Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all Show Posts made by this member. Note that you can only see Show Posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ersi

2
DnD Central / Re: Return of the Grammar Nazis!
Travelling provides a broader picture of the world and so do language skills. Both moderate the kind of nonsense one is able to spew, if one is in the habit of spewing nonsense.

In my team at the job we have an American, who lived a few years in Sweden before moving to Estonia. Different from ordinary Americans, he is very good at history and geography, a valuable teammate in pub quizzes.

Here are two Americans discussing fascism in front of an audience in Austria in German.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCbKnRgeU8M

For Europeans a broader world view and being considerate of different perspectives in different languages is very common, so common that savagely bone-headed redneckery is hard to grasp. Luckily we have solid contribution of savagely bone-headed redneckery on this forum and can gear up our coping mechanisms.
3
DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…
Quoting somebody else's wrong opinion won't help you out. You remain wrong about everything.

The reality:
- It was not Judge Cannon's decision. It was Justice Thomas's opinion that Cannon relies on. You know, Clarence Thomas the supreme corruptant in SCOTUS.
- Justice Thomas's opinion would dismiss all special counsels appointed by DOJ Attorney Generals, such as Robert Mueller of Mueller Report or Archibald Cox of Watergate.
- The partisan intent is all on Cannon's and Thomas's side. Trump stole documents designated as federal secret. He boasted around with them liberally and refuses to return them. Based on the facts it is a very easy open-and-shut case that requires a hyperpartisan hypocrite to disagree.

"The President has the authority to declassify documents!" you say? :lol: He is on public record boasting to his guests about the documents exactly as secret documents!

You are always wrong about everything. This should not be hard for you to learn.

The 11th District will more likely make the right decision: Replace Judge Cannon for her third egregious mistake in this case (judges are allowed up to three egregious mistakes, I hear) so the case can proceed. When appealed to SCOTUS, SCOTUS is likely to make the wrong decision again, because for SCOTUS there is no law and order, no justice, no checks and balances. SCOTUS is on board with the plan to secure the creation of Unified Reich as promised in Trump's campaign ad.
5
DnD Central / Re: Immigrants
To reiterate the basics that probably apply everywhere in the world:
- Citizenship is required for voting
- When you vote non-locally (somewhere else than where you live), there is paperwork involved

As an additional complexity in Estonia and Latvia at least, mere residents (i.e. foreigners or stateless people with residence permit) can vote in municipal elections. Municipal elections are particular to your place of residence. And instead of registration to vote, all citizens/residents receive an invitation to vote to their mailbox. The authorities know who their citizens and residents are.

In USA there are some differences between states. In most states:
- To be able to vote, you need to pro-actively register to vote by a deadline ahead of every elections. The procedure involves ID-ing paperwork
- You often register to vote with a particular party, which essentially makes you a delegate for the party, not an impartial voter the way it is in mainland Europe

Complete freedom to vote as understood in Europe, i.e. no prior registration to become eligible to vote, applies, according to Wikipedia, only in North Dakota, but there you "must provide identification and proof of entitlement to vote". (Question: Will "entitlement to vote" automatically arrive to state residents' mailbox ahead of elections or do you have to get busy to obtain it?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_registration_in_the_United_States

Taking a look at the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, it can be seen that it is stupid:
- Current safeguards against illegal voting have been examined and found sufficient already, i.e. the problem it proposes to solve does not exist.
- The proposed safeguards are already in place in at least 36 states
- The regulation can be overinterpreted to drown particular voter types with additional documentation requirements in order to prevent them from voting, which is also already in effect in a good number of jurisdictions
- No state constitution or law allows non-citizens to vote in federal elections. Some states (notably DC) allow non-citizens to vote in municipal elections.

The SAVE Act may conceivably provide federal uniformity in federal elections, but the problem is that that's regulation and Republicans normally hate regulation, so it is easy to see that there are ulterior motives with the Act. Usually Republicans advocate state rights instead of more rigorous federal regulation.

Clearly, Republicans rely heavily on their voters being total doofuses.
6
DnD Central / Re: Immigrants
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Since the "Motor Voter" Act (a federal mandate) passed, DMVs (and all state social services applications) must include the option to register to vote...
Currently, a mere check box mark affirming one is a citizen is all that's required for the registration to proceed.
No documentation is required.
The hidden assumption here is that non-citizens can register to vote and cast their vote with impunity. This assumption is false. In reality, the right to vote is checked against other records when you register to vote — registration to vote is an application that may be granted or denied —, and registration to vote may be checked in connection with other procedures, so there is no voting without registration.

However, Republicans assume there to be impunity in illegal voting and therefore they often register themselves in multiple jurisdictions in order to attempt voting multiple times and it does not deter them that they are found out https://www.reuters.com/world/us/former-trump-aide-meadows-registered-vote-three-states-simultaneously-washpost-2022-04-22/
7
DnD Central / Re: The comings and goings of the European Union
Quote from: jax on
If you think the current German government—not to speak of the next one—is pro-Putin, you really don't get Germany... Ostpolitik is truly dead, and won't come back.
Any Germany would have the following priorities:
1. Are we comfily leading Europe? (i.e. eclipsing France)
2. Can we afford to oppose/obstruct Americans?
3. Are raw resources flowing in easily enough?

The last point is about Russia, because that's where the resources are, and if it's not Germany sucking up Russian resources, then it would be China, and Germany doesn't want that. In this sense, Ostpolitik is not dead.

Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik started in the Warsaw bloc era, i.e. at the time when Czech and Poland and USSR all had the same foreign policy, so Ostpolitik, if successful, could proceed unimpeded. Nowadays Poland, Baltic countries, and Ukraine are all radically distinct from Russia, which poses an impediment to Ostpolitik, but if you have been paying attention during last few decades, then whenever there is a choice to be made between Putin's Russia and the in-between countries, Germany always sides with Putin. That's Ostpolitik.

Unless siding with Putin would upset Americans too much and this issue (i.e. point #2) becomes overwhelming when the in-between countries are on the same side as Americans. Since we have the EU and the EU is supposed to have solidarity and point #1 substantially means driving the EU, then Germany is cautious not to destabilise the EU too much, but rather put up a show of solidarity for the time being. However, Germany sees this situation essentially as American meddling in EU affairs, therefore a disturbance and hopefully temporary, and is waiting for the situation to normalise i.e. revert to Ostpolitik, ideally Ostpolitik as it used to work for Willy Brandt. Note that Germany never changed its gas policies. Since the 2022 sabotage of Nordstream, Germany has been looking for emergency supplies. What makes you think that the normal policies would not resume after the emergency is over?

Maybe you are thinking about how Germany supports Ukraine? As everybody knows, Germany was very late to that party, and by now it has already decided that this support is not affordable for them, even though proportionally Germany has supported Ukraine far less than Poland and Baltic countries. Therefore I deem that all this support was disingenuous, done just for show due to American pressure more than anything else. As soon as American pressure subsided, Germany cut back massively, meaning that the security and self-determination of the in-between countries does not matter to Germany. Pay attention that Germany is doing this while Ukraine keeps losing ground, so Germany is sending a message: The existence of the in-between countries does not matter, least of all Ukraine.

Then what matters? Getting a bite of Russian resources ahead of China matters, the in-between countries be damned and the EU geostrategic standing be damned. Deutschland über alles!

So what am I missing? What more is there to get about Germany? How is the current German government different from Germany as usual?

Quote from: jax on
Ukraine can win in 2025, but that depends on a level of European and US cooperation that is far from given. If the US withdraws, this war will drag on for years, and quite likely lead to more wars.
Yes, as I keep pointing out: European geostrategic matters have everything to do with Nato, nothing to do with the EU. The EU has shown itself to be a geopolitical zero all along, while Nato is only as effective as USA, who is unfortunately outside Europe.
8
DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Seriously, ersi: What about about generalizations is "something separate" from quantification? (Other than multiple unstated premises? :) ) What is this "something"?
Wow, you got that it's about premises, but you still ask questions, indicating that you actually did not get anything.

In a book, those premises would not be unstated. They would be there, but you'd have forgotten them, because books are a long read, you're a reductionist (all fans of quantification are also reductionists) and your memory is failing anyway.

As to unstated premises, it's a matter of being charitable to the text. The text may not represent your kind of logic and your kind of structure. The continent of Europe is all about the dialogue of different languages and traditions, but Anglo-Americans tend to think that their particular tradition and their particular logic are the only ones.

It's a matter of culture in academia. You do not have culture. You're a redneck who thinks that being a drunken Trumpite makes you superior, including in philosophy and logic. The sad fact is that it self-evidently makes you inferior in every way, including in philosophy and logic. It's particularly sad when I have to say it, i.e. it is somehow not self-evident for you.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
So, you admit that "logic" is a language that you don't speak?!
And again you rush to prove my point for me. Projecting overeagerly, you commit the crime that you accuse me of, namely unstated premises. There are at least following unstated premises in this statement of yours:

- Logic is a language
- It's singular, presumably directly translatable to English
- The scope of logic is universal

All untrue. Your kind of formal logic is similar to math and the scope of math is not universal. Your logic purportedly includes a method called Universal Quantification but the label is false advertising — you have been lied to.

For example mathematically 1+1=2, but in human terms, 1+1, if it is a man and a woman who form a family, it equals more than two. Another example: One woman carries a baby in nine months, but you cannot make two women carry a baby in half the time, even though mathematically it should somehow compute and the managerial class is trying hard to apply it to the general population. The philosophical point that I am making in this paragraph is about ontology, about kinds of things in order to identify, among other purposes, where analogies are permitted and where prohibited. This used to be the strong point in the continental tradition, but it all went haywire with the upswing of postmodernism across the globe.

The examples I just gave above can also be called engineerial logic, which is not a language, but a matter of world experience and depth of reasoning, identifying categories, kinds, and scopes.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
BTW: NAZIism was and is -in my opinion[1] one of the most heinous and reprehensible social and political movements I know of. If someone I knew didn't revile it, I'd be very concerned![2]
Go ahead, argue for it. For now these are emotional statements without context or, taking what else is known about you on this forum, self-contradictory, since you are pro-Trump which makes you pro-dictatorship and anti-institutional. Let's see if you can muster a logical case against Nazis.
1 Which I'm willing to support — that is, argue for!↵
2 That Communism has resulted in as much or more misery and murder is debatable... No?
But, but... their motives were good?!?↵
9
DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Speaking to your edit: "All NAZIs are bad" is cast as '(x) x -> y" where x is "NAZI" and  y is "is bad" in quantificational systems... If the cast is affirmed, it indeed says "All NAZIs are bad"!
You just don't understand Universal Quantification.
And there we have it. Anglo-Americans overemphasise logic to the detriment of their own reading comprehension. Thanks for proving my point.

When continentals say something like "Nazis are bad," it is tacitly implied that nuances, such as that a few Nazis saved Jews instead of killing them, e.g. the movie-famous Schindler, have been considered and found to be negligible. In a longer treatise, this would also be explicitly stated in earlier pages and "Nazis are bad" would be found a sustainable conclusion regardless of the few counter-examples.

Whereas Anglo-Americans in their formalistic cretinism think that by applying quantification they are conclusively refuting the given statement, not caring to digest what it is that they are trying to refute. You are justifying Nazis here, do you understand? Nevermind, it is of course fully expected that you are pro-Nazi, just as you are pro-dictatorship and pro-slavery, as long as it is Republicans doing it.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Quote from: ersi on
According to analytical philosophers, continental philosophy is bad.
This is your usual form of reasoning! According to whom? (As I said above, some non-entity on YouTube...)
It was according to entities quoted in the video. The video may have been uploaded by a non-entity, but the video was not about himself.

Note that reading comprehension is up to the reader. You demonstrated that a Youtube video is over your head, so let's not wonder about philosophy.
10
DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
From where did you get your asking me to name journalists? Seriously...
We arrived here from here https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=3964.msg87900#msg87900

In the same post, you can see that in your mind Soros came up with the idea of human rights (and therefore human rights are a Jewish Illuminati Commie conspiracy that Democrats have fallen for and are un-constitutionally trying to insitute in USA).

This is your character. There has been no character assassination.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Journalists: Molly Hemingway, Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibei, John Solomon, Glenn Greenwald...
Thanks, finally, except that you put a columnist first (an exclusive columnist, never a reporter or newsreader), confirming that you know no difference between fact and opinion. When you like the opinion, then it's fact for you, and when you dislike a fact, then it's SNL comedy for you (such as Sarah Palin's "You can see Russia from here in Alaska!" which is her repeated statement from a string of consecutive interviews she gave).

Should I indulge you in turn with a list of continental philosophers? Nope. Because:
1. You don't have a good-faith character.
2. Some such authors have come up already in this thread in earlier years, so feel free to read the thread in its entirety if you are interested (which you are not because #1).

11
DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
So, you still refuse to recommend any example of "Continental" philosophers — you're just butt-hurt ...
This definitely came from your butt-hurtedness of being unable to name a single journalist.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
You know: 1st or 2nd order quantification theory?
The problem with quantification is that it fails to acknowledge generalisations as something separate, not subject to quantification. E.g. take the proposition "Nazis are bad." A monolingual doofus Anglo-American self-described philosopher, whose only method is formalistic quantification, would object: "Certainly not all of them are bad. There can be some good ones!" as if this refuted the generalisation.

I see you justify dictatorship and slavery in a similar way, but your way actually lacks any logic. It runs strictly along partisan lines: When Republicans do it, it's good, no matter what they do. But whatever Democrats do, is bad, dictatorship, anti-constitutional erosion of freedoms etc. even when there is no connection except in your imagination.
12
DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
But, again, I ask: What Marxist-Lennist or "Continental" philosophers would you recommend?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
But if your purpose is to remake the world, you'll probably have to progress to killing a lot of people — humans being somewhat ornery! :)

Caught you at your actual agenda again :)

You are never on topic. Whatever the topic, yours is hyperpartisan hypocrisy of strictly American bent.
13
DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
Quote from: Frenzie on
The Warsaw bloc countries don't have a monopoly on Marxism.
I wish more people knew this. Too often there is an assumption that some blue-haired crude feminist protesting in an American university campus means that America is about to become USSR and Russians are around the corner.

USSR was not made by blue-haired feminists nor were there any blue-haired feminists in USSR. Feminism was not a positive concept at all in USSR. Instead, traditional family values were seen as fundamental to a stable country.

The "gender ideology" in USSR was based on common-sense biology and family values, not on some critical social theory. Claims like "sex is a social construct" could only fly among postmodernists, and postmodernism was strictly that hip Western thing, something that Soviet professors would adopt if they wanted to liberate themselves from USSR mainstream Marxism.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
What "continental" philosophers would you recommend?
You are the kind of dude to whom philosophy does not provide any benefit. You quickly jump into assuming fallacies in others when the fallacies are not there, which indicates a hopelessly immature mind. And you have no reading comprehension.

Instead of philosophy, you are at home with soundbites, slogans, propaganda memes and conspiracy theories. All this because you have not figured out the basics like fact versus opinion. You enjoy some select opinions and you go with them as if they were fact.
15
DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
I think your beef derives from a lack of familiarity with source materials.
The source material in this case is how philosophers do philosophy, which is what you are unfamiliar with. The analytic-continental divide is exactly how I describe it.

Why is Wittgenstein considered analytical? He became one ever since he became Russell's protégé and was popularised in English. Any other reason? Most crucially: Why is he the only one from the continent who is considered analytical?

And yeah, it was wrong of me to say that Wittgenstein wrote in English. In reality he hardly wrote anything except the Tractatus, letters to Russell, and lecture notes. Ever since Russell took him under his wing, Russell did all the writing on behalf of him, and that determined what Wittgenstein became, namely analytical instead of continental despite all odds.

Edit: "Continental" is among Anglo-Americans just a slur. Wittgenstein is excluded from the slur because Russell likes him, even though Wittgenstein's magnum opus is an exercise in metaphysics, a typically continental treatise.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
So-called "Critical Theories" stem from the materialism of Marx and his view of history. They're political programs posing as philosophy.
"Critical theories" have a very tenuous connection to Marx and they have a very different nature in the West as compared to the universities in Warsaw bloc countries. In the East, they did not proliferate uncontrollably, e.g. there was no "critical race theory" or any pro-LGBT(Qetc.) gender ideology or any so-called grievance studies. These are 100% Western things.

For easterners it is weird that in the West both among anti-Marxists and pro-Marxists it is common to view those theories as Marxist. They simply have no connection to the academia or life in general in Warsaw bloc countries, which has a far more direct connection to Marxism.

Marx and Marxism, that's your kind of slur.
16
DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
According to analytical philosophers, continental philosophy is bad. Continental philosophers do not provide arguments, don't consider counter-arguments, they are frauds etc. They don't lay out any clear definitions, premises or conclusions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fJNiPbIbZQ

To the analytical philosophers who still haven't figured it out, let me clarify what all this analytic-continental divide is about. Most importantly, the difference is that continental writers are non-English, while analytic philosophers are Anglo-American, and being Anglo-American they are monolingual doofuses who cannot comprehend what is written in languages other than English. This is the most important aspect of the divide: Language barrier.

The language barrier is so strict that the divide is more properly called the divide between Anglo-Americans and continental philosophy. So-called analytical philosophy is simply philosophy written in English. It is no more analytical than continental philosophy is. It is just Anglophones puffing themselves up, as if they were analytical while continentals were not.

Had Wittgenstein stayed in Germany and written in German, he'd be continental, but since he moved to UK and wrote in English, he is counted as analytical. So the most important aspect of the divide is language.

In addition to being monolingual doofuses, Anglo-Americans have a hard time understanding even when things are translated into English for them. The divide also involves a cultural barrier.

None of the accusations about arguments and definitions is true. Granted, there are some edge cases that I will mention later, namely pseudo-philosophy where the accusations are true, but pseudo-philosophy also affects analytical (i.e. Anglo-American) philosophy.

What are arguments and what are definitions? Continental philosophy stems from scholasticism where proper logic followed the syllogistic form. In the syllogistic form, preceding statements are premises to the following statements, definitions are inherent to the concept system and conclusions are spelled out in the corollaries.

What does it mean to say that definitions are inherent to the concept system? It means that definitions arise in conceptual analysis of the concepts used. The concepts are the vocabulary or terminology of the argumentation and definitions arise in contradistinction of the concepts.

The conceptual analysis is something that the reader must do. Nevertheless, in many cases, such as semi-scientific or theological writings, such as Aquinas, the definitions are spelled out exactly in the form of definitions, in which case it is just a matter of acknowledging that the definitions are there.

So there we have it: Anglo-American philosophers want everything spelled out for them, they are bad readers and sloppy in their understanding of the history of philosophical traditions. When premises, conclusions, and in some cases also definitions are literally there, Anglo-Americans just refuse to acknowledge them in their wilful blindness.

Another quite important aspect of the divide is in the kind of philosophy that the two "schools of thought" are doing. The most fundamental topics in philosophy proper are epistemology and metaphysics. Anglo-Americans overemphasise epistemology, while continentals are usually grounded in metaphysics.

Epistemology is (formal) logic, spelling things out in a given "valid" form. According to Anglo-American, any and all "sound reasoning" follows "valid logical form" and this is what Anglo-Americans call "analysis" and this is why they call themselves "analytical".

Metaphysics on the other hand involves the principles to study ontology (existence, reality, the questions What things are? and What fundamentally exists?). Metaphysics is an exercise in conceptual modelling. Conceptual modelling is itself an analysis, no less analytical than whatever is done in the analytical tradition, except that it is not an exercise in epistemology, but in metaphysics, which is unexpected for Anglo-Americans, so they are struck with blindness and cannot see any definitions and arguments, because they don't know what the whole thing is about in the first place.

Metaphysics seeks to comprehend the nature of things. Metaphysicists study what things are alike and what things are not, so the best representatives of continental philosophy have a solid grasp of analogies as a philosophical tool, whereas analytical philosophers relegate analogies to pure fiction.

At the rise of enlightenment, scholasticism got a bad rep and both Anglos and continentals distanced themselves from it, but in different ways. Anglos instituted a new formalism according to which in every academic work there need be explicit chapters for definitions, arguments, counter-arguments and final conclusions. All this was in fact present in scholasticism also, but not necessarily in in this order and not always all of it.

Continentals dropped the formalism while keeping the conceptual modelling, and their conceptual modelling is in best cases about metaphysics and ontology, in other cases about psychologising and in worst cases it as an overabstract or disjointed pseudo-intellectual exercise without any ethical purpose or academic value with a faint resemblance to formulaic mathematics or physics. The pseudo-intellectual tendencies that repeatedly afflict analytical philosophy involve applying formal logic where the nature of things does not permit it, overextending an analysis to things where it cannot apply, and false analogies (since Anglos have a weak grasp on analogy as a philosophical tool altogether).
17
DnD Central / What is going on in Belarus?
A German citizen was sentenced to death in Belarus, the only country in Europe where courts still issue death sentences. The death sentence was for war activities, using explosives etc.

Quote from: https://de.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/07/20/todesstrafe-warum-ein-deutscher-rotkreuz-sanitater-in-belarus-verurteilt-wurde
Hat Rico Krieger für die Ukraine gekämpft?

Die Aktivisten von Viasna gehen davon aus, dass der 30-jährige Rico Krieger beschuldigt wird, zum Kastuś-Kalinoŭski-Regiment zu gehören, einer Gruppe von belarussischen Freiwilligen, die im Krieg in der Ukraine gegen Russland kämpfen.

In other news, Belarus has started negotiations with Germany regarding possible alternative outcomes to the German citizen https://vb.by/politics/rebublic/mid-vedutsya-konsultaczii-po-povodu-prigovorennogo-k-kazni-grazhdanina-frg.html
18
DnD Central / Re: what's going on in france
Different from Galata Bridge across Χρυσόκερας (or Haliç as Turks would have it), I have not seen almost any fishermen on the bridges across Seine. Either Seine is truly poison or Parisians have very high standards. There's busy fish trade going on immediately under the Galata Bridge, by the way.
19
DnD Central / Re: The comings and goings of the European Union
Sanctions work like tariffs. It's not just a matter of locking somebody else out of transacting with entities in your country, but also a matter of being ready to smack the entities in your own country who keep transacting with the other country.

It is a matter of some bureaucratic administering: The transaction with the other country may have happened because the entity in your own country was precisely trying to follow the sanctions situation, e.g. closing down a business in Russia is, on paper, a transaction with Russia. Or it may have happened due to not being up-to-date on the sanctions situation, i.e. a "good faith" accomplice. Or it may be a willing accomplice. Or a bad-faith actor. Or the foreign country may have put up a front entity in your country, to mislead, disrupt and corrupt. Each situation requires a bit different handling on your own side, and it's the ability to handle every case (or at least most cases) competently on your own side that matters most — not to lose vigilance, not to lose the sense of purpose in the sanctions.

Unfortunately the EU did not have the required vigilance, the competence, and the sense of purpose in the sanctions. All along, every Western member country wanted to ensure ways to water down the sanctions for the benefit of its own particular pet industries that have dense transactions with Russia.

Germany to halve military aid for Ukraine despite possible Trump White House

This is not despite Trump. It is in preparation for the Second Coming of Trump :angel: It is also Germany sliding comfily back to its old grooves.

Germany is taking back the initiative in Europe as they used to, the kind of initiative they used to have, namely the pro-Russian and anti-self-determination initiative. In hindsight it must be said that when Russia invaded Crimea (and Donetsk and downed the MH17 flight), Western Europe (EU spearheaded by Germany and France) outright congratulated Putin on a brilliant colonial move. There was some diplomatic nagging against Russia, but nothing was done that would be even remotely proportionate to the crime that Russia committed. Instead they speak to this day about "pro-Russian separatists" in Ukraine. Western EU leaders did not acknowledge any crime by Putin for annexing Crimea and invading Donetsk.

In actions, such as going to visit Putin after the annexation of Crimea on May 10th instead of the usual May 9th, there were congratulations, even though less so in words. Whereas Trump congratulated Putin for the full-scale assault in plain unashamed words.

For a few years now, Scholz has been annoyed to have to follow Biden's drive for sanctions and military aid to Ukraine. Now Scholz is toning it down, expecting Trump to return to presidency. Toning the aid to Ukraine down serves to repair Scholz's image domestically too, making it harder for AfD and Wagenknecht to criticise him. It's a win-win-win: Ensure domestic control, make annoying Balts and Poles go away, and eventually get Russia's gas back.

Trump has always been fully in Putin's pocket, but Biden has also been a weak helper of Ukraine. Biden would like to be a little stronger, but he cannot because of the Republican majority in Congress. Still, Biden would not like to be too strong. Not so strong as to kick Russia out of Ukraine, not so strong as to isolate Russia's Black Sea fleet to Novorossiisk. Biden has been strong enough to push and drive Germany for a while, but not all the way. The momentum is winding down now. The aid to Ukraine has only been barely sufficient to sustain a defence against Russia's continued encroachment, never enough for offensive against the aggressor.

I have heard that there were two big generals who had Biden's ear. One was anti-Putin in a principled way, the other a Mearsheimerian figure. The principled general retired a little while ago, which leaves the Mearsheimerian guy whispering to Biden something like "The real problem is China and we have to prepare for the real problem" ignoring that China determines its actions exactly based on how decisively the West protects Ukraine. Since there is no land bridge to Taiwan, Taiwan cannot be protected in the same manner as Ukraine, so the proper way to deter China is to send a message by means of actions in the Ukraine conflict. But we are sending a weak and garbled message in the conflict which is far easier to handle than Taiwan would be, and is far closer to home both logistically and morally.

Eastern EU countries cannot keep up the drive to support Ukraine. Pro-Ukraine countries, such as Poland and Baltics, will lose their edge, because biggies hate it when tinies have any edge. Biggies insist on colonial relations between West and East. Orbàn will not have to make any adjustments. He placed his bet correctly from the beginning, having calculated that Germany is a natural-born sucker for Putin's gas, and would get back to it again as soon as the opportunity presents itself, and that this would determine the entire balance of the EU, the tendency to betray and keep betraying its smaller members over bigger non-members. The EU biggies are entrenched in the mindset a la "Russia big and scary, Russia's gas tasty, therefore Putin friend" to the point of voluntarily feeding eastern EU members to Putin, and it will be entirely up to Putin to decide whether to spare the likes of Hungary who did not go along with unfriendly behaviour towards Russia, whereas Baltics and Poland are definitely doomed, not to mention the left-over Ukraine who either must become Belarus or the war will continue at some point until complete annihilation.

And this will set the tone for the relations with China. In words, Western commentators are worried over the aggressiveness of China. In deeds, they are encouraging China, just as they have been encouraging Russia. Putin took the bait. China will be more clever by remaining patient, I think. China will cause so much puzzlement over its refusal to take the bait that Western leaders will eventually lose their patience first and push Taiwan into China's lap, and China will then pretend to be reluctant to accept Taiwan.
20
DnD Central / Re: CloudStrike hiccup?!
At my job I am fairly substantially affected. Christopher Steele's[1] database that is good for spying on all the world's businesses is offline.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Remember when CloudStrike determined that Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee's servers (revealing, e.g., John Podesta's embarrassing emails?) but the FBI decided they didn't need access to those servers because ah! heck: CloudServe said...
It is not a crime to get hacked. On the other hand, it is a crime to invite hacking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsvWg2FBnts

Let's pay attention how America "works". Namely, it doesn't. The highest crimes, such as those done by presidents or former presidents, routinely go uninvestigated and unpunished. Therefore there's no reason to whine when non-crimes are not investigated.
1 Yes, it's Christopher Steele of the Steele dossier.↵
23
DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
While I likely know more about this episode than most here,...
You are always wrong about everything. You should have said, While I likely know less about this episode than most here... or even more adequately While I know the least...

On January 6, 2021, you did not see a coup attempt. This time, did you see an assassination attempt? Who was the assassin? I know who he was. Do you?

Of course, don't mistake this for an interest in your opinions. I am only interested in what spin Q is putting on it. The "little lady Secret Service Agent" is already a gem.
25
DnD Central / Re: Return of the Grammar Nazis!
When Trump said about the NY case (the one where he became a convicted felon) that his witnesses were "literally crucified", he was channeling his inner Goebbels as usual. There needs to be a counter-force to his fascism and nazism. And somebody should defuse his narcissism too.

For example in typesetting and layout design, precision is very important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y65FRxE7uMc