are we pretending Yanukovych wasn't overthrown?
If it wasn't Biden, any other American leader would be beset by the same scenario and conditions.
"Presidents come and go but the policies remain the same." - Vladimir Putin
Tretiak
18d ago
That's quite the jump. But the latter is how it's always happened. Most nations live in the sphere of influence of their region's biggest power.
These unfortunately are the kind of replies you get from people who haven't been paying attention.
Tretiak
18d ago
Because option 3 still sounds like Putin had plenty of agency to me.
And he tried exercising it to find more amicable solutions to the problem. That's what the Minsk Accords were.
Why was the west encouraging Ukraine behind the scenes to give Russia a run around, while the west poured arms into the country to bolster its strength so the government could betray the terms of their agreement?
Tretiak
18d ago
Its worse than a bad cliche, and I've been stunned as an observer on this site, how many of the more intellectually minded people seem to fall victim to thinking in the same platitudes a standard ignoramus who doesn't even watch the news does. The problem with the above style of comments is that it fails to take geopolitics seriously and fails to understand alternative viewpoints. If it wasn't Putin, any other Russian leader would be beset with the same scenario and conditions.
Tretiak
18d ago
Either way I think the most important development in all of this is that post-internet, nationalism cannot really be a thing.
It not only can, but is. Splinternets have been a thing for quite awhile now and all countries (including the US) engage in this sort of cyber balkanization. Russia does it quite successfully in service of their domestic, nationalistic goals.
Who on this website would go die in a trench for their government and under what circumstances? This is the first step to clear before allowing yourself to symbolically vote for somebody who wants to 'ear-mark' money for these foreign wars
At this point I'd die for the Russian government before I would the US, as a home grown American.
The pro-regulation argument depends on the highly unlikely belief that AI will soon reach a point where we cannot control it.
The worry though is that you only need to be wrong once. These technologies are going to continue to advance and only grow in complexity.
I think our experience with LLMs shows that alignment is actually pretty easy. The problem will not be AI that we can't get to understand exactly what we mean when we ask it to achieve some goal. The problem will be people deliberately designing AI to do bad things. The question of whether AI destroys us in the short to medium term will depend only on whether we can stop it. Only if AI makes destruction vastly easier than protection will it pose an existential risk.
Until you've got forks like DarkBERT or WormGPT cropping up. And this problem is only going to get worse overtime. All technology is ultimately dual use. Once that genie is out of the bottle, its very unlikely you'll be able to reverse course. AI already poses an existential risk.
The other thing those arguing for regulation don't understand is that regulation almost never works. The only thing it does reliably is to grind innovation and progress to a halt. AI is one of the few areas of technology that is progressing and it's in large part because of the lack of regulation. What regulation that has been rushed out so far has only proven this more concretely by banning many important uses of the technology and raising unnecessary barriers to entry. There is very little that is likely to reduce existential risk beyond the general stifling of the technology.
This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Regulation works in 'many' different ways. Regulation is meant fundamentally to solve collective action problems, and set the rules by which the market operates. Even if we entirely ignore the creation of the Internet via government intervention, the speed of the rate of change in innovation is hardly the sole or even most desirable instrument to measure the efficacy of government regulation. I would agree barriers to entry are one type of problem. But there's a reason airlines don't compete on safety as a cost saving measure when you buy your ticket. Government regulation demands and tries to ensure that they all meet a standard of safety. Clothing companies don't sell two sets of pajamas, with one costing $10 that's flammable, and another that costs $30 but is safe to wear. Regulation says you can't sell flammable pajamas. This prevents corporations from shifting the risk onto the customer when they buy something, and forces business to innovate to maintain a specific quality standard.
Lack of regulation certainly has its upsides. And it'll as quickly drive you off a cliff as your technology advances.
Tretiak
1mo ago
To some extent Youtube seems to actually do this. I've noticed it randomly recommends me some very low-view videos sometimes, like double-digit views with no comments. One time I reached out to the creator, and they replied back, and they became one of my very few Twitter followers who isn't a bot. I think something like that, on a larger scale, would help Social Media become more "social" instead of mindless passive celebrity worship.
As long as social media companies prioritize user engagement as their business model, there's little hope of this happening. I think the viability of something like this happening depends entirely on how you can pitch a way for corporations to profit off this idea.
Tretiak
1mo ago
You're splitting hairs at this point. It fundamentally doesn't make any relevant difference to the point if a smart but lazy person is indistinguishable from an motivated idiot. Many extremely intelligent people lack basic social skills. I'd say they're pretty stupid as far as acting out their plans go. Nikola Tesla gave us the modern world and couldn't get laid at the same time. He was pretty stupid as far as evolution goes. I think your objection is still a facile and misleading one at best.
Domain expertise can be taught to almost anyone. You have to be smart to be a doctor, but that doesn't mean you have to be a genius. Or even exceptional. Having worked in healthcare, I've met some incredibly stupid doctors, when you catch them outside their field of expertise. "Dumb" is not synonymous with "retarded," and "smart" is not synonymous with "genius."
And it's actually quite funny that you mention tech. Because that's the side of healthcare I'm directly engaged in. You couldn't imagine how many idiots proliferate in our field. Far from being the exception, most of us who work in it know first hand that it's the rule.
Tretiak
1mo ago
Yeah and likewise criminals have always existed as well. It doesn't mean mainstream society has to tolerate and be defined by it. He can remain as uninfluential and marginalized as he likes. Tate as civilization is the problem.
... and the men who associate with them voluntarily will always complain about them even though they choose those women, and will then judge all women by their behavior. What’s your point?
I'm guessing you don't read a lot of the opinion pieces that keep the news cycles running 24 hours a day. I'll let you in on something you apparently haven't noticed. These complaints are overwhelmingly written by women, not men.
Tretiak
1mo ago
You can find them here in America, willingly prostituting and giving themselves up on OnlyFans.
Unless you think women are helping themselves by offering themselves up to men who would use, demean and then discard them, leaving them miserable and with a trail of baggage, then yes, they are being useful idiots for the kind of men Tate would advise his followers to become. And he only does it because it works.
So this is really how far we're reaching, huh?
More options
Context Copy link