lisasays

You know you're right, Dan - 'pernicious' is not the best mental model to use here. No matter how ineluctably dreary some of these leavings my seem.

So a non-reciprocal response would be more effective.

All I can say, dan (and knowing this won't change your action): this wasn't my intent.

You've got some straight-up trolls running around, posting blatantly pernicious nonsense in regard to these topics -- obviously without sincere intent, simply to push buttons.

Mixed with some merely woefully naive and/or highly obstinate folks, posting basically noise (wildly inaccurate narratives about extremely basic historical matters or recent events).

If there is a better strategy or tone to use for countering this kind of negative behavior -- I wish I knew what it was.

Thanks - it pretty much had to be something like that.

Look, I don't have time to go down these rabbit holes with you. I'd just like you to consider one the following:

Yes, the Iraq invasion thoroughly evil and insane and stupid, and probably illegal. And yes, it was driven by preposterous, bald-faced lies from the start. Including lies about WMD and bioweapons and such.

Fast-forward 20 years: the Russians are telling the exact same kind of lies with regard to its (no less evil, insane, stupid and illegal) invasion of Ukraine; including lies about bioweapons and WMD -- yet even more cheaply and transparently so (using photoshopped slides no less) -- and you're just eating it up, like it's a box o' chocolates.

You're really very naive.

Just because you didn't hear about it on CNN

I never watch CNN. And if you think that anyone who doesn't buy into your narratives, therefore, does -- then you're definitely living in a bubble.

The thing is he doesn't just "reference" the paper - he takes it out of context to suggest that it "serves as a kind of proof of concept for ethnically targeted bioweapons" (something the paper doesn't say at all, and which no researcher in the field would support). Alongside unsupported claims that the US and other governments are developing such weapons.

Of course he's also hedging, and talking out of both side of his mouth. It's a classic innuendo technique, and you fell for it.

The young men of Ukraine are being killed at a rate of 7-1 vs Russia, with nothing to show for it but 300k dead Ukrainian young men.

You have this information from where, exactly?

I have never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews.

And yet, in his taped comments he said exactly that:

    “There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. Covid-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” Mr. Kennedy said at a private gathering in New York that was captured on videotape by The New York Post. “Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”

But there's no wiggling out of it. Try as he may to do so.

The bridge is clearly military infrastructure (and bringing it down will have significant military impact). Just not exclusively so.

Why is the West helping them do this?

To bring an end to this insanity. As soon as humanely possible.

And yet - Pink Floyd with Syd matters so much more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36777995

https://archive.is/wXTHp

I did mention.

But you keep talking around it.

You still can't bring yourself to say who these people were. Or what happened to their descendants.

In Ukraine Russian speakers are hardly the minority.

What's this supposed to mean?

Certainly it's not referring to the portion of native speakers.

How many times has Russia invaded western Europe?

Since "Western" Europe now includes Poland, the Baltics, Moldova and Finland - perhaps you can answer that question for us.

For extra credit: which "Western" country did Russia sign an active military alliance with -- and not only join it invading one of the above countries; but march together with its troops in victory parades, afterwards?

Why did you ask?

Probably because you keep neglecting to mention, for some strange reason, the ethnic group that made up some 90 percent of the population the peninsula at the time of the (not so peaceful) 1783 annexation. Let alone what, specifically, happened to them in the summer of '44.

And how obscenely ridiculous it is, as a result -- to say that the peninsula was "Russian for 200 years" prior to the 1955 transfer.

ABM

Except the US didn't just thumb their noses at, and start violating willy-nilly (like Russia did with the 1994 treaty you are so hesitant to name). Rather - it had an opt-out clause which Bush chose to enact, giving the required 6 months notice.

And how did Russia come to "own" the peninsula again?

What happened to its original inhabitants?

Which treaty did the RF sign in 1994 pledging to respect existing borders of Ukraine -- including its sovereignty over the Crimea -- for perpetuity?

Tell us more, please.

Have a plan B?

Seems you've found yourself a pretty nifty one:

Bait, bait. Evade, evade. Troll, troll, troll.

I have not called on Ukrainians to lay down their arms.

Right - it would be impolitic to say this directly.

What you are doing instead is (effectively) calling for the cessation of all military aid. Which would inevitably force the Ukrainians to do just that, shortly enough thereafter.

And saying stuff elsewhere like "it certainly would have been the prudent thing to do for them", referring to the prospect of their capitulating in the early stages of the war.

So at the end of the day - this is precisely the outcome you're lobbying for.

It was very much not the intention of Russia to get into such a fight, they made that clear.

One would have to be absolutely deluded to believe this.

Or more simply - paid to pretend to.

And if you think Russia had or has the goal of eliminating the Ukrainian people, reason and debate cannot reach you anymore.

О боже, нет. Not all of them. Just those few thousand or soon the "kill or capture" lists that were carefully prepared before the invasion. Along with anyone who refused to dig trenches, or to answer in Russian when spoken to, or otherwise showed anything less than the highest respect for the liberating forces during the special operation.

Or who were stupid and treacherous enough to have hid in that theater basement in Mariupol. When they should have been out in the streets, protesting against their Nazi occupiers. And welcoming their liberators with bread and salt.

The rest were meant for eternal subjugation: annexed to the Motherland and forcibly Russified, if they lived in predominantly Russian-speaking regions (and most likely a few buffer regions for good measure, and Kyiv itself). Those living in the Western regions would have to contend with living either in an outright vassal state, and/or one with limited sovereignty -- i.e. Finlandization but with much stronger "security guarantees" to Moscow.

What was scheduled for elimination was the very idea of Ukraine, and within the liberated regions, any expression of the vulgar, degenerate "Little Russian" language (is it even a langauge?) and culture (if we can even call it that), beyond a highly marginalized "kitchen" status.

Per all the things the current Tsar and his helpers have been saying, in the years leading up to the invasion. And of course what is currently happening in the liberated regions, as we speak.

Suffering would have ended a long time ago.

Suffering for the so-called victim would have ended long ago - if she would just lay back and yield to her suitor's perfectly natural and understandable wishes.

For the vast majority of Ukrainians life would have resumed its normal course.

Indeed - she might as well just relax, sit back - and enjoy the ride.

Because it was Russian for almost 200 years

But in name only, you meant to say.

Because it was populated by a very solid majority of Crimean Tatars (and very few Russians) up until 1860 or so, you mean to say. That is, until shortly after the end of that war that didn't work out so well for Russia.

And then by a solid majority of non-Russians -- mostly Crimean Tatars, along with a whole host of other folks, (including Germans, Jews, Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, Poles - and of course, Ukrainians) until the summer of 1944, you meant to say.

At which time a magical event happened which would finally give the peninsula a majority Russian population.

Perhaps you would like to tell us what that event was?

The Ukraine lost any moral right to govern Crimea after cutting water and electricity supply to the citizens of the peninsula.

The moment the mafia-like entities which run the Peninsula decided to throw their lot with a foreign power that was, at that time, conducting a war of aggression against Ukraine in its eastern regions -- they naturally lost any right to the benefits of the North Crimean Canal.

I hope this helps!

To disinform as only CleverBot 2.0 can -- its very helpful indeed.

Russia has lost a fifth of the territory it once controlled in Ukraine.

By comparing ISW maps -- it has easily lost more than 50 percent of the territory it has attempted to seize since February 24, 2022.

If we roll the start date back to 2014 - then we're at something like 45 percent.

The death toll from the war in Ukraine has reached an estimated 14,400 people.

Also way off base. This is getting too easy, so I'll stop now.

That is really, really f'ing annoying,

Local soil dynamics are changing, due to human activity. So "(localized) climate change" is a perfectly reasonable description of what's happening, to a first order approximation.

The rest is just fluff and bother. I can see someone having a "meh" reaction to this choice of language. But to be "really, really fucking annoyed" by it?

I submit there are other, much bigger and genuinely sinister things at loose in the world you might want to direct your precious capacities to be "really, really fucking annoyed" at.

My suspicion is that scientists would use the term "underground climate change" [to get more press]"

More likely they were just trying to put the matter in a terms the lay person would understand.

Unfortunately, as long as NATO refuses to recognize the legitimate security concerns of Russia,

First let's have Russia pull its troops out of Ukraine, re-affirm the binding agreements it has already signed to permanently respect its sovereignty (and amend these for additional guarantees as needed), and commit to a timetable for reparations -- with a substantial downpayment. At that point, we can have a discussion about such matters.

Until that happens - Russia has no "legitimate" security needs whatsoever.

Not that this means NATO should start putting missiles in Ukraine willy-nilly. But really, until the above happens -- one needs to just drop the word "legitimate" from one's vocabulary, as it applies to current regime's wants or needs for anything.

Yup, it can really suck, this working other people thing.

But can you elaborate or provide some examples, please? I'd like to know more about this angle.

Javascript is the new Python in many shops.

So while one doesn't have to know JS, it will definitely get you through a lot of doors. And not knowing it, or being too stubborn to keep your skills in it polished will keep you in the doghouse.

Actually, yes. The conventional wisdom these days is to do everything in React (or something similarly bloated).

Because, you know, users just love seeing a bunch of grey boxes shimmer and dance on a white background for several seconds before the magic really starts to happen.

So any exercise which demonstrates that there just might be an alternative to this philosophy should be applauded.

The logic here is exceedingly tenuous: "Hmm, you know maybe, just just they might have done it this way. Therefore they did. Plus it got tweeted by a widely respected shill for RT who thinks the Ukrainians bombed their own theater in Mariupol. That's real credibility."

But if put it down in CAPITAL LETTERS - that makes is sound much more convincing.

Something has to give, and if history is any guide, it won't be the Russians.

What on earth are you talking about?

Russia has yielded a whole bunch of times of course, going way back to the Crimean War - often to countries much smaller than itself. BTW that particular war ended with the Black Sea fully demilitarized, its military and civilian institutions discredited - and 3 church bells from Sevastopol hung up in Arundel Castle, England, as trophies.

Even WW 2 probably would have gone the same way, had it not been for Lend Lease.

And now it's attempting to fight a war of aggressive occupation a country with a quarter of its population. So far it has lost 50 percent of the territory it initially sized. Just 18 months in, there's already been a mutiny which forced the current Tsar to flee Moscow.

If history is any guide, this definitely isn't going to end well for them.

"PRO SAPPER AND EOD EQUIPMENT [CONTRACTING SQUADRON] UKRAINE"

So that's your smoking gun? A random DoD contract to a country with tons of perfectly legitimate needs for this kind stuff (recall much of the Black Sea coast was mined in 2022) - and which BTW was dated several months after pipeline incident?

Do you really think this is how black ops are done?

This is exactly what I'm talking about:

Anything less than a confirmed Yes vote (perhaps with caveats, but ultimately: a Yes vote) to whatever the developer proposes is, in the YIMBYist book, equivalent to the objections of that lady in Oregon.

That new housing is "snake development projects",

It's not snake oil because it's new. But because of the blatant lies (and occasionally more subtle distortions) in the developer's project proposal, staring everyone right in the face.

Nor is all new development bad, nor old development ipso facto good, by any stretch. We get the issues, and understand the tradeoffs.

And I, at least, don't demonize YIMBYists. I just wish they'd stop being so smug, and find a better way of supporting their position than simply responding to any expression of opposing viewpoint with facile generalizations and tired caricatures.