racional · HackerTrans

Not the one you're living under, thankfully.

One can think of different ways to assess the likely outcome of an election -- but a betting market (with its gigantic built-in biases) would have to be one of the dodgiest.

Meanwhile reliable polls show a steady Harris lead.

racional

há 2 anosdiscuss

[dead]

racional

há 2 anosdiscuss

For the sake of simplicity -- I'm assuming Trump won't win at this point (it could happen but the odds are looking quite low). And unlike Trump, the new administration won't simply drop-kick Ukraine or otherwise be in a hurry to cut a dirty deal just to get this thing over with.

Yet you're fine with handwaving

I'm not; I'm saying it's a question I'll trust to the Ukrainians to evaluate and decide for themselves.

That's something entirely different from what you're suggesting that I said.

[Don't underestimate resilience of dictatorships; the Iran-Iraq war went on for 8 years]

That's actually an argument for why time is more on Ukraine's side.

If Russia gives up after 8 years, or even 10 or 15 -- then Ukraine will have squarely won.

racional

há 2 anosdiscuss

So how long do you think Ukraine can hold out if we extrapolate the casualties rates from the last 12-24 months or so?

I wouldn't know because I don't have their numbers, and unlike you, I don't trust my offhand estimates.

However I will trust the Ukrainians to know, and it seems safe to reason that the more and better arms they have -- the farther off the potential triggering of such a limit will be.

The key consideration to keep in mind here is that for Ukraine, the fight is existential -- while for Russia (as a country, apart from its leadership) it is very much optional. So the limits for what is bearable in terms of any category of loss must be weighted very differently (apart from the what the numbers might say; and assumes we even have reliable numbers, which of course we don't).

So the flip side of your question might be:

"For how many years does Russia want to keep spending 10 percent of its GDP on this little expansionist fantasy project gone horrible wrong? And how does this math change once Putin is gone, or his lights start to dim?"

racional

há 2 anosdiscuss

Thanks for clarifying -- but the referent of the implicit "they" in that snippet (via "their droppings") was an (abstract) commenter -- not their country or nationality!

Which is also something you'd also prefer we not do (that is: referring to individuals with implied scorn) -- and since you're asking nicely and it's your shop here, I will make assiduous efforts to catch myself before doing so, moving forward.

So perhaps what I should have said was something like this:

   There's never a need to introduce (gratuitous) references to a commenter's nationality or other presumed essential traits... No matter how much we may object to the message or import of what they have written.

Which I would hope is a general policy we can all get behind on.

racional

há 2 anosdiscuss

The 2009 EU report has been widely criticized as flawed, both at the time in years since. You can drill down on the details here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Russo-G...

>Finland was a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany during the early years of World War II

Which happened after (and never would have happened without) the Winter War.

racional

há 2 anosdiscuss

I think if you're going to exclusively comment on political threads, the bar is higher to stay assiduously within the guidelines, which basically means avoiding any kind of pejorative writing, even if it's oblique, about the commenters who disagree with you; write as if to a beloved but intractably wrong and somewhat thin-skinned uncle on an email thread just before Thanksgiving.

This is most excellent advice. Thanks for chiming in.

racional

há 2 anosdiscuss

That's not true at all, Israel doesn't operate any courts in Gaza.

Right - the people there are under martial law, which is even worse.

Gaza has a border with Egypt

Which Israel has seized control of.

racional

há 2 anosdiscuss

I appreciate the detailed response, and will give it careful consideration.

I was hoping you could also respond to the question at the very top ("Can you point to even a single instance ...", up to the "If not, then why ..." part).

I'm not trying to split hairs here -- I'm really genuinely mystified by the apparent insinuation that I was responding to. That is, I don't see why would you bother to inject the phrase "When people start talking about other people's countries scornfully or aggressively" -- if you didn't think that was what you observed me doing.

At the same time I'm pretty that not only do I not talk about entire countries that way -- my language takes pains to avoid precisely such implications.

And just a slight addendum -- I have to say I'm a bit confused about what you mean by "political battle". Is it -- simply too many posts about politics (or history, which tends to get bloody and political)? Or just being too blunt about it? Is for example this post an instance of "political battle"?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40731093

I can see how it might look that way (especially if one has only vaguely heard of the political party I'm referring to, and hasn't looked into them in any detail). But I do believe that if one has done any homework at all on these folks -- then what I'm saying is pretty straightforward, and well, basically "obvious".

And in any case, while it certainly takes a position, it's not a pugnacious or uncivil statement I'm making there. The sibling post perhaps makes a better, less brusque explanation of the same basic point. But again, it's just stating major recent events that should be, well -- obvious to anyone who follows basic political events in that country.

racional

há 2 anosdiscuss

When people start talking about other people's countries scornfully or aggressively or snarkily, that's when it becomes flamebait and a moderation issue.

Can you point to even a single instance where I have done this, please?

Meaning -- in reference to the country or its people per se (as opposed to the actions or ideology of the people who happen to be running it; or perhaps entirely reasonable references to what a measured portion of the population might say or think, as can be easily verified by numerous news reports)?

If not -- then why are you setting forth the implication that this is something I have done?

And lasties -- a lot of postings here (or excerpts from them) are plainly BS. Whether the poster is simply naive, or has less charitable motivations -- there's simply no mistaking it.

I totally get that labeling these cases as such continuously makes for bad reading; and of course one should never to so spuriously. But what is so wrong or uncivil (or even "snarky") about pointing out this simple fact, in egregious cases when there's just no ifs, buts or mitigating factors about it?

Or is just the fecal labeling? Would you prefer we stick to more G-rated terminology like "nonsense" and "balderdash"? I suppose I could live with that.

racional

há 2 anosdiscuss

There's nothing political or nationalistic at all in my comment.

My posts refer mostly to historical events, and attempt to correct the various (sometime rather bizarre) cognitive distortions that some people like to hold and promote about them. Along with many much milder and more innocuous misunderstandings.

Personally I eschew all forms of nationalism and nationalist rhetoric.

racional

há 2 anosdiscuss

I think Dan's point is that there's never a need to introduce references to a commenter's nationality or other presumed essential traits.

No matter how self-evidently full of excrement their droppings here may be.

comments