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

DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
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.

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.

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.
Which I'm willing to support — that is, argue for!
That Communism has resulted in as much or more misery and murder is debatable... No?
But, but... their motives were good?!?
DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
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.

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.
DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
From where did you get your asking me to name journalists? Seriously...
We arrived here from here

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.

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).

DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
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.

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.
DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
But, again, I ask: What Marxist-Lennist or "Continental" philosophers would you recommend?

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.
DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
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.

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.
DnD Central / Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
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.

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.
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.

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).
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.

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
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.
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.
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.

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.

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.
Yes, it's Christopher Steele of the Steele dossier.
DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…
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.
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.
DnD Central / Re: Ukraine — the forgotten war
What makes you think that this "Q" and cohorts aren't Dem social media operatives? :)
Wrong question. The question you need to ask yourself: Even while you deny that you have fallen for Q, why are you exclusively spewing Q talking points in each and every post?

You are beyond help.

Trump left office on January 6, 2021.
Here's Trump making his last speech in White House backyard on January 20, 2021.

You are always wrong about everything. And you're on your own.
DnD Central / Re: Ukraine — the forgotten war
Good afternoon, doofus.

Their core belief is that a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic child molesters is operating a global child sex trafficking ring that conspired against president Donald Trump.
Did you read this as:

QAnon is a conspiracy against Trump.


It actually says: QAnon's core belief is that Donald Trump is being conspired against by a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic child molesters... and therefore Trump needs urgent operative protection by all means.

Your reading comprehension is failing, but this should be for you easy to remember:

You are always wrong about everything.[1]

The hard part is for you to fix it. It's entirely up to you. I'm done helping.
This includes the date when Biden assumed office and therefore Trump had to leave even though he had not conceded and has not conceded to this day. As per Q, Trump has been the legitimate president all these years. Says Wikipedia, "Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, was impeached for the second time on January 13, 2021, one week before his term expired."
DnD Central / Re: Ukraine — the forgotten war
But let me disabuse you: Most of what I know of what happened on January 6, 2021 comes from the then-chief of the Capitol Police.
You know exactly one thing from him: The word "optics". But you know this via Q, because you are putting exactly the Q spin on it. Namely, you are saying that Trump's offer of National Guard was refused (by Pelosi?) because of "optics". The truth is that there was no Trump's offer of National Guard whatsoever. The claim that Trump offered National Guard to Congress/Pelosi is Q.

If your source were Steven Sund, chief of Capitol Police, then you'd say that Sund mentioned requesting National Guard to House and Senate sergeants-at-arms a few days ahead January 6th, one of whom mumbled something about "optics". After January 6 all three were dismissed or resigned, because they had blown it. Pelosi is not part of Sund's story.

Trump is lying and relaying Q constantly. It doesn't mean you have to swallow it all unquestioningly.

And -concerning witnesses at the Senate trial- what was the hurry you speak of? Trump was already out of office when it began; Biden was the President. Why were they pressed for time? (I'd never heard that excuse before. Please elucidate
I will say only this: Trump was NOT already out of office. The hurry was exactly to get him impeached before he leaves office and this was narrowly achieved.

I will not give you sources. It is more rewarding for you to discover the facts on your own.
DnD Central / Soviet Nostalgia Thread
This is a dead serious thread. I'm honestly arguing that in the country called USSR there lived actual humans, normal and ordinary people. They were not green like aliens and they did not eat children, definitely not on average or median. 

Much has been said about Soviet propaganda. I grew up to full age in Soviet Union and since early childhood I personally knew that propaganda was bad. And I don't mean that Soviet propaganda was saying that Western propaganda was bad.[1] I mean I learned early on that all propaganda was bad, and I personally always diversified my sources of information and knowledge. So imagine my shock when soon after the collapse of USSR I noticed how brainwashed Westerners can be. And Westerners have no excuse, because they are willingly brainwashed. In the West, propaganda is what people indulge in by choice. It is not imposed on them by an authoritarian government.

Anyway, here are some points of view.

The main quibble I have is that in my opinion it is not enough to say "This/that is like Soviet Union." Soviet Union itself had a sufficiently long history so it went through very different phases and it was different things at different times. There were at least three different regimes that can be tentatively called:
- Stalin
- Brezhnev
- Gorbachev

Stalin era was the consolidation of the newly created USSR by dictatorial and highly oppressive genocidal means. Stalin knowingly built up a personality cult for himself as an official state religion. Stalin did not see it coming that Hitler could backstab him, so besides government-imposed hardships of every sort the people also had to go through war hardships. For Russians it's all basically fine, because they think suffering is a great glorious sacrifice, but there are many more peoples and nationalities in USSR who think differently, the more so the less affinity they feel with Russians.

Brezhnev era is called the time of economic stagnation, but in many ways it was the kind of economic and administrative stability that European Central Bank officially aspires to. Prices of things (of probably all things, as far as I remember) were not merely stable, but literally the same from the end of 60's to mid-80's. Prices of industrial products were not given by paper label, but were pressed into them, and the price applied for decades like this under Brezhnev. This is when I grew up and nobody can take my happy childhood and youth away from me.

Then we saw Gorbachev, who is worshipped in the West as a wonderful democratically-minded courageous reformer. He screwed up big time from the start. One of his very first reforms was to restrict access to vodka. Smarter people immediately foretold that either this man goes away or the country collapses. The man did not go away, so the country collapsed. The Chernobyl catastrophe was also very early on in Gorbachev's career, and demonstrated definitively that he was a chicken, nothing leader-like about him.

When I received my invitation to the Soviet Army, the country was economically and administratively in ruins. Everything about the government was so broken that I simply ignored the conscription. I refused to go to their army. And then the country died. So, if you want to know how USSR met its end — it was me.

A competent comparison of any other country or regime to USSR specifies which era or phase of the USSR is being meant. Only Brezhnev era was a relatively smooth ride. Stalin and Gorbachev eras were cataclysmic, without any laws in any sense, legal or administrative or economic, no historic justice or justice overall. Everything under Stalin and Gorbachev was done for some propagandistically stated purpose, some promised bright future, but everything failed, was a grotesque lie, or bore a disproportionate human cost. Brezhnev era, the supposed height of Cold War, was in contrast quite calm and peaceful, hardly any sense of urgency in any direction.
This was not on the news daily, by the way. Nor in school. And it makes sense: There was no easy access to Western propaganda, so what's the point of talking about something that's not there?
DnD Central / Re: Artificial intelligent - Ideas producer
Civil servant robot ‘commits suicide’, deadly plunge under probe

A first-of-its-kind incident has shocked the world after a civil servant robot at Gumi City Council in South Korea was found unresponsive after what appears to be a deliberate plunge down a two-meter staircase.

Some experts have suggested that the robot may have experienced an emotional breakdown due to the stress of its workload, while others believe a technical malfunction could be to blame.
I guess it makes sense. If robots can provide emotional support, friendship and what not, then they can emotionally break down too.

Isn't it already overdue to start giving them human rights etc? Corporations are people, legally, so why not robots?
DnD Central / Re: Canada
But more seriously, just because the populace is pro-immigration needn't mean the rules are. Although the rules aren't quite hostile to immigration either.

Canada takes in almost 287,000 Ukrainian refugees

As many as 286,752 Ukrainians have arrived in Canada under the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel (CUAET) program.

In total, the Canadian government received almost 1.2 million visa applications under this program and approved more than 960,000 of them.
960,000 approved, but only 286,752 arrived. It is geographically difficult to get to Canada.

Let's compare to USA:

In two years, U.S. immigration officials have approved more than 236,000 cases under the Uniting for Ukraine program, according to the Department of Homeland Security. As of the end of March, more than 187,000 Ukrainians had arrived in the U.S. under the policy.
DnD Central / Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?
The executive of our federal government has certain prescribed duties. To effectively execute these, he is -by law, precedent and long tradition- granted certain privileges and immunities. Seldom have such been questioned directly. (See the Nixon Watergate Scandal. And the Clinton impeachment. :) )
From Watergate everybody (except you) learned that Nixon was alone in thinking that "When the president does it, then it's not illegal" was the principle. But now SCOTUS overturned it in their judicial activism: When the president does it, then it is beyond question, beyond scrutiny. And not only when the president is in office, but forever!

Seriously, get some help, urgently. And I don't mean online.