Ukraine conflict

Quote: kenarman

You weren't around in the past Gandler. It wasn't an issue when I was younger to anywhere near the extent it is now.

In the past you're referring to, without the internet, you probably had 5 friends at your local bar, Moose lodge, monthly poker get together discussing issues. Not much chance, you'd encounter a wide circle of personalities. And if you had someone too disagreeable you probably stopped inviting him to get togethers.

And you probably had 3 TV channels.

And you probably cranked your phone to get it to work.

And parked your wagon outside your house with your horse.

And rubbed two sticks together for fire.

And remember when writing was invented.

And hammered your first wife over the head with a club and dragged her off to your cave to win her over.

Quote: rxwine

In the past you're referring to, without the internet, you probably had 5 friends at your local bar, Moose lodge, monthly poker get together discussing issues. Not much chance, you'd encounter a wide circle of personalities. And if you had someone too disagreeable you probably stopped inviting him to get togethers.

And you probably had 3 TV channels.

And you probably cranked your phone to get it to work.

And parked your wagon outside your house with your horse.

And rubbed two sticks together for fire.

And remember when writing was invented.

And hammered your first wife over the head with a club and dragged her off to your cave to win her over.

Of course I did all that but that was before I was at University with 20,000 other kids. We even talked to each other occasionally.

Quote: kenarman

You weren't around in the past Gandler. It wasn't an issue when I was younger to anywhere near the extent it is now.

Yes, and your parents, probably said the same thing as TV became mainstream, and their parents probably said the same thing when radio became mainstream, etc.... I mean when printing presses became widespread people were in a panic because of sorts of stuff was printed that people would never imagine.... In fifty years we will probably be shocked at new ways people have at saying mean things, and then we will die, and the cycle will continue.

All new technology does is allow more voices to easily travel. The voices themselves do not change.

I mean the "answer" to your issue, is not one that you would accept, it would be go back to a very strict FCC, where all publicly viewed posts, programs, etc... are strictly monitored to ensure no controversy. You can't regulate away bad behavior if you are not willing to regulate. Otherwise people will continue to say things that you find mean on the internet and TV.... (Which I do not support at all, but its the only true answer to name calling).... Otherwise you are just saying some people are being jerks, and my answer is yeah, some people have been jerks since humanity existed, the only thing that has changed is the means of expression....

I am not on social media, because I view it as toxic, and my online activity consist of a handful of forums where very few people know me in real life. There is a reason for this, and its not that I disagree with your general statement. However, my answer to it, is I will not engage with people who I otherwise respect post endless drivel on Facebook, etc... And, most media I view is very unbiased (select online places like AP, U.S. government publications, etc....).

I was around in the past, because anything before the moment that this character hits the text box is the past (and the moment I press "post" will be even more past....). You may be older than me, I don't know, and don't care and it does not really matter. I live in the present while respecting the past. And, there are ways to deal with the present (as there were in any "present" in the past). The conservative position should be mine (on this issue), simply don't engage on platforms that you find distasteful. Don't like a channel, don't watch it, don't like a site, don't join, etc... Even if you are older, your past is only a fraction more relevant on the scale of human history. You can say we should teach better behavior, but lets be real...

The thing I like about the Wizard's sites are that he keeps a pretty good lid on such comments (mean stuff, profanity, vulgar talk, insults, etc...) some people find this odd for a site that is geared towards a 21+ vice (what most people would call a vice), but it also adds a decorum that is hard to find online, even harder for a gambling focused site.

But, all of that is secondary to my primary point, on this issue none of the above really matters, this is not a gray area, there is a clear right and wrong here. So the idea of "respecting people who are just asking questions" is a fallacy to begin with. They may as well say before WWII, "Well Poland did belong to the German Empire, so is it really a big deal if they just take it back. And, those religious people, they did control the banks that devalued their currency, maybe its not such a bad policy, in any case why should it concern us, I mean I'm just asking questions man"..... Its playing devil's advocate for the literal devil.... Except its even worse in this case, because we live in the information age, we see everything in real time, there is no multitude of filters that a film must make it through before maybe it reaches America in some watered-down form that is deemed publicly acceptable.... This whole idea of treating ideas with respect is moot on this topic, which is why I remain baffled that it was even brought up (even if I very vaguely agree with the general principle).

Quote: Gandler

Yes, and your parents, probably said the same thing as TV became mainstream, and their parents probably said the same thing when radio became mainstream, etc.... I mean when printing presses became widespread people were in a panic because of sorts of stuff was printed that people would never imagine.... In fifty years we will probably be shocked at new ways people have at saying mean things, and then we will die, and the cycle will continue.

All new technology does is allow more voices to easily travel. The voices themselves do not change.

I mean the "answer" to your issue, is not one that you would accept, it would be go back to a very strict FCC, where all publicly viewed posts, programs, etc... are strictly monitored to ensure no controversy. You can't regulate away bad behavior if you are not willing to regulate. Otherwise people will continue to say things that you find mean on the internet and TV.... (Which I do not support at all, but its the only true answer to name calling).... Otherwise you are just saying some people are being jerks, and my answer is yeah, some people have been jerks since humanity existed, the only thing that has changed is the means of expression....

I am not on social media, because I view it as toxic, and my online activity consist of a handful of forums where very few people know me in real life. There is a reason for this, and its not that I disagree with your general statement. However, my answer to it, is I will not engage with people who I otherwise respect post endless drivel on Facebook, etc... And, most media I view is very unbiased (select online places like AP, U.S. government publications, etc....).

I was around in the past, because anything before the moment that this character hits the text box is the past (and the moment I press "post" will be even more past....). You may be older than me, I don't know, and don't care and it does not really matter. I live in the present while respecting the past. And, there are ways to deal with the present (as there were in any "present" in the past). The conservative position should be mine (on this issue), simply don't engage on platforms that you find distasteful. Don't like a channel, don't watch it, don't like a site, don't join, etc... Even if you are older, your past is only a fraction more relevant on the scale of human history. You can say we should teach better behavior, but lets be real...

The thing I like about the Wizard's sites are that he keeps a pretty good lid on such comments (mean stuff, profanity, vulgar talk, insults, etc...) some people find this odd for a site that is geared towards a 21+ vice (what most people would call a vice), but it also adds a decorum that is hard to find online, even harder for a gambling focused site.

But, all of that is secondary to my primary point, on this issue none of the above really matters, this is not a gray area, there is a clear right and wrong here. So the idea of "respecting people who are just asking questions" is a fallacy to begin with. They may as well say before WWII, "Well Poland did belong to the German Empire, so is it really a big deal if they just take it back. And, those religious people, they did control the banks that devalued their currency, maybe its not such a bad policy, in any case why should it concern us, I mean I'm just asking questions man"..... Its playing devil's advocate for the literal devil.... Except its even worse in this case, because we live in the information age, we see everything in real time, there is no multitude of filters that a film must make it through before maybe it reaches America in some watered-down form that is deemed publicly acceptable.... This whole idea of treating ideas with respect is moot on this topic, which is why I remain baffled that it was even brought up (even if I very vaguely agree with the general principle).

With some exceptions, I wonder how many conservatives could have a conversation with Putin right now, and come out saying, "I disagree, but I respect his opinion?" Hopefully none. But I do hear people proclaim that sentiment as some general rule that I should follow no matter what is presented to me.

If I was required as diplomat to conduct a civil conversation with Putin in order to negotiate, I would do it as a requirement for the job, but beyond that I would never endorse the idea that all views need to be respected or even treated equally. I'm not saying they should be erased from history, because that is not the same thing. You keep the writings of Stalin on the bookshelves regardless.

I have always been able to hold a pleasant and civil conversation with anyone whether I disagree or agree with them if they show they have actually thought about the subject. This doesn't mean they have the same position as me, it means they can justify their position in a meaningful way. I have never had much time for people that just repeat dogma. This is much harder to do today than it was when I was young. I attended University in the 60's hardly a time without strong opposing views and it was much more civil and thoughtful than today.

I have respect for Putin's well thought out plan for the last 10 years of getting control of Europe through energy dependency. I have zero respect for his bombing the crap out of the Ukrainian civil population and if you could get me in front of him with a gun I would pull the trigger and forfeit my own life. That doesn't mean that bombing and laying siege to cities isn't an effective and long accepted method of waging war. Every succesful country, including the US, has done it in the past.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Gandler

Yes, and your parents, probably said the same thing as TV became mainstream, and their parents probably said the same thing when radio became mainstream, etc.... I mean when printing presses became widespread people were in a panic because of sorts of stuff was printed that people would never imagine.... In fifty years we will probably be shocked at new ways people have at saying mean things, and then we will die, and the cycle will continue.

All new technology does is allow more voices to easily travel. The voices themselves do not change.

I mean the "answer" to your issue, is not one that you would accept, it would be go back to a very strict FCC, where all publicly viewed posts, programs, etc... are strictly monitored to ensure no controversy. You can't regulate away bad behavior if you are not willing to regulate. Otherwise people will continue to say things that you find mean on the internet and TV.... (Which I do not support at all, but its the only true answer to name calling).... Otherwise you are just saying some people are being jerks, and my answer is yeah, some people have been jerks since humanity existed, the only thing that has changed is the means of expression....

I am not on social media, because I view it as toxic, and my online activity consist of a handful of forums where very few people know me in real life. There is a reason for this, and its not that I disagree with your general statement. However, my answer to it, is I will not engage with people who I otherwise respect post endless drivel on Facebook, etc... And, most media I view is very unbiased (select online places like AP, U.S. government publications, etc....).

I was around in the past, because anything before the moment that this character hits the text box is the past (and the moment I press "post" will be even more past....). You may be older than me, I don't know, and don't care and it does not really matter. I live in the present while respecting the past. And, there are ways to deal with the present (as there were in any "present" in the past). The conservative position should be mine (on this issue), simply don't engage on platforms that you find distasteful. Don't like a channel, don't watch it, don't like a site, don't join, etc... Even if you are older, your past is only a fraction more relevant on the scale of human history. You can say we should teach better behavior, but lets be real...

The thing I like about the Wizard's sites are that he keeps a pretty good lid on such comments (mean stuff, profanity, vulgar talk, insults, etc...) some people find this odd for a site that is geared towards a 21+ vice (what most people would call a vice), but it also adds a decorum that is hard to find online, even harder for a gambling focused site.

But, all of that is secondary to my primary point, on this issue none of the above really matters, this is not a gray area, there is a clear right and wrong here. So the idea of "respecting people who are just asking questions" is a fallacy to begin with. They may as well say before WWII, "Well Poland did belong to the German Empire, so is it really a big deal if they just take it back. And, those religious people, they did control the banks that devalued their currency, maybe its not such a bad policy, in any case why should it concern us, I mean I'm just asking questions man"..... Its playing devil's advocate for the literal devil.... Except its even worse in this case, because we live in the information age, we see everything in real time, there is no multitude of filters that a film must make it through before maybe it reaches America in some watered-down form that is deemed publicly acceptable.... This whole idea of treating ideas with respect is moot on this topic, which is why I remain baffled that it was even brought up (even if I very vaguely agree with the general principle).

With some exceptions, I wonder how many conservatives could have a conversation with Putin right now, and come out saying, "I disagree, but I respect his opinion?" Hopefully none. But I do hear people proclaim that sentiment as some general rule that I should follow no matter what is presented to me.

If I was required as diplomat to conduct a civil conversation with Putin in order to negotiate, I would do it as a requirement for the job, but beyond that I would never endorse the idea that all views need to be respected or even treated equally. I'm not saying they should be erased from history, because that is not the same thing. You keep the writings of Stalin on the bookshelves regardless.

I fully agree, some of the most interesting books are written by some of the most terrible people, nobody should ban literature (and by interesting I don't even mean the ideas or content, but seeing the world through their eyes, or at least how they wanted their audience to think they saw it).

But, that is the problem with moral relativism, the same people that endlessly obsess about America missing a shot with a drone and hitting a civilian (not downplaying it), are stretching their neck out for Putin as he deliberately targets civilians. And, that is my point, if you want to debate civility and general morality, that is fine, but its not fine when there is an active invasion underway (this is not a topic where there is room for nuance).

Its like those people in the 90s who said, "America should not get involved in Rwanda, because you know some years ago some bad things were done for Native Americans, do we really want to act moral on foreign soil, are we any better, maybe they should work it out, just asking questions man"?

Moral relativism is Putin's bread basket. Look at any interview in the last ten years (even pre-Trump), whenever he is asked about some civil unrest in Russia, instead of answering he defaults to, "Well look at the protests in America, is it really any different". Well, yes it is, because in America protestors don't wind up missing and press people asking tough questions don't wind up mysteriously with radiation poisoning. (And, then Trump infuriately fueled this narrative by parroting this line at least twice during his campaign and Presidency, but that is getting off-topic).

Quote: kenarman

I have always been able to hold a pleasant and civil conversation with anyone whether I disagree or agree with them if they show they have actually thought about the subject. This doesn't mean they have the same position as me, it means they can justify their position in a meaningful way. I have never had much time for people that just repeat dogma. This is much harder to do today than it was when I was young. I attended University in the 60's hardly a time without strong opposing views and it was much more civil and thoughtful than today.

I have respect for Putin's well thought out plan for the last 10 years of getting control of Europe through energy dependency. I have zero respect for his bombing the crap out of the Ukrainian civil population and if you could get me in front of him with a gun I would pull the trigger and forfeit my own life. That doesn't mean that bombing and laying siege to cities isn't an effective and long accepted method of waging war. Every succesful country, including the US, has done it in the past.

And, this is exactly the problem. Russia played the American left and right, the left with Anti-fracking films sponsored by Russia, and the right by strength. Now, Putin has natural gas (oil is not such an issue, at least for us, Europe is a bit different) locked up, and people thinking his strategy is proud. And, those of us, who have hated him for the last ten years are just exhausted from both. And, the left is very much to blame, I remember bringing up in 2013ish I think how the anti-fracking hysteria was being fueled by Russia and people should look at who funds those films (I think we know of which I speak), and I was almost kicked out of the class. And, now its common knowledge. Sadly Russia has not been taken seriously for far too long by either side, partly because of ignorance, partly because of fear (people are obsessively afraid of a nuclear war and are willing to overlook things).

Unfortunately, energy dependency is a scheme by despots that want to remain in power in various forms, and it works because much of the world has no choice (again Europe is worse off in this regard, the U.S. is technically net energy independent if you factor all energy sources and don't hyper-focus on oil, it fluctuates around even, but for all intents and purposes we are energy independent compared to most developed countries, really our prices are quite good, even now at their worst compared to much of the world, especially considering you would be living at a much lower salary in those countries.... So Americans really need to stop complaining about such things....).

Have to disagree with both of you on the energy question. Unless you think advertising is an evil endeavor, it also plays up false hopes and dreams and minimizes the negative trying to rope in customers for the long term. It's practically the second foundation of capitalism.

I don't think Russia trying to maximize its resource powers with oil and gas is much different than most countries. There just happens to be a bad guy in charge there.

Quote: kenarman

You weren't around in the past Gandler. It wasn't an issue when I was younger to anywhere near the extent it is now.

I gotta agree. When I was fresh out of college in my first job a group of us used to discuss/argue politics at lunch. This was the Reagan era and opinions were strong on both sides. But we were still friends at the end of the day. Now I wouldn’t think of bringing up politics at work. I’d make enemies who would never forgive me.

I don't tend to buy reasoning that Russia will be ready to move on other countries in the region any time soon, though I understand the incentive by Ukrainian supporters to push that view.

That they may accidently involve nearby countries seems a more reasonable worry.

It's pretty sad that even in the best case scenario, they will have destroyed a lot of property, and killed plenty on both sides even if they pulled back today.

And all for what?