Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[silverspawn]

*looks innocently* what's wrong with the summary? Are you disputing the premise or the reaosning? If you dispute the reasoning, I don't think the podcast will change much

It suggests that being a parent is easy and you don't need to think hard before you get a child, and that parenting doesn't matter. My partner struggles with severe depression because her parents got her when they weren't ready, and she grew up in an abusive environment. I call bullshit on anyone who claims that doesn't matter for wellbeing, and encourages more people to make that mistake.

I listened to the podcast some, but it's some economist talking about psychology and sociology without citing sources so it didn't give me much. I could go into more detail about my disagreements but I doubt that will be productive.

I'm actually quite interested in this topic, so I may try to look into sources directly at some point and post about it.

In  general, I think it's unfortunately the case that "fuck the social findings, this real life example is more reliable" is not an unreasonable stance

[silverspawn]

I have tentatively been leaning towards supporting the no-fly zone in Ukraine.

What do you suggest NATO does if Russia violates it?

To spell this out, you can either

- shoot down the plane
- not shoot down the plane

if you don't shoot down the plane, NATO looks terrible. They've bluffed and been cold called. Terrible reputational hit.
If you start the plane, YOU'VE SHOT DOWN A RUSSIAN PLANE. RUSSIA HAS NUKES. YOU DON'T DO THAT

A no-fly zone is a I-can't-prevent-you-from-flying-here-but-I-will-shoot-down-your-planes-if-you-do zone. This is a threat you never ever ever ever want to carry out against Russia. Putin will call the bluff, probably, at least with >20% chance which is way too high, and then what?

[silverspawn]

I think I will start a blog. There is a 100k$ blog prize thing going on, and besides, I gotta do it eventually.

The question is, do I make it my own website, or do I use an existing platform?

[silverspawn]

Also I need a name. I don't want to use my own name. I don't particularly like it. I'll probably name the blog after the sequence. http://consciousnessreductionism.com

[silverspawn]

Yeah let's do it. Blog. Why not. I'll rent the domain

[Awaclus]

I have tentatively been leaning towards supporting the no-fly zone in Ukraine.

What do you suggest NATO does if Russia violates it?

To spell this out, you can either

- shoot down the plane
- not shoot down the plane

if you don't shoot down the plane, NATO looks terrible. They've bluffed and been cold called. Terrible reputational hit.
If you start the plane, YOU'VE SHOT DOWN A RUSSIAN PLANE. RUSSIA HAS NUKES. YOU DON'T DO THAT

A no-fly zone is a I-can't-prevent-you-from-flying-here-but-I-will-shoot-down-your-planes-if-you-do zone. This is a threat you never ever ever ever want to carry out against Russia. Putin will call the bluff, probably, at least with >20% chance which is way too high, and then what?

Russian planes have been shot down before and NATO has nukes too.

[silverspawn]

A NUCLEAR WAR IS STILL BAD IF YOUR SIDE HAS NUKES TOO

[Awaclus]

A NUCLEAR WAR IS STILL BAD IF YOUR SIDE HAS NUKES TOO

Which is why Putin is not going to start one over a plane getting shot down.

[silverspawn]

when have russian planes been shot, by whom, and did russia have nukes at that point?

[silverspawn]

A NUCLEAR WAR IS STILL BAD IF YOUR SIDE HAS NUKES TOO

Which is why Putin is not going to start one over a plane getting shot down.

By the same logic, you could send american troops to fight in ukraine.

the point is that there are things you don't do, and sending troops or enacting a I-will-shoot-your-plains zone are in that category. If we didn't have those things that people agree on, it would just be a game of chicken where the bolder person wins, until you cross some undefined line and nukes go off

[silverspawn]

*planes

[Awaclus]

when have russian planes been shot, by whom, and did russia have nukes at that point?

Well a lot of Russian planes have been shot by Ukraine just recently. A NATO member state shot down a Russian plane in 2015.

[Awaclus]

the point is that there are things you don't do, and sending troops or enacting a I-will-shoot-your-plains zone are in that category. If we didn't have those things that people agree on, it would just be a game of chicken where the bolder person wins, until you cross some undefined line and nukes go off

Putin sent troops to Ukraine. So far this is a game of chicken that Putin is winning because he's the bolder person, and as long as NATO keeps signaling being the more timid person, Putin will keep crossing lines and getting away with it.

[silverspawn]

when have russian planes been shot, by whom, and did russia have nukes at that point?

Well a lot of Russian planes have been shot by Ukraine just recently. A NATO member state shot down a Russian plane in 2015.

I remember that, and if I remember correctly, everyone freaked out and tried to calm the situation, in the end successfully. I think that was an instance of someone violating a very important rule, where we are lucky that Russia didn't overreact.

But it's different if someone in Turkey goes to far on one occasion vs. we deliberately shoot down all planes in that area as a strategic move. (Also, you will know this better than I do, the Russian plane probably wasn't supposed to fly there.)

Ukraine can shoot Russian planes, they're being attacked.

[silverspawn]

the point is that there are things you don't do, and sending troops or enacting a I-will-shoot-your-plains zone are in that category. If we didn't have those things that people agree on, it would just be a game of chicken where the bolder person wins, until you cross some undefined line and nukes go off

Putin sent troops to Ukraine. So far this is a game of chicken that Putin is winning because he's the bolder person, and as long as NATO keeps signaling being the more timid person, Putin will keep crossing lines and getting away with it.

I'm saying we don't have an anarchistic game of chicken; if we did, nukes would have gone off decades ago. We have a set of rules that world leaders follow, and these rules permit invading Ukraine, permit economic sanctions, permit financial aid to ukraine, even permit giving weapons to ukraine, but do not permit sending soldiers or shooting down Russian planes. Russia *hasn't* violated these rules yet, and doing so would be extremely bad

[Awaclus]

I'm saying we don't have an anarchistic game of chicken; if we did, nukes would have gone off decades ago. We have a set of rules that world leaders follow, and these rules permit invading Ukraine, permit economic sanctions, permit financial aid to ukraine, even permit giving weapons to ukraine, but do not permit sending soldiers or shooting down Russian planes. Russia *hasn't* violated these rules yet, and doing so would be extremely bad

Why would the rules permit military action to attack a foreign country but not defend one?

[silverspawn]

I'm not saying I've derivied these rules from logic. I'm saying they exist, as a sticky equilibrium, and are common knowledge among people who really actually get to make big foreign policy decisions. I don't know why they are like this.

Take it from Scott Alexander, that's one fewer inferential step:

4: International norms may be annoying, but they’re all that stands between us and nuclear war, so we had better respect them

If you only get one thing from this essay, let it be: unless you know something I don’t, establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine might be the worst decision in history. It would be a good way to get everyone in the world killed.

The “usual playbook” can seem half-hearted and faintly ridiculous. “We’re Not Participating!!!” we insist, as we provide guns and missiles to the people who are. It feels like a bunch of arbitrary lines where we act with bluster and bellicosity on one side, then shrink like fainting violets away from the other. But those arbitrary lines are what save us from global annihilation.

Any sane person wants to avoid nuclear war. But this makes it easy to exploit sane people. If Russia said “Please give us the Aleutian Islands, or we will nuke you”, what should the US do? They can threaten mutually assured destruction, but if Russia says “Yes, we have received your threat, we stick to our demand, give us the Aleutians or the nukes start flying”, then what?

No sane person thinks it’s worth risking nuclear war just to protect something as minor as the Aleutian Islands. But then the US gives Russia the Aleutians, and next year they ask for all of Alaska. And even Alaska isn’t really worth risking nuclear war over, so you give it to them, and then the next year…

So people who don’t want to be exploited occasionally set lines in the sand, where they refuse to make trivial concessions even to prevent global apocalypse. This is good, insofar as it prevents them from being exploited, but bad, insofar as sometimes it causes global apocalypse. So far the solution everyone has settled on are lots of very finicky rules about which lines you’re allowed to draw and which ones you aren’t.

If there was ever a point at which two nuclear powers disagreed about who was in the wrong, one of them could threaten nuclear war to get that wrong redressed, the other could say they had drawn a line in the sand there to prevent being exploited, and then they’d have to either back down (difficult, humiliating) or start a nuclear war (unpleasant, fatal). So there are a lot of diplomats who have put a lot of effort into establishing international norms on which things are wrong and which things aren’t, so that nobody crosses anyone else’s lines by accident.

This system isn’t perfect. Nuclear powers disagree on lots of things. But they usually disagree in a bounded way, where they accuse each other of non-mortal sins and claim the right to non-nuclear responses. Russia crossed a line by invading Ukraine, in a way that gives Russia’s enemies the right to certain kinds of retaliation - arming Ukraine, imposing sanctions, etc. Russia will grumble about this, but it knows it would be in the wrong if it threatened a nuclear response - it would be violating the West’s lines in the sand, the West would have to call its bluff, and it would have to either go ahead with apocalypse or back down in humiliation.

I am not an international relations expert. But every international relations expert whose commentary I have read claims that the extent of Russia’s recent infraction does not give the West the right to declare a no-fly zone in Ukraine. The no-fly zone would be an extreme escalation that would, under international norms, allow Russia to threaten World War III if we didn’t back down. Then we would either have to back down, humiliated, or start World War III. In a situation like that, I pray we would have the courage to back down humiliated. But I would prefer not to test our leaders’ courage in this particular way.

Also, the last time this happened, in ‘62, it was the Russians who agreed to back down to prevent nuclear war. We owe them one, so this time it’s on us.

[silverspawn]

These are the same noises I hear from everyone I trust to know something on this. This very likely a real thing.

Also, take it as a prediction: there won't be a no-fly zone.

[Awaclus]

These are the same noises I hear from everyone I trust to know something on this. This very likely a real thing.

Also, take it as a prediction: there won't be a no-fly zone.

I agree with the prediction, but I am worried that it isn't as good of a decision as some are taking it for granted to be.

[silverspawn]

I don't think there is anything deep here, but it's funny

[silverspawn]

The fact that people can look at the starwars movies and not think Attack of the Clones is the best just breaks my brain. I can't deal with it. The fact that *no-one* except me thinks this is even worse.

I is god-awful. III is unnecessarily cruel, breaks suspension of disbelief is fights, and altogether feels bad. IV is boring and ugly. V is okay, but I just can't bring myself to like any of the characters. VI is terrible. VII is pretty bad, though tolerable. VIII is terrible, not that I remember anything. IX is god-awful. I think there was Rogue One thing and it was kind of ok? not sure.

[silverspawn]

Like II is just so much better than whatever else is at #2.

[silverspawn]

I've never even seen anyone give credit to the fact that (1) the good side has a larger army than the bad side, (2) the villain beats up both of the heroes in a fair fight. This is legitimately non-conventional storytelling!

[silverspawn]

Everyone just seems hung up on how bad Annakin is as a character, which I don't really get, either. I feel like basically every important character in the sequels is worse.

[silverspawn]

*in the originals

I actually liked the main character from the sequels about as much as you can given her rather generic personality